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.
Nope. There were claims that the fruit was rotting in the fields this summer. There is obviously a debate to be had about future levels of migrant labour (I am in favour of free movement so am quite happy with lots of foreign workers) but the claims this last summer were idiotic.
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.
Why bother? Leaving aside the fact that all that would do is introduce conflicting statements, and you probably still wouldn’t accept my word ahead of theirs, the original claim - that Peston’s formulation was wrong - is, on your own admission and their statement, incorrect. So the main thrust of what I said was correct.
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.
Why? What is wrong with this?
Oh now you have saddened me because we never got a second film.
A deal renders Farage pointless, politically. Whether the deal is good, or bad, or a classic piece of eurofudge where all sides can claim some spurious "victory" of sorts (the last is my bet), it means Brexit is done and dusted. Yes, we will now spend years working out how to exploit it, or mitigate its damage, but psychologically it will depart the stage.
After 5 weary years, we shall finally stop talking about it and almost everyone will breathe the most enormous sigh of relief.
What will Farage do then? Retire, in some form, I suppose. Write his memoirs. He can be "happy" that he changed the country more than any politician since Thatcher.
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.
What about the Palestinian Territories? What is happening there?
Bearing in mind even when they’re not under Israeli blockade, Hamas are so useless at everything other than mass murder they couldn’t organise an orgy in a cathouse, Gaza looks to me to be - problematic?
A deal renders Farage pointless, politically. Whether the deal is good, or bad, or a classic piece of eurofudge where all sides can claim some spurious "victory" of sorts (the last is my bet), it means Brexit is done and dusted. Yes, we will now spend years working out how to exploit it, or mitigate its damage, but psychologically it will depart the stage.
After 5 weary years, we shall finally stop talking about it and almost everyone will breathe the most enormous sigh of relief.
What will Farage do then? Retire, in some form, I suppose. Write his memoirs. He can be "happy" that he changed the country more than any politician since Thatcher.
He's already onto the new grift. Gets good numbers on his YouTube channel, plenty to.bash the government and opposition about from illegal immigration to woke cancel culture stuff.
A deal renders Farage pointless, politically. Whether the deal is good, or bad, or a classic piece of eurofudge where all sides can claim some spurious "victory" of sorts (the last is my bet), it means Brexit is done and dusted. Yes, we will now spend years working out how to exploit it, or mitigate its damage, but psychologically it will depart the stage.
After 5 weary years, we shall finally stop talking about it and almost everyone will breathe the most enormous sigh of relief.
What will Farage do then? Retire, in some form, I suppose. Write his memoirs. He can be "happy" that he changed the country more than any politician since Thatcher.
If Farage didn't have his platform in the European Parliament, he might have remained a nobody. Perhaps the EU is too democratic.
A deal renders Farage pointless, politically. Whether the deal is good, or bad, or a classic piece of eurofudge where all sides can claim some spurious "victory" of sorts (the last is my bet), it means Brexit is done and dusted. Yes, we will now spend years working out how to exploit it, or mitigate its damage, but psychologically it will depart the stage.
After 5 weary years, we shall finally stop talking about it and almost everyone will breathe the most enormous sigh of relief.
What will Farage do then? Retire, in some form, I suppose. Write his memoirs. He can be "happy" that he changed the country more than any politician since Thatcher.
He's already onto the new grift. Gets good numbers on his YoiTube channel, plenty to.bash the government and opposition about from illegal immigration to woke cancel culture stuff.
I had a Farage investment advert pop up on YouTube...
A deal renders Farage pointless, politically. Whether the deal is good, or bad, or a classic piece of eurofudge where all sides can claim some spurious "victory" of sorts (the last is my bet), it means Brexit is done and dusted. Yes, we will now spend years working out how to exploit it, or mitigate its damage, but psychologically it will depart the stage.
After 5 weary years, we shall finally stop talking about it and almost everyone will breathe the most enormous sigh of relief.
What will Farage do then? Retire, in some form, I suppose. Write his memoirs. He can be "happy" that he changed the country more than any politician since Thatcher.
Au contraire. No deal renders Farage pointless. A deal he claims is a sell out gives him another handful of years in the limelight.
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.
Why? What is wrong with this?
Oh now you have saddened me because we never got a second film.
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.
@Malmesbury , are you sure of those figures? The ONS quote the numbers as “per 100,000”, which can cause some issues, as there are about ten times as many people between the age of 45-64 as there are at 85+. So 12.3 per hundred thousand at 45-64 isn’t that much smaller in raw numbers to 137.2 per hundred thousand at 85+
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.
Given how variable spelling used to be I'd not take something being used historically as proof of it making sense anyway. Look at the somewhat mangled Latin with the occasional rune you can find in some old stuff.
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.
A fine toothcomb would be an exceptionally good or valuable toothcomb, though, which is not the meaning required here.
If you can find your source again you should submit it to OED.
A deal renders Farage pointless, politically. Whether the deal is good, or bad, or a classic piece of eurofudge where all sides can claim some spurious "victory" of sorts (the last is my bet), it means Brexit is done and dusted. Yes, we will now spend years working out how to exploit it, or mitigate its damage, but psychologically it will depart the stage.
After 5 weary years, we shall finally stop talking about it and almost everyone will breathe the most enormous sigh of relief.
What will Farage do then? Retire, in some form, I suppose. Write his memoirs. He can be "happy" that he changed the country more than any politician since Thatcher.
Au contraire. No deal renders Farage pointless. A deal he claims is a sell out gives him another handful of years in the limelight.
But no one will want to listen, bar a tiny hardcore. They really won't. Remainers and Leavers alike are all sick and tired of Brexit (especially in the light of Covid).
Farage's job is done. He did it. He can be pleased (or not). Move on.
As others have said, there is a natural evolution for him to become Mister Anti-Woke, should be so desire.
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.
Why? What is wrong with this?
Oh now you have saddened me because we never got a second film.
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.
Which parts? There is a LOT of countryside. I am not saying that it should all be built over, just pointing out that the population density in lots of southern England is not representative of everywhere.
As for jobs I would love for you to be correct. Far too many jobs pay far too little with the cost of living so often impossibly high where the jobs are based. Factor in the other issues like our expensive and crap childcare, lack of public transport and societal attitude to so many of these jobs and its no wonder migrants are needed.
I remember Iain Duncan Smith on one of his little tours telling single mothers in the Valleys that there were lots of jobs in Cardiff. Great! Mainly hospitality jobs paying little, with no public transport to get them home and no childcare. Fix those issues and maybe people could do the jobs. But its cheaper to just import people. Ask they Tories - its their mates who run this racket and then tell you then can limit migfration...
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.
Given they are vaccinating the most vulnerable first, some of them will die because they didn't get the vaccine in time. That is very basic logic. There is no upside to delaying the start of vaccination. For any individual country that has the vaccine, the later the start vaccinating, assuming they then do so at the fastest rate they can, the later they reach herd immunity.
More people will die because of a delay to starting vaccination.
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.
A fine toothcomb would be an exceptionally good or valuable toothcomb, though, which is not the meaning required here.
If you can find your source again you should submit it to OED.
So a fine fishnet is ‘an exceptionally good or valuable’ fishnet?
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.
Why? What is wrong with this?
Oh now you have saddened me because we never got a second film.
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.
Why? What is wrong with this?
Oh now you have saddened me because we never got a second film.
What's the film?
Dredd?
Yep. Cracking film. Karl Urban got him spot on.
And with a tightly focused first film it was well set up to expand out in a second. Never understand why it bombed, it was awesome.
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.
Why? What is wrong with this?
Oh now you have saddened me because we never got a second film.
A deal renders Farage pointless, politically. Whether the deal is good, or bad, or a classic piece of eurofudge where all sides can claim some spurious "victory" of sorts (the last is my bet), it means Brexit is done and dusted. Yes, we will now spend years working out how to exploit it, or mitigate its damage, but psychologically it will depart the stage.
After 5 weary years, we shall finally stop talking about it and almost everyone will breathe the most enormous sigh of relief.
What will Farage do then? Retire, in some form, I suppose. Write his memoirs. He can be "happy" that he changed the country more than any politician since Thatcher.
Au contraire. No deal renders Farage pointless. A deal he claims is a sell out gives him another handful of years in the limelight.
But no one will want to listen, bar a tiny hardcore. They really won't. Remainers and Leavers alike are all sick and tired of Brexit (especially in the light of Covid).
Farage's job is done. He did it. He can be pleased (or not). Move on.
As others have said, there is a natural evolution for him to become Mister Anti-Woke, should be so desire.
I think he is on fertile ground with becoming Mr Anti-Woke. As we saw earlier today with that thread from the lady who called said her dad should vote labour, but won't because he tells what she considers racist jokes.and uses Misogynistic langauge.
The constant trumpeting of things like BLM and XR doesn't go.down anywhere nearly as well in some quarters as the media think. Its the same ground among which people feel left behind, ignored and voted Brexit.
I'll say this - whilst I think their opinions will be formed first and that colour their assessment, at least they will go through a process before spouting off.
Getting a small amount of vaccine first doesn't get you to normal, particularly when - as we are doing - economically inactive people are being prioritised (To reduce deaths). Getting to the herd ~ 70% or so level first will be what counts.
That's not really true, though. Vaccinating the really vulnerable has all sorts of positive effects on morale, mental health, and - very importantly - destressing health systems.
It is the old and already-sick who are most likely to end up in ICU on a ventilator, if they catch Covid. Take them out of the equation and suddenly everything is easier. And there's also less infection to spread (or mutate, as we see).
Basically vaccination is an overwhelming positive and the sooner and bigger you do it, the better; and every day counts.
Vaccinating the vulnerable presumably slashes the death rate (and hospital utilisation). We then don't care much if anyone else catches it.
That's not quite true: it's still not great if you're 40 and get it. (Or 55, as Boris Johnson proved.)
But the more people vaccinated, the harder it is to spread, and we can quickly start getting hospital utilisation down.
Data such as this -
strongly suggest that vaccinating even just the 80s and above will massively cut the death and hospitalisation rates.
Notable rise in paediatric Covid-19 admissions in my part of the world this week.
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 had to literally bus in workers from Eastern Europe to pick them. That's why the food didn't rot - we brought in people to pick them. They tried to recruit Brits, got minimal interest and the few people they hired didn't last long. They got *some*, but nowhere near enough hence pulling Romanians etc back in
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.
A fine toothcomb would be an exceptionally good or valuable toothcomb, though, which is not the meaning required here.
If you can find your source again you should submit it to OED.
So a fine fishnet is ‘an exceptionally good or valuable’ fishnet?
Not an expression I'd use; you would say a fine-meshed fishnet, just as you'd say fine-toothed comb.
Getting a small amount of vaccine first doesn't get you to normal, particularly when - as we are doing - economically inactive people are being prioritised (To reduce deaths). Getting to the herd ~ 70% or so level first will be what counts.
That's not really true, though. Vaccinating the really vulnerable has all sorts of positive effects on morale, mental health, and - very importantly - destressing health systems.
It is the old and already-sick who are most likely to end up in ICU on a ventilator, if they catch Covid. Take them out of the equation and suddenly everything is easier. And there's also less infection to spread (or mutate, as we see).
Basically vaccination is an overwhelming positive and the sooner and bigger you do it, the better; and every day counts.
Vaccinating the vulnerable presumably slashes the death rate (and hospital utilisation). We then don't care much if anyone else catches it.
That's not quite true: it's still not great if you're 40 and get it. (Or 55, as Boris Johnson proved.)
But the more people vaccinated, the harder it is to spread, and we can quickly start getting hospital utilisation down.
Data such as this -
strongly suggest that vaccinating even just the 80s and above will massively cut the death and hospitalisation rates.
Notable rise in paediatric Covid-19 admissions in my part of the world this week.
Primary or Secondary age group (as paediatric is up to 18)
A deal renders Farage pointless, politically. Whether the deal is good, or bad, or a classic piece of eurofudge where all sides can claim some spurious "victory" of sorts (the last is my bet), it means Brexit is done and dusted. Yes, we will now spend years working out how to exploit it, or mitigate its damage, but psychologically it will depart the stage.
After 5 weary years, we shall finally stop talking about it and almost everyone will breathe the most enormous sigh of relief.
What will Farage do then? Retire, in some form, I suppose. Write his memoirs. He can be "happy" that he changed the country more than any politician since Thatcher.
Au contraire. No deal renders Farage pointless. A deal he claims is a sell out gives him another handful of years in the limelight.
But no one will want to listen, bar a tiny hardcore. They really won't. Remainers and Leavers alike are all sick and tired of Brexit (especially in the light of Covid).
Farage's job is done. He did it. He can be pleased (or not). Move on.
As others have said, there is a natural evolution for him to become Mister Anti-Woke, should be so desire.
I think he is on fertile ground with becoming Mr Anti-Woke. As we saw earlier today with that thread from the lady who called said her dad should vote labour, but won't because he tells what she considers racist jokes.and uses Misogynistic langauge.
The constant trumpeting of things like BLM and XR doesn't go.down anywhere nearly as well in some quarters as the media think. Its the same ground among which people feel left behind and voted Brexit.
Agreed. And Farage is also pretty good at it. He has an acute political brain, and know how to exploit populist issues, without veering into bigotry which might see him cancelled (tho that infamous Referendum poster was nasty).
His videos about the migrants crossing the Channel were good, incisive, if self-serving political journalism. No one else was covering the issue. He went there and did it. And did it rather well.
That is his future if he wants it.
Banging on about Brexit, after January 1, will bore everyone to tears.
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 had to literally bus in workers from Eastern Europe to pick them. That's why the food didn't rot - we brought in people to pick them. They tried to recruit Brits, got minimal interest and the few people they hired didn't last long. They got *some*, but nowhere near enough hence pulling Romanians etc back in
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.
@Malmesbury , are you sure of those figures? The ONS quote the numbers as “per 100,000”, which can cause some issues, as there are about ten times as many people between the age of 45-64 as there are at 85+. So 12.3 per hundred thousand at 45-64 isn’t that much smaller in raw numbers to 137.2 per hundred thousand at 85+
(2113 people at 45-64 vs 2195 at 85+)
Checking against demographics, I get:
9637 admissions, of which: Age <4: 50 (0.5%) Age 5-14: 57 (0.6%) Age 15-44: 959 (10.0%) Age 45-64: 2113 (21.9%) Age 65-74: 1746(18.1) Age 75-84: 2515 (26.1%) Age 85+: 2195 (22.8%)
Getting a small amount of vaccine first doesn't get you to normal, particularly when - as we are doing - economically inactive people are being prioritised (To reduce deaths). Getting to the herd ~ 70% or so level first will be what counts.
That's not really true, though. Vaccinating the really vulnerable has all sorts of positive effects on morale, mental health, and - very importantly - destressing health systems.
It is the old and already-sick who are most likely to end up in ICU on a ventilator, if they catch Covid. Take them out of the equation and suddenly everything is easier. And there's also less infection to spread (or mutate, as we see).
Basically vaccination is an overwhelming positive and the sooner and bigger you do it, the better; and every day counts.
Vaccinating the vulnerable presumably slashes the death rate (and hospital utilisation). We then don't care much if anyone else catches it.
That's not quite true: it's still not great if you're 40 and get it. (Or 55, as Boris Johnson proved.)
But the more people vaccinated, the harder it is to spread, and we can quickly start getting hospital utilisation down.
Data such as this -
strongly suggest that vaccinating even just the 80s and above will massively cut the death and hospitalisation rates.
Notable rise in paediatric Covid-19 admissions in my part of the world this week.
Just started watching Die Hard TWO, and it has snow, "C'mon, it's Christmas," a Santa joke and three Christmas trees in the first five minutes, confirming its own and its predecessor's status as Christmas movies.
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.
A fine toothcomb would be an exceptionally good or valuable toothcomb, though, which is not the meaning required here.
If you can find your source again you should submit it to OED.
So a fine fishnet is ‘an exceptionally good or valuable’ fishnet?
Not an expression I'd use; you would say a fine-meshed fishnet, just as you'd say fine-toothed comb.
You might, but I certainly wouldn’t. I would say ‘a fine net.’
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.
Why? What is wrong with this?
Oh now you have saddened me because we never got a second film.
What's the film?
Dredd?
Yep. Cracking film. Karl Urban got him spot on.
Though some saying the ending was Dredd being..... nice. I disagree. It's all about the meaning of "Primary Weapon".
Getting a small amount of vaccine first doesn't get you to normal, particularly when - as we are doing - economically inactive people are being prioritised (To reduce deaths). Getting to the herd ~ 70% or so level first will be what counts.
That's not really true, though. Vaccinating the really vulnerable has all sorts of positive effects on morale, mental health, and - very importantly - destressing health systems.
It is the old and already-sick who are most likely to end up in ICU on a ventilator, if they catch Covid. Take them out of the equation and suddenly everything is easier. And there's also less infection to spread (or mutate, as we see).
Basically vaccination is an overwhelming positive and the sooner and bigger you do it, the better; and every day counts.
Vaccinating the vulnerable presumably slashes the death rate (and hospital utilisation). We then don't care much if anyone else catches it.
That's not quite true: it's still not great if you're 40 and get it. (Or 55, as Boris Johnson proved.)
But the more people vaccinated, the harder it is to spread, and we can quickly start getting hospital utilisation down.
Data such as this -
strongly suggest that vaccinating even just the 80s and above will massively cut the death and hospitalisation rates.
Notable rise in paediatric Covid-19 admissions in my part of the world this week.
Primary or Secondary age group (as paediatric is up to 18)
I didn't ask, but we do have the new variant locally.
Any evidence lockdowns working yet? Presumably about to go into another one because governments need to be seen to be able to control things - even when they patently cannot
WRT Labour, it's not so much "Be like the Tories" as learning the lesson the Tories had to re-learn in their wilderness years. If you give the impression to people whose votes you need that you dislike them, they are not likely to vote for you, regardless what you offer them.
I wouldn’t like to think only the likes of Bill Cash are checking it.
Don't worry, Adonis and the SNP will be looking through it too
And Braverman.
So where is this ‘expert scrutiny?’ Should we assume that it will actually end up being checks not just in the Irish Sea but also between Devon and Cornwall?
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.
Why? What is wrong with this?
Oh now you have saddened me because we never got a second film.
What's the film?
Dredd?
Ok - thanks.
I liked SF when I was young. I liked comics too (I had what seems like a very valuable Marvel collection now, which I happily just gave away.) No Dredd though. Too young for me. (After having looked it up)
Any evidence lockdowns working yet? Presumably about to go into another one because governments need to be seen to be able to control things - even when they patently cannot
You mean, apart from the fact when we locked down the virus declined and when we opened up it skyrocketed?
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 had to literally bus in workers from Eastern Europe to pick them. That's why the food didn't rot - we brought in people to pick them. They tried to recruit Brits, got minimal interest and the few people they hired didn't last long. They got *some*, but nowhere near enough hence pulling Romanians etc back in
A deal renders Farage pointless, politically. Whether the deal is good, or bad, or a classic piece of eurofudge where all sides can claim some spurious "victory" of sorts (the last is my bet), it means Brexit is done and dusted. Yes, we will now spend years working out how to exploit it, or mitigate its damage, but psychologically it will depart the stage.
After 5 weary years, we shall finally stop talking about it and almost everyone will breathe the most enormous sigh of relief.
What will Farage do then? Retire, in some form, I suppose. Write his memoirs. He can be "happy" that he changed the country more than any politician since Thatcher.
Au contraire. No deal renders Farage pointless. A deal he claims is a sell out gives him another handful of years in the limelight.
But no one will want to listen, bar a tiny hardcore. They really won't. Remainers and Leavers alike are all sick and tired of Brexit (especially in the light of Covid).
Farage's job is done. He did it. He can be pleased (or not). Move on.
As others have said, there is a natural evolution for him to become Mister Anti-Woke, should be so desire.
I voted against Brexit so have difficulty supporting Farage but admit he was effective in getting his way and also he is right about many things re 2020 - the stupidity of lockdowns and BLM pandering
Any evidence lockdowns working yet? Presumably about to go into another one because governments need to be seen to be able to control things - even when they patently cannot
You mean, apart from the fact when we locked down the virus declined and when we opened up it skyrocketed?
so err a lot of misery and poverty occurred to kick it down the road a bit? And give it time and lots of bodies to mutate?
Any evidence lockdowns working yet? Presumably about to go into another one because governments need to be seen to be able to control things - even when they patently cannot
You mean, apart from the fact when we locked down the virus declined and when we opened up it skyrocketed?
so err a lot of misery and poverty occurred to kick it down the road a bit?
You asked if they worked, not about the side effects.
The issue is that you don’t avoid economic damage by not locking down, you just have thousands more deaths on top.
Never thought I'd hear the words 'expert' and 'Bill Cash' in the same sentence, but 2020 has been a strange one all round.
I believe a dispute about money was settled after Boris Johnson asked Ursula von der Leyen whether she would accept Cash. Let's hope there's no issue with the legal translation.
Any evidence lockdowns working yet? Presumably about to go into another one because governments need to be seen to be able to control things - even when they patently cannot
You mean, apart from the fact when we locked down the virus declined and when we opened up it skyrocketed?
so err a lot of misery and poverty occurred to kick it down the road a bit?
You asked if they worked, not about the side effects.
The issue is that you don’t avoid economic damage by not locking down, you just have thousands more deaths on top.
Deaths that were on average aged 82(?) - and generally people in poor health for 82. Its never been worth it for the damage it has caused.
Any evidence lockdowns working yet? Presumably about to go into another one because governments need to be seen to be able to control things - even when they patently cannot
You mean, apart from the fact when we locked down the virus declined and when we opened up it skyrocketed?
so err a lot of misery and poverty occurred to kick it down the road a bit?
You asked if they worked, not about the side effects.
The issue is that you don’t avoid economic damage by not locking down, you just have thousands more deaths on top.
Deaths that were on average aged 82(?) - and generally people in poor health for 82. Its never been worth it for the damage it has caused.
Never thought I'd hear the words 'expert' and 'Bill Cash' in the same sentence, but 2020 has been a strange one all round.
I believe a dispute about money was settled after Boris Johnson asked Ursula von der Leyen whether she would accept Cash. Let's hope there's no issue with the legal translation.
I understand issues were caused by a poor translation when Johnson asked van der Leyen how she would like to be screwed the way he was.
9637 admissions, of which: Age 4 or less: 50 (0.5%) Age 5-14: 57 (0.6%) Age 15-44: 959 (10.0%) Age 45-64: 2113 (21.9%) Age 65-74: 1746(18.1) Age 75-84: 2515 (26.1%) Age 85+: 2195 (22.8%)
(Doesn’t add up smoothly due to rounding)
Intersting - will have another look. Think you are probably right....
Any evidence lockdowns working yet? Presumably about to go into another one because governments need to be seen to be able to control things - even when they patently cannot
You mean, apart from the fact when we locked down the virus declined and when we opened up it skyrocketed?
so err a lot of misery and poverty occurred to kick it down the road a bit?
You asked if they worked, not about the side effects.
The issue is that you don’t avoid economic damage by not locking down, you just have thousands more deaths on top.
And if you don’t lock down, you offer up loads more bodies for it to mutate in.
Any evidence lockdowns working yet? Presumably about to go into another one because governments need to be seen to be able to control things - even when they patently cannot
You mean, apart from the fact when we locked down the virus declined and when we opened up it skyrocketed?
so err a lot of misery and poverty occurred to kick it down the road a bit?
You asked if they worked, not about the side effects.
The issue is that you don’t avoid economic damage by not locking down, you just have thousands more deaths on top.
Deaths that were on average aged 82(?) - and generally people in poor health for 82. Its never been worth it for the damage it has caused.
Rubbish. One of the reasons deaths so far have been generally but not exclusively limited to those who were most vulnerable is because we have managed to keep rates down through lockdowns. Look to Italy where the first outbreaks overwhelmed the health service (and the Italian health service is generally very good) and you will see lots of people in their 50s or younger died as well.
Any evidence lockdowns working yet? Presumably about to go into another one because governments need to be seen to be able to control things - even when they patently cannot
You mean, apart from the fact when we locked down the virus declined and when we opened up it skyrocketed?
so err a lot of misery and poverty occurred to kick it down the road a bit?
You asked if they worked, not about the side effects.
The issue is that you don’t avoid economic damage by not locking down, you just have thousands more deaths on top.
Deaths that were on average aged 82(?) - and generally people in poor health for 82. Its never been worth it for the damage it has caused.
I'm curious - how much is your life worth?
Well, if he’s, say, 45, then as long as his death is “balanced” by a few 90-year-olds, it wouldn’t count.
Any evidence lockdowns working yet? Presumably about to go into another one because governments need to be seen to be able to control things - even when they patently cannot
You mean, apart from the fact when we locked down the virus declined and when we opened up it skyrocketed?
so err a lot of misery and poverty occurred to kick it down the road a bit?
You asked if they worked, not about the side effects.
The issue is that you don’t avoid economic damage by not locking down, you just have thousands more deaths on top.
Deaths that were on average aged 82(?) - and generally people in poor health for 82. Its never been worth it for the damage it has caused.
While it’s good to know that people have a life beyond PB and don’t follow every post excessively, it’s exasperating when we have to go over the same thoroughly debunked fake news stories in a usually vain attempt to get them to understand that reality doesn’t match their theories.
Any evidence lockdowns working yet? Presumably about to go into another one because governments need to be seen to be able to control things - even when they patently cannot
You mean, apart from the fact when we locked down the virus declined and when we opened up it skyrocketed?
Yes, this pretence it doesn't work is frankly bizarre. Which explains why people jump to arguments about the cost, which is at least something to be argued and debated, so why open with the pretence about efficacy? Stick to the argument on cost. Right or wrong its coherent.
9637 admissions, of which: Age 4 or less: 50 (0.5%) Age 5-14: 57 (0.6%) Age 15-44: 959 (10.0%) Age 45-64: 2113 (21.9%) Age 65-74: 1746(18.1) Age 75-84: 2515 (26.1%) Age 85+: 2195 (22.8%)
(Doesn’t add up smoothly due to rounding)
Intersting - will have another look. Think you are probably right....
I think I’ve made a minor cock-up as well: I used the demographics for the whole UK, not just England. The ratios between the ages should be pretty close, still, but the raw numbers will be too high (unless admissions in the rest of the UK followed the same profile - which probably won’t be far off).
Any evidence lockdowns working yet? Presumably about to go into another one because governments need to be seen to be able to control things - even when they patently cannot
You mean, apart from the fact when we locked down the virus declined and when we opened up it skyrocketed?
so err a lot of misery and poverty occurred to kick it down the road a bit?
You asked if they worked, not about the side effects.
The issue is that you don’t avoid economic damage by not locking down, you just have thousands more deaths on top.
Deaths that were on average aged 82(?) - and generally people in poor health for 82. Its never been worth it for the damage it has caused.
I'm curious - how much is your life worth?
Well, if he’s, say, 45, then as long as his death is “balanced” by a few 90-year-olds, it wouldn’t count.
Well, I need to get the cost benefit ratio right before I send John Wick round...
Any evidence lockdowns working yet? Presumably about to go into another one because governments need to be seen to be able to control things - even when they patently cannot
You mean, apart from the fact when we locked down the virus declined and when we opened up it skyrocketed?
so err a lot of misery and poverty occurred to kick it down the road a bit?
You asked if they worked, not about the side effects.
The issue is that you don’t avoid economic damage by not locking down, you just have thousands more deaths on top.
Deaths that were on average aged 82(?) - and generally people in poor health for 82. Its never been worth it for the damage it has caused.
I'm curious - how much is your life worth?
Well its a good and hard question. For instance in war , governments talk about sacrificing lives to maintain freedom , in pandemics governments talk about sacrificng freedom to maintain lives. The one consistent thing governments are about is not saving life but maintaining control. The UK government not that long ago deliberately killed 30K people in a targeting of Dresden in a fire bombing exercise so they do not care about life just about showing they can control stuff. You know bomb this , impose lockdown here , invade Iraq there. I wish a lot of people on here coudl see past death stats (why dont they publish deaths from non- covid deaths daily (they are actually higher and you can make nice graphs of those as well)
Any evidence lockdowns working yet? Presumably about to go into another one because governments need to be seen to be able to control things - even when they patently cannot
You mean, apart from the fact when we locked down the virus declined and when we opened up it skyrocketed?
Yes, this pretence it doesn't work is frankly bizarre. Which explains why people jump to arguments about the cost, which is at least something to be argued and debated, so why open with the pretence about efficacy? Stick to the argument on cost. Right or wrong its coherent.
I do agree there is a balance to be struck.
The issue is the government doesn’t strike balances. It sort of lunges, blindly, from one total strategy to another. Schools being the classic. Can we keep them fully open? Not while keeping the virus under control. Should we shut them? That has major costs and downsides of its own. Are there ways we could work through a rota system and blended learning to keep the show on the road for twelve months while not seeing the virus spread faster than a conspiracy theory on Twitter? Yes, but they’re not willing to consider them. It’s all or nothing and in attempting to have it all, they ultimately end up with nothing.
Any evidence lockdowns working yet? Presumably about to go into another one because governments need to be seen to be able to control things - even when they patently cannot
You mean, apart from the fact when we locked down the virus declined and when we opened up it skyrocketed?
so err a lot of misery and poverty occurred to kick it down the road a bit?
You asked if they worked, not about the side effects.
The issue is that you don’t avoid economic damage by not locking down, you just have thousands more deaths on top.
Deaths that were on average aged 82(?) - and generally people in poor health for 82. Its never been worth it for the damage it has caused.
That is spot on the average age and state of health of the victim of pretty much any disease you care to name. Should we give up on disease altogether, do you think? And all healthcare ultimately consists of "kicking it down the road a bit," so should we give up altogether? The fact that you thought something stupid in April really doesn't oblige you to carry on thinking it in December.
Comments
After 5 weary years, we shall finally stop talking about it and almost everyone will breathe the most enormous sigh of relief.
What will Farage do then? Retire, in some form, I suppose. Write his memoirs. He can be "happy" that he changed the country more than any politician since Thatcher.
Bearing in mind even when they’re not under Israeli blockade, Hamas are so useless at everything other than mass murder they couldn’t organise an orgy in a cathouse, Gaza looks to me to be - problematic?
https://twitter.com/AlexTaylorNews/status/1340690158316904456?s=20
Hang on, is he you?
The ONS quote the numbers as “per 100,000”, which can cause some issues, as there are about ten times as many people between the age of 45-64 as there are at 85+.
So 12.3 per hundred thousand at 45-64 isn’t that much smaller in raw numbers to 137.2 per hundred thousand at 85+
(2113 people at 45-64 vs 2195 at 85+)
If you can find your source again you should submit it to OED.
That's someone not getting a hoary old internet joke.
Pedantry would note that toothcomb has a hyphen.
Farage's job is done. He did it. He can be pleased (or not). Move on.
As others have said, there is a natural evolution for him to become Mister Anti-Woke, should be so desire.
As for jobs I would love for you to be correct. Far too many jobs pay far too little with the cost of living so often impossibly high where the jobs are based. Factor in the other issues like our expensive and crap childcare, lack of public transport and societal attitude to so many of these jobs and its no wonder migrants are needed.
I remember Iain Duncan Smith on one of his little tours telling single mothers in the Valleys that there were lots of jobs in Cardiff. Great! Mainly hospitality jobs paying little, with no public transport to get them home and no childcare. Fix those issues and maybe people could do the jobs. But its cheaper to just import people. Ask they Tories - its their mates who run this racket and then tell you then can limit migfration...
More people will die because of a delay to starting vaccination.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1341829180128964608
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1341829184302305288
Boris probably realized he needed more time to swat up on what he agreed.
The constant trumpeting of things like BLM and XR doesn't go.down anywhere nearly as well in some quarters as the media think. Its the same ground among which people feel left behind, ignored and voted Brexit.
I wouldn’t like to think only the likes of Bill Cash are checking it.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/fruit-vegetable-picking-britain-jobs-farms-brexit-a9618806.html
His videos about the migrants crossing the Channel were good, incisive, if self-serving political journalism. No one else was covering the issue. He went there and did it. And did it rather well.
That is his future if he wants it.
Banging on about Brexit, after January 1, will bore everyone to tears.
9637 admissions, of which:
Age <4: 50 (0.5%)
Age 5-14: 57 (0.6%)
Age 15-44: 959 (10.0%)
Age 45-64: 2113 (21.9%)
Age 65-74: 1746(18.1)
Age 75-84: 2515 (26.1%)
Age 85+: 2195 (22.8%)
(Doesn’t add up smoothly due to rounding)
Ugh.
Perhaps Hancock just forgot that it exists?
So where is this ‘expert scrutiny?’ Should we assume that it will actually end up being checks not just in the Irish Sea but also between Devon and Cornwall?
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2020/12/23/the-nhs-and-care-workers-who-have-died-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic/
Sobering
I liked SF when I was young. I liked comics too (I had what seems like a very valuable Marvel collection now, which I happily just gave away.) No Dredd though. Too young for me. (After having looked it up)
Raises interesting and challenging questions.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2020/12/michael-taylor-the-ethnic-minority-mps-erased-by-labours-self-serving-narrative-about-diversity-in-parliament.html
Mark Francois? Where's he been? Haven't heard from him in ages.....
The issue is that you don’t avoid economic damage by not locking down, you just have thousands more deaths on top.
"Consistent with the original agreement announced in July 2020, the U.S. government will pay $1.95 billion for the additional 100 million doses."
The ratios between the ages should be pretty close, still, but the raw numbers will be too high (unless admissions in the rest of the UK followed the same profile - which probably won’t be far off).
The issue is the government doesn’t strike balances. It sort of lunges, blindly, from one total strategy to another. Schools being the classic. Can we keep them fully open? Not while keeping the virus under control. Should we shut them? That has major costs and downsides of its own. Are there ways we could work through a rota system and blended learning to keep the show on the road for twelve months while not seeing the virus spread faster than a conspiracy theory on Twitter? Yes, but they’re not willing to consider them. It’s all or nothing and in attempting to have it all, they ultimately end up with nothing.