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
The Catalan government suspended declaring independence, so it never actually happened. In any case, the Catalan government had no means to enforce it because it had no control over such basic things as the collection of taxes, currency, border control, the legal system etc.
I don't get this one.
I get that the written constitution prohibits independence and there's no "mechanism" for it to occur but, if 70%+ of the population of Catalonia wanted it, and Spain just continued to legally refuse citing the constitution, then what do both sides do?
It leaves little room for anywhere to go. Other than on the streets, and with violence.
Am I missing something?
Nope! The key point is that 70% don't want it. That means the constitutional argument works. If Catalonia ever got to a point where a large, demonstrable majority wanted independence, then the entire narrative would change. But that has never been the case. Independence has very rarely commanded even 50% support in Catalonia.
Excluding don't-knows, it's common to see polls with a majority in either direction. I wouldn't feel confident implying one side or the other was in a clear majority right now.
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?
If so, how many arrests have there been for that. Zero? If so, then I don't see why the media needs to ask this question.
It is media bollocks because their whole frame of reference is to find out what you can do and then blaze that out full force, preferably with someone caught out for giving conflicting advice. Rather than what you should do, which is what matters during a bloody pandemic. Some self-control rather than the government making our decisions for us wouldn't go amiss.
The whole idea right now is that everyone should stay at home unless they need to go out. So flip the question around and take the law out of it. Do you need to go out, to see a friend, exercise, sit on a park bench, coffee in hand? If your answer is yes you need to do so, perhaps because either your or your friend's mental health is struggling then do it. If your answer is no you do not need to do so, you just want to do so, then maybe take a raincheck and do that at a later date.
That is what I would call simply common sense rather than the media or the law trying to be pushed to its limit then screaming "this is OK" or "this is not" without any common sense or thinking involved.
Reading the actual article "“We know we need to get to herd immunity and we need that in a majority of countries, so we are not going to see that in 2021,” Fisher told Reuters Next. “There might be some countries that might achieve it but even then that will not create ‘normal’ especially in terms of border controls.”
Sadly, given the way our pandemic is going, I think we might actually achieve herd immunity in the UK this year - just not in the way we wanted to,
I think we just have to vaccinate as many people as possible as quickly as possible, and see what happens to the infection rate. I doubt any of the modelling is within a mile of truth, as far as herd immunity is concerned. But if herd immunity is achieved it will be obvious enough. There's been far too much over the last year of people pretending they know what's going to happen, when they haven't had the slightest clue.
Cases have been showing a straight line straight up for some weeks now. If Farr's law is right, once peak infection has been reached, then it will roughly follow the same symmetrical pattern on the downward slope, then at some point we can expect a straight line back down again. It's a question of when and how.
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
The second book annoyed me so much in that respect, I didn't read the third, but agreed.
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.
It will have no authority, legal, political or moral
It would have exactly the same legal, political and moral authority as the Brexit vote
God, you're obsessed.
He isn't talking about Brexit. That referendum was advisory in its legal status. A similar advisory referendum could be held in Scotland if a legally binding one was withheld by Westminster.
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!).
As long as we have a Tory majority government at Westminster however then of course Boris can legally stop them with any independence referendum being illegal without Boris' consent
Bollcoks
It's not illegal to hold a vote
We just did this...
Any result however would be illegal without the consent of a majority of MPs at Westminster, so it would have as much legal force over Boris as the vote in the Strictly final without his consent.
The result of the 2016 EU referendum was similarly irrelevant when we had a hung Parliament from 2017 to 2019 that did not agree to implement it until a Tory majority government was elected at Westminster in late 2019
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
The second book annoyed me so much in that respect, I didn't read the third, but agreed.
Mervyn Peake was also a remarkable world builder.
Oh Gods, I found Gormenghast to be utterly dire. I could tell from the first line its style would not work for me.
At the moment, I doubt there is the supply to do 24/7 nor have all the required infrastructure been setup.
However, the response should have been as supply increases, we will do everything to expand the hours. Not, well people say it is a tad inconvenient for them, so we won't.
It should be the other way round, you get this time, unless you tell us it isn't possible due to particular set of situations such as disability, reliance on public transport, etc.
Yes, and like I say it's all very unedifying. Particularly the finger-pointing towards those who got it wrong. Some people seem more interested in being right - and being seen to be right - than anything else. One presumes on the assumption so that their analysis and insight will be taken more seriously in future.
I have a long list of getting things wrong, including:
(1) GE2015 - I thought Cameron would get c.290-300 seats, not a majority (2) EURef- I thought Remain would win 52:48 (not the other way round) (3) 2016 Presidential - I thought Clinton would win (by an Obama 2012 margin)
[...]
Post-mortems are always more interesting when people go through both what they got right and what they got wrong, and I respect them all the more for it.
I lose respect for them when they start finger-pointing at others, unless they were utterly reckless.
I think there's a difference between getting the prediction of a close election result wrong and failing to notice that Trump is a fascist. They're different sorts of errors.
I've always thought Trump was a kind of fascist, but to a certain extent I can see why so many people didn't. He continually blurred the line between outrage and theatre, picking up huge numbers of spectators along the way, and then confusing them and their boundaries, until the boundaries weren't there any more. I can't remember any other major Western political leader like that. Mussolini might have had some connection, but was far less complicated.
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.
Except a poll a couple of years ago showed it is read by more women than men. And if it is unreadable then how come it is one of the most read books of the twentieth century. Perhaps your dislike and inability to read it reflects more on yourself than on the book.
No doubt it does. I view that poll with some scepticism I must say. The only people I have ever heard praising it or talking about the film have been men and boys.
By the same token I can't abide Dickens. Completely unreadable and believe me I've tried. Nor can I cope with many Russian novels - though I adore Anna Karenina. OTOH I love Vanity Fair - which is one of the best novels ever to my mind - and Middlemarch, Jane Eyre - and many 19th century French writers such as Balzac.
The one writer whose novels and short stories I would have with me on a desert island is William Trevor. One of the very finest writers ever.
Have you tried Great Expectations. I think that’s his most “accessible”. Then, if you liked that, I think you would want to graduate to Bleak House.
A Tale of Two Cities is garbage.
Those first two are my favourites! I am so middlebrow.
I think they are the best. Admittedly, I’ve only read two or three others.
Cycle free is being a terrible sexist snob about LOTR, but I agree with her about Dickens. He wrote brilliant vivid descriptive lines, and some good characters, but the plotting is so bad I give up fifty pages in at best. There are plot holes EVERYWHERE, and weird non sequiturs, and continuity errors - I suspect that part of the problem is that he wrote at such speed, and episodically - most of the books were originally written as serialised chapters for weekly magazines. He probably forgot what he wrote the previous week.
The only one I’ve read in toto was Oliver Twist. It was quite good, but I much prefer the musical.
Thomas Hardy is a vastly superior novelist. Terrifically sad. But so compelling.
Great Expectations was I think also published as a novel and is a masterpiece.
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.
The No wouldn't be an issue were it not for the fact that Brexit has changed the UK significantly since the last Scottish Independence referendum.
And Scotland very much voted differently to the England and Wales.
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
The second book annoyed me so much in that respect, I didn't read the third, but agreed.
Mervyn Peake was also a remarkable world builder.
The Subtle Knife? It was the weakest of the three, the third book definitely ramps up again if you've got the time to read it.
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
The Catalan government suspended declaring independence, so it never actually happened. In any case, the Catalan government had no means to enforce it because it had no control over such basic things as the collection of taxes, currency, border control, the legal system etc.
I don't get this one.
I get that the written constitution prohibits independence and there's no "mechanism" for it to occur but, if 70%+ of the population of Catalonia wanted it, and Spain just continued to legally refuse citing the constitution, then what do both sides do?
It leaves little room for anywhere to go. Other than on the streets, and with violence.
Am I missing something?
Nope! The key point is that 70% don't want it. That means the constitutional argument works. If Catalonia ever got to a point where a large, demonstrable majority wanted independence, then the entire narrative would change. But that has never been the case. Independence has very rarely commanded even 50% support in Catalonia.
Yes to independence had a 16% lead in one Catalan poll in autumn 2018
It had under 40% support, though. Between them, the unionist options - enhanced autonomy, the status quo and an end to autonomy - enjoyed greater support.
Once you have multiple options including devomax in Scotland Yes is under 50% too
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.
Except a poll a couple of years ago showed it is read by more women than men. And if it is unreadable then how come it is one of the most read books of the twentieth century. Perhaps your dislike and inability to read it reflects more on yourself than on the book.
No doubt it does. I view that poll with some scepticism I must say. The only people I have ever heard praising it or talking about the film have been men and boys.
By the same token I can't abide Dickens. Completely unreadable and believe me I've tried. Nor can I cope with many Russian novels - though I adore Anna Karenina. OTOH I love Vanity Fair - which is one of the best novels ever to my mind - and Middlemarch, Jane Eyre - and many 19th century French writers such as Balzac.
The one writer whose novels and short stories I would have with me on a desert island is William Trevor. One of the very finest writers ever.
Have you tried Great Expectations. I think that’s his most “accessible”. Then, if you liked that, I think you would want to graduate to Bleak House.
A Tale of Two Cities is garbage.
Those first two are my favourites! I am so middlebrow.
I think they are the best. Admittedly, I’ve only read two or three others.
Cycle free is being a terrible sexist snob about LOTR, but I agree with her about Dickens. He wrote brilliant vivid descriptive lines, and some good characters, but the plotting is so bad I give up fifty pages in at best. There are plot holes EVERYWHERE, and weird non sequiturs, and continuity errors - I suspect that part of the problem is that he wrote at such speed, and episodically - most of the books were originally written as serialised chapters for weekly magazines. He probably forgot what he wrote the previous week.
The only one I’ve read in toto was Oliver Twist. It was quite good, but I much prefer the musical.
Thomas Hardy is a vastly superior novelist. Terrifically sad. But so compelling.
Great Expectations was I think also published as a novel and is a masterpiece.
My father would be happy to go after 8pm. He's still waiting for a jab.
I imagine the issue at the minute is still restricted supply in which case ensuring people who are booked into appointments actually turn up for them is more important than allowing more appointments.
If you try and get an appointment for a time that suits the person, then presumably they're more likely to honour their appointment.
Incidentally my wife has her second appointment booked now for the second Pfizer jab. End of February. So they're booking already well into the future.
It will have no authority, legal, political or moral
It would have exactly the same legal, political and moral authority as the Brexit vote
God, you're obsessed.
He isn't talking about Brexit. That referendum was advisory in its legal status. A similar advisory referendum could be held in Scotland if a legally binding one was withheld by Westminster.
He's always talking about Brexit. And when he's not talking about Brexit he's really trying to talk about Brexit or meaning to talk about Brexit.
I worry for him, I really do. We all only get a certain number of years on this planet. To obsess this much about an issue so overwhelmingly day-in, day-out isn't healthy for anyone. I usually just ignore it but maybe a pb intervention is warranted given he's one of our own.
I think counselling could help. Maybe a new hobby.
As long as we have a Tory majority government at Westminster however then of course Boris can legally stop them with any independence referendum being illegal without Boris' consent
Bollcoks
It's not illegal to hold a vote
We just did this...
Any result however would be illegal without the consent of a majority of MPs at Westminster, so it would have as much legal force over Boris as the vote in the Strictly final without his consent.
The result of the 2016 EU referendum was similarly irrelevant when we had a hung Parliament from 2017 to 2019 that did not agree to implement it until a Tory majority government was elected at Westminster in late 2019
And you spent the whole of the time between 2017 and 2019 claiming it was the will of the people and must be enacted even though you voted against. Do you not see the discrepancy between your positions here?
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.
This does really annoy me. My wife is 75 and I am 60. If they rang us up we would be there in minutes. It looks like I will have to wait until everyone else older than me can be available for an appointment!! We really should be vaccinating 24/7 with a use it or lose it appointment system.
Complaints:
c/o Mark Drakeford, the Welsh Government, Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ
My father would be happy to go after 8pm. He's still waiting for a jab.
Unused supplies, with new consignments arriving, would be the biggest scandal this Govt. could now preside over.
If you have somebody prepared to administer the vaccine at 3 in the morning at a local Sainsbury's and there are people in their 50's or 60's who want to turn out at that time, then for God's sake, make it happen.
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.
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."
I imagine quite a lot of people, including many of the elderly, are getting the vaccination centre on public transport. Apointments outside working hours are not going to be much use to them.
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.
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...
German company BioNTech - which together with US drug firm Pfizer created the first coronavirus vaccine to be approved by the UK, the US and the EU - has said it expects to produce two billion doses this year.
"We now believe that we can potentially deliver approximately two billion doses in total by the end of 2021," the company said in a presentation on Monday.
The new figure includes updated guidance that six doses can be extracted from each vial of the coronavirus vaccine, rather than the five doses originally stated on the labelling.
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
The second book annoyed me so much in that respect, I didn't read the third, but agreed.
Mervyn Peake was also a remarkable world builder.
The Subtle Knife? It was the weakest of the three, the third book definitely ramps up again if you've got the time to read it.
What is it with trilogies that almost invariably the first and third are the good ones and the second is the weakest. Seems to almost invariably the rule.
Prime exceptions are Empire Strikes Back (best of the trilogy) and The Matrix (second and third were both unmitigated crap). Honourable exception for Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy for being a trilogy with five parts to it.
Lol my uni WhatsApp group has exploded with the three Scottish people all arguing about whether Nicola is punishing Celtic to appease unionists. It's sad that such an important national debate is reduced to arguing about football teams.
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.
The No wouldn't be an issue were it not for the fact that Brexit has changed the UK significantly since the last Scottish Independence referendum.
And Scotland very much voted differently to the England and Wales.
If it hadn't been Brexit it would have been something else. An EU veto exercised by the UK. Defence spending in England. A ban (or not a ban) on Chinese apparatchiks. Getting too close to Trump. Not getting close enough to Merkel. Universal Credit. Pensions.
Anything. Anything that had the slightest crack between England and Scotland, in terms of politics, into which a wedge could be driven and levered open.
To suggest anything else is naive. Nats gonna Nat.
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 not quite what happens. The first book is definitely the strongest and least author tracy like. Sadly the sequel series is a bit meh, and undermines quite a bit of the central element of the originals.
Ok then, so if you are asked to name one book that had most imapct on you?
I would offer To Kill a Mockingbird.
I've read it 3 or 4 times and loved it each time but first read it a 13 when it really did make me think. Appreciate it may be a bit to 'woke' or sound like virtue signalling for some of you but there you go, it's the truth.
For me, undoubtedly Camus, La Peste.
Atlas Shrugged. It made me want to give up reading for good.
Particularly the 56-page monologue.
Definitely in the list of terrible books that you probably should have read. Not sure what would come top of that list.
Not terrible but really not worth the effort? Don Quixote?
Overstuffed to be sure, but very fun and brilliant in places. And the moment when the reader first realizes that in laughing at the poor deluded Don we are in fact laughing at ourselves, who whether consciously or not imagine our lives as an adventure full of purpose and meaning with us as the hero at its heart, is all the more impactful for delivering its tragic message through the medium of comedy.
My 2 favourite authors are Haruki Murakami and Brett Easton Ellis. Don't know why I shouldn't get that on the record.
Blimey, I wouldn't have had the latter down for you.
Fizzled out now but very brilliant while it lasted. Bit monothematic but it's a theme I relate to. The underlying feeling tone - Nihilism - appeals to me. I find it exhilarating.
I wrote a black comic novel a few years ago and tried to sell it as a British Psycho, with my protagonist "a cross between Patrick Bateman and Alan Partridge".
My pitch got some interest from Random House but I did not manage to get a contract.
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. 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?
If so, how many arrests have there been for that. Zero? If so, then I don't see why the media needs to ask this question.
It is media bollocks because their whole frame of reference is to find out what you can do and then blaze that out full force, preferably with someone caught out for giving conflicting advice. Rather than what you should do, which is what matters during a bloody pandemic. Some self-control rather than the government making our decisions for us wouldn't go amiss.
The whole idea right now is that everyone should stay at home unless they need to go out. So flip the question around and take the law out of it. Do you need to go out, to see a friend, exercise, sit on a park bench, coffee in hand? If your answer is yes you need to do so, perhaps because either your or your friend's mental health is struggling then do it. If your answer is no you do not need to do so, you just want to do so, then maybe take a raincheck and do that at a later date.
That is what I would call simply common sense rather than the media or the law trying to be pushed to its limit then screaming "this is OK" or "this is not" without any common sense or thinking involved.
If I walk outside for an hour at lunchtime I will see dozens of people chatting with takeaways outside in groups mostly of 2 or 3 but sometime more. If its sunny I might see a hundred such people, that is just those I am walking in sight of, it is very common.
I agree people should make their own decisions based mostly on common sense, and to an extent the media are playing a game. None of that changes that the govt should be entirely capable of understanding and communicating laws they have recently introduced.
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
The second book annoyed me so much in that respect, I didn't read the third, but agreed.
Mervyn Peake was also a remarkable world builder.
Oh Gods, I found Gormenghast to be utterly dire. I could tell from the first line its style would not work for me.
Dickens on a bad trip. I never finished the series, but I enjoyed it.
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.
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.
As long as we have a Tory majority government at Westminster however then of course Boris can legally stop them with any independence referendum being illegal without Boris' consent
Bollcoks
It's not illegal to hold a vote
We just did this...
Any result however would be illegal without the consent of a majority of MPs at Westminster, so it would have as much legal force over Boris as the vote in the Strictly final without his consent.
The result of the 2016 EU referendum was similarly irrelevant when we had a hung Parliament from 2017 to 2019 that did not agree to implement it until a Tory majority government was elected at Westminster in late 2019
And you spent the whole of the time between 2017 and 2019 claiming it was the will of the people and must be enacted even though you voted against. Do you not see the discrepancy between your positions here?
I did campaigning wise but I recognised it would need a Tory majority to deliver it at Westminster, only achieved in 2019
I sometimes think the coronavirus is sentient, and deliberately turns on countries that boast about their expert handling. Cf the party in Prague to celebrate the end of covid. Now the country explodes with pestilence - like Ireland
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
The second book annoyed me so much in that respect, I didn't read the third, but agreed.
Mervyn Peake was also a remarkable world builder.
The Subtle Knife? It was the weakest of the three, the third book definitely ramps up again if you've got the time to read it.
What is it with trilogies that almost invariably the first and third are the good ones and the second is the weakest. Seems to almost invariably the rule.
Prime exceptions are Empire Strikes Back (best of the trilogy) and The Matrix (second and third were both unmitigated crap). Honourable exception for Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy for being a trilogy with five parts to it.
Streets of Rage 2 on the Megadrive was amazing but SOR3 was execrable.
My father would be happy to go after 8pm. He's still waiting for a jab.
Unused supplies, with new consignments arriving, would be the biggest scandal this Govt. could now preside over.
If you have somebody prepared to administer the vaccine at 3 in the morning at a local Sainsbury's and there are people in their 50's or 60's who want to turn out at that time, then for God's sake, make it happen.
I think that the reality remains that capacity significantly exceeds supply and 8-8 is plenty of time to deliver the vaccine available. If we got more it would be different. Every day is more than 1,000 unnecessary deaths. Unacceptable.
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.
My 2 favourite authors are Haruki Murakami and Brett Easton Ellis. Don't know why I shouldn't get that on the record.
Blimey, I wouldn't have had the latter down for you.
Fizzled out now but very brilliant while it lasted. Bit monothematic but it's a theme I relate to. The underlying feeling tone - Nihilism - appeals to me. I find it exhilarating.
I wrote a black comic novel a few years ago and tried to sell it as a British Psycho, with my protagonist "a cross between Patrick Bateman and Alan Partridge".
My pitch got some interest from Random House but I did not manage to get a contract.
After travelling on the bus through New Cross one summer I was inspired by the fliersoutside The Venue to write a novel about a band whose dreams of stardom came to nothing and were eking out a living as a Smiths tribute called "These Charming Men". The title was the best thing about it and then a real tribute band took the name.
Yes good on BBC Bitesize for putting on stuff to entertain and educate the children while the schools are closed. I'm not a big fan of the BBC or the Licence Fee normally, but we had it on in our house this morning for an hour.
I sometimes think the coronavirus is sentient, and deliberately turns on countries that boast about their expert handling. Cf the party in Prague to celebrate the end of covid. Now the country explodes with pestilence - like Ireland
Alternatively, people see the triumphalism and become complacent with mask wearing and social distancing.
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 with Labour and the LDs to ensure the Tories lose their majority at Westminster in 2024 and then pressure Starmer for a legal indyref2 as we Tories had to campaign to get a majority at Westminster in 2019 to respect the Brexit vote.
Now we have that Tory majority until 2024 what we Tories say goes
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!
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."
I imagine quite a lot of people, including many of the elderly, are getting the vaccination centre on public transport. Apointments outside working hours are not going to be much use to them.
Round here there's we have some sort of a hub, with five participating surgeries. There's no direct public transport from three of them. It would take me around an hour each way, assuming the buses connected, but it's about 10 minutes by car.
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.
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.
Or perhaps the kids come into being to sort out Narnia's issues?
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
The second book annoyed me so much in that respect, I didn't read the third, but agreed.
Mervyn Peake was also a remarkable world builder.
The Subtle Knife? It was the weakest of the three, the third book definitely ramps up again if you've got the time to read it.
What is it with trilogies that almost invariably the first and third are the good ones and the second is the weakest. Seems to almost invariably the rule.
Prime exceptions are Empire Strikes Back (best of the trilogy) and The Matrix (second and third were both unmitigated crap). Honourable exception for Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy for being a trilogy with five parts to it.
Godfather 2 was also brilliant, better than 3 if not quite as gripping as 1.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
The second book annoyed me so much in that respect, I didn't read the third, but agreed.
Mervyn Peake was also a remarkable world builder.
The Subtle Knife? It was the weakest of the three, the third book definitely ramps up again if you've got the time to read it.
What is it with trilogies that almost invariably the first and third are the good ones and the second is the weakest. Seems to almost invariably the rule.
Prime exceptions are Empire Strikes Back (best of the trilogy) and The Matrix (second and third were both unmitigated crap). Honourable exception for Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy for being a trilogy with five parts to it.
Streets of Rage 2 on the Megadrive was amazing but SOR3 was execrable.
Another exception is the Alien franchise - Aliens wasn't bad, but Alien 3 was a disastrous David Fincher think piece.
I can reliably inform everyone Mike Pence is about as popular as Nick Clegg would be at a meeting of Momentum amongst the MAGAs. Do VPs get lifelong security ?
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
The second book annoyed me so much in that respect, I didn't read the third, but agreed.
Mervyn Peake was also a remarkable world builder.
The Subtle Knife? It was the weakest of the three, the third book definitely ramps up again if you've got the time to read it.
What is it with trilogies that almost invariably the first and third are the good ones and the second is the weakest. Seems to almost invariably the rule.
Prime exceptions are Empire Strikes Back (best of the trilogy) and The Matrix (second and third were both unmitigated crap). Honourable exception for Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy for being a trilogy with five parts to it.
Godfather 2 was also brilliant, better than 3 if not quite as gripping as 1.
Godfather 2 is better than the first. I'm not sure it's even a debate!
My 2 favourite authors are Haruki Murakami and Brett Easton Ellis. Don't know why I shouldn't get that on the record.
Blimey, I wouldn't have had the latter down for you.
Fizzled out now but very brilliant while it lasted. Bit monothematic but it's a theme I relate to. The underlying feeling tone - Nihilism - appeals to me. I find it exhilarating.
I wrote a black comic novel a few years ago and tried to sell it as a British Psycho, with my protagonist "a cross between Patrick Bateman and Alan Partridge".
My pitch got some interest from Random House but I did not manage to get a contract.
I don't think the site has any more room for bestselling, incredibly successful, immensely well-read authors so perhaps it was for the best.
As an aside relevant to nothing, I still keep the rejection letter from The Bodley Head for something I submitted to them and it makes me smile at my brattishness (I was very young): if they are good enough for Ulysses they are good enough for me was my thinking.
I sometimes think the coronavirus is sentient, and deliberately turns on countries that boast about their expert handling. Cf the party in Prague to celebrate the end of covid. Now the country explodes with pestilence - like Ireland
If Covid were developed by the best evil minds on the planet, I doubt it would be this successful. I guess when survival is all you have to look forward to, you just get on with putting all your energies into single-minded prospering.
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
I can reliably inform everyone Mike Pence is about as popular as Nick Clegg would be at a meeting of Momentum amongst the MAGAs. Do VPs get lifelong security ?
A 'meeting of Momentum amongst the MAGAs' sounds like a cage fight.
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.
The day before yesterday's voters in yesterday's referenda. Smashing speculation!
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.
A bit late to the party, but: Best writer if you want concise, not a word wasted, beautiful prose: Ishiguro, especially The Remains of the Day. Best writer with lots of words wasted, but evocative: Updike's Rabbit books (lots in there helps to make sense of Trump's America, written a fair while ago but nothing new). Biggest teenage influence on me: Camus, but L'Etranger rather than The Plague.
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.
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.
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.
I can reliably inform everyone Mike Pence is about as popular as Nick Clegg would be at a meeting of Momentum amongst the MAGAs. Do VPs get lifelong security ?
A 'meeting of Momentum amongst the MAGAs' sounds like a cage fight.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has expressed concern at the suspension of Donald Trump from several social media platforms, according to her spokesman.
In a statement, Steffen Seibert said the move was "problematic" because freedom of opinion should be determined by legislatures, not tech bosses.
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.
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.
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.
There was, in fact fantasy literature before Tolkien. But it was of pretty low quality.
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.
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.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has expressed concern at the suspension of Donald Trump from several social media platforms, according to her spokesman.
In a statement, Steffen Seibert said the move was "problematic" because freedom of opinion should be determined by legislatures, not tech bosses.
Either of those alternatives may be 'problematic'.
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.
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?
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.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Catalan_independence
Excluding don't-knows, it's common to see polls with a majority in either direction.
I wouldn't feel confident implying one side or the other was in a clear majority right now.
If so, how many arrests have there been for that. Zero? If so, then I don't see why the media needs to ask this question.
It is media bollocks because their whole frame of reference is to find out what you can do and then blaze that out full force, preferably with someone caught out for giving conflicting advice. Rather than what you should do, which is what matters during a bloody pandemic. Some self-control rather than the government making our decisions for us wouldn't go amiss.
The whole idea right now is that everyone should stay at home unless they need to go out. So flip the question around and take the law out of it. Do you need to go out, to see a friend, exercise, sit on a park bench, coffee in hand? If your answer is yes you need to do so, perhaps because either your or your friend's mental health is struggling then do it. If your answer is no you do not need to do so, you just want to do so, then maybe take a raincheck and do that at a later date.
That is what I would call simply common sense rather than the media or the law trying to be pushed to its limit then screaming "this is OK" or "this is not" without any common sense or thinking involved.
Mervyn Peake was also a remarkable world builder.
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.
The result of the 2016 EU referendum was similarly irrelevant when we had a hung Parliament from 2017 to 2019 that did not agree to implement it until a Tory majority government was elected at Westminster in late 2019
However, the response should have been as supply increases, we will do everything to expand the hours. Not, well people say it is a tad inconvenient for them, so we won't.
It should be the other way round, you get this time, unless you tell us it isn't possible due to particular set of situations such as disability, reliance on public transport, etc.
It would be advisory. Just like Brexit
This is not complicated.
And Scotland very much voted differently to the England and Wales.
Yes, that is my coat.
If you try and get an appointment for a time that suits the person, then presumably they're more likely to honour their appointment.
Incidentally my wife has her second appointment booked now for the second Pfizer jab. End of February. So they're booking already well into the future.
I worry for him, I really do. We all only get a certain number of years on this planet. To obsess this much about an issue so overwhelmingly day-in, day-out isn't healthy for anyone. I usually just ignore it but maybe a pb intervention is warranted given he's one of our own.
I think counselling could help. Maybe a new hobby.
c/o Mark Drakeford, the Welsh Government, Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ
If you have somebody prepared to administer the vaccine at 3 in the morning at a local Sainsbury's and there are people in their 50's or 60's who want to turn out at that time, then for God's sake, make it happen.
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.
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...
"We now believe that we can potentially deliver approximately two billion doses in total by the end of 2021," the company said in a presentation on Monday.
The new figure includes updated guidance that six doses can be extracted from each vial of the coronavirus vaccine, rather than the five doses originally stated on the labelling.
Prime exceptions are Empire Strikes Back (best of the trilogy) and The Matrix (second and third were both unmitigated crap). Honourable exception for Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy for being a trilogy with five parts to it.
Anything. Anything that had the slightest crack between England and Scotland, in terms of politics, into which a wedge could be driven and levered open.
To suggest anything else is naive. Nats gonna Nat.
https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1348631349004017665?s=20
I wrote a black comic novel a few years ago and tried to sell it as a British Psycho, with my protagonist "a cross between Patrick Bateman and Alan Partridge".
My pitch got some interest from Random House but I did not manage to get a contract.
No, really.
I agree people should make their own decisions based mostly on common sense, and to an extent the media are playing a game. None of that changes that the govt should be entirely capable of understanding and communicating laws they have recently introduced.
https://twitter.com/jscros/status/1348473430581129216?s=20
Just for 100% accuracy..
https://twitter.com/samraskinz/status/1348476440807878657?s=20
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.
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.
https://twitter.com/peterdonaghy/status/1348034214311190528?s=21
https://twitter.com/naomiohreally/status/1347874017601060867?s=21
https://twitter.com/marcelsalathe/status/1347962866356412419?s=21
I sometimes think the coronavirus is sentient, and deliberately turns on countries that boast about their expert handling. Cf the party in Prague to celebrate the end of covid. Now the country explodes with pestilence - like Ireland
Speaking as a dad, I say well done BBC.
That is the point of Lozza's Tweet isn't it?
Now we have that Tory majority until 2024 what we Tories say goes
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!
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.
I think we once had a whole thread on the geographical relationship between Cair Paravel, and the White Witch's castle.
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.
Looking at the timetable, not sure how much kids will learn from Geri from the Spice Girls teaching English.
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.
Do VPs get lifelong security ?
As an aside relevant to nothing, I still keep the rejection letter from The Bodley Head for something I submitted to them and it makes me smile at my brattishness (I was very young): if they are good enough for Ulysses they are good enough for me was my thinking.
Best writer if you want concise, not a word wasted, beautiful prose: Ishiguro, especially The Remains of the Day.
Best writer with lots of words wasted, but evocative: Updike's Rabbit books (lots in there helps to make sense of Trump's America, written a fair while ago but nothing new).
Biggest teenage influence on me: Camus, but L'Etranger rather than The Plague.
Tolkien's introduction explicitly rules out reading across from the book to the real world.
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
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.
In a statement, Steffen Seibert said the move was "problematic" because freedom of opinion should be determined by legislatures, not tech bosses.
Get your extra heating oil and wood in now, just in case.
14 hours of opera. Definitely fantasy. Definitely epic. Albeit not a book.
We don't have a shortage of empty church halls or other venues.