Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?
Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.
There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.
Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.
The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.
We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.
They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.
Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
You and 10 million others.
People want this pestilence gone from their lives. If we have the supplies to justify 24 hour jabbing, then make it happen.
We have been told that in our community all the 80+'s have been 'done', bar a tiny minority who don't appear to have phones, relatives or indeed, friends. My wife, 79, is now twitching when the phone rings!
The Emperor is very pleased with your efforts.....
A bit rich coming from a true Brexit believer ( Maybe we should just refer to you and your type of EU-phobes as The Gullible, or Putin's Useful Idiots). No doubt if you had lost the referendum you would be claiming "widespread voter fraud". The main reason old farts voted Brexit was because they still think that Germany is going to overrun us or that France wants revenge for Trafalgar. Let me let you into a secret. Neither is true. And Donald did not win.
Come back to us when you have something to say that isn't driven by your personal bile at the local branch turning their back on you....
I feel sorry for @Nigel_Foremain he is so bitter and twisted it can't be good for his blood pressure.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
I’ve decided you’re a paid Tory plant.
Given your constant posting about how good Boris is and how shit Labour are.
I agree he makes it to obvious.
She
No I'm not as anyone would know if they'd seen my posts last election. I am just very 'meh' about Keir Starmer and I'm extremely impressed by the vaccine success of this Gov't.
That's the trouble with some on here, and the gravest mistake some make when betting: tribal loyalty.
Even Mike Smithson, whose views are similar to my own, has acknowledged the Johnson success on the vaccines. It would be absurdly churlish to pretend otherwise.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Why? They're not part of Argentina either and nobody living there wants to join with them.
As there were no Argentine indigenous inhabitants there in 1832, there is no claim on that front.
Argentina themselves were heading off in a colonial venture in seizing the Falklands. It's odd that so many on the left were blinded by hatred of Thatcher that they couldn't see supporting a military dictator in illegally seizing territory that wasn't his in order to preserve a corrupt fascist government was just a trifle silly.
And it is to the eternal credit of Michael Foot, even among all the other mistakes he made on other things, that he consistently opposed the Argentine invasion for those very reasons out of principle.
Agreed. The only notable inhabitants of the Falklands in modern times have been people who consider themselves to be British. The principle of defending their right to self determination was the right thing to do. For Argentina to claim a right over the islands in the name of anticolonialism is total hypocrisy. My only quibble is over the inconsistency with which this principle is applied. Why were the Falkland Islanders' rights defended (rightly) at such a cost while the Chagos Islanders were thrown out of their homes so we could lend their homeland to the Americans, and are still prevented from going home?
Because the UK are allies of the Americans and wanted to lick their arses cooperate with them and didn't care much about a few non-white people on the far side of the world getting their lives destroyed in consequence, while the Falklands were attacked by Argentina in an unprovoked act of aggression.
Naked, cynical self interest always trumps principles and decency.
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
I don't respect it because it is fundamentally wrong. The Argentines have never "owned" the islands, as it was under Spanish colonial rule before being taken form the British.
The islanders have a right to self determination and they have decided to be British and that has been determined under international law as legally correct. The rights and wrongs of the war which I had friends in, may be questioned, but the legal rights of the islanders is what should be respected, not your opinion. Sorry.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
What about the Argentinians? Do they have any right to be in Argentina?
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
I don't respect it because it is fundamentally wrong. The Argentines have never "owned" the islands, as it was under Spanish colonial rule before being taken form the British.
The islanders have a right to self determination and they have decided to be British and that has been determined under international law as legally correct. The rights and wrongs of the war which I had friends in, may be questioned, but the legal rights of the islanders is what should be respected, not your opinion. Sorry.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We all know the government is going to retain it after March don't we.
So why not just come out now and say so, and remove one additional stress from those affected?
I hope so . However I have read instead of the £20 a week uplift it will be £500 a year instead. Many people applying for the first time will realise, how difficult it will be to live on.
I am an NHS responder volunteer, but I have signed off since before Christmas because of the throat issue I have (Initially because I was concerned I had a virus and then more recently because I don't want to scare people who might think I do). There have been lots of emails sent out asking for stewards at the vaccination centres. A steward I know was vaccinated around Christmas with leftover vaccine. Disappointed that I can't help as this seems far more useful than the stuff I was asked to do before.
On the throat front I now have an outpatient appointment next Tuesday. Just over 2 weeks from the GP appointment and exactly 2 weeks from the consultant telephone appointment. So at the limit of the guidelines, but nothing like as scary as some of the stories in the media. Very nervous though.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
I’ve decided you’re a paid Tory plant.
Given your constant posting about how good Boris is and how shit Labour are.
I agree he makes it to obvious.
She
No I'm not as anyone would know if they'd seen my posts last election. I am just very 'meh' about Keir Starmer and I'm extremely impressed by the vaccine success of this Gov't.
That's the trouble with some on here, and the gravest mistake some make when betting: tribal loyalty.
Even Mike Smithson, whose views are similar to my own, has acknowledged the Johnson success on the vaccines. It would be absurdly churlish to pretend otherwise.
And it's perilous for Labour to be seen carping.
Fair enough re the vaccines, HMG has done well so far. But Starmer raises a very valid point about the UC uplift. The government are going to extend it, so they might as well say so now.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Why? They're not part of Argentina either and nobody living there wants to join with them.
As there were no Argentine indigenous inhabitants there in 1832, there is no claim on that front.
Argentina themselves were heading off in a colonial venture in seizing the Falklands. It's odd that so many on the left were blinded by hatred of Thatcher that they couldn't see supporting a military dictator in illegally seizing territory that wasn't his in order to preserve a corrupt fascist government was just a trifle silly.
And it is to the eternal credit of Michael Foot, even among all the other mistakes he made on other things, that he consistently opposed the Argentine invasion for those very reasons out of principle.
Agreed. The only notable inhabitants of the Falklands in modern times have been people who consider themselves to be British. The principle of defending their right to self determination was the right thing to do. For Argentina to claim a right over the islands in the name of anticolonialism is total hypocrisy. My only quibble is over the inconsistency with which this principle is applied. Why were the Falkland Islanders' rights defended (rightly) at such a cost while the Chagos Islanders were thrown out of their homes so we could lend their homeland to the Americans, and are still prevented from going home?
Because the UK are allies of the Americans and wanted to lick their arses cooperate with them and didn't care much about a few non-white people on the far side of the world getting their lives destroyed in consequence, while the Falklands were attacked by Argentina in an unprovoked act of aggression.
Naked, cynical self interest always trumps principles and decency.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
I don't respect it because it is fundamentally wrong. The Argentines have never "owned" the islands, as it was under Spanish colonial rule before being taken form the British.
The islanders have a right to self determination and they have decided to be British and that has been determined under international law as legally correct. The rights and wrongs of the war which I had friends in, may be questioned, but the legal rights of the islanders is what should be respected, not your opinion. Sorry.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
You are a numpty with no understanding of history or international standards then. You are no better than the idiots that stormed the Capitol.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
I’ve decided you’re a paid Tory plant.
Given your constant posting about how good Boris is and how shit Labour are.
I agree he makes it to obvious.
She
No I'm not as anyone would know if they'd seen my posts last election. I am just very 'meh' about Keir Starmer and I'm extremely impressed by the vaccine success of this Gov't.
That's the trouble with some on here, and the gravest mistake some make when betting: tribal loyalty.
Even Mike Smithson, whose views are similar to my own, has acknowledged the Johnson success on the vaccines. It would be absurdly churlish to pretend otherwise.
And it's perilous for Labour to be seen carping.
When I get my jab I'll be even more grateful to the beloved leader who has had so many kids he has lost count.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
'Cos we planted those residents there on a rock that is situated 8000 miles from Britain.
Right I'm off to do some work rather than debating on here. Have a good day all. x
The said residents have rights. UN charter stuff.
Another point, often missed.
Argentine policy over Antarctica. Bit like Brazil with the Amazon - there is a big lobby in Argentina that wants to mine, extract oil etc on Antarctica... Hence their thing with claiming that they have actual residents on the Antarctic continent...
UK policy since the 1950s has been Antarctica should be untouched - this started because of the Cold War. There was a worry about a resource scramble there leading to a war. More recently, it has become part of the climate and environmental policy of the UK - hence South Georgia being a nature preserve.
This was why Argentina took South Georgia - which they have never previously claimed and have no claim to. By removing all the UK possessions in the South Atlantic, they would make a claim to the UK "share" of Antarctica.
While changes to mine Antarctica would be blocked by the other claimants - who have similar policies to the UK - the Argentine Antarctic lobby saw it as a step towards their goal.
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
True. But I actually think he could and would have made a good President.
From all reports he was a competent and decent Governor of California. Every time he speaks on politics he comes across as competent and decent too.
If we stripped away the movie stardom and the foreign birth factor then being a good Governor of California, let alone a Republican who wins California, would make any normal politician a serious contender.
The Emperor is very pleased with your efforts.....
Sadly as a remainer-campaigner I have to agree.
For good or ill we left the EU and now we have to get on with it. There will be hiccups, of course, but Brexit is done. It hasn't been the instantaneous disaster some predicted. It's over.
I don’t remember any predictions of “instantaneous disaster”.
There was a view that a vote for Brexit would lead to significant financial disruption, but that was predicated on an immediate exercise of Article 40.
In the event, we merely lost 15-20% of the pound’s value, suffered a credit downgrade, and allowed the BoE to prop us up via QE.
Generally speaking, the mainstream forecast has always been friction at borders (currently correct) & slower growth against baseline now that we have severed ourselves from our main export market (correct at least to date).
I agree that Brexit is over though. I was surprised that 48% wish to Rejoin, I’d expect that to fall over time.
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
He's saying that once we get back to normality we can't, er, get back to normality. Apparently the virus has exposed the awful inequalities in our society blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
It's so far off what people are thinking as to be risible. When life does resume, which it will thanks to our stunning vaccination rollout, everyone is going to be in a wild party mood. Not necessarily literal parties but making sure that they have a bloody good time and catch up with all the things they've been prevented from doing.
A miserable old git moaning on the margins is the last thing a Labour leader should be presenting.
I didn’t hear him.
But isn’t it true that Covid has changed everything - including the way we approach support for the most vulnerable in society?
The Tories have spent what - £250? £300 billion? - on a wide range of Covid measures to protect the economic fabric of this country - and thereby protecting the most vulnerable in society. The old "penny-pinching Tories" arguments don't work.
What won't have changed is that HOWEVER much money the Tories spend, Labour will demand it should have been far, far more. We already it see from the Shadow Chancellor.
You keep repeating this, but actually the Shadow Chancellor has been critical of unnecessary public spending. In particular, she thought the £2.6 billion on the job retention bonus scheme was unnecessary. And, of course, the excessive amounts of public spending given to "friends" of the government via dodgy public procurement has been criticised by Labour.
Labour's record on early PPE procurement was shambolic. Don't go down that road.
We had no lack of PPE issue, thankfully. So we maybe overspent on some of those contracts? In a world where everyone was cutting everyone else's throats to get those supplies, so be it. We have paid more per dose to ensure we have the vaccine. On that, no-one saying anything other than file under MoneyWellSpent.
Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?
Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.
There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.
Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.
The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.
We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.
They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.
Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
You and 10 million others.
People want this pestilence gone from their lives. If we have the supplies to justify 24 hour jabbing, then make it happen.
We have been told that in our community all the 80+'s have been 'done', bar a tiny minority who don't appear to have phones, relatives or indeed, friends. My wife, 79, is now twitching when the phone rings!
Perhaps you have an electrical fault.
Don't worry, it's me who answers. Regrettably the two calls we have had so far today are about renewal of the Amazon Prime account, at an exorbitant price, which we don't have, Sadly it's a recorded message, so I can't suggest to the lady that she does something useful with her life.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Why don't they have a right to be there? They were born there.
Do Americans not have a right to be in America? Should all black Americans be transported back to Africa? Should white Americans be returned to Europe?
People are born where they're born. Why would you want to start transportation of people away from their birthplace? And in support of a military dictatorship with no historical connection to that land whatsoever? That is colonialism!
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
It's the presidential equivalent to a criminal court case. Would you stop a criminal case if the criminal retired?
But there are no consequences to being found guilty as far as I can tell other than humiliation which he is immune to. I'm surprised he's not encouraging it. Keeps him in the public gaze longer
He`s not been found guilty of anything. There will be a separate vote for that.
My understanding was that 2/3rds needed for the impeachment and 1/2 needed for a guilty verdict - but I`m confused because I don`t think the impeachment vote reached 2/3rds.
Can anyone clarify?
The decision to impeach in the House was a simple majority. The decision to convict requires 2/3 of the Senate. Once convicted a majority can determine the punishment.
Ah - thanks. In that case conviction is unlikely to reach 2/3rds would you say?
Unless, as I was saying earlier, the GOP see this as their chance to run away from Trump and claim nothing to do with me guv.
They will but I don't think they're ready for it yet. I think it's going to take a massive bust-up first. They will need to tear themselves apart before they can rebuild.
Then, and only then, will they get to their equivalent of this ... and begin the long process of clawing their way back to power:
We forget in the US Federal Power does not only lie in the Presidency, it also lies in Congress and the House and Senate too.
.
You might but I don't.
The GOP will still be ripping themselves up in 2022 and Biden will have steadied the good ship America. The Democrats will not lose Congress in their mid-terms. I expect them to gain.
And you did tell us all on here that the GOP were going to win both Georgia run-offs.
Every President for the last 50 years has seen their party lose House seats in their first midterm bar Bush in 2002.
Every President since Bush Snr has seen their party have control of both Chambers of Congress when they entered office, every President since Bush Snr except Dubya has also seen their party lose control of the House after their first midte
The Democrats won the Georgia Senate race of Purdue Ossoff by a just 1% margin but Biden entering office with his party in control of Congress is the norm, Biden losing control of the House in the midterms would also be the norm.
If Biden Harris have low approval ratings in 2022 they will lose the House without question
You're big on precedents to the point where you fall into the causal fallacy trap. These times are like no other and we are exiting the rare occurrence of a first time President who failed to get re-elected, the worst President in American history and the most unpopular in modern history alongside Ford, who was also a disaster. So stick your alleged precedents into that part of your brain that is objective and run your processor.
You never admit when you were wrong. Not even to yourself. It's why you will continue to make errors.
The last 2 first term Presidents who failed to ge re-elected still saw their parties win the House 2 years later as the Democrats did in 1982 and the GOP did by a landslide in 1994 to regain Congress.
Ford was never that unpopular and was actually a reasonably prudent manager of the US economy who helped the US to come together after Nixon went. 4 years after Ford narrowly lost to Carter Reagan won in 1980 of course.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
I don't respect it because it is fundamentally wrong. The Argentines have never "owned" the islands, as it was under Spanish colonial rule before being taken form the British.
The islanders have a right to self determination and they have decided to be British and that has been determined under international law as legally correct. The rights and wrongs of the war which I had friends in, may be questioned, but the legal rights of the islanders is what should be respected, not your opinion. Sorry.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Even Michael Foot did not oppose retaking the Falklands and rightly so
The Emperor is very pleased with your efforts.....
Sadly as a remainer-campaigner I have to agree.
For good or ill we left the EU and now we have to get on with it. There will be hiccups, of course, but Brexit is done. It hasn't been the instantaneous disaster some predicted. It's over.
I don’t remember any predictions of “instantaneous disaster”.
There was a view that a vote for Brexit would lead to significant financial disruption, but that was predicated on an immediate exercise of Article 40.
In the event, we merely lost 15-20% of the pound’s value, suffered a credit downgrade, and allowed the BoE to prop us up via QE.
Generally speaking, the mainstream forecast has always been friction at borders (currently correct) & slower growth against baseline now that we have severed ourselves from our main export market (correct at least to date).
I agree that Brexit is over though. I was surprised that 48% wish to Rejoin, I’d expect that to fall over time.
Surprisingly low, given we were told that those who voted for Brexit would be dead now.....
Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?
Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.
There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.
Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.
The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.
We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.
They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.
Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
No, you can have twice as many slots at 2pm, rather than a slot at 2am and 2pm, and with less distance to travel.
As if you know best
I think I can recognise grandstanding for the media when I see it.
24-hour vaccinations has become a totemic fetish for some, that will actually make it harder for people without cars to access vaccinations.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
'Cos we planted those residents there on a rock that is situated 8000 miles from Britain.
Right I'm off to do some work rather than debating on here. Have a good day all. x
The said residents have rights. UN charter stuff.
Another point, often missed.
Argentine policy over Antarctica. Bit like Brazil with the Amazon - there is a big lobby in Argentina that wants to mine, extract oil etc on Antarctica... Hence their thing with claiming that they have actual residents on the Antarctic continent...
UK policy since the 1950s has been Antarctica should be untouched - this started because of the Cold War. There was a worry about a resource scramble there leading to a war. More recently, it has become part of the climate and environmental policy of the UK - hence South Georgia being a nature preserve.
This was why Argentina took South Georgia - which they have never previously claimed and have no claim to. By removing all the UK possessions in the South Atlantic, they would make a claim to the UK "share" of Antarctica.
While changes to mine Antarctica would be blocked by the other claimants - who have similar policies to the UK - the Argentine Antarctic lobby saw it as a step towards their goal.
Interesting thought, and would be much more advantageous to the Argentines than the sheep of the Malvinas. Even if there is accessible oil under the seas around them
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Why don't they have a right to be there? They were born there.
Do Americans not have a right to be in America? Should all black Americans be transported back to Africa? Should white Americans be returned to Europe?
People are born where they're born. Why would you want to start transportation of people away from their birthplace? And in support of a military dictatorship with no historical connection to that land whatsoever? That is colonialism!
Would you expel all the Afrikaaners from South Africa? Would you expel all the "English: from South Africa? What about the Indian South Africans? What about the Xhosa, from the bits they conquered - as late as the 19th Cent? What about the Zulu, from the bits they conquered - as late as the 19th Cent?
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
We all know the government is going to retain it after March don't we.
So why not just come out now and say so, and remove one additional stress from those affected?
I hope so . However I have read instead of the £20 a week uplift it will be £500 a year instead. Many people applying for the first time will realise, how difficult it will be to live on.
Although it's not obvious a £500 payment on first application would fix a lot of issues people on universal credit end up in on first application and which then takes an awful long time to recover from.
Dropping the £20 a week uplift in return for a lump sum payment would probably solve a lot of immediate problems for people and allow others to learn a tiny bit more about budgeting.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
He's saying that once we get back to normality we can't, er, get back to normality. Apparently the virus has exposed the awful inequalities in our society blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
It's so far off what people are thinking as to be risible. When life does resume, which it will thanks to our stunning vaccination rollout, everyone is going to be in a wild party mood. Not necessarily literal parties but making sure that they have a bloody good time and catch up with all the things they've been prevented from doing.
A miserable old git moaning on the margins is the last thing a Labour leader should be presenting.
I didn’t hear him.
But isn’t it true that Covid has changed everything - including the way we approach support for the most vulnerable in society?
The Tories have spent what - £250? £300 billion? - on a wide range of Covid measures to protect the economic fabric of this country - and thereby protecting the most vulnerable in society. The old "penny-pinching Tories" arguments don't work.
What won't have changed is that HOWEVER much money the Tories spend, Labour will demand it should have been far, far more. We already it see from the Shadow Chancellor.
You keep repeating this, but actually the Shadow Chancellor has been critical of unnecessary public spending. In particular, she thought the £2.6 billion on the job retention bonus scheme was unnecessary. And, of course, the excessive amounts of public spending given to "friends" of the government via dodgy public procurement has been criticised by Labour.
Labour's record on early PPE procurement was shambolic. Don't go down that road.
We had no lack of PPE issue, thankfully. So we maybe overspent on some of those contracts? In a world where everyone was cutting everyone else's throats to get those supplies, so be it. We have paid more per dose to ensure we have the vaccine. On that, no-one saying anything other than file under MoneyWellSpent.
Ironically after the Conservatives criticised Labour for nominating suppliers. Was it us wot won it, after the government adopted pb's flagship policy of creating a PPE tsar?
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?
Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.
There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.
Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.
The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.
We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.
They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.
Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
You and 10 million others.
People want this pestilence gone from their lives. If we have the supplies to justify 24 hour jabbing, then make it happen.
We have been told that in our community all the 80+'s have been 'done', bar a tiny minority who don't appear to have phones, relatives or indeed, friends. My wife, 79, is now twitching when the phone rings!
Perhaps you have an electrical fault.
Don't worry, it's me who answers. Regrettably the two calls we have had so far today are about renewal of the Amazon Prime account, at an exorbitant price, which we don't have, Sadly it's a recorded message, so I can't suggest to the lady that she does something useful with her life.
Does anyone know what lies behind the silent calls with spoofed numbers?
We get them in fits and spurts, sometimes 4 or 5 a day then we go a week with none. They look like realistic numbers complete with std codes but if ever we answer all we get is silence, then the phone is hung up.
They are obviously some kind of scam but how do they make money from it?
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
'Cos we planted those residents there on a rock that is situated 8000 miles from Britain.
Right I'm off to do some work rather than debating on here. Have a good day all. x
The said residents have rights. UN charter stuff.
Another point, often missed.
Argentine policy over Antarctica. Bit like Brazil with the Amazon - there is a big lobby in Argentina that wants to mine, extract oil etc on Antarctica... Hence their thing with claiming that they have actual residents on the Antarctic continent...
UK policy since the 1950s has been Antarctica should be untouched - this started because of the Cold War. There was a worry about a resource scramble there leading to a war. More recently, it has become part of the climate and environmental policy of the UK - hence South Georgia being a nature preserve.
This was why Argentina took South Georgia - which they have never previously claimed and have no claim to. By removing all the UK possessions in the South Atlantic, they would make a claim to the UK "share" of Antarctica.
While changes to mine Antarctica would be blocked by the other claimants - who have similar policies to the UK - the Argentine Antarctic lobby saw it as a step towards their goal.
Interesting thought, and would be much more advantageous to the Argentines than the sheep of the Malvinas. Even if there is accessible oil under the seas around them
The Emperor is very pleased with your efforts.....
Sadly as a remainer-campaigner I have to agree.
For good or ill we left the EU and now we have to get on with it. There will be hiccups, of course, but Brexit is done. It hasn't been the instantaneous disaster some predicted. It's over.
I don’t remember any predictions of “instantaneous disaster”.
There was a view that a vote for Brexit would lead to significant financial disruption, but that was predicated on an immediate exercise of Article 40.
In the event, we merely lost 15-20% of the pound’s value, suffered a credit downgrade, and allowed the BoE to prop us up via QE.
Generally speaking, the mainstream forecast has always been friction at borders (currently correct) & slower growth against baseline now that we have severed ourselves from our main export market (correct at least to date).
I agree that Brexit is over though. I was surprised that 48% wish to Rejoin, I’d expect that to fall over time.
Surprisingly low, given we were told that those who voted for Brexit would be dead now.....
You are making a mistake.
Polling that asks “Knowing what you know now, would you have voted Remain or Brexit” has seen a consistent and growing lead for “Remain”. Part of that may well be the demographic changes as Brexity oldies die off.
No lesser man that Curtice identified this phenomenon.
But polling on, having Brexited, do you wish to Rejoin, is asking a different question.
We all know the government is going to retain it after March don't we.
So why not just come out now and say so, and remove one additional stress from those affected?
I hope so . However I have read instead of the £20 a week uplift it will be £500 a year instead. Many people applying for the first time will realise, how difficult it will be to live on.
Although it's not obvious a £500 payment on first application would fix a lot of issues people on universal credit end up in on first application and which then takes an awful long time to recover from.
Dropping the £20 a week uplift in return for a lump sum payment would probably solve a lot of immediate problems for people and allow others to learn a tiny bit more about budgeting.
Will it be one off or apply to new claimants in the future?
What happens if someone gets a job the following month? Do they need to repay the £500? Or do they keep it?
That's the only bits that seems treacherous to me.
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
Dolly Parton for me.
But she'd only work 9 til 5!
Which would still be a big uplift from the current idiot.
We all know the government is going to retain it after March don't we.
So why not just come out now and say so, and remove one additional stress from those affected?
Its highly likely they will retain it. But to do so is to admit that UC isn't sufficient at its normal rate. Which opens the door to all the other admissions that will be needed.
I expect that moral Tory MPs like the excellent Simon Clarke will continue to patronise people by insisting poor people already enjoy magnificent benevolence from his government.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Even if a referendum of the people there is overwhelmingly in favour of them remaining British - as it was in 2013?
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
Dolly Parton for me.
But she'd only work 9 til 5!
What a way to make a livin
At least she and Priti Patel would talk the same language!
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
'Cos we planted those residents there on a rock that is situated 8000 miles from Britain.
Right I'm off to do some work rather than debating on here. Have a good day all. x
The said residents have rights. UN charter stuff.
Another point, often missed.
Argentine policy over Antarctica. Bit like Brazil with the Amazon - there is a big lobby in Argentina that wants to mine, extract oil etc on Antarctica... Hence their thing with claiming that they have actual residents on the Antarctic continent...
UK policy since the 1950s has been Antarctica should be untouched - this started because of the Cold War. There was a worry about a resource scramble there leading to a war. More recently, it has become part of the climate and environmental policy of the UK - hence South Georgia being a nature preserve.
This was why Argentina took South Georgia - which they have never previously claimed and have no claim to. By removing all the UK possessions in the South Atlantic, they would make a claim to the UK "share" of Antarctica.
While changes to mine Antarctica would be blocked by the other claimants - who have similar policies to the UK - the Argentine Antarctic lobby saw it as a step towards their goal.
Interesting thought, and would be much more advantageous to the Argentines than the sheep of the Malvinas. Even if there is accessible oil under the seas around them
The oil thing is bullshit. Used to scam investors. Yes, there is probably some oil there. Somewhere between un-extractable and only worth it at $500 a barrel.
The Antarctic thing was the "smart" reason for wanting the Falklands.
As opposed to the "dumb" version that paints the Malvinas as this land of milk and honey, stolen by the Evul Brits, that would cure Argentina's ills and make her a world power. Before lunch.....
Trump to leave office in 2021 is still available at 1.01 on Betfair. My crystal ball tells me it could be as soon as this week but DYOR.
Since posting this, there is more available. Has a Trump whale left a bot running? Am I misreading the market? Btw small punters might prefer to lay 2025 at 75.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
'Cos we planted those residents there on a rock that is situated 8000 miles from Britain.
Right I'm off to do some work rather than debating on here. Have a good day all. x
The said residents have rights. UN charter stuff.
Another point, often missed.
Argentine policy over Antarctica. Bit like Brazil with the Amazon - there is a big lobby in Argentina that wants to mine, extract oil etc on Antarctica... Hence their thing with claiming that they have actual residents on the Antarctic continent...
UK policy since the 1950s has been Antarctica should be untouched - this started because of the Cold War. There was a worry about a resource scramble there leading to a war. More recently, it has become part of the climate and environmental policy of the UK - hence South Georgia being a nature preserve.
This was why Argentina took South Georgia - which they have never previously claimed and have no claim to. By removing all the UK possessions in the South Atlantic, they would make a claim to the UK "share" of Antarctica.
While changes to mine Antarctica would be blocked by the other claimants - who have similar policies to the UK - the Argentine Antarctic lobby saw it as a step towards their goal.
Interesting thought, and would be much more advantageous to the Argentines than the sheep of the Malvinas. Even if there is accessible oil under the seas around them
The oil thing is bullshit. Used to scam investors. Yes, there is probably some oil there. Somewhere between un-extractable and only worth it at $500 a barrel.
The Antarctic thing was the "smart" reason for wanting the Falklands.
As opposed to the "dumb" version that paints the Malvinas as this land of milk and honey, stolen by the Evul Brits, that would cure Argentina's ills and make her a world power. Before lunch.....
That dumb version sounds a bit like Brexit.
Just replace “Malvinas” with “Trade with the rest of the world” and “Evul Brits” with “Sclerotic Europeans”.
We all know the government is going to retain it after March don't we.
So why not just come out now and say so, and remove one additional stress from those affected?
Its highly likely they will retain it. But to do so is to admit that UC isn't sufficient at its normal rate. Which opens the door to all the other admissions that will be needed.
I expect that moral Tory MPs like the excellent Simon Clarke will continue to patronise people by insisting poor people already enjoy magnificent benevolence from his government.
It was a welcome step when introduced but very hard to see the Tory logic behind it.
The UC standard allowance didn't suddenly become inadequate once Covid struck; it was always too little.
New No 10 team take on Cummings' legacy of chaos and acrimony
Stratton held a briefing call with Conservative MPs this week, and though a number lined up to berate the government for falling into “bear traps” set by Labour and urged the comms operation to get better at rebuttal, the mood after was optimistic. “It was very good, she was extremely impressive,” said one senior MP.
Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?
Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.
There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.
Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.
The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.
We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.
They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.
Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
You and 10 million others.
People want this pestilence gone from their lives. If we have the supplies to justify 24 hour jabbing, then make it happen.
We have been told that in our community all the 80+'s have been 'done', bar a tiny minority who don't appear to have phones, relatives or indeed, friends. My wife, 79, is now twitching when the phone rings!
Perhaps you have an electrical fault.
Don't worry, it's me who answers. Regrettably the two calls we have had so far today are about renewal of the Amazon Prime account, at an exorbitant price, which we don't have, Sadly it's a recorded message, so I can't suggest to the lady that she does something useful with her life.
Does anyone know what lies behind the silent calls with spoofed numbers?
We get them in fits and spurts, sometimes 4 or 5 a day then we go a week with none. They look like realistic numbers complete with std codes but if ever we answer all we get is silence, then the phone is hung up.
They are obviously some kind of scam but how do they make money from it?
I believe, and am prepared to be corrected, that the machine 'dials' several numbers simultaneously. The first one to answer gets whatever scam is planned for that day. The rest just get silence.
The Emperor is very pleased with your efforts.....
Sadly as a remainer-campaigner I have to agree.
For good or ill we left the EU and now we have to get on with it. There will be hiccups, of course, but Brexit is done. It hasn't been the instantaneous disaster some predicted. It's over.
I don’t remember any predictions of “instantaneous disaster”.
There was a view that a vote for Brexit would lead to significant financial disruption, but that was predicated on an immediate exercise of Article 40.
In the event, we merely lost 15-20% of the pound’s value, suffered a credit downgrade, and allowed the BoE to prop us up via QE.
Generally speaking, the mainstream forecast has always been friction at borders (currently correct) & slower growth against baseline now that we have severed ourselves from our main export market (correct at least to date).
I agree that Brexit is over though. I was surprised that 48% wish to Rejoin, I’d expect that to fall over time.
Surprisingly low, given we were told that those who voted for Brexit would be dead now.....
Brexit is over.
The shape of post-Brexit Britain and what it means for our trade, jobs, economy and society has only just started, however.
Early indications tentatively suggest that it might not quite as wonderful for some of those for whom it was meant as imagined.
Cutting red tape, indeed - when the government has just imposed the biggest load of red tape on importer, exporters and those wanting to send goods to another part of the United Kingdom.
Did I hear correctly that Raaaaaab said yesterday that people may not get their Covid booster inside the 12 weeks? Its already been extended significantly out to 12 weeks, isn't there a risk that it loses effectiveness by going even longer?
Its genuinely brilliant that we are getting this many people vaccinated this quickly. Best not to reduce the effectiveness of this by delaying the 2nd jab to get more people the first jab. Surely...
Mr Zahawi also insisted that second doses of vaccines will be given within 12 weeks of the first - after Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab refused to confirm yesterday that would be the case.
Some people might fall through the cracks but it looks like policy to have second dose after 12 weeks, thank fuck.
My guess is Raab didn't want to say something out of place, and by trying to not do that... he did.
Sounds about right. Raab is not very bright.
Actually I think Raab is quite bright. And has some interesting ideas. And the right instincts on, for eg, China.
But has a tendency to say the wrong thing.
My one issue with Raab is his enthusiastic support of prorogation last year
ie your issue is that he supports the government of which he is a part!
But yes, like you I am rarely not impressed by Raab. Would he apply his intelligence to a less extreme government? Not sure, one would like to think so especially given his work experience.
Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?
Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.
There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.
Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.
The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.
We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.
They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.
Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
You and 10 million others.
People want this pestilence gone from their lives. If we have the supplies to justify 24 hour jabbing, then make it happen.
We have been told that in our community all the 80+'s have been 'done', bar a tiny minority who don't appear to have phones, relatives or indeed, friends. My wife, 79, is now twitching when the phone rings!
Perhaps you have an electrical fault.
Don't worry, it's me who answers. Regrettably the two calls we have had so far today are about renewal of the Amazon Prime account, at an exorbitant price, which we don't have, Sadly it's a recorded message, so I can't suggest to the lady that she does something useful with her life.
Does anyone know what lies behind the silent calls with spoofed numbers?
We get them in fits and spurts, sometimes 4 or 5 a day then we go a week with none. They look like realistic numbers complete with std codes but if ever we answer all we get is silence, then the phone is hung up.
They are obviously some kind of scam but how do they make money from it?
I believe, and am prepared to be corrected, that the machine 'dials' several numbers simultaneously. The first one to answer gets whatever scam is planned for that day. The rest just get silence.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
He's saying that once we get back to normality we can't, er, get back to normality. Apparently the virus has exposed the awful inequalities in our society blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
It's so far off what people are thinking as to be risible. When life does resume, which it will thanks to our stunning vaccination rollout, everyone is going to be in a wild party mood. Not necessarily literal parties but making sure that they have a bloody good time and catch up with all the things they've been prevented from doing.
A miserable old git moaning on the margins is the last thing a Labour leader should be presenting.
I didn’t hear him.
But isn’t it true that Covid has changed everything - including the way we approach support for the most vulnerable in society?
The Tories have spent what - £250? £300 billion? - on a wide range of Covid measures to protect the economic fabric of this country - and thereby protecting the most vulnerable in society. The old "penny-pinching Tories" arguments don't work.
What won't have changed is that HOWEVER much money the Tories spend, Labour will demand it should have been far, far more. We already it see from the Shadow Chancellor.
You keep repeating this, but actually the Shadow Chancellor has been critical of unnecessary public spending. In particular, she thought the £2.6 billion on the job retention bonus scheme was unnecessary. And, of course, the excessive amounts of public spending given to "friends" of the government via dodgy public procurement has been criticised by Labour.
Labour's record on early PPE procurement was shambolic. Don't go down that road.
We had no lack of PPE issue, thankfully. So we maybe overspent on some of those contracts? In a world where everyone was cutting everyone else's throats to get those supplies, so be it. We have paid more per dose to ensure we have the vaccine. On that, no-one saying anything other than file under MoneyWellSpent.
I never mentioned PPE - where's that come from? Labour's not in power, so I'm not sure how its record on early PPE procurement could have been shambolic. Other than that, you don't address the main issue I raised - the wasted £2.6 billion job retention bonus. Quite a lot of money. Further down the line, we will hear much more about the huge amount of money that's gone missing due to fraudulent claims under all the different Covid schemes. I suspect the NAO will judge that there's been a fair degree of carelessness in checking the validity of claims.
The Emperor is very pleased with your efforts.....
Sadly as a remainer-campaigner I have to agree.
For good or ill we left the EU and now we have to get on with it. There will be hiccups, of course, but Brexit is done. It hasn't been the instantaneous disaster some predicted. It's over.
I don’t remember any predictions of “instantaneous disaster”.
There was a view that a vote for Brexit would lead to significant financial disruption, but that was predicated on an immediate exercise of Article 40.
In the event, we merely lost 15-20% of the pound’s value, suffered a credit downgrade, and allowed the BoE to prop us up via QE.
Generally speaking, the mainstream forecast has always been friction at borders (currently correct) & slower growth against baseline now that we have severed ourselves from our main export market (correct at least to date).
I agree that Brexit is over though. I was surprised that 48% wish to Rejoin, I’d expect that to fall over time.
Surprisingly low, given we were told that those who voted for Brexit would be dead now.....
You are making a mistake.
Polling that asks “Knowing what you know now, would you have voted Remain or Brexit” has seen a consistent and growing lead for “Remain”. Part of that may well be the demographic changes as Brexity oldies die off.
No lesser man that Curtice identified this phenomenon.
But polling on, having Brexited, do you wish to Rejoin, is asking a different question.
Yes, I think "wrong" would need reach 70% before "rejoin" becomes a realistic proposition.
Did I hear correctly that Raaaaaab said yesterday that people may not get their Covid booster inside the 12 weeks? Its already been extended significantly out to 12 weeks, isn't there a risk that it loses effectiveness by going even longer?
Its genuinely brilliant that we are getting this many people vaccinated this quickly. Best not to reduce the effectiveness of this by delaying the 2nd jab to get more people the first jab. Surely...
Mr Zahawi also insisted that second doses of vaccines will be given within 12 weeks of the first - after Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab refused to confirm yesterday that would be the case.
Some people might fall through the cracks but it looks like policy to have second dose after 12 weeks, thank fuck.
My guess is Raab didn't want to say something out of place, and by trying to not do that... he did.
Sounds about right. Raab is not very bright.
Actually I think Raab is quite bright. And has some interesting ideas. And the right instincts on, for eg, China.
But has a tendency to say the wrong thing.
My one issue with Raab is his enthusiastic support of prorogation last year
ie your issue is that he supports the government of which he is a part!
But yes, like you I am rarely not impressed by Raab. Would he apply his intelligence to a less extreme government? Not sure, one would like to think so especially given his work experience.
He advocated prorogation in the Tory leadership contest.
Sajid and Rory were the only ones who ruled it out, I think. Maybe Hunt too.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
The US has 13 dependent territories, the same number of overseas territories as the UK.
France has 6 overseas collectivities, 5 overseas regions and 2 uninhabited territories.
Australia, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland and China also have dependent territories as we do too.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
'Cos we planted those residents there on a rock that is situated 8000 miles from Britain.
Right I'm off to do some work rather than debating on here. Have a good day all. x
The said residents have rights. UN charter stuff.
Another point, often missed.
Argentine policy over Antarctica. Bit like Brazil with the Amazon - there is a big lobby in Argentina that wants to mine, extract oil etc on Antarctica... Hence their thing with claiming that they have actual residents on the Antarctic continent...
UK policy since the 1950s has been Antarctica should be untouched - this started because of the Cold War. There was a worry about a resource scramble there leading to a war. More recently, it has become part of the climate and environmental policy of the UK - hence South Georgia being a nature preserve.
This was why Argentina took South Georgia - which they have never previously claimed and have no claim to. By removing all the UK possessions in the South Atlantic, they would make a claim to the UK "share" of Antarctica.
While changes to mine Antarctica would be blocked by the other claimants - who have similar policies to the UK - the Argentine Antarctic lobby saw it as a step towards their goal.
Interesting thought, and would be much more advantageous to the Argentines than the sheep of the Malvinas. Even if there is accessible oil under the seas around them
The oil thing is bullshit. Used to scam investors. Yes, there is probably some oil there. Somewhere between un-extractable and only worth it at $500 a barrel.
The Antarctic thing was the "smart" reason for wanting the Falklands.
As opposed to the "dumb" version that paints the Malvinas as this land of milk and honey, stolen by the Evul Brits, that would cure Argentina's ills and make her a world power. Before lunch.....
Did wonder about the oil. If there were any, however inaccessible, someone would have given it a good go by now.
Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?
Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.
There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.
Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.
The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.
We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.
They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.
Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
You and 10 million others.
People want this pestilence gone from their lives. If we have the supplies to justify 24 hour jabbing, then make it happen.
We have been told that in our community all the 80+'s have been 'done', bar a tiny minority who don't appear to have phones, relatives or indeed, friends. My wife, 79, is now twitching when the phone rings!
Perhaps you have an electrical fault.
Don't worry, it's me who answers. Regrettably the two calls we have had so far today are about renewal of the Amazon Prime account, at an exorbitant price, which we don't have, Sadly it's a recorded message, so I can't suggest to the lady that she does something useful with her life.
Does anyone know what lies behind the silent calls with spoofed numbers?
We get them in fits and spurts, sometimes 4 or 5 a day then we go a week with none. They look like realistic numbers complete with std codes but if ever we answer all we get is silence, then the phone is hung up.
They are obviously some kind of scam but how do they make money from it?
Might be just collecting lists of active phone numbers where someone will pick up at the other end.
Another possibility is robo-calling spammers who want to maximise the use of their limited staff will call sufficient people in order to always have someone on the line when the next staff member becomes available. They don’t have to care about the wasted time of all the people they call, so why not call a bunch of them & minimise downtime at their end?
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Why don't they have a right to be there? They were born there.
Do Americans not have a right to be in America? Should all black Americans be transported back to Africa? Should white Americans be returned to Europe?
People are born where they're born. Why would you want to start transportation of people away from their birthplace? And in support of a military dictatorship with no historical connection to that land whatsoever? That is colonialism!
Would you expel all the Afrikaaners from South Africa? Would you expel all the "English: from South Africa? What about the Indian South Africans? What about the Xhosa, from the bits they conquered - as late as the 19th Cent? What about the Zulu, from the bits they conquered - as late as the 19th Cent?
Well the welsh and egyptians are safe enough if we're going down that route....
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
It's the presidential equivalent to a criminal court case. Would you stop a criminal case if the criminal retired?
But there are no consequences to being found guilty as far as I can tell other than humiliation which he is immune to. I'm surprised he's not encouraging it. Keeps him in the public gaze longer
He`s not been found guilty of anything. There will be a separate vote for that.
My understanding was that 2/3rds needed for the impeachment and 1/2 needed for a guilty verdict - but I`m confused because I don`t think the impeachment vote reached 2/3rds.
Can anyone clarify?
The decision to impeach in the House was a simple majority. The decision to convict requires 2/3 of the Senate. Once convicted a majority can determine the punishment.
Ah - thanks. In that case conviction is unlikely to reach 2/3rds would you say?
Unless, as I was saying earlier, the GOP see this as their chance to run away from Trump and claim nothing to do with me guv.
They will but I don't think they're ready for it yet. I think it's going to take a massive bust-up first. They will need to tear themselves apart before they can rebuild.
Then, and only then, will they get to their equivalent of this ... and begin the long process of clawing their way back to power:
We forget in the US Federal Power does not only lie in the Presidency, it also lies in Congress and the House and Senate too.
.
You might but I don't.
The GOP will still be ripping themselves up in 2022 and Biden will have steadied the good ship America. The Democrats will not lose Congress in their mid-terms. I expect them to gain.
And you did tell us all on here that the GOP were going to win both Georgia run-offs.
Every President for the last 50 years has seen their party lose House seats in their first midterm bar Bush in 2002.
Every President since Bush Snr has seen their party have control of both Chambers of Congress when they entered office, every President since Bush Snr except Dubya has also seen their party lose control of the House after their first midte
The Democrats won the Georgia Senate race of Purdue Ossoff by a just 1% margin but Biden entering office with his party in control of Congress is the norm, Biden losing control of the House in the midterms would also be the norm.
If Biden Harris have low approval ratings in 2022 they will lose the House without question
You're big on precedents to the point where you fall into the causal fallacy trap. These times are like no other and we are exiting the rare occurrence of a first time President who failed to get re-elected, the worst President in American history and the most unpopular in modern history alongside Ford, who was also a disaster. So stick your alleged precedents into that part of your brain that is objective and run your processor.
You never admit when you were wrong. Not even to yourself. It's why you will continue to make errors.
Why do you say Ford was "also a disaster"? He lost only very narrowly to Carter, despite inheriting the crashed Nixon presidency, and is generally held to have acted responsibly while in office. At the end of his life he was a much-respected elder statesman who had gone to some pains to try to resolve the Clinton impeachment saga which he felt was in danger of doing damage to the reputation of the Presidency as an institution. Difficult to imagine a Republican President less like Trump.
Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?
Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.
There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.
Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.
The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.
We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.
They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.
Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
You and 10 million others.
People want this pestilence gone from their lives. If we have the supplies to justify 24 hour jabbing, then make it happen.
We have been told that in our community all the 80+'s have been 'done', bar a tiny minority who don't appear to have phones, relatives or indeed, friends. My wife, 79, is now twitching when the phone rings!
Perhaps you have an electrical fault.
Don't worry, it's me who answers. Regrettably the two calls we have had so far today are about renewal of the Amazon Prime account, at an exorbitant price, which we don't have, Sadly it's a recorded message, so I can't suggest to the lady that she does something useful with her life.
Does anyone know what lies behind the silent calls with spoofed numbers?
We get them in fits and spurts, sometimes 4 or 5 a day then we go a week with none. They look like realistic numbers complete with std codes but if ever we answer all we get is silence, then the phone is hung up.
They are obviously some kind of scam but how do they make money from it?
I believe, and am prepared to be corrected, that the machine 'dials' several numbers simultaneously. The first one to answer gets whatever scam is planned for that day. The rest just get silence.
Did I hear correctly that Raaaaaab said yesterday that people may not get their Covid booster inside the 12 weeks? Its already been extended significantly out to 12 weeks, isn't there a risk that it loses effectiveness by going even longer?
Its genuinely brilliant that we are getting this many people vaccinated this quickly. Best not to reduce the effectiveness of this by delaying the 2nd jab to get more people the first jab. Surely...
Mr Zahawi also insisted that second doses of vaccines will be given within 12 weeks of the first - after Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab refused to confirm yesterday that would be the case.
Some people might fall through the cracks but it looks like policy to have second dose after 12 weeks, thank fuck.
My guess is Raab didn't want to say something out of place, and by trying to not do that... he did.
Sounds about right. Raab is not very bright.
Actually I think Raab is quite bright. And has some interesting ideas. And the right instincts on, for eg, China.
But has a tendency to say the wrong thing.
My one issue with Raab is his enthusiastic support of prorogation last year
ie your issue is that he supports the government of which he is a part!
But yes, like you I am rarely not impressed by Raab. Would he apply his intelligence to a less extreme government? Not sure, one would like to think so especially given his work experience.
He advocated prorogation in the Tory leadership contest.
Sajid and Rory were the only ones who ruled it out, I think. Maybe Hunt too.
Yes that is true. Look I am no fan of the current government as may be apparent from some of my posts. But I continue to be impressed by Raab. If he was after that particular constituency in the leadership challenge then I'm not seeking to excuse it.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
He's saying that once we get back to normality we can't, er, get back to normality. Apparently the virus has exposed the awful inequalities in our society blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
It's so far off what people are thinking as to be risible. When life does resume, which it will thanks to our stunning vaccination rollout, everyone is going to be in a wild party mood. Not necessarily literal parties but making sure that they have a bloody good time and catch up with all the things they've been prevented from doing.
A miserable old git moaning on the margins is the last thing a Labour leader should be presenting.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Why don't they have a right to be there? They were born there.
Do Americans not have a right to be in America? Should all black Americans be transported back to Africa? Should white Americans be returned to Europe?
People are born where they're born. Why would you want to start transportation of people away from their birthplace? And in support of a military dictatorship with no historical connection to that land whatsoever? That is colonialism!
Would you expel all the Afrikaaners from South Africa? Would you expel all the "English: from South Africa? What about the Indian South Africans? What about the Xhosa, from the bits they conquered - as late as the 19th Cent? What about the Zulu, from the bits they conquered - as late as the 19th Cent?
Well the welsh and egyptians are safe enough if we're going down that route....
The Egyptian population has had the usual waves of migrants/invaders over the centuries. You'd have to turf them out.
Quite a lot of Welsh are actually descended from one of the various waves of incomers as well.
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
True. But I actually think he could and would have made a good President.
From all reports he was a competent and decent Governor of California. Every time he speaks on politics he comes across as competent and decent too.
If we stripped away the movie stardom and the foreign birth factor then being a good Governor of California, let alone a Republican who wins California, would make any normal politician a serious contender.
Although he wouldn't have won without the movie stardom of which the foreign birth factor was a pretty crucial component.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Quite likely that if it weren't for the invasion a compromise would have been found by now to settle the dispute. It's an odd situation, a tiny British territory with a couple of thousand people just off the coast of Argentina.
Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?
Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.
There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.
Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.
The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.
We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.
They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.
Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
Good point. You could offer very inconvenient appointments, in terms of both location and time, to young and healthy people. The alternative would be for them to wait a number of months to have it at a more convenient time and place. Assumes that older people and people with health conditions wouldn't be able to, or want to, use those slots.
We all know the government is going to retain it after March don't we.
So why not just come out now and say so, and remove one additional stress from those affected?
I hope so . However I have read instead of the £20 a week uplift it will be £500 a year instead. Many people applying for the first time will realise, how difficult it will be to live on.
Although it's not obvious a £500 payment on first application would fix a lot of issues people on universal credit end up in on first application and which then takes an awful long time to recover from.
Dropping the £20 a week uplift in return for a lump sum payment would probably solve a lot of immediate problems for people and allow others to learn a tiny bit more about budgeting.
Will it be one off or apply to new claimants in the future?
What happens if someone gets a job the following month? Do they need to repay the £500? Or do they keep it?
That's the only bits that seems treacherous to me.
And what about the low paid who legitimately claim UC because it supplements their income?
As it stands 63% of their income gets deducted from the UC standard amount and they get the difference, which may only be a few £ per week, and will fluctuate if their earnings fluctuate.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
He's saying that once we get back to normality we can't, er, get back to normality. Apparently the virus has exposed the awful inequalities in our society blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
It's so far off what people are thinking as to be risible. When life does resume, which it will thanks to our stunning vaccination rollout, everyone is going to be in a wild party mood. Not necessarily literal parties but making sure that they have a bloody good time and catch up with all the things they've been prevented from doing.
A miserable old git moaning on the margins is the last thing a Labour leader should be presenting.
I didn’t hear him.
But isn’t it true that Covid has changed everything - including the way we approach support for the most vulnerable in society?
Yes but I don't think that's the preserve of Labour.
Boris Johnson has not come across as uncaring. Far, far, from it. I think in part because he contracted the virus he's had very good empathy. And no one can accuse Rishi Sunak of failing to rise to the challenge of helping people.
They've made errors on free school meals and Cummings should have been censured but they're basically doing a bloody good job.
As I mentioned, I voted Labour last election and LibDem the one before. I'm hardly a tory but I have to hand it to this Government. The vaccine procurement from multiple developers in advance was a blinder and the rollout is a stunning success.
The vaccine procurement and deployment has been a success. The government has done very well there. Financial support for employees also good, particularly early on.
The government has however dithered and failed to bring in restrictions that were obviously going to have to happen in a timely manner. I'll give them a bit of a pass on the first lockdown being late as that was always going to be a very hard decision, but the later restrictions have been obviously coming and obviously a little late each time...
Having said that, I do think that if the vaccine rollout goes well and we're out of restrictions with low cases/deaths in the not too distant future (and particularly if we're out of restrictions before other countries) then all except those personally affected will forget about the high death toll here and the government will be doing very well in the polls.
Surely everyone in the country has been "personally affected" to a greater or lesser degree? They may not have actually caught Covid but they will know someone who did, their elderly relatives will have been cowering in their homes for the best part of a year and there can be very few - if any - people whose job has not been affected in some way, even if it is just moving from office to WFH.
I doubt the success of the vaccine roll out will move the polls much - gratitude is not a major factor in voting behaviour. When things get back to normal there will be active groups of Covid survivors and bereaved relatives who will pursue Johnson and the Tories for the rest of their lives, just as Blair is pursued over Iraq. His card is marked and there's very little he can do about it.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Quite likely that if it weren't for the invasion a compromise would have been found by now to settle the dispute. It's an odd situation, a tiny British territory with a couple of thousand people just off the coast of Argentina.
What's odd about it? They are British, and want to keep being British.
Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?
Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.
There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.
Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.
The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.
We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.
They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.
Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
Good point. You could offer very inconvenient appointments, in terms of both location and time, to young and healthy people. The alternative would be for them to wait a number of months to have it at a more convenient time and place. Assumes that older people and people with health conditions wouldn't be able to, or want to, use those slots.
Also assumes you can staff and supply those night-time slots... And if you can, well why not just run more daytime slots, which is easier for everyone?
There is hardly likely to be a shortage of empty venues during the current lockdown.
Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?
Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.
There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.
Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.
The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.
We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.
They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.
Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
Good point. You could offer very inconvenient appointments, in terms of both location and time, to young and healthy people. The alternative would be for them to wait a number of months to have it at a more convenient time and place. Assumes that older people and people with health conditions wouldn't be able to, or want to, use those slots.
Exactly. In Surrey, a big centre for vaccinations has opened at Epsom racecourse. Some people will find it difficult to get there, especially if they have to drive at night. Like Mystic, I'd be happy to pop over there at 2am or whatever, and leave local vaccinations to people with more difficulty.
I think the issue is being unnecessarily politicised in this case. It's a suggestion, the Government were initially sceptical but are now trying it out, which is fair enough. Let's see how it works.
I have to fill in a customs declaration to simply return some trousers that I bought online that happened to be shipped from Germany ffs. It's not a simple form at all.
Is this brexit though? At the post office last week the notice said posting anywhere.
Obviously. Never had to do that before when returning anything to a EU country.
Of course it is Brexit, benefit of Global Britain, and next time you will not even be able to buy the trousers or if you can you will get a hefty price increase as Brexit Bonus.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
He's saying that once we get back to normality we can't, er, get back to normality. Apparently the virus has exposed the awful inequalities in our society blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
It's so far off what people are thinking as to be risible. When life does resume, which it will thanks to our stunning vaccination rollout, everyone is going to be in a wild party mood. Not necessarily literal parties but making sure that they have a bloody good time and catch up with all the things they've been prevented from doing.
A miserable old git moaning on the margins is the last thing a Labour leader should be presenting.
I didn’t hear him.
But isn’t it true that Covid has changed everything - including the way we approach support for the most vulnerable in society?
Yes but I don't think that's the preserve of Labour.
Boris Johnson has not come across as uncaring. Far, far, from it. I think in part because he contracted the virus he's had very good empathy. And no one can accuse Rishi Sunak of failing to rise to the challenge of helping people.
They've made errors on free school meals and Cummings should have been censured but they're basically doing a bloody good job.
As I mentioned, I voted Labour last election and LibDem the one before. I'm hardly a tory but I have to hand it to this Government. The vaccine procurement from multiple developers in advance was a blinder and the rollout is a stunning success.
The vaccine procurement and deployment has been a success. The government has done very well there. Financial support for employees also good, particularly early on.
The government has however dithered and failed to bring in restrictions that were obviously going to have to happen in a timely manner. I'll give them a bit of a pass on the first lockdown being late as that was always going to be a very hard decision, but the later restrictions have been obviously coming and obviously a little late each time...
Having said that, I do think that if the vaccine rollout goes well and we're out of restrictions with low cases/deaths in the not too distant future (and particularly if we're out of restrictions before other countries) then all except those personally affected will forget about the high death toll here and the government will be doing very well in the polls.
Surely everyone in the country has been "personally affected" to a greater or lesser degree? They may not have actually caught Covid but they will know someone who did, their elderly relatives will have been cowering in their homes for the best part of a year and there can be very few - if any - people whose job has not been affected in some way, even if it is just moving from office to WFH.
I doubt the success of the vaccine roll out will move the polls much - gratitude is not a major factor in voting behaviour. When things get back to normal there will be active groups of Covid survivors and bereaved relatives who will pursue Johnson and the Tories for the rest of their lives, just as Blair is pursued over Iraq. His card is marked and there's very little he can do about it.
I think you are letting wishful thinking take over a bit there.
Part of it is cleaning up his own house. Richard Leonard’s departure is more good news on that front.
Part of it is (should be) behind-scenes discussions with the LDs and perhaps even the DUP. The electoral maths suggest he likely needs some form of strategic alliance against the Tories.
Part of it is policy formulation, and he cannot he too explicit on this because the government will simply steal his ideas. He does need to stake out a general position on Brexit, SINDY and the economy and I suppose he is doing that.
The final bit is waiting. I do believe that this government is, at a fundamental level, incompetent. There’s always another cock-up on the way.
I have to fill in a customs declaration to simply return some trousers that I bought online that happened to be shipped from Germany ffs. It's not a simple form at all.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Quite likely that if it weren't for the invasion a compromise would have been found by now to settle the dispute. It's an odd situation, a tiny British territory with a couple of thousand people just off the coast of Argentina.
"Just off the coast of Argentina"?
In the same way that Switzerland is a tiny territory just off the coast of England? Switzerland is closer to England than the Falklands are to Argentina.
Raab is a moron. Why does the government still let him on TV. Honestly, all questions on vaccines should be deferred to Hancock or Zahawi. He shouldn't have tried to freelance and then undermined the programme.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
I’ve decided you’re a paid Tory plant.
Given your constant posting about how good Boris is and how shit Labour are.
I agree he makes it to obvious.
She
No I'm not as anyone would know if they'd seen my posts last election. I am just very 'meh' about Keir Starmer and I'm extremely impressed by the vaccine success of this Gov't.
That's the trouble with some on here, and the gravest mistake some make when betting: tribal loyalty.
Even Mike Smithson, whose views are similar to my own, has acknowledged the Johnson success on the vaccines. It would be absurdly churlish to pretend otherwise.
And it's perilous for Labour to be seen carping.
Out of the countless decisions that they got wrong over the past year, the Government got one right. It happened to be a big one. Namely the decision early on to commit to ordering several vaccines in bulk in the hope that one or more might come good.
So credit to them for that at least. But let's get it in proportion.
Given that the key vaccine originated from the country's leading researchers in Oxford, would even a half-competant government have turned that one down? No. France similarly committed to "their" national vaccine, pre-ordering in bulk, only to find that it didn't work. We're very fortunate in the UK to such a world leader in medical research. So we got lucky. France meanwhile is stuffed.
As for the roll out itself, having secured the supply, ministers are reacting rather than leading. There aren't any really difficult decisions to make. So the effective rollout follows from the fact that we're blessed with the NHS and the highly centralised and efficient system it is at the heart of. "Socialised medicine" as the US Republicans like to deride it as. Yet compare and contrast with the fragmented mess in the US, despite the abundance of supply there. If you read the "Daily Telegraph" pages, it's apparent that right wing columnists there are still very conflicted between the efficiency of the NHS-led roll out and the necessity to associate "their" government with an NHS-led success.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
'Cos we planted those residents there on a rock that is situated 8000 miles from Britain.
Right I'm off to do some work rather than debating on here. Have a good day all. x
The said residents have rights. UN charter stuff.
Another point, often missed.
Argentine policy over Antarctica. Bit like Brazil with the Amazon - there is a big lobby in Argentina that wants to mine, extract oil etc on Antarctica... Hence their thing with claiming that they have actual residents on the Antarctic continent...
UK policy since the 1950s has been Antarctica should be untouched - this started because of the Cold War. There was a worry about a resource scramble there leading to a war. More recently, it has become part of the climate and environmental policy of the UK - hence South Georgia being a nature preserve.
This was why Argentina took South Georgia - which they have never previously claimed and have no claim to. By removing all the UK possessions in the South Atlantic, they would make a claim to the UK "share" of Antarctica.
While changes to mine Antarctica would be blocked by the other claimants - who have similar policies to the UK - the Argentine Antarctic lobby saw it as a step towards their goal.
Interesting thought, and would be much more advantageous to the Argentines than the sheep of the Malvinas. Even if there is accessible oil under the seas around them
The oil thing is bullshit. Used to scam investors. Yes, there is probably some oil there. Somewhere between un-extractable and only worth it at $500 a barrel.
The Antarctic thing was the "smart" reason for wanting the Falklands.
As opposed to the "dumb" version that paints the Malvinas as this land of milk and honey, stolen by the Evul Brits, that would cure Argentina's ills and make her a world power. Before lunch.....
There may have been something in it, if we'd ever hit "Peak Oil" on the supply side - but we kept on finding more of the stuff in places where extraction was much easier.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Quite likely that if it weren't for the invasion a compromise would have been found by now to settle the dispute. It's an odd situation, a tiny British territory with a couple of thousand people just off the coast of Argentina.
Maybe - there was little interest in wanting to join the Argentina before. It's 900 miles away and a completely different culture.
Since the fishing rights came in, the place is quite self supporting. Which has, in turn, closed the door to anyone looking in the direction of Argentina.
Did I hear correctly that Raaaaaab said yesterday that people may not get their Covid booster inside the 12 weeks? Its already been extended significantly out to 12 weeks, isn't there a risk that it loses effectiveness by going even longer?
Its genuinely brilliant that we are getting this many people vaccinated this quickly. Best not to reduce the effectiveness of this by delaying the 2nd jab to get more people the first jab. Surely...
Mr Zahawi also insisted that second doses of vaccines will be given within 12 weeks of the first - after Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab refused to confirm yesterday that would be the case.
Some people might fall through the cracks but it looks like policy to have second dose after 12 weeks, thank fuck.
My guess is Raab didn't want to say something out of place, and by trying to not do that... he did.
Sounds about right. Raab is not very bright.
Actually I think Raab is quite bright. And has some interesting ideas. And the right instincts on, for eg, China.
But has a tendency to say the wrong thing.
My one issue with Raab is his enthusiastic support of prorogation last year
ie your issue is that he supports the government of which he is a part!
But yes, like you I am rarely not impressed by Raab. Would he apply his intelligence to a less extreme government? Not sure, one would like to think so especially given his work experience.
I'm long of him for next Con leader. Sunak is more likely and a worthy betting favourite but at current prices I prefer Raab. Proper leaver. In a big job. Good age. Table manners. Scope to change gear. I can see it.
Part of it is cleaning up his own house. Richard Leonard’s departure is more good news on that front.
Part of it is (should be) behind-scenes discussions with the LDs and perhaps even the DUP. The electoral maths suggest he likely needs some form of strategic alliance against the Tories.
Part of it is policy formulation, and he cannot he too explicit on this because the government will simply steal his ideas. He does need to stake out a general position on Brexit, SINDY and the economy and I suppose he is doing that.
The final bit is waiting. I do believe that this government is, at a fundamental level, incompetent. There’s always another cock-up on the way.
Agree with that, except: discussions with the DUP! Labour would lose most of its members and many of its voters if it went anywhere near the DUP.
He's been shot down at once by the main Government spokesman, who said it was out of the question unless there was proof that vaccinated people cannot carry the infection to others.
Comments
https://twitter.com/JohnMcM1/status/1351106249249665029
Nobody talking about it, at all...
No I'm not as anyone would know if they'd seen my posts last election. I am just very 'meh' about Keir Starmer and I'm extremely impressed by the vaccine success of this Gov't.
That's the trouble with some on here, and the gravest mistake some make when betting: tribal loyalty.
Even Mike Smithson, whose views are similar to my own, has acknowledged the Johnson success on the vaccines. It would be absurdly churlish to pretend otherwise.
And it's perilous for Labour to be seen carping.
lick their arsescooperate with them and didn't care much about a few non-white people on the far side of the world getting their lives destroyed in consequence, while the Falklands were attacked by Argentina in an unprovoked act of aggression.Naked, cynical self interest always trumps principles and decency.
Is that brutally direct enough for you?
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1351118263460229127
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1351118459015467008
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1351118706592636929
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
The islanders have a right to self determination and they have decided to be British and that has been determined under international law as legally correct. The rights and wrongs of the war which I had friends in, may be questioned, but the legal rights of the islanders is what should be respected, not your opinion. Sorry.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
However I have read instead of the £20 a week uplift it will be £500 a year instead.
Many people applying for the first time will realise, how difficult it will be to live on.
At least that will put paid to the nonsense notion that I'm a tory. Lolz.
In many of my views I'm probably the most left-wing person on this forum.
G'day to y'all.
xx
Another point, often missed.
Argentine policy over Antarctica. Bit like Brazil with the Amazon - there is a big lobby in Argentina that wants to mine, extract oil etc on Antarctica... Hence their thing with claiming that they have actual residents on the Antarctic continent...
UK policy since the 1950s has been Antarctica should be untouched - this started because of the Cold War. There was a worry about a resource scramble there leading to a war. More recently, it has become part of the climate and environmental policy of the UK - hence South Georgia being a nature preserve.
This was why Argentina took South Georgia - which they have never previously claimed and have no claim to. By removing all the UK possessions in the South Atlantic, they would make a claim to the UK "share" of Antarctica.
While changes to mine Antarctica would be blocked by the other claimants - who have similar policies to the UK - the Argentine Antarctic lobby saw it as a step towards their goal.
From all reports he was a competent and decent Governor of California. Every time he speaks on politics he comes across as competent and decent too.
If we stripped away the movie stardom and the foreign birth factor then being a good Governor of California, let alone a Republican who wins California, would make any normal politician a serious contender.
There was a view that a vote for Brexit would lead to significant financial disruption, but that was predicated on an immediate exercise of Article 40.
In the event, we merely lost 15-20% of the pound’s value, suffered a credit downgrade, and allowed the BoE to prop us up via QE.
Generally speaking, the mainstream forecast has always been friction at borders (currently correct) & slower growth against baseline now that we have severed ourselves from our main export market (correct at least to date).
I agree that Brexit is over though.
I was surprised that 48% wish to Rejoin, I’d expect that to fall over time.
We had no lack of PPE issue, thankfully. So we maybe overspent on some of those contracts? In a world where everyone was cutting everyone else's throats to get those supplies, so be it. We have paid more per dose to ensure we have the vaccine. On that, no-one saying anything other than file under MoneyWellSpent.
Sadly it's a recorded message, so I can't suggest to the lady that she does something useful with her life.
Do Americans not have a right to be in America? Should all black Americans be transported back to Africa? Should white Americans be returned to Europe?
People are born where they're born. Why would you want to start transportation of people away from their birthplace? And in support of a military dictatorship with no historical connection to that land whatsoever? That is colonialism!
Ford was never that unpopular and was actually a reasonably prudent manager of the US economy who helped the US to come together after Nixon went. 4 years after Ford narrowly lost to Carter Reagan won in 1980 of course.
24-hour vaccinations has become a totemic fetish for some, that will actually make it harder for people without cars to access vaccinations.
Would you expel all the "English: from South Africa?
What about the Indian South Africans?
What about the Xhosa, from the bits they conquered - as late as the 19th Cent?
What about the Zulu, from the bits they conquered - as late as the 19th Cent?
Dropping the £20 a week uplift in return for a lump sum payment would probably solve a lot of immediate problems for people and allow others to learn a tiny bit more about budgeting.
We get them in fits and spurts, sometimes 4 or 5 a day then we go a week with none. They look like realistic numbers complete with std codes but if ever we answer all we get is silence, then the phone is hung up.
They are obviously some kind of scam but how do they make money from it?
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Polling that asks “Knowing what you know now, would you have voted Remain or Brexit” has seen a consistent and growing lead for “Remain”. Part of that may well be the demographic changes as Brexity oldies die off.
No lesser man that Curtice identified this phenomenon.
But polling on, having Brexited, do you wish to Rejoin, is asking a different question.
What happens if someone gets a job the following month? Do they need to repay the £500? Or do they keep it?
That's the only bits that seems treacherous to me.
I expect that moral Tory MPs like the excellent Simon Clarke will continue to patronise people by insisting poor people already enjoy magnificent benevolence from his government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum,_2013
I know some people like to think that 2013 was more than a lifetime ago, but it was quite unambiguously clear they want to be British.
The Antarctic thing was the "smart" reason for wanting the Falklands.
As opposed to the "dumb" version that paints the Malvinas as this land of milk and honey, stolen by the Evul Brits, that would cure Argentina's ills and make her a world power. Before lunch.....
Just replace “Malvinas” with “Trade with the rest of the world” and “Evul Brits” with “Sclerotic Europeans”.
The UC standard allowance didn't suddenly become inadequate once Covid struck; it was always too little.
Who's now in charge of the No.10 policy unit?
https://twitter.com/aileen_boughen/status/1351109104056602629
The shape of post-Brexit Britain and what it means for our trade, jobs, economy and society has only just started, however.
Early indications tentatively suggest that it might not quite as wonderful for some of those for whom it was meant as imagined.
In that regard, this headline in the Times this morning did make laugh - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/boris-johnson-consults-businesses-on-plan-to-become-europes-singapore-mktg5mtx2
Cutting red tape, indeed - when the government has just imposed the biggest load of red tape on importer, exporters and those wanting to send goods to another part of the United Kingdom.
But yes, like you I am rarely not impressed by Raab. Would he apply his intelligence to a less extreme government? Not sure, one would like to think so especially given his work experience.
Sajid and Rory were the only ones who ruled it out, I think. Maybe Hunt too.
France has 6 overseas collectivities, 5 overseas regions and 2 uninhabited territories.
Australia, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland and China also have dependent territories as we do too.
Another possibility is robo-calling spammers who want to maximise the use of their limited staff will call sufficient people in order to always have someone on the line when the next staff member becomes available. They don’t have to care about the wasted time of all the people they call, so why not call a bunch of them & minimise downtime at their end?
Quite a lot of Welsh are actually descended from one of the various waves of incomers as well.
Anyone want to define who is a pure Ikarran?
And what about the low paid who legitimately claim UC because it supplements their income?
As it stands 63% of their income gets deducted from the UC standard amount and they get the difference, which may only be a few £ per week, and will fluctuate if their earnings fluctuate.
I doubt the success of the vaccine roll out will move the polls much - gratitude is not a major factor in voting behaviour. When things get back to normal there will be active groups of Covid survivors and bereaved relatives who will pursue Johnson and the Tories for the rest of their lives, just as Blair is pursued over Iraq. His card is marked and there's very little he can do about it.
There is hardly likely to be a shortage of empty venues during the current lockdown.
I think the issue is being unnecessarily politicised in this case. It's a suggestion, the Government were initially sceptical but are now trying it out, which is fair enough. Let's see how it works.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
Part of it is cleaning up his own house. Richard Leonard’s departure is more good news on that front.
Part of it is (should be) behind-scenes discussions with the LDs and perhaps even the DUP. The electoral maths suggest he likely needs some form of strategic alliance against the Tories.
Part of it is policy formulation, and he cannot he too explicit on this because the government will simply steal his ideas. He does need to stake out a general position on Brexit, SINDY and the economy and I suppose he is doing that.
The final bit is waiting. I do believe that this government is, at a fundamental level, incompetent. There’s always another cock-up on the way.
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1351128807609135105
https://twitter.com/TomBoadle/status/1351128803830067201
https://www.postoffice.co.uk/mail/customs-forms
In the same way that Switzerland is a tiny territory just off the coast of England? Switzerland is closer to England than the Falklands are to Argentina.
So credit to them for that at least. But let's get it in proportion.
Given that the key vaccine originated from the country's leading researchers in Oxford, would even a half-competant government have turned that one down? No. France similarly committed to "their" national vaccine, pre-ordering in bulk, only to find that it didn't work. We're very fortunate in the UK to such a world leader in medical research. So we got lucky. France meanwhile is stuffed.
As for the roll out itself, having secured the supply, ministers are reacting rather than leading. There aren't any really difficult decisions to make. So the effective rollout follows from the fact that we're blessed with the NHS and the highly centralised and efficient system it is at the heart of. "Socialised medicine" as the US Republicans like to deride it as. Yet compare and contrast with the fragmented mess in the US, despite the abundance of supply there. If you read the "Daily Telegraph" pages, it's apparent that right wing columnists there are still very conflicted between the efficiency of the NHS-led roll out and the necessity to associate "their" government with an NHS-led success.
Since the fishing rights came in, the place is quite self supporting. Which has, in turn, closed the door to anyone looking in the direction of Argentina.
- less than 900 miles from my desk
- were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....