On the subject of "who to jab", there is a great Wired article from a few weeks ago that basically said that - in the US - you only need to vaccinate a couple of million people to reduce R below 1, if you identify and get those people protected.
It's really counter-intuitive, because it means jabbing young healthy people, rather than old (potentially sick) ones.
In a country like Spain or Italy (with multigenerational households) it would be a case of getting the same degree of protection from deaths and hospitalisations by jabbing the 22 year old grandson, rather than three 75 year old grandparents.
Of course, it might be a tough sell politically.
Sounds like a variation on the theme of vaccinating the super spreaders. That idea falls down because super spreaders cannot be identified in advance. There is a case to be made that targeting those with lots of interaction would have the biggest approach, quickest, but we have chosen to try to protect the cohort who are most likely to require hospital treatment or sadly will die. I think it is the right approach, and we will be vaccinating the vast majority anyway.
Strikingly bitter, glad only one side is wallowing in history there.
More like an Irish Times version of Quentin Letts, but he got one thing spot on ... "The contemporary royals have no real power. They serve entirely to enshrine classism in the British nonconstitution."
So what was the Guardian going on about when it was complaining about the number of times HM and Charles have influenced laws and debates in Parliament?
I have no idea. Send them an email and let us know what they say
Yes, you put all that faith in these EU people. You really did.
To be fair to you, the alternative was Nigel Farage. But still - bloody embarrassing isn't it?
This is a new EU Commission. We Remainers had put our faith in a totally different set of clowns, now all gone.
Although how you have the nerve to talk about amateur hour with Boris in charge... a former journalist who has been fired for making his quotes up and who then hides in fridges from other journalists.
Under Johnson's govt we are in the top ten of deaths per 100,000.
The clown production line has no off-switch. Brussels just churns them out. And you, as a simple pleb, have no way to block that production line.
You can always vote to chuck out our clowns.
And on the deaths per 100,000? Let's see how it looks at the end eh? When the cheating and undercounting gets exposed by the excess death numbers.
Except we DID vote to chuck out the EU clowns. We did exactly what you are claiming we could not do.
And landed ourselves with the biggest clown of all?
I might start putting my whole life through GPT-3: the advice I give to clients at work; the arguments I play back to my wife; the excuses I give to my colleagues; the banter I have with my friends.
Everything.
I warned you. Once you go down the GPT3 rabbit hole you do not emerge. It really is AGI, or so close to it as to be super uncanny. And it is FUNNY
It's utterly hilarious.
I had to go in the bathroom because I couldn't stop snorting, and my wife was getting annoyed.
Yes. I find it quite unnerving when I am more amused by a machine than by a human. A kind of Turing Test has been passed with flying colours
We are not alone. This is some tech guy who played with it
Yes, you put all that faith in these EU people. You really did.
To be fair to you, the alternative was Nigel Farage. But still - bloody embarrassing isn't it?
This is a new EU Commission. We Remainers had put our faith in a totally different set of clowns, now all gone.
Although how you have the nerve to talk about amateur hour with Boris in charge... a former journalist who has been fired for making his quotes up and who then hides in fridges from other journalists.
Under Johnson's govt we are in the top ten of deaths per 100,000.
The clown production line has no off-switch. Brussels just churns them out. And you, as a simple pleb, have no way to block that production line.
You can always vote to chuck out our clowns.
And on the deaths per 100,000? Let's see how it looks at the end eh? When the cheating and undercounting gets exposed by the excess death numbers.
Except we DID vote to chuck out the EU clowns. We did exactly what you are claiming we could not do.
And landed ourselves with the biggest clown of all?
Because the EU was months later than the UK at ordering. They only have themselves to blame.
I still cannot comprehend that the EU prioritised price over speed when it came to the vaccine.
They thought being able to negotiate a discount would show the value of the EU. They didn't place an order with Pfizer until November 2020 and were boasting about paying less than the Americans.
The European Union has struck a deal to initially pay less for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate than the United States, an EU official told Reuters as the bloc announced on Wednesday
They struck a bargain to pay cheap and will pay far more than twice in consequence.
A spectacular miscalculation - not just in emphasising price over speed, but also in not subsidising manufacturers to produce locally.
It's hard to imagine how they possible thought that saving a few hundred million on procurement costs was worth an extra quarter of deaths, lockdowns and diminished GDP.
If you want an argument against an unaccountable administrative class, too far from voters, it would be hard to find a better one.
Of course, it's been compounded by appalling errors at the national level. The German insistence on keeping doses back is stupid beyond belief.
Andalucia today paused all Pfizer vaccines to over 80s for 2 weeks to ensure their remianing supply can be used for 2nd doses. They are still giving AZN to fit 30 year olds while denying it to anyone over 55.
They put a boss on it who was a trade negotiator, so focused on transactions not production.
Strikingly bitter, glad only one side is wallowing in history there.
More like an Irish Times version of Quentin Letts, but he got one thing spot on ... "The contemporary royals have no real power. They serve entirely to enshrine classism in the British nonconstitution."
So what was the Guardian going on about when it was complaining about the number of times HM and Charles have influenced laws and debates in Parliament?
I have no idea. Send them an email and let us know what they say
Strikingly bitter, glad only one side is wallowing in history there.
More like an Irish Times version of Quentin Letts, but he got one thing spot on ... "The contemporary royals have no real power. They serve entirely to enshrine classism in the British nonconstitution."
So what was the Guardian going on about when it was complaining about the number of times HM and Charles have influenced laws and debates in Parliament?
I have no idea. Send them an email and let us know what they say
Why is the EU worried what..... the UK media report on UK vaccine exports?? I do not believe they are worried in this way. It's just this mad bloke Dave Keating.
I suspect he is a GPT3 bot requested by Nigel Farage
Yes, you put all that faith in these EU people. You really did.
To be fair to you, the alternative was Nigel Farage. But still - bloody embarrassing isn't it?
This is a new EU Commission. We Remainers had put our faith in a totally different set of clowns, now all gone.
Although how you have the nerve to talk about amateur hour with Boris in charge... a former journalist who has been fired for making his quotes up and who then hides in fridges from other journalists.
Under Johnson's govt we are in the top ten of deaths per 100,000.
As others have said, we will probably wind up between #20 and #30 in the end. Which, given we have about the 25th most elderly population and about the 30th most obese population is roughly where you'd expect.
This guy truly is a gut buster - even when a mistake is made (sorry, the nuance was inartfully explained), it still works out as a masterstroke.
It fails the basic test of whether someone would claim such a position made sense/held up if a political opponent made it. Boris would rightfully be laughed out of the room if he tried that.
It’s a while since I saw it, but as I recall that is absolutely not what the EU contract says. It says that they would merely treat U.K. plants as EU ones for the purposes of export licenses, to avoid border checks and certification.
Has Keating just crossed the line from ridiculously partisan spin to actual dishonesty there?
Keating has been running some fake stories for ages ... starting at the time UVDL was lying about the content of the AZ-EU contract.
I won't comment on whether it is deliberate. He is very good at believing and rebroadcasting bullshit.
But imo he has been big in poisoning the well - a lot of journos follow, and he is a Brussels correspondent for France 24 (the international side).
If only SNP votes and seats count on the Yes side, and Green, ISP, etc, votes and seats are to be ignored, then surely only Conservative votes and seats count on the No side, and Labour and Lib Dem votes and seats must be ignored as well. After all, surely the No side wouldn’t want to be seen resorting to cheating in order to win?
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
This must be what it looks like to Americans when they read a nonsense British article about their politics.
Why is the EU worried what..... the UK media report on UK vaccine exports?? I do not believe they are worried in this way. It's just this mad bloke Dave Keating.
I suspect he is a GPT3 bot requested by Nigel Farage
It seems like a bit of a Wizard of Oz moment for the Commission. They give the illusion of competence when dealing with dull and bureaucratic issues like trade deals, but when it comes to real politics, they are out of their depth.
The allied bombing campaign was really only effective in reducing German industry and capacity to fight in the last 9 months of the war when it became more sophisticated and targeted.
Prior to that it was largely political (showing it could strike back prior to D-Day and demonstrating to the Russians we were doing something) but it had little effect on German war production, which increased all the way to summer 1944. That's because it stuck to city area bombing for far too long, rather than factory, war, industry and oil production targeting. Harris was a nihilist who just wanted to target the population and level cities.
It diverted a fair bit of Nazi manpower and resources, including fighters, into anti-air defence but then the allied air offensive was very costly in resources too.
I thought Speer achieved wonders in German wartime production though the "how" of that question isn't palatable for most of us as it involved copious amounts of expendable slave labour.
What did for the German war production in the end was running out of oil and raw materials and of course the Russians, Americans and British over-running the industrial areas such as Silesia and the Ruhr.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
If you erase or ignore the previous words, that mean they never existed and how dare anyone try to suggest anything other than the final version were ever said or ever relevant?
Never, ever trust a spokesman, whoever they work for.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Offensive garbage, the adverts are for very worthy products.
Why is the EU worried what..... the UK media report on UK vaccine exports?? I do not believe they are worried in this way. It's just this mad bloke Dave Keating.
I suspect he is a GPT3 bot requested by Nigel Farage
It seems like a bit of a Wizard of Oz moment for the Commission. They give the illusion of competence when dealing with dull and bureaucratic issues like trade deals, but when it comes to real politics, they are out of their depth.
The thing is, they are indisputably good at that bureaucratic, handle churning stuff. We’re just seeing them from outside for the first time, as a rival. And they seem a bit feeble. Which is another illusion of course - the real danger is them abusing their power to do something both mad and harmful whilst having a mardy, much like Trump used to.
Why is the EU worried what..... the UK media report on UK vaccine exports?? I do not believe they are worried in this way. It's just this mad bloke Dave Keating.
I suspect he is a GPT3 bot requested by Nigel Farage
It seems like a bit of a Wizard of Oz moment for the Commission. They give the illusion of competence when dealing with dull and bureaucratic issues like trade deals, but when it comes to real politics, they are out of their depth.
Well, quintessentially, yes
TBF to the European Commission, this flaw is written into the system. It's a feature, not a bug. Larger European governments always send the losers, retirees and mediocrities to Brussels, to ensure they are not a threat to any senior national EU politician. The last Commission President with any stature was Jacques Delors, who departed that office in 1995.
As the EU has gained power, and become more menacing to national governments, this process has actively intensified: send the duds to Brussels, so we can outfox or manipulate them
All this was pointed out by Leavers in the referendum of 2016. Now it has been proven in the worst possible way. The incompetence of the twits in Brussels is costing thousands of lives, because this is the way the EU works
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
No, it's fine - but it means that they absolutely cannot celebrate when they have vaccinated their entire populations, until every nation on earth has likewise achieved full vaccination.
On the subject of "who to jab", there is a great Wired article from a few weeks ago that basically said that - in the US - you only need to vaccinate a couple of million people to reduce R below 1, if you identify and get those people protected.
It's really counter-intuitive, because it means jabbing young healthy people, rather than old (potentially sick) ones.
In a country like Spain or Italy (with multigenerational households) it would be a case of getting the same degree of protection from deaths and hospitalisations by jabbing the 22 year old grandson, rather than three 75 year old grandparents.
Of course, it might be a tough sell politically.
Sounds like a variation on the theme of vaccinating the super spreaders. That idea falls down because super spreaders cannot be identified in advance. There is a case to be made that targeting those with lots of interaction would have the biggest approach, quickest, but we have chosen to try to protect the cohort who are most likely to require hospital treatment or sadly will die. I think it is the right approach, and we will be vaccinating the vast majority anyway.
The piece in question - which I will dig out and email to you - avoided that word!
The basic idea, though, was that most of us live in little "cells", and that once CV19 gets into a cell it will tend to rip through it. If you minimise the likelihood that CV19 gets into a cell, then that's more useful in cutting deaths than in working out who in the cell is most likely to die.
Maybe we could have a legitimate democratative vote about it, you know, like what happens in democracies
A vote on stripping titles? Seems a bit needless, titles are just baubles and not democratically assigned in any case - if the family is to be all petty, seems silly but there you go. A vote on the monarchy? Of course we can. Any political party could decide to make that policy, and even when they don't MPs within that party can and do push for such a thing.
Hard to believe now The Irish Times was a Unionist newspaper a hunded years ago.
Hard to believe the UK (Thatcher) invented the EU Single Market less than 40 years ago
I am sure the article about clowns is just an example of their humour. I rememebr going on a holiday to Dublin and surroundings a few years ago, and I thought the locals were quite open and didn't seem to hold a grudge!! I fact, their tourist sites used to involve a lot of history of the famine, troubles, Easter rising etc. They weren't averse to bigging it up for money and profit purposes. In return I was happy to buy their whisky and souvenirs. Live and let live after all.
Why is the EU worried what..... the UK media report on UK vaccine exports?? I do not believe they are worried in this way. It's just this mad bloke Dave Keating.
I suspect he is a GPT3 bot requested by Nigel Farage
It seems like a bit of a Wizard of Oz moment for the Commission. They give the illusion of competence when dealing with dull and bureaucratic issues like trade deals, but when it comes to real politics, they are out of their depth.
Well, quintessentially, yes
TBF to the European Commission, this flaw is written into the system. It's a feature, not a bug. Larger European governments always send the losers, retirees and mediocrities to Brussels, to ensure they are not a threat to any senior national EU politician. The last Commission President with any stature was Jacques Delors, who departed that office in 1995.
As the EU has gained power, and become more menacing to national governments, this process has actively intensified: send the duds to Brussels, so we can outfox or manipulate them
All this was pointed out by Leavers in the referendum of 2016. Now it has been proven in the worst possible way. The incompetence of the twits in Brussels is costing thousands of lives, because this is the way the EU works
Yes. Mrs Merkel thought UvdL was useless, and therefore sent her to Brussels.
If you look at who the UK has sent, I can think of a dozen nobodies (that foreign affairs woman Cathy?, Neil Kinnock and...), and a couple of genuine somebodies, of which Peter Mandelson is the obvious oe.
On the subject of "who to jab", there is a great Wired article from a few weeks ago that basically said that - in the US - you only need to vaccinate a couple of million people to reduce R below 1, if you identify and get those people protected.
It's really counter-intuitive, because it means jabbing young healthy people, rather than old (potentially sick) ones.
In a country like Spain or Italy (with multigenerational households) it would be a case of getting the same degree of protection from deaths and hospitalisations by jabbing the 22 year old grandson, rather than three 75 year old grandparents.
Of course, it might be a tough sell politically.
Sounds like a variation on the theme of vaccinating the super spreaders. That idea falls down because super spreaders cannot be identified in advance. There is a case to be made that targeting those with lots of interaction would have the biggest approach, quickest, but we have chosen to try to protect the cohort who are most likely to require hospital treatment or sadly will die. I think it is the right approach, and we will be vaccinating the vast majority anyway.
The piece in question - which I will dig out and email to you - avoided that word!
The basic idea, though, was that most of us live in little "cells", and that once CV19 gets into a cell it will tend to rip through it. If you minimise the likelihood that CV19 gets into a cell, then that's more useful in cutting deaths than in working out who in the cell is most likely to die.
I thought our experts had modelled this in various scenarios, and vaccinating those most likely to become seriously ill and at risk of dying always proved more effective in avoiding deaths than vaccinating those most likely to be doing the spreading?
Why is the EU worried what..... the UK media report on UK vaccine exports?? I do not believe they are worried in this way. It's just this mad bloke Dave Keating.
I suspect he is a GPT3 bot requested by Nigel Farage
It seems like a bit of a Wizard of Oz moment for the Commission. They give the illusion of competence when dealing with dull and bureaucratic issues like trade deals, but when it comes to real politics, they are out of their depth.
I've worked with the EU professionally. They are very patchy. DG-Markt, for instance, is as good as our own parallel institutions, if too statist for my liking. But some of the other departments are pretty bad, and DG-Agri, which deals with agriculture and regional aid is just terrible. Of course the latter spends most of the EU's budget ...
The one thing they all share, though, is the EU's party line on everything - whatever the problem, more Europe is always the solution.
Hard to believe now The Irish Times was a Unionist newspaper a hunded years ago.
Hard to believe the UK (Thatcher) invented the EU Single Market less than 40 years ago
I am sure the article about clowns is just an example of their humour. I rememebr going on a holiday to Dublin and surroundings a few years ago, and I thought the locals were quite open and didn't seem to hold a grudge!! I fact, their tourist sites used to involve a lot of history of the famine, troubles, Easter rising etc. They weren't averse to bigging it up for money and profit purposes. In return I was happy to buy their whisky and souvenirs. Live and let live after all.
I'm sure most don't hold a grudge and it's similar to our classic badinage with France, only a bit more raw given the history is a bit closer in time, and thus probably still more people about who do hold a grudge.
TBF to the European Commission, this flaw is written into the system. It's a feature, not a bug. Larger European governments always send the losers, retirees and mediocrities to Brussels, to ensure they are not a threat to any senior national EU politician. The last Commission President with any stature was Jacques Delors, who departed that office in 1995.
As the EU has gained power, and become more menacing to national governments, this process has actively intensified: send the duds to Brussels, so we can outfox or manipulate them
All this was pointed out by Leavers in the referendum of 2016. Now it has been proven in the worst possible way. The incompetence of the twits in Brussels is costing thousands of lives, because this is the way the EU works
It's remarkable that perhaps the best argument ever against the EU has come so soon after we left.
I just put in the thread title, and got (inter alia):
It’s the economy, stupid. Or Stupid an economy, maybe. An economist? Eh, let’s not split hairs. But all jokes aside it is now seven weeks until Scots will be voting to decide if or not they want their country to become independent from the United Kingdom. The polls have been all over the place in recent months, and the debate which surrounds them has been nothing short of sensationalist to say the least…
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
On the subject of "who to jab", there is a great Wired article from a few weeks ago that basically said that - in the US - you only need to vaccinate a couple of million people to reduce R below 1, if you identify and get those people protected.
It's really counter-intuitive, because it means jabbing young healthy people, rather than old (potentially sick) ones.
In a country like Spain or Italy (with multigenerational households) it would be a case of getting the same degree of protection from deaths and hospitalisations by jabbing the 22 year old grandson, rather than three 75 year old grandparents.
Of course, it might be a tough sell politically.
Sounds like a variation on the theme of vaccinating the super spreaders. That idea falls down because super spreaders cannot be identified in advance. There is a case to be made that targeting those with lots of interaction would have the biggest approach, quickest, but we have chosen to try to protect the cohort who are most likely to require hospital treatment or sadly will die. I think it is the right approach, and we will be vaccinating the vast majority anyway.
The piece in question - which I will dig out and email to you - avoided that word!
The basic idea, though, was that most of us live in little "cells", and that once CV19 gets into a cell it will tend to rip through it. If you minimise the likelihood that CV19 gets into a cell, then that's more useful in cutting deaths than in working out who in the cell is most likely to die.
I thought our experts had modelled this in various scenarios, and vaccinating those most likely to become seriously ill and at risk of dying always proved more effective in avoiding deaths than vaccinating those most likely to be doing the spreading?
The issue the rest of the world has is there is no central register of every person in the country, their age and what doctor they have.
That gave the NHS one hell of a starting point when working out both who should be vaccinated first and especially how to contact them.
Why is the EU worried what..... the UK media report on UK vaccine exports?? I do not believe they are worried in this way. It's just this mad bloke Dave Keating.
I suspect he is a GPT3 bot requested by Nigel Farage
It seems like a bit of a Wizard of Oz moment for the Commission. They give the illusion of competence when dealing with dull and bureaucratic issues like trade deals, but when it comes to real politics, they are out of their depth.
Well, quintessentially, yes
TBF to the European Commission, this flaw is written into the system. It's a feature, not a bug. Larger European governments always send the losers, retirees and mediocrities to Brussels, to ensure they are not a threat to any senior national EU politician. The last Commission President with any stature was Jacques Delors, who departed that office in 1995.
As the EU has gained power, and become more menacing to national governments, this process has actively intensified: send the duds to Brussels, so we can outfox or manipulate them
All this was pointed out by Leavers in the referendum of 2016. Now it has been proven in the worst possible way. The incompetence of the twits in Brussels is costing thousands of lives, because this is the way the EU works
Yes. Mrs Merkel thought UvdL was useless, and therefore sent her to Brussels.
If you look at who the UK has sent, I can think of a dozen nobodies (that foreign affairs woman Cathy?, Neil Kinnock and...), and a couple of genuine somebodies, of which Peter Mandelson is the obvious oe.
I was about to ask how useless could Merkel have thought she was when she was her longest serving Cabinet Minister, but even decent PMs have proven capable of keeping useless figures in post for long periods.
Why is the EU worried what..... the UK media report on UK vaccine exports?? I do not believe they are worried in this way. It's just this mad bloke Dave Keating.
I suspect he is a GPT3 bot requested by Nigel Farage
It seems like a bit of a Wizard of Oz moment for the Commission. They give the illusion of competence when dealing with dull and bureaucratic issues like trade deals, but when it comes to real politics, they are out of their depth.
Well, quintessentially, yes
TBF to the European Commission, this flaw is written into the system. It's a feature, not a bug. Larger European governments always send the losers, retirees and mediocrities to Brussels, to ensure they are not a threat to any senior national EU politician. The last Commission President with any stature was Jacques Delors, who departed that office in 1995.
As the EU has gained power, and become more menacing to national governments, this process has actively intensified: send the duds to Brussels, so we can outfox or manipulate them
All this was pointed out by Leavers in the referendum of 2016. Now it has been proven in the worst possible way. The incompetence of the twits in Brussels is costing thousands of lives, because this is the way the EU works
Yes. Mrs Merkel thought UvdL was useless, and therefore sent her to Brussels.
If you look at who the UK has sent, I can think of a dozen nobodies (that foreign affairs woman Cathy?, Neil Kinnock and...), and a couple of genuine somebodies, of which Peter Mandelson is the obvious oe.
UvDL is the ultimate proof of this. Known for her ineptitude as a German defence minister, now raising the bar of gross ineptitude to new heights, by inadvertently slaughtering Europeans.
The EU needs a total shake up after Covid. The problem is, because this is the EU, it almost certainly won't happen. Apathy and self interest will prevail. UvDL will probably get a second term, or whatever it is the elite gives to the elite in Brussels, with no voter involvement.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
But we have had 4 Comical Dave tweets on this thread...
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
The allied bombing campaign was really only effective in reducing German industry and capacity to fight in the last 9 months of the war when it became more sophisticated and targeted.
Prior to that it was largely political (showing it could strike back prior to D-Day and demonstrating to the Russians we were doing something) but it had little effect on German war production, which increased all the way to summer 1944. That's because it stuck to city area bombing for far too long, rather than factory, war, industry and oil production targeting. Harris was a nihilist who just wanted to target the population and level cities.
It diverted a fair bit of Nazi manpower and resources, including fighters, into anti-air defence but then the allied air offensive was very costly in resources too.
I thought Speer achieved wonders in German wartime production though the "how" of that question isn't palatable for most of us as it involved copious amounts of expendable slave labour.
What did for the German war production in the end was running out of oil and raw materials and of course the Russians, Americans and British over-running the industrial areas such as Silesia and the Ruhr.
Well. That and slave Labour not being the highest guarantor of quality and reliability.
TBF to the European Commission, this flaw is written into the system. It's a feature, not a bug. Larger European governments always send the losers, retirees and mediocrities to Brussels, to ensure they are not a threat to any senior national EU politician. The last Commission President with any stature was Jacques Delors, who departed that office in 1995.
As the EU has gained power, and become more menacing to national governments, this process has actively intensified: send the duds to Brussels, so we can outfox or manipulate them
All this was pointed out by Leavers in the referendum of 2016. Now it has been proven in the worst possible way. The incompetence of the twits in Brussels is costing thousands of lives, because this is the way the EU works
It's remarkable that perhaps the best argument ever against the EU has come so soon after we left.
I think the euro is an even better argument, though it did not affect us directly.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
If only SNP votes and seats count on the Yes side, and Green, ISP, etc, votes and seats are to be ignored, then surely only Conservative votes and seats count on the No side, and Labour and Lib Dem votes and seats must be ignored as well. After all, surely the No side wouldn’t want to be seen resorting to cheating in order to win?
No, the SNP's argument for an indyref2 is Brexit was a material change in circumstances.
There is already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood so if the SNP fail to gain an outright majority it would confirm that 2014 was a once in a generation vote since which there has been no material change
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
My wife is trying to watch the Bake Off charity special, and would sympathise with your wife, if she knew she existed.
Why is the EU worried what..... the UK media report on UK vaccine exports?? I do not believe they are worried in this way. It's just this mad bloke Dave Keating.
I suspect he is a GPT3 bot requested by Nigel Farage
It seems like a bit of a Wizard of Oz moment for the Commission. They give the illusion of competence when dealing with dull and bureaucratic issues like trade deals, but when it comes to real politics, they are out of their depth.
I've worked with the EU professionally. They are very patchy. DG-Markt, for instance, is as good as our own parallel institutions, if too statist for my liking. But some of the other departments are pretty bad, and DG-Agri, which deals with agriculture and regional aid is just terrible. Of course the latter spends most of the EU's budget ...
The one thing they all share, though, is the EU's party line on everything - whatever the problem, more Europe is always the solution.
I think the latter point is one of the reasons they are losing it over the current situation. It's made worse by having to operate in English.
RE: NIreland border. It seems to me (and happy to be totally shot down) that ultimately the problem here is that because it is an internal UK border, and most, if not all of the trade passing through it is internal UK trade, there are no direct consequences to the EU on insisting that checks are followed to the letter of the agreement, and they will not entertain any attempts by the UK to apply flexibility. The result is that the checks, even under the "grace period" that the UK are unilaterally extending, are arguably harsher and more extensive than the EU even apply at their own external borders. Because they have a specific interest on doing the minimum to hinder trade at the EU border. So some of the claims about their concerns about the integrity of the Single Market are, er, dubious.
Now they have the right to make the case that this is the UK problem, and that is what they signed up to, but it totally gives the lie to their claims that they really care about the sensitivities of the Northern Ireland Peace Process. Because we know that frankly, the Northern Ireland peace process depends on far more than simply a loose or non-existent border on the island of Ireland. The border with Great britain is now equally problematic and arguably now the greater threat. And it needs flexibility to avoid degenerating into a serious issue viz peace in Ireland.
Even if GPT3 isn't as good as the best human writers, a lot of people looking to save money will use it anyway. A bit like the way TV intros today are often not as good as they were in the 1990s, because producers don't pay experts to make them anymore when anyone can rustle a reasonably good one up on a computer. Tom Scott did a video about this recently. The most impressive intro for a particular show was in 1996.
One of the things I notice these days is that theme tunes are crap. I know it's a very standard 'old man' thing to say that things were better in the past, but I felt slightly borne out by this when I did a 'TV theme tune' round in a recent Zoom quiz. I deliberately put current TV shows in as there is a variety of ages represented. But the huge 'Line of Duty' fan didn't even recognise the them tune. Contrast that with the 90's - theme tunes then had a vivid, anthemic quality. Perhaps that's the same thing - programme makers those days were going to amazing composers like Carl Davies. These days it's just some plinky plonk keyboard noises.
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
Oh, I think that long piece about the plans for the Queen's funeral, though including a number of unnecessary diversions reflecting on the apparent decline of the country, has it right that people are in general in denial about the next steps for the monarchy.
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
Oh, I think that long piece about the plans for the Queen's funeral, though including a number of unnecessary diversions reflecting on the apparent decline of the country, has it right that people are in general in denial about the next steps for the monarchy.
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
There is no transition. The Queen is dead. Long live the King. By the time people have got round to "thinking about it" it's already happened. And inertia on these things is incredibly powerful.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
So it just regurgitated a pastiche of what is put in. No wonder CR and Leon love reading back their own witticisms so much.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
"motivated (but nervous)"
I like that. It feels random yet at the same time a phrase that's precise and evocative and might be very hard to dream up on your own.
Quite an impressive tool. I'm now thinking it could write a novel after all. Perhaps one of great power and originality.
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
Oh, I think that long piece about the plans for the Queen's funeral, though including a number of unnecessary diversions reflecting on the apparent decline of the country, has it right that people are in general in denial about the next steps for the monarchy.
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
There is no transition. The Queen is dead. Long live the King. By the time people have got round to "thinking about it" it's already happened. And inertia on these things is incredibly powerful.
He’ll be on the stamps and banknotes and coins within weeks, new postboxes, new police emblems. It’ll be everywhere.
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
Oh, I think that long piece about the plans for the Queen's funeral, though including a number of unnecessary diversions reflecting on the apparent decline of the country, has it right that people are in general in denial about the next steps for the monarchy.
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
Charles is 72 and most popular among over 50s.
He may be less popular amongst under 30s for example but by the time most of them reach middle age Charles will be dead and Wiliam will be King anyway
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
Oh, I think that long piece about the plans for the Queen's funeral, though including a number of unnecessary diversions reflecting on the apparent decline of the country, has it right that people are in general in denial about the next steps for the monarchy.
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
There is no transition. The Queen is dead. Long live the King. By the time people have got round to "thinking about it" it's already happened.
The point was not about it stopping Charles becoming king, but that transition to a new era, in this case another edit Charles one (people like to joke it is bad luck, but not so of course), inevitably means people will reflect on the change that just occurred, and ponder its future. I don't believe, in the UK, there will be a marked increase in reformist support. But as a risk factor it is obviously higher at that point that, say, now.
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
Oh, I think that long piece about the plans for the Queen's funeral, though including a number of unnecessary diversions reflecting on the apparent decline of the country, has it right that people are in general in denial about the next steps for the monarchy.
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
Charles is 72 and most popular among over 50s.
He may be less popular amongst under 30s for example but by the time most of them reach middle age Charles will be dead and Wiliam will be King anyway
Yes, another reason the risk I do not think think would be particularly high. But it would obviously be higher.
If only SNP votes and seats count on the Yes side, and Green, ISP, etc, votes and seats are to be ignored, then surely only Conservative votes and seats count on the No side, and Labour and Lib Dem votes and seats must be ignored as well. After all, surely the No side wouldn’t want to be seen resorting to cheating in order to win?
No, the SNP's argument for an indyref2 is Brexit was a material change in circumstances.
There is already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood so if the SNP fail to gain an outright majority it would confirm that 2014 was a once in a generation vote since which there has been no material change
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
Here's the problem: I type my "product descriptions" into the tool in a balanced, rounded and genuinely curious way, whereas you write yours in exactly like you are - which is why they're not funny.
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
Oh, I think that long piece about the plans for the Queen's funeral, though including a number of unnecessary diversions reflecting on the apparent decline of the country, has it right that people are in general in denial about the next steps for the monarchy.
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
There is no transition. The Queen is dead. Long live the King. By the time people have got round to "thinking about it" it's already happened. And inertia on these things is incredibly powerful.
He’ll be on the stamps and banknotes and coins within weeks, new postboxes, new police emblems. It’ll be everywhere.
Of course, having written that, there is the counter argument of Edward VIII - but i don't think the two are really remotely comparable.
Why is the EU worried what..... the UK media report on UK vaccine exports?? I do not believe they are worried in this way. It's just this mad bloke Dave Keating.
I suspect he is a GPT3 bot requested by Nigel Farage
It seems like a bit of a Wizard of Oz moment for the Commission. They give the illusion of competence when dealing with dull and bureaucratic issues like trade deals, but when it comes to real politics, they are out of their depth.
Well, quintessentially, yes
TBF to the European Commission, this flaw is written into the system. It's a feature, not a bug. Larger European governments always send the losers, retirees and mediocrities to Brussels, to ensure they are not a threat to any senior national EU politician. The last Commission President with any stature was Jacques Delors, who departed that office in 1995.
As the EU has gained power, and become more menacing to national governments, this process has actively intensified: send the duds to Brussels, so we can outfox or manipulate them
All this was pointed out by Leavers in the referendum of 2016. Now it has been proven in the worst possible way. The incompetence of the twits in Brussels is costing thousands of lives, because this is the way the EU works
Yes. Mrs Merkel thought UvdL was useless, and therefore sent her to Brussels.
If you look at who the UK has sent, I can think of a dozen nobodies (that foreign affairs woman Cathy?, Neil Kinnock and...), and a couple of genuine somebodies, of which Peter Mandelson is the obvious oe.
UvDL is the ultimate proof of this. Known for her ineptitude as a German defence minister, now raising the bar of gross ineptitude to new heights, by inadvertently slaughtering Europeans.
The EU needs a total shake up after Covid. The problem is, because this is the EU, it almost certainly won't happen. Apathy and self interest will prevail. UvDL will probably get a second term, or whatever it is the elite gives to the elite in Brussels, with no voter involvement.
It's far from impossible that the EU Parliament grows a pair. There are plenty of MEPs who will be absolutely furious at the incompetence of the Commission, and might also see an opportunity to get onto the front pages.
Plus, it's an area where (a) politicians will be anxious to deflect away from (numerous) national failures, and (b) something where populists might be willing to go along with a kicking.
I'd rate the odds of the EU Parliament kicking the Commission out at maybe one-in-three - which is both far too low, but also a testament to how serious this has become.
Yes. Mrs Merkel thought UvdL was useless, and therefore sent her to Brussels.
If you look at who the UK has sent, I can think of a dozen nobodies (that foreign affairs woman Cathy?, Neil Kinnock and...), and a couple of genuine somebodies, of which Peter Mandelson is the obvious one.
For political balance, let's add Leon Brittan, Christopher Soames and Christopher Tugendhat.
If you want a trading bloc, fine, just have a loose co-ordinating centre to make sure it all runs smoothly and leave the real power with national Governments.
If you want political union, you have to be serious about it and that is the EU's issue. Monetary union is a step, a big step but it's no more than has happened in any nation state. All the Eurozone was, in effect, another nation state within Europe, one with no people or frontiers but the trappings of a separate state.
The credible approach to political union would have been to set up the institutions of a nation state AND provided them with the money and the authority. In short, set a timetable - by 2010 or 2020, you won't be French, Italian or Polish any longer, you'll be Europeans. You'll have a European parliament and your local bodies and your national parliaments can be abolished. Keep your monarchies if they matter so much but the new elected President of Europe will be the head of state - Europe will be one body to the outside world and so on.
Quite apart from it being completely unpalatable to the British, Irish and Danes, it would have been unpalatable to the French, Germans, Italians and Spanish too.
As a result, the EU is stuck in a horrific half-way house - a State but not a State, powerful but ultimately powerless. The notion the people of nation states will voluntarily abdicate their status to become part of a greater whole has been disproved - the rethink that @Leon mentions is part of that recognition.
That's not to say there's no argument for regional approaches to issues like climate change or law enforcement but it is a "Europe des patries" at the end of the day. Walking away from the notion of political union but embracing closer relationships isn't contradictory by any stretch. Given the last thousand years of history it's considerable progress.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
So it just regurgitated a pastiche of what is put in. No wonder CR and Leon love reading back their own witticisms so much.
It’s doing more than that, pulling stuff from the internet that occasionally hits a target but more often than not is bafflingly irrelevant. And it produces some great non sequiturs.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
So it just regurgitated a pastiche of what is put in. No wonder CR and Leon love reading back their own witticisms so much.
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
Oh, I think that long piece about the plans for the Queen's funeral, though including a number of unnecessary diversions reflecting on the apparent decline of the country, has it right that people are in general in denial about the next steps for the monarchy.
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
There is no transition. The Queen is dead. Long live the King. By the time people have got round to "thinking about it" it's already happened. And inertia on these things is incredibly powerful.
He’ll be on the stamps and banknotes and coins within weeks, new postboxes, new police emblems. It’ll be everywhere.
Blimey! I just read this post and had to check the BBC news site quickly.
On the subject of "who to jab", there is a great Wired article from a few weeks ago that basically said that - in the US - you only need to vaccinate a couple of million people to reduce R below 1, if you identify and get those people protected.
It's really counter-intuitive, because it means jabbing young healthy people, rather than old (potentially sick) ones.
In a country like Spain or Italy (with multigenerational households) it would be a case of getting the same degree of protection from deaths and hospitalisations by jabbing the 22 year old grandson, rather than three 75 year old grandparents.
Of course, it might be a tough sell politically.
Sounds like a variation on the theme of vaccinating the super spreaders. That idea falls down because super spreaders cannot be identified in advance. There is a case to be made that targeting those with lots of interaction would have the biggest approach, quickest, but we have chosen to try to protect the cohort who are most likely to require hospital treatment or sadly will die. I think it is the right approach, and we will be vaccinating the vast majority anyway.
The piece in question - which I will dig out and email to you - avoided that word!
The basic idea, though, was that most of us live in little "cells", and that once CV19 gets into a cell it will tend to rip through it. If you minimise the likelihood that CV19 gets into a cell, then that's more useful in cutting deaths than in working out who in the cell is most likely to die.
I thought our experts had modelled this in various scenarios, and vaccinating those most likely to become seriously ill and at risk of dying always proved more effective in avoiding deaths than vaccinating those most likely to be doing the spreading?
That's because the models all assumed that vaccinated people were still likely to spread the disease. Don't forget that the Imperial model in its "best case" scenario only had the infectiousness of the vaccinated down by 60%. Now we've done plenty of PCR tests on vaccinated people, that looks laughably low. It's quite possible the infectiousness is down 98%.
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
Oh, I think that long piece about the plans for the Queen's funeral, though including a number of unnecessary diversions reflecting on the apparent decline of the country, has it right that people are in general in denial about the next steps for the monarchy.
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
There is no transition. The Queen is dead. Long live the King. By the time people have got round to "thinking about it" it's already happened.
The point was not about it stopping Charles becoming king, but that transition to a new era, in this case another edit Charles one (people like to joke it is bad luck, but not so of course), inevitably means people will reflect on the change that just occurred, and ponder its future. I don't believe, in the UK, there will be a marked increase in reformist support. But as a risk factor it is obviously higher at that point that, say, now.
Popularity really doesn't come into it. Britain has had a wide range of deeply unpopular and unsuitable monarchs, even in the heyday of our Imperial power.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
Here's the problem: I type my "product descriptions" into the tool in a balanced, rounded and genuinely curious way, whereas you write yours in exactly like you are - which is why they're not funny.
How the AI comes up with its links is a mystery; they seem more often wrong than right, but I’m not giving it the prompts.
An elderly couple, friends of my mum, both sadly died within a week of each other in February and were buried today. The lady died in hospital with pneumonia and suspected Covid, her husband for whom she was the carer died at home a week later (despite others stepping to provide care).
My mum found out today that they have both been recorded as having died of Covid because according to a family member 'the alternative would be for them to require post mortems and no one wanted that'.
IANAE, so I don't know whether it's true that putting Covid on the death certificate avoids a post mortem but if it does, and if this anecdote is not unique, I can see why the reported Covid deaths might be higher than actual.
I posted this suspicion on here six months or more ago. @Foxy doubted it is true and I deferred to his knowledge on this. But I`ve heard it from multiple sources since. Could very well be a conspiracy theory. Dunno.
Basically, the claim is that Covid on a death certificate = no post mortem. (Rationale being that, back in the spring, measures needed to be taken to reduce bureaucracy within the initial chaos.) If this is true (I don`t know if it is) then it`s very likely IMO that Covid deaths have been inflated.
Excess deaths may not prove a more reliable guide due to many others issues creating noise including differentials in other causes of deaths between countries in a particular year.
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
Oh, I think that long piece about the plans for the Queen's funeral, though including a number of unnecessary diversions reflecting on the apparent decline of the country, has it right that people are in general in denial about the next steps for the monarchy.
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
There is no transition. The Queen is dead. Long live the King. By the time people have got round to "thinking about it" it's already happened. And inertia on these things is incredibly powerful.
He’ll be on the stamps and banknotes and coins within weeks, new postboxes, new police emblems. It’ll be everywhere.
Blimey! I just read this post and had to check the BBC news site quickly.
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
Oh, I think that long piece about the plans for the Queen's funeral, though including a number of unnecessary diversions reflecting on the apparent decline of the country, has it right that people are in general in denial about the next steps for the monarchy.
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
Charles is 72 and most popular among over 50s.
He may be less popular amongst under 30s for example but by the time most of them reach middle age Charles will be dead and Wiliam will be King anyway
Both his parents are still going. He could very easily, in fact probably will, still be on the throne in 2045.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
So it just regurgitated a pastiche of what is put in. No wonder CR and Leon love reading back their own witticisms so much.
Why is the EU worried what..... the UK media report on UK vaccine exports?? I do not believe they are worried in this way. It's just this mad bloke Dave Keating.
I suspect he is a GPT3 bot requested by Nigel Farage
It seems like a bit of a Wizard of Oz moment for the Commission. They give the illusion of competence when dealing with dull and bureaucratic issues like trade deals, but when it comes to real politics, they are out of their depth.
Well, quintessentially, yes
TBF to the European Commission, this flaw is written into the system. It's a feature, not a bug. Larger European governments always send the losers, retirees and mediocrities to Brussels, to ensure they are not a threat to any senior national EU politician. The last Commission President with any stature was Jacques Delors, who departed that office in 1995.
As the EU has gained power, and become more menacing to national governments, this process has actively intensified: send the duds to Brussels, so we can outfox or manipulate them
All this was pointed out by Leavers in the referendum of 2016. Now it has been proven in the worst possible way. The incompetence of the twits in Brussels is costing thousands of lives, because this is the way the EU works
Yes. Mrs Merkel thought UvdL was useless, and therefore sent her to Brussels.
If you look at who the UK has sent, I can think of a dozen nobodies (that foreign affairs woman Cathy?, Neil Kinnock and...), and a couple of genuine somebodies, of which Peter Mandelson is the obvious oe.
UvDL is the ultimate proof of this. Known for her ineptitude as a German defence minister, now raising the bar of gross ineptitude to new heights, by inadvertently slaughtering Europeans.
The EU needs a total shake up after Covid. The problem is, because this is the EU, it almost certainly won't happen. Apathy and self interest will prevail. UvDL will probably get a second term, or whatever it is the elite gives to the elite in Brussels, with no voter involvement.
It's far from impossible that the EU Parliament grows a pair. There are plenty of MEPs who will be absolutely furious at the incompetence of the Commission, and might also see an opportunity to get onto the front pages.
Plus, it's an area where (a) politicians will be anxious to deflect away from (numerous) national failures, and (b) something where populists might be willing to go along with a kicking.
I'd rate the odds of the EU Parliament kicking the Commission out at maybe one-in-three - which is both far too low, but also a testament to how serious this has become.
The EU Parliament do have a vested interest in kicking VdL out. They thought they had gained the upper hand in 2015 when they had convinced the European leaders (other than Cameron) that it was right and proper that the Commission President should be the candidate of the largest EU Parliamentary party. If they can portray VdL as a failure of the rejection of that precedent in 2019, then they may gain significant power as a result.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
Here's the problem: I type my "product descriptions" into the tool in a balanced, rounded and genuinely curious way, whereas you write yours in exactly like you are - which is why they're not funny.
How the AI comes up with its links is a mystery; they seem more often wrong than right, but I’m not giving it the prompts.
How do these things work? If you have to enter text for it to generate something it’d be interesting to see the input and output.
Comments
We are not alone. This is some tech guy who played with it
https://twitter.com/jonty/status/1363958644740677634?s=20
https://twitter.com/jonty/status/1363963812903346183?s=20
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/how-archaic-process-of-queens-consent-is-still-used-on-modern-laws
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-power-british-law-queens-consent
I suspect he is a GPT3 bot requested by Nigel Farage
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1369404387349643266?s=20
It fails the basic test of whether someone would claim such a position made sense/held up if a political opponent made it. Boris would rightfully be laughed out of the room if he tried that.
I won't comment on whether it is deliberate. He is very good at believing and rebroadcasting bullshit.
But imo he has been big in poisoning the well - a lot of journos follow, and he is a Brussels correspondent for France 24 (the international side).
I'm crying.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
I've requested proper access from Open.AI, but I fear I am one of millions. It is such a tantalising prospect....
https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1369403570802601998?s=20
What did for the German war production in the end was running out of oil and raw materials and of course the Russians, Americans and British over-running the industrial areas such as Silesia and the Ruhr.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Never, ever trust a spokesman, whoever they work for. Offensive garbage, the adverts are for very worthy products.
Utter hypocritical horseshit
Australia says hi
TBF to the European Commission, this flaw is written into the system. It's a feature, not a bug. Larger European governments always send the losers, retirees and mediocrities to Brussels, to ensure they are not a threat to any senior national EU politician. The last Commission President with any stature was Jacques Delors, who departed that office in 1995.
As the EU has gained power, and become more menacing to national governments, this process has actively intensified: send the duds to Brussels, so we can outfox or manipulate them
All this was pointed out by Leavers in the referendum of 2016. Now it has been proven in the worst possible way. The incompetence of the twits in Brussels is costing thousands of lives, because this is the way the EU works
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
The basic idea, though, was that most of us live in little "cells", and that once CV19 gets into a cell it will tend to rip through it. If you minimise the likelihood that CV19 gets into a cell, then that's more useful in cutting deaths than in working out who in the cell is most likely to die.
Thought I got it from you. You have to log on via your Facebook account:
https://www.copy.ai/app
If you look at who the UK has sent, I can think of a dozen nobodies (that foreign affairs woman Cathy?, Neil Kinnock and...), and a couple of genuine somebodies, of which Peter Mandelson is the obvious oe.
The one thing they all share, though, is the EU's party line on everything - whatever the problem, more Europe is always the solution.
It’s the economy, stupid. Or Stupid an economy, maybe. An economist? Eh, let’s not split hairs. But all jokes aside it is now seven weeks until Scots will be voting to decide if or not they want their country to become independent from the United Kingdom. The polls have been all over the place in recent months, and the debate which surrounds them has been nothing short of sensationalist to say the least…
Yep, I'm convinced.
I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
That gave the NHS one hell of a starting point when working out both who should be vaccinated first and especially how to contact them.
The EU needs a total shake up after Covid. The problem is, because this is the EU, it almost certainly won't happen. Apathy and self interest will prevail. UvDL will probably get a second term, or whatever it is the elite gives to the elite in Brussels, with no voter involvement.
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
Need a Dave Keatings level of spin I think
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
There is already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood so if the SNP fail to gain an outright majority it would confirm that 2014 was a once in a generation vote since which there has been no material change
Now they have the right to make the case that this is the UK problem, and that is what they signed up to, but it totally gives the lie to their claims that they really care about the sensitivities of the Northern Ireland Peace Process. Because we know that frankly, the Northern Ireland peace process depends on far more than simply a loose or non-existent border on the island of Ireland. The border with Great britain is now equally problematic and arguably now the greater threat. And it needs flexibility to avoid degenerating into a serious issue viz peace in Ireland.
One of the things I notice these days is that theme tunes are crap. I know it's a very standard 'old man' thing to say that things were better in the past, but I felt slightly borne out by this when I did a 'TV theme tune' round in a recent Zoom quiz. I deliberately put current TV shows in as there is a variety of ages represented. But the huge 'Line of Duty' fan didn't even recognise the them tune. Contrast that with the 90's - theme tunes then had a vivid, anthemic quality. Perhaps that's the same thing - programme makers those days were going to amazing composers like Carl Davies. These days it's just some plinky plonk keyboard noises.
Faves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI-gsQf_F-I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAvqX_uBq04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWxPSnGoPG8
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/6795649/rangers-douglas-park-sturgeon-leadership-dereliction-fans/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge
Of course, David Herdson suggested the plan might involve regency, to prepare us for his reign Tokugawa Ieyasu style.
https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/04/21/the-palace-is-laying-the-groundwork-for-a-regency/
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
/Luddite
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
I like that. It feels random yet at the same time a phrase that's precise and evocative and might be very hard to dream up on your own.
Quite an impressive tool. I'm now thinking it could write a novel after all. Perhaps one of great power and originality.
He may be less popular amongst under 30s for example but by the time most of them reach middle age Charles will be dead and Wiliam will be King anyway
People always said I had my head in the clouds; now it doesn’t even have to be attached for me to give you an opinion.
"The First Minister, Permanent Secretary and Senior QC held meetings and they didn't keep any records...
Not even Dave would make that up!
Plus, it's an area where (a) politicians will be anxious to deflect away from (numerous) national failures, and (b) something where populists might be willing to go along with a kicking.
I'd rate the odds of the EU Parliament kicking the Commission out at maybe one-in-three - which is both far too low, but also a testament to how serious this has become.
If you want a trading bloc, fine, just have a loose co-ordinating centre to make sure it all runs smoothly and leave the real power with national Governments.
If you want political union, you have to be serious about it and that is the EU's issue. Monetary union is a step, a big step but it's no more than has happened in any nation state. All the Eurozone was, in effect, another nation state within Europe, one with no people or frontiers but the trappings of a separate state.
The credible approach to political union would have been to set up the institutions of a nation state AND provided them with the money and the authority. In short, set a timetable - by 2010 or 2020, you won't be French, Italian or Polish any longer, you'll be Europeans. You'll have a European parliament and your local bodies and your national parliaments can be abolished. Keep your monarchies if they matter so much but the new elected President of Europe will be the head of state - Europe will be one body to the outside world and so on.
Quite apart from it being completely unpalatable to the British, Irish and Danes, it would have been unpalatable to the French, Germans, Italians and Spanish too.
As a result, the EU is stuck in a horrific half-way house - a State but not a State, powerful but ultimately powerless. The notion the people of nation states will voluntarily abdicate their status to become part of a greater whole has been disproved - the rethink that @Leon mentions is part of that recognition.
That's not to say there's no argument for regional approaches to issues like climate change or law enforcement but it is a "Europe des patries" at the end of the day. Walking away from the notion of political union but embracing closer relationships isn't contradictory by any stretch. Given the last thousand years of history it's considerable progress.
Mood hoover might feature in the description.
False alarm.
Continuity is everything to the monarchy.
Basically, the claim is that Covid on a death certificate = no post mortem. (Rationale being that, back in the spring, measures needed to be taken to reduce bureaucracy within the initial chaos.) If this is true (I don`t know if it is) then it`s very likely IMO that Covid deaths have been inflated.
Excess deaths may not prove a more reliable guide due to many others issues creating noise including differentials in other causes of deaths between countries in a particular year.
Sleep well all.