Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

For years Trump’s favourite term of abuse was “loser” – now he’s in danger of owning the brand – pol

12357

Comments

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,132


    closing that gap, 'without putting a strain on the NHS'. I dare you. I double dare you.

    They'll try it, because it'll be politically impossible to not try. So it'll be print print print.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,104
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Tony Connelly is very well-informed and the details he describes in this thread look convincing:

    https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1339910751415390208

    Perhaps he is trying to bring home to them the consequences of not having any deal at all. They have massively overplayed their hand in relation to fish.

    I have been crystal clear from before the referendum that we wanted a deal with the EU but many of the reasons for doing so are now being lost. A deal in October would have allowed some sensible adjustment and work on the practicalities such as trusted trader schemes, road testing customs schemes on the Ferries and in the tunnel, the development of technology to facilitate easy and prompt transport etc etc. A deal now has none of these advantages. We are left with chaos because of the way that this has been dragged out to the last minute and beyond. I am seriously getting to the point I think its just not worth it. If we are going to have chaos anyway, and this is now inevitable in the short term, sod it, enough.
    Are you really suggesting that "disruption" is the only disadvantage of trading on WTO terms?

    Surely if that was the case, countries wouldn't be falling over themselves to sign free-trade agreements with other countries.
    No, I am not saying that. Tariff free trade is a good thing. But the sort of deal the EU wants has disbenefits as well as benefits and restricts us. The upside of such a deal in October would have outweighed that. The balance is becoming finer by the hour.

    We import about £85bn more from the EU than we export in goods (we have a surplus on services that offsets that somewhat but it is unclear if this deal is going to allow that to continue). A 5% tariff nets the UK over £4bn a year. Its a thought.
    £4bn a year paid by UK consumers? I'm not sure that's a benefit.
    There would be a series of potential benefits. We would, at the margins buy less from the EU. Domestic producers would receive a boost. This would encourage some of the EU exporters to absorb some or all of the cost in reduced margins.

    To be clear, I still don't want any of this. But I will certainly be exercising consumer choice in relation to EU products going forward. I expect the EU of our trade to fall quite sharply now, deal or no deal. There is some evidence that this is happening already although it is difficult to eliminate Covid distortions.
    Whilst you are right - those would be benefits - I'm not sure the "theory" will survive a brush with reality. I'm expecting some odd politically meaningful consequences, which nobody really considered, to affect the lives of everyday people. I don't think it will be quite as simple as to just "buy stuff from elsewhere" in the short term.

    For example, people are not going to stop buying Mercedes and BMWs just because of a no-deal Brexit but they will be annoyed that they are potentially more expensive because of it. That has a political cost. The kind of people who buy these cars are not going to start happily buying British-built Nissans.
    I think people might well stop buying Mercedes and BMWs actually, especially if there is no deal. They can buy Jags or range rovers instead.
    Apart from the fact they are garbage there is a fair bit of EU content in JLR products. Austrian transmission. Italian/Austrian Brakes. German ECU. Slovakian ICE. German VVT. There's probably more... the turbos are Korean so there's that.
  • Options
    Deserves a wider audience - Michael Crick Journalism Lecture for the Phillip Geddes Memorial Trust - 37 years after Geddes was murdered by the IRA outside Harrods - in early March so probably got lost in the growing crisis:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syUUHg4ANYI&feature=youtu.be

    Makes some interesting observations about diversity in the media and how its changed over the years (much greater in terms of gender, ethnicity, sexuality, much worse in terms of background and outlook - university educated urban liberal outlook....)
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,014
    edited December 2020
    kle4 said:

    Stocky said:

    Foxy said:

    Where are you in the vaccine Q?

    An app to say when:

    https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/vaccine-queue-uk

    Interesting anecdotal communication by the medical bush telegraph. The new SE covid variety seems to progress more rapidly, so keep an eye on your sats if you get it.

    Just done mine. It says:

    "Given a vaccination rate of 1,000,000 a week and an uptake of 70.6%, you should expect to receive your vaccine between 12/05/2021 and 03/06/2021"

    This is much later that I had hoped.
    I could be looking at mid September apparently. Eh, it'll be fine.
    Mine is 14/01/2021 to 28/01/2021. That is perfect for my ski holiday to Italy in mid March.
  • Options
    contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    https://twitter.com/BBCHughPym/status/1339927924242309124

    Lockdown. Now.

    The Christmas easing is insane, this must go down as Black Wednesday for any Government partaking in it.

    If you don;t fancy cryptos, nappy prices look a decent bet.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,219

    HYUFD said:

    My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
    The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
    With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
    Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
    If Labour support the deal, it may well he Starmer's final act as Labour leader.
    Labour must support the deal, any deal, if the alternative is "no deal".
    I can't see how no deal lasts very long - it simply won't work. The bear trap for Labour is simple. I know that there are (as a local example) plenty of NE voters who support Brexit for the long-term benefits it will bring to Nissan. When Nissan announce it is closing due to Brexit those same Brexit supporting punters will be angry with everyone who lied to them and didn't protect them from the lies.

    Saying Labour must vote for a deal that only cuts one leg off as its preferable to cutting off both legs is pretty desperate.
    Labour did what it had to in giving Johnson room to negotiate when Starmer responsibly said that they would not vote against a deal.

    It's patently obvious that any deal Johnson might arrive at would not be the same as one Starmer might have negotiated. Abstention is entirely appropriate.
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,592
    edited December 2020
    We have to decide whether to share... or to shaft* :wink:

    *ourselves, largely
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,526

    https://twitter.com/BristOliver/status/1339908330387599361

    Labour must support a second lockdown now.

    Starmer has more or less suggested that.

    Remember Labour are not in Government, although watching Emma Barnett on Newsnight last evening, one could have been forgiven for believing they are. She gave Alex Norris a really hard time on the Labour Shadow Cabinet's Covid performance in England, but was far more amenable to Alberto Costa.
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,654
    kle4 said:

    We need to pass through:

    1) Does not rule out
    2) Has no plans to yet
    3) Would really not want to
    4) Ok, will do it
    5) And when we do it, it will be world-beating!
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,519

    My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
    More than likely the case.
    There's absolutely no way BJ, even without Cummings on his right hand, would have worked towards a smooth, sensible transition with visible compromises on all sides, it has to be blood, toil, tears and sweat with a side order of sticking it to the Frogs/Huns (delete to taste). The idea that 'some sensible adjustment and work on the practicalities' was ever on the menu is fantasy (sorry DavidL).
    Exactly. Not how he rolls. He rolls like this. And, ok, so it maybe makes the deal an easier sell when it emerges at the last second out of what looks like serious late haggling and with people still fearing no deal, and that's fine for him. Fine for the likes of me too, wise old owling from my idle sofa that it's all self-serving spin and theatre, but what about all those in business or with real things at stake, people who stand to lose a lot if there really were no deal and the consequential chaos occurred? It's putting those people, millions of them, through the wringer and for no justifiable reason. Really shoddy imo.
  • Options
    The best Christmas Film this year? John Carpenter's THE THING
    Cold. Dark. Isolated with people you don't like. A nasty virus is tearing through the population and it could be in any of us.
    After a few concerted attempts to fight the virus the remaining protagonists drink heavily.
    Fade to Black

    I know quite a few people whose Christmas will be like this :D
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,132
    She needs to work on her delivery, that was pretty dull. Though while I do not dismiss that symbols can be useful and important, I do think she is right about an overemphasis on symbolic gestures being problematic.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,104

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Tony Connelly is very well-informed and the details he describes in this thread look convincing:

    https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1339910751415390208

    Perhaps he is trying to bring home to them the consequences of not having any deal at all. They have massively overplayed their hand in relation to fish.

    I have been crystal clear from before the referendum that we wanted a deal with the EU but many of the reasons for doing so are now being lost. A deal in October would have allowed some sensible adjustment and work on the practicalities such as trusted trader schemes, road testing customs schemes on the Ferries and in the tunnel, the development of technology to facilitate easy and prompt transport etc etc. A deal now has none of these advantages. We are left with chaos because of the way that this has been dragged out to the last minute and beyond. I am seriously getting to the point I think its just not worth it. If we are going to have chaos anyway, and this is now inevitable in the short term, sod it, enough.
    Are you really suggesting that "disruption" is the only disadvantage of trading on WTO terms?

    Surely if that was the case, countries wouldn't be falling over themselves to sign free-trade agreements with other countries.
    No, I am not saying that. Tariff free trade is a good thing. But the sort of deal the EU wants has disbenefits as well as benefits and restricts us. The upside of such a deal in October would have outweighed that. The balance is becoming finer by the hour.

    We import about £85bn more from the EU than we export in goods (we have a surplus on services that offsets that somewhat but it is unclear if this deal is going to allow that to continue). A 5% tariff nets the UK over £4bn a year. Its a thought.
    £4bn a year paid by UK consumers? I'm not sure that's a benefit.
    There would be a series of potential benefits. We would, at the margins buy less from the EU. Domestic producers would receive a boost. This would encourage some of the EU exporters to absorb some or all of the cost in reduced margins.

    To be clear, I still don't want any of this. But I will certainly be exercising consumer choice in relation to EU products going forward. I expect the EU of our trade to fall quite sharply now, deal or no deal. There is some evidence that this is happening already although it is difficult to eliminate Covid distortions.
    Whilst you are right - those would be benefits - I'm not sure the "theory" will survive a brush with reality. I'm expecting some odd politically meaningful consequences, which nobody really considered, to affect the lives of everyday people. I don't think it will be quite as simple as to just "buy stuff from elsewhere" in the short term.

    For example, people are not going to stop buying Mercedes and BMWs just because of a no-deal Brexit but they will be annoyed that they are potentially more expensive because of it. That has a political cost. The kind of people who buy these cars are not going to start happily buying British-built Nissans.
    I think people might well stop buying Mercedes and BMWs actually, especially if there is no deal. They can buy Jags or range rovers instead.
    You think? In my experience "car people", the kind of people who buy the higher-value German cars, do not like British built cars in the same way they don't like French cars.
    You can find car people who like anything. I've got a 991 GT3 Cup and a 2CV. Neither of them work, but I've got them.
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,916

    I read somewhere that the bill for a month of lockdown is about equal to the entire budget of the NHS for a year.

    Why not spend the money on the latter, rather than the former?

    Do you spend a lot of time reading your own fake facts?
  • Options
    GaussianGaussian Posts: 793
    edited December 2020

    I read somewhere that the bill for a month of lockdown is about equal to the entire budget of the NHS for a year.

    Why not spend the money on the latter, rather than the former?

    Doubling the NHS, if it was possible at short notice (which of course it isn't), is worth about a week when fighting against a virus that doubles in a week when left uncontrolled and that has the capability to overwhelm the NHS many times over.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,132

    kle4 said:

    We need to pass through:

    1) Does not rule out
    2) Has no plans to yet
    3) Would really not want to
    4) Ok, will do it
    5) And when we do it, it will be world-beating!
    Naturally.

    I've always loved the Yes Minister 4 stage response, as it just seems so applicable to so many places and situations

    1) Nothing is going to happen
    2) Something may be about to happen but we should do nothing about it
    3) Perhaps there's something we should do, but there's nothing we can do
    4) Maybe there's something we could have done but it's too late now.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,304
    She was a LD in 1994, she is more a libertarian liberal than a Tory, much like Philip Thompson
  • Options
    contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    kle4 said:


    closing that gap, 'without putting a strain on the NHS'. I dare you. I double dare you.

    They'll try it, because it'll be politically impossible to not try. So it'll be print print print.
    Trouble is, supply and demand.

    A fund manager created a stir recently by taking a big bitcoin position to hedge against the devaluation of the world's major currencies.

    Imagine if your pound/dollar/Euro bought much less stuff, ' food clothing, energy, durables, consumables. Because there was so much of it.
  • Options
    TrèsDifficileTrèsDifficile Posts: 1,729
    edited December 2020
    I'm not surprised that you'd vote for a Lib Dem teenager!
  • Options

    https://twitter.com/BristOliver/status/1339908330387599361

    Labour must support a second lockdown now.

    Starmer has more or less suggested that.

    Remember Labour are not in Government, although watching Emma Barnett on Newsnight last evening, one could have been forgiven for believing they are. She gave Alex Norris a really hard time on the Labour Shadow Cabinet's Covid performance in England, but was far more amenable to Alberto Costa.
    FFS! 🤦🏻‍♂️

    Write the following 100 times Bart Simpson style:

    THE LABOUR PARTY ARE IN GOVERNMENT.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,014

    For Labour now it's about did you support the idea of Brexit or not, the rest of it is irrelevant. That is why Starmer must vote for it.

    The Tories don't get blamed for Iraq, this will be exactly the same.

    Why on earth would Starmer want to support the idea of Brexit? Most Labour supporters do not. Better to keep his hands clean.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,154
    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    The calculator which @Foxy pointed us to assumes that the take-up rate of the vaccine will be the same as that of the flu jab (70.6%). That strikes me as unlikely, I expect it to be higher. Also it assumes the government target of 1m a week is met (and met consistently), which is probably optimistic. So don't pencil your expected jab date in the diary quite yet.

    Agreed. OTOH, provided we can get enough vaccine I doubt we will top out at 1m. I suspect it will be higher.
    A lot depends on the AZ vaccine and when and who it gets approved for. If it's under 55s only I could see the government run weekend vaccination programmes for it in church halls with soldiers trained to give jabs doing it. I also wouldn't be surprised if it was done on a queue up at 8am basis rather than appointments. That way you maximise daily capacity so could easily get through a thousand people per day at one venue, ramp up to 1000 venues across the country and suddenly you're making huge headway into the under 55s which will bring the national R down basically 0.
    One of my nurse friends is doing a flu vaccine clinic this morning (8.30-1). She has 95 people booked in. She says that it is easy to do that many in a morning. The method of giving the Oxford Vaccine should be very similar. There are 10,000 GP surgeries in the UK. If you multiply that up a million a day is not inconceivable at all.
    it's a shame they cant get it into some sort of epipen format that they can post out to everybody to just do their own if they want to.
    It's a thought, but Epipens are, or were in my day, expensive.

    Back in the day I used to supply meningitis vaccine to school nurses for the meningitis campaigns. They got through that sort of number, and the situation was complicated by the fact that they had to have parental consent forms...... which were distributed a week or so earlier.
    So what happens to those kids whose parents don't give consent?
    Happened; It was 20+ years ago. School/school nurse would have a go at them, but if they were committed anti-vac, not a lot we could do, apart from tell the child to get done as soon as they could give consent themselves.
  • Options
    @Philip_Thompson if you think the Welsh Government has done a poor job then you would need to concede Johnson has too.

    But you won't as a member of his fan club.
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,916
    Selebian said:

    We have to decide whether to share... or to shaft* :wink:

    *ourselves, largely
    It's called "cutting off your nose to spite your face". This is a saying which IMO applies to most aspects of Brexit ever since the start of the Vote Leave campaign.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,742
    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Stocky said:

    Foxy said:

    Where are you in the vaccine Q?

    An app to say when:

    https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/vaccine-queue-uk

    Interesting anecdotal communication by the medical bush telegraph. The new SE covid variety seems to progress more rapidly, so keep an eye on your sats if you get it.

    Just done mine. It says:

    "Given a vaccination rate of 1,000,000 a week and an uptake of 70.6%, you should expect to receive your vaccine between 12/05/2021 and 03/06/2021"

    This is much later that I had hoped.
    I could be looking at mid September apparently. Eh, it'll be fine.
    Mine is 14/01/2021 to 28/01/2021. That is perfect for my ski holiday to Italy in mid March.
    Are you like me: longingly watching skiing videos on YouTube?

    As soon as I can get away I`m off. They`ve got to open the slopes first though lol.
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,654

    Thing is, a bad deal is a launchpad for Farage.

    That's who they are scared of. They know that labour is going nowhere in the seats that matter. How could they be when they are against the deportation of serious foreign criminals?
    Fake "news". Labour is not against the deportation of serious foreign criminals. It is, however, against the illegal deportation of serious foreign criminals.
  • Options
    MattW said:

    Have we had this one? Which is corny enough to be worthy of @TSE .

    image

    That sucks!
  • Options
    Sort of an interesting point, I hope to get my COVID jab - according to that site - sometime in February, if we're still locked down that will be an odd experience
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    Stocky said:

    Is it necessary to test someone for Covid before giving that person the vaccine?

    I assume not, in which case the question becomes: is the vaccine`s efficacy reduced for someone whose system is already battling a covid infection?

    I would argue that someone who either has had or currently has COVID would not in theory benefit that much from a vaccine. Unless their immune system is somehow defective, they'll have already - after 3-4 days of infection - engaged their specific/adaptive immune system against COVID and started to produce COVID-specific antibodies and to develop COVID-specific memory T-Cells.

    That is what the vaccine does, so I don't see it adding any value to the person either way. If their immune system is functional, they already have or on their way to having antibodies and memory T-Cells. If their immune system failed to react to the actual virus, in all probability it will fail to react to the vaccine.

    As always, I stand to be corrected by someone with greater specific knowledge on this issue than me. But that would be the generic response for how the immune system and vaccines work.
  • Options
    BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    Thing is, a bad deal is a launchpad for Farage.

    That's who they are scared of. They know that labour is going nowhere in the seats that matter. How could they be when they are against the deportation of serious foreign criminals?
    Fake "news". Labour is not against the deportation of serious foreign criminals. It is, however, against the illegal deportation of serious foreign criminals.
    Except that Labour conveniently believes that deporting serious foreign criminals is always illegal...
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,131

    HYUFD said:

    My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
    The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
    With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
    Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
    If Labour support the deal, it may well he Starmer's final act as Labour leader.
    Labour must support the deal, any deal, if the alternative is "no deal".
    I can't see how no deal lasts very long - it simply won't work. The bear trap for Labour is simple. I know that there are (as a local example) plenty of NE voters who support Brexit for the long-term benefits it will bring to Nissan. When Nissan announce it is closing due to Brexit those same Brexit supporting punters will be angry with everyone who lied to them and didn't protect them from the lies.

    Saying Labour must vote for a deal that only cuts one leg off as its preferable to cutting off both legs is pretty desperate.
    If ever there is a time to be neutral and let the tories completely own a vote is the Deal / No Deal Brexit vote.

    The opposition parties really should take the day off and leave the Tory party to tear itself apart.
  • Options
    Oh no I've upset the cranky left hivemind
  • Options
    murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,045
    Yes, with the R rate well above 1 now, a national lockdown for about 6-8 weeks make sense. The question is when to implement it - I say as soon as possible. Every day delayed will cost hundreds of lives....
  • Options
    MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,470

    Labour has recovered some of the Brexit base, I wonder how much they recover from the Tories/BXP if they vote for a Brexit deal and/or Brexit is perceived to be finished.

    We discuss complicated reasons for voting Tory but frankly I think it's quite simple: Corbyn and being anti-Brexit.

    Those two are removed and the polls revert to a tie, which is basically what we saw post 2017.

    I'm not sure its that simple..... Labour's vote share amongst the leave demographic had been declining during the Blair era. Perception that the party does not hold the values of the working man has led to a drift towards the socially conservative spectrum. With the conservatives actively courting said voters its now gonna be difficult to lure them back.

    I'm of the opinion that peak New-Labour would be unable to win in this situation. Few Scottish seats, Wales being strongly contested and a much more partisan electorate in both age, education and urbane/rural. There is an enlightening GQ interview between Campbell and Blair (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu-J16VQho8) where Blair bemoans the strength of the press in pushing the Brexit narratives. He seems to feel betrayed by the old barons who once tacitly supported him. After Blair, Labour has no longer had their support and a decade of partisan scribblings have definitely taken their toll.

    Labour need to rebuild from the communities they left behind during the 2000's. I mean prioritising candidates from the areas they lost. No more parachuting the well spoken, well educated and well meaning into places that are alien to them. I would like to see more Prescotts and less Benns.

    I think localism is the future for Labour. Aping the Libs if you will. Showing the lost demographics who have been primed to hate the party that it can and will fight their corner even when not in power.
  • Options

    Apropos a recent discussion of the Stones, good pics; can almost smell that carpet. Still think Charlie is cooler than Mick, Keef & Brian put together (Bill was never cool, even before the 'unpleasantness')

    https://twitter.com/LostGlasgow/status/1339919252095201281?s=20

    Charlie has always been the coolest although I think Keef is a close second.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 27,188
    She was 19 years old in 1994.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,526
    Dura_Ace said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Tony Connelly is very well-informed and the details he describes in this thread look convincing:

    https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1339910751415390208

    Perhaps he is trying to bring home to them the consequences of not having any deal at all. They have massively overplayed their hand in relation to fish.

    I have been crystal clear from before the referendum that we wanted a deal with the EU but many of the reasons for doing so are now being lost. A deal in October would have allowed some sensible adjustment and work on the practicalities such as trusted trader schemes, road testing customs schemes on the Ferries and in the tunnel, the development of technology to facilitate easy and prompt transport etc etc. A deal now has none of these advantages. We are left with chaos because of the way that this has been dragged out to the last minute and beyond. I am seriously getting to the point I think its just not worth it. If we are going to have chaos anyway, and this is now inevitable in the short term, sod it, enough.
    Are you really suggesting that "disruption" is the only disadvantage of trading on WTO terms?

    Surely if that was the case, countries wouldn't be falling over themselves to sign free-trade agreements with other countries.
    No, I am not saying that. Tariff free trade is a good thing. But the sort of deal the EU wants has disbenefits as well as benefits and restricts us. The upside of such a deal in October would have outweighed that. The balance is becoming finer by the hour.

    We import about £85bn more from the EU than we export in goods (we have a surplus on services that offsets that somewhat but it is unclear if this deal is going to allow that to continue). A 5% tariff nets the UK over £4bn a year. Its a thought.
    £4bn a year paid by UK consumers? I'm not sure that's a benefit.
    There would be a series of potential benefits. We would, at the margins buy less from the EU. Domestic producers would receive a boost. This would encourage some of the EU exporters to absorb some or all of the cost in reduced margins.

    To be clear, I still don't want any of this. But I will certainly be exercising consumer choice in relation to EU products going forward. I expect the EU of our trade to fall quite sharply now, deal or no deal. There is some evidence that this is happening already although it is difficult to eliminate Covid distortions.
    Whilst you are right - those would be benefits - I'm not sure the "theory" will survive a brush with reality. I'm expecting some odd politically meaningful consequences, which nobody really considered, to affect the lives of everyday people. I don't think it will be quite as simple as to just "buy stuff from elsewhere" in the short term.

    For example, people are not going to stop buying Mercedes and BMWs just because of a no-deal Brexit but they will be annoyed that they are potentially more expensive because of it. That has a political cost. The kind of people who buy these cars are not going to start happily buying British-built Nissans.
    I think people might well stop buying Mercedes and BMWs actually, especially if there is no deal. They can buy Jags or range rovers instead.
    You think? In my experience "car people", the kind of people who buy the higher-value German cars, do not like British built cars in the same way they don't like French cars.
    You can find car people who like anything. I've got a 991 GT3 Cup and a 2CV. Neither of them work, but I've got them.
    Too many Minis, a Crayford converted Morris1300, a Mk1 MX5, modern stuff is German tristar, Czech, and South Korean. All are Mot tested or exempt.

    When all the car makers exit to Japan, Holland and Hungary maybe we should think outside the box. If post-Brexit we want to go all 1950s, the tooling for the Hindustan Ambassador must still be around in India, and for those who have more modern, just pre-Common Market tastes, the Hindustan Contessa (Vauxhall Victor FE).
  • Options
    contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    murali_s said:

    Yes, with the R rate well above 1 now, a national lockdown for about 6-8 weeks make sense. The question is when to implement it - I say as soon as possible. Every day delayed will cost hundreds of lives....

    I've almost given up saying this but when that 2-month lockdown bankrupts Britain, and we can;t fund public services any more, how many lives will that cost?

  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,742
    TimT said:

    Stocky said:

    Is it necessary to test someone for Covid before giving that person the vaccine?

    I assume not, in which case the question becomes: is the vaccine`s efficacy reduced for someone whose system is already battling a covid infection?

    I would argue that someone who either has had or currently has COVID would not in theory benefit that much from a vaccine. Unless their immune system is somehow defective, they'll have already - after 3-4 days of infection - engaged their specific/adaptive immune system against COVID and started to produce COVID-specific antibodies and to develop COVID-specific memory T-Cells.

    That is what the vaccine does, so I don't see it adding any value to the person either way. If their immune system is functional, they already have or on their way to having antibodies and memory T-Cells. If their immune system failed to react to the actual virus, in all probability it will fail to react to the vaccine.

    As always, I stand to be corrected by someone with greater specific knowledge on this issue than me. But that would be the generic response for how the immune system and vaccines work.
    Thanks. Makes sense to me. In which case SHOULD individuals be tested for Covid pre-vaccine? By not doing this we risk wasting shitloads of vaccines on individuals who will not benefit.
  • Options
    Andy_JS said:

    She was 19 years old in 1994.
    Probably the only sensible position she's ever held.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,219

    https://twitter.com/BristOliver/status/1339908330387599361

    Labour must support a second lockdown now.

    They don't mess about in Australia...

    Nearly a quarter of a million residents in the suburbs of the Australian city of Sydney have been told to remain in their homes for at least the next three days after a cluster of new Covid-19 cases rose to 28.
    Because they realise how much more costly a subsequent lockdown would be.

    The successful administrations have all been those which have acted rapidly and decisively. Neither of which things are much in display in our government.
  • Options
    contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9043583/NHS-data-suggests-hospitals-England-December.html

    A little light reading for those who accuse me of making up truths about how 'close to being overwhelmed' the NHS is.

  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,519
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
    The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
    With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
    Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
    If Labour support the deal, it may well he Starmer's final act as Labour leader.
    Labour must support the deal, any deal, if the alternative is "no deal".
    I can't see how no deal lasts very long - it simply won't work. The bear trap for Labour is simple. I know that there are (as a local example) plenty of NE voters who support Brexit for the long-term benefits it will bring to Nissan. When Nissan announce it is closing due to Brexit those same Brexit supporting punters will be angry with everyone who lied to them and didn't protect them from the lies.

    Saying Labour must vote for a deal that only cuts one leg off as its preferable to cutting off both legs is pretty desperate.
    Labour did what it had to in giving Johnson room to negotiate when Starmer responsibly said that they would not vote against a deal.

    It's patently obvious that any deal Johnson might arrive at would not be the same as one Starmer might have negotiated. Abstention is entirely appropriate.
    I think abstention is the way for Labour because neither voting for nor against works at all. For, and they've dipped their hands in the blood, as it were, and also it can and would be taken as approval of the actual deal. Against, and there's 2 potential charges. It's "trying to stop Brexit", which as we know is poison in many parts of the electorate. Or it's tantamount to voting for No Deal, which is poison in other parts.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,742

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9043583/NHS-data-suggests-hospitals-England-December.html

    A little light reading for those who accuse me of making up truths about how 'close to being overwhelmed' the NHS is.

    With respect, citing the Daily Mail as evidence is a risky line to take.
  • Options
    Contrarian another one to add to the cliff edge pile then, sad
  • Options
    sladeslade Posts: 1,941
    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Stocky said:

    Foxy said:

    Where are you in the vaccine Q?

    An app to say when:

    https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/vaccine-queue-uk

    Interesting anecdotal communication by the medical bush telegraph. The new SE covid variety seems to progress more rapidly, so keep an eye on your sats if you get it.

    Just done mine. It says:

    "Given a vaccination rate of 1,000,000 a week and an uptake of 70.6%, you should expect to receive your vaccine between 12/05/2021 and 03/06/2021"

    This is much later that I had hoped.
    I could be looking at mid September apparently. Eh, it'll be fine.
    Mine is 14/01/2021 to 28/01/2021. That is perfect for my ski holiday to Italy in mid March.
    I'm the same - but do not ski.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,219
    When I consider our own Williamsons and Graylings, the debate in the US over the appointment of Buttigieg in charge of Transport seems quite extraordinary.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/whats-the-point-of-a-cabinet/617408/
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,088
    Stocky said:

    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Stocky said:

    Foxy said:

    Where are you in the vaccine Q?

    An app to say when:

    https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/vaccine-queue-uk

    Interesting anecdotal communication by the medical bush telegraph. The new SE covid variety seems to progress more rapidly, so keep an eye on your sats if you get it.

    Just done mine. It says:

    "Given a vaccination rate of 1,000,000 a week and an uptake of 70.6%, you should expect to receive your vaccine between 12/05/2021 and 03/06/2021"

    This is much later that I had hoped.
    I could be looking at mid September apparently. Eh, it'll be fine.
    Mine is 14/01/2021 to 28/01/2021. That is perfect for my ski holiday to Italy in mid March.
    Are you like me: longingly watching skiing videos on YouTube?

    As soon as I can get away I`m off. They`ve got to open the slopes first though lol.
    Come on a skiing holiday to the sandpit. https://www.skidxb.com/ is open for business!
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,014
    Stocky said:

    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Stocky said:

    Foxy said:

    Where are you in the vaccine Q?

    An app to say when:

    https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/vaccine-queue-uk

    Interesting anecdotal communication by the medical bush telegraph. The new SE covid variety seems to progress more rapidly, so keep an eye on your sats if you get it.

    Just done mine. It says:

    "Given a vaccination rate of 1,000,000 a week and an uptake of 70.6%, you should expect to receive your vaccine between 12/05/2021 and 03/06/2021"

    This is much later that I had hoped.
    I could be looking at mid September apparently. Eh, it'll be fine.
    Mine is 14/01/2021 to 28/01/2021. That is perfect for my ski holiday to Italy in mid March.
    Are you like me: longingly watching skiing videos on YouTube?

    As soon as I can get away I`m off. They`ve got to open the slopes first though lol.
    I have two trips booked. Italy in March and France in April. I'll be vaccinated by then.

    I think it's only 50/50 that the March trip will happen. Skiing is a very socially distanced activity in the fresh air. I don't have the stamina these days for the apres-ski bars which will probably be closed anyway. I save my stamina for the blacks and moguls.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,526
    Andy_JS said:

    She was 19 years old in 1994.
    I thought for a moment we still on the Rolling Stones debate. I mused, surely Mandy Smith is older.

    Anyway age is no excuse for behaviour. Brandon Barnard, 40, recently executed by Federal Government as an accessory to murder in 2000, aged 19 at the time of the offence.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,044
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
    The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
    With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
    Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
    If Labour support the deal, it may well he Starmer's final act as Labour leader.
    Labour must support the deal, any deal, if the alternative is "no deal".
    I can't see how no deal lasts very long - it simply won't work. The bear trap for Labour is simple. I know that there are (as a local example) plenty of NE voters who support Brexit for the long-term benefits it will bring to Nissan. When Nissan announce it is closing due to Brexit those same Brexit supporting punters will be angry with everyone who lied to them and didn't protect them from the lies.

    Saying Labour must vote for a deal that only cuts one leg off as its preferable to cutting off both legs is pretty desperate.
    Labour did what it had to in giving Johnson room to negotiate when Starmer responsibly said that they would not vote against a deal.

    It's patently obvious that any deal Johnson might arrive at would not be the same as one Starmer might have negotiated. Abstention is entirely appropriate.
    I think abstention is the way for Labour because neither voting for nor against works at all. For, and they've dipped their hands in the blood, as it were, and also it can and would be taken as approval of the actual deal. Against, and there's 2 potential charges. It's "trying to stop Brexit", which as we know is poison in many parts of the electorate. Or it's tantamount to voting for No Deal, which is poison in other parts.
    Abstention works. Expect quite a few will rebel to oppose though
  • Options
    contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    Stocky said:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9043583/NHS-data-suggests-hospitals-England-December.html

    A little light reading for those who accuse me of making up truths about how 'close to being overwhelmed' the NHS is.

    With respect, citing the Daily Mail as evidence is a risky line to take.
    fair enough but in this case they cite the NHS's own data. Feel free to contradict me with a better source.

  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,219
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
    The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
    With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
    Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
    If Labour support the deal, it may well he Starmer's final act as Labour leader.
    Labour must support the deal, any deal, if the alternative is "no deal".
    I can't see how no deal lasts very long - it simply won't work. The bear trap for Labour is simple. I know that there are (as a local example) plenty of NE voters who support Brexit for the long-term benefits it will bring to Nissan. When Nissan announce it is closing due to Brexit those same Brexit supporting punters will be angry with everyone who lied to them and didn't protect them from the lies.

    Saying Labour must vote for a deal that only cuts one leg off as its preferable to cutting off both legs is pretty desperate.
    Labour did what it had to in giving Johnson room to negotiate when Starmer responsibly said that they would not vote against a deal.

    It's patently obvious that any deal Johnson might arrive at would not be the same as one Starmer might have negotiated. Abstention is entirely appropriate.
    I think abstention is the way for Labour because neither voting for nor against works at all. For, and they've dipped their hands in the blood, as it were, and also it can and would be taken as approval of the actual deal. Against, and there's 2 potential charges. It's "trying to stop Brexit", which as we know is poison in many parts of the electorate. Or it's tantamount to voting for No Deal, which is poison in other parts.
    They've done what they needed to - remove any obstacle to preventing No Deal. Anything Boris does or doesn't come up with is entirely down to him now.

    And abstention on an actual deal is a secondary matter politically.
  • Options

    Andy_JS said:

    She was 19 years old in 1994.
    I thought for a moment we still on the Rolling Stones debate. I mused, surely Mandy Smith is older.

    Anyway age is no excuse for behaviour. Brandon Barnard, 40, recently executed by Federal Government as an accessory to murder in 2000, aged 19 at the time of the offence.
    Executing her for it may be seen as somewhat harsh..
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,526

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9043583/NHS-data-suggests-hospitals-England-December.html

    A little light reading for those who accuse me of making up truths about how 'close to being overwhelmed' the NHS is.

    I would believe you more than I would the Daily Mail.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,644
    edited December 2020
    kle4 said:

    There seem to be a few general responses to that kind of information.

    1) To argue about the definitions of working class to deny it (eg the 'true working class people still vote Labour' argument)
    2) To lament how backward the working class are to dismiss it (eg the 'So we have to be racist and stupid to get working class support?' argument)
    3) To ignore it as irrelevant (eg the 'we can win without them' argument)
    4) To over worry about it (eg the 'My great grandfather dies in the mines and would be outraged by this' argument
    5) To use it as evidence for the argument you'd been making for decades - "The problem with the Left is that it's never worked out why it lost in the 80s and it will never change the country for the better until it does."
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,519
    Started a war on woke culture?

    Or leapt aboard a long rolling bandwagon in order to court the Tory grassroots?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,526

    Andy_JS said:

    She was 19 years old in 1994.
    I thought for a moment we still on the Rolling Stones debate. I mused, surely Mandy Smith is older.

    Anyway age is no excuse for behaviour. Brandon Barnard, 40, recently executed by Federal Government as an accessory to murder in 2000, aged 19 at the time of the offence.
    Executing her for it may be seen as somewhat harsh..
    Who? Liz Truss or Mandy Smith. I told you I was confused!
  • Options
    My covid jab is very early, I would be happy to swap it with somebody older if I could
  • Options

    Andy_JS said:

    She was 19 years old in 1994.
    I thought for a moment we still on the Rolling Stones debate. I mused, surely Mandy Smith is older.

    Anyway age is no excuse for behaviour. Brandon Barnard, 40, recently executed by Federal Government as an accessory to murder in 2000, aged 19 at the time of the offence.
    Executing her for it may be seen as somewhat harsh..
    Who? Liz Truss or Mandy Smith. I told you I was confused!
    Truss, for being a republican Lib Dem. It was rather treasonous behaviour but I'm prepared to forgive and forget.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,742
    Barnesian said:

    Stocky said:

    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Stocky said:

    Foxy said:

    Where are you in the vaccine Q?

    An app to say when:

    https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/vaccine-queue-uk

    Interesting anecdotal communication by the medical bush telegraph. The new SE covid variety seems to progress more rapidly, so keep an eye on your sats if you get it.

    Just done mine. It says:

    "Given a vaccination rate of 1,000,000 a week and an uptake of 70.6%, you should expect to receive your vaccine between 12/05/2021 and 03/06/2021"

    This is much later that I had hoped.
    I could be looking at mid September apparently. Eh, it'll be fine.
    Mine is 14/01/2021 to 28/01/2021. That is perfect for my ski holiday to Italy in mid March.
    Are you like me: longingly watching skiing videos on YouTube?

    As soon as I can get away I`m off. They`ve got to open the slopes first though lol.
    I have two trips booked. Italy in March and France in April. I'll be vaccinated by then.

    I think it's only 50/50 that the March trip will happen. Skiing is a very socially distanced activity in the fresh air. I don't have the stamina these days for the apres-ski bars which will probably be closed anyway. I save my stamina for the blacks and moguls.
    Same here. Apres ski has no appeal for me now. And, of course, could never be Covid-safe, with all that closeness and moistness, ahem. Otherwise, skiing is great for staying away from folk.

    It`s all about the locations for me, the mountains and the solitude. And I like getting better at skiing.

    I`m doing the exercises every day as in the YouTube video: "Improve Your Skiing with Dry Land Training". Plus the gym.

    I daren`t book anything for March at the moment - too uncertain, I think.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,519
    Quincel said:

    BETTING TIP 2

    Hollie Doyle has suddenly been backed to 2nd favourite for SPoTY this Sunday. She's a female horse rider who is doubtless impressive, but the smart money earlier this week had her as a significant outsider. For one thing, women tend to get hammered at SPoTY. I've laid on all 3 Betfair markets, a bit on her not to win, some on not to win w/o Hamilton (the big favourite, also a decent bet just backing him now), and some on her not Top 3.

    It does look like HAM. But I'm keeping my head down on this after my inglorious tip for RASH.
  • Options
    Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,823

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9043583/NHS-data-suggests-hospitals-England-December.html

    A little light reading for those who accuse me of making up truths about how 'close to being overwhelmed' the NHS is.

    Ah, the Daily Mail.
    Fresh from citing a made-up graph on excess deaths from a conspiracy-theorist on Twitter to "prove" there were no excess deaths at the moment."
    With Doctor Sikora, who has yet to be right on anything during the pandemic.

    Must be completely true, with no dodgy information, or taken out of any context at all. It's all fine. No-one's ill. No-one's dying. False positives and stuff.
  • Options

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9043583/NHS-data-suggests-hospitals-England-December.html

    A little light reading for those who accuse me of making up truths about how 'close to being overwhelmed' the NHS is.

    Ah, the Daily Mail.
    Fresh from citing a made-up graph on excess deaths from a conspiracy-theorist on Twitter to "prove" there were no excess deaths at the moment."
    With Doctor Sikora, who has yet to be right on anything during the pandemic.

    Must be completely true, with no dodgy information, or taken out of any context at all. It's all fine. No-one's ill. No-one's dying. False positives and stuff.
    "Overall" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

    Remember hospitals have to be streamlined into "hot" and "cold" lanes and that COVID patients require particular sorts of care which would not be required by idiots admitted from A&E.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,519

    Thing is, a bad deal is a launchpad for Farage.

    That's who they are scared of. They know that labour is going nowhere in the seats that matter. How could they be when they are against the deportation of serious foreign criminals?
    Is this the new Wedge Issue post Brexit iyo? Showing serious foreign criminals the door?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/15/britain-deport-young-black-men-justice-osime-brown
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,526

    Andy_JS said:

    She was 19 years old in 1994.
    I thought for a moment we still on the Rolling Stones debate. I mused, surely Mandy Smith is older.

    Anyway age is no excuse for behaviour. Brandon Barnard, 40, recently executed by Federal Government as an accessory to murder in 2000, aged 19 at the time of the offence.
    Executing her for it may be seen as somewhat harsh..
    Who? Liz Truss or Mandy Smith. I told you I was confused!
    Truss, for being a republican Lib Dem. It was rather treasonous behaviour but I'm prepared to forgive and forget.
    I like the sound of the 19 year old Liz Truss, I was not married, sans Children and our ages are not too far apart (at a big push). I could have kept her on the straight and narrow.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,088
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
    The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
    With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
    Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
    If Labour support the deal, it may well he Starmer's final act as Labour leader.
    Labour must support the deal, any deal, if the alternative is "no deal".
    I can't see how no deal lasts very long - it simply won't work. The bear trap for Labour is simple. I know that there are (as a local example) plenty of NE voters who support Brexit for the long-term benefits it will bring to Nissan. When Nissan announce it is closing due to Brexit those same Brexit supporting punters will be angry with everyone who lied to them and didn't protect them from the lies.

    Saying Labour must vote for a deal that only cuts one leg off as its preferable to cutting off both legs is pretty desperate.
    Labour did what it had to in giving Johnson room to negotiate when Starmer responsibly said that they would not vote against a deal.

    It's patently obvious that any deal Johnson might arrive at would not be the same as one Starmer might have negotiated. Abstention is entirely appropriate.
    I think abstention is the way for Labour because neither voting for nor against works at all. For, and they've dipped their hands in the blood, as it were, and also it can and would be taken as approval of the actual deal. Against, and there's 2 potential charges. It's "trying to stop Brexit", which as we know is poison in many parts of the electorate. Or it's tantamount to voting for No Deal, which is poison in other parts.
    It’s a genuinely difficult decision for the opposition parties, especially Labour. If Lab abstain, and all other opposition vote against, there could well be enough of a Tory rebellion to vote the deal down.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,044

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9043583/NHS-data-suggests-hospitals-England-December.html

    A little light reading for those who accuse me of making up truths about how 'close to being overwhelmed' the NHS is.

    Ah, the Daily Mail.
    Fresh from citing a made-up graph on excess deaths from a conspiracy-theorist on Twitter to "prove" there were no excess deaths at the moment."
    With Doctor Sikora, who has yet to be right on anything during the pandemic.

    Must be completely true, with no dodgy information, or taken out of any context at all. It's all fine. No-one's ill. No-one's dying. False positives and stuff.
    No mention of Sweden in the article
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,742

    Andy_JS said:

    She was 19 years old in 1994.
    I thought for a moment we still on the Rolling Stones debate. I mused, surely Mandy Smith is older.

    Anyway age is no excuse for behaviour. Brandon Barnard, 40, recently executed by Federal Government as an accessory to murder in 2000, aged 19 at the time of the offence.
    Executing her for it may be seen as somewhat harsh..
    Who? Liz Truss or Mandy Smith. I told you I was confused!
    Truss, for being a republican Lib Dem. It was rather treasonous behaviour but I'm prepared to forgive and forget.
    I like the sound of the 19 year old Liz Truss, I was not married, sans Children and our ages are not too far apart (at a big push). I could have kept her on the straight and narrow.
    Same here. Wink,wink.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
    The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
    With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
    Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
    If Labour support the deal, it may well he Starmer's final act as Labour leader.
    Labour must support the deal, any deal, if the alternative is "no deal".
    I can't see how no deal lasts very long - it simply won't work. The bear trap for Labour is simple. I know that there are (as a local example) plenty of NE voters who support Brexit for the long-term benefits it will bring to Nissan. When Nissan announce it is closing due to Brexit those same Brexit supporting punters will be angry with everyone who lied to them and didn't protect them from the lies.

    Saying Labour must vote for a deal that only cuts one leg off as its preferable to cutting off both legs is pretty desperate.
    Labour did what it had to in giving Johnson room to negotiate when Starmer responsibly said that they would not vote against a deal.

    It's patently obvious that any deal Johnson might arrive at would not be the same as one Starmer might have negotiated. Abstention is entirely appropriate.
    I think abstention is the way for Labour because neither voting for nor against works at all. For, and they've dipped their hands in the blood, as it were, and also it can and would be taken as approval of the actual deal. Against, and there's 2 potential charges. It's "trying to stop Brexit", which as we know is poison in many parts of the electorate. Or it's tantamount to voting for No Deal, which is poison in other parts.
    It’s a genuinely difficult decision for the opposition parties, especially Labour. If Lab abstain, and all other opposition vote against, there could well be enough of a Tory rebellion to vote the deal down.
    Yes but then Labour looks good having voted for Brexit as an idea and also voting for a deal.
  • Options

    Labour has recovered some of the Brexit base, I wonder how much they recover from the Tories/BXP if they vote for a Brexit deal and/or Brexit is perceived to be finished.

    We discuss complicated reasons for voting Tory but frankly I think it's quite simple: Corbyn and being anti-Brexit.

    Those two are removed and the polls revert to a tie, which is basically what we saw post 2017.

    I'm not sure its that simple..... Labour's vote share amongst the leave demographic had been declining during the Blair era. Perception that the party does not hold the values of the working man has led to a drift towards the socially conservative spectrum. With the conservatives actively courting said voters its now gonna be difficult to lure them back.

    I'm of the opinion that peak New-Labour would be unable to win in this situation. Few Scottish seats, Wales being strongly contested and a much more partisan electorate in both age, education and urbane/rural. There is an enlightening GQ interview between Campbell and Blair (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu-J16VQho8) where Blair bemoans the strength of the press in pushing the Brexit narratives. He seems to feel betrayed by the old barons who once tacitly supported him. After Blair, Labour has no longer had their support and a decade of partisan scribblings have definitely taken their toll.

    Labour need to rebuild from the communities they left behind during the 2000's. I mean prioritising candidates from the areas they lost. No more parachuting the well spoken, well educated and well meaning into places that are alien to them. I would like to see more Prescotts and less Benns.

    I think localism is the future for Labour. Aping the Libs if you will. Showing the lost demographics who have been primed to hate the party that it can and will fight their corner even when not in power.
    Prescotts are few and far between.

    Apparently he was encouraged to try a political career by Harold McMillan, who was recuperating on a cruise at the time. Prescott was a steward and they struck up a friendship.

    Nice tale if true.
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    Stocky said:

    TimT said:

    Stocky said:

    Is it necessary to test someone for Covid before giving that person the vaccine?

    I assume not, in which case the question becomes: is the vaccine`s efficacy reduced for someone whose system is already battling a covid infection?

    I would argue that someone who either has had or currently has COVID would not in theory benefit that much from a vaccine. Unless their immune system is somehow defective, they'll have already - after 3-4 days of infection - engaged their specific/adaptive immune system against COVID and started to produce COVID-specific antibodies and to develop COVID-specific memory T-Cells.

    That is what the vaccine does, so I don't see it adding any value to the person either way. If their immune system is functional, they already have or on their way to having antibodies and memory T-Cells. If their immune system failed to react to the actual virus, in all probability it will fail to react to the vaccine.

    As always, I stand to be corrected by someone with greater specific knowledge on this issue than me. But that would be the generic response for how the immune system and vaccines work.
    Thanks. Makes sense to me. In which case SHOULD individuals be tested for Covid pre-vaccine? By not doing this we risk wasting shitloads of vaccines on individuals who will not benefit.
    You'd need to do at least two types of tests - serum tests to detect COVID antibodies for those who have had the disease and recovered, and antigen tests, such at RT-PCR, for those currently infected.

    If vaccine supply (as opposed to delivery logistics of any form) is indeed the rate limiting factor, testing might make sense. On the other hand, universal testing of vaccine candidates might distract too many resources from where they are needed more.
  • Options
    Barnesian said:

    Stocky said:

    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Stocky said:

    Foxy said:

    Where are you in the vaccine Q?

    An app to say when:

    https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/vaccine-queue-uk

    Interesting anecdotal communication by the medical bush telegraph. The new SE covid variety seems to progress more rapidly, so keep an eye on your sats if you get it.

    Just done mine. It says:

    "Given a vaccination rate of 1,000,000 a week and an uptake of 70.6%, you should expect to receive your vaccine between 12/05/2021 and 03/06/2021"

    This is much later that I had hoped.
    I could be looking at mid September apparently. Eh, it'll be fine.
    Mine is 14/01/2021 to 28/01/2021. That is perfect for my ski holiday to Italy in mid March.
    Are you like me: longingly watching skiing videos on YouTube?

    As soon as I can get away I`m off. They`ve got to open the slopes first though lol.
    I have two trips booked. Italy in March and France in April. I'll be vaccinated by then.
    But will the EU have re-opened to British nationals? It closes January 1st for all but "essential travel".
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,526
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
    The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
    With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
    Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
    If Labour support the deal, it may well he Starmer's final act as Labour leader.
    Labour must support the deal, any deal, if the alternative is "no deal".
    I can't see how no deal lasts very long - it simply won't work. The bear trap for Labour is simple. I know that there are (as a local example) plenty of NE voters who support Brexit for the long-term benefits it will bring to Nissan. When Nissan announce it is closing due to Brexit those same Brexit supporting punters will be angry with everyone who lied to them and didn't protect them from the lies.

    Saying Labour must vote for a deal that only cuts one leg off as its preferable to cutting off both legs is pretty desperate.
    Labour did what it had to in giving Johnson room to negotiate when Starmer responsibly said that they would not vote against a deal.

    It's patently obvious that any deal Johnson might arrive at would not be the same as one Starmer might have negotiated. Abstention is entirely appropriate.
    I think abstention is the way for Labour because neither voting for nor against works at all. For, and they've dipped their hands in the blood, as it were, and also it can and would be taken as approval of the actual deal. Against, and there's 2 potential charges. It's "trying to stop Brexit", which as we know is poison in many parts of the electorate. Or it's tantamount to voting for No Deal, which is poison in other parts.
    It’s a genuinely difficult decision for the opposition parties, especially Labour. If Lab abstain, and all other opposition vote against, there could well be enough of a Tory rebellion to vote the deal down.
    Nah, If that happens Johnson and the Conservatives are in such big trouble even with an 80 seat majority, SKSIPM.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,519

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
    The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
    With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
    Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
    No, as 2/3 of Tory MPs would still have voted for a Deal, as would his most likely replacement Rishi Sunak, so he would survive any confidence vote
    Sunak? Keep up, Liz Truss is the future!
    She's no Benny Hill, though, and Sunak even less so. Neither can be visualized chasing housewives on a milk float.

    I think you're onto something with that btw. No kidding.
    Have you not noticed the Fred Scuttle salute, gait, posture, clothing fit, and hair?

    Tonight Matthew, I am Benny Hill!
    Yep. It was a revelation when I saw your thesis and thought about it. It's spot on. It beats my Jimmy Savile one hands down. That was a stretch and not quite right. Again, for the sake of clarity, I consider this to be a totally serious and extremely insightful political exchange we're having here. No smiley face, note. Because it's no laughing matter. Johnson has tapped into exactly what you're describing - as Hill did - and has gained enormous success on the back of it. As Hill did.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,014

    Barnesian said:

    Stocky said:

    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Stocky said:

    Foxy said:

    Where are you in the vaccine Q?

    An app to say when:

    https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/vaccine-queue-uk

    Interesting anecdotal communication by the medical bush telegraph. The new SE covid variety seems to progress more rapidly, so keep an eye on your sats if you get it.

    Just done mine. It says:

    "Given a vaccination rate of 1,000,000 a week and an uptake of 70.6%, you should expect to receive your vaccine between 12/05/2021 and 03/06/2021"

    This is much later that I had hoped.
    I could be looking at mid September apparently. Eh, it'll be fine.
    Mine is 14/01/2021 to 28/01/2021. That is perfect for my ski holiday to Italy in mid March.
    Are you like me: longingly watching skiing videos on YouTube?

    As soon as I can get away I`m off. They`ve got to open the slopes first though lol.
    I have two trips booked. Italy in March and France in April. I'll be vaccinated by then.
    But will the EU have re-opened to British nationals? It closes January 1st for all but "essential travel".
    The Italian and French skiing economies need us Brits.
    Anyway skiing is essential for me.
  • Options

    Andy_JS said:

    She was 19 years old in 1994.
    I thought for a moment we still on the Rolling Stones debate. I mused, surely Mandy Smith is older.

    Anyway age is no excuse for behaviour. Brandon Barnard, 40, recently executed by Federal Government as an accessory to murder in 2000, aged 19 at the time of the offence.
    Executing her for it may be seen as somewhat harsh..
    Who? Liz Truss or Mandy Smith. I told you I was confused!
    Truss, for being a republican Lib Dem. It was rather treasonous behaviour but I'm prepared to forgive and forget.
    I like the sound of the 19 year old Liz Truss, I was not married, sans Children and our ages are not too far apart (at a big push). I could have kept her on the straight and narrow.

    Back in the day..



  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,088
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
    The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
    With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
    Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
    No, as 2/3 of Tory MPs would still have voted for a Deal, as would his most likely replacement Rishi Sunak, so he would survive any confidence vote
    Sunak? Keep up, Liz Truss is the future!
    She's no Benny Hill, though, and Sunak even less so. Neither can be visualized chasing housewives on a milk float.

    I think you're onto something with that btw. No kidding.
    Have you not noticed the Fred Scuttle salute, gait, posture, clothing fit, and hair?

    Tonight Matthew, I am Benny Hill!
    Yep. It was a revelation when I saw your thesis and thought about it. It's spot on. It beats my Jimmy Savile one hands down. That was a stretch and not quite right. Again, for the sake of clarity, I consider this to be a totally serious and extremely insightful political exchange we're having here. No smiley face, note. Because it's no laughing matter. Johnson has tapped into exactly what you're describing - as Hill did - and has gained enormous success on the back of it. As Hill did.
    Now I have a quite horrible image in my mind, of Jimmy Savile chasing Barbara Windsor around a garden, with the film speeded up and Yakkety Sax playing in the background!
  • Options

    Andy_JS said:

    She was 19 years old in 1994.
    I thought for a moment we still on the Rolling Stones debate. I mused, surely Mandy Smith is older.

    Anyway age is no excuse for behaviour. Brandon Barnard, 40, recently executed by Federal Government as an accessory to murder in 2000, aged 19 at the time of the offence.
    Executing her for it may be seen as somewhat harsh..
    Who? Liz Truss or Mandy Smith. I told you I was confused!
    Truss, for being a republican Lib Dem. It was rather treasonous behaviour but I'm prepared to forgive and forget.
    I like the sound of the 19 year old Liz Truss, I was not married, sans Children and our ages are not too far apart (at a big push). I could have kept her on the straight and narrow.

    Back in the day..



    Her pal there Kiron seems to have stuck with yellows
    https://kironreid.co.uk/category/politics/
  • Options
    Presumably @contrarian is no longer a fan of the Swedish model which I recall he was eager for us to follow a few weeks ago?
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,742
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Stocky said:

    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Stocky said:

    Foxy said:

    Where are you in the vaccine Q?

    An app to say when:

    https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/vaccine-queue-uk

    Interesting anecdotal communication by the medical bush telegraph. The new SE covid variety seems to progress more rapidly, so keep an eye on your sats if you get it.

    Just done mine. It says:

    "Given a vaccination rate of 1,000,000 a week and an uptake of 70.6%, you should expect to receive your vaccine between 12/05/2021 and 03/06/2021"

    This is much later that I had hoped.
    I could be looking at mid September apparently. Eh, it'll be fine.
    Mine is 14/01/2021 to 28/01/2021. That is perfect for my ski holiday to Italy in mid March.
    Are you like me: longingly watching skiing videos on YouTube?

    As soon as I can get away I`m off. They`ve got to open the slopes first though lol.
    I have two trips booked. Italy in March and France in April. I'll be vaccinated by then.
    But will the EU have re-opened to British nationals? It closes January 1st for all but "essential travel".
    The Italian and French skiing economies need us Brits.
    Anyway skiing is essential for me.
    I was about to respond in a similar manner, but stopped myself because saying "they won`t stop Brits travelling as they need us economically" sounds too much like "they won`t deny a trade deal cus they need to sell us their cars".
  • Options

    @Philip_Thompson if you think the Welsh Government has done a poor job then you would need to concede Johnson has too.

    But you won't as a member of his fan club.

    I'm not overly critical of the Welsh government - but I don't deny they exist.

    I don't claim the Tories aren't in Government.
    SNP supporters on this site don't claim the SNP aren't in Government.
    Uniquely only Labour supporters on this site seem to want to deny that a Labour Government within the UK even exists.

    I do wonder what about Drakeford's Government makes Labour supporters uniquely so ashamed that Labour in Government even exists? You wouldn't see a Sturgeon supporter denying that she or her Government exists.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,219

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
    The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
    With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
    Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
    No, as 2/3 of Tory MPs would still have voted for a Deal, as would his most likely replacement Rishi Sunak, so he would survive any confidence vote
    Sunak? Keep up, Liz Truss is the future!
    She's no Benny Hill, though, and Sunak even less so. Neither can be visualized chasing housewives on a milk float.

    I think you're onto something with that btw. No kidding.
    Have you not noticed the Fred Scuttle salute, gait, posture, clothing fit, and hair?

    Tonight Matthew, I am Benny Hill!
    Don't forget the gurning.
  • Options

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
    The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
    With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
    Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
    If Labour support the deal, it may well he Starmer's final act as Labour leader.
    Labour must support the deal, any deal, if the alternative is "no deal".
    I can't see how no deal lasts very long - it simply won't work. The bear trap for Labour is simple. I know that there are (as a local example) plenty of NE voters who support Brexit for the long-term benefits it will bring to Nissan. When Nissan announce it is closing due to Brexit those same Brexit supporting punters will be angry with everyone who lied to them and didn't protect them from the lies.

    Saying Labour must vote for a deal that only cuts one leg off as its preferable to cutting off both legs is pretty desperate.
    Labour did what it had to in giving Johnson room to negotiate when Starmer responsibly said that they would not vote against a deal.

    It's patently obvious that any deal Johnson might arrive at would not be the same as one Starmer might have negotiated. Abstention is entirely appropriate.
    I think abstention is the way for Labour because neither voting for nor against works at all. For, and they've dipped their hands in the blood, as it were, and also it can and would be taken as approval of the actual deal. Against, and there's 2 potential charges. It's "trying to stop Brexit", which as we know is poison in many parts of the electorate. Or it's tantamount to voting for No Deal, which is poison in other parts.
    It’s a genuinely difficult decision for the opposition parties, especially Labour. If Lab abstain, and all other opposition vote against, there could well be enough of a Tory rebellion to vote the deal down.
    Nah, If that happens Johnson and the Conservatives are in such big trouble even with an 80 seat majority, SKSIPM.
    If Labour sit the vote out, the winning post is 221 votes. If there are 143 rebels on the Government's defining policy, Bozza is toast. Doesn't matter that it's not quite half the party, Bozza is toast.

    The limiting step here isn't getting the deal through Parliament, it's getting the deal presented to Parliament in the first place. And that's mostly about what's going in the PM's psyche, so goodness only knows.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,132

    My covid jab is very early, I would be happy to swap it with somebody older if I could

    I wouldn't seek to gainsay the official assessment on this one (not that you can). If its put you early its probably for good reason, so certainly I hope you don't feel bad about it.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,742
    edited December 2020

    My neighbour (92 yesterday) and his only-slightly younger wife of nearly 70 years have both been for their jabs this morning. They were VERY impressed with the operation - it ran on rails, already. Seems to be a lot of thought has gone into it.

    They are delighted with their Christmas present. And relieved.

    Anyone know why I`m hearing stories like this yet mum, aged 86 and in a care home, has heard nothing about a vaccination and the care home manager is vaguely saying "sometime in January we think"? (Mum`s in Devon as well, by the way.)
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,526
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
    The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
    With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
    Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
    No, as 2/3 of Tory MPs would still have voted for a Deal, as would his most likely replacement Rishi Sunak, so he would survive any confidence vote
    Sunak? Keep up, Liz Truss is the future!
    She's no Benny Hill, though, and Sunak even less so. Neither can be visualized chasing housewives on a milk float.

    I think you're onto something with that btw. No kidding.
    Have you not noticed the Fred Scuttle salute, gait, posture, clothing fit, and hair?

    Tonight Matthew, I am Benny Hill!
    Yep. It was a revelation when I saw your thesis and thought about it. It's spot on. It beats my Jimmy Savile one hands down. That was a stretch and not quite right. Again, for the sake of clarity, I consider this to be a totally serious and extremely insightful political exchange we're having here. No smiley face, note. Because it's no laughing matter. Johnson has tapped into exactly what you're describing - as Hill did - and has gained enormous success on the back of it. As Hill did.
    It's this stage persona that has got him to the place in his career he has craved. I am sure he also entertains a variety of personal persona in order to achieve what he desires privately. There is very little of even the vaguest hint of Jimmy Saville malign about Johnson. Very, very little cuts through for me. Saville, by contrast, was a wicked sociopath and psychopath. Johnson I believe has sociopathic tendencies, in that he puts his own interests head and shoulders above everyone else, including loved ones, but he is no Jimmy Saville.
  • Options

    @Philip_Thompson if you think the Welsh Government has done a poor job then you would need to concede Johnson has too.

    But you won't as a member of his fan club.

    I'm not overly critical of the Welsh government - but I don't deny they exist.

    I don't claim the Tories aren't in Government.
    SNP supporters on this site don't claim the SNP aren't in Government.
    Uniquely only Labour supporters on this site seem to want to deny that a Labour Government within the UK even exists.

    I do wonder what about Drakeford's Government makes Labour supporters uniquely so ashamed that Labour in Government even exists? You wouldn't see a Sturgeon supporter denying that she or her Government exists.
    I criticised the Welsh Government, now you criticise the Tories as they have cocked up as badly as the Welsh.

    But you won't because you're not impartial, so please don't pretend otherwise.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,219
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
    The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
    With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
    Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
    If Labour support the deal, it may well he Starmer's final act as Labour leader.
    Labour must support the deal, any deal, if the alternative is "no deal".
    I can't see how no deal lasts very long - it simply won't work. The bear trap for Labour is simple. I know that there are (as a local example) plenty of NE voters who support Brexit for the long-term benefits it will bring to Nissan. When Nissan announce it is closing due to Brexit those same Brexit supporting punters will be angry with everyone who lied to them and didn't protect them from the lies.

    Saying Labour must vote for a deal that only cuts one leg off as its preferable to cutting off both legs is pretty desperate.
    Labour did what it had to in giving Johnson room to negotiate when Starmer responsibly said that they would not vote against a deal.

    It's patently obvious that any deal Johnson might arrive at would not be the same as one Starmer might have negotiated. Abstention is entirely appropriate.
    I think abstention is the way for Labour because neither voting for nor against works at all. For, and they've dipped their hands in the blood, as it were, and also it can and would be taken as approval of the actual deal. Against, and there's 2 potential charges. It's "trying to stop Brexit", which as we know is poison in many parts of the electorate. Or it's tantamount to voting for No Deal, which is poison in other parts.
    It’s a genuinely difficult decision for the opposition parties, especially Labour. If Lab abstain, and all other opposition vote against, there could well be enough of a Tory rebellion to vote the deal down.
    The PM has a majority of 80.
    If he can't get a deal through the Commons, that is entirely down to him.

    It's not a difficult question at all.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    She was a LD in 1994, she is more a libertarian liberal than a Tory, much like Philip Thompson
    She is great. 💯
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,248
    Dura_Ace said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Tony Connelly is very well-informed and the details he describes in this thread look convincing:

    https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1339910751415390208

    Perhaps he is trying to bring home to them the consequences of not having any deal at all. They have massively overplayed their hand in relation to fish.

    I have been crystal clear from before the referendum that we wanted a deal with the EU but many of the reasons for doing so are now being lost. A deal in October would have allowed some sensible adjustment and work on the practicalities such as trusted trader schemes, road testing customs schemes on the Ferries and in the tunnel, the development of technology to facilitate easy and prompt transport etc etc. A deal now has none of these advantages. We are left with chaos because of the way that this has been dragged out to the last minute and beyond. I am seriously getting to the point I think its just not worth it. If we are going to have chaos anyway, and this is now inevitable in the short term, sod it, enough.
    Are you really suggesting that "disruption" is the only disadvantage of trading on WTO terms?

    Surely if that was the case, countries wouldn't be falling over themselves to sign free-trade agreements with other countries.
    No, I am not saying that. Tariff free trade is a good thing. But the sort of deal the EU wants has disbenefits as well as benefits and restricts us. The upside of such a deal in October would have outweighed that. The balance is becoming finer by the hour.

    We import about £85bn more from the EU than we export in goods (we have a surplus on services that offsets that somewhat but it is unclear if this deal is going to allow that to continue). A 5% tariff nets the UK over £4bn a year. Its a thought.
    £4bn a year paid by UK consumers? I'm not sure that's a benefit.
    There would be a series of potential benefits. We would, at the margins buy less from the EU. Domestic producers would receive a boost. This would encourage some of the EU exporters to absorb some or all of the cost in reduced margins.

    To be clear, I still don't want any of this. But I will certainly be exercising consumer choice in relation to EU products going forward. I expect the EU of our trade to fall quite sharply now, deal or no deal. There is some evidence that this is happening already although it is difficult to eliminate Covid distortions.
    Whilst you are right - those would be benefits - I'm not sure the "theory" will survive a brush with reality. I'm expecting some odd politically meaningful consequences, which nobody really considered, to affect the lives of everyday people. I don't think it will be quite as simple as to just "buy stuff from elsewhere" in the short term.

    For example, people are not going to stop buying Mercedes and BMWs just because of a no-deal Brexit but they will be annoyed that they are potentially more expensive because of it. That has a political cost. The kind of people who buy these cars are not going to start happily buying British-built Nissans.
    I think people might well stop buying Mercedes and BMWs actually, especially if there is no deal. They can buy Jags or range rovers instead.
    Apart from the fact they are garbage there is a fair bit of EU content in JLR products. Austrian transmission. Italian/Austrian Brakes. German ECU. Slovakian ICE. German VVT. There's probably more... the turbos are Korean so there's that.
    Landrovers are forever in garage for repairs
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,526

    HYUFD said:

    She was a LD in 1994, she is more a libertarian liberal than a Tory, much like Philip Thompson
    She is great. 💯
    WAS! (In 1994 as an LD- much like yourself if HYUFD is to be believed).
  • Options

    @Philip_Thompson if you think the Welsh Government has done a poor job then you would need to concede Johnson has too.

    But you won't as a member of his fan club.

    I'm not overly critical of the Welsh government - but I don't deny they exist.

    I don't claim the Tories aren't in Government.
    SNP supporters on this site don't claim the SNP aren't in Government.
    Uniquely only Labour supporters on this site seem to want to deny that a Labour Government within the UK even exists.

    I do wonder what about Drakeford's Government makes Labour supporters uniquely so ashamed that Labour in Government even exists? You wouldn't see a Sturgeon supporter denying that she or her Government exists.
    I criticised the Welsh Government, now you criticise the Tories as they have cocked up as badly as the Welsh.

    But you won't because you're not impartial, so please don't pretend otherwise.
    I haven't criticised the Welsh Government have I?

    Apart from their mistake of a 2 week firebreak that thankfully was avoided by Westminster, apart from that mistake they've handled the epidemic much the same as every other nation.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,132
    edited December 2020
    Pulpstar said:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9043583/NHS-data-suggests-hospitals-England-December.html

    A little light reading for those who accuse me of making up truths about how 'close to being overwhelmed' the NHS is.

    Ah, the Daily Mail.
    Fresh from citing a made-up graph on excess deaths from a conspiracy-theorist on Twitter to "prove" there were no excess deaths at the moment."
    With Doctor Sikora, who has yet to be right on anything during the pandemic.

    Must be completely true, with no dodgy information, or taken out of any context at all. It's all fine. No-one's ill. No-one's dying. False positives and stuff.
    No mention of Sweden in the article
    Cannot quite imagine Her Majesty every saying something like this though

    Sweden's king has said his country "failed" to save lives with its relatively relaxed approach to the coronavirus pandemic.

    King Carl XVI Gustaf made the remarks as part of an annual TV review of the year with the royal family.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55347021

    'Annual TV review of the year' makes it sound like every year he does a round up of his favourite TV programmes and movies. I wonder if he's super into The Queen's Gambit. Or perhaps he's more a fan of Teenage Bounty Hunters. Or 365 days (I can think of others who might be bigger fans of that).
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,193
    kinabalu said:

    Started a war on woke culture?

    Or leapt aboard a long rolling bandwagon in order to court the Tory grassroots?
    You say that like either is a bad thing.....
This discussion has been closed.