I have to concede to those Brexiteers on here who suggested the Machiavellian Macron was shafting Johnson over Draconian Covid sanctions on Sunday. It looked like I was wrong and he was, and it looks like it worked.
You are basing this on reports from French officials?
I've got a bridge to sell you.
PB’ers seem to be buying far more bridges than they manage to sell on. That can’t be good for the bottom line.
It will be quite the day when French officials report to journalists that "at the end of negotiations, we, the French have completely caved in to every British demand, and, also accepted that the British are just better, stronger, cleverer, manlier, and braver, and with lovelier wives. President Macron will be making a broadcast in a Union Jack waistcoat this evening"
Consider the inverse though.
If BoZo ever does give a press conference, he will be desperate, and indeed we will expect him, to say we have won a great victory over the cheese eating surrender monkeys.
If he doesn't, that would be revealing of just how much he caved to get any deal.
I have to concede to those Brexiteers on here who suggested the Machiavellian Macron was shafting Johnson over Draconian Covid sanctions on Sunday. It looked like I was wrong and he was, and it looks like it worked.
You are basing this on reports from French officials?
I've got a bridge to sell you.
PB’ers seem to be buying far more bridges than they manage to sell on. That can’t be good for the bottom line.
I have some river-front property, if you prefer. Meet me by the Thames at low tide....
Starmer abstaining = Starmer accepting no deal as an option. Incredibly easy for his opponenets and the media to frame this argument.
But look at the other options -
Vote Yes, become collaborators and detract from the Tory Party's ownership of Brexit. Piss off lots of Remainers. Can be taken as approval of the actual deal, ie Johnson did a good job.
Vote No, allow in spades the "accepting No Deal" spin and (potentially more damaging) could be taken by Red Wall Leavers as committing that most cardinal of sins, "trying to stop Brexit".
Abstain works for me.
I'm one of the biggest remainers out there and I have no problem with him voting yes as long as he says that as soon as he is in power he will ask the EU for a better (i.e. closer one). Anyone who thinks this deal will mean the end of Brexit is living in Dreamland.
Starmer abstaining = Starmer accepting no deal as an option. Incredibly easy for his opponenets and the media to frame this argument.
But look at the other options -
Vote Yes, become collaborators and detract from the Tory Party's ownership of Brexit. Piss off lots of Remainers. Can be taken as approval of the actual deal, ie Johnson did a good job.
Vote No, allow in spades the "accepting No Deal" spin and (potentially more damaging) could be taken by Red Wall Leavers as committing that most cardinal of sins, "trying to stop Brexit".
Abstain works for me.
I'm one of the biggest remainers out there and I have no problem with him voting yes as long as he says that as soon as he is in power he will ask the EU for a better (i.e. closer one). Anyone who thinks this deal will mean the end of Brexit is living in Dreamland.
A Labour Party trying to partially repeal Brexit and bring back Freedom of Movement etc would be the biggest gift for the Tories there could be. Someone asked on here the other day how Labour could avoid the identity politics trap. The first step in that should be accepting Brexit, accepting the deal, and accepting limited immigration.
Isn't the point of opposition to oppose? I reject a framing of Brexit that says this deal defines it. As we all know the 2016 campaign was notoriously vague. I did not say Labour should campaign to rejoin.
No, but salami slicing at Brexit, and moving closer would be quite popular, rejoining EHIC, Erasmus, reducing trade barriers and barriers to movement are all possible vote winners. No need to Rejoin, merely repair relationships. I don't expect any party to have a Rejoin manifesto in 2024, apart from SNP and some NI parties.
Don't forget that most voters think Brexit is a mistake, so there is a big pool to fish in.
Most voters think Brexit is a mistake based on opinion polls that got the result itself wrong by several points. Plus a disproportionate share of those votes are in London and other big cities, so aren't very useful in a General Election. Getting closer to the EU on things like Erasmus would be no problem. But e.g. going back to being a rule taker on new EU laws would be unpopular in the places Labour need to win.
"Europe" is a monster that no longer has any connection with reality, so it would take a seismic shift in events to make people accept any part of "Europe". That we used to help write EU laws and will now have to adhere to the laws of the people we trade with doesn't register and doesn't need to. Because the issue is "control" and the increasing lack of it that so many voters feel like they have.
The problem is that control is an illusion and people have been sold something they can't have. I don't think ex Labour now Tory voters will swing back to Labour who they think have betrayed them. I think ex Labour and now ex Tory voters will swing to more extreme solutions because both Labour and the Tories have betrayed them...
Lay (Bet Against) Backer's odds Backer's stake Payout Liability Brian Rose 6.31 £186.00 £987.24
Is that laying him to come 2nd, which seems to be around 6 compared to 9 for coming first. Presumably once we get close to the election his odds will go out massively?
He's traded at 1.01 to win it seems.
The price is stupid beyond belief. The only reason its there is that there's an itchy-scratchiness about moving funds to betting accounts.
Banks and the betting companies are making it hard to move honest money as well as otherwise.
Isabel Hardman: More and more, private conversations with backbenchers yield the phrase, “We can’t really take him at his word any more.” This is a stunning and swift loss of trust in a prime minister who in normal times would still be celebrating the stonking majority he won...
Did anyone ever trust his word ? There seems to be nothing stunning there, majority of 80 notwithstanding.
It's fascinating how many Tories on here think that the way forward for Starmer and Labour is to be....... more like the Tories.
It is to be more like the Tories. On both policy and flexibility. The Tories have just won over swathes of voters and seats that they haven't won previously. How? By appealing more to these voters than Labour did. To win these seats back and then seats that are now solidly Blue Labour have to do the same in reverse.
I thought that people used to understand this basic principle of politics, at least until the absurd footballification we now suffer where its all about supporting your team no matter how stupid they are.
The Tories have succeeded by spending money like a drunken sailor, saying f**k business and f**k the young. That wins votes in parts of the population and country, but ain't a grand strategy for the long term.
True. Though the problem for Labour is simple but massive - their former vote has largely written off their efforts as not helping them. They voted Brexit & Tory for a decisive change and that hasn't fixed things. Instead of turning back to Labour they either won't vote or will look for increasingly radical solutions like those offered by Nigel "sink the migrants" Farage
I am a former Labour voter that has gone Conservative in the last few elections, and so are a lot of my friends and family. One of the things that makes it pretty unappealing to go back to Labour is the fact that Labour members constantly call us things like thick racists that want to sink the migrants. In reality, we just want a party that is willing to have moderate levels of migration and is in tune with the bulk of voters outside of the London/university bubbles.
I don't think you the voter wants to sink the migrants - that would be the Nigel on his dinghy making angry videos. As for migration I get it though I disagree - it must be frustrating that neither party can deliver what you ask for. Labour were and are pro-migration and clearly say so. The Tories were and are pro-migration but lie about not being whilst slashing the budget for the Border Force to make the job even harder.
I find it very, very revealing that the question
- What size of population should the country have?
Is controversial, un-answerable, immoral etc.
Anyone who can't present a reasoned answer on that - fail.
It's fascinating how many Tories on here think that the way forward for Starmer and Labour is to be....... more like the Tories.
It is to be more like the Tories. On both policy and flexibility. The Tories have just won over swathes of voters and seats that they haven't won previously. How? By appealing more to these voters than Labour did. To win these seats back and then seats that are now solidly Blue Labour have to do the same in reverse.
I thought that people used to understand this basic principle of politics, at least until the absurd footballification we now suffer where its all about supporting your team no matter how stupid they are.
The Tories have succeeded by spending money like a drunken sailor, saying f**k business and f**k the young. That wins votes in parts of the population and country, but ain't a grand strategy for the long term.
True. Though the problem for Labour is simple but massive - their former vote has largely written off their efforts as not helping them. They voted Brexit & Tory for a decisive change and that hasn't fixed things. Instead of turning back to Labour they either won't vote or will look for increasingly radical solutions like those offered by Nigel "sink the migrants" Farage
I am a former Labour voter that has gone Conservative in the last few elections, and so are a lot of my friends and family. One of the things that makes it pretty unappealing to go back to Labour is the fact that Labour members constantly call us things like thick racists that want to sink the migrants. In reality, we just want a party that is willing to have moderate levels of migration and is in tune with the bulk of voters outside of the London/university bubbles.
I don't think you the voter wants to sink the migrants - that would be the Nigel on his dinghy making angry videos. As for migration I get it though I disagree - it must be frustrating that neither party can deliver what you ask for. Labour were and are pro-migration and clearly say so. The Tories were and are pro-migration but lie about not being whilst slashing the budget for the Border Force to make the job even harder.
Exactly. When PB was arguing about Brexit some years back I pointed out the Brexiters' illogicality on the Irish border question - given the nature of the GFA and the fact that anyone could fly to Dublin and then take a train to Belfast and so on, how could these foreigner-haters pretend they were getting control of their border at all?
I was dumped on from a great height with a tank wagon's worth of condescension and told (in essence) that OF COURSE "we Tory Brexiters don't deign to bother with such things as border control. We try to sort it out internally when they have already come in and gone to ground. (And really we like the cheap labour. But don't tell the prole voters.)"
Of course, I wasn't expecting (a) a border at Stranraer, and (b) that they would effectively abandon border controls at Dover itself.
On topic, you wonder why Rose is bothering as the latest polls had Khan winning in the first round. The only thing I can think of is to raise his profile for 2024. 2024 could be more interesting - I assume Khan will look to move back into national politics (perhaps he could be the new MP for Islington North!)
Lay (Bet Against) Backer's odds Backer's stake Payout Liability Brian Rose 6.31 £186.00 £987.24
Is that laying him to come 2nd, which seems to be around 6 compared to 9 for coming first. Presumably once we get close to the election his odds will go out massively?
Here is my position. I've laid Rose at an average of 6.2 to win £210 . I've also backed Luisa Porritt for £6 at 1,000 and laid half of that back at 300.
Luisa is the new LibDem candidate. I've met her. She is very appealing. As she gets more airtime her odds will come down. She won't win but she's a good trading bet.
It's fascinating how many Tories on here think that the way forward for Starmer and Labour is to be....... more like the Tories.
It is to be more like the Tories. On both policy and flexibility. The Tories have just won over swathes of voters and seats that they haven't won previously. How? By appealing more to these voters than Labour did. To win these seats back and then seats that are now solidly Blue Labour have to do the same in reverse.
I thought that people used to understand this basic principle of politics, at least until the absurd footballification we now suffer where its all about supporting your team no matter how stupid they are.
The Tories have succeeded by spending money like a drunken sailor, saying f**k business and f**k the young. That wins votes in parts of the population and country, but ain't a grand strategy for the long term.
True. Though the problem for Labour is simple but massive - their former vote has largely written off their efforts as not helping them. They voted Brexit & Tory for a decisive change and that hasn't fixed things. Instead of turning back to Labour they either won't vote or will look for increasingly radical solutions like those offered by Nigel "sink the migrants" Farage
I am a former Labour voter that has gone Conservative in the last few elections, and so are a lot of my friends and family. One of the things that makes it pretty unappealing to go back to Labour is the fact that Labour members constantly call us things like thick racists that want to sink the migrants. In reality, we just want a party that is willing to have moderate levels of migration and is in tune with the bulk of voters outside of the London/university bubbles.
I don't think you the voter wants to sink the migrants - that would be the Nigel on his dinghy making angry videos...
Do me a favour and call him Farage. I don’t have a dinghy, and I’m very rarely angry.
Isabel Hardman: More and more, private conversations with backbenchers yield the phrase, “We can’t really take him at his word any more.” This is a stunning and swift loss of trust in a prime minister who in normal times would still be celebrating the stonking majority he won...
Did anyone ever trust his word ? There seems to be nothing stunning there, majority of 80 notwithstanding.
We paid twice as much to ensure we received the vaccine first. Which is money well spent if you have a choice between things returning to something like normality versus another 6 months in lockdown.
I don't even think it was twice as much. But worth every penny whatever was paid.
The EU have made a mess of their rollout. We may well have arguments here over who and where is first in the queue but it could be a huge cause of conflict if the big EU players are at the front of their queue.
The EU are rolling it out on a population basis - much as the UK is, so Germany gets 18%.....
And who gets the blame if Germany vaccinates half the population by May while Spain is 3 months behind? A vaccination rollout programme should certainly be one area where EU bureaucracy would have been a hinderance to the UK. We did well to procure the Pfizer vaccine before anywhere else and then to approve it first. The government and medical bodies deserve a lot of credit on that front.
Vaccine distribution will be every Monday to the individual communities to organize distribution I’m sure someone has the ‘facts’ about how much and when is distributed in each country but it’s far more fun to make them up to fit your own narrative.
According to Die Zeit there will have been a delay of over 3 weeks not only because the EMA failed to clear the vaccines for 2 weeks but because they then decided all countries must start vaccinating at the same time so have delayed the start until after Christmas. How many extra people will have died because of this.
And no this is not an attack on the EU. It is an attack on the EMA which has proved itself unfit for purpose.
Isabel Hardman: More and more, private conversations with backbenchers yield the phrase, “We can’t really take him at his word any more.” This is a stunning and swift loss of trust in a prime minister who in normal times would still be celebrating the stonking majority he won...
Did anyone ever trust his word ? There seems to be nothing stunning there, majority of 80 notwithstanding.
No, Johnson replied saying the UK has to leave, he didn't say anything about when. Why say something when it is immediately disproven by the video attached?
It's not a fine toothcomb, you don't comb your teeth, its a fine-toothed comb. Why does that arse stay in a job?
Peston is the most over promoted political pundit in the UK. He never has unique reporting or insightful analysis, nor does he explain things better than anyone else.
On topic, you wonder why Rose is bothering as the latest polls had Khan winning in the first round. The only thing I can think of is to raise his profile for 2024. 2024 could be more interesting - I assume Khan will look to move back into national politics (perhaps he could be the new MP for Islington North!)
Trump showed him the way. Rose imagines himself a Trump.
I don't think mayors are likely to do what Boris did.
Khan will try to hang on and he'll also try to do his job better.
Burnham can't quite bother turning up in the morning for his job. He's restless - surely being PM he could sleep in!!?
Isabel Hardman: More and more, private conversations with backbenchers yield the phrase, “We can’t really take him at his word any more.” This is a stunning and swift loss of trust in a prime minister who in normal times would still be celebrating the stonking majority he won...
Did anyone ever trust his word ? There seems to be nothing stunning there, majority of 80 notwithstanding.
No, Johnson replied saying the UK has to leave, he didn't say anything about when. Why say something when it is immediately disproven by the video attached?
The point was about Francois' gullibility, not Johnson's trustworthiness.
Isabel Hardman: More and more, private conversations with backbenchers yield the phrase, “We can’t really take him at his word any more.” This is a stunning and swift loss of trust in a prime minister who in normal times would still be celebrating the stonking majority he won...
Did anyone ever trust his word ? There seems to be nothing stunning there, majority of 80 notwithstanding.
No, Johnson replied saying the UK has to leave, he didn't say anything about when. Why say something when it is immediately disproven by the video attached?
I believe Boris Johnson said something about dying in a ditch with regards to leaving on 31/10/2019?
Isabel Hardman: More and more, private conversations with backbenchers yield the phrase, “We can’t really take him at his word any more.” This is a stunning and swift loss of trust in a prime minister who in normal times would still be celebrating the stonking majority he won...
Did anyone ever trust his word ? There seems to be nothing stunning there, majority of 80 notwithstanding.
No, Johnson replied saying the UK has to leave, he didn't say anything about when. Why say something when it is immediately disproven by the video attached?
I believe Boris Johnson said something about dying in a ditch with regards to leaving on 31/10/2019?
That would have been a better video to attach, don't you think?
Unlike supermarket vegetables, according to one correspondent, I strongly suspect meaningful objective analysis of any trade deal between the UK and EU is going to be in very short supply.
We will be treated to the usual suspects claiming it is either a great victory for Boris Johnson and the UK or it is a huge surrender by the Prime Minister.
I suspect elements of both will be true and untrue in equal measure.
The bit I'm less certain about is why a good deal for Boris Johnson is automatically a good deal for the UK - it's perfectly possible a politically bad deal for the Prime Minister might be an excellent deal for the wider economy and country.
There's the thing - the Prime Minister IS the country - all he is is all we are. Perhaps it's always been like that, not sure why.
It's not a fine toothcomb, you don't comb your teeth, its a fine-toothed comb. Why does that arse stay in a job?
No, he is correct. The prongs of a comb are called ‘teeth’. So what people call a ‘comb’ is traditionally a ‘toothcomb’ and if the teeth are close together it is a ‘fine toothcomb.’
Mr. Observer, you're right that the clown will get the praise or blame for the deal, if one is agreed.
However, those who are contemplating whether Starmer is worth backing should he be the candidate for PM opposing the buffoon might consider his decision here a factor of significant weight.
Yes. Obviously. But they won't all want the same thing from him. Some will want him to support the deal, others to oppose it or abstain. Such is the Brexit conundrum for Labour. It was meant to tear the Tory Party apart. Instead it's screwed Labour and delivered the Tories a landslide. Bastard Bastard Brexit. Hate it Hate it Hate it.
The delicious irony is that had Labour abstained on May's deal it could have torn the Tories apart. While Labour could have pledged to build on and move further than May.
Thank goodness that didn't happen.
Love it love it love it.
Ok. That's enough LOVE/HATE. Got it out of our respective systems.
Re counterfactuals, there are lots. My favourite one is no Benn Act. What a mistake that was.
The Benn Act was preposterous. You hold a NC vote against the PM in those circs, not force him to write a letter of your choosing. An attempt to humiliate Boris, too clever by half, and seen through by the public. The best way to defeat Boris is simply to leave the door open so he can get tied up in his own contradictions.
Totally. In that particular case, make HIM choose between No Deal and an Extension. Then the latter - which it would have been - would have busted his machismo. As it was it gave him cover. It was the Quislings' Extension not his.
Grrrr.
The problem was that the Remainers in parliament could not bring themselves to
- vote *for* Brexit - vote *against* Brexit
They repeatedly kicked the can down the road and hoped something would turn up.
They were then surprised when they were perceived to be vacillating and hoping to over turn Brexit by some legal manoeuvre.
Could not bring themselves to put Corbyn in. That stymied everything.
Many of the Remainers were quite convinced by Corbyn's behaviour that he was a Leaver, just as he had been since the 80s.
Yep. And they were wrong. He just wasn't interested.
Yes, he was. In the sense of "that's done".
To him and his acolytes, the EU was one of the things they saw as blocking their plans.
No he really had little interest. The passions either way confused him. The topic bored him to tears.
It's not a fine toothcomb, you don't comb your teeth, its a fine-toothed comb. Why does that arse stay in a job?
No, he is correct. The prongs of a comb are called ‘teeth’. So what people call a ‘comb’ is traditionally a ‘toothcomb’ and if the teeth are close together it is a ‘fine toothcomb.’
Joking apart, both sides need to make sure they don't overhype their "victory" to make the other side's job of selling it impossible.....
If France doesn't hand back Gascony, Aquitaine, Calais, Anjou, and Normandy to Le Royaume-Uni then it is a pitiful surrender from 'Bulldog' Boris.
If Boris got that I presume you'd be willing to wade through blood for him on the campaign trail, forevermore?
He'd have to change his name to Boris Coeur de Lion.
I was wondering what to do the Sunday threads on, I may have to a piece pointing out Cœur de Lion really wasn't an Englishman, he's probably even less English than St George.
We paid twice as much to ensure we received the vaccine first. Which is money well spent if you have a choice between things returning to something like normality versus another 6 months in lockdown.
I don't even think it was twice as much. But worth every penny whatever was paid.
The EU have made a mess of their rollout. We may well have arguments here over who and where is first in the queue but it could be a huge cause of conflict if the big EU players are at the front of their queue.
The EU are rolling it out on a population basis - much as the UK is, so Germany gets 18%.....
And who gets the blame if Germany vaccinates half the population by May while Spain is 3 months behind? A vaccination rollout programme should certainly be one area where EU bureaucracy would have been a hinderance to the UK. We did well to procure the Pfizer vaccine before anywhere else and then to approve it first. The government and medical bodies deserve a lot of credit on that front.
Vaccine distribution will be every Monday to the individual communities to organize distribution I’m sure someone has the ‘facts’ about how much and when is distributed in each country but it’s far more fun to make them up to fit your own narrative.
According to Die Zeit there will have been a delay of over 3 weeks not only because the EMA failed to clear the vaccines for 2 weeks but because they then decided all countries must start vaccinating at the same time so have delayed the start until after Christmas. How many extra people will have died because of this.
And no this is not an attack on the EU. It is an attack on the EMA which has proved itself unfit for purpose.
It won’t be when you start that eventually matters, but how fast you can go.
Agreed, but note that two other polls on the two preceding days due the Democrats ahead - in one case by 5-7 points, by Survey USA, who are highly-rated by 538. As usual in the US, the samples range from the mediocre (1400) to the feeble (600). Basically it still looks like a toss-up.
Isabel Hardman: More and more, private conversations with backbenchers yield the phrase, “We can’t really take him at his word any more.” This is a stunning and swift loss of trust in a prime minister who in normal times would still be celebrating the stonking majority he won...
Did anyone ever trust his word ? There seems to be nothing stunning there, majority of 80 notwithstanding.
We paid twice as much to ensure we received the vaccine first. Which is money well spent if you have a choice between things returning to something like normality versus another 6 months in lockdown.
I don't even think it was twice as much. But worth every penny whatever was paid.
The EU have made a mess of their rollout. We may well have arguments here over who and where is first in the queue but it could be a huge cause of conflict if the big EU players are at the front of their queue.
The EU are rolling it out on a population basis - much as the UK is, so Germany gets 18%.....
And who gets the blame if Germany vaccinates half the population by May while Spain is 3 months behind? A vaccination rollout programme should certainly be one area where EU bureaucracy would have been a hinderance to the UK. We did well to procure the Pfizer vaccine before anywhere else and then to approve it first. The government and medical bodies deserve a lot of credit on that front.
Vaccine distribution will be every Monday to the individual communities to organize distribution I’m sure someone has the ‘facts’ about how much and when is distributed in each country but it’s far more fun to make them up to fit your own narrative.
According to Die Zeit there will have been a delay of over 3 weeks not only because the EMA failed to clear the vaccines for 2 weeks but because they then decided all countries must start vaccinating at the same time so have delayed the start until after Christmas. How many extra people will have died because of this.
And no this is not an attack on the EU. It is an attack on the EMA which has proved itself unfit for purpose.
It won’t be when you start that eventually matters, but how fast you can go.
No it really won't. People will have died who would not have otherwise died because of a stupid, pointless decision. That matters.
And the trouble is that it will be crafted as others have said in terms of good or bad EU. That is not what this is about. It is about specific individuals making very stupid decisions. If it is crafted in terms of the EU then those individuals will get away with it. What should happen is that those on all sides of the debate (if there is a debate) should agree that there should be consequences for those individuals who have screwed up.
Whether it is EU or the UK we do far too much blaming of institutions and not enough blaming of individuals.
Edit. Reading back I see I have done exactly the same thing blaming the EMA rather than individuals. But in my defence that was as a means of removing the blame from 'The EU' which seems to be the main target of attack in this matter at the moment.
It's not a fine toothcomb, you don't comb your teeth, its a fine-toothed comb. Why does that arse stay in a job?
No, he is correct. The prongs of a comb are called ‘teeth’. So what people call a ‘comb’ is traditionally a ‘toothcomb’ and if the teeth are close together it is a ‘fine toothcomb.’
Its not what the online dictionary and grammar sites say....
It's fascinating how many Tories on here think that the way forward for Starmer and Labour is to be....... more like the Tories.
It is to be more like the Tories. On both policy and flexibility. The Tories have just won over swathes of voters and seats that they haven't won previously. How? By appealing more to these voters than Labour did. To win these seats back and then seats that are now solidly Blue Labour have to do the same in reverse.
I thought that people used to understand this basic principle of politics, at least until the absurd footballification we now suffer where its all about supporting your team no matter how stupid they are.
The Tories have succeeded by spending money like a drunken sailor, saying f**k business and f**k the young. That wins votes in parts of the population and country, but ain't a grand strategy for the long term.
True. Though the problem for Labour is simple but massive - their former vote has largely written off their efforts as not helping them. They voted Brexit & Tory for a decisive change and that hasn't fixed things. Instead of turning back to Labour they either won't vote or will look for increasingly radical solutions like those offered by Nigel "sink the migrants" Farage
I am a former Labour voter that has gone Conservative in the last few elections, and so are a lot of my friends and family. One of the things that makes it pretty unappealing to go back to Labour is the fact that Labour members constantly call us things like thick racists that want to sink the migrants. In reality, we just want a party that is willing to have moderate levels of migration and is in tune with the bulk of voters outside of the London/university bubbles.
I don't think you the voter wants to sink the migrants - that would be the Nigel on his dinghy making angry videos. As for migration I get it though I disagree - it must be frustrating that neither party can deliver what you ask for. Labour were and are pro-migration and clearly say so. The Tories were and are pro-migration but lie about not being whilst slashing the budget for the Border Force to make the job even harder.
I find it very, very revealing that the question
- What size of population should the country have?
Is controversial, un-answerable, immoral etc.
Anyone who can't present a reasoned answer on that - fail.
It is not racist to want a discussion about migration or population numbers. Mature countries look strategically at such things and make policies accordingly. The problem is that England is not mature, thinks itself uniquely superior and able to both welcome in cheap labour from elsewhere for a fast profit and then complain about said cheap labour.
Parts of England are hugely over-populated, parts are hugely under-populated. The problem is that we concentrate the economy into pockets which drives in people who then say "England is full" when they just mean their bit of England. Our other basic problem is that people will not and cannot afford to do large numbers of jobs that are hard work and low paid. Hence the need for migrants.
On topic, you wonder why Rose is bothering as the latest polls had Khan winning in the first round. The only thing I can think of is to raise his profile for 2024. 2024 could be more interesting - I assume Khan will look to move back into national politics (perhaps he could be the new MP for Islington North!)
I don't think Rose is really aiming to ever be Mayor of London. He clearly fancies himself as a "personality" on the conspiracy theorist / populist circuit, where there is good money to be made from mugs and from Russian money that is pumped into the "industry". That's the merry-go-round all these obvious wankers are riding.
We paid twice as much to ensure we received the vaccine first. Which is money well spent if you have a choice between things returning to something like normality versus another 6 months in lockdown.
I don't even think it was twice as much. But worth every penny whatever was paid.
The EU have made a mess of their rollout. We may well have arguments here over who and where is first in the queue but it could be a huge cause of conflict if the big EU players are at the front of their queue.
The EU are rolling it out on a population basis - much as the UK is, so Germany gets 18%.....
And who gets the blame if Germany vaccinates half the population by May while Spain is 3 months behind? A vaccination rollout programme should certainly be one area where EU bureaucracy would have been a hinderance to the UK. We did well to procure the Pfizer vaccine before anywhere else and then to approve it first. The government and medical bodies deserve a lot of credit on that front.
Vaccine distribution will be every Monday to the individual communities to organize distribution I’m sure someone has the ‘facts’ about how much and when is distributed in each country but it’s far more fun to make them up to fit your own narrative.
According to Die Zeit there will have been a delay of over 3 weeks not only because the EMA failed to clear the vaccines for 2 weeks but because they then decided all countries must start vaccinating at the same time so have delayed the start until after Christmas. How many extra people will have died because of this.
And no this is not an attack on the EU. It is an attack on the EMA which has proved itself unfit for purpose.
It won’t be when you start that eventually matters, but how fast you can go.
No it really won't. People will have died who would not have otherwise died because of a stupid, pointless decision. That matters.
And the trouble is that it will be crafted as others have said in terms of good or bad EU. That is not what this is about. It is about specific individuals making very stupid decisions. If it is crafted in terms of the EU then those individuals will get away with it. What should happen is that those on all sides of the debate (if there is a debate) should agree that there should be consequences for those individuals who have screwed up.
Whether it is EU or the UK we do far too much blaming of institutions and not enough blaming of individuals.
Have we got any evidence that the claim is true, apart from a claim from a twitter self-publicist?
It's not a fine toothcomb, you don't comb your teeth, its a fine-toothed comb. Why does that arse stay in a job?
No, he is correct. The prongs of a comb are called ‘teeth’. So what people call a ‘comb’ is traditionally a ‘toothcomb’ and if the teeth are close together it is a ‘fine toothcomb.’
Its not what the online dictionary and grammar sites say....
We paid twice as much to ensure we received the vaccine first. Which is money well spent if you have a choice between things returning to something like normality versus another 6 months in lockdown.
I don't even think it was twice as much. But worth every penny whatever was paid.
The EU have made a mess of their rollout. We may well have arguments here over who and where is first in the queue but it could be a huge cause of conflict if the big EU players are at the front of their queue.
The EU are rolling it out on a population basis - much as the UK is, so Germany gets 18%.....
And who gets the blame if Germany vaccinates half the population by May while Spain is 3 months behind? A vaccination rollout programme should certainly be one area where EU bureaucracy would have been a hinderance to the UK. We did well to procure the Pfizer vaccine before anywhere else and then to approve it first. The government and medical bodies deserve a lot of credit on that front.
Vaccine distribution will be every Monday to the individual communities to organize distribution I’m sure someone has the ‘facts’ about how much and when is distributed in each country but it’s far more fun to make them up to fit your own narrative.
According to Die Zeit there will have been a delay of over 3 weeks not only because the EMA failed to clear the vaccines for 2 weeks but because they then decided all countries must start vaccinating at the same time so have delayed the start until after Christmas. How many extra people will have died because of this.
And no this is not an attack on the EU. It is an attack on the EMA which has proved itself unfit for purpose.
It won’t be when you start that eventually matters, but how fast you can go.
No it really won't. People will have died who would not have otherwise died because of a stupid, pointless decision. That matters.
And the trouble is that it will be crafted as others have said in terms of good or bad EU. That is not what this is about. It is about specific individuals making very stupid decisions. If it is crafted in terms of the EU then those individuals will get away with it. What should happen is that those on all sides of the debate (if there is a debate) should agree that there should be consequences for those individuals who have screwed up.
Whether it is EU or the UK we do far too much blaming of institutions and not enough blaming of individuals.
We paid twice as much to ensure we received the vaccine first. Which is money well spent if you have a choice between things returning to something like normality versus another 6 months in lockdown.
I don't even think it was twice as much. But worth every penny whatever was paid.
The EU have made a mess of their rollout. We may well have arguments here over who and where is first in the queue but it could be a huge cause of conflict if the big EU players are at the front of their queue.
The EU are rolling it out on a population basis - much as the UK is, so Germany gets 18%.....
And who gets the blame if Germany vaccinates half the population by May while Spain is 3 months behind? A vaccination rollout programme should certainly be one area where EU bureaucracy would have been a hinderance to the UK. We did well to procure the Pfizer vaccine before anywhere else and then to approve it first. The government and medical bodies deserve a lot of credit on that front.
Vaccine distribution will be every Monday to the individual communities to organize distribution I’m sure someone has the ‘facts’ about how much and when is distributed in each country but it’s far more fun to make them up to fit your own narrative.
According to Die Zeit there will have been a delay of over 3 weeks not only because the EMA failed to clear the vaccines for 2 weeks but because they then decided all countries must start vaccinating at the same time so have delayed the start until after Christmas. How many extra people will have died because of this.
And no this is not an attack on the EU. It is an attack on the EMA which has proved itself unfit for purpose.
It won’t be when you start that eventually matters, but how fast you can go.
No it really won't. People will have died who would not have otherwise died because of a stupid, pointless decision. That matters.
And the trouble is that it will be crafted as others have said in terms of good or bad EU. That is not what this is about. It is about specific individuals making very stupid decisions. If it is crafted in terms of the EU then those individuals will get away with it. What should happen is that those on all sides of the debate (if there is a debate) should agree that there should be consequences for those individuals who have screwed up.
Whether it is EU or the UK we do far too much blaming of institutions and not enough blaming of individuals.
Yes, it really will. The date at which nations reach effective herd immunity will be far more significant than when they started vaccinating comparative handfuls of people.
We paid twice as much to ensure we received the vaccine first. Which is money well spent if you have a choice between things returning to something like normality versus another 6 months in lockdown.
I don't even think it was twice as much. But worth every penny whatever was paid.
The EU have made a mess of their rollout. We may well have arguments here over who and where is first in the queue but it could be a huge cause of conflict if the big EU players are at the front of their queue.
The EU are rolling it out on a population basis - much as the UK is, so Germany gets 18%.....
And who gets the blame if Germany vaccinates half the population by May while Spain is 3 months behind? A vaccination rollout programme should certainly be one area where EU bureaucracy would have been a hinderance to the UK. We did well to procure the Pfizer vaccine before anywhere else and then to approve it first. The government and medical bodies deserve a lot of credit on that front.
Vaccine distribution will be every Monday to the individual communities to organize distribution I’m sure someone has the ‘facts’ about how much and when is distributed in each country but it’s far more fun to make them up to fit your own narrative.
According to Die Zeit there will have been a delay of over 3 weeks not only because the EMA failed to clear the vaccines for 2 weeks but because they then decided all countries must start vaccinating at the same time so have delayed the start until after Christmas. How many extra people will have died because of this.
And no this is not an attack on the EU. It is an attack on the EMA which has proved itself unfit for purpose.
It won’t be when you start that eventually matters, but how fast you can go.
No it really won't. People will have died who would not have otherwise died because of a stupid, pointless decision. That matters.
And the trouble is that it will be crafted as others have said in terms of good or bad EU. That is not what this is about. It is about specific individuals making very stupid decisions. If it is crafted in terms of the EU then those individuals will get away with it. What should happen is that those on all sides of the debate (if there is a debate) should agree that there should be consequences for those individuals who have screwed up.
Whether it is EU or the UK we do far too much blaming of institutions and not enough blaming of individuals.
Have we got any evidence that the claim is true, apart from a claim from a twitter self-publicist?
Well one of the German dailies is running with it and another is doing a investigative piece which is coming up with the same accusation.
And the fact is that having passed the vaccine for use a few days ago they are not starting vaccination until next Monday.
It's not a fine toothcomb, you don't comb your teeth, its a fine-toothed comb. Why does that arse stay in a job?
No, he is correct. The prongs of a comb are called ‘teeth’. So what people call a ‘comb’ is traditionally a ‘toothcomb’ and if the teeth are close together it is a ‘fine toothcomb.’
Its not what the online dictionary and grammar sites say....
Either usage is acceptable, but ‘toothcomb’ is the original form.
From Oxford English dictionary....
Sometimes misunderstood as fine toothcomb, especially in the figurative sense. This form of the expression, and the associated concept of a toothcomb, is often considered erroneous, but fine toothcomb is said to be now “accepted in standard English” by at least the Oxford English Dictionary
We paid twice as much to ensure we received the vaccine first. Which is money well spent if you have a choice between things returning to something like normality versus another 6 months in lockdown.
I don't even think it was twice as much. But worth every penny whatever was paid.
The EU have made a mess of their rollout. We may well have arguments here over who and where is first in the queue but it could be a huge cause of conflict if the big EU players are at the front of their queue.
The EU are rolling it out on a population basis - much as the UK is, so Germany gets 18%.....
And who gets the blame if Germany vaccinates half the population by May while Spain is 3 months behind? A vaccination rollout programme should certainly be one area where EU bureaucracy would have been a hinderance to the UK. We did well to procure the Pfizer vaccine before anywhere else and then to approve it first. The government and medical bodies deserve a lot of credit on that front.
Vaccine distribution will be every Monday to the individual communities to organize distribution I’m sure someone has the ‘facts’ about how much and when is distributed in each country but it’s far more fun to make them up to fit your own narrative.
According to Die Zeit there will have been a delay of over 3 weeks not only because the EMA failed to clear the vaccines for 2 weeks but because they then decided all countries must start vaccinating at the same time so have delayed the start until after Christmas. How many extra people will have died because of this.
And no this is not an attack on the EU. It is an attack on the EMA which has proved itself unfit for purpose.
It won’t be when you start that eventually matters, but how fast you can go.
No it really won't. People will have died who would not have otherwise died because of a stupid, pointless decision. That matters.
And the trouble is that it will be crafted as others have said in terms of good or bad EU. That is not what this is about. It is about specific individuals making very stupid decisions. If it is crafted in terms of the EU then those individuals will get away with it. What should happen is that those on all sides of the debate (if there is a debate) should agree that there should be consequences for those individuals who have screwed up.
Whether it is EU or the UK we do far too much blaming of institutions and not enough blaming of individuals.
We paid twice as much to ensure we received the vaccine first. Which is money well spent if you have a choice between things returning to something like normality versus another 6 months in lockdown.
I don't even think it was twice as much. But worth every penny whatever was paid.
The EU have made a mess of their rollout. We may well have arguments here over who and where is first in the queue but it could be a huge cause of conflict if the big EU players are at the front of their queue.
The EU are rolling it out on a population basis - much as the UK is, so Germany gets 18%.....
And who gets the blame if Germany vaccinates half the population by May while Spain is 3 months behind? A vaccination rollout programme should certainly be one area where EU bureaucracy would have been a hinderance to the UK. We did well to procure the Pfizer vaccine before anywhere else and then to approve it first. The government and medical bodies deserve a lot of credit on that front.
Vaccine distribution will be every Monday to the individual communities to organize distribution I’m sure someone has the ‘facts’ about how much and when is distributed in each country but it’s far more fun to make them up to fit your own narrative.
According to Die Zeit there will have been a delay of over 3 weeks not only because the EMA failed to clear the vaccines for 2 weeks but because they then decided all countries must start vaccinating at the same time so have delayed the start until after Christmas. How many extra people will have died because of this.
And no this is not an attack on the EU. It is an attack on the EMA which has proved itself unfit for purpose.
It won’t be when you start that eventually matters, but how fast you can go.
No it really won't. People will have died who would not have otherwise died because of a stupid, pointless decision. That matters.
And the trouble is that it will be crafted as others have said in terms of good or bad EU. That is not what this is about. It is about specific individuals making very stupid decisions. If it is crafted in terms of the EU then those individuals will get away with it. What should happen is that those on all sides of the debate (if there is a debate) should agree that there should be consequences for those individuals who have screwed up.
Whether it is EU or the UK we do far too much blaming of institutions and not enough blaming of individuals.
Yes, it really will. The date at which nations reach effective herd immunity will be far more significant than when they started vaccinating comparative handfuls of people.
From the ONS numbers,
80% of deaths are over 75 92% of deaths are over 65
It's not a fine toothcomb, you don't comb your teeth, its a fine-toothed comb. Why does that arse stay in a job?
No, he is correct. The prongs of a comb are called ‘teeth’. So what people call a ‘comb’ is traditionally a ‘toothcomb’ and if the teeth are close together it is a ‘fine toothcomb.’
My teeth are called "teeth;" that doesn't mean I am a toothman, and if my teetha re white that doesn't make me a white toothman.
We paid twice as much to ensure we received the vaccine first. Which is money well spent if you have a choice between things returning to something like normality versus another 6 months in lockdown.
I don't even think it was twice as much. But worth every penny whatever was paid.
The EU have made a mess of their rollout. We may well have arguments here over who and where is first in the queue but it could be a huge cause of conflict if the big EU players are at the front of their queue.
The EU are rolling it out on a population basis - much as the UK is, so Germany gets 18%.....
And who gets the blame if Germany vaccinates half the population by May while Spain is 3 months behind? A vaccination rollout programme should certainly be one area where EU bureaucracy would have been a hinderance to the UK. We did well to procure the Pfizer vaccine before anywhere else and then to approve it first. The government and medical bodies deserve a lot of credit on that front.
Vaccine distribution will be every Monday to the individual communities to organize distribution I’m sure someone has the ‘facts’ about how much and when is distributed in each country but it’s far more fun to make them up to fit your own narrative.
According to Die Zeit there will have been a delay of over 3 weeks not only because the EMA failed to clear the vaccines for 2 weeks but because they then decided all countries must start vaccinating at the same time so have delayed the start until after Christmas. How many extra people will have died because of this.
And no this is not an attack on the EU. It is an attack on the EMA which has proved itself unfit for purpose.
It won’t be when you start that eventually matters, but how fast you can go.
No it really won't. People will have died who would not have otherwise died because of a stupid, pointless decision. That matters.
And the trouble is that it will be crafted as others have said in terms of good or bad EU. That is not what this is about. It is about specific individuals making very stupid decisions. If it is crafted in terms of the EU then those individuals will get away with it. What should happen is that those on all sides of the debate (if there is a debate) should agree that there should be consequences for those individuals who have screwed up.
Whether it is EU or the UK we do far too much blaming of institutions and not enough blaming of individuals.
Edit. Reading back I see I have done exactly the same thing blaming the EMA rather than individuals. But in my defence that was as a means of removing the blame from 'The EU' which seems to be the main target of attack in this matter at the moment.
It would be interesting to see some modelled numbers, but the back of my envelope says that small numbers of vulnerable people are likely already to be alive due to the early start.
(If you estimate the groups being vaccinated and no of vaccinations vs numbers in those groups previously dying each week, plus an estimate on efficacy of one dose of the vaccine.)
On topic, you wonder why Rose is bothering as the latest polls had Khan winning in the first round. The only thing I can think of is to raise his profile for 2024. 2024 could be more interesting - I assume Khan will look to move back into national politics (perhaps he could be the new MP for Islington North!)
I don't think Rose is really aiming to ever be Mayor of London. He clearly fancies himself as a "personality" on the conspiracy theorist / populist circuit, where there is good money to be made from mugs and from Russian money that is pumped into the "industry". That's the merry-go-round all these obvious wankers are riding.
I wasted a few minutes of my life reading Rose's website. It's authoritarian in extremis - he wants to tell people what to eat and how they should spend time as families.
Fortunately, not even Shaun Bailey is so inept as to lose second place to him and it's quite possible Khan will be home and dry on the first round anyway.
It's fascinating how many Tories on here think that the way forward for Starmer and Labour is to be....... more like the Tories.
It is to be more like the Tories. On both policy and flexibility. The Tories have just won over swathes of voters and seats that they haven't won previously. How? By appealing more to these voters than Labour did. To win these seats back and then seats that are now solidly Blue Labour have to do the same in reverse.
I thought that people used to understand this basic principle of politics, at least until the absurd footballification we now suffer where its all about supporting your team no matter how stupid they are.
The Tories have succeeded by spending money like a drunken sailor, saying f**k business and f**k the young. That wins votes in parts of the population and country, but ain't a grand strategy for the long term.
True. Though the problem for Labour is simple but massive - their former vote has largely written off their efforts as not helping them. They voted Brexit & Tory for a decisive change and that hasn't fixed things. Instead of turning back to Labour they either won't vote or will look for increasingly radical solutions like those offered by Nigel "sink the migrants" Farage
I am a former Labour voter that has gone Conservative in the last few elections, and so are a lot of my friends and family. One of the things that makes it pretty unappealing to go back to Labour is the fact that Labour members constantly call us things like thick racists that want to sink the migrants. In reality, we just want a party that is willing to have moderate levels of migration and is in tune with the bulk of voters outside of the London/university bubbles.
I don't think you the voter wants to sink the migrants - that would be the Nigel on his dinghy making angry videos. As for migration I get it though I disagree - it must be frustrating that neither party can deliver what you ask for. Labour were and are pro-migration and clearly say so. The Tories were and are pro-migration but lie about not being whilst slashing the budget for the Border Force to make the job even harder.
I find it very, very revealing that the question
- What size of population should the country have?
Is controversial, un-answerable, immoral etc.
Anyone who can't present a reasoned answer on that - fail.
It is not racist to want a discussion about migration or population numbers. Mature countries look strategically at such things and make policies accordingly. The problem is that England is not mature, thinks itself uniquely superior and able to both welcome in cheap labour from elsewhere for a fast profit and then complain about said cheap labour.
Parts of England are hugely over-populated, parts are hugely under-populated. The problem is that we concentrate the economy into pockets which drives in people who then say "England is full" when they just mean their bit of England. Our other basic problem is that people will not and cannot afford to do large numbers of jobs that are hard work and low paid. Hence the need for migrants.
What parts of England are "underpopulated"? I am from the East Midlands, one of the few regions with no big cities and everyone around the place is very happy with that, thank you very much. We don't want Nottingham and Leicester to become like Birmingham or London.
As for jobs, have you ever considered the fact that what are now "migrant jobs" are ones where employers have preferred to have Romanians and Lithuanians they can pay crap wages and give crap conditions to without much complaint? If the open door closes and the Tories don't sell us out with guest worker schemes, those jobs might just be able to pay an honest day's pay under decent conditions because employers would be forced into that to get the workers.
It's not a fine toothcomb, you don't comb your teeth, its a fine-toothed comb. Why does that arse stay in a job?
No, he is correct. The prongs of a comb are called ‘teeth’. So what people call a ‘comb’ is traditionally a ‘toothcomb’ and if the teeth are close together it is a ‘fine toothcomb.’
Its not what the online dictionary and grammar sites say....
Either usage is acceptable, but ‘toothcomb’ is the original form.
From Oxford English dictionary....
Sometimes misunderstood as fine toothcomb, especially in the figurative sense. This form of the expression, and the associated concept of a toothcomb, is often considered erroneous, but fine toothcomb is said to be now “accepted in standard English” by at least the Oxford English Dictionary
I can’t help what Oxford considers right and wrong. ‘Toothcomb’ is a formulation I’ve seen from fifteenth century documents so I’m happy to stand by my statement.
It's not a fine toothcomb, you don't comb your teeth, its a fine-toothed comb. Why does that arse stay in a job?
No, he is correct. The prongs of a comb are called ‘teeth’. So what people call a ‘comb’ is traditionally a ‘toothcomb’ and if the teeth are close together it is a ‘fine toothcomb.’
Its not what the online dictionary and grammar sites say....
Either usage is acceptable, but ‘toothcomb’ is the original form.
From Oxford English dictionary....
Sometimes misunderstood as fine toothcomb, especially in the figurative sense. This form of the expression, and the associated concept of a toothcomb, is often considered erroneous, but fine toothcomb is said to be now “accepted in standard English” by at least the Oxford English Dictionary
Sir Kingsley Amis ripped into the OED for saying that, as he had clear memories of being able to buy a 'tooth-comb' in shops before the War.
It's fascinating how many Tories on here think that the way forward for Starmer and Labour is to be....... more like the Tories.
It is to be more like the Tories. On both policy and flexibility. The Tories have just won over swathes of voters and seats that they haven't won previously. How? By appealing more to these voters than Labour did. To win these seats back and then seats that are now solidly Blue Labour have to do the same in reverse.
I thought that people used to understand this basic principle of politics, at least until the absurd footballification we now suffer where its all about supporting your team no matter how stupid they are.
The Tories have succeeded by spending money like a drunken sailor, saying f**k business and f**k the young. That wins votes in parts of the population and country, but ain't a grand strategy for the long term.
True. Though the problem for Labour is simple but massive - their former vote has largely written off their efforts as not helping them. They voted Brexit & Tory for a decisive change and that hasn't fixed things. Instead of turning back to Labour they either won't vote or will look for increasingly radical solutions like those offered by Nigel "sink the migrants" Farage
I am a former Labour voter that has gone Conservative in the last few elections, and so are a lot of my friends and family. One of the things that makes it pretty unappealing to go back to Labour is the fact that Labour members constantly call us things like thick racists that want to sink the migrants. In reality, we just want a party that is willing to have moderate levels of migration and is in tune with the bulk of voters outside of the London/university bubbles.
I don't think you the voter wants to sink the migrants - that would be the Nigel on his dinghy making angry videos. As for migration I get it though I disagree - it must be frustrating that neither party can deliver what you ask for. Labour were and are pro-migration and clearly say so. The Tories were and are pro-migration but lie about not being whilst slashing the budget for the Border Force to make the job even harder.
I find it very, very revealing that the question
- What size of population should the country have?
Is controversial, un-answerable, immoral etc.
Anyone who can't present a reasoned answer on that - fail.
It is not racist to want a discussion about migration or population numbers. Mature countries look strategically at such things and make policies accordingly. The problem is that England is not mature, thinks itself uniquely superior and able to both welcome in cheap labour from elsewhere for a fast profit and then complain about said cheap labour.
Parts of England are hugely over-populated, parts are hugely under-populated. The problem is that we concentrate the economy into pockets which drives in people who then say "England is full" when they just mean their bit of England. Our other basic problem is that people will not and cannot afford to do large numbers of jobs that are hard work and low paid. Hence the need for migrants.
What parts of England are "underpopulated"? I am from the East Midlands, one of the few regions with no big cities and everyone around the place is very happy with that, thank you very much. We don't want Nottingham and Leicester to become like Birmingham or London.
As for jobs, have you ever considered the fact that what are now "migrant jobs" are ones where employers have preferred to have Romanians and Lithuanians they can pay crap wages and give crap conditions to without much complaint? If the open door closes and the Tories don't sell us out with guest worker schemes, those jobs might just be able to pay an honest day's pay under decent conditions because employers would be forced into that to get the workers.
It's not a fine toothcomb, you don't comb your teeth, its a fine-toothed comb. Why does that arse stay in a job?
No, he is correct. The prongs of a comb are called ‘teeth’. So what people call a ‘comb’ is traditionally a ‘toothcomb’ and if the teeth are close together it is a ‘fine toothcomb.’
Its not what the online dictionary and grammar sites say....
Either usage is acceptable, but ‘toothcomb’ is the original form.
From Oxford English dictionary....
Sometimes misunderstood as fine toothcomb, especially in the figurative sense. This form of the expression, and the associated concept of a toothcomb, is often considered erroneous, but fine toothcomb is said to be now “accepted in standard English” by at least the Oxford English Dictionary
I can’t help what Oxford considers right and wrong. ‘Toothcomb’ is a formulation I’ve seen from fifteenth century documents so I’m happy to stand by my statement.
It isn't saying no such thing as toothcomb, says that isn't the origin.of the expression. Given they specialise in exact origins of words and phrases, you are going to.have to do.better than just say they are wrong.
So much for the 'food is rotting in the fields' bollox.
It was clear it was bollocks even as the false stories were circulating.
A fantastic, cheap (free) marketing ploy by Tesco. Hats off!
UK strawberry production and supply was up 20% this year. So much for food rotting in fields.
"We are dependent on immigrant labour and will collapse without it". As if the county police forces were about to go rounding up every immigrant already here and dumping them in the Channel. It was obvious to all the debate was about future levels.
We paid twice as much to ensure we received the vaccine first. Which is money well spent if you have a choice between things returning to something like normality versus another 6 months in lockdown.
I don't even think it was twice as much. But worth every penny whatever was paid.
The EU have made a mess of their rollout. We may well have arguments here over who and where is first in the queue but it could be a huge cause of conflict if the big EU players are at the front of their queue.
The EU are rolling it out on a population basis - much as the UK is, so Germany gets 18%.....
And who gets the blame if Germany vaccinates half the population by May while Spain is 3 months behind? A vaccination rollout programme should certainly be one area where EU bureaucracy would have been a hinderance to the UK. We did well to procure the Pfizer vaccine before anywhere else and then to approve it first. The government and medical bodies deserve a lot of credit on that front.
Vaccine distribution will be every Monday to the individual communities to organize distribution I’m sure someone has the ‘facts’ about how much and when is distributed in each country but it’s far more fun to make them up to fit your own narrative.
According to Die Zeit there will have been a delay of over 3 weeks not only because the EMA failed to clear the vaccines for 2 weeks but because they then decided all countries must start vaccinating at the same time so have delayed the start until after Christmas. How many extra people will have died because of this.
And no this is not an attack on the EU. It is an attack on the EMA which has proved itself unfit for purpose.
It won’t be when you start that eventually matters, but how fast you can go.
No it really won't. People will have died who would not have otherwise died because of a stupid, pointless decision. That matters.
And the trouble is that it will be crafted as others have said in terms of good or bad EU. That is not what this is about. It is about specific individuals making very stupid decisions. If it is crafted in terms of the EU then those individuals will get away with it. What should happen is that those on all sides of the debate (if there is a debate) should agree that there should be consequences for those individuals who have screwed up.
Whether it is EU or the UK we do far too much blaming of institutions and not enough blaming of individuals.
We paid twice as much to ensure we received the vaccine first. Which is money well spent if you have a choice between things returning to something like normality versus another 6 months in lockdown.
I don't even think it was twice as much. But worth every penny whatever was paid.
The EU have made a mess of their rollout. We may well have arguments here over who and where is first in the queue but it could be a huge cause of conflict if the big EU players are at the front of their queue.
The EU are rolling it out on a population basis - much as the UK is, so Germany gets 18%.....
And who gets the blame if Germany vaccinates half the population by May while Spain is 3 months behind? A vaccination rollout programme should certainly be one area where EU bureaucracy would have been a hinderance to the UK. We did well to procure the Pfizer vaccine before anywhere else and then to approve it first. The government and medical bodies deserve a lot of credit on that front.
Vaccine distribution will be every Monday to the individual communities to organize distribution I’m sure someone has the ‘facts’ about how much and when is distributed in each country but it’s far more fun to make them up to fit your own narrative.
According to Die Zeit there will have been a delay of over 3 weeks not only because the EMA failed to clear the vaccines for 2 weeks but because they then decided all countries must start vaccinating at the same time so have delayed the start until after Christmas. How many extra people will have died because of this.
And no this is not an attack on the EU. It is an attack on the EMA which has proved itself unfit for purpose.
It won’t be when you start that eventually matters, but how fast you can go.
No it really won't. People will have died who would not have otherwise died because of a stupid, pointless decision. That matters.
And the trouble is that it will be crafted as others have said in terms of good or bad EU. That is not what this is about. It is about specific individuals making very stupid decisions. If it is crafted in terms of the EU then those individuals will get away with it. What should happen is that those on all sides of the debate (if there is a debate) should agree that there should be consequences for those individuals who have screwed up.
Whether it is EU or the UK we do far too much blaming of institutions and not enough blaming of individuals.
Yes, it really will. The date at which nations reach effective herd immunity will be far more significant than when they started vaccinating comparative handfuls of people.
Israel will probably be the first country to reach herd immunity, given its tiny population and advanced vaccination programme.
After them it will probably be one of Germany, the UK, or the USA.
It's not a fine toothcomb, you don't comb your teeth, its a fine-toothed comb. Why does that arse stay in a job?
No, he is correct. The prongs of a comb are called ‘teeth’. So what people call a ‘comb’ is traditionally a ‘toothcomb’ and if the teeth are close together it is a ‘fine toothcomb.’
Its not what the online dictionary and grammar sites say....
Either usage is acceptable, but ‘toothcomb’ is the original form.
From Oxford English dictionary....
Sometimes misunderstood as fine toothcomb, especially in the figurative sense. This form of the expression, and the associated concept of a toothcomb, is often considered erroneous, but fine toothcomb is said to be now “accepted in standard English” by at least the Oxford English Dictionary
Comments
5 Live has the football on and I'm not sure if they'd cut away from that.
45 and above 99.19%
65 and above 91.26%
75 and above 74.71%
85 and above 39.50%
Which again suggests that even vaccinating just the over 80s will have a major effect.
If BoZo ever does give a press conference, he will be desperate, and indeed we will expect him, to say we have won a great victory over the cheese eating surrender monkeys.
If he doesn't, that would be revealing of just how much he caved to get any deal.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1341815859325505536?s=20
The problem is that control is an illusion and people have been sold something they can't have. I don't think ex Labour now Tory voters will swing back to Labour who they think have betrayed them. I think ex Labour and now ex Tory voters will swing to more extreme solutions because both Labour and the Tories have betrayed them...
The price is stupid beyond belief. The only reason its there is that there's an itchy-scratchiness about moving funds to betting accounts.
Banks and the betting companies are making it hard to move honest money as well as otherwise.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1341815010947977217?s=20
There seems to be nothing stunning there, majority of 80 notwithstanding.
- What size of population should the country have?
Is controversial, un-answerable, immoral etc.
Anyone who can't present a reasoned answer on that - fail.
I was dumped on from a great height with a tank wagon's worth of condescension and told (in essence) that OF COURSE "we Tory Brexiters don't deign to bother with such things as border control. We try to sort it out internally when they have already come in and gone to ground. (And really we like the cheap labour. But don't tell the prole voters.)"
Of course, I wasn't expecting (a) a border at Stranraer, and (b) that they would effectively abandon border controls at Dover itself.
I've also backed Luisa Porritt for £6 at 1,000 and laid half of that back at 300.
Luisa is the new LibDem candidate. I've met her. She is very appealing. As she gets more airtime her odds will come down. She won't win but she's a good trading bet.
I don’t have a dinghy, and I’m very rarely angry.
Great piles of vegetables available for a few pence though.
Which got me thinking about something I haven't looked at for a while.
And I discovered that 2019 had the highest ever output for the UK agricultural sector, with 2020 likely to be second.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/l2kl/ukea
So much for the 'food is rotting in the fields' bollox.
https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/1188754584078049285
And no this is not an attack on the EU. It is an attack on the EMA which has proved itself unfit for purpose.
I don't think mayors are likely to do what Boris did.
Khan will try to hang on and he'll also try to do his job better.
Burnham can't quite bother turning up in the morning for his job. He's restless - surely being PM he could sleep in!!?
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/testing
It seems a long time ago when the 100k target was thought impossible or the 'Little Johnny cannot get a test' anecdotes of September.
There has to be a metaphor in there somewhere.
Unlike supermarket vegetables, according to one correspondent, I strongly suspect meaningful objective analysis of any trade deal between the UK and EU is going to be in very short supply.
We will be treated to the usual suspects claiming it is either a great victory for Boris Johnson and the UK or it is a huge surrender by the Prime Minister.
I suspect elements of both will be true and untrue in equal measure.
The bit I'm less certain about is why a good deal for Boris Johnson is automatically a good deal for the UK - it's perfectly possible a politically bad deal for the Prime Minister might be an excellent deal for the wider economy and country.
There's the thing - the Prime Minister IS the country - all he is is all we are. Perhaps it's always been like that, not sure why.
But then it is most a big lake
They are the ones I am paying attention to.
Edit - and we don’t have to take responsibility for all the criminal acts the French routinely commit.
https://twitter.com/bpolitics/status/1341805981030887427
You know this already though so why am I rising to the damn bait!
And the trouble is that it will be crafted as others have said in terms of good or bad EU. That is not what this is about. It is about specific individuals making very stupid decisions. If it is crafted in terms of the EU then those individuals will get away with it. What should happen is that those on all sides of the debate (if there is a debate) should agree that there should be consequences for those individuals who have screwed up.
Whether it is EU or the UK we do far too much blaming of institutions and not enough blaming of individuals.
Edit. Reading back I see I have done exactly the same thing blaming the EMA rather than individuals. But in my defence that was as a means of removing the blame from 'The EU' which seems to be the main target of attack in this matter at the moment.
"with a fine-tooth comb"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fine-tooth-comb
Parts of England are hugely over-populated, parts are hugely under-populated. The problem is that we concentrate the economy into pockets which drives in people who then say "England is full" when they just mean their bit of England. Our other basic problem is that people will not and cannot afford to do large numbers of jobs that are hard work and low paid. Hence the need for migrants.
In reality, any Deal will contain a huge increase in fishing quotas for the UK compared to what we had before.
These people. They swallow Johnson's shit whole.
Is it any wonder so many others do?
And the fact is that having passed the vaccine for use a few days ago they are not starting vaccination until next Monday.
Sometimes misunderstood as fine toothcomb, especially in the figurative sense. This form of the expression, and the associated concept of a toothcomb, is often considered erroneous, but fine toothcomb is said to be now “accepted in standard English” by at least the Oxford English Dictionary
80% of deaths are over 75
92% of deaths are over 65
Well, Frost will. Barnier will probably go to a wine tasting and then have a plate of garlic snails.
(If you estimate the groups being vaccinated and no of vaccinations vs numbers in those groups previously dying each week, plus an estimate on efficacy of one dose of the vaccine.)
Fortunately, not even Shaun Bailey is so inept as to lose second place to him and it's quite possible Khan will be home and dry on the first round anyway.
As for jobs, have you ever considered the fact that what are now "migrant jobs" are ones where employers have preferred to have Romanians and Lithuanians they can pay crap wages and give crap conditions to without much complaint? If the open door closes and the Tories don't sell us out with guest worker schemes, those jobs might just be able to pay an honest day's pay under decent conditions because employers would be forced into that to get the workers.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1341810618140114947?s=20
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1341823543143768064?s=20
After them it will probably be one of Germany, the UK, or the USA.