No. Just more media bollocks trying to find edge case hypotheticals and trip people up. It's been nearly a year of this idiocy.
How is this an edge case? There are hundreds of thousands of such occurrences daily, it is entirely mainstream and the govt should know if its legal or illegal. Its legal.
There are hundreds of thousands going for exercise, on a park bench, with a friend, with a coffee every day?
I don't know how to break it to you, Phil, but there are people out there who don't spend all their waking hours on PB.
No, really.
I'm currently spending most of my hours as a teacher to my children in the day, trying to do my own work at night, with PB squeezed inbetween.
Frankly finding a time to go outside, with the weather as miserable as it is, is not my idea of fun. But to each their own.
Well done you that is heroic.
But I would certainly advise getting some fresh air. Especially today has been markedly warmer than previous days; let's hope it is a trend.
We are lucky enough to have a garden and in the first lockdown in the Spring spent much of the afternoon in it with the children. Good way to get fresh air and burn their energy.
I don't know where you live that its warmer right now but its horrid here at the minute outside. Extremely windy and that makes it feel even colder. Not something likely to improve during lockdown either, so I can picture this getting much worse for people's mental health than the first time around.
For those showering contempt on LOTR I can only say, "Fly, you fools".
Yes, its weird that no one ever seems to think of sex, ever, but it is the creation of an entire world, copied many, many times yet never bettered.
For a similar feat of imagination I would give you Dune. Those books, and especially the 4th one, God Emperor, had a major impact on me, curing me of religion.
Dickens I have generally found pretty hard work but I am happy to accept the failings are mine.
Also Philip Pullman. I find his atheism tiresomely contrived, not least because he uses the supernatural and occult for great effect, through his famous series.
But in terms of creating an entire new world? Fabulous
Having a couple of pesky kids actually physically killing actual God really, really doesn't work for me. Nor do the daemons - do they eat? fuck? Need the vet? etc. Otherwise fabulous.
Is that what happens in that book? How revolting. I think Pullman has tailored his output rather cynically to the desire that many in commerce and entertainment have to attack organised religion. I find it rather pathetic and I am afraid it would prevent me from enjoying any other merits the books, or any adaptations, might have.
It's clunky rather than revolting.
And let's set it against Narnia where a whole solar system if not universe comes into being, exists and dies and has its religious fall and redemption just to enable half a dozen snotty posh English kids to sort out a few ishoos.
That would be a good intro to a course on 'How Not To Read a Book'.
In other news, support for Catalan independence continues to fall. The change from a hard-line, confrontational, right-wing government in Madrid to one run by the centre left that has focused on dialogue has led to a split in the Catalan separatist movement. There is even an outside chance the separatists may lose control of the Catalan parliament after next month's regional elections. https://twitter.com/RupertCocke/status/1348568129685901312
Confirms
The
If the
The
I ?
No, you’re not. That is where it would lead. Spain has had a civil war within living memory, after all.
The great difference with Scotland is that, by constitutional standards, they have very recently HAD a referendum, one that their then leader, Mr Salmond, said was ‘once in a generation’. The Scottish people made their decision, on a vast turnout, and it was No, by a large margin
The SNP is completely entitled to ask for a 2nd vote whenever it likes. The government of the UK, which must govern in the economic and constitutional interests of the entire UK, is completely entitled to say No.
Boris will put the question - Sindyref2 or not - to a free vote in the Commons, which, of course, is the supreme parliament of all the UK, including Scottish MPs. The Commons will say No.
The ball will then go back over Hadrian’s Wall, and into the courts.
God, I’m just repeating myself. As warned. That is my last comment on Sindy for today
Yes, it's a difficult situation. As far as I can tell the SNP will form Scottish Governments for the foreseeable future. They will always be able to call upon 40-45% of the Scottish electorate, which will always put them in Government, because unionist support is so split.
Therefore, they will always have a mandate (renewed every 4 years) for a new independence referendum. And they can therefore ask for the dice to be rolled every 4 years, ad-finitum, until it comes double-sixes. Their base and voters won't demand anything less.
At the same time, it clearly seems unreasonable to put *all* of Scotland (and the UK) through this every 4-5 years forever until they vote 'Yes' even if they've voted 'No' two, three, four, five times in a row before. This clearly isn't right as it results in instability and uncertainty, and stress, for Scotland and the UK of an order of magnitude that's totally different to delivering a manifesto under devolved powers in different party political ways.
I don't know what the answer is. This seems a clear example of the tyranny of the (very large) minority to me. But it's not something that can only be decided in quadrennial elections *alone* when opinion is so split and the issue and consequences so great.
IMHO, the 'No' has to count for more as a mandate than simply timing out the clock until the next round of Scottish Parliamentary elections.
There is a solution - solve the systemic inequalities which drive demands for independence. In Scotland's case that is going to be akin to as close to full self-governance as you can get, which isn't possible in the UK as it is currently structured.
We will need to either remake the UK into a Federal or even Confederal structure, or it will be torn apart. The increasingly massive systemic issues pushing Scotland and Norniron away need resolving whilst there is still time. And where they go Wales will follow, and then the English nations like Cornwall and Rutland.
It's good that you're thinking so constructively about it, but the equation:
'Indy support = historical grievance - powers passing from WM to Scotland'
is not how it has worked in practise. The actual equation is more like
'Indy support = historical grievance + power passing from WM to Scotland'
because the SNP are effective at using every power and resource at their disposal to further the case for independence. It also makes them a far less effective Government, but as long as blame for this can be placed elsewhere (and it can), that doesn't matter. This has led some to call for a reversal of devolution, but obviously it's not that simple.
No. Just more media bollocks trying to find edge case hypotheticals and trip people up. It's been nearly a year of this idiocy.
How is this an edge case? There are hundreds of thousands of such occurrences daily, it is entirely mainstream and the govt should know if its legal or illegal. Its legal.
There are hundreds of thousands going for exercise, on a park bench, with a friend, with a coffee every day?
I don't know how to break it to you, Phil, but there are people out there who don't spend all their waking hours on PB.
No, really.
I'm currently spending most of my hours as a teacher to my children in the day, trying to do my own work at night, with PB squeezed inbetween.
Frankly finding a time to go outside, with the weather as miserable as it is, is not my idea of fun. But to each their own.
Well done you that is heroic.
But I would certainly advise getting some fresh air. Especially today has been markedly warmer than previous days; let's hope it is a trend.
Make the most of it - it is shaping up like a re-run of the severe cold and heavy snow of 2010 by the month end.
Get your extra heating oil and wood in now, just in case.
Just ordered a full load of wood and (is it illegal yet?) a load of A-cobbles.
Long time lurker here. I wanted to make one point on Lockdown compliance similar to Leon's. In my area of North London 50%+ of our peer Group have had covid. It is extraordinarily difficult to instruct such people to continue to follow lockdown rules when they face little risk themselves and pose little risk to others. This issue will only grow.
Among 16-25 year olds, either they have had it, or many of their friends have had it & recovered quickly. Rightly or wrongly, it just doesn't look a big deal to many young people anymore.
So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa".
After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people.
And -- if pb.com is any guide -- Gramps is going on a skiing holiday as soon as he is vaccinated (first in the queue as usual).
It is simply not right to expect young people to bear pain & loss of opportunity without any reward. Young people are giving & giving & giving -- and getting nothing back.
Who's economic future is being ruined by our failure to adhere to the rules and stop Covid spreading? I doubt it's Gramps.
Why are students paying tuition fees or rent on University accommodation they cannot use? Who is paying the price of the lockdown in terms of loss of some of the most glorious years of life or loss of opportunity?
The health benefits are accruing mainly to the old, the young are paying the bill.
If the old want the young to lockdown, then they need to pay. That should be made much more explicit in the compact.
The affluent old (especially on pb.com) are living in huge houses, getting enormous Waitrose deliveries, trading their share portfolios, bragging about skiing holidays and ... telling everyone else it is absolutely no problem to lock down harder.
It should be much more explicit that if we are all in this together, and if the young are making sacrifices for the old then there needs to be big pay back for the young.
We are not all in this together and it's hopeless idealism to believe we ever were or ever will be.
Everyone is suffering to varying degrees and in different ways. There is nothing unique about the way the "young" are suffering.
You obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder about people who are comfortably off, particularly if they are old. There have always been disparities in wealth and I expect there always will be.
Much of this kicked off when people returned from skiing trips during the last spring half term. I doubt anymore than a tiny minority of those were in your "Gramps" category.
Have you been skiing in the last decade? I would guess at least a third of UK skiers are over 50, perhaps more.
Yes but I imagine the vast majority of those crowding the slopes at the last Spring half-term were school parties and families with children. Over 70s have no need to pay the half-term "premium".
Mrs RP has just made a good point. It isn't just a question of how much fresh fruit and vegetables is available, its how fresh it is. We've noticed we're having to throw out quite a bit of citrus fruits which has gone soft / nasty.
And I know no-one apart from myself who routinely wears a mask outdoors as they do in much of Asia and now elsewhere.
I am convinced this virus spreads outdoors. Undoubtedly less readily than indoors but nevertheless I'm sure it does. Again, as you would expect from an airborne virus which spreads by aerosol as well as droplet.
We are, and there's no other way to put this, f-ing stupid in this country. Nerys claims to be a nurse. What hope is there?
I recall early on an ITU nurse saying that she didn't see how it was possible to 'BE SAFE' when she couldn't 'see' the virus.
I mean, that's the level of f-ing ignorance with which we are dealing.
Still waiting for those superior literary skills to manifest themselves.
Oh are you? Read one of my bestselling books. But it doesn't sound to me like you'd recognise it even if you were hit over the head by Lord of the Rings.
I keep the writing clean and simple on here. Actually I do in my books. Only Mike Smithson of the thread writers knows how to do that. A thread should have one point made succinctly and cleanly.
Less is more. Heck, even The Great Gatsby is only 47,000 words.
Wait, are you citing LOTR as good writing? JFC.
By some measures it is the most popular novel ever written, anywhere on the planet, and also the most loved. It has also been hugely influential on popular AND elite culture. You see its influence everywhere
Why? Because it is an inspired piece of sustained human imagination, probably unexampled, AND it has a superb, mythic, driving narrative
It’s not entirely my cup of tea but I can still recognise it as quite exceptional. Anyone who doesn’t simply reveals their own idiocy. Sorry
I'll bite.
It's unreadable rubbish, mostly read and admired by those with the minds of teenage boys.
I'm amazed how much people are ok with judging and insulting others based on their literature choices.
Yes its all in good fun, but in saying you dislike it is really ok to insult those who do? And no people who dislike such things shouldn't be insulted either, but some people freely admit to dismissing entire genres of fiction, based on very narrow views of it, as a sign of superiority. And it is superiority because it inevitably involves judging, negatively, those who like them, rather than simply criticising the genre or work.
I've always thought that rather strange.
But I bet there is a correlation between liking LOTR and voting for Brexit. By which I mean if you take the population of people who are readers of novels and they voted, say, X% Remain, then the sub-sample of those who like Tolkien would have voted Y% Remain and Y would be less than X. I'd put a grand on that without losing too much sleep.
Your most embarrassing comment ever, and I’m including the one where you ‘tried to stop your son watching Top Gear’
It's not the most weighty contribution I've ever made - grant you that - but I'm pretty confident it's true.
It can be verified here and now. Mentally count the posters who are Tolkien fans and calculate what % of them are Leavers. Bet you any money when you've done that you get a higher % than the standardized PB norm, i.e. the % of all PB posters who read novels who voted Leave.
Given that, as we are constantly reminded, Remainers are generally ‘better educated’, I would actually guess the opposite is true. LOTR is a mighty tome to tackle, only more bookish people would have a go. So probably more Remainers than Leavers
There's little doubt Tolkien would have voted for Brexit, if he were alive today. I enjoy Tolkien myself, so that's one Brexit voter, but I don't know what the correlation is.
It's more or less socially acceptable to admit to enjoying epic fantasy now, but back when LOTR was written, it would be like admitting to masturbation.
There was no epic fantasy when when LOTR was written.
Tolkien's introduction explicitly rules out reading across from the book to the real world.
What about Lord of the Rings - the Musical? Otherwise known as Der Ring des Nibelungen.
14 hours of opera. Definitely fantasy. Definitely epic. Albeit not a book.
But another work defined by its fans, nevertheless
Downing Street this afternoon said that a 24/7 roll-out was possible, but there was not the demand for jabs outside the current 8am to 8pm opening hours.
The Prime Minister's Press Secretary, Allegra Stratton, said: 'The NHS will tell you that when they are asking the people who are offered vaccinations, they are asking them when it would suit them, what time.
‘If people come back and say they would like an appointment after 8pm that is something they (the NHS) will consider.
‘My understanding is that at the moment there is not a clamour for appointments late into the night or early in the morning.
I don't give a f##k if people say well I would rather do 12.30 on a Thursday please, because I have my online gym class in the morning and WI meeting in the afternoon.
If there is the supply and the manpower, we should be doing as many hours as possible. As of course people would say they prefer a nice middle of the day slot, but I am sure many of those shielding would also take a 6am slot if it meant being protected.
I would happily go at 3am if asked.
Like masks, its not about you, its about everybody.
My dad made this point this morning. He said "why are they asking people to book an appointment? Surely you get what you're given."
When they are doing the 50 year olds, I think it is fair to expect them to turn up whenever.
Not sure about the 80+ year olds that have to arrange transport or take the bus (aaagh!).
Working a system 24/7 imposes other loads.
You need 3 times the number of staff, for a start.
Unless the problem is appointment capacity, rather than, say, vaccine availability, it isn't necessarily an improvement. Or a good idea.
You're largely right, I think. However, if the supply is there, I still think this would be a good idea. It brings forward the staffing costs, but the quicker we smash through the population with this vaccine, the better. And politically it could be a massive win. We've already got a few people grumbling on here about their long-suffering wife not having had the jab, etc. Any vexatious complaining will vanish to almost nil once it's pointed out that there was an appointment at 04:10 that was never taken up, you could have had it if you were that anxious.
Staffing costs isn't the driving factor here. We can afford to throw money at this if we have the trained jabbers and the vaccine available. Let's do this!
Why do it at 3am in the morning when you can open another site and do twice the number during the day.
We don't have a shortage of empty church halls or other venues.
That means more places for the distribution system to reach and support.
It is much easier to have very large locations like the football grounds / massive convention centres.
In other news, support for Catalan independence continues to fall. The change from a hard-line, confrontational, right-wing government in Madrid to one run by the centre left that has focused on dialogue has led to a split in the Catalan separatist movement. There is even an outside chance the separatists may lose control of the Catalan parliament after next month's regional elections. https://twitter.com/RupertCocke/status/1348568129685901312
Confirms the PP Spanish government did the right thing in 2017 then refusing a legal independence referendum when support for Catalan independence was much higher and ignoring the Catalan nationalist government's declaration of a UDI.
Had they not done that Catalonia would now be an independent state not seeing support for independence fall
The Spanish government - whether PP, PSOE or whatever - has no legal right to allow a referendum on independence for any part of Spain. That is clearly set out in Spain's written constitution.
If the Catalan government's declaration of UDI had not been challenged by Madrid then Catalonia would in effect have become an independent state, the law is meaningless unless it is upheld and enforced.
Westminster must equally enforce the legal principle of our constitution that Westminster is sovereign and when the UK government says 2014 was a once in a generation vote it means it
But that means that even if 100% of the population of Catalonia wanted independence they would not be allowed to vote for it because it would be illegal for the Spanish Government to allow such a vote and you would consider any vote without Spanish permission to be unlawful and therefore should be repressed.
In which case why bother asking for permission? They should just do it. Unless you think that it is justifiable to hold a whole population captive against their will and they should not be allowed to express their opposition to that?
There is a process to getting to a referendum for independence, but it is one that involves gaining the explicit consent of the majority of voters in Spain. That's because Catalonia is regarded constitutionally as an integral part of a unitary Spanish state. The UK is very different as it is a union of two kingdoms and so, it could fairly be argued, explicitly requires ongoing consent from all parts of the union to continue. The bar for, say, Yorkshire or Cornwall to leave the Union (or to become independent of England) would be much higher. The same argument might also apply to the Shetlands or to the Borders in Scotland.
In 1707 the old Scottish Parliament was abolished and all its members moved to Westminster.
Ever since then it requires the consent of a majority of elected Westminster MPs and Westminster MPs and the UK government alone for Scottish independence to be legal
Yes we know. Here is what is going to happen: 2021 - Scotland re-elects a government on a platform of seeking independence 2022 - Arguments about an independence referendum. Scotland announces an advisory referendum of the same legal basis (i.e. none) of the EU Referendum 2023 - Scotland votes for Independence 2024 - HYUFD tells Scotland "you can eff orf. Please vote Conservative"
Rather difficult to continue to ignore the will of the people. If Scotland wants Independence it shall have Independence.
Legally 100% of Scots could vote for independence but if the UK government at Westminster refused to grant it then legally it would remain part of the UK.
Even if politically it might be a bit more difficult for the UK to enforce UK law in Scotland at that point
It would be politically fascinating. When a non-binding referendum was held on the EU, the Tory government claimed that the will of the people is politically binding, attacking as undemocratic anyone saying it wasn't binding.
If a non-binding referendum on the UK provides another majority for leave, the very same Tory government will claim the will of the people is politically irrelevant as they are in power actually. The will of the people is only relevant - as you always make clear - if they are your people.
Just as its OK to hold repeated rerun elections because you dislike the results given by the will of the people but cannot possibly hold another advisory referendum because asking people to vote again because you don't like the result is undemocratic.
You can't see any political or moral issues with this gross hypocrisy can you...
The SNP can campaign in 2019 with Labour and the LDs to ensure the Tories lose their majority at Westminster in 2024 as we Tories had to campaign to get a majority at Westminster in 2019.
Now we have that Tory majority until 2024 what we Tories say goes
That's not democracy, that's elective dictatorship. And given you can, and may well, 'fix' the electoral system, terrifying!
No it is based on our unwritten constitution based on sovereignty of Crown in Parliament and ultimately the elected House of Commons
How do you think the Scots should achieve independence should they wish to?
They would have to elect Labour MPs and or SNP MPs supporting a UK Labour PM willing to grant them a legal indyref2
In other news, support for Catalan independence continues to fall. The change from a hard-line, confrontational, right-wing government in Madrid to one run by the centre left that has focused on dialogue has led to a split in the Catalan separatist movement. There is even an outside chance the separatists may lose control of the Catalan parliament after next month's regional elections. https://twitter.com/RupertCocke/status/1348568129685901312
The
If the
The
I ?
No, you’re not. That is where it would lead. Spain has had a civil war within living memory, after all.
The great difference with Scotland is that, by constitutional standards, they have very recently HAD a referendum, one that their then leader, Mr Salmond, said was ‘once in a generation’. The Scottish people made their decision, on a vast turnout, and it was No, by a large margin
The SNP is completely entitled to ask for a 2nd vote whenever it likes. The government of the UK, which must govern in the economic and constitutional interests of the entire UK, is completely entitled to say No.
Boris will put the question - Sindyref2 or not - to a free vote in the Commons, which, of course, is the supreme parliament of all the UK, including Scottish MPs. The Commons will say No.
The ball will then go back over Hadrian’s Wall, and into the courts.
God, I’m just repeating myself. As warned. That is my last comment on Sindy for today
Yes, it's a difficult situation. As far as I can tell the SNP will form Scottish Governments for the foreseeable future. They will always be able to call upon 40-45% of the Scottish electorate, which will always put them in Government, because unionist support is so split.
Therefore, they will always have a mandate (renewed every 4 years) for a new independence referendum. And they can therefore ask for the dice to be rolled every 4 years, ad-finitum, until it comes double-sixes. Their base and voters won't demand anything less.
At the same time, it clearly seems unreasonable to put *all* of Scotland (and the UK) through this every 4-5 years forever until they vote 'Yes' even if they've voted 'No' two, three, four, five times in a row before. This clearly isn't right as it results in instability and uncertainty, and stress, for Scotland and the UK of an order of magnitude that's totally different to delivering a manifesto under devolved powers in different party political ways.
I don't know what the answer is. This seems a clear example of the tyranny of the (very large) minority to me. But it's not something that can only be decided in quadrennial elections *alone* when opinion is so split and the issue and consequences so great.
IMHO, the 'No' has to count for more as a mandate than simply timing out the clock until the next round of Scottish Parliamentary elections.
There is a solution - solve the systemic inequalities which drive demands for independence. In Scotland's case that is going to be akin to as close to full self-governance as you can get, which isn't possible in the UK as it is currently structured.
We will need to either remake the UK into a Federal or even Confederal structure, or it will be torn apart. The increasingly massive systemic issues pushing Scotland and Norniron away need resolving whilst there is still time. And where they go Wales will follow, and then the English nations like Cornwall and Rutland.
Wales and Cornwall and Rutland voted to Leave the EU.
They could not survive outside the UK and EU so even though I oppose Scottish independence and Irish unity different arguments apply there as they both voted to Remain in the EU.
Personally I agree we should move towards a more Federal UK, including devomax for Holyrood and an English Parliament
Downing Street this afternoon said that a 24/7 roll-out was possible, but there was not the demand for jabs outside the current 8am to 8pm opening hours.
The Prime Minister's Press Secretary, Allegra Stratton, said: 'The NHS will tell you that when they are asking the people who are offered vaccinations, they are asking them when it would suit them, what time.
‘If people come back and say they would like an appointment after 8pm that is something they (the NHS) will consider.
‘My understanding is that at the moment there is not a clamour for appointments late into the night or early in the morning.
I don't give a f##k if people say well I would rather do 12.30 on a Thursday please, because I have my online gym class in the morning and WI meeting in the afternoon.
If there is the supply and the manpower, we should be doing as many hours as possible. As of course people would say they prefer a nice middle of the day slot, but I am sure many of those shielding would also take a 6am slot if it meant being protected.
I would happily go at 3am if asked.
Like masks, its not about you, its about everybody.
My dad made this point this morning. He said "why are they asking people to book an appointment? Surely you get what you're given."
When they are doing the 50 year olds, I think it is fair to expect them to turn up whenever.
Not sure about the 80+ year olds that have to arrange transport or take the bus (aaagh!).
Working a system 24/7 imposes other loads.
You need 3 times the number of staff, for a start.
Unless the problem is appointment capacity, rather than, say, vaccine availability, it isn't necessarily an improvement. Or a good idea.
You're largely right, I think. However, if the supply is there, I still think this would be a good idea. It brings forward the staffing costs, but the quicker we smash through the population with this vaccine, the better. And politically it could be a massive win. We've already got a few people grumbling on here about their long-suffering wife not having had the jab, etc. Any vexatious complaining will vanish to almost nil once it's pointed out that there was an appointment at 04:10 that was never taken up, you could have had it if you were that anxious.
Staffing costs isn't the driving factor here. We can afford to throw money at this if we have the trained jabbers and the vaccine available. Let's do this!
If there is more vaccine than appointments, it might well make sense to expand sideways. Open more vaccination centres.
24/7 is the kind of thing that sounds cool and busy and "we are doing lots" - but it is not necessarily a good idea.
If nothing else - you want time at the centres for cleaning.
Literal lateral thinking.
I did capacity and operations planning for a while. Working existing assets harder vs new assets in parallel has been a question since before history. Most real world problems tend to favour the later.
Management of the "Make it so" variety likes the first - "work harder!" sounds cool and you don't need to spend on new physical assets.....
Downing Street this afternoon said that a 24/7 roll-out was possible, but there was not the demand for jabs outside the current 8am to 8pm opening hours.
The Prime Minister's Press Secretary, Allegra Stratton, said: 'The NHS will tell you that when they are asking the people who are offered vaccinations, they are asking them when it would suit them, what time.
‘If people come back and say they would like an appointment after 8pm that is something they (the NHS) will consider.
‘My understanding is that at the moment there is not a clamour for appointments late into the night or early in the morning.
I don't give a f##k if people say well I would rather do 12.30 on a Thursday please, because I have my online gym class in the morning and WI meeting in the afternoon.
If there is the supply and the manpower, we should be doing as many hours as possible. As of course people would say they prefer a nice middle of the day slot, but I am sure many of those shielding would also take a 6am slot if it meant being protected.
I would happily go at 3am if asked.
Like masks, its not about you, its about everybody.
My dad made this point this morning. He said "why are they asking people to book an appointment? Surely you get what you're given."
When they are doing the 50 year olds, I think it is fair to expect them to turn up whenever.
Not sure about the 80+ year olds that have to arrange transport or take the bus (aaagh!).
Working a system 24/7 imposes other loads.
You need 3 times the number of staff, for a start.
Unless the problem is appointment capacity, rather than, say, vaccine availability, it isn't necessarily an improvement. Or a good idea.
You're largely right, I think. However, if the supply is there, I still think this would be a good idea. It brings forward the staffing costs, but the quicker we smash through the population with this vaccine, the better. And politically it could be a massive win. We've already got a few people grumbling on here about their long-suffering wife not having had the jab, etc. Any vexatious complaining will vanish to almost nil once it's pointed out that there was an appointment at 04:10 that was never taken up, you could have had it if you were that anxious.
Staffing costs isn't the driving factor here. We can afford to throw money at this if we have the trained jabbers and the vaccine available. Let's do this!
Why do it at 3am in the morning when you can open another site and do twice the number during the day.
We don't have a shortage of empty church halls or other venues.
Mrs RP has just made a good point. It isn't just a question of how much fresh fruit and vegetables is available, its how fresh it is. We've noticed we're having to throw out quite a bit of citrus fruits which has gone soft / nasty.
Mr RP, honest question - how come the supermarkets around my way seem to no problem with any fresh fruit/veg supplies at all?
Mrs RP has just made a good point. It isn't just a question of how much fresh fruit and vegetables is available, its how fresh it is. We've noticed we're having to throw out quite a bit of citrus fruits which has gone soft / nasty.
At the risk of conforming to stereotype, three out of four avocados from our most recent shop were barely salvageable.
Downing Street this afternoon said that a 24/7 roll-out was possible, but there was not the demand for jabs outside the current 8am to 8pm opening hours.
The Prime Minister's Press Secretary, Allegra Stratton, said: 'The NHS will tell you that when they are asking the people who are offered vaccinations, they are asking them when it would suit them, what time.
‘If people come back and say they would like an appointment after 8pm that is something they (the NHS) will consider.
‘My understanding is that at the moment there is not a clamour for appointments late into the night or early in the morning.
I don't give a f##k if people say well I would rather do 12.30 on a Thursday please, because I have my online gym class in the morning and WI meeting in the afternoon.
If there is the supply and the manpower, we should be doing as many hours as possible. As of course people would say they prefer a nice middle of the day slot, but I am sure many of those shielding would also take a 6am slot if it meant being protected.
I would happily go at 3am if asked.
Like masks, its not about you, its about everybody.
My dad made this point this morning. He said "why are they asking people to book an appointment? Surely you get what you're given."
When they are doing the 50 year olds, I think it is fair to expect them to turn up whenever.
Not sure about the 80+ year olds that have to arrange transport or take the bus (aaagh!).
Working a system 24/7 imposes other loads.
You need 3 times the number of staff, for a start.
Unless the problem is appointment capacity, rather than, say, vaccine availability, it isn't necessarily an improvement. Or a good idea.
You're largely right, I think. However, if the supply is there, I still think this would be a good idea. It brings forward the staffing costs, but the quicker we smash through the population with this vaccine, the better. And politically it could be a massive win. We've already got a few people grumbling on here about their long-suffering wife not having had the jab, etc. Any vexatious complaining will vanish to almost nil once it's pointed out that there was an appointment at 04:10 that was never taken up, you could have had it if you were that anxious.
Staffing costs isn't the driving factor here. We can afford to throw money at this if we have the trained jabbers and the vaccine available. Let's do this!
If there is more vaccine than appointments, it might well make sense to expand sideways. Open more vaccination centres.
24/7 is the kind of thing that sounds cool and busy and "we are doing lots" - but it is not necessarily a good idea.
If nothing else - you want time at the centres for cleaning.
I think 24/7 might be a bit much but 7am to 11pm is definitely something that should be looked into, especially after the middle of Feb when working age people are eligible rather than over 70s.
Mrs RP has just made a good point. It isn't just a question of how much fresh fruit and vegetables is available, its how fresh it is. We've noticed we're having to throw out quite a bit of citrus fruits which has gone soft / nasty.
Mr RP, honest question - how come the supermarkets around my way seem to no problem with any fresh fruit/veg supplies at all?
Downing Street this afternoon said that a 24/7 roll-out was possible, but there was not the demand for jabs outside the current 8am to 8pm opening hours.
The Prime Minister's Press Secretary, Allegra Stratton, said: 'The NHS will tell you that when they are asking the people who are offered vaccinations, they are asking them when it would suit them, what time.
‘If people come back and say they would like an appointment after 8pm that is something they (the NHS) will consider.
‘My understanding is that at the moment there is not a clamour for appointments late into the night or early in the morning.
I don't give a f##k if people say well I would rather do 12.30 on a Thursday please, because I have my online gym class in the morning and WI meeting in the afternoon.
If there is the supply and the manpower, we should be doing as many hours as possible. As of course people would say they prefer a nice middle of the day slot, but I am sure many of those shielding would also take a 6am slot if it meant being protected.
I would happily go at 3am if asked.
Like masks, its not about you, its about everybody.
My dad made this point this morning. He said "why are they asking people to book an appointment? Surely you get what you're given."
When they are doing the 50 year olds, I think it is fair to expect them to turn up whenever.
Not sure about the 80+ year olds that have to arrange transport or take the bus (aaagh!).
Working a system 24/7 imposes other loads.
You need 3 times the number of staff, for a start.
Unless the problem is appointment capacity, rather than, say, vaccine availability, it isn't necessarily an improvement. Or a good idea.
You're largely right, I think. However, if the supply is there, I still think this would be a good idea. It brings forward the staffing costs, but the quicker we smash through the population with this vaccine, the better. And politically it could be a massive win. We've already got a few people grumbling on here about their long-suffering wife not having had the jab, etc. Any vexatious complaining will vanish to almost nil once it's pointed out that there was an appointment at 04:10 that was never taken up, you could have had it if you were that anxious.
Staffing costs isn't the driving factor here. We can afford to throw money at this if we have the trained jabbers and the vaccine available. Let's do this!
If there is more vaccine than appointments, it might well make sense to expand sideways. Open more vaccination centres.
24/7 is the kind of thing that sounds cool and busy and "we are doing lots" - but it is not necessarily a good idea.
If nothing else - you want time at the centres for cleaning.
I hear you on the cleaning issue, but larger venues could channel people into Area A before midday and Area B after midday, and the half not being used can be cleaned and reset. There's economies of scale to be had here. Stadiums could reach a fairly large proportion of the population, and many of those have car parks nearby that could allow those with cars to reach it from distance.
No. Just more media bollocks trying to find edge case hypotheticals and trip people up. It's been nearly a year of this idiocy.
How is this an edge case? There are hundreds of thousands of such occurrences daily, it is entirely mainstream and the govt should know if its legal or illegal. Its legal.
There are hundreds of thousands going for exercise, on a park bench, with a friend, with a coffee every day?
I don't know how to break it to you, Phil, but there are people out there who don't spend all their waking hours on PB.
No, really.
I'm currently spending most of my hours as a teacher to my children in the day, trying to do my own work at night, with PB squeezed inbetween.
Frankly finding a time to go outside, with the weather as miserable as it is, is not my idea of fun. But to each their own.
Well done you that is heroic.
But I would certainly advise getting some fresh air. Especially today has been markedly warmer than previous days; let's hope it is a trend.
We are lucky enough to have a garden and in the first lockdown in the Spring spent much of the afternoon in it with the children. Good way to get fresh air and burn their energy.
I don't know where you live that its warmer right now but its horrid here at the minute outside. Extremely windy and that makes it feel even colder. Not something likely to improve during lockdown either, so I can picture this getting much worse for people's mental health than the first time around.
One thing I can say with absolute certainty, though, is that there will be more daylight. That’s what gets me more than anything.
And I know no-one apart from myself who routinely wears a mask outdoors as they do in much of Asia and now elsewhere.
I am convinced this virus spreads outdoors. Undoubtedly less readily than indoors but nevertheless I'm sure it does. Again, as you would expect from an airborne virus which spreads by aerosol as well as droplet.
We are, and there's no other way to put this, f-ing stupid in this country. Nerys claims to be a nurse. What hope is there?
I recall early on an ITU nurse saying that she didn't see how it was possible to 'BE SAFE' when she couldn't 'see' the virus.
I mean, that's the level of f-ing ignorance with which we are dealing.
Still waiting for those superior literary skills to manifest themselves.
Oh are you? Read one of my bestselling books. But it doesn't sound to me like you'd recognise it even if you were hit over the head by Lord of the Rings.
I keep the writing clean and simple on here. Actually I do in my books. Only Mike Smithson of the thread writers knows how to do that. A thread should have one point made succinctly and cleanly.
Less is more. Heck, even The Great Gatsby is only 47,000 words.
Wait, are you citing LOTR as good writing? JFC.
By some measures it is the most popular novel ever written, anywhere on the planet, and also the most loved. It has also been hugely influential on popular AND elite culture. You see its influence everywhere
Why? Because it is an inspired piece of sustained human imagination, probably unexampled, AND it has a superb, mythic, driving narrative
It’s not entirely my cup of tea but I can still recognise it as quite exceptional. Anyone who doesn’t simply reveals their own idiocy. Sorry
I'll bite.
It's unreadable rubbish, mostly read and admired by those with the minds of teenage boys.
I'm amazed how much people are ok with judging and insulting others based on their literature choices.
Yes its all in good fun, but in saying you dislike it is really ok to insult those who do? And no people who dislike such things shouldn't be insulted either, but some people freely admit to dismissing entire genres of fiction, based on very narrow views of it, as a sign of superiority. And it is superiority because it inevitably involves judging, negatively, those who like them, rather than simply criticising the genre or work.
I've always thought that rather strange.
But I bet there is a correlation between liking LOTR and voting for Brexit. By which I mean if you take the population of people who are readers of novels and they voted, say, X% Remain, then the sub-sample of those who like Tolkien would have voted Y% Remain and Y would be less than X. I'd put a grand on that without losing too much sleep.
Your most embarrassing comment ever, and I’m including the one where you ‘tried to stop your son watching Top Gear’
It's not the most weighty contribution I've ever made - grant you that - but I'm pretty confident it's true.
It can be verified here and now. Mentally count the posters who are Tolkien fans and calculate what % of them are Leavers. Bet you any money when you've done that you get a higher % than the standardized PB norm, i.e. the % of all PB posters who read novels who voted Leave.
Given that, as we are constantly reminded, Remainers are generally ‘better educated’, I would actually guess the opposite is true. LOTR is a mighty tome to tackle, only more bookish people would have a go. So probably more Remainers than Leavers
True, but I've allowed for that in the "standardized PB norm". Perhaps if I drop the heavy stats content and illustrate instead in the style of Abigail's Party. You're speaking -
"Kinabalu, I would like to hear some Tolkien. Richard Tyndall would like to hear Tolkien. Philip Thompson would like to hear Tolkien. Morris Dancer would like to hear Tolkien. So, Mr K, could we have some Tolkien, please?"
Oh dear me, a bit of selective data picking there old chap. Without even looking I can remember Benpointer, Topping and SouthamObserver expressing some admiration for Tolkien. All Remainers I believe. It is rather a silly suggestion.
Tolkien was a wonderful writer. Echoes of his political views are there without doubt. It'd be very hard to not paint him as as conservative with a small c.
I personally think that his Sauron was personified by Stalin.
No. Just more media bollocks trying to find edge case hypotheticals and trip people up. It's been nearly a year of this idiocy.
How is this an edge case? There are hundreds of thousands of such occurrences daily, it is entirely mainstream and the govt should know if its legal or illegal. Its legal.
There are hundreds of thousands going for exercise, on a park bench, with a friend, with a coffee every day?
I don't know how to break it to you, Phil, but there are people out there who don't spend all their waking hours on PB.
No, really.
I'm currently spending most of my hours as a teacher to my children in the day, trying to do my own work at night, with PB squeezed inbetween.
Frankly finding a time to go outside, with the weather as miserable as it is, is not my idea of fun. But to each their own.
Well done you that is heroic.
But I would certainly advise getting some fresh air. Especially today has been markedly warmer than previous days; let's hope it is a trend.
We are lucky enough to have a garden and in the first lockdown in the Spring spent much of the afternoon in it with the children. Good way to get fresh air and burn their energy.
I don't know where you live that its warmer right now but its horrid here at the minute outside. Extremely windy and that makes it feel even colder. Not something likely to improve during lockdown either, so I can picture this getting much worse for people's mental health than the first time around.
One thing I can say with absolute certainty, though, is that there will be more daylight. That’s what gets me more than anything.
We already have more than twenty minutes extra in the afternoon, if nothing worth speaking of in the morning as yet.
For those showering contempt on LOTR I can only say, "Fly, you fools".
Yes, its weird that no one ever seems to think of sex, ever, but it is the creation of an entire world, copied many, many times yet never bettered.
For a similar feat of imagination I would give you Dune. Those books, and especially the 4th one, God Emperor, had a major impact on me, curing me of religion.
Dickens I have generally found pretty hard work but I am happy to accept the failings are mine.
Also Philip Pullman. I find his atheism tiresomely contrived, not least because he uses the supernatural and occult for great effect, through his famous series.
But in terms of creating an entire new world? Fabulous
Having a couple of pesky kids actually physically killing actual God really, really doesn't work for me. Nor do the daemons - do they eat? fuck? Need the vet? etc. Otherwise fabulous.
Is that what happens in that book? How revolting. I think Pullman has tailored his output rather cynically to the desire that many in commerce and entertainment have to attack organised religion. I find it rather pathetic and I am afraid it would prevent me from enjoying any other merits the books, or any adaptations, might have.
It's clunky rather than revolting.
And let's set it against Narnia where a whole solar system if not universe comes into being, exists and dies and has its religious fall and redemption just to enable half a dozen snotty posh English kids to sort out a few ishoos.
Don't you be disrespecting the Narnia books.
I love them unreservedly, but the premise is bonkers.
I think we once had a whole thread on the geographical relationship between Cair Paravel, and the White Witch's castle.
Of course at the age which I read them, the religious allegory went straight over my head; I just enjoyed them as cracking stories.
Are they good stories though? My recollection from reading (I think) all of them as a child is that TLTWATW is brilliant but the others much less so.
In other news, support for Catalan independence continues to fall. The change from a hard-line, confrontational, right-wing government in Madrid to one run by the centre left that has focused on dialogue has led to a split in the Catalan separatist movement. There is even an outside chance the separatists may lose control of the Catalan parliament after next month's regional elections. https://twitter.com/RupertCocke/status/1348568129685901312
Confirms the PP Spanish government did the right thing in 2017 then refusing a legal independence referendum when support for Catalan independence was much higher and ignoring the Catalan nationalist government's declaration of a UDI.
Had they not done that Catalonia would now be an independent state not seeing support for independence fall
The Spanish government - whether PP, PSOE or whatever - has no legal right to allow a referendum on independence for any part of Spain. That is clearly set out in Spain's written constitution.
If the Catalan government's declaration of UDI had not been challenged by Madrid then Catalonia would in effect have become an independent state, the law is meaningless unless it is upheld and enforced.
Westminster must equally enforce the legal principle of our constitution that Westminster is sovereign and when the UK government says 2014 was a once in a generation vote it means it
But that means that even if 100% of the population of Catalonia wanted independence they would not be allowed to vote for it because it would be illegal for the Spanish Government to allow such a vote and you would consider any vote without Spanish permission to be unlawful and therefore should be repressed.
In which case why bother asking for permission? They should just do it. Unless you think that it is justifiable to hold a whole population captive against their will and they should not be allowed to express their opposition to that?
There is a process to getting to a referendum for independence, but it is one that involves gaining the explicit consent of the majority of voters in Spain. That's because Catalonia is regarded constitutionally as an integral part of a unitary Spanish state. The UK is very different as it is a union of two kingdoms and so, it could fairly be argued, explicitly requires ongoing consent from all parts of the union to continue. The bar for, say, Yorkshire or Cornwall to leave the Union (or to become independent of England) would be much higher. The same argument might also apply to the Shetlands or to the Borders in Scotland.
In 1707 the old Scottish Parliament was abolished and all its members moved to Westminster.
Ever since then it requires the consent of a majority of elected Westminster MPs and Westminster MPs and the UK government alone for Scottish independence to be legal
Yes we know. Here is what is going to happen: 2021 - Scotland re-elects a government on a platform of seeking independence 2022 - Arguments about an independence referendum. Scotland announces an advisory referendum of the same legal basis (i.e. none) of the EU Referendum 2023 - Scotland votes for Independence 2024 - HYUFD tells Scotland "you can eff orf. Please vote Conservative"
Rather difficult to continue to ignore the will of the people. If Scotland wants Independence it shall have Independence.
Legally 100% of Scots could vote for independence but if the UK government at Westminster refused to grant it then legally it would remain part of the UK.
Even if politically it might be a bit more difficult for the UK to enforce UK law in Scotland at that point
It would be politically fascinating. When a non-binding referendum was held on the EU, the Tory government claimed that the will of the people is politically binding, attacking as undemocratic anyone saying it wasn't binding.
If a non-binding referendum on the UK provides another majority for leave, the very same Tory government will claim the will of the people is politically irrelevant as they are in power actually. The will of the people is only relevant - as you always make clear - if they are your people.
Just as its OK to hold repeated rerun elections because you dislike the results given by the will of the people but cannot possibly hold another advisory referendum because asking people to vote again because you don't like the result is undemocratic.
You can't see any political or moral issues with this gross hypocrisy can you...
The SNP can campaign in 2019 with Labour and the LDs to ensure the Tories lose their majority at Westminster in 2024 as we Tories had to campaign to get a majority at Westminster in 2019.
Now we have that Tory majority until 2024 what we Tories say goes
That's not democracy, that's elective dictatorship. And given you can, and may well, 'fix' the electoral system, terrifying!
The independence referendum of 2014 was a democratic exercise that offered the Scottish people change. They chose not to accept that change. Where's the "elective dictatorship" in that? Unless you think the minority view should prevail - which is the dictatorship without the elective.
Downing Street this afternoon said that a 24/7 roll-out was possible, but there was not the demand for jabs outside the current 8am to 8pm opening hours.
The Prime Minister's Press Secretary, Allegra Stratton, said: 'The NHS will tell you that when they are asking the people who are offered vaccinations, they are asking them when it would suit them, what time.
‘If people come back and say they would like an appointment after 8pm that is something they (the NHS) will consider.
‘My understanding is that at the moment there is not a clamour for appointments late into the night or early in the morning.
I don't give a f##k if people say well I would rather do 12.30 on a Thursday please, because I have my online gym class in the morning and WI meeting in the afternoon.
If there is the supply and the manpower, we should be doing as many hours as possible. As of course people would say they prefer a nice middle of the day slot, but I am sure many of those shielding would also take a 6am slot if it meant being protected.
I would happily go at 3am if asked.
Like masks, its not about you, its about everybody.
My dad made this point this morning. He said "why are they asking people to book an appointment? Surely you get what you're given."
When they are doing the 50 year olds, I think it is fair to expect them to turn up whenever.
Not sure about the 80+ year olds that have to arrange transport or take the bus (aaagh!).
Working a system 24/7 imposes other loads.
You need 3 times the number of staff, for a start.
Unless the problem is appointment capacity, rather than, say, vaccine availability, it isn't necessarily an improvement. Or a good idea.
You're largely right, I think. However, if the supply is there, I still think this would be a good idea. It brings forward the staffing costs, but the quicker we smash through the population with this vaccine, the better. And politically it could be a massive win. We've already got a few people grumbling on here about their long-suffering wife not having had the jab, etc. Any vexatious complaining will vanish to almost nil once it's pointed out that there was an appointment at 04:10 that was never taken up, you could have had it if you were that anxious.
Staffing costs isn't the driving factor here. We can afford to throw money at this if we have the trained jabbers and the vaccine available. Let's do this!
If there is more vaccine than appointments, it might well make sense to expand sideways. Open more vaccination centres.
24/7 is the kind of thing that sounds cool and busy and "we are doing lots" - but it is not necessarily a good idea.
If nothing else - you want time at the centres for cleaning.
I think 24/7 might be a bit much but 7am to 11pm is definitely something that should be looked into, especially after the middle of Feb when working age people are eligible rather than over 70s.
Perhaps if people are incapable of getting to a venue between 8am - 8pm but that seems unlikely for many.
Surely another advantage of lateral increases in the number of venues instead of longer hours for the same ones is it makes it easier for people to get to a venue nearer to their home or place of work?
The key to this is surely making sure people honour the appointments, so finding more venues closer to people and ensuring they actually turn up to the appointment is key. Whatever makes that work, so long as we are not wasting doses or letting them go idle.
Mrs RP has just made a good point. It isn't just a question of how much fresh fruit and vegetables is available, its how fresh it is. We've noticed we're having to throw out quite a bit of citrus fruits which has gone soft / nasty.
Mr RP, honest question - how come the supermarkets around my way seem to no problem with any fresh fruit/veg supplies at all?
Because you live in France??
Close, Dorset, but defo no problems. Just back from the (Co-op) supermarket and they were restocking fruit and veg as I was walking passed. No emptiness at all.
I'm not disputing there are problems - because other areas do seem to be struggling and it sounds like there is some disruption at ports. What I am trying to work out is how, if it is doable around here, it isn't doable everywhere? Is the problem that capacity is down, rather than any individual product supplier is struggling?
No. Just more media bollocks trying to find edge case hypotheticals and trip people up. It's been nearly a year of this idiocy.
How is this an edge case? There are hundreds of thousands of such occurrences daily, it is entirely mainstream and the govt should know if its legal or illegal. Its legal.
There are hundreds of thousands going for exercise, on a park bench, with a friend, with a coffee every day?
I don't know how to break it to you, Phil, but there are people out there who don't spend all their waking hours on PB.
No, really.
I'm currently spending most of my hours as a teacher to my children in the day, trying to do my own work at night, with PB squeezed inbetween.
Frankly finding a time to go outside, with the weather as miserable as it is, is not my idea of fun. But to each their own.
Well done you that is heroic.
But I would certainly advise getting some fresh air. Especially today has been markedly warmer than previous days; let's hope it is a trend.
We are lucky enough to have a garden and in the first lockdown in the Spring spent much of the afternoon in it with the children. Good way to get fresh air and burn their energy.
I don't know where you live that its warmer right now but its horrid here at the minute outside. Extremely windy and that makes it feel even colder. Not something likely to improve during lockdown either, so I can picture this getting much worse for people's mental health than the first time around.
Yes absolutely. Last time it was, to put it succintly, glorious. This time it's tricky.
My 7am bike ride was an instant casualty.
And speaking of mental health, this I believe should be the focus of govt although I've no idea how it will be addressed. As an example, many oldies (OK some of the ones I know) are in a complete state about the second jab. While accepting that it makes sense for more people to have one jab, they are now pondering the rock of not having the jab and having another three months stuck indoors (many/most are shielding) and the hard place of being immune if they get one or both jabs and lockdown as a whole not ending for months.
In other news, support for Catalan independence continues to fall. The change from a hard-line, confrontational, right-wing government in Madrid to one run by the centre left that has focused on dialogue has led to a split in the Catalan separatist movement. There is even an outside chance the separatists may lose control of the Catalan parliament after next month's regional elections. https://twitter.com/RupertCocke/status/1348568129685901312
Confirms the PP Spanish government did the right thing in 2017 then refusing a legal independence referendum when support for Catalan independence was much higher and ignoring the Catalan nationalist government's declaration of a UDI.
Had they not done that Catalonia would now be an independent state not seeing support for independence fall
The Spanish government - whether PP, PSOE or whatever - has no legal right to allow a referendum on independence for any part of Spain. That is clearly set out in Spain's written constitution.
If the Catalan government's declaration of UDI had not been challenged by Madrid then Catalonia would in effect have become an independent state, the law is meaningless unless it is upheld and enforced.
Westminster must equally enforce the legal principle of our constitution that Westminster is sovereign and when the UK government says 2014 was a once in a generation vote it means it
But that means that even if 100% of the population of Catalonia wanted independence they would not be allowed to vote for it because it would be illegal for the Spanish Government to allow such a vote and you would consider any vote without Spanish permission to be unlawful and therefore should be repressed.
In which case why bother asking for permission? They should just do it. Unless you think that it is justifiable to hold a whole population captive against their will and they should not be allowed to express their opposition to that?
There is a process to getting to a referendum for independence, but it is one that involves gaining the explicit consent of the majority of voters in Spain. That's because Catalonia is regarded constitutionally as an integral part of a unitary Spanish state. The UK is very different as it is a union of two kingdoms and so, it could fairly be argued, explicitly requires ongoing consent from all parts of the union to continue. The bar for, say, Yorkshire or Cornwall to leave the Union (or to become independent of England) would be much higher. The same argument might also apply to the Shetlands or to the Borders in Scotland.
In 1707 the old Scottish Parliament was abolished and all its members moved to Westminster.
Ever since then it requires the consent of a majority of elected Westminster MPs and Westminster MPs and the UK government alone for Scottish independence to be legal
Yes we know. Here is what is going to happen: 2021 - Scotland re-elects a government on a platform of seeking independence 2022 - Arguments about an independence referendum. Scotland announces an advisory referendum of the same legal basis (i.e. none) of the EU Referendum 2023 - Scotland votes for Independence 2024 - HYUFD tells Scotland "you can eff orf. Please vote Conservative"
Rather difficult to continue to ignore the will of the people. If Scotland wants Independence it shall have Independence.
Legally 100% of Scots could vote for independence but if the UK government at Westminster refused to grant it then legally it would remain part of the UK.
Even if politically it might be a bit more difficult for the UK to enforce UK law in Scotland at that point
It would be politically fascinating. When a non-binding referendum was held on the EU, the Tory government claimed that the will of the people is politically binding, attacking as undemocratic anyone saying it wasn't binding.
If a non-binding referendum on the UK provides another majority for leave, the very same Tory government will claim the will of the people is politically irrelevant as they are in power actually. The will of the people is only relevant - as you always make clear - if they are your people.
Just as its OK to hold repeated rerun elections because you dislike the results given by the will of the people but cannot possibly hold another advisory referendum because asking people to vote again because you don't like the result is undemocratic.
You can't see any political or moral issues with this gross hypocrisy can you...
The SNP can campaign in 2019 with Labour and the LDs to ensure the Tories lose their majority at Westminster in 2024 as we Tories had to campaign to get a majority at Westminster in 2019.
Now we have that Tory majority until 2024 what we Tories say goes
That's not democracy, that's elective dictatorship. And given you can, and may well, 'fix' the electoral system, terrifying!
No it is based on our unwritten constitution based on sovereignty of Crown in Parliament and ultimately the elected House of Commons
How do you think the Scots should achieve independence should they wish to?
They would have to elect Labour MPs and or SNP MPs supporting a UK Labour PM willing to grant them a legal indyref2
Which means they are dependent on voters in England - correct? If voters in England and Wales elect a Labour or Labour/ LibDem govt without the necessity of SNP support (it has happened before) then they are just as hamstrung as with a Tory Govt?
More than 2.4 million people in the UK have now received a Covid-19 vaccine, the minister in charge of the deployment, Nadhim Zahawi, has said.
No wonder Hancock was looking more jolly yesterday on his media round, clearly there has been a decent acceleration. Now just need to get to doing that every single week.
"More than 2.4 million people in the UK have now received a Covid-19 vaccine, the minister in charge of the deployment, Nadhim Zahawi, has said. Tens of thousands of more people are due to get a jab this week after seven mass centres opened across England."
For those showering contempt on LOTR I can only say, "Fly, you fools".
Yes, its weird that no one ever seems to think of sex, ever, but it is the creation of an entire world, copied many, many times yet never bettered.
For a similar feat of imagination I would give you Dune. Those books, and especially the 4th one, God Emperor, had a major impact on me, curing me of religion.
Dickens I have generally found pretty hard work but I am happy to accept the failings are mine.
Also Philip Pullman. I find his atheism tiresomely contrived, not least because he uses the supernatural and occult for great effect, through his famous series.
But in terms of creating an entire new world? Fabulous
Having a couple of pesky kids actually physically killing actual God really, really doesn't work for me. Nor do the daemons - do they eat? fuck? Need the vet? etc. Otherwise fabulous.
Is that what happens in that book? How revolting. I think Pullman has tailored his output rather cynically to the desire that many in commerce and entertainment have to attack organised religion. I find it rather pathetic and I am afraid it would prevent me from enjoying any other merits the books, or any adaptations, might have.
It's clunky rather than revolting.
And let's set it against Narnia where a whole solar system if not universe comes into being, exists and dies and has its religious fall and redemption just to enable half a dozen snotty posh English kids to sort out a few ishoos.
Don't you be disrespecting the Narnia books.
I love them unreservedly, but the premise is bonkers.
I think we once had a whole thread on the geographical relationship between Cair Paravel, and the White Witch's castle.
Of course at the age which I read them, the religious allegory went straight over my head; I just enjoyed them as cracking stories.
Have another go. Whatever else they are, they are the most rereadable books I know.
In other news, support for Catalan independence continues to fall. The change from a hard-line, confrontational, right-wing government in Madrid to one run by the centre left that has focused on dialogue has led to a split in the Catalan separatist movement. There is even an outside chance the separatists may lose control of the Catalan parliament after next month's regional elections. https://twitter.com/RupertCocke/status/1348568129685901312
Confirms the PP Spanish government did the right thing in 2017 then refusing a legal independence referendum when support for Catalan independence was much higher and ignoring the Catalan nationalist government's declaration of a UDI.
Had they not done that Catalonia would now be an independent state not seeing support for independence fall
The Spanish government - whether PP, PSOE or whatever - has no legal right to allow a referendum on independence for any part of Spain. That is clearly set out in Spain's written constitution.
If the Catalan government's declaration of UDI had not been challenged by Madrid then Catalonia would in effect have become an independent state, the law is meaningless unless it is upheld and enforced.
Westminster must equally enforce the legal principle of our constitution that Westminster is sovereign and when the UK government says 2014 was a once in a generation vote it means it
But that means that even if 100% of the population of Catalonia wanted independence they would not be allowed to vote for it because it would be illegal for the Spanish Government to allow such a vote and you would consider any vote without Spanish permission to be unlawful and therefore should be repressed.
In which case why bother asking for permission? They should just do it. Unless you think that it is justifiable to hold a whole population captive against their will and they should not be allowed to express their opposition to that?
There is a process to getting to a referendum for independence, but it is one that involves gaining the explicit consent of the majority of voters in Spain. That's because Catalonia is regarded constitutionally as an integral part of a unitary Spanish state. The UK is very different as it is a union of two kingdoms and so, it could fairly be argued, explicitly requires ongoing consent from all parts of the union to continue. The bar for, say, Yorkshire or Cornwall to leave the Union (or to become independent of England) would be much higher. The same argument might also apply to the Shetlands or to the Borders in Scotland.
In 1707 the old Scottish Parliament was abolished and all its members moved to Westminster.
Ever since then it requires the consent of a majority of elected Westminster MPs and Westminster MPs and the UK government alone for Scottish independence to be legal
Yes we know. Here is what is going to happen: 2021 - Scotland re-elects a government on a platform of seeking independence 2022 - Arguments about an independence referendum. Scotland announces an advisory referendum of the same legal basis (i.e. none) of the EU Referendum 2023 - Scotland votes for Independence 2024 - HYUFD tells Scotland "you can eff orf. Please vote Conservative"
Rather difficult to continue to ignore the will of the people. If Scotland wants Independence it shall have Independence.
Legally 100% of Scots could vote for independence but if the UK government at Westminster refused to grant it then legally it would remain part of the UK.
Even if politically it might be a bit more difficult for the UK to enforce UK law in Scotland at that point
It would be politically fascinating. When a non-binding referendum was held on the EU, the Tory government claimed that the will of the people is politically binding, attacking as undemocratic anyone saying it wasn't binding.
If a non-binding referendum on the UK provides another majority for leave, the very same Tory government will claim the will of the people is politically irrelevant as they are in power actually. The will of the people is only relevant - as you always make clear - if they are your people.
Just as its OK to hold repeated rerun elections because you dislike the results given by the will of the people but cannot possibly hold another advisory referendum because asking people to vote again because you don't like the result is undemocratic.
You can't see any political or moral issues with this gross hypocrisy can you...
The SNP can campaign in 2019 with Labour and the LDs to ensure the Tories lose their majority at Westminster in 2024 as we Tories had to campaign to get a majority at Westminster in 2019.
Now we have that Tory majority until 2024 what we Tories say goes
That's not democracy, that's elective dictatorship. And given you can, and may well, 'fix' the electoral system, terrifying!
No it is based on our unwritten constitution based on sovereignty of Crown in Parliament and ultimately the elected House of Commons
How do you think the Scots should achieve independence should they wish to?
They would have to elect Labour MPs and or SNP MPs supporting a UK Labour PM willing to grant them a legal indyref2
Which means they are dependent on voters in England - correct? If voters in England and Wales elect a Labour or Labour/ LibDem govt without the necessity of SNP support (it has happened before) then they are just as hamstrung as with a Tory Govt?
They have to effectively hold the balance of power at Westminster yes, which is possible, Scottish MPs would have had the balance of power at Westminster in 1964 and February 1974 for example.
Otherwise they will have to wait for a generation to elapse since the 2014 referendum for another legal independence vote
Downing Street this afternoon said that a 24/7 roll-out was possible, but there was not the demand for jabs outside the current 8am to 8pm opening hours.
The Prime Minister's Press Secretary, Allegra Stratton, said: 'The NHS will tell you that when they are asking the people who are offered vaccinations, they are asking them when it would suit them, what time.
‘If people come back and say they would like an appointment after 8pm that is something they (the NHS) will consider.
‘My understanding is that at the moment there is not a clamour for appointments late into the night or early in the morning.
I don't give a f##k if people say well I would rather do 12.30 on a Thursday please, because I have my online gym class in the morning and WI meeting in the afternoon.
If there is the supply and the manpower, we should be doing as many hours as possible. As of course people would say they prefer a nice middle of the day slot, but I am sure many of those shielding would also take a 6am slot if it meant being protected.
I would happily go at 3am if asked.
Like masks, its not about you, its about everybody.
My dad made this point this morning. He said "why are they asking people to book an appointment? Surely you get what you're given."
When they are doing the 50 year olds, I think it is fair to expect them to turn up whenever.
Not sure about the 80+ year olds that have to arrange transport or take the bus (aaagh!).
Working a system 24/7 imposes other loads.
You need 3 times the number of staff, for a start.
Unless the problem is appointment capacity, rather than, say, vaccine availability, it isn't necessarily an improvement. Or a good idea.
You're largely right, I think. However, if the supply is there, I still think this would be a good idea. It brings forward the staffing costs, but the quicker we smash through the population with this vaccine, the better. And politically it could be a massive win. We've already got a few people grumbling on here about their long-suffering wife not having had the jab, etc. Any vexatious complaining will vanish to almost nil once it's pointed out that there was an appointment at 04:10 that was never taken up, you could have had it if you were that anxious.
Staffing costs isn't the driving factor here. We can afford to throw money at this if we have the trained jabbers and the vaccine available. Let's do this!
Why do it at 3am in the morning when you can open another site and do twice the number during the day.
We don't have a shortage of empty church halls or other venues.
That means more places for the distribution system to reach and support.
It is much easier to have very large locations like the football grounds / massive convention centres.
Mrs RP has just made a good point. It isn't just a question of how much fresh fruit and vegetables is available, its how fresh it is. We've noticed we're having to throw out quite a bit of citrus fruits which has gone soft / nasty.
Mr RP, honest question - how come the supermarkets around my way seem to no problem with any fresh fruit/veg supplies at all?
Because of the rampant inefficiencies in most of the big supermarket supply chains. All the major retailers stock far too many products ("SKUs") from too many suppliers. Which means they need a lot of supply depots for different regions or national depots for slow-moving products. Co-ordinating all that is difficult and its a common occurrence for any given retailer to have both significant availability shortages of any given SKU in a load of stores AND oversupply of that SKU in other depots / stores preventing the computer system ordering to fill the gaps.
That there is a growing national stock squeeze on fresh is not up for debate. Stores or indeed whole areas still largely ok for stock is not proof that there is no national problem, its just how supply chains (don't) work.
Downing Street this afternoon said that a 24/7 roll-out was possible, but there was not the demand for jabs outside the current 8am to 8pm opening hours.
The Prime Minister's Press Secretary, Allegra Stratton, said: 'The NHS will tell you that when they are asking the people who are offered vaccinations, they are asking them when it would suit them, what time.
‘If people come back and say they would like an appointment after 8pm that is something they (the NHS) will consider.
‘My understanding is that at the moment there is not a clamour for appointments late into the night or early in the morning.
I don't give a f##k if people say well I would rather do 12.30 on a Thursday please, because I have my online gym class in the morning and WI meeting in the afternoon.
If there is the supply and the manpower, we should be doing as many hours as possible. As of course people would say they prefer a nice middle of the day slot, but I am sure many of those shielding would also take a 6am slot if it meant being protected.
I would happily go at 3am if asked.
Like masks, its not about you, its about everybody.
My dad made this point this morning. He said "why are they asking people to book an appointment? Surely you get what you're given."
When they are doing the 50 year olds, I think it is fair to expect them to turn up whenever.
Not sure about the 80+ year olds that have to arrange transport or take the bus (aaagh!).
Working a system 24/7 imposes other loads.
You need 3 times the number of staff, for a start.
Unless the problem is appointment capacity, rather than, say, vaccine availability, it isn't necessarily an improvement. Or a good idea.
You're largely right, I think. However, if the supply is there, I still think this would be a good idea. It brings forward the staffing costs, but the quicker we smash through the population with this vaccine, the better. And politically it could be a massive win. We've already got a few people grumbling on here about their long-suffering wife not having had the jab, etc. Any vexatious complaining will vanish to almost nil once it's pointed out that there was an appointment at 04:10 that was never taken up, you could have had it if you were that anxious.
Staffing costs isn't the driving factor here. We can afford to throw money at this if we have the trained jabbers and the vaccine available. Let's do this!
If there is more vaccine than appointments, it might well make sense to expand sideways. Open more vaccination centres.
24/7 is the kind of thing that sounds cool and busy and "we are doing lots" - but it is not necessarily a good idea.
If nothing else - you want time at the centres for cleaning.
I think 24/7 might be a bit much but 7am to 11pm is definitely something that should be looked into, especially after the middle of Feb when working age people are eligible rather than over 70s.
Perhaps if people are incapable of getting to a venue between 8am - 8pm but that seems unlikely for many.
Surely another advantage of lateral increases in the number of venues instead of longer hours for the same ones is it makes it easier for people to get to a venue nearer to their home or place of work?
The key to this is surely making sure people honour the appointments, so finding more venues closer to people and ensuring they actually turn up to the appointment is key. Whatever makes that work, so long as we are not wasting doses or letting them go idle.
7am to 11pm is a pretty widely used opening time for services that want to capture working age people during the week, most convenience stores do it. We need to make getting the vaccine as convenient as possible for people even if it means spending a bit of extra money to have two shifts or more centres or even 24/7 in London where younger people will be happy to get late night appointments if it means getting jabbed a month or two ahead of schedule.
And I know no-one apart from myself who routinely wears a mask outdoors as they do in much of Asia and now elsewhere.
I am convinced this virus spreads outdoors. Undoubtedly less readily than indoors but nevertheless I'm sure it does. Again, as you would expect from an airborne virus which spreads by aerosol as well as droplet.
We are, and there's no other way to put this, f-ing stupid in this country. Nerys claims to be a nurse. What hope is there?
I recall early on an ITU nurse saying that she didn't see how it was possible to 'BE SAFE' when she couldn't 'see' the virus.
I mean, that's the level of f-ing ignorance with which we are dealing.
Still waiting for those superior literary skills to manifest themselves.
Oh are you? Read one of my bestselling books. But it doesn't sound to me like you'd recognise it even if you were hit over the head by Lord of the Rings.
I keep the writing clean and simple on here. Actually I do in my books. Only Mike Smithson of the thread writers knows how to do that. A thread should have one point made succinctly and cleanly.
Less is more. Heck, even The Great Gatsby is only 47,000 words.
Wait, are you citing LOTR as good writing? JFC.
By some measures it is the most popular novel ever written, anywhere on the planet, and also the most loved. It has also been hugely influential on popular AND elite culture. You see its influence everywhere
Why? Because it is an inspired piece of sustained human imagination, probably unexampled, AND it has a superb, mythic, driving narrative
It’s not entirely my cup of tea but I can still recognise it as quite exceptional. Anyone who doesn’t simply reveals their own idiocy. Sorry
I'll bite.
It's unreadable rubbish, mostly read and admired by those with the minds of teenage boys.
I'm amazed how much people are ok with judging and insulting others based on their literature choices.
Yes its all in good fun, but in saying you dislike it is really ok to insult those who do? And no people who dislike such things shouldn't be insulted either, but some people freely admit to dismissing entire genres of fiction, based on very narrow views of it, as a sign of superiority. And it is superiority because it inevitably involves judging, negatively, those who like them, rather than simply criticising the genre or work.
I've always thought that rather strange.
But I bet there is a correlation between liking LOTR and voting for Brexit. By which I mean if you take the population of people who are readers of novels and they voted, say, X% Remain, then the sub-sample of those who like Tolkien would have voted Y% Remain and Y would be less than X. I'd put a grand on that without losing too much sleep.
Your most embarrassing comment ever, and I’m including the one where you ‘tried to stop your son watching Top Gear’
It's not the most weighty contribution I've ever made - grant you that - but I'm pretty confident it's true.
It can be verified here and now. Mentally count the posters who are Tolkien fans and calculate what % of them are Leavers. Bet you any money when you've done that you get a higher % than the standardized PB norm, i.e. the % of all PB posters who read novels who voted Leave.
Given that, as we are constantly reminded, Remainers are generally ‘better educated’, I would actually guess the opposite is true. LOTR is a mighty tome to tackle, only more bookish people would have a go. So probably more Remainers than Leavers
There's little doubt Tolkien would have voted for Brexit, if he were alive today. I enjoy Tolkien myself, so that's one Brexit voter, but I don't know what the correlation is.
It's more or less socially acceptable to admit to enjoying epic fantasy now, but back when LOTR was written, it would be like admitting to masturbation.
It is the masturbation while reading epic fantasy that is the problem...
No. Just more media bollocks trying to find edge case hypotheticals and trip people up. It's been nearly a year of this idiocy.
How is this an edge case? There are hundreds of thousands of such occurrences daily, it is entirely mainstream and the govt should know if its legal or illegal. Its legal.
There are hundreds of thousands going for exercise, on a park bench, with a friend, with a coffee every day?
I don't know how to break it to you, Phil, but there are people out there who don't spend all their waking hours on PB.
No, really.
I'm currently spending most of my hours as a teacher to my children in the day, trying to do my own work at night, with PB squeezed inbetween.
Frankly finding a time to go outside, with the weather as miserable as it is, is not my idea of fun. But to each their own.
Well done you that is heroic.
But I would certainly advise getting some fresh air. Especially today has been markedly warmer than previous days; let's hope it is a trend.
Make the most of it - it is shaping up like a re-run of the severe cold and heavy snow of 2010 by the month end.
Get your extra heating oil and wood in now, just in case.
Just ordered a full load of wood and (is it illegal yet?) a load of A-cobbles.
Downing Street this afternoon said that a 24/7 roll-out was possible, but there was not the demand for jabs outside the current 8am to 8pm opening hours.
The Prime Minister's Press Secretary, Allegra Stratton, said: 'The NHS will tell you that when they are asking the people who are offered vaccinations, they are asking them when it would suit them, what time.
‘If people come back and say they would like an appointment after 8pm that is something they (the NHS) will consider.
‘My understanding is that at the moment there is not a clamour for appointments late into the night or early in the morning.
I don't give a f##k if people say well I would rather do 12.30 on a Thursday please, because I have my online gym class in the morning and WI meeting in the afternoon.
If there is the supply and the manpower, we should be doing as many hours as possible. As of course people would say they prefer a nice middle of the day slot, but I am sure many of those shielding would also take a 6am slot if it meant being protected.
I would happily go at 3am if asked.
Like masks, its not about you, its about everybody.
My dad made this point this morning. He said "why are they asking people to book an appointment? Surely you get what you're given."
When they are doing the 50 year olds, I think it is fair to expect them to turn up whenever.
Not sure about the 80+ year olds that have to arrange transport or take the bus (aaagh!).
Working a system 24/7 imposes other loads.
You need 3 times the number of staff, for a start.
Unless the problem is appointment capacity, rather than, say, vaccine availability, it isn't necessarily an improvement. Or a good idea.
You're largely right, I think. However, if the supply is there, I still think this would be a good idea. It brings forward the staffing costs, but the quicker we smash through the population with this vaccine, the better. And politically it could be a massive win. We've already got a few people grumbling on here about their long-suffering wife not having had the jab, etc. Any vexatious complaining will vanish to almost nil once it's pointed out that there was an appointment at 04:10 that was never taken up, you could have had it if you were that anxious.
Staffing costs isn't the driving factor here. We can afford to throw money at this if we have the trained jabbers and the vaccine available. Let's do this!
Why do it at 3am in the morning when you can open another site and do twice the number during the day.
We don't have a shortage of empty church halls or other venues.
That means more places for the distribution system to reach and support.
It is much easier to have very large locations like the football grounds / massive convention centres.
This should be the number one priority of the nation, if its difficult to distribute then the difficulties should be tackled not just go for the easy options.
Not everyone drives. More venues means more possibility for people to get to a venue easily accessible to them.
Pfizer has restrictions that it needs large numbers to get a box, so fair enough on that, but just because its difficult to support more sites doesn't make more sites a bad idea.
In other news, support for Catalan independence continues to fall. The change from a hard-line, confrontational, right-wing government in Madrid to one run by the centre left that has focused on dialogue has led to a split in the Catalan separatist movement. There is even an outside chance the separatists may lose control of the Catalan parliament after next month's regional elections. https://twitter.com/RupertCocke/status/1348568129685901312
Confirms the PP Spanish government did the right thing in 2017 then refusing a legal independence referendum when support for Catalan independence was much higher and ignoring the Catalan nationalist government's declaration of a UDI.
Had they not done that Catalonia would now be an independent state not seeing support for independence fall
The Spanish government - whether PP, PSOE or whatever - has no legal right to allow a referendum on independence for any part of Spain. That is clearly set out in Spain's written constitution.
If the Catalan government's declaration of UDI had not been challenged by Madrid then Catalonia would in effect have become an independent state, the law is meaningless unless it is upheld and enforced.
Westminster must equally enforce the legal principle of our constitution that Westminster is sovereign and when the UK government says 2014 was a once in a generation vote it means it
But that means that even if 100% of the population of Catalonia wanted independence they would not be allowed to vote for it because it would be illegal for the Spanish Government to allow such a vote and you would consider any vote without Spanish permission to be unlawful and therefore should be repressed.
In which case why bother asking for permission? They should just do it. Unless you think that it is justifiable to hold a whole population captive against their will and they should not be allowed to express their opposition to that?
There is a process to getting to a referendum for independence, but it is one that involves gaining the explicit consent of the majority of voters in Spain. That's because Catalonia is regarded constitutionally as an integral part of a unitary Spanish state. The UK is very different as it is a union of two kingdoms and so, it could fairly be argued, explicitly requires ongoing consent from all parts of the union to continue. The bar for, say, Yorkshire or Cornwall to leave the Union (or to become independent of England) would be much higher. The same argument might also apply to the Shetlands or to the Borders in Scotland.
In 1707 the old Scottish Parliament was abolished and all its members moved to Westminster.
Ever since then it requires the consent of a majority of elected Westminster MPs and Westminster MPs and the UK government alone for Scottish independence to be legal
Yes we know. Here is what is going to happen: 2021 - Scotland re-elects a government on a platform of seeking independence 2022 - Arguments about an independence referendum. Scotland announces an advisory referendum of the same legal basis (i.e. none) of the EU Referendum 2023 - Scotland votes for Independence 2024 - HYUFD tells Scotland "you can eff orf. Please vote Conservative"
Rather difficult to continue to ignore the will of the people. If Scotland wants Independence it shall have Independence.
Legally 100% of Scots could vote for independence but if the UK government at Westminster refused to grant it then legally it would remain part of the UK.
Even if politically it might be a bit more difficult for the UK to enforce UK law in Scotland at that point
It would be politically fascinating. When a non-binding referendum was held on the EU, the Tory government claimed that the will of the people is politically binding, attacking as undemocratic anyone saying it wasn't binding.
If a non-binding referendum on the UK provides another majority for leave, the very same Tory government will claim the will of the people is politically irrelevant as they are in power actually. The will of the people is only relevant - as you always make clear - if they are your people.
Just as its OK to hold repeated rerun elections because you dislike the results given by the will of the people but cannot possibly hold another advisory referendum because asking people to vote again because you don't like the result is undemocratic.
You can't see any political or moral issues with this gross hypocrisy can you...
The SNP can campaign in 2019 with Labour and the LDs to ensure the Tories lose their majority at Westminster in 2024 as we Tories had to campaign to get a majority at Westminster in 2019.
Now we have that Tory majority until 2024 what we Tories say goes
That's not democracy, that's elective dictatorship. And given you can, and may well, 'fix' the electoral system, terrifying!
No it is based on our unwritten constitution based on sovereignty of Crown in Parliament and ultimately the elected House of Commons
How do you think the Scots should achieve independence should they wish to?
They would have to elect Labour MPs and or SNP MPs supporting a UK Labour PM willing to grant them a legal indyref2
Which means they are dependent on voters in England - correct? If voters in England and Wales elect a Labour or Labour/ LibDem govt without the necessity of SNP support (it has happened before) then they are just as hamstrung as with a Tory Govt?
They have to effectively hold the balance of power at Westminster yes, which is possible, Scottish MPs would have had the balance of power at Westminster in 1964 and February 1974 for example.
Otherwise they will have to wait for a generation to elapse since the 2014 referendum for another legal independence vote
Downing Street this afternoon said that a 24/7 roll-out was possible, but there was not the demand for jabs outside the current 8am to 8pm opening hours.
The Prime Minister's Press Secretary, Allegra Stratton, said: 'The NHS will tell you that when they are asking the people who are offered vaccinations, they are asking them when it would suit them, what time.
‘If people come back and say they would like an appointment after 8pm that is something they (the NHS) will consider.
‘My understanding is that at the moment there is not a clamour for appointments late into the night or early in the morning.
I don't give a f##k if people say well I would rather do 12.30 on a Thursday please, because I have my online gym class in the morning and WI meeting in the afternoon.
If there is the supply and the manpower, we should be doing as many hours as possible. As of course people would say they prefer a nice middle of the day slot, but I am sure many of those shielding would also take a 6am slot if it meant being protected.
I would happily go at 3am if asked.
Like masks, its not about you, its about everybody.
My dad made this point this morning. He said "why are they asking people to book an appointment? Surely you get what you're given."
When they are doing the 50 year olds, I think it is fair to expect them to turn up whenever.
Not sure about the 80+ year olds that have to arrange transport or take the bus (aaagh!).
Working a system 24/7 imposes other loads.
You need 3 times the number of staff, for a start.
Unless the problem is appointment capacity, rather than, say, vaccine availability, it isn't necessarily an improvement. Or a good idea.
You're largely right, I think. However, if the supply is there, I still think this would be a good idea. It brings forward the staffing costs, but the quicker we smash through the population with this vaccine, the better. And politically it could be a massive win. We've already got a few people grumbling on here about their long-suffering wife not having had the jab, etc. Any vexatious complaining will vanish to almost nil once it's pointed out that there was an appointment at 04:10 that was never taken up, you could have had it if you were that anxious.
Staffing costs isn't the driving factor here. We can afford to throw money at this if we have the trained jabbers and the vaccine available. Let's do this!
If there is more vaccine than appointments, it might well make sense to expand sideways. Open more vaccination centres.
24/7 is the kind of thing that sounds cool and busy and "we are doing lots" - but it is not necessarily a good idea.
If nothing else - you want time at the centres for cleaning.
I think 24/7 might be a bit much but 7am to 11pm is definitely something that should be looked into, especially after the middle of Feb when working age people are eligible rather than over 70s.
Perhaps if people are incapable of getting to a venue between 8am - 8pm but that seems unlikely for many.
Surely another advantage of lateral increases in the number of venues instead of longer hours for the same ones is it makes it easier for people to get to a venue nearer to their home or place of work?
The key to this is surely making sure people honour the appointments, so finding more venues closer to people and ensuring they actually turn up to the appointment is key. Whatever makes that work, so long as we are not wasting doses or letting them go idle.
7am to 11pm is a pretty widely used opening time for services that want to capture working age people during the week, most convenience stores do it. We need to make getting the vaccine as convenient as possible for people even if it means spending a bit of extra money to have two shifts or more centres or even 24/7 in London where younger people will be happy to get late night appointments if it means getting jabbed a month or two ahead of schedule.
If it makes it quicker or easier, yes.
But it may make it quicker or easier to open more venues so there's more locations closer to home and easily accessible instead.
We should do whatever works. I don't care frankly which that is, my guess would be more venues, but whatever works JFDI.
More than 2.4 million people in the UK have now received a Covid-19 vaccine, the minister in charge of the deployment, Nadhim Zahawi, has said.
No wonder Hancock was looking more jolly yesterday on his media round, clearly there has been a decent acceleration. Now just need to get to doing that every single week.
"More than 2.4 million people in the UK have now received a Covid-19 vaccine, the minister in charge of the deployment, Nadhim Zahawi, has said. Tens of thousands of more people are due to get a jab this week after seven mass centres opened across England."
They messed up yesterday with their claim of 2 million in a week.
"I think we've done 2 million people so far, or 2.4 million jabs," Boris Johnson said as he visited a vaccination centre in the South West.
If it is over 200K per day, that is the third highest rate per head in the world, I think
Israel is the leader, with a rate that would be equivalent to 580K per day, in UK
200K is not good enough however.
Needs to be nearer 300k/day.
I'd say closer to 500k per day by the end of January. That makes ~3.2-3.5m per week, ideally with a view to getting up to 5m by the end of Feb. If the EMA bungles the AZ approval (which seems possible) then we would have exclusive supply in Europe for another month or two which will definitely help us get through the over 50s by the end of March and start on the under 50s before then in parallel.
In other news, support for Catalan independence continues to fall. The change from a hard-line, confrontational, right-wing government in Madrid to one run by the centre left that has focused on dialogue has led to a split in the Catalan separatist movement. There is even an outside chance the separatists may lose control of the Catalan parliament after next month's regional elections. https://twitter.com/RupertCocke/status/1348568129685901312
Confirms
The
If the
The
I ?
No, you’re not. That is where it would lead. Spain has had a civil war within living memory, after all.
The great difference with Scotland is that, by constitutional standards, they have very recently HAD a referendum, one that their then leader, Mr Salmond, said was ‘once in a generation’. The Scottish people made their decision, on a vast turnout, and it was No, by a large margin
The SNP is completely entitled to ask for a 2nd vote whenever it likes. The government of the UK, which must govern in the economic and constitutional interests of the entire UK, is completely entitled to say No.
Boris will put the question - Sindyref2 or not - to a free vote in the Commons, which, of course, is the supreme parliament of all the UK, including Scottish MPs. The Commons will say No.
The ball will then go back over Hadrian’s Wall, and into the courts.
God, I’m just repeating myself. As warned. That is my last comment on Sindy for today
Yes, it's a difficult situation. As far as I can tell the SNP will form Scottish Governments for the foreseeable future. They will always be able to call upon 40-45% of the Scottish electorate, which will always put them in Government, because unionist support is so split.
Therefore, they will always have a mandate (renewed every 4 years) for a new independence referendum. And they can therefore ask for the dice to be rolled every 4 years, ad-finitum, until it comes double-sixes. Their base and voters won't demand anything less.
At the same time, it clearly seems unreasonable to put *all* of Scotland (and the UK) through this every 4-5 years forever until they vote 'Yes' even if they've voted 'No' two, three, four, five times in a row before. This clearly isn't right as it results in instability and uncertainty, and stress, for Scotland and the UK of an order of magnitude that's totally different to delivering a manifesto under devolved powers in different party political ways.
I don't know what the answer is. This seems a clear example of the tyranny of the (very large) minority to me. But it's not something that can only be decided in quadrennial elections *alone* when opinion is so split and the issue and consequences so great.
IMHO, the 'No' has to count for more as a mandate than simply timing out the clock until the next round of Scottish Parliamentary elections.
There is a solution - solve the systemic inequalities which drive demands for independence. In Scotland's case that is going to be akin to as close to full self-governance as you can get, which isn't possible in the UK as it is currently structured.
We will need to either remake the UK into a Federal or even Confederal structure, or it will be torn apart. The increasingly massive systemic issues pushing Scotland and Norniron away need resolving whilst there is still time. And where they go Wales will follow, and then the English nations like Cornwall and Rutland.
It is clear the current structure cannot hold, and is actually driving us apart.
We need devo max across the country, up to 50% of taxation should be spent at a sub-national level. Our biggest cities need the power to manage their own affairs. All the economic evidence suggests that this unlocks growth. At the same time we need PR at all local levels to avoid corrupt, one-party fiefdoms.
In turn, Westminster needs to focus on national wealth and security. There is a huge job to create a new vision for Britain beyond Brexit.
And I know no-one apart from myself who routinely wears a mask outdoors as they do in much of Asia and now elsewhere.
I am convinced this virus spreads outdoors. Undoubtedly less readily than indoors but nevertheless I'm sure it does. Again, as you would expect from an airborne virus which spreads by aerosol as well as droplet.
We are, and there's no other way to put this, f-ing stupid in this country. Nerys claims to be a nurse. What hope is there?
I recall early on an ITU nurse saying that she didn't see how it was possible to 'BE SAFE' when she couldn't 'see' the virus.
I mean, that's the level of f-ing ignorance with which we are dealing.
Still waiting for those superior literary skills to manifest themselves.
Oh are you? Read one of my bestselling books. But it doesn't sound to me like you'd recognise it even if you were hit over the head by Lord of the Rings.
I keep the writing clean and simple on here. Actually I do in my books. Only Mike Smithson of the thread writers knows how to do that. A thread should have one point made succinctly and cleanly.
Less is more. Heck, even The Great Gatsby is only 47,000 words.
Wait, are you citing LOTR as good writing? JFC.
By some measures it is the most popular novel ever written, anywhere on the planet, and also the most loved. It has also been hugely influential on popular AND elite culture. You see its influence everywhere
Why? Because it is an inspired piece of sustained human imagination, probably unexampled, AND it has a superb, mythic, driving narrative
It’s not entirely my cup of tea but I can still recognise it as quite exceptional. Anyone who doesn’t simply reveals their own idiocy. Sorry
I'll bite.
It's unreadable rubbish, mostly read and admired by those with the minds of teenage boys.
I'm amazed how much people are ok with judging and insulting others based on their literature choices.
Yes its all in good fun, but in saying you dislike it is really ok to insult those who do? And no people who dislike such things shouldn't be insulted either, but some people freely admit to dismissing entire genres of fiction, based on very narrow views of it, as a sign of superiority. And it is superiority because it inevitably involves judging, negatively, those who like them, rather than simply criticising the genre or work.
I've always thought that rather strange.
But I bet there is a correlation between liking LOTR and voting for Brexit. By which I mean if you take the population of people who are readers of novels and they voted, say, X% Remain, then the sub-sample of those who like Tolkien would have voted Y% Remain and Y would be less than X. I'd put a grand on that without losing too much sleep.
Your most embarrassing comment ever, and I’m including the one where you ‘tried to stop your son watching Top Gear’
It's not the most weighty contribution I've ever made - grant you that - but I'm pretty confident it's true.
It can be verified here and now. Mentally count the posters who are Tolkien fans and calculate what % of them are Leavers. Bet you any money when you've done that you get a higher % than the standardized PB norm, i.e. the % of all PB posters who read novels who voted Leave.
Given that, as we are constantly reminded, Remainers are generally ‘better educated’, I would actually guess the opposite is true. LOTR is a mighty tome to tackle, only more bookish people would have a go. So probably more Remainers than Leavers
There's little doubt Tolkien would have voted for Brexit, if he were alive today. I enjoy Tolkien myself, so that's one Brexit voter, but I don't know what the correlation is.
It's more or less socially acceptable to admit to enjoying epic fantasy now, but back when LOTR was written, it would be like admitting to masturbation.
There was no epic fantasy when when LOTR was written.
Tolkien's introduction explicitly rules out reading across from the book to the real world.
What about Lord of the Rings - the Musical? Otherwise known as Der Ring des Nibelungen.
14 hours of opera. Definitely fantasy. Definitely epic. Albeit not a book.
But another work defined by its fans, nevertheless
Definitely. I'm afraid I prefer it to the Tolkein now, although I've not got to the incurable stage of trailing round the world's opera houses.
You obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder about people who are comfortably off, particularly if they are old. There have always been disparities in wealth and I expect there always will be.
You have an interesting mental picture of me I'd like to hear more.
I am not anti-old -- I am pro-fairness.
I think the young have been treated badly -- and lied to -- by our politicians for well over a quarter of a century.
One inevitably develops a mental picture of other posters, and tI accept this could well be way off the mark.
I drew my conclusions because of the general tone of your comments. For example, the comment I responded to said, re young people:-
"So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa". After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people."
That speaks to me of an angry and bitter individual. The issue has never been simply one of saving old people. If that had been the case it would have made far more sense to completely lock down the over 70s and let everyone else carry on as normal.
If some young people can't see beyond the ends of their noses and think their right to party trumps everything else then so be it but then it's no good whining about the consequences in years to come.
No. Just more media bollocks trying to find edge case hypotheticals and trip people up. It's been nearly a year of this idiocy.
How is this an edge case? There are hundreds of thousands of such occurrences daily, it is entirely mainstream and the govt should know if its legal or illegal. Its legal.
There are hundreds of thousands going for exercise, on a park bench, with a friend, with a coffee every day?
I don't know how to break it to you, Phil, but there are people out there who don't spend all their waking hours on PB.
No, really.
I'm currently spending most of my hours as a teacher to my children in the day, trying to do my own work at night, with PB squeezed inbetween.
Frankly finding a time to go outside, with the weather as miserable as it is, is not my idea of fun. But to each their own.
Well done you that is heroic.
But I would certainly advise getting some fresh air. Especially today has been markedly warmer than previous days; let's hope it is a trend.
We are lucky enough to have a garden and in the first lockdown in the Spring spent much of the afternoon in it with the children. Good way to get fresh air and burn their energy.
I don't know where you live that its warmer right now but its horrid here at the minute outside. Extremely windy and that makes it feel even colder. Not something likely to improve during lockdown either, so I can picture this getting much worse for people's mental health than the first time around.
One thing I can say with absolute certainty, though, is that there will be more daylight. That’s what gets me more than anything.
We already have more than twenty minutes extra in the afternoon, if nothing worth speaking of in the morning as yet.
Snow and altitude works for getting more light.
Unfortunately I don't think Derbyshire police would be keen on people tackling Kinder Scout or Bleaklow at the moment, otherwise I'd have been there at the weekend.
IMAGINARY PBer: Hey, I think we should move the capital to Birmingham. There would be some real advantages to this plan. HUFYD: The capital of the UK is London IMAGINARY PBer: yes, I know, but it could be moved to somewhere else, don't you think there's some merit to that idea? HYUFD: whilst it's not unknown for a country to move it capital (example, example) most countries stick with the same capital each year IMAGINARY PBer: yes, again, I know, but what do you think of the idea? HYUFD: The Conservatives are currently polling 2 points ahead of Labour, which shows that they are right not to be talking about moving the capital IMAGINARY PBer: you can't possibly think that is an argument one way or another HYUFD: This Scottish subsample also shows that a plurality of voters want London to be the capital
IMAGINARY PBer: Hey, I think we should move the capital to Birmingham. There would be some real advantages to this plan. HUFYD: The capital of the UK is London IMAGINARY PBer: yes, I know, but it could be moved to somewhere else, don't you think there's some merit to that idea? HYUFD: whilst it's not unknown for a country to move it capital (example, example) most countries stick with the same capital each year IMAGINARY PBer: yes, again, I know, but what do you think of the idea? HYUFD: The Conservatives are currently polling 2 points ahead of Labour, which shows that they are right not to be talking about moving the capital IMAGINARY PBer: you can't possibly think that is an argument one way or another HYUFD: This Scottish subsample also shows that a plurality of voters want London to be the capital
ad nauseum
LOL.
IMAGINARY PBer: You cannot rely on Scottish sub-samples, and if they say anything they point to growing lack of interest in matters relating to the Union. HYUFD: I will be in the first tank that rolls through Gretna Green.
In other news, support for Catalan independence continues to fall. The change from a hard-line, confrontational, right-wing government in Madrid to one run by the centre left that has focused on dialogue has led to a split in the Catalan separatist movement. There is even an outside chance the separatists may lose control of the Catalan parliament after next month's regional elections. https://twitter.com/RupertCocke/status/1348568129685901312
Confirms
The
If the
The
I ?
No, you’re not. That is where it would lead. Spain has had a civil war within living memory, after all.
The great difference with Scotland is that, by constitutional standards, they have very recently HAD a referendum, one that their then leader, Mr Salmond, said was ‘once in a generation’. The Scottish people made their decision, on a vast turnout, and it was No, by a large margin
The SNP is completely entitled to ask for a 2nd vote whenever it likes. The government of the UK, which must govern in the economic and constitutional interests of the entire UK, is completely entitled to say No.
Boris will put the question - Sindyref2 or not - to a free vote in the Commons, which, of course, is the supreme parliament of all the UK, including Scottish MPs. The Commons will say No.
The ball will then go back over Hadrian’s Wall, and into the courts.
God, I’m just repeating myself. As warned. That is my last comment on Sindy for today
Yes, it's a difficult situation. As far as I can tell the SNP will form Scottish Governments for the foreseeable future. They will always be able to call upon 40-45% of the Scottish electorate, which will always put them in Government, because unionist support is so split.
Therefore, they will always have a mandate (renewed every 4 years) for a new independence referendum. And they can therefore ask for the dice to be rolled every 4 years, ad-finitum, until it comes double-sixes. Their base and voters won't demand anything less.
At the same time, it clearly seems unreasonable to put *all* of Scotland (and the UK) through this every 4-5 years forever until they vote 'Yes' even if they've voted 'No' two, three, four, five times in a row before. This clearly isn't right as it results in instability and uncertainty, and stress, for Scotland and the UK of an order of magnitude that's totally different to delivering a manifesto under devolved powers in different party political ways.
I don't know what the answer is. This seems a clear example of the tyranny of the (very large) minority to me. But it's not something that can only be decided in quadrennial elections *alone* when opinion is so split and the issue and consequences so great.
IMHO, the 'No' has to count for more as a mandate than simply timing out the clock until the next round of Scottish Parliamentary elections.
There is a solution - solve the systemic inequalities which drive demands for independence. In Scotland's case that is going to be akin to as close to full self-governance as you can get, which isn't possible in the UK as it is currently structured.
We will need to either remake the UK into a Federal or even Confederal structure, or it will be torn apart. The increasingly massive systemic issues pushing Scotland and Norniron away need resolving whilst there is still time. And where they go Wales will follow, and then the English nations like Cornwall and Rutland.
It is clear the current structure cannot hold, and is actually driving us apart.
We need devo max across the country, up to 50% of taxation should be spent at a sub-national level. Our biggest cities need the power to manage their own affairs. All the economic evidence suggests that this unlocks growth. At the same time we need PR at all local levels to avoid corrupt, one-party fiefdoms.
In turn, Westminster needs to focus on national wealth and security. There is a huge job to create a new vision for Britain beyond Brexit.
Chances of the Tories doing any of this? Zero.
Strongly agree. On all points - sadly including the last.
IMAGINARY PBer: Hey, I think we should move the capital to Birmingham. There would be some real advantages to this plan. HUFYD: The capital of the UK is London IMAGINARY PBer: yes, I know, but it could be moved to somewhere else, don't you think there's some merit to that idea? HYUFD: whilst it's not unknown for a country to move it capital (example, example) most countries stick with the same capital each year IMAGINARY PBer: yes, again, I know, but what do you think of the idea? HYUFD: The Conservatives are currently polling 2 points ahead of Labour, which shows that they are right not to be talking about moving the capital IMAGINARY PBer: you can't possibly think that is an argument one way or another HYUFD: This Scottish subsample also shows that a plurality of voters want London to be the capital
Comments
I don't know where you live that its warmer right now but its horrid here at the minute outside. Extremely windy and that makes it feel even colder. Not something likely to improve during lockdown either, so I can picture this getting much worse for people's mental health than the first time around.
'Indy support = historical grievance - powers passing from WM to Scotland'
is not how it has worked in practise. The actual equation is more like
'Indy support = historical grievance + power passing from WM to Scotland'
because the SNP are effective at using every power and resource at their disposal to further the case for independence. It also makes them a far less effective Government, but as long as blame for this can be placed elsewhere (and it can), that doesn't matter. This has led some to call for a reversal of devolution, but obviously it's not that simple.
It is much easier to have very large locations like the football grounds / massive convention centres.
Management of the "Make it so" variety likes the first - "work harder!" sounds cool and you don't need to spend on new physical assets.....
https://twitter.com/PaulSaxMD/status/1348637043866308614
The way that is laid out did have me wondering what she did to bring joy to so many virgins?
Stadiums could reach a fairly large proportion of the population, and many of those have car parks nearby that could allow those with cars to reach it from distance.
I personally think that his Sauron was personified by Stalin.
Surely another advantage of lateral increases in the number of venues instead of longer hours for the same ones is it makes it easier for people to get to a venue nearer to their home or place of work?
The key to this is surely making sure people honour the appointments, so finding more venues closer to people and ensuring they actually turn up to the appointment is key. Whatever makes that work, so long as we are not wasting doses or letting them go idle.
I'm not disputing there are problems - because other areas do seem to be struggling and it sounds like there is some disruption at ports. What I am trying to work out is how, if it is doable around here, it isn't doable everywhere? Is the problem that capacity is down, rather than any individual product supplier is struggling?
My 7am bike ride was an instant casualty.
And speaking of mental health, this I believe should be the focus of govt although I've no idea how it will be addressed. As an example, many oldies (OK some of the ones I know) are in a complete state about the second jab. While accepting that it makes sense for more people to have one jab, they are now pondering the rock of not having the jab and having another three months stuck indoors (many/most are shielding) and the hard place of being immune if they get one or both jabs and lockdown as a whole not ending for months.
Needs to be nearer 300k/day.
Otherwise they will have to wait for a generation to elapse since the 2014 referendum for another legal independence vote
That there is a growing national stock squeeze on fresh is not up for debate. Stores or indeed whole areas still largely ok for stock is not proof that there is no national problem, its just how supply chains (don't) work.
Not everyone drives. More venues means more possibility for people to get to a venue easily accessible to them.
Pfizer has restrictions that it needs large numbers to get a box, so fair enough on that, but just because its difficult to support more sites doesn't make more sites a bad idea.
https://twitter.com/carlquintanilla/status/1348636572091101184
But it may make it quicker or easier to open more venues so there's more locations closer to home and easily accessible instead.
We should do whatever works. I don't care frankly which that is, my guess would be more venues, but whatever works JFDI.
We need devo max across the country, up to 50% of taxation should be spent at a sub-national level.
Our biggest cities need the power to manage their own affairs. All the economic evidence suggests that this unlocks growth. At the same time we need PR at all local levels to avoid corrupt, one-party fiefdoms.
In turn, Westminster needs to focus on national wealth and security. There is a huge job to create a new vision for Britain beyond Brexit.
Chances of the Tories doing any of this? Zero.
One inevitably develops a mental picture of other posters, and tI accept this could well be way off the mark.
I drew my conclusions because of the general tone of your comments. For example, the comment I responded to said, re young people:-
"So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa".
After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people."
That speaks to me of an angry and bitter individual. The issue has never been simply one of saving old people. If that had been the case it would have made far more sense to completely lock down the over 70s and let everyone else carry on as normal.
If some young people can't see beyond the ends of their noses and think their right to party trumps everything else then so be it but then it's no good whining about the consequences in years to come.
Unfortunately I don't think Derbyshire police would be keen on people tackling Kinder Scout or Bleaklow at the moment, otherwise I'd have been there at the weekend.
IMAGINARY PBer: Hey, I think we should move the capital to Birmingham. There would be some real advantages to this plan.
HUFYD: The capital of the UK is London
IMAGINARY PBer: yes, I know, but it could be moved to somewhere else, don't you think there's some merit to that idea?
HYUFD: whilst it's not unknown for a country to move it capital (example, example) most countries stick with the same capital each year
IMAGINARY PBer: yes, again, I know, but what do you think of the idea?
HYUFD: The Conservatives are currently polling 2 points ahead of Labour, which shows that they are right not to be talking about moving the capital
IMAGINARY PBer: you can't possibly think that is an argument one way or another
HYUFD: This Scottish subsample also shows that a plurality of voters want London to be the capital
ad nauseum
IMAGINARY PBer: You cannot rely on Scottish sub-samples, and if they say anything they point to growing lack of interest in matters relating to the Union.
HYUFD: I will be in the first tank that rolls through Gretna Green.