Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Trump has not spoken to Pence since Wednesday’s storming of the Capitol – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited January 11 in General
imageTrump has not spoken to Pence since Wednesday’s storming of the Capitol – politicalbetting.com

A major split seems to have occurred between Trump and his VP Mike Pence according to NBC News

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • E pluribus unum.
  • Trump's a child.

    'I'm not your friend.'
  • The Secretary of State is the keeper of the Great Seal of the United States, so any Presidential resignations go through the State Department, see Nixon's resignation.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514
    Trump's mob included people who would might have killed Pence had they got their hands on him, given how mobs escalate things (never mind the few scarily prepared ones). If I were Pence I'd plot revenge as best I could, but he's young enough he wants to stay in the game I guess. He's so disciplined he won't act in the moment.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 88,575
    edited January 11
    Soon Americans will speak of Donald Trump in the way they speak about Benedict Arnold.

    God, I hope that doesn't mean he'll eventually end up living in the UK.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514

    Though it says Present above. Weird. Maybe a hack?

    Be good if it is legitimate. Would have to be a resignation though, even invoking the 25th doesn't make it so. Seems a weird way to announce it though if true.
    The Secretary of State is the keeper of the Great Seal of the United States, so any Presidential resignations go through the State Department, see Nixon's resignation.
    Oh I get that. But I wouldn't expect the State Department to announce it via a webpage like that rather than a press release first. Maybe they would but it seems odd.
    Oh it was probably somebody setting it up for the proper date and they made an error. Funny though.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 11,379
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 28,312
    There has been no federal briefing on Wednesday’s events, either.
    Which is both utterly remarkable, and utterly unsurprising.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349

    Don't forget - Philip has assured us that there will be no disruption at the border as absolutely everyone will submit all their paperwork electronically in advance. Definitely no mega queues whilst bemused customs officials search for contraband, not at all.
    Is that another "joke" because I said the exact opposite! 🙄

    I always said there would be disruption in January as people get used to the new paperwork, but there would be an incentive for businesses to get their paperwork in order to make it as smooth as possible. 🙄
    This isn't "disruption in January". Do you think these new checks will stop in February?

    This isn't paperwork. This is sovereignty in action. You want to come into our country, lets check you aren't bringing in any contraband, open your boot please.

    Nor can the paperwork be made smooth. It doesn't work in our supply chain. The solution to "spend money filling in paperwork which both you and your customers then need to hire a customs agent to process" will be the rapid end to UK imports and exports.

    We have cut ourselves off from our biggest market. Contrary to delusional wank bank fantasies about CANZUK there are no alternative markets of equivalent size and distance. We either - as Make UK et al are saying - negotiate a new deal that works. Or we both lose our exporters and lose the ability to import stuff apart from at vast cost.

    "Oh no we won't" counters Philip with his extensive knowledge of fuck all.
    "Oh no we won't" because it is total and utter bullshit.

    I do understand economics and work in business. And economically the majority of our exports already take place outside the EU. Without being in their customs union.

    Yes some trade may be disrupted, but the idea that we stop exporting is complete bullshit. Some imports may stop if people can't find a reason to do the paperwork etc - but others will continue. A new equilibrium will be reached.

    If your logic were right we would have zero trade with the rest of the world as we're not in their customs union. It is nonsense.
    When we trade with the rest of the world we have established processes and prices. Punters look at the prices and weigh up if they want to buy it or not.

    What we have here is an established process and price being trashed by the imposition of red tape and costs that were not there before. "We would have zero trade elsewhere" reveals your true lack of basic understanding. Its not elsewhere we are talking about. Its companies in the UK trading with EU punters and vice versa. For these transactions the cost and faff has just shot through the roof. Cheaper less faffy alternatives suddenly exist and why should EU punters put up with our crap when then can buy from someone else?

    You do talk such utter bollocks with such sneering arrogance.
    He was banging on about his "new equilibrium" yesterday. What does "new equilibrium" even mean? Perhaps the new equilibrium means that shelves that were previously full at Tesco in Antrim are now empty, so at some point in time they were as equally full as they were empty.
    No empty shelves are not a new equilibrium. That is disruption at most. 🙄 Tesco would either find a way to refill the shelves, potentially with different products or at different prices to before - or they might close the store if it is no longer profitable. That sort of change happens on a daily basis all over the economy.

    An equilibrium is a very basic economic concept, I'm not sure what you need explaining about it? Long story short if a cost goes up then there will be less trade done etc etc etc - that is the new equilibrium when it comes to Europe, less trade with Europe where the costs have increased. What are you struggling to understand about that? 🤷🏻‍♂️
    I can't wait to find out which exciting new markets the UK logistics industry can supply. As the UK stops being a viable hub for UK/IRL/northern Europe logistics all those sheds in the Golden Triangle are perfectly located to suppl (checks list of countries with a trade deal) Honduras or Vietnam.

    Or - radical idea - how about we do a deal with the UK that doesn't cripple UK businesses? It won't cripple EU businesses - they can easily find new customers inside the EU. Send the truck to Germany instead of Britain. Harder for UK businesses built and configured for sales to Germany to suddenly win the same volume and value of business in Ivory Coast.
    We had a deal which kept us in the Single Market and Customs Union.

    A majority of people voted to leave it. You voted to leave it.

    Decisions have consequences. You were warned. 🤷🏻‍♂️
    A compelling argument. "You voted to leave the EU. We chose to interpret that as leaving the EU the Single Market and the Customs Union. We told you that not to do so would fail to deliver on the major improvements we promised. You voted for us. So now we have negotiated a deal which fucks you and this country hard. We didn't have to. We chose to. Because you voted for it. Can we could on your support at the next election?"

    Actually, have you and HYUFD ever been seen in the same room?
    Yes we voted to leave the EU and we did so with Boris committing during the Referendum to leaving the Single Market, leaving the Customs Union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. During the Referendum, before you voted Leave having been informed that is what he thought Leave meant.

    Then during the 2019 election campaign it was made clear his policy was to leave the Single Market, leave the Customs union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. Just as he said in 2016, as Theresa May might say "nothing has changed". And that was explicitly put into the manifesto that won an 80 seat majority.

    So what more do you expect? This is the decision people have made. That is democracy. Choices matter. Votes matter.

    So now we've left the Single Market and Customs Union. As was promised in 2019 and won an 80 seat majority. As was promised in 2016 and you voted for.

    If you don't want this, then don't vote for it. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Otherwise its time to move on and get on with it already. Businesses will adjust, we will reach a new economic equilibrium that is different to before and life goes on.
  • eekeek Posts: 10,100

    Don't forget - Philip has assured us that there will be no disruption at the border as absolutely everyone will submit all their paperwork electronically in advance. Definitely no mega queues whilst bemused customs officials search for contraband, not at all.
    Is that another "joke" because I said the exact opposite! 🙄

    I always said there would be disruption in January as people get used to the new paperwork, but there would be an incentive for businesses to get their paperwork in order to make it as smooth as possible. 🙄
    This isn't "disruption in January". Do you think these new checks will stop in February?

    This isn't paperwork. This is sovereignty in action. You want to come into our country, lets check you aren't bringing in any contraband, open your boot please.

    Nor can the paperwork be made smooth. It doesn't work in our supply chain. The solution to "spend money filling in paperwork which both you and your customers then need to hire a customs agent to process" will be the rapid end to UK imports and exports.

    We have cut ourselves off from our biggest market. Contrary to delusional wank bank fantasies about CANZUK there are no alternative markets of equivalent size and distance. We either - as Make UK et al are saying - negotiate a new deal that works. Or we both lose our exporters and lose the ability to import stuff apart from at vast cost.

    "Oh no we won't" counters Philip with his extensive knowledge of fuck all.
    "Oh no we won't" because it is total and utter bullshit.

    I do understand economics and work in business. And economically the majority of our exports already take place outside the EU. Without being in their customs union.

    Yes some trade may be disrupted, but the idea that we stop exporting is complete bullshit. Some imports may stop if people can't find a reason to do the paperwork etc - but others will continue. A new equilibrium will be reached.

    If your logic were right we would have zero trade with the rest of the world as we're not in their customs union. It is nonsense.
    When we trade with the rest of the world we have established processes and prices. Punters look at the prices and weigh up if they want to buy it or not.

    What we have here is an established process and price being trashed by the imposition of red tape and costs that were not there before. "We would have zero trade elsewhere" reveals your true lack of basic understanding. Its not elsewhere we are talking about. Its companies in the UK trading with EU punters and vice versa. For these transactions the cost and faff has just shot through the roof. Cheaper less faffy alternatives suddenly exist and why should EU punters put up with our crap when then can buy from someone else?

    You do talk such utter bollocks with such sneering arrogance.
    He was banging on about his "new equilibrium" yesterday. What does "new equilibrium" even mean? Perhaps the new equilibrium means that shelves that were previously full at Tesco in Antrim are now empty, so at some point in time they were as equally full as they were empty.
    No empty shelves are not a new equilibrium. That is disruption at most. 🙄 Tesco would either find a way to refill the shelves, potentially with different products or at different prices to before - or they might close the store if it is no longer profitable. That sort of change happens on a daily basis all over the economy.

    An equilibrium is a very basic economic concept, I'm not sure what you need explaining about it? Long story short if a cost goes up then there will be less trade done etc etc etc - that is the new equilibrium when it comes to Europe, less trade with Europe where the costs have increased. What are you struggling to understand about that? 🤷🏻‍♂️
    I can't wait to find out which exciting new markets the UK logistics industry can supply. As the UK stops being a viable hub for UK/IRL/northern Europe logistics all those sheds in the Golden Triangle are perfectly located to suppl (checks list of countries with a trade deal) Honduras or Vietnam.

    Or - radical idea - how about we do a deal with the UK that doesn't cripple UK businesses? It won't cripple EU businesses - they can easily find new customers inside the EU. Send the truck to Germany instead of Britain. Harder for UK businesses built and configured for sales to Germany to suddenly win the same volume and value of business in Ivory Coast.
    We had a deal which kept us in the Single Market and Customs Union.

    A majority of people voted to leave it. You voted to leave it.

    Decisions have consequences. You were warned. 🤷🏻‍♂️
    A compelling argument. "You voted to leave the EU. We chose to interpret that as leaving the EU the Single Market and the Customs Union. We told you that not to do so would fail to deliver on the major improvements we promised. You voted for us. So now we have negotiated a deal which fucks you and this country hard. We didn't have to. We chose to. Because you voted for it. Can we could on your support at the next election?"

    Actually, have you and HYUFD ever been seen in the same room?
    Yes we voted to leave the EU and we did so with Boris committing during the Referendum to leaving the Single Market, leaving the Customs Union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. During the Referendum, before you voted Leave having been informed that is what he thought Leave meant.

    Then during the 2019 election campaign it was made clear his policy was to leave the Single Market, leave the Customs union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. Just as he said in 2016, as Theresa May might say "nothing has changed". And that was explicitly put into the manifesto that won an 80 seat majority.

    So what more do you expect? This is the decision people have made. That is democracy. Choices matter. Votes matter.

    So now we've left the Single Market and Customs Union. As was promised in 2019 and won an 80 seat majority. As was promised in 2016 and you voted for.

    If you don't want this, then don't vote for it. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Otherwise its time to move on and get on with it already. Businesses will adjust, we will reach a new economic equilibrium that is different to before and life goes on.
    We knew the consequences of leaving the single market - heck I spelt it out to our Tory candidate in words even he could understand - which reminds me I must send him the export paperwork to fill in that he promised wouldn't exist.

    So in my case the Tory party were elected on a lie - that there wouldn't be any additional paperwork and oh look there is.

  • The Secretary of State is the keeper of the Great Seal of the United States, so any Presidential resignations go through the State Department, see Nixon's resignation.

    Yes, just seen your tweet. An interesting accident if nothing else...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 11,379
    It's a hack, apparently
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 53,302
    edited January 11
    I missed this evenings press conference. Did they explain if we are going to do all the old and vulnerable jab 1 and then circle back around and they all get jab 2....then after all that is complete, we get on to the plebs? Or do us plebs start to get opportunity to get our 1st jab before that?
  • Betfair -- Trump to leave before end of term -- 11s into 7 in last minute. Has something happened? Besides @TheScreamingEagles' tweet.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    eek said:

    Don't forget - Philip has assured us that there will be no disruption at the border as absolutely everyone will submit all their paperwork electronically in advance. Definitely no mega queues whilst bemused customs officials search for contraband, not at all.
    Is that another "joke" because I said the exact opposite! 🙄

    I always said there would be disruption in January as people get used to the new paperwork, but there would be an incentive for businesses to get their paperwork in order to make it as smooth as possible. 🙄
    This isn't "disruption in January". Do you think these new checks will stop in February?

    This isn't paperwork. This is sovereignty in action. You want to come into our country, lets check you aren't bringing in any contraband, open your boot please.

    Nor can the paperwork be made smooth. It doesn't work in our supply chain. The solution to "spend money filling in paperwork which both you and your customers then need to hire a customs agent to process" will be the rapid end to UK imports and exports.

    We have cut ourselves off from our biggest market. Contrary to delusional wank bank fantasies about CANZUK there are no alternative markets of equivalent size and distance. We either - as Make UK et al are saying - negotiate a new deal that works. Or we both lose our exporters and lose the ability to import stuff apart from at vast cost.

    "Oh no we won't" counters Philip with his extensive knowledge of fuck all.
    "Oh no we won't" because it is total and utter bullshit.

    I do understand economics and work in business. And economically the majority of our exports already take place outside the EU. Without being in their customs union.

    Yes some trade may be disrupted, but the idea that we stop exporting is complete bullshit. Some imports may stop if people can't find a reason to do the paperwork etc - but others will continue. A new equilibrium will be reached.

    If your logic were right we would have zero trade with the rest of the world as we're not in their customs union. It is nonsense.
    When we trade with the rest of the world we have established processes and prices. Punters look at the prices and weigh up if they want to buy it or not.

    What we have here is an established process and price being trashed by the imposition of red tape and costs that were not there before. "We would have zero trade elsewhere" reveals your true lack of basic understanding. Its not elsewhere we are talking about. Its companies in the UK trading with EU punters and vice versa. For these transactions the cost and faff has just shot through the roof. Cheaper less faffy alternatives suddenly exist and why should EU punters put up with our crap when then can buy from someone else?

    You do talk such utter bollocks with such sneering arrogance.
    He was banging on about his "new equilibrium" yesterday. What does "new equilibrium" even mean? Perhaps the new equilibrium means that shelves that were previously full at Tesco in Antrim are now empty, so at some point in time they were as equally full as they were empty.
    No empty shelves are not a new equilibrium. That is disruption at most. 🙄 Tesco would either find a way to refill the shelves, potentially with different products or at different prices to before - or they might close the store if it is no longer profitable. That sort of change happens on a daily basis all over the economy.

    An equilibrium is a very basic economic concept, I'm not sure what you need explaining about it? Long story short if a cost goes up then there will be less trade done etc etc etc - that is the new equilibrium when it comes to Europe, less trade with Europe where the costs have increased. What are you struggling to understand about that? 🤷🏻‍♂️
    I can't wait to find out which exciting new markets the UK logistics industry can supply. As the UK stops being a viable hub for UK/IRL/northern Europe logistics all those sheds in the Golden Triangle are perfectly located to suppl (checks list of countries with a trade deal) Honduras or Vietnam.

    Or - radical idea - how about we do a deal with the UK that doesn't cripple UK businesses? It won't cripple EU businesses - they can easily find new customers inside the EU. Send the truck to Germany instead of Britain. Harder for UK businesses built and configured for sales to Germany to suddenly win the same volume and value of business in Ivory Coast.
    We had a deal which kept us in the Single Market and Customs Union.

    A majority of people voted to leave it. You voted to leave it.

    Decisions have consequences. You were warned. 🤷🏻‍♂️
    A compelling argument. "You voted to leave the EU. We chose to interpret that as leaving the EU the Single Market and the Customs Union. We told you that not to do so would fail to deliver on the major improvements we promised. You voted for us. So now we have negotiated a deal which fucks you and this country hard. We didn't have to. We chose to. Because you voted for it. Can we could on your support at the next election?"

    Actually, have you and HYUFD ever been seen in the same room?
    Yes we voted to leave the EU and we did so with Boris committing during the Referendum to leaving the Single Market, leaving the Customs Union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. During the Referendum, before you voted Leave having been informed that is what he thought Leave meant.

    Then during the 2019 election campaign it was made clear his policy was to leave the Single Market, leave the Customs union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. Just as he said in 2016, as Theresa May might say "nothing has changed". And that was explicitly put into the manifesto that won an 80 seat majority.

    So what more do you expect? This is the decision people have made. That is democracy. Choices matter. Votes matter.

    So now we've left the Single Market and Customs Union. As was promised in 2019 and won an 80 seat majority. As was promised in 2016 and you voted for.

    If you don't want this, then don't vote for it. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Otherwise its time to move on and get on with it already. Businesses will adjust, we will reach a new economic equilibrium that is different to before and life goes on.
    We knew the consequences of leaving the single market - heck I spelt it out to our Tory candidate in words even he could understand - which reminds me I must send him the export paperwork to fill in that he promised wouldn't exist.

    So in my case the Tory party were elected on a lie - that there wouldn't be any additional paperwork and oh look there is.

    Yes many people argued for many years that leaving the Single Market was unacceptable.

    But people chose to vote for it anyway. Democracy matters. Objecting to that is not much better than Trump objecting to his losing the election.

    The Tories won on a promise of doing this, they have now done it. Quelle surprise.

    If in 2024 people think it was a disaster then Labour can pledge to return us to the Single Market and Customs Union. If they do and win an election on that manifesto then that too would be democracy in action. I support democracy, whether my side wins the vote or loses it - can you say the same?
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 2,944
    FPT:
    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    You seemed to have somewhat changed your mind, Stocky -- recalling an earlier conversation.

    No vaccine certificate -- no travel, no theatre, no gigs, no restaurant meals, no schools for your children. Perfectly fair.

    The upside is no skiing.


    One inevitably develops a mental picture of other posters, and I accept this could well be way off the mark.

    I drew my conclusions because of the general tone of your comments. For example, the comment I responded to said, re young people:-

    "So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa".
    After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people."

    That speaks to me of an angry and bitter individual. The issue has never been simply one of saving old people. If that had been the case it would have made far more sense to completely lock down the over 70s and let everyone else carry on as normal.

    If some young people can't see beyond the ends of their noses and think their right to party trumps everything else then so be it but then it's no good whining about the consequences in years to come.
    It isn;t about the right to party.

    Its about the right to a decent, uninterrupted education.
    The right to mind broadening travel.
    The right to play team sport.
    The right to access mind broadening culture like film and theatre.
    The right to exchange ideas with other young people.
    The right to work.
    The right to protest in groups.
    The right not to be overburdened by crushing debt and deficit.
    The right to good mental health.

    Young people have been stripped of all of these fundamental rights. The main aim has been to protect a cohort of people who have already lived a far longer and far better life than any generation in history. Ever. Some of these people do not even want this protection.



    We have all been robbed of things, we are in the middle of a worldwide pandemic. Grow up
    We have all lost things, sure

    The point I am trying to make is that -- because of the age profile of serious victims of the disease -- the sacrifice has been mainly for the benefit of the old.

    And that is only OK if it starts a rebalancing of the intergenerational unfairness of our politics.

    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 63,352
    "Meanwhile polling from Quinnipiac has 74% of voters saying democracy in the US is under threat, with just 21% of voters saying it is alive and well."

    Who on earth are the 21% ?!

    I'd have thought democracy being under threat is the one thing the loons (Stolen election) and the sane (Attempted insurrection against the result) would probably agree on
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514
    Scott_xP said:

    It's a hack, apparently

    Less fun than a mistake. But still funny. Even though it is just a public facing webpage, I doubt the US authorities will see the funny side though.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 371

    Don't forget - Philip has assured us that there will be no disruption at the border as absolutely everyone will submit all their paperwork electronically in advance. Definitely no mega queues whilst bemused customs officials search for contraband, not at all.
    Is that another "joke" because I said the exact opposite! 🙄

    I always said there would be disruption in January as people get used to the new paperwork, but there would be an incentive for businesses to get their paperwork in order to make it as smooth as possible. 🙄
    This isn't "disruption in January". Do you think these new checks will stop in February?

    This isn't paperwork. This is sovereignty in action. You want to come into our country, lets check you aren't bringing in any contraband, open your boot please.

    Nor can the paperwork be made smooth. It doesn't work in our supply chain. The solution to "spend money filling in paperwork which both you and your customers then need to hire a customs agent to process" will be the rapid end to UK imports and exports.

    We have cut ourselves off from our biggest market. Contrary to delusional wank bank fantasies about CANZUK there are no alternative markets of equivalent size and distance. We either - as Make UK et al are saying - negotiate a new deal that works. Or we both lose our exporters and lose the ability to import stuff apart from at vast cost.

    "Oh no we won't" counters Philip with his extensive knowledge of fuck all.
    "Oh no we won't" because it is total and utter bullshit.

    I do understand economics and work in business. And economically the majority of our exports already take place outside the EU. Without being in their customs union.

    Yes some trade may be disrupted, but the idea that we stop exporting is complete bullshit. Some imports may stop if people can't find a reason to do the paperwork etc - but others will continue. A new equilibrium will be reached.

    If your logic were right we would have zero trade with the rest of the world as we're not in their customs union. It is nonsense.
    When we trade with the rest of the world we have established processes and prices. Punters look at the prices and weigh up if they want to buy it or not.

    What we have here is an established process and price being trashed by the imposition of red tape and costs that were not there before. "We would have zero trade elsewhere" reveals your true lack of basic understanding. Its not elsewhere we are talking about. Its companies in the UK trading with EU punters and vice versa. For these transactions the cost and faff has just shot through the roof. Cheaper less faffy alternatives suddenly exist and why should EU punters put up with our crap when then can buy from someone else?

    You do talk such utter bollocks with such sneering arrogance.
    He was banging on about his "new equilibrium" yesterday. What does "new equilibrium" even mean? Perhaps the new equilibrium means that shelves that were previously full at Tesco in Antrim are now empty, so at some point in time they were as equally full as they were empty.
    No empty shelves are not a new equilibrium. That is disruption at most. 🙄 Tesco would either find a way to refill the shelves, potentially with different products or at different prices to before - or they might close the store if it is no longer profitable. That sort of change happens on a daily basis all over the economy.

    An equilibrium is a very basic economic concept, I'm not sure what you need explaining about it? Long story short if a cost goes up then there will be less trade done etc etc etc - that is the new equilibrium when it comes to Europe, less trade with Europe where the costs have increased. What are you struggling to understand about that? 🤷🏻‍♂️
    I can't wait to find out which exciting new markets the UK logistics industry can supply. As the UK stops being a viable hub for UK/IRL/northern Europe logistics all those sheds in the Golden Triangle are perfectly located to suppl (checks list of countries with a trade deal) Honduras or Vietnam.

    Or - radical idea - how about we do a deal with the UK that doesn't cripple UK businesses? It won't cripple EU businesses - they can easily find new customers inside the EU. Send the truck to Germany instead of Britain. Harder for UK businesses built and configured for sales to Germany to suddenly win the same volume and value of business in Ivory Coast.
    We had a deal which kept us in the Single Market and Customs Union.

    A majority of people voted to leave it. You voted to leave it.

    Decisions have consequences. You were warned. 🤷🏻‍♂️
    A compelling argument. "You voted to leave the EU. We chose to interpret that as leaving the EU the Single Market and the Customs Union. We told you that not to do so would fail to deliver on the major improvements we promised. You voted for us. So now we have negotiated a deal which fucks you and this country hard. We didn't have to. We chose to. Because you voted for it. Can we could on your support at the next election?"

    Actually, have you and HYUFD ever been seen in the same room?
    Yes we voted to leave the EU and we did so with Boris committing during the Referendum to leaving the Single Market, leaving the Customs Union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. During the Referendum, before you voted Leave having been informed that is what he thought Leave meant.

    Then during the 2019 election campaign it was made clear his policy was to leave the Single Market, leave the Customs union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. Just as he said in 2016, as Theresa May might say "nothing has changed". And that was explicitly put into the manifesto that won an 80 seat majority.

    So what more do you expect? This is the decision people have made. That is democracy. Choices matter. Votes matter.

    So now we've left the Single Market and Customs Union. As was promised in 2019 and won an 80 seat majority. As was promised in 2016 and you voted for.

    If you don't want this, then don't vote for it. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Otherwise its time to move on and get on with it already. Businesses will adjust, we will reach a new economic equilibrium that is different to before and life goes on.
    “EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU.

    “British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down".

    "There will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market."

    - Boris Johnson, 27th June 2016
  • YokesYokes Posts: 467

    I notice FPT the FBI warning of threats of protests at state capitols and in DC. The story on the message boards keeps coming back to the 18th, something that those who take delight at the shutting down of certain forums and groups may wish to take pause such delight, since some of the people on there have awful COMSEC.

    The people to concern most about those motivated at the moment are those groups driven by race ideology. Often the most committed & willing and well organised because they have been under scrutiny for a very long time so get how it goes.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    mwadams said:

    Don't forget - Philip has assured us that there will be no disruption at the border as absolutely everyone will submit all their paperwork electronically in advance. Definitely no mega queues whilst bemused customs officials search for contraband, not at all.
    Is that another "joke" because I said the exact opposite! 🙄

    I always said there would be disruption in January as people get used to the new paperwork, but there would be an incentive for businesses to get their paperwork in order to make it as smooth as possible. 🙄
    This isn't "disruption in January". Do you think these new checks will stop in February?

    This isn't paperwork. This is sovereignty in action. You want to come into our country, lets check you aren't bringing in any contraband, open your boot please.

    Nor can the paperwork be made smooth. It doesn't work in our supply chain. The solution to "spend money filling in paperwork which both you and your customers then need to hire a customs agent to process" will be the rapid end to UK imports and exports.

    We have cut ourselves off from our biggest market. Contrary to delusional wank bank fantasies about CANZUK there are no alternative markets of equivalent size and distance. We either - as Make UK et al are saying - negotiate a new deal that works. Or we both lose our exporters and lose the ability to import stuff apart from at vast cost.

    "Oh no we won't" counters Philip with his extensive knowledge of fuck all.
    "Oh no we won't" because it is total and utter bullshit.

    I do understand economics and work in business. And economically the majority of our exports already take place outside the EU. Without being in their customs union.

    Yes some trade may be disrupted, but the idea that we stop exporting is complete bullshit. Some imports may stop if people can't find a reason to do the paperwork etc - but others will continue. A new equilibrium will be reached.

    If your logic were right we would have zero trade with the rest of the world as we're not in their customs union. It is nonsense.
    When we trade with the rest of the world we have established processes and prices. Punters look at the prices and weigh up if they want to buy it or not.

    What we have here is an established process and price being trashed by the imposition of red tape and costs that were not there before. "We would have zero trade elsewhere" reveals your true lack of basic understanding. Its not elsewhere we are talking about. Its companies in the UK trading with EU punters and vice versa. For these transactions the cost and faff has just shot through the roof. Cheaper less faffy alternatives suddenly exist and why should EU punters put up with our crap when then can buy from someone else?

    You do talk such utter bollocks with such sneering arrogance.
    He was banging on about his "new equilibrium" yesterday. What does "new equilibrium" even mean? Perhaps the new equilibrium means that shelves that were previously full at Tesco in Antrim are now empty, so at some point in time they were as equally full as they were empty.
    No empty shelves are not a new equilibrium. That is disruption at most. 🙄 Tesco would either find a way to refill the shelves, potentially with different products or at different prices to before - or they might close the store if it is no longer profitable. That sort of change happens on a daily basis all over the economy.

    An equilibrium is a very basic economic concept, I'm not sure what you need explaining about it? Long story short if a cost goes up then there will be less trade done etc etc etc - that is the new equilibrium when it comes to Europe, less trade with Europe where the costs have increased. What are you struggling to understand about that? 🤷🏻‍♂️
    I can't wait to find out which exciting new markets the UK logistics industry can supply. As the UK stops being a viable hub for UK/IRL/northern Europe logistics all those sheds in the Golden Triangle are perfectly located to suppl (checks list of countries with a trade deal) Honduras or Vietnam.

    Or - radical idea - how about we do a deal with the UK that doesn't cripple UK businesses? It won't cripple EU businesses - they can easily find new customers inside the EU. Send the truck to Germany instead of Britain. Harder for UK businesses built and configured for sales to Germany to suddenly win the same volume and value of business in Ivory Coast.
    We had a deal which kept us in the Single Market and Customs Union.

    A majority of people voted to leave it. You voted to leave it.

    Decisions have consequences. You were warned. 🤷🏻‍♂️
    A compelling argument. "You voted to leave the EU. We chose to interpret that as leaving the EU the Single Market and the Customs Union. We told you that not to do so would fail to deliver on the major improvements we promised. You voted for us. So now we have negotiated a deal which fucks you and this country hard. We didn't have to. We chose to. Because you voted for it. Can we could on your support at the next election?"

    Actually, have you and HYUFD ever been seen in the same room?
    Yes we voted to leave the EU and we did so with Boris committing during the Referendum to leaving the Single Market, leaving the Customs Union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. During the Referendum, before you voted Leave having been informed that is what he thought Leave meant.

    Then during the 2019 election campaign it was made clear his policy was to leave the Single Market, leave the Customs union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. Just as he said in 2016, as Theresa May might say "nothing has changed". And that was explicitly put into the manifesto that won an 80 seat majority.

    So what more do you expect? This is the decision people have made. That is democracy. Choices matter. Votes matter.

    So now we've left the Single Market and Customs Union. As was promised in 2019 and won an 80 seat majority. As was promised in 2016 and you voted for.

    If you don't want this, then don't vote for it. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Otherwise its time to move on and get on with it already. Businesses will adjust, we will reach a new economic equilibrium that is different to before and life goes on.
    “EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU.

    “British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down".

    "There will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market."

    - Boris Johnson, 27th June 2016
    We have access to the Single Market.

    There's a bit of paperwork attached to that access now that didn't use to be there. But there still is access if you're prepared to fill in the paperwork.

    🤷🏻‍♂️
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 17,156
    Strikes me that the Republican Party is in a state of abject squalor and disgrace. But perhaps it was necessary for them to hit rock bottom before recovery becomes possible. I am rooting for them.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 11,379
    kle4 said:

    Less fun than a mistake. But still funny. Even though it is just a public facing webpage, I doubt the US authorities will see the funny side though.

    it runs on Wordpress...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 9,230

    Don't forget - Philip has assured us that there will be no disruption at the border as absolutely everyone will submit all their paperwork electronically in advance. Definitely no mega queues whilst bemused customs officials search for contraband, not at all.
    Is that another "joke" because I said the exact opposite! 🙄

    I always said there would be disruption in January as people get used to the new paperwork, but there would be an incentive for businesses to get their paperwork in order to make it as smooth as possible. 🙄
    This isn't "disruption in January". Do you think these new checks will stop in February?

    This isn't paperwork. This is sovereignty in action. You want to come into our country, lets check you aren't bringing in any contraband, open your boot please.

    Nor can the paperwork be made smooth. It doesn't work in our supply chain. The solution to "spend money filling in paperwork which both you and your customers then need to hire a customs agent to process" will be the rapid end to UK imports and exports.

    We have cut ourselves off from our biggest market. Contrary to delusional wank bank fantasies about CANZUK there are no alternative markets of equivalent size and distance. We either - as Make UK et al are saying - negotiate a new deal that works. Or we both lose our exporters and lose the ability to import stuff apart from at vast cost.

    "Oh no we won't" counters Philip with his extensive knowledge of fuck all.
    "Oh no we won't" because it is total and utter bullshit.

    I do understand economics and work in business. And economically the majority of our exports already take place outside the EU. Without being in their customs union.

    Yes some trade may be disrupted, but the idea that we stop exporting is complete bullshit. Some imports may stop if people can't find a reason to do the paperwork etc - but others will continue. A new equilibrium will be reached.

    If your logic were right we would have zero trade with the rest of the world as we're not in their customs union. It is nonsense.
    When we trade with the rest of the world we have established processes and prices. Punters look at the prices and weigh up if they want to buy it or not.

    What we have here is an established process and price being trashed by the imposition of red tape and costs that were not there before. "We would have zero trade elsewhere" reveals your true lack of basic understanding. Its not elsewhere we are talking about. Its companies in the UK trading with EU punters and vice versa. For these transactions the cost and faff has just shot through the roof. Cheaper less faffy alternatives suddenly exist and why should EU punters put up with our crap when then can buy from someone else?

    You do talk such utter bollocks with such sneering arrogance.
    He was banging on about his "new equilibrium" yesterday. What does "new equilibrium" even mean? Perhaps the new equilibrium means that shelves that were previously full at Tesco in Antrim are now empty, so at some point in time they were as equally full as they were empty.
    No empty shelves are not a new equilibrium. That is disruption at most. 🙄 Tesco would either find a way to refill the shelves, potentially with different products or at different prices to before - or they might close the store if it is no longer profitable. That sort of change happens on a daily basis all over the economy.

    An equilibrium is a very basic economic concept, I'm not sure what you need explaining about it? Long story short if a cost goes up then there will be less trade done etc etc etc - that is the new equilibrium when it comes to Europe, less trade with Europe where the costs have increased. What are you struggling to understand about that? 🤷🏻‍♂️
    I can't wait to find out which exciting new markets the UK logistics industry can supply. As the UK stops being a viable hub for UK/IRL/northern Europe logistics all those sheds in the Golden Triangle are perfectly located to suppl (checks list of countries with a trade deal) Honduras or Vietnam.

    Or - radical idea - how about we do a deal with the UK that doesn't cripple UK businesses? It won't cripple EU businesses - they can easily find new customers inside the EU. Send the truck to Germany instead of Britain. Harder for UK businesses built and configured for sales to Germany to suddenly win the same volume and value of business in Ivory Coast.
    We had a deal which kept us in the Single Market and Customs Union.

    A majority of people voted to leave it. You voted to leave it.

    Decisions have consequences. You were warned. 🤷🏻‍♂️
    A compelling argument. "You voted to leave the EU. We chose to interpret that as leaving the EU the Single Market and the Customs Union. We told you that not to do so would fail to deliver on the major improvements we promised. You voted for us. So now we have negotiated a deal which fucks you and this country hard. We didn't have to. We chose to. Because you voted for it. Can we could on your support at the next election?"

    Actually, have you and HYUFD ever been seen in the same room?
    Yes we voted to leave the EU and we did so with Boris committing during the Referendum to leaving the Single Market, leaving the Customs Union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. During the Referendum, before you voted Leave having been informed that is what he thought Leave meant.

    Then during the 2019 election campaign it was made clear his policy was to leave the Single Market, leave the Customs union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. Just as he said in 2016, as Theresa May might say "nothing has changed". And that was explicitly put into the manifesto that won an 80 seat majority.

    So what more do you expect? This is the decision people have made. That is democracy. Choices matter. Votes matter.

    So now we've left the Single Market and Customs Union. As was promised in 2019 and won an 80 seat majority. As was promised in 2016 and you voted for.

    If you don't want this, then don't vote for it. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Otherwise its time to move on and get on with it already. Businesses will adjust, we will reach a new economic equilibrium that is different to before and life goes on.
    In chemistry, it's common to reach an equilibrium with nothing left of the reactants on one side.

    In mechanics, it's common to have an equilibrium with everything fallen down. I simplify, but if you take a ladder, lean it against the wall, and then come back and pull the base out from the wall, you'll find at some point it just falls down flat instead of staying up.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 36,845
    Nigelb said:
    All you can do is point and laugh.

    That would be the Illuminati point, naturally.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 11,379
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 53,302
    Seems to me like the US needs some de-radicalisation programmes.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 1,478
    Pulpstar said:

    "Meanwhile polling from Quinnipiac has 74% of voters saying democracy in the US is under threat, with just 21% of voters saying it is alive and well."

    Who on earth are the 21% ?!

    I'd have thought democracy being under threat is the one thing the loons (Stolen election) and the sane (Attempted insurrection against the result) would probably agree on

    The insurrection has failed and the insucrrectionists have been defeated and discredited. The authorities are much more alert than they were. I'd say US democracy is healthier now than it was a week ago.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    Carnyx said:

    Don't forget - Philip has assured us that there will be no disruption at the border as absolutely everyone will submit all their paperwork electronically in advance. Definitely no mega queues whilst bemused customs officials search for contraband, not at all.
    Is that another "joke" because I said the exact opposite! 🙄

    I always said there would be disruption in January as people get used to the new paperwork, but there would be an incentive for businesses to get their paperwork in order to make it as smooth as possible. 🙄
    This isn't "disruption in January". Do you think these new checks will stop in February?

    This isn't paperwork. This is sovereignty in action. You want to come into our country, lets check you aren't bringing in any contraband, open your boot please.

    Nor can the paperwork be made smooth. It doesn't work in our supply chain. The solution to "spend money filling in paperwork which both you and your customers then need to hire a customs agent to process" will be the rapid end to UK imports and exports.

    We have cut ourselves off from our biggest market. Contrary to delusional wank bank fantasies about CANZUK there are no alternative markets of equivalent size and distance. We either - as Make UK et al are saying - negotiate a new deal that works. Or we both lose our exporters and lose the ability to import stuff apart from at vast cost.

    "Oh no we won't" counters Philip with his extensive knowledge of fuck all.
    "Oh no we won't" because it is total and utter bullshit.

    I do understand economics and work in business. And economically the majority of our exports already take place outside the EU. Without being in their customs union.

    Yes some trade may be disrupted, but the idea that we stop exporting is complete bullshit. Some imports may stop if people can't find a reason to do the paperwork etc - but others will continue. A new equilibrium will be reached.

    If your logic were right we would have zero trade with the rest of the world as we're not in their customs union. It is nonsense.
    When we trade with the rest of the world we have established processes and prices. Punters look at the prices and weigh up if they want to buy it or not.

    What we have here is an established process and price being trashed by the imposition of red tape and costs that were not there before. "We would have zero trade elsewhere" reveals your true lack of basic understanding. Its not elsewhere we are talking about. Its companies in the UK trading with EU punters and vice versa. For these transactions the cost and faff has just shot through the roof. Cheaper less faffy alternatives suddenly exist and why should EU punters put up with our crap when then can buy from someone else?

    You do talk such utter bollocks with such sneering arrogance.
    He was banging on about his "new equilibrium" yesterday. What does "new equilibrium" even mean? Perhaps the new equilibrium means that shelves that were previously full at Tesco in Antrim are now empty, so at some point in time they were as equally full as they were empty.
    No empty shelves are not a new equilibrium. That is disruption at most. 🙄 Tesco would either find a way to refill the shelves, potentially with different products or at different prices to before - or they might close the store if it is no longer profitable. That sort of change happens on a daily basis all over the economy.

    An equilibrium is a very basic economic concept, I'm not sure what you need explaining about it? Long story short if a cost goes up then there will be less trade done etc etc etc - that is the new equilibrium when it comes to Europe, less trade with Europe where the costs have increased. What are you struggling to understand about that? 🤷🏻‍♂️
    I can't wait to find out which exciting new markets the UK logistics industry can supply. As the UK stops being a viable hub for UK/IRL/northern Europe logistics all those sheds in the Golden Triangle are perfectly located to suppl (checks list of countries with a trade deal) Honduras or Vietnam.

    Or - radical idea - how about we do a deal with the UK that doesn't cripple UK businesses? It won't cripple EU businesses - they can easily find new customers inside the EU. Send the truck to Germany instead of Britain. Harder for UK businesses built and configured for sales to Germany to suddenly win the same volume and value of business in Ivory Coast.
    We had a deal which kept us in the Single Market and Customs Union.

    A majority of people voted to leave it. You voted to leave it.

    Decisions have consequences. You were warned. 🤷🏻‍♂️
    A compelling argument. "You voted to leave the EU. We chose to interpret that as leaving the EU the Single Market and the Customs Union. We told you that not to do so would fail to deliver on the major improvements we promised. You voted for us. So now we have negotiated a deal which fucks you and this country hard. We didn't have to. We chose to. Because you voted for it. Can we could on your support at the next election?"

    Actually, have you and HYUFD ever been seen in the same room?
    Yes we voted to leave the EU and we did so with Boris committing during the Referendum to leaving the Single Market, leaving the Customs Union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. During the Referendum, before you voted Leave having been informed that is what he thought Leave meant.

    Then during the 2019 election campaign it was made clear his policy was to leave the Single Market, leave the Customs union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. Just as he said in 2016, as Theresa May might say "nothing has changed". And that was explicitly put into the manifesto that won an 80 seat majority.

    So what more do you expect? This is the decision people have made. That is democracy. Choices matter. Votes matter.

    So now we've left the Single Market and Customs Union. As was promised in 2019 and won an 80 seat majority. As was promised in 2016 and you voted for.

    If you don't want this, then don't vote for it. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Otherwise its time to move on and get on with it already. Businesses will adjust, we will reach a new economic equilibrium that is different to before and life goes on.
    In chemistry, it's common to reach an equilibrium with nothing left of the reactants on one side.

    In mechanics, it's common to have an equilibrium with everything fallen down. I simplify, but if you take a ladder, lean it against the wall, and then come back and pull the base out from the wall, you'll find at some point it just falls down flat instead of staying up.

    Indeed.

    That's not normal in economics though. Considering that already pre-Brexit an absolute majority of UK trade was done external the Customs Union and external to the Single Market then I see no macroeconomic reason whatsoever to believe that post-Brexit there will be "nothing left" from EU trade.

    There might be less EU trade but it won't be "nothing". Afterall "gravity" will still be affecting our trade, won't it?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514
    edited January 11
    Nigelb said:
    "Preacher, could you maybe speak a little about Jesus, at least occasionally?"
  • isamisam Posts: 34,821

    FPT:

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    You seemed to have somewhat changed your mind, Stocky -- recalling an earlier conversation.

    No vaccine certificate -- no travel, no theatre, no gigs, no restaurant meals, no schools for your children. Perfectly fair.

    The upside is no skiing.


    One inevitably develops a mental picture of other posters, and I accept this could well be way off the mark.

    I drew my conclusions because of the general tone of your comments. For example, the comment I responded to said, re young people:-

    "So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa".
    After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people."

    That speaks to me of an angry and bitter individual. The issue has never been simply one of saving old people. If that had been the case it would have made far more sense to completely lock down the over 70s and let everyone else carry on as normal.

    If some young people can't see beyond the ends of their noses and think their right to party trumps everything else then so be it but then it's no good whining about the consequences in years to come.
    It isn;t about the right to party.

    Its about the right to a decent, uninterrupted education.
    The right to mind broadening travel.
    The right to play team sport.
    The right to access mind broadening culture like film and theatre.
    The right to exchange ideas with other young people.
    The right to work.
    The right to protest in groups.
    The right not to be overburdened by crushing debt and deficit.
    The right to good mental health.

    Young people have been stripped of all of these fundamental rights. The main aim has been to protect a cohort of people who have already lived a far longer and far better life than any generation in history. Ever. Some of these people do not even want this protection.



    We have all been robbed of things, we are in the middle of a worldwide pandemic. Grow up
    We have all lost things, sure

    The point I am trying to make is that -- because of the age profile of serious victims of the disease -- the sacrifice has been mainly for the benefit of the old.

    And that is only OK if it starts a rebalancing of the intergenerational unfairness of our politics.

    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
    This would be a way of squaring it, if it were true. I don't know if it is or not

    "Those aged over 80, and some in younger groups such as the over 60s, were not given potentially life-saving treatment because health chiefs were concerned the NHS would be overrun, according to reports.

    It is claimed documents called a 'triage tool', drawn up at the request of England's chief medical officer Chris Whitty, were used in preventing elderly Covid-19 patients from receiving ventilation in intensive care.

    As part of an investigation, the Sunday Times says the tool was used to create a 'score' for patients based on their age, frailty, and illness. Under the original system, over 80s were automatically excluded from intensive care treatment due to their age. Even those in the over 60s who were considered frail and with pre-existing health conditions could have been over the intensive care threshold...

    ...It also cites data, which shows the over 70s and 80s groups made up the smallest percentage of ICU patients, despite having the highest number of deaths."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8876993/Fury-revealed-80s-not-given-potentially-life-saving-treatment-wave.html
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 28,312
    The new CIA director is not a total idiot, which is perhaps a refreshing change.
    Here’s his essay from the end of August.

    https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/08/29/america-first-enters-its-most-combustible-moment-pub-82604
    ... If he loses, I doubt that he will suddenly embrace the traditional bipartisan commitment to effective transitions. At best, he’ll be consumed by efforts to rationalize his defeat and paint the election as rigged; at worst, he’ll seek to contest or undermine the result. Like so many other features of the Trump era, the transition would bear little resemblance to any before, or any of the many I served through as a career diplomat. ..
  • Sometimes it is the duty of elected representatives to defend their constituents against threats to their well being. Even when that threat is something they have voted for based on lies you have told them.

    Philip's "you voted for it even though we lied to you even though it will do you harm" attitude reminds me of the South park episode "Human CentiPad" where Apple keep turning up to do all kind of horrible things to the boys, claiming "you gave your permission" because the right to surgically attach Kyle to an iPad was in the EULA he accepted.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 467
    Pulpstar said:

    "Meanwhile polling from Quinnipiac has 74% of voters saying democracy in the US is under threat, with just 21% of voters saying it is alive and well."

    Who on earth are the 21% ?!

    I'd have thought democracy being under threat is the one thing the loons (Stolen election) and the sane (Attempted insurrection against the result) would probably agree on

    Actually it isn't under threat as the recent election proved. Despite all the pressures, it went swimmingly and stood firm post election too. Those who are inflamed at the moment are simply not strong enough to threaten the democratic system. Many in the US are in shock about last week but frankly they don't matter, what matters is how those who encouraged, actively supported or took part last week feel.

    And they reportedly feel more up than down. Last week was a result to them & that suggests there could be more to come.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349

    Sometimes it is the duty of elected representatives to defend their constituents against threats to their well being. Even when that threat is something they have voted for based on lies you have told them.

    Philip's "you voted for it even though we lied to you even though it will do you harm" attitude reminds me of the South park episode "Human CentiPad" where Apple keep turning up to do all kind of horrible things to the boys, claiming "you gave your permission" because the right to surgically attach Kyle to an iPad was in the EULA he accepted.

    Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union wasn't buried at the bottom of the EULA. It was literally front and centre of the 2016 and 2019 elections.

    Can you not see the difference there? Are elected representatives supposed to upend what they promised not once but repeatedly? Why? Why did they promise to leave both in 2016 and 2019 then? 🤔
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 36,845
    Pence looking ever more like Frank Drebben....
  • Betfair -- Trump to leave before end of term -- 11s into 7 in last minute. Has something happened? Besides @TheScreamingEagles' tweet.

    Back out to 10 from 6. No is 1.1.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514
    edited January 11
    Yokes said:

    Pulpstar said:

    "Meanwhile polling from Quinnipiac has 74% of voters saying democracy in the US is under threat, with just 21% of voters saying it is alive and well."

    Who on earth are the 21% ?!

    I'd have thought democracy being under threat is the one thing the loons (Stolen election) and the sane (Attempted insurrection against the result) would probably agree on

    Actually it isn't under threat as the recent election proved. Despite all the pressures, it went swimmingly and stood firm post election too. Those who are inflamed at the moment are simply not strong enough to threaten the democratic system. Many in the US are in shock about last week but frankly they don't matter, what matters is how those who encouraged, actively supported or took part last week feel.

    And they reportedly feel more up than down. Last week was a result to them & that suggests there could be more to come.
    Your logic is rather strange. The system didn't break, therefore it is not under threat?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 8,451
    edited January 11

    Sometimes it is the duty of elected representatives to defend their constituents against threats to their well being. Even when that threat is something they have voted for based on lies you have told them.

    Philip's "you voted for it even though we lied to you even though it will do you harm" attitude reminds me of the South park episode "Human CentiPad" where Apple keep turning up to do all kind of horrible things to the boys, claiming "you gave your permission" because the right to surgically attach Kyle to an iPad was in the EULA he accepted.

    Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union wasn't buried at the bottom of the EULA. It was literally front and centre of the 2016 and 2019 elections.

    Can you not see the difference there? Are elected representatives supposed to upend what they promised not once but repeatedly? Why? Why did they promise to leave both in 2016 and 2019 then? 🤔
    Indeed. Its not like any politician has ever u-turned on manifesto pledges so such a thing would be as unthinkable as a government promoting legislation to overturn the key parts of the deal it signed as the key part of its manifesto...

    Its a waste of time debating this with you. Either Make UK knows more about manufacturing or you do.

    Spoiler alert - its not you.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,965
    edited January 11





    Yes we voted to leave the EU and we did so with Boris committing during the Referendum to leaving the Single Market, leaving the Customs Union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. During the Referendum, before you voted Leave having been informed that is what he thought Leave meant.

    Then during the 2019 election campaign it was made clear his policy was to leave the Single Market, leave the Customs union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. Just as he said in 2016, as Theresa May might say "nothing has changed". And that was explicitly put into the manifesto that won an 80 seat majority.

    So what more do you expect? This is the decision people have made. That is democracy. Choices matter. Votes matter.

    So now we've left the Single Market and Customs Union. As was promised in 2019 and won an 80 seat majority. As was promised in 2016 and you voted for.

    If you don't want this, then don't vote for it. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Otherwise its time to move on and get on with it already. Businesses will adjust, we will reach a new economic equilibrium that is different to before and life goes on.

    To an extent I agree with you. Brexit is shite (and not even you are really denying it now), but it's what it is and we have to make the best of it now. If you want to spin that state of affairs as a "new equilibrium", go ahead!

    The "new equilibrium" really is the Phillip Thompson faction's ideology being more important than other people's livelihoods. It's tough telling people that when they have lost theirs.

    ....

    I suspect NE Scottish fishing communities may not be as grateful to the Tories as some were hoping.

    Quote from the UK government: “We are working closely with the industry to help understand and address the issue”. I feel they might have made the effort to understand the issue before proceeding with their stupid Brexit. Or at least had a vague curiosity about what the issues might be. Anyway they are blaming the SNP for all the problems, so that much was predictable.

  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 2,944
    isam said:

    FPT:

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    You seemed to have somewhat changed your mind, Stocky -- recalling an earlier conversation.

    No vaccine certificate -- no travel, no theatre, no gigs, no restaurant meals, no schools for your children. Perfectly fair.

    The upside is no skiing.


    One inevitably develops a mental picture of other posters, and I accept this could well be way off the mark.

    I drew my conclusions because of the general tone of your comments. For example, the comment I responded to said, re young people:-

    "So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa".
    After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people."

    That speaks to me of an angry and bitter individual. The issue has never been simply one of saving old people. If that had been the case it would have made far more sense to completely lock down the over 70s and let everyone else carry on as normal.

    If some young people can't see beyond the ends of their noses and think their right to party trumps everything else then so be it but then it's no good whining about the consequences in years to come.
    It isn;t about the right to party.

    Its about the right to a decent, uninterrupted education.
    The right to mind broadening travel.
    The right to play team sport.
    The right to access mind broadening culture like film and theatre.
    The right to exchange ideas with other young people.
    The right to work.
    The right to protest in groups.
    The right not to be overburdened by crushing debt and deficit.
    The right to good mental health.

    Young people have been stripped of all of these fundamental rights. The main aim has been to protect a cohort of people who have already lived a far longer and far better life than any generation in history. Ever. Some of these people do not even want this protection.



    We have all been robbed of things, we are in the middle of a worldwide pandemic. Grow up
    We have all lost things, sure

    The point I am trying to make is that -- because of the age profile of serious victims of the disease -- the sacrifice has been mainly for the benefit of the old.

    And that is only OK if it starts a rebalancing of the intergenerational unfairness of our politics.

    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
    This would be a way of squaring it, if it were true. I don't know if it is or not

    "Those aged over 80, and some in younger groups such as the over 60s, were not given potentially life-saving treatment because health chiefs were concerned the NHS would be overrun, according to reports.

    It is claimed documents called a 'triage tool', drawn up at the request of England's chief medical officer Chris Whitty, were used in preventing elderly Covid-19 patients from receiving ventilation in intensive care.

    As part of an investigation, the Sunday Times says the tool was used to create a 'score' for patients based on their age, frailty, and illness. Under the original system, over 80s were automatically excluded from intensive care treatment due to their age. Even those in the over 60s who were considered frail and with pre-existing health conditions could have been over the intensive care threshold...

    ...It also cites data, which shows the over 70s and 80s groups made up the smallest percentage of ICU patients, despite having the highest number of deaths."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8876993/Fury-revealed-80s-not-given-potentially-life-saving-treatment-wave.html
    I did notice that there was a disjoint between the ages in hospital and the ages in ICU and wondered if there was something like that going on.

    It would significantly increase the death rate of the eldest in comparison.

    The thing is - the younger a patient is, the better their chances of responding to medical help, especially with covid, so if they do have to triage, I would expect it to go like that. It’s horrific, and I’d also expect some mental health retirements from the NHS when all this is over from doctors and nurses who can no longer face working on.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349

    Sometimes it is the duty of elected representatives to defend their constituents against threats to their well being. Even when that threat is something they have voted for based on lies you have told them.

    Philip's "you voted for it even though we lied to you even though it will do you harm" attitude reminds me of the South park episode "Human CentiPad" where Apple keep turning up to do all kind of horrible things to the boys, claiming "you gave your permission" because the right to surgically attach Kyle to an iPad was in the EULA he accepted.

    Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union wasn't buried at the bottom of the EULA. It was literally front and centre of the 2016 and 2019 elections.

    Can you not see the difference there? Are elected representatives supposed to upend what they promised not once but repeatedly? Why? Why did they promise to leave both in 2016 and 2019 then? 🤔
    Indeed. Its not like any politician has ever u-turned on manifesto pledges so such a thing would be as unthinkable as a government promoting legislation to overturn the key parts of the deal it signed as the key part of its manifesto...

    Its a waste of time debating this with you. Either Make UK knows more about manufacturing or you do.

    Spoiler alert - its not you.
    What have Make UK said that I disagree with?

    I accept there will be disruption and changes. I just think that is what people have voted for. Changing things is literally the point of democracy.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,043
    edited January 11
    FPT

    OllyT said:



    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.

    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
    The most recent data on hospital admissions are here

    https://tinyurl.com/y65yyqr2

    The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.

    There are some admissions between 45-64.

    But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.

    It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
  • eekeek Posts: 10,100
    isam said:

    FPT:

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    You seemed to have somewhat changed your mind, Stocky -- recalling an earlier conversation.

    No vaccine certificate -- no travel, no theatre, no gigs, no restaurant meals, no schools for your children. Perfectly fair.

    The upside is no skiing.


    One inevitably develops a mental picture of other posters, and I accept this could well be way off the mark.

    I drew my conclusions because of the general tone of your comments. For example, the comment I responded to said, re young people:-

    "So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa".
    After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people."

    That speaks to me of an angry and bitter individual. The issue has never been simply one of saving old people. If that had been the case it would have made far more sense to completely lock down the over 70s and let everyone else carry on as normal.

    If some young people can't see beyond the ends of their noses and think their right to party trumps everything else then so be it but then it's no good whining about the consequences in years to come.
    It isn;t about the right to party.

    Its about the right to a decent, uninterrupted education.
    The right to mind broadening travel.
    The right to play team sport.
    The right to access mind broadening culture like film and theatre.
    The right to exchange ideas with other young people.
    The right to work.
    The right to protest in groups.
    The right not to be overburdened by crushing debt and deficit.
    The right to good mental health.

    Young people have been stripped of all of these fundamental rights. The main aim has been to protect a cohort of people who have already lived a far longer and far better life than any generation in history. Ever. Some of these people do not even want this protection.



    We have all been robbed of things, we are in the middle of a worldwide pandemic. Grow up
    We have all lost things, sure

    The point I am trying to make is that -- because of the age profile of serious victims of the disease -- the sacrifice has been mainly for the benefit of the old.

    And that is only OK if it starts a rebalancing of the intergenerational unfairness of our politics.

    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
    This would be a way of squaring it, if it were true. I don't know if it is or not

    "Those aged over 80, and some in younger groups such as the over 60s, were not given potentially life-saving treatment because health chiefs were concerned the NHS would be overrun, according to reports.

    It is claimed documents called a 'triage tool', drawn up at the request of England's chief medical officer Chris Whitty, were used in preventing elderly Covid-19 patients from receiving ventilation in intensive care.

    As part of an investigation, the Sunday Times says the tool was used to create a 'score' for patients based on their age, frailty, and illness. Under the original system, over 80s were automatically excluded from intensive care treatment due to their age. Even those in the over 60s who were considered frail and with pre-existing health conditions could have been over the intensive care threshold...

    ...It also cites data, which shows the over 70s and 80s groups made up the smallest percentage of ICU patients, despite having the highest number of deaths."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8876993/Fury-revealed-80s-not-given-potentially-life-saving-treatment-wave.html
    Which is correct because ventilation of people aged 70+ has a habit of killing them during recovery even if it saves them from the immediate issue.

    Ventilation (as we discussed when it looked Boris would be on a ventilator back in April) takes an awful long time to recover from even if you were well before you became will. Add historic problems or other illnesses and chances are a ventilator won't really help you.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 28,312
    This is a good thread on the likely futility of trying to get rid of Section 230.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,965

    E pluribus unum.

    I am not sure e pluribus unum is precisely the motto of the moment...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 9,230
    FF43 said:





    Yes we voted to leave the EU and we did so with Boris committing during the Referendum to leaving the Single Market, leaving the Customs Union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. During the Referendum, before you voted Leave having been informed that is what he thought Leave meant.

    Then during the 2019 election campaign it was made clear his policy was to leave the Single Market, leave the Customs union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. Just as he said in 2016, as Theresa May might say "nothing has changed". And that was explicitly put into the manifesto that won an 80 seat majority.

    So what more do you expect? This is the decision people have made. That is democracy. Choices matter. Votes matter.

    So now we've left the Single Market and Customs Union. As was promised in 2019 and won an 80 seat majority. As was promised in 2016 and you voted for.

    If you don't want this, then don't vote for it. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Otherwise its time to move on and get on with it already. Businesses will adjust, we will reach a new economic equilibrium that is different to before and life goes on.

    To an extent I agree with you. Brexit is shite (and not even you are really denying it now), but it's what it is and we have to make the best of it now. If you want to spin that state of affairs as a "new equilibrium", go ahead!

    The "new equilibrium" really is the Phillip Thompson faction's ideology being more important than other people's livelihoods. It's tough telling people that when they have lost theirs.

    ....

    I suspect NE Scottish fishing communities may not be as grateful to the Tories as some were hoping.

    Quote from the UK government: “We are working closely with the industry to help understand and address the issue”. I feel they might have made the effort to understand the issue before proceeding with their stupid Brexit. Or at least had a vague curiosity about what the issues might be. Anyway they are blaming the SNP for all the problems, so that much was predictable.

    It's a bit hard expecting the SG (not SNP!) to know everything about the new regs when the UK Gmt didn't get round to telling them, any more than it did anyone else. Let alone what the deal was going to be. What are they, mindreaders? Futurologists?
  • isamisam Posts: 34,821

    isam said:

    FPT:

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    You seemed to have somewhat changed your mind, Stocky -- recalling an earlier conversation.

    No vaccine certificate -- no travel, no theatre, no gigs, no restaurant meals, no schools for your children. Perfectly fair.

    The upside is no skiing.


    One inevitably develops a mental picture of other posters, and I accept this could well be way off the mark.

    I drew my conclusions because of the general tone of your comments. For example, the comment I responded to said, re young people:-

    "So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa".
    After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people."

    That speaks to me of an angry and bitter individual. The issue has never been simply one of saving old people. If that had been the case it would have made far more sense to completely lock down the over 70s and let everyone else carry on as normal.

    If some young people can't see beyond the ends of their noses and think their right to party trumps everything else then so be it but then it's no good whining about the consequences in years to come.
    It isn;t about the right to party.

    Its about the right to a decent, uninterrupted education.
    The right to mind broadening travel.
    The right to play team sport.
    The right to access mind broadening culture like film and theatre.
    The right to exchange ideas with other young people.
    The right to work.
    The right to protest in groups.
    The right not to be overburdened by crushing debt and deficit.
    The right to good mental health.

    Young people have been stripped of all of these fundamental rights. The main aim has been to protect a cohort of people who have already lived a far longer and far better life than any generation in history. Ever. Some of these people do not even want this protection.



    We have all been robbed of things, we are in the middle of a worldwide pandemic. Grow up
    We have all lost things, sure

    The point I am trying to make is that -- because of the age profile of serious victims of the disease -- the sacrifice has been mainly for the benefit of the old.

    And that is only OK if it starts a rebalancing of the intergenerational unfairness of our politics.

    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
    This would be a way of squaring it, if it were true. I don't know if it is or not

    "Those aged over 80, and some in younger groups such as the over 60s, were not given potentially life-saving treatment because health chiefs were concerned the NHS would be overrun, according to reports.

    It is claimed documents called a 'triage tool', drawn up at the request of England's chief medical officer Chris Whitty, were used in preventing elderly Covid-19 patients from receiving ventilation in intensive care.

    As part of an investigation, the Sunday Times says the tool was used to create a 'score' for patients based on their age, frailty, and illness. Under the original system, over 80s were automatically excluded from intensive care treatment due to their age. Even those in the over 60s who were considered frail and with pre-existing health conditions could have been over the intensive care threshold...

    ...It also cites data, which shows the over 70s and 80s groups made up the smallest percentage of ICU patients, despite having the highest number of deaths."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8876993/Fury-revealed-80s-not-given-potentially-life-saving-treatment-wave.html
    I did notice that there was a disjoint between the ages in hospital and the ages in ICU and wondered if there was something like that going on.

    It would significantly increase the death rate of the eldest in comparison.

    The thing is - the younger a patient is, the better their chances of responding to medical help, especially with covid, so if they do have to triage, I would expect it to go like that. It’s horrific, and I’d also expect some mental health retirements from the NHS when all this is over from doctors and nurses who can no longer face working on.
    Yes, horrible decisions to have to make. "Rather them than me" applies to every one in that article
  • eekeek Posts: 10,100

    Sometimes it is the duty of elected representatives to defend their constituents against threats to their well being. Even when that threat is something they have voted for based on lies you have told them.

    Philip's "you voted for it even though we lied to you even though it will do you harm" attitude reminds me of the South park episode "Human CentiPad" where Apple keep turning up to do all kind of horrible things to the boys, claiming "you gave your permission" because the right to surgically attach Kyle to an iPad was in the EULA he accepted.

    Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union wasn't buried at the bottom of the EULA. It was literally front and centre of the 2016 and 2019 elections.

    Can you not see the difference there? Are elected representatives supposed to upend what they promised not once but repeatedly? Why? Why did they promise to leave both in 2016 and 2019 then? 🤔
    Indeed. Its not like any politician has ever u-turned on manifesto pledges so such a thing would be as unthinkable as a government promoting legislation to overturn the key parts of the deal it signed as the key part of its manifesto...

    Its a waste of time debating this with you. Either Make UK knows more about manufacturing or you do.

    Spoiler alert - its not you.
    What have Make UK said that I disagree with?

    I accept there will be disruption and changes. I just think that is what people have voted for. Changing things is literally the point of democracy.
    It's like the typical definition of a recession or a depression.

    A recession is where someone else loses their job, a depression is a recession where you lose your own job.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 621

    Nigelb said:
    All you can do is point and laugh.

    That would be the Illuminati point, naturally.
    Kinda reminds of the old Not the Nine O´clock News sketch... "The Devil, is he all bad?"
  • Sometimes it is the duty of elected representatives to defend their constituents against threats to their well being. Even when that threat is something they have voted for based on lies you have told them.

    Philip's "you voted for it even though we lied to you even though it will do you harm" attitude reminds me of the South park episode "Human CentiPad" where Apple keep turning up to do all kind of horrible things to the boys, claiming "you gave your permission" because the right to surgically attach Kyle to an iPad was in the EULA he accepted.

    There was a massive... sleight of hand... in that though.

    Yes, leaving the SM and CU was kinda implicit in the 2016 vote and explicit by 2019. The dishonesty was to portray the leavings as broadly consequence-free. Whenever concrete issues were raised (the Gilbertian insanity of the status of NI being the obvious example), they were laughed off. Project Fear. No downsides, cake and eat it, remember? All the people who went to the trouble of assembling the SM and CU were just ninnies wasting their time. You don't need all that careful alignment to permit free merchants to sail from port to port in their galleons. High, diddle-dee, a captain's life for me.

    And hey- the EU could have given the UK something with all the benefits of SM and CU if they had wanted to. It's not Johnson's fault, or Gove's, that they chose to protect their interests over ours.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 467
    edited January 11
    kle4 said:

    Yokes said:

    Pulpstar said:

    "Meanwhile polling from Quinnipiac has 74% of voters saying democracy in the US is under threat, with just 21% of voters saying it is alive and well."

    Who on earth are the 21% ?!

    I'd have thought democracy being under threat is the one thing the loons (Stolen election) and the sane (Attempted insurrection against the result) would probably agree on

    Actually it isn't under threat as the recent election proved. Despite all the pressures, it went swimmingly and stood firm post election too. Those who are inflamed at the moment are simply not strong enough to threaten the democratic system. Many in the US are in shock about last week but frankly they don't matter, what matters is how those who encouraged, actively supported or took part last week feel.

    And they reportedly feel more up than down. Last week was a result to them & that suggests there could be more to come.
    Your logic is rather strange. The system didn't break, therefore it is not under threat?
    No the system is not under threat. A disruption to the democratic process has not occurred given that it was ongoing for months. There is a threat to security, there is a threat of politically motivated violence and things happening outside the norms of democracy but the key is it is outside it, they are not bringing it to its knees and it will not fall nor change.

    Having spent a lot of time in the US and having many good friends there, some of them in the broader government community/advisors to it, the shock is palpable because of the symbolism. Have 5 people die at a similar event at a town hall, its a shock, the political nature of it clear but you wouldn't get the reaction that democracy is under threat.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 34,793

    FPT

    OllyT said:



    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.

    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
    The most recent data on hospital admissions are here

    https://tinyurl.com/y65yyqr2

    The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.

    There are some admissions between 45-64.

    But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.

    It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
    Although "rate per 100,000" is EXTREMELY misleading. Because there are a lot more 45 to 64 year olds than there are 85+ year olds.

    In other words, that ONS data is entirely consistent with half the people in ICUs being below the age of 70.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    eek said:

    Sometimes it is the duty of elected representatives to defend their constituents against threats to their well being. Even when that threat is something they have voted for based on lies you have told them.

    Philip's "you voted for it even though we lied to you even though it will do you harm" attitude reminds me of the South park episode "Human CentiPad" where Apple keep turning up to do all kind of horrible things to the boys, claiming "you gave your permission" because the right to surgically attach Kyle to an iPad was in the EULA he accepted.

    Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union wasn't buried at the bottom of the EULA. It was literally front and centre of the 2016 and 2019 elections.

    Can you not see the difference there? Are elected representatives supposed to upend what they promised not once but repeatedly? Why? Why did they promise to leave both in 2016 and 2019 then? 🤔
    Indeed. Its not like any politician has ever u-turned on manifesto pledges so such a thing would be as unthinkable as a government promoting legislation to overturn the key parts of the deal it signed as the key part of its manifesto...

    Its a waste of time debating this with you. Either Make UK knows more about manufacturing or you do.

    Spoiler alert - its not you.
    What have Make UK said that I disagree with?

    I accept there will be disruption and changes. I just think that is what people have voted for. Changing things is literally the point of democracy.
    It's like the typical definition of a recession or a depression.

    A recession is where someone else loses their job, a depression is a recession where you lose your own job.
    Indeed.

    Recessions, depressions and people losing their jobs is a fact of life. I don't believe its either possible or desirable to abolish that either. I accept it.

    I don't pretend there is no price to pay, I simply say we've made our choice and decisions have consequences. I don't understand what is objectionable about that - people like RP keep seeming to want to twist it into saying I'm saying everything is sunshine and roses and no downside. Codswallop, that's not true. That can't be true.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 8,690

    Sometimes it is the duty of elected representatives to defend their constituents against threats to their well being. Even when that threat is something they have voted for based on lies you have told them.

    Philip's "you voted for it even though we lied to you even though it will do you harm" attitude reminds me of the South park episode "Human CentiPad" where Apple keep turning up to do all kind of horrible things to the boys, claiming "you gave your permission" because the right to surgically attach Kyle to an iPad was in the EULA he accepted.

    Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union wasn't buried at the bottom of the EULA. It was literally front and centre of the 2016 and 2019 elections.

    Can you not see the difference there? Are elected representatives supposed to upend what they promised not once but repeatedly? Why? Why did they promise to leave both in 2016 and 2019 then? 🤔
    Indeed. Its not like any politician has ever u-turned on manifesto pledges so such a thing would be as unthinkable as a government promoting legislation to overturn the key parts of the deal it signed as the key part of its manifesto...

    Its a waste of time debating this with you. Either Make UK knows more about manufacturing or you do.

    Spoiler alert - its not you.
    What have Make UK said that I disagree with?

    I accept there will be disruption and changes. I just think that is what people have voted for. Changing things is literally the point of democracy.
    Of course people didn't vote for disruption. You and your Leaver chums told us there would be no disruption. It was all just "Project Fear".
  • isamisam Posts: 34,821
    ping said:
    That article reads like a daydream someone might have on a train journey, in which they convince themselves of both sides of the argument then realise none of it mattered anyway. How much did she get paid for it do you reckon?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 28,312

    isam said:

    FPT:

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    You seemed to have somewhat changed your mind, Stocky -- recalling an earlier conversation.

    No vaccine certificate -- no travel, no theatre, no gigs, no restaurant meals, no schools for your children. Perfectly fair.

    The upside is no skiing.


    One inevitably develops a mental picture of other posters, and I accept this could well be way off the mark.

    I drew my conclusions because of the general tone of your comments. For example, the comment I responded to said, re young people:-

    "So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa".
    After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people."

    That speaks to me of an angry and bitter individual. The issue has never been simply one of saving old people. If that had been the case it would have made far more sense to completely lock down the over 70s and let everyone else carry on as normal.

    If some young people can't see beyond the ends of their noses and think their right to party trumps everything else then so be it but then it's no good whining about the consequences in years to come.
    It isn;t about the right to party.

    Its about the right to a decent, uninterrupted education.
    The right to mind broadening travel.
    The right to play team sport.
    The right to access mind broadening culture like film and theatre.
    The right to exchange ideas with other young people.
    The right to work.
    The right to protest in groups.
    The right not to be overburdened by crushing debt and deficit.
    The right to good mental health.

    Young people have been stripped of all of these fundamental rights. The main aim has been to protect a cohort of people who have already lived a far longer and far better life than any generation in history. Ever. Some of these people do not even want this protection.



    We have all been robbed of things, we are in the middle of a worldwide pandemic. Grow up
    We have all lost things, sure

    The point I am trying to make is that -- because of the age profile of serious victims of the disease -- the sacrifice has been mainly for the benefit of the old.

    And that is only OK if it starts a rebalancing of the intergenerational unfairness of our politics.

    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
    This would be a way of squaring it, if it were true. I don't know if it is or not

    "Those aged over 80, and some in younger groups such as the over 60s, were not given potentially life-saving treatment because health chiefs were concerned the NHS would be overrun, according to reports.

    It is claimed documents called a 'triage tool', drawn up at the request of England's chief medical officer Chris Whitty, were used in preventing elderly Covid-19 patients from receiving ventilation in intensive care.

    As part of an investigation, the Sunday Times says the tool was used to create a 'score' for patients based on their age, frailty, and illness. Under the original system, over 80s were automatically excluded from intensive care treatment due to their age. Even those in the over 60s who were considered frail and with pre-existing health conditions could have been over the intensive care threshold...

    ...It also cites data, which shows the over 70s and 80s groups made up the smallest percentage of ICU patients, despite having the highest number of deaths."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8876993/Fury-revealed-80s-not-given-potentially-life-saving-treatment-wave.html
    I did notice that there was a disjoint between the ages in hospital and the ages in ICU and wondered if there was something like that going on.

    It would significantly increase the death rate of the eldest in comparison.

    The thing is - the younger a patient is, the better their chances of responding to medical help, especially with covid, so if they do have to triage, I would expect it to go like that. It’s horrific, and I’d also expect some mental health retirements from the NHS when all this is over from doctors and nurses who can no longer face working on.
    There will also be a significant number of elderly (notably in care homes) with end of life plans, who would not be hospitalised even if there were spare beds.
  • I don't know whether to feel sympathy for Pence or not.

    On the one hand, he knew Trump's character better than most, and behaviour of which he was capable, and yet continued with the slavish loyalty.

    On the other, Trump was apparently cock-a-hoop whilst the mayhem was unfolding, having made Pence public enemy number one. Pence would have been against the wall ahead of Pelosi had rioters got hold of him - and I don't think it's yet sunk in how close that came to happening. So the brutality and lack of concern Trump showed to Pence is more extreme than the typical Trump tweet rage. He was more than happy to see his deputy murdered for the sniff of a chance of four more years for himself - that's the horrible truth brought home to Pence.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    edited January 11

    Sometimes it is the duty of elected representatives to defend their constituents against threats to their well being. Even when that threat is something they have voted for based on lies you have told them.

    Philip's "you voted for it even though we lied to you even though it will do you harm" attitude reminds me of the South park episode "Human CentiPad" where Apple keep turning up to do all kind of horrible things to the boys, claiming "you gave your permission" because the right to surgically attach Kyle to an iPad was in the EULA he accepted.

    There was a massive... sleight of hand... in that though.

    Yes, leaving the SM and CU was kinda implicit in the 2016 vote and explicit by 2019. The dishonesty was to portray the leavings as broadly consequence-free. Whenever concrete issues were raised (the Gilbertian insanity of the status of NI being the obvious example), they were laughed off. Project Fear. No downsides, cake and eat it, remember? All the people who went to the trouble of assembling the SM and CU were just ninnies wasting their time. You don't need all that careful alignment to permit free merchants to sail from port to port in their galleons. High, diddle-dee, a captain's life for me.

    And hey- the EU could have given the UK something with all the benefits of SM and CU if they had wanted to. It's not Johnson's fault, or Gove's, that they chose to protect their interests over ours.
    The other side argued very vocally there would be severe downside consequences. The voters rejected that argument. Twice, either because they didn't believe it or because they didn't care. RP himself rejected that argument once.

    We will have another election in 2024. If the public wants to revert back into the SM and CU, or revert back into full EU membership, then they can elect a party promising that. Again that is democracy in action.
  • eekeek Posts: 10,100

    eek said:

    Sometimes it is the duty of elected representatives to defend their constituents against threats to their well being. Even when that threat is something they have voted for based on lies you have told them.

    Philip's "you voted for it even though we lied to you even though it will do you harm" attitude reminds me of the South park episode "Human CentiPad" where Apple keep turning up to do all kind of horrible things to the boys, claiming "you gave your permission" because the right to surgically attach Kyle to an iPad was in the EULA he accepted.

    Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union wasn't buried at the bottom of the EULA. It was literally front and centre of the 2016 and 2019 elections.

    Can you not see the difference there? Are elected representatives supposed to upend what they promised not once but repeatedly? Why? Why did they promise to leave both in 2016 and 2019 then? 🤔
    Indeed. Its not like any politician has ever u-turned on manifesto pledges so such a thing would be as unthinkable as a government promoting legislation to overturn the key parts of the deal it signed as the key part of its manifesto...

    Its a waste of time debating this with you. Either Make UK knows more about manufacturing or you do.

    Spoiler alert - its not you.
    What have Make UK said that I disagree with?

    I accept there will be disruption and changes. I just think that is what people have voted for. Changing things is literally the point of democracy.
    It's like the typical definition of a recession or a depression.

    A recession is where someone else loses their job, a depression is a recession where you lose your own job.
    Indeed.

    Recessions, depressions and people losing their jobs is a fact of life. I don't believe its either possible or desirable to abolish that either. I accept it.

    I don't pretend there is no price to pay, I simply say we've made our choice and decisions have consequences. I don't understand what is objectionable about that - people like RP keep seeming to want to twist it into saying I'm saying everything is sunshine and roses and no downside. Codswallop, that's not true. That can't be true.
    In which case you've changed your tone because previously everything was going to be sunshine and roses and there wasn't any downside.
  • isamisam Posts: 34,821
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT

    OllyT said:



    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.

    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
    The most recent data on hospital admissions are here

    https://tinyurl.com/y65yyqr2

    The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.

    There are some admissions between 45-64.

    But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.

    It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
    Although "rate per 100,000" is EXTREMELY misleading. Because there are a lot more 45 to 64 year olds than there are 85+ year olds.

    In other words, that ONS data is entirely consistent with half the people in ICUs being below the age of 70.
    " that ONS data is entirely consistent with half the people in ICUs being below the age of 70"

    That is also pretty misleading, if it is true that over a lot of over 60s, and all over 80s don't get to see an ICU no matter what
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 53,302
    isam said:

    ping said:
    That article reads like a daydream someone might have on a train journey, in which they convince themselves of both sides of the argument then realise none of it mattered anyway. How much did she get paid for it do you reckon?
    I believe it is thought she gets paid about £100k a year for her column.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 2,944

    FPT

    OllyT said:



    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.

    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
    The most recent data on hospital admissions are here

    https://tinyurl.com/y65yyqr2

    The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.

    There are some admissions between 45-64.

    But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.

    It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
    That graph is not numbers but rates per 100,000.
    There are a lot more 100,000s between 45-64 than there are over 85.

    Work it out against the population numbers in each age group.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 20,920

    Soon Americans will speak of Donald Trump in the way they speak about Benedict Arnold.

    God, I hope that doesn't mean he'll eventually end up living in the UK.

    Though Benedict Arnold's leg has a monument at Saratoga, NY for the heroic bit of him.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349

    Sometimes it is the duty of elected representatives to defend their constituents against threats to their well being. Even when that threat is something they have voted for based on lies you have told them.

    Philip's "you voted for it even though we lied to you even though it will do you harm" attitude reminds me of the South park episode "Human CentiPad" where Apple keep turning up to do all kind of horrible things to the boys, claiming "you gave your permission" because the right to surgically attach Kyle to an iPad was in the EULA he accepted.

    Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union wasn't buried at the bottom of the EULA. It was literally front and centre of the 2016 and 2019 elections.

    Can you not see the difference there? Are elected representatives supposed to upend what they promised not once but repeatedly? Why? Why did they promise to leave both in 2016 and 2019 then? 🤔
    Indeed. Its not like any politician has ever u-turned on manifesto pledges so such a thing would be as unthinkable as a government promoting legislation to overturn the key parts of the deal it signed as the key part of its manifesto...

    Its a waste of time debating this with you. Either Make UK knows more about manufacturing or you do.

    Spoiler alert - its not you.
    What have Make UK said that I disagree with?

    I accept there will be disruption and changes. I just think that is what people have voted for. Changing things is literally the point of democracy.
    Of course people didn't vote for disruption. You and your Leaver chums told us there would be no disruption. It was all just "Project Fear".
    Remainers said there would be disruption. People voted anyway. 🤷🏻‍♂️

    I never said it was all just "Project Fear" that is you projecting. I always expected there to be a price to be paid, there always is in life. No such thing as a free lunch. I just accepted that five years ago, now you're acting as if it is new and unforeseen, don't be ridiculous.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,043
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT

    OllyT said:



    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.

    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
    The most recent data on hospital admissions are here

    https://tinyurl.com/y65yyqr2

    The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.

    There are some admissions between 45-64.

    But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.

    It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
    Although "rate per 100,000" is EXTREMELY misleading. Because there are a lot more 45 to 64 year olds than there are 85+ year olds.

    In other words, that ONS data is entirely consistent with half the people in ICUs being below the age of 70.
    What is the median and interquartile range of the age of people on ICUs?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    eek said:

    eek said:

    Sometimes it is the duty of elected representatives to defend their constituents against threats to their well being. Even when that threat is something they have voted for based on lies you have told them.

    Philip's "you voted for it even though we lied to you even though it will do you harm" attitude reminds me of the South park episode "Human CentiPad" where Apple keep turning up to do all kind of horrible things to the boys, claiming "you gave your permission" because the right to surgically attach Kyle to an iPad was in the EULA he accepted.

    Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union wasn't buried at the bottom of the EULA. It was literally front and centre of the 2016 and 2019 elections.

    Can you not see the difference there? Are elected representatives supposed to upend what they promised not once but repeatedly? Why? Why did they promise to leave both in 2016 and 2019 then? 🤔
    Indeed. Its not like any politician has ever u-turned on manifesto pledges so such a thing would be as unthinkable as a government promoting legislation to overturn the key parts of the deal it signed as the key part of its manifesto...

    Its a waste of time debating this with you. Either Make UK knows more about manufacturing or you do.

    Spoiler alert - its not you.
    What have Make UK said that I disagree with?

    I accept there will be disruption and changes. I just think that is what people have voted for. Changing things is literally the point of democracy.
    It's like the typical definition of a recession or a depression.

    A recession is where someone else loses their job, a depression is a recession where you lose your own job.
    Indeed.

    Recessions, depressions and people losing their jobs is a fact of life. I don't believe its either possible or desirable to abolish that either. I accept it.

    I don't pretend there is no price to pay, I simply say we've made our choice and decisions have consequences. I don't understand what is objectionable about that - people like RP keep seeming to want to twist it into saying I'm saying everything is sunshine and roses and no downside. Codswallop, that's not true. That can't be true.
    In which case you've changed your tone because previously everything was going to be sunshine and roses and there wasn't any downside.
    That is not true.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 2,119

    Soon Americans will speak of Donald Trump in the way they speak about Benedict Arnold.

    God, I hope that doesn't mean he'll eventually end up living in the UK.

    Depends whether Scotland is part of the UK at that point, I guess
  • TimTTimT Posts: 2,119

    The Secretary of State is the keeper of the Great Seal of the United States, so any Presidential resignations go through the State Department, see Nixon's resignation.

    Yes, just seen your tweet. An interesting accident if nothing else...
    Most career State Department employees hate the Trump Administration with a passion. It would not surprise me if this were found to be deliberate.
  • isamisam Posts: 34,821
    edited January 11

    isam said:

    ping said:
    That article reads like a daydream someone might have on a train journey, in which they convince themselves of both sides of the argument then realise none of it mattered anyway. How much did she get paid for it do you reckon?
    I believe it is thought she gets paid about £100k a year for her column.
    "As 2021 begins …
    … we have a small favour to ask. We wer on the wrong side of the worst contract negotiation since Arsenal agreed to give Mesut Ozil £18m a year to play Fortnite and comment on twitter - can you send us a couple of quid to help us pay Polly for this rubbish?"
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,043

    FPT

    OllyT said:



    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.

    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
    The most recent data on hospital admissions are here

    https://tinyurl.com/y65yyqr2

    The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.

    There are some admissions between 45-64.

    But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.

    It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
    That graph is not numbers but rates per 100,000.
    There are a lot more 100,000s between 45-64 than there are over 85.

    Work it out against the population numbers in each age group.
    If that data were given, I could work it out.

    But, surely the median and IQR of age of hospital admissions is already known?

    It seems a very basic statistic that PHE must already have.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,992
    edited January 11

    isam said:

    FPT:

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    You seemed to have somewhat changed your mind, Stocky -- recalling an earlier conversation.

    No vaccine certificate -- no travel, no theatre, no gigs, no restaurant meals, no schools for your children. Perfectly fair.

    The upside is no skiing.


    One inevitably develops a mental picture of other posters, and I accept this could well be way off the mark.

    I drew my conclusions because of the general tone of your comments. For example, the comment I responded to said, re young people:-

    "So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa".
    After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people."

    That speaks to me of an angry and bitter individual. The issue has never been simply one of saving old people. If that had been the case it would have made far more sense to completely lock down the over 70s and let everyone else carry on as normal.

    If some young people can't see beyond the ends of their noses and think their right to party trumps everything else then so be it but then it's no good whining about the consequences in years to come.
    It isn;t about the right to party.

    Its about the right to a decent, uninterrupted education.
    The right to mind broadening travel.
    The right to play team sport.
    The right to access mind broadening culture like film and theatre.
    The right to exchange ideas with other young people.
    The right to work.
    The right to protest in groups.
    The right not to be overburdened by crushing debt and deficit.
    The right to good mental health.

    Young people have been stripped of all of these fundamental rights. The main aim has been to protect a cohort of people who have already lived a far longer and far better life than any generation in history. Ever. Some of these people do not even want this protection.



    We have all been robbed of things, we are in the middle of a worldwide pandemic. Grow up
    We have all lost things, sure

    The point I am trying to make is that -- because of the age profile of serious victims of the disease -- the sacrifice has been mainly for the benefit of the old.

    And that is only OK if it starts a rebalancing of the intergenerational unfairness of our politics.

    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
    This would be a way of squaring it, if it were true. I don't know if it is or not

    "Those aged over 80, and some in younger groups such as the over 60s, were not given potentially life-saving treatment because health chiefs were concerned the NHS would be overrun, according to reports.

    It is claimed documents called a 'triage tool', drawn up at the request of England's chief medical officer Chris Whitty, were used in preventing elderly Covid-19 patients from receiving ventilation in intensive care.

    As part of an investigation, the Sunday Times says the tool was used to create a 'score' for patients based on their age, frailty, and illness. Under the original system, over 80s were automatically excluded from intensive care treatment due to their age. Even those in the over 60s who were considered frail and with pre-existing health conditions could have been over the intensive care threshold...

    ...It also cites data, which shows the over 70s and 80s groups made up the smallest percentage of ICU patients, despite having the highest number of deaths."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8876993/Fury-revealed-80s-not-given-potentially-life-saving-treatment-wave.html
    I did notice that there was a disjoint between the ages in hospital and the ages in ICU and wondered if there was something like that going on.

    It would significantly increase the death rate of the eldest in comparison.

    The thing is - the younger a patient is, the better their chances of responding to medical help, especially with covid, so if they do have to triage, I would expect it to go like that. It’s horrific, and I’d also expect some mental health retirements from the NHS when all this is over from doctors and nurses who can no longer face working on.
    If you look at the Swedish figures https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa the differentiation between cases, ICU and deaths for the different age groups is huge.

    If you are over 80 and get Covid you have vastly more chance of dying than being admitted to ICU.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 15,312
    ping said:
    @HYUFD will point out that there were elections in 2015, 2017, and 2019... so 2021 is nailed on as an election year.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 11,379
    Why don't they fill the shelves with toilet rolls instead?

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,965
    Carnyx said:

    FF43 said:





    Yes we voted to leave the EU and we did so with Boris committing during the Referendum to leaving the Single Market, leaving the Customs Union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. During the Referendum, before you voted Leave having been informed that is what he thought Leave meant.

    Then during the 2019 election campaign it was made clear his policy was to leave the Single Market, leave the Customs union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. Just as he said in 2016, as Theresa May might say "nothing has changed". And that was explicitly put into the manifesto that won an 80 seat majority.

    So what more do you expect? This is the decision people have made. That is democracy. Choices matter. Votes matter.

    So now we've left the Single Market and Customs Union. As was promised in 2019 and won an 80 seat majority. As was promised in 2016 and you voted for.

    If you don't want this, then don't vote for it. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Otherwise its time to move on and get on with it already. Businesses will adjust, we will reach a new economic equilibrium that is different to before and life goes on.

    To an extent I agree with you. Brexit is shite (and not even you are really denying it now), but it's what it is and we have to make the best of it now. If you want to spin that state of affairs as a "new equilibrium", go ahead!

    The "new equilibrium" really is the Phillip Thompson faction's ideology being more important than other people's livelihoods. It's tough telling people that when they have lost theirs.

    ....

    I suspect NE Scottish fishing communities may not be as grateful to the Tories as some were hoping.

    Quote from the UK government: “We are working closely with the industry to help understand and address the issue”. I feel they might have made the effort to understand the issue before proceeding with their stupid Brexit. Or at least had a vague curiosity about what the issues might be. Anyway they are blaming the SNP for all the problems, so that much was predictable.

    It's a bit hard expecting the SG (not SNP!) to know everything about the new regs when the UK Gmt didn't get round to telling them, any more than it did anyone else. Let alone what the deal was going to be. What are they, mindreaders? Futurologists?
    The SG are clearly out to thwart HMG's Brexit success. Even if the SG did have a way to solve all the issues, they wouldn't want to anyway, so it comes to the same thing and, obviously in that case the SG really are to blame !
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 34,793
    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT

    OllyT said:



    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.

    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
    The most recent data on hospital admissions are here

    https://tinyurl.com/y65yyqr2

    The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.

    There are some admissions between 45-64.

    But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.

    It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
    Although "rate per 100,000" is EXTREMELY misleading. Because there are a lot more 45 to 64 year olds than there are 85+ year olds.

    In other words, that ONS data is entirely consistent with half the people in ICUs being below the age of 70.
    " that ONS data is entirely consistent with half the people in ICUs being below the age of 70"

    That is also pretty misleading, if it is true that over a lot of over 60s, and all over 80s don't get to see an ICU no matter what
    That's a fair point, although the word 'if' is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 20,920
    eek said:

    isam said:

    FPT:

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    You seemed to have somewhat changed your mind, Stocky -- recalling an earlier conversation.

    No vaccine certificate -- no travel, no theatre, no gigs, no restaurant meals, no schools for your children. Perfectly fair.

    The upside is no skiing.


    One inevitably develops a mental picture of other posters, and I accept this could well be way off the mark.

    I drew my conclusions because of the general tone of your comments. For example, the comment I responded to said, re young people:-

    "So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa".
    After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people."

    That speaks to me of an angry and bitter individual. The issue has never been simply one of saving old people. If that had been the case it would have made far more sense to completely lock down the over 70s and let everyone else carry on as normal.

    If some young people can't see beyond the ends of their noses and think their right to party trumps everything else then so be it but then it's no good whining about the consequences in years to come.
    It isn;t about the right to party.

    Its about the right to a decent, uninterrupted education.
    The right to mind broadening travel.
    The right to play team sport.
    The right to access mind broadening culture like film and theatre.
    The right to exchange ideas with other young people.
    The right to work.
    The right to protest in groups.
    The right not to be overburdened by crushing debt and deficit.
    The right to good mental health.

    Young people have been stripped of all of these fundamental rights. The main aim has been to protect a cohort of people who have already lived a far longer and far better life than any generation in history. Ever. Some of these people do not even want this protection.



    We have all been robbed of things, we are in the middle of a worldwide pandemic. Grow up
    We have all lost things, sure

    The point I am trying to make is that -- because of the age profile of serious victims of the disease -- the sacrifice has been mainly for the benefit of the old.

    And that is only OK if it starts a rebalancing of the intergenerational unfairness of our politics.

    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
    This would be a way of squaring it, if it were true. I don't know if it is or not

    "Those aged over 80, and some in younger groups such as the over 60s, were not given potentially life-saving treatment because health chiefs were concerned the NHS would be overrun, according to reports.

    It is claimed documents called a 'triage tool', drawn up at the request of England's chief medical officer Chris Whitty, were used in preventing elderly Covid-19 patients from receiving ventilation in intensive care.

    As part of an investigation, the Sunday Times says the tool was used to create a 'score' for patients based on their age, frailty, and illness. Under the original system, over 80s were automatically excluded from intensive care treatment due to their age. Even those in the over 60s who were considered frail and with pre-existing health conditions could have been over the intensive care threshold...

    ...It also cites data, which shows the over 70s and 80s groups made up the smallest percentage of ICU patients, despite having the highest number of deaths."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8876993/Fury-revealed-80s-not-given-potentially-life-saving-treatment-wave.html
    Which is correct because ventilation of people aged 70+ has a habit of killing them during recovery even if it saves them from the immediate issue.

    Ventilation (as we discussed when it looked Boris would be on a ventilator back in April) takes an awful long time to recover from even if you were well before you became will. Add historic problems or other illnesses and chances are a ventilator won't really help you.
    It is certainly true that survival for ventilated patients is certainly strongly age related.

    I did hear of a 79 that has survived 2 months of ventilation and ECMO, and is now back at work. It was in India though, and he did own the hospital!

  • LeonLeon Posts: 893
    mwadams said:

    Don't forget - Philip has assured us that there will be no disruption at the border as absolutely everyone will submit all their paperwork electronically in advance. Definitely no mega queues whilst bemused customs officials search for contraband, not at all.
    Is that another "joke" because I said the exact opposite! 🙄

    I always said there would be disruption in January as people get used to the new paperwork, but there would be an incentive for businesses to get their paperwork in order to make it as smooth as possible. 🙄
    This isn't "disruption in January". Do you think these new checks will stop in February?

    This isn't paperwork. This is sovereignty in action. You want to come into our country, lets check you aren't bringing in any contraband, open your boot please.

    Nor can the paperwork be made smooth. It doesn't work in our supply chain. The solution to "spend money filling in paperwork which both you and your customers then need to hire a customs agent to process" will be the rapid end to UK imports and exports.

    We have cut ourselves off from our biggest market. Contrary to delusional wank bank fantasies about CANZUK there are no alternative markets of equivalent size and distance. We either - as Make UK et al are saying - negotiate a new deal that works. Or we both lose our exporters and lose the ability to import stuff apart from at vast cost.

    "Oh no we won't" counters Philip with his extensive knowledge of fuck all.
    "Oh no we won't" because it is total and utter bullshit.

    I do understand economics and work in business. And economically the majority of our exports already take place outside the EU. Without being in their customs union.

    Yes some trade may be disrupted, but the idea that we stop exporting is complete bullshit. Some imports may stop if people can't find a reason to do the paperwork etc - but others will continue. A new equilibrium will be reached.

    If your logic were right we would have zero trade with the rest of the world as we're not in their customs union. It is nonsense.
    When we trade with the rest of the world we have established processes and prices. Punters look at the prices and weigh up if they want to buy it or not.

    What we have here is an established process and price being trashed by the imposition of red tape and costs that were not there before. "We would have zero trade elsewhere" reveals your true lack of basic understanding. Its not elsewhere we are talking about. Its companies in the UK trading with EU punters and vice versa. For these transactions the cost and faff has just shot through the roof. Cheaper less faffy alternatives suddenly exist and why should EU punters put up with our crap when then can buy from someone else?

    You do talk such utter bollocks with such sneering arrogance.
    He was banging on about his "new equilibrium" yesterday. What does "new equilibrium" even mean? Perhaps the new equilibrium means that shelves that were previously full at Tesco in Antrim are now empty, so at some point in time they were as equally full as they were empty.
    No empty shelves are not a new equilibrium. That is disruption at most. 🙄 Tesco would either find a way to refill the shelves, potentially with different products or at different prices to before - or they might close the store if it is no longer profitable. That sort of change happens on a daily basis all over the economy.

    An equilibrium is a very basic economic concept, I'm not sure what you need explaining about it? Long story short if a cost goes up then there will be less trade done etc etc etc - that is the new equilibrium when it comes to Europe, less trade with Europe where the costs have increased. What are you struggling to understand about that? 🤷🏻‍♂️
    I can't wait to find out which exciting new markets the UK logistics industry can supply. As the UK stops being a viable hub for UK/IRL/northern Europe logistics all those sheds in the Golden Triangle are perfectly located to suppl (checks list of countries with a trade deal) Honduras or Vietnam.

    Or - radical idea - how about we do a deal with the UK that doesn't cripple UK businesses? It won't cripple EU businesses - they can easily find new customers inside the EU. Send the truck to Germany instead of Britain. Harder for UK businesses built and configured for sales to Germany to suddenly win the same volume and value of business in Ivory Coast.
    We had a deal which kept us in the Single Market and Customs Union.

    A majority of people voted to leave it. You voted to leave it.

    Decisions have consequences. You were warned. 🤷🏻‍♂️
    A compelling argument. "You voted to leave the EU. We chose to interpret that as leaving the EU the Single Market and the Customs Union. We told you that not to do so would fail to deliver on the major improvements we promised. You voted for us. So now we have negotiated a deal which fucks you and this country hard. We didn't have to. We chose to. Because you voted for it. Can we could on your support at the next election?"

    Actually, have you and HYUFD ever been seen in the same room?
    Yes we voted to leave the EU and we did so with Boris committing during the Referendum to leaving the Single Market, leaving the Customs Union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. During the Referendum, before you voted Leave having been informed that is what he thought Leave meant.

    Then during the 2019 election campaign it was made clear his policy was to leave the Single Market, leave the Customs union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. Just as he said in 2016, as Theresa May might say "nothing has changed". And that was explicitly put into the manifesto that won an 80 seat majority.

    So what more do you expect? This is the decision people have made. That is democracy. Choices matter. Votes matter.

    So now we've left the Single Market and Customs Union. As was promised in 2019 and won an 80 seat majority. As was promised in 2016 and you voted for.

    If you don't want this, then don't vote for it. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Otherwise its time to move on and get on with it already. Businesses will adjust, we will reach a new economic equilibrium that is different to before and life goes on.
    “EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU.

    “British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down".

    "There will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market."

    - Boris Johnson, 27th June 2016
    And all true
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 2,944

    FPT

    OllyT said:



    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.

    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
    The most recent data on hospital admissions are here

    https://tinyurl.com/y65yyqr2

    The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.

    There are some admissions between 45-64.

    But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.

    It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
    That graph is not numbers but rates per 100,000.
    There are a lot more 100,000s between 45-64 than there are over 85.

    Work it out against the population numbers in each age group.
    To clarify: 8.3 per 100,000 between 15-44 in the UK would be a total of 2,103 people.

    (And 143 under 5s and 89 5-14s)

    28.4 per 100,000 between 45-64 in the UK would be 4,893 people
    Compare to
    244.2 per 100,000 over 85, which would be 3,993
  • isamisam Posts: 34,821
    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT

    OllyT said:



    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.

    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
    The most recent data on hospital admissions are here

    https://tinyurl.com/y65yyqr2

    The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.

    There are some admissions between 45-64.

    But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.

    It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
    Although "rate per 100,000" is EXTREMELY misleading. Because there are a lot more 45 to 64 year olds than there are 85+ year olds.

    In other words, that ONS data is entirely consistent with half the people in ICUs being below the age of 70.
    " that ONS data is entirely consistent with half the people in ICUs being below the age of 70"

    That is also pretty misleading, if it is true that over a lot of over 60s, and all over 80s don't get to see an ICU no matter what
    That's a fair point, although the word 'if' is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
    Well, the article I cited seems to think it is true, so maybe this "if" has a gym in their garage!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 53,302
    edited January 11
  • pingping Posts: 182
    edited January 11
    isam said:

    isam said:

    ping said:
    That article reads like a daydream someone might have on a train journey, in which they convince themselves of both sides of the argument then realise none of it mattered anyway. How much did she get paid for it do you reckon?
    I believe it is thought she gets paid about £100k a year for her column.
    "As 2021 begins …
    … we have a small favour to ask. We wer on the wrong side of the worst contract negotiation since Arsenal agreed to give Mesut Ozil £18m a year to play Fortnite and comment on twitter - can you send us a couple of quid to help us pay Polly for this rubbish?"
    The thing is, there is a reasonable argument that a pre 2024 election could happen, but Polly’s logic is bullshit.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    edited January 11
    There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.

    "I would like to have the steak please"

    "It costs £35"

    "That is OK, I will have the steak"

    "Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"

    "Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."

    "I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"

    "The steak please"

    "But the price is £35"

    "The steak please"

    "Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"

    "I do. The steak please. Medium rare".

    "Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".

    "I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"

    "Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"

    "I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"

    "Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"

    "I get that. I want the steak"

    "What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"

    "I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."

    "Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
  • LeonLeon Posts: 893

    isam said:

    FPT:

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    You seemed to have somewhat changed your mind, Stocky -- recalling an earlier conversation.

    No vaccine certificate -- no travel, no theatre, no gigs, no restaurant meals, no schools for your children. Perfectly fair.

    The upside is no skiing.


    One inevitably develops a mental picture of other posters, and I accept this could well be way off the mark.

    I drew my conclusions because of the general tone of your comments. For example, the comment I responded to said, re young people:-

    "So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa".
    After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people."

    That speaks to me of an angry and bitter individual. The issue has never been simply one of saving old people. If that had been the case it would have made far more sense to completely lock down the over 70s and let everyone else carry on as normal.

    If some young people can't see beyond the ends of their noses and think their right to party trumps everything else then so be it but then it's no good whining about the consequences in years to come.
    It isn;t about the right to party.

    Its about the right to a decent, uninterrupted education.
    The right to mind broadening travel.
    The right to play team sport.
    The right to access mind broadening culture like film and theatre.
    The right to exchange ideas with other young people.
    The right to work.
    The right to protest in groups.
    The right not to be overburdened by crushing debt and deficit.
    The right to good mental health.

    Young people have been stripped of all of these fundamental rights. The main aim has been to protect a cohort of people who have already lived a far longer and far better life than any generation in history. Ever. Some of these people do not even want this protection.



    We have all been robbed of things, we are in the middle of a worldwide pandemic. Grow up
    We have all lost things, sure

    The point I am trying to make is that -- because of the age profile of serious victims of the disease -- the sacrifice has been mainly for the benefit of the old.

    And that is only OK if it starts a rebalancing of the intergenerational unfairness of our politics.

    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
    This would be a way of squaring it, if it were true. I don't know if it is or not

    "Those aged over 80, and some in younger groups such as the over 60s, were not given potentially life-saving treatment because health chiefs were concerned the NHS would be overrun, according to reports.

    It is claimed documents called a 'triage tool', drawn up at the request of England's chief medical officer Chris Whitty, were used in preventing elderly Covid-19 patients from receiving ventilation in intensive care.

    As part of an investigation, the Sunday Times says the tool was used to create a 'score' for patients based on their age, frailty, and illness. Under the original system, over 80s were automatically excluded from intensive care treatment due to their age. Even those in the over 60s who were considered frail and with pre-existing health conditions could have been over the intensive care threshold...

    ...It also cites data, which shows the over 70s and 80s groups made up the smallest percentage of ICU patients, despite having the highest number of deaths."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8876993/Fury-revealed-80s-not-given-potentially-life-saving-treatment-wave.html
    I did notice that there was a disjoint between the ages in hospital and the ages in ICU and wondered if there was something like that going on.

    It would significantly increase the death rate of the eldest in comparison.

    The thing is - the younger a patient is, the better their chances of responding to medical help, especially with covid, so if they do have to triage, I would expect it to go like that. It’s horrific, and I’d also expect some mental health retirements from the NHS when all this is over from doctors and nurses who can no longer face working on.
    Let the old die - ie the over 80s. If it is to save the young, it is worth it.

    Brutal but true. If you've made it to 80 you've had a good long life, more than your three score years and ten. You should give up the ghost for the next generation.

    That is where we are. Let us face it squarely. Moreover, both my parents, over 80, agree. If that is the choice, it must be made. Just make sure the end is pain-free. Bring out the morphine, cognac, cocaine and Xanax. Bring out the Brompton

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brompton_cocktail

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,965
    Something just struck me. One reason why wave 3 is putting more strain on hospitals than wave 1 is that people are still in hospital from wave 2. The new hospitalisation rate is starting from a higher baseline. They unlocked-down about two months too soon from Lockdown 2 in England.


  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 20,920

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT

    OllyT said:



    The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.

    I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.

    Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.

    If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.

    I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.

    I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
    Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
    The most recent data on hospital admissions are here

    https://tinyurl.com/y65yyqr2

    The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.

    There are some admissions between 45-64.

    But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.

    It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
    Although "rate per 100,000" is EXTREMELY misleading. Because there are a lot more 45 to 64 year olds than there are 85+ year olds.

    In other words, that ONS data is entirely consistent with half the people in ICUs being below the age of 70.
    What is the median and interquartile range of the age of people on ICUs?
    For the second wave median age is 62 and 2/3 under seventy. There is no absolute bar to older folk being on ICU if likely to benefit. This is the age distribution, data from the weekly reports of the Intensive care society.


  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514
    Nigelb said:
    Hits them where it hurts, but not good if the money men have such power over officials in the first place of course.
  • eekeek Posts: 10,100

    There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.

    "I would like to have the steak please"

    "It costs £35"

    "That is OK, I will have the steak"

    "Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"

    "Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."

    "I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"

    "The steak please"

    "But the price is £35"

    "The steak please"

    "Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"

    "I do. The steak please. Medium rare".

    "Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".

    "I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"

    "Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"

    "I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"

    "Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"

    "I get that. I want the steak"

    "What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"

    "I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."

    "Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"

    Yet no one except for you is talking about prices.

    We are talking about paperwork and the impact that paperwork is having on sales, exports and logistics.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 20,920
    If he wasn't bankrupt already, it would be the end of him.

    Indeed seeing him in a motel in Schitts Creek might well be a great reality show.
  • eekeek Posts: 10,100
    edited January 11
    FF43 said:

    Carnyx said:

    FF43 said:





    Yes we voted to leave the EU and we did so with Boris committing during the Referendum to leaving the Single Market, leaving the Customs Union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. During the Referendum, before you voted Leave having been informed that is what he thought Leave meant.

    Then during the 2019 election campaign it was made clear his policy was to leave the Single Market, leave the Customs union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. Just as he said in 2016, as Theresa May might say "nothing has changed". And that was explicitly put into the manifesto that won an 80 seat majority.

    So what more do you expect? This is the decision people have made. That is democracy. Choices matter. Votes matter.

    So now we've left the Single Market and Customs Union. As was promised in 2019 and won an 80 seat majority. As was promised in 2016 and you voted for.

    If you don't want this, then don't vote for it. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Otherwise its time to move on and get on with it already. Businesses will adjust, we will reach a new economic equilibrium that is different to before and life goes on.

    To an extent I agree with you. Brexit is shite (and not even you are really denying it now), but it's what it is and we have to make the best of it now. If you want to spin that state of affairs as a "new equilibrium", go ahead!

    The "new equilibrium" really is the Phillip Thompson faction's ideology being more important than other people's livelihoods. It's tough telling people that when they have lost theirs.

    ....

    I suspect NE Scottish fishing communities may not be as grateful to the Tories as some were hoping.

    Quote from the UK government: “We are working closely with the industry to help understand and address the issue”. I feel they might have made the effort to understand the issue before proceeding with their stupid Brexit. Or at least had a vague curiosity about what the issues might be. Anyway they are blaming the SNP for all the problems, so that much was predictable.

    It's a bit hard expecting the SG (not SNP!) to know everything about the new regs when the UK Gmt didn't get round to telling them, any more than it did anyone else. Let alone what the deal was going to be. What are they, mindreaders? Futurologists?
    The SG are clearly out to thwart HMG's Brexit success. Even if the SG did have a way to solve all the issues, they wouldn't want to anyway, so it comes to the same thing and, obviously in that case the SG really are to blame !
    But even if the SG are the ones who should be blamed - they can simply blame the UK Government and the majority of their Scottish population will agree with them.

    Every Brexit disaster adds a few more votes for independence... So for the SNP there is zero downside here - do well and it's the SNP's wise decisions that solved the problem, got a problem and it isn't their fault, it's London's.
Sign In or Register to comment.