On topic there was such an easy option for Boris Johnson that would have enhanced our reputation around the world and saved lives and yet he chose this.
How long after this first dose can I expect some immunity to kick in? T'internet is not clear. Some say it slowly rises from day 1 - and keeps rising for months.
Others say there is no evidence for any immunity until about 22 days in... or at least that's how it reads - but then it is quite high
On topic there was such an easy option for Boris Johnson that would have enhanced our reputation around the world and saved lives and yet he chose this.
Yes, also demonstrates my point that had we still been part of the EU we would most likely not have been part of the EU scheme, we would have done our own thing.
Sorry Brexiteers, but your only claim to good news about Brexit is, like everything else you have claimed, a crock of shit.
I think Brexiteers are making a broader point, that doing your own thing is better than being part of the collective, where the EU represents the collective way of doing things. I think that point is reasonable. If the EU isn't for the collective way of doing things, then what is it for? Whether the issue is the way the EU has gone about it and collectives are in principle OK, or that collectives are never a good idea isn't explored.
My personal view is that UK's vaccine success, which is a genuine one, is essentially a prisoner's dilemma, given the extent to which the UK programme depends on EU supplied vaccines. From its own PoV, the EU slipped up by not maximally securing its own supply. The success of the UK programme depended on the EU making that mistake. The context to Charles Michel's comments this week was his trying to justify the export of vaccines as international solidarity, rather than EU incompetence. No-one believed him.
The UK programme does not depend on EU supplied vaccines.
8 million vaccines supplied from the EU against 11 million innoculations delivered in February (NYTimes and OurWorldinData respectively).
Eventually there would be enough vaccines to do everyone in the UK as will happen in all developed countries as it is. But the claimed success for the UK programme is that it is doing it quicker than other countries, not that it is doing it at all. That success depended on the EU not securing vaccines for itself that it could have done.
Rejoice, we have the Sky cricket commentators for the T20s/ODIs rather than the fair & balanced BCCI approved commentators we had for the test series.
I imagine the Indian commentators are hardly even mentioning 2 wickets have gone down and that the current batsman are excellent against Rashid and Archer.
Rejoice, we have the Sky cricket commentators for the T20s/ODIs rather than the fair & balanced BCCI approved commentators we had for the test series.
I imagine the Indian commentators are hardly even mentioning 2 wickets have gone down and that the current batsman are excellent against Rashid and Archer.
They've hired Dave Keating to add some objective viewpoints.
A US professor at Georgetown University has been fired for expressing sadness and frustration that black students don't do as well as they should at the college. She actually said she feels "angst" at the situation.
Yet still got fired. Just for mentioning this inequality. Take that in, and what it implies for the future.
Yes, also demonstrates my point that had we still been part of the EU we would most likely not have been part of the EU scheme, we would have done our own thing.
Sorry Brexiteers, but your only claim to good news about Brexit is, like everything else you have claimed, a crock of shit.
Except yet again that is utter rubbish from you. If we had still been in the EU then we would have gone along with the EU scheme exactly as every other country did because the pressure not to do otherwise would have been immense and we would have been governed by those who still thought the EU was, on the whole, competent. Even outside we were subject to endless attacks from moronic Europhiles criticising the UK for not joining various joint EU schemes all of which turned out to be utterly worthless.
And so if we had remained in it is an absolute certainty that more people would have died than has otherwise been the case and that, although we may well have cut lose at some point, we would not have had the benefit of early adoption and early vaccine buying that has saved 1000s of extra lives.
You Eurofanatics are simply unable to accept that anything good could ever possibly come from Brexit. It has turned you completely mad.
Disappointed that you have so little faith in our political leaders that you don't trust them to do the right thing.
What gets me about the Brexiters is how scared they are of the EU and how much they believe (wrongly) that it bullied poor little Britain.
re: "curfews" - not sure if the point has been made, but one other strange (to me) thing about the discussion is that is seems to be focussing on how safe women "feel" when alone on the streets at night, not how safe they actually are. A woman has, we believe, been murdered. Did she "feel" safe on her own? I'm not sure we know (although i haven't read the press in detail so maybe this has been stated). What is true is that she was on her own, whether she felt safe or not. And if she didn't feel safe, she didn't at least feel so unsafe that she didn't take an alternative route home. And tragically, in this case, she wasn't safe, whether she felt safe or not.
Unless a curfew, or men otherwise changing their behaviour, is going to actually lead to women being safe, as opposed to feeling safe, then i'm not sure where the discussion is going.
How long after this first dose can I expect some immunity to kick in? T'internet is not clear. Some say it slowly rises from day 1 - and keeps rising for months.
Others say there is no evidence for any immunity until about 22 days in... or at least that's how it reads - but then it is quite high
Great news. See? It's not all bad - the future looks bright, if not perhaps orange. Or perhaps orange from atop Primrose Hill looking out over the (by then) teeming, thriving city.
I fail to see the outrage, unless you're an actual heifer.
I mean what adjectives do you use for someone who managed to lose a council seat to the Tories and then a parliamentary seat to the Tories that the Tories have never held before in a little over two years?
If only we had @ydoethur around. There's an Eric Heifer pun dying to be made.
I assume his absence is due to the return to school rather than anything else I have missed?
A US professor at Georgetown University has been fired for expressing sadness and frustration that black students don't do as well as they should at the college. She actually said she feels "angst" at the situation.
Yet still got fired. Just for mentioning this inequality. Take that in, and what it implies for the future.
By the same logic, someone in the police or politics saying they feel bad at black people being poorer should also be fired.
Well its only a few months since this... Academic teaching a course about doing business in China explains a common filler word you will hear there and it isn't what you think it is...
A US professor at Georgetown University has been fired for expressing sadness and frustration that black students don't do as well as they should at the college. She actually said she feels "angst" at the situation.
Yet still got fired. Just for mentioning this inequality. Take that in, and what it implies for the future.
On topic there was such an easy option for Boris Johnson that would have enhanced our reputation around the world and saved lives and yet he chose this.
You still haven't worked out why Cameron's best election result was a majority of 10, have you?
Yes, also demonstrates my point that had we still been part of the EU we would most likely not have been part of the EU scheme, we would have done our own thing.
Sorry Brexiteers, but your only claim to good news about Brexit is, like everything else you have claimed, a crock of shit.
Except yet again that is utter rubbish from you. If we had still been in the EU then we would have gone along with the EU scheme exactly as every other country did because the pressure not to do otherwise would have been immense and we would have been governed by those who still thought the EU was, on the whole, competent. Even outside we were subject to endless attacks from moronic Europhiles criticising the UK for not joining various joint EU schemes all of which turned out to be utterly worthless.
And so if we had remained in it is an absolute certainty that more people would have died than has otherwise been the case and that, although we may well have cut lose at some point, we would not have had the benefit of early adoption and early vaccine buying that has saved 1000s of extra lives.
You Eurofanatics are simply unable to accept that anything good could ever possibly come from Brexit. It has turned you completely mad.
Disappointed that you have so little faith in our political leaders that you don't trust them to do the right thing.
What gets me about the Brexiters is how scared they are of the EU and how much they believe (wrongly) that it bullied poor little Britain.
Have some confidence in your own nation, man.
I'm not scared of the EU - I am however hugely thankful that we left.
Yes, also demonstrates my point that had we still been part of the EU we would most likely not have been part of the EU scheme, we would have done our own thing.
Sorry Brexiteers, but your only claim to good news about Brexit is, like everything else you have claimed, a crock of shit.
Except yet again that is utter rubbish from you. If we had still been in the EU then we would have gone along with the EU scheme exactly as every other country did because the pressure not to do otherwise would have been immense and we would have been governed by those who still thought the EU was, on the whole, competent. Even outside we were subject to endless attacks from moronic Europhiles criticising the UK for not joining various joint EU schemes all of which turned out to be utterly worthless.
And so if we had remained in it is an absolute certainty that more people would have died than has otherwise been the case and that, although we may well have cut lose at some point, we would not have had the benefit of early adoption and early vaccine buying that has saved 1000s of extra lives.
You Eurofanatics are simply unable to accept that anything good could ever possibly come from Brexit. It has turned you completely mad.
Disappointed that you have so little faith in our political leaders that you don't trust them to do the right thing.
What gets me about the Brexiters is how scared they are of the EU and how much they believe (wrongly) that it bullied poor little Britain.
Have some confidence in your own nation, man.
I'm not scared of the EU - I am however hugely thankful that we left.
How long after this first dose can I expect some immunity to kick in? T'internet is not clear. Some say it slowly rises from day 1 - and keeps rising for months.
Others say there is no evidence for any immunity until about 22 days in... or at least that's how it reads - but then it is quite high
The Mrs is on day 22 today. I've celebrated by having her go to Aldi while I protect myself at home sitting on my arse.
We watched a show about Ashford Castle in Ireland earlier. When it came to the cleaners, the head one was an Eastern European lady called Camilla. My girlfriend was surprised they hadn't used Irish locals. It dawned on me possibly for the first time that, in betting terms, Freedom Of Movement gave employers the ability to be able to arb the employment market in huge, infinite size - it would be like an Even money shot on Betfair being 1.8 on Betdaq in as much volume as you liked,- you'd lay the hell out of the 1.8 whilst offering to back 1.98 on the Fair. No wonder big business were so determined for Remain to win - a job that was worth £12ph to them and usually cost £10 in wages all of a sudden cost £7, so they could charge £11 - cheaper for customers and better for them - the working class English paid in lost earnings
The genius was that it was sugar coated in a utopian "lets all nationalities live, love and laugh together" spirit that beared almost no resemblance to reality. So corporate finance was enabled by a mass of people who would shudder at the idea they were doing so.
As Lord Glasman said "Capitalism's Greatest con trick"
How long after this first dose can I expect some immunity to kick in? T'internet is not clear. Some say it slowly rises from day 1 - and keeps rising for months.
Others say there is no evidence for any immunity until about 22 days in... or at least that's how it reads - but then it is quite high
Tim Spector has some stats on this towards the end of this video but I think they relate to Pfizer only -
A US professor at Georgetown University has been fired for expressing sadness and frustration that black students don't do as well as they should at the college. She actually said she feels "angst" at the situation.
Yet still got fired. Just for mentioning this inequality. Take that in, and what it implies for the future.
By the same logic, someone in the police or politics saying they feel bad at black people being poorer should also be fired.
What an odd story. I feel there must be more to it?
Normally you would, but the US is having a meltdown at the moment....see Sharon Osborne having to apologize for defending a friend against unsubstantiated claims of racism based solely on tone used when talking.
I fail to see the outrage, unless you're an actual heifer.
I mean what adjectives do you use for someone who managed to lose a council seat to the Tories and then a parliamentary seat to the Tories that the Tories have never held before in a little over two years?
If only we had @ydoethur around. There's an Eric Heifer pun dying to be made.
I assume his absence is due to the return to school rather than anything else I have missed?
And what about @Sandpit I was pondering the other day? Not noticed him but then I've been on a bit less of late.
On topic there was such an easy option for Boris Johnson that would have enhanced our reputation around the world and saved lives and yet he chose this.
You still haven't worked out why Cameron's best election result was a majority of 10, have you?
We know you're not very bright and would defend Boris Johnson even if he took a dump in your living room, so I'll explain it to you like if you're a five year old.
When David Cameron became Tory leader he started on 198 MPs, when Boris Johnson became Tory leader he started on 317* MPs.
One started from a much lower base, the other benefited from the hard work of the other one.
Yes, also demonstrates my point that had we still been part of the EU we would most likely not have been part of the EU scheme, we would have done our own thing.
Sorry Brexiteers, but your only claim to good news about Brexit is, like everything else you have claimed, a crock of shit.
Except yet again that is utter rubbish from you. If we had still been in the EU then we would have gone along with the EU scheme exactly as every other country did because the pressure not to do otherwise would have been immense and we would have been governed by those who still thought the EU was, on the whole, competent. Even outside we were subject to endless attacks from moronic Europhiles criticising the UK for not joining various joint EU schemes all of which turned out to be utterly worthless.
And so if we had remained in it is an absolute certainty that more people would have died than has otherwise been the case and that, although we may well have cut lose at some point, we would not have had the benefit of early adoption and early vaccine buying that has saved 1000s of extra lives.
You Eurofanatics are simply unable to accept that anything good could ever possibly come from Brexit. It has turned you completely mad.
Disappointed that you have so little faith in our political leaders that you don't trust them to do the right thing.
What gets me about the Brexiters is how scared they are of the EU and how much they believe (wrongly) that it bullied poor little Britain.
Have some confidence in your own nation, man.
I'm not scared of the EU - I am however hugely thankful that we left.
So why do you think that the UK wouldn't have had the kahoonas (sp?) to do its own thing? We were still, ostensibly, members when we did it, obvs.
I watched less than 60 seconds of his last public announcement and had to turn it off
The chief emotion is one of pity.
Yes - my father had dementia - it is such a sad, sad decline
Sorry must have been terrible. To have to cope with that affliction in the glare of the world's media, trying to manage with being the leader of the free world as your powers decline, well.
I am Biden's opponent politically, but I do feel very sorry for him.
I remember watching the 1988 Olympics when Des Lynam broke the news of Ben Johnson testing positive for drugs and always assumed the shame of it all would mean noone would ever try anything like that again.
Cycling is dirtier than it's ever been at all levels because the techniques are so well known and the 'produits' are so readily available. I know people who do blood bags/testosterone gels for Regional C races - the 2nd lowest level of amateur competition in the UK.
Is it still on balance good for you, then, if all that shit is going on? I mean, weighing up the massive fitness you accrue from elite sport against the poison of the drugs?
Dunno. On balance involvement in a competitive cycling at a high level has probably been a net positive for me even though I regularly used to inject myself with steroids and dodgy Italian amphetamines - I missed out on all the oxygen vector doping that came later. At 53 I weigh the same as I did when I was 18 and am in the 3.0 W/kg club.
That sounds promising - although I also weigh the same as when I was 18, so smoking can achieve that too.
What I will say is, nobody looks fitter to my untrained eye than those pro cyclists. The sprinters look like sheets of metal and the climbers are humanoid in its purest, most ruthless form - no place on those bods for anything that doesn't contribute to its one and only purpose of slugging up a mountain on a pushbike.
Yes, also demonstrates my point that had we still been part of the EU we would most likely not have been part of the EU scheme, we would have done our own thing.
Sorry Brexiteers, but your only claim to good news about Brexit is, like everything else you have claimed, a crock of shit.
Except yet again that is utter rubbish from you. If we had still been in the EU then we would have gone along with the EU scheme exactly as every other country did because the pressure not to do otherwise would have been immense and we would have been governed by those who still thought the EU was, on the whole, competent. Even outside we were subject to endless attacks from moronic Europhiles criticising the UK for not joining various joint EU schemes all of which turned out to be utterly worthless.
And so if we had remained in it is an absolute certainty that more people would have died than has otherwise been the case and that, although we may well have cut lose at some point, we would not have had the benefit of early adoption and early vaccine buying that has saved 1000s of extra lives.
You Eurofanatics are simply unable to accept that anything good could ever possibly come from Brexit. It has turned you completely mad.
Disappointed that you have so little faith in our political leaders that you don't trust them to do the right thing.
What gets me about the Brexiters is how scared they are of the EU and how much they believe (wrongly) that it bullied poor little Britain.
Have some confidence in your own nation, man.
You really think Cameron or any other Europhile Tory leader - or Corbyn on the Labour side - would have dared to stand aside from the EU vaccination scheme when every other country joined it? There is not a cat in hells chance.
I have far more confidence in my nation freed from the Eurofanatics than you do given you think we are incapable of surviving without being part of the EU. Have some confidence in your own independent nation, man.
A US professor at Georgetown University has been fired for expressing sadness and frustration that black students don't do as well as they should at the college. She actually said she feels "angst" at the situation.
Yet still got fired. Just for mentioning this inequality. Take that in, and what it implies for the future.
By the same logic, someone in the police or politics saying they feel bad at black people being poorer should also be fired.
What an odd story. I feel there must be more to it?
If you can find any more, good luck. I can't. The story seems to be exactly what it says.
US academe is now so paranoid about racism or just perceived racism that merely mentioning any disparity in outcome, between races - even when you do that out of concern - is enough to get you fired.
America is completely fucked if it continues down this road. Presumably we are not far behind, as we watch Kew Gardens renaming all their flowers coz racist
re: "curfews" - not sure if the point has been made, but one other strange (to me) thing about the discussion is that is seems to be focussing on how safe women "feel" when alone on the streets at night, not how safe they actually are. A woman has, we believe, been murdered. Did she "feel" safe on her own? I'm not sure we know (although i haven't read the press in detail so maybe this has been stated). What is true is that she was on her own, whether she felt safe or not. And if she didn't feel safe, she didn't at least feel so unsafe that she didn't take an alternative route home. And tragically, in this case, she wasn't safe, whether she felt safe or not.
Unless a curfew, or men otherwise changing their behaviour, is going to actually lead to women being safe, as opposed to feeling safe, then i'm not sure where the discussion is going.
And she was walking along talking on her phone, something that isn't a good idea whether your male or female.
I fail to see the outrage, unless you're an actual heifer.
I mean what adjectives do you use for someone who managed to lose a council seat to the Tories and then a parliamentary seat to the Tories that the Tories have never held before in a little over two years?
If only we had @ydoethur around. There's an Eric Heifer pun dying to be made.
I assume his absence is due to the return to school rather than anything else I have missed?
And what about @Sandpit I was pondering the other day? Not noticed him but then I've been on a bit less of late.
He is around. I have noticed him 'liking' a few posts today.
A US professor at Georgetown University has been fired for expressing sadness and frustration that black students don't do as well as they should at the college. She actually said she feels "angst" at the situation.
Yet still got fired. Just for mentioning this inequality. Take that in, and what it implies for the future.
By the same logic, someone in the police or politics saying they feel bad at black people being poorer should also be fired.
What an odd story. I feel there must be more to it?
If you can find any more, good luck. I can't. The story seems to be exactly what it says.
US academe is now so paranoid about racism or just perceived racism that merely mentioning any disparity in outcome, between races - even when you do that out of concern - is enough to get you fired.
America is completely fucked if it continues down this road. Presumably we are not far behind, as we watch Kew Gardens renaming all their flowers coz racist
Well unless its overt racism against Asian Americans.... discriminating against them doing too well in tests and thus claiming a disproportionate number of places at top institutions, thats fine.
I watched less than 60 seconds of his last public announcement and had to turn it off
25ths going to be invoked.
Acting President Kamala Harris, possibly before year end.
Trump will go big on the "who knew what, when " angle.
If Biden is to stand down I think he'll do so voluntarily, I don't think it will take the 25th. Unlike Trump.
I doubt it will occur before the midterms. Best for Kamala if she does take over to do so after 21 January 2022, then she has the potential to seek two elections of her own rather than one.
I watched less than 60 seconds of his last public announcement and had to turn it off
25ths going to be invoked.
Acting President Kamala Harris, possibly before year end.
Trump will go big on the "who knew what, when " angle.
It is totally mad having someone that age being president, his public appearances will get less and less and he will be gone in 2 years.
I can't agree with that. It is worth remembering that both the UK and US had war time leaders who were known to be unwell and one of whom died in office. What matters is what they do whilst they are in office, not necessarily how long they were there for.
A US professor at Georgetown University has been fired for expressing sadness and frustration that black students don't do as well as they should at the college. She actually said she feels "angst" at the situation.
Yet still got fired. Just for mentioning this inequality. Take that in, and what it implies for the future.
By the same logic, someone in the police or politics saying they feel bad at black people being poorer should also be fired.
What an odd story. I feel there must be more to it?
If you can find any more, good luck. I can't. The story seems to be exactly what it says.
US academe is now so paranoid about racism or just perceived racism that merely mentioning any disparity in outcome, between races - even when you do that out of concern - is enough to get you fired.
America is completely fucked if it continues down this road. Presumably we are not far behind, as we watch Kew Gardens renaming all their flowers coz racist
Well unless its overt racism against Asian Americans.... discriminating against them doing too well in tests and thus claiming a disproportionate number of places at top institutions, thats fine.
Kew Gardens hasn't taken the name off the Sackler bridge yet...
I watched less than 60 seconds of his last public announcement and had to turn it off
25ths going to be invoked.
Acting President Kamala Harris, possibly before year end.
Trump will go big on the "who knew what, when " angle.
If Harris does end up President then Trump will fancy his chances of returning to the office in 2024 against her, her strengths are with coastal liberals, less so in the key swing states in the rustbelt Biden narrowly won like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
I watched less than 60 seconds of his last public announcement and had to turn it off
25ths going to be invoked.
Acting President Kamala Harris, possibly before year end.
Trump will go big on the "who knew what, when " angle.
It is totally mad having someone that age being president, his public appearances will get less and less and he will be gone in 2 years.
I can't agree with that. It is worth remembering that both the UK and US had war time leaders who were known to be unwell and one of whom died in office. What matters is what they do whilst they are in office, not necessarily how long they were there for.
Also you can guarantee most of the people bringing up Biden's age today in four years will be silent about the age of Trump when/if he runs in 2024.
A US professor at Georgetown University has been fired for expressing sadness and frustration that black students don't do as well as they should at the college. She actually said she feels "angst" at the situation.
Yet still got fired. Just for mentioning this inequality. Take that in, and what it implies for the future.
By the same logic, someone in the police or politics saying they feel bad at black people being poorer should also be fired.
What an odd story. I feel there must be more to it?
If you can find any more, good luck. I can't. The story seems to be exactly what it says.
US academe is now so paranoid about racism or just perceived racism that merely mentioning any disparity in outcome, between races - even when you do that out of concern - is enough to get you fired.
America is completely fucked if it continues down this road. Presumably we are not far behind, as we watch Kew Gardens renaming all their flowers coz racist
Well unless its overt racism against Asian Americans.... discriminating against them doing too well, thats fine.
The outrageous discrimination AGAINST Asian Americans is going to destroy American universities in the long term. These students will eventually go to actual Asian universities IN Asia, where being East Asian doesn't mean you have to work twice as hard and be twice as good as BAME American students, to get in.
So 100 Tweets later does anyone here other that Scott and to an extent Richard Nabavi care about today's numbers?
If they were positive numbers they would be of great interest to you, and you would be trumpeting them from the rooftops. The fact that bad numbers don't fit your narrative means they can be disregarded.
What is the point of political discourse if one can only discuss issues that put the Government/Brexit/ Boris Johnson in a positive light?
Not really because December's numbers were very positive - did anyone here trumpet them as "businesses excited we're going to leave the EU, look at all this trade"?
No, of course not, don't be ridiculous.
Ridiculous! How rude and dismissive.
A 19% decline in World/UK trade for January, which under the circumstances doesn't seem too bad, absolutely through the roof decline in EU/UK trade- all of it not explained by stockpiling or Covid, worries me.
But hey, continue to post your only positive news old bollocks, people on here seem to like it.
Sadly you are another one like Richard Nabavi who has been so desperate to see Brexit as a disaster that you fail to demonstrate even the slightest bit of informed analysis on these numbers. Thankfully the Guardian does. It points out that the ONS itself says that these numbers are not to be considered accurate or final because they have changed the way they record the imports and exports which will make them appear worse than actuality. They also point out that the drop is significantly warped by the fact that so many companies in the EU were stockpiling in advance of the deadline for fear of what would happen to supply chains. They also say they are unable at the moment to define how much of the drop is due to lockdowns and covid affecting exports.
If you had had any sense at all you would have waited and got the figures after a year. You would be sure to have still seen a drop in exports but at least the numbers would have been in some way representative. But like big kids you are all just too impatient to try and be proved right and of course you fear this is about as good as it is going to get for you.
Fair enough, forgive my impatience, but I am quite confident that (setting aside the negative impact of the pandemic) reductions in exports to the EU will not be offset by Liz Truss's amazing roll-over deals with the rest of the world.
Why any of you are trying to paper over the negative economic effects is surprising. To be fair to genuine Leavers like yourself, you have never claimed it was anything other than a reclamation of our sovereignty, and negative effects were inevitable. I accept that argument, I don't believe we needed to reclaim sovereignty personally, but enough people did to make the difference. I don't accept however Philip Thompson's claim is that we can ignore bad Brexit news because no one is interested.
On topic there was such an easy option for Boris Johnson that would have enhanced our reputation around the world and saved lives and yet he chose this.
You still haven't worked out why Cameron's best election result was a majority of 10, have you?
We know you're not very bright and would defend Boris Johnson even if he took a dump in your living room, so I'll explain it to you like if you're a five year old.
When David Cameron became Tory leader he started on 198 MPs, when Boris Johnson became Tory leader he started on 317* MPs.
One started from a much lower base, the other benefited from the hard work of the other one.
*It would have been 331 MPs but for Mrs May.
I'm afraid you have it exactly the wrong way around. Starting on 198 MPs, the first hundred or so were the lowest of low-hanging fruit, especially against a government that had been in power for 13 years - and yet Cameron still failed to win a majority first time, and never exceeded 36% of the vote in either attempt. The more MPs you accumulate, the more your returns diminish, as each additional MP requires a relatively greater 'effort' than the last one.
Bearing all that in mind, Boris Johnson increased his total number of MPs from 317 to 365 (with a 40-year record vote share for any party) after his party had already been in government for over 9 years - breaking just about every rule of electoral gravity in existence. His achievement outclasses Dave's many times over.
And he didn't do it by promising to prioritize the needs of other countries over those of the UK and its citizens, that's for damned sure.
I watched less than 60 seconds of his last public announcement and had to turn it off
25ths going to be invoked.
Acting President Kamala Harris, possibly before year end.
Trump will go big on the "who knew what, when " angle.
It is totally mad having someone that age being president, his public appearances will get less and less and he will be gone in 2 years.
I can't agree with that. It is worth remembering that both the UK and US had war time leaders who were known to be unwell and one of whom died in office. What matters is what they do whilst they are in office, not necessarily how long they were there for.
Also you can guarantee most of the people bringing up Biden's age today in four years will be silent about the age of Trump when/if he runs in 2024.
Funnily enough, it's because of his age that I don't see Trump running in 2024.
It's funny because this really pisses you off, doesn't it?
Most people don't really care.
There was no negative comment there from me, however the intake into our top universities and hence our top professions is obviously of interest to a large number
On topic there was such an easy option for Boris Johnson that would have enhanced our reputation around the world and saved lives and yet he chose this.
You still haven't worked out why Cameron's best election result was a majority of 10, have you?
We know you're not very bright and would defend Boris Johnson even if he took a dump in your living room, so I'll explain it to you like if you're a five year old.
When David Cameron became Tory leader he started on 198 MPs, when Boris Johnson became Tory leader he started on 317* MPs.
One started from a much lower base, the other benefited from the hard work of the other one.
*It would have been 331 MPs but for Mrs May.
Well as Cameron did, I would have thought it would be quite a nice time to take over as leader of a party when they're on almost their lowest possible, in reasonable terms, number of seats. I hope my son doesn't fall for your kind of explanation in four years time without clocking that!
I watched less than 60 seconds of his last public announcement and had to turn it off
25ths going to be invoked.
Acting President Kamala Harris, possibly before year end.
Trump will go big on the "who knew what, when " angle.
If Harris does end up President then Trump will fancy his chances of returning to the office in 2024 against her, her strengths are with coastal liberals, less so in the key swing states in the rustbelt Biden narrowly won like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
Harris isn;t even that popular with coastal liberals.
Still, the media will swoon because of her identity and when she falls from power it will be because America is racist.
A US professor at Georgetown University has been fired for expressing sadness and frustration that black students don't do as well as they should at the college. She actually said she feels "angst" at the situation.
Yet still got fired. Just for mentioning this inequality. Take that in, and what it implies for the future.
By the same logic, someone in the police or politics saying they feel bad at black people being poorer should also be fired.
What an odd story. I feel there must be more to it?
Normally you would, but the US is having a meltdown at the moment....see Sharon Osborne having to apologize for defending a friend against unsubstantiated claims of racism based solely on tone used when talking.
Since it is Mandarin for um or er, I doubt the PM will be giving any press conferences in Chinese.
So 100 Tweets later does anyone here other that Scott and to an extent Richard Nabavi care about today's numbers?
If they were positive numbers they would be of great interest to you, and you would be trumpeting them from the rooftops. The fact that bad numbers don't fit your narrative means they can be disregarded.
What is the point of political discourse if one can only discuss issues that put the Government/Brexit/ Boris Johnson in a positive light?
Not really because December's numbers were very positive - did anyone here trumpet them as "businesses excited we're going to leave the EU, look at all this trade"?
No, of course not, don't be ridiculous.
Ridiculous! How rude and dismissive.
A 19% decline in World/UK trade for January, which under the circumstances doesn't seem too bad, absolutely through the roof decline in EU/UK trade- all of it not explained by stockpiling or Covid, worries me.
But hey, continue to post your only positive news old bollocks, people on here seem to like it.
Sadly you are another one like Richard Nabavi who has been so desperate to see Brexit as a disaster that you fail to demonstrate even the slightest bit of informed analysis on these numbers. Thankfully the Guardian does. It points out that the ONS itself says that these numbers are not to be considered accurate or final because they have changed the way they record the imports and exports which will make them appear worse than actuality. They also point out that the drop is significantly warped by the fact that so many companies in the EU were stockpiling in advance of the deadline for fear of what would happen to supply chains. They also say they are unable at the moment to define how much of the drop is due to lockdowns and covid affecting exports.
If you had had any sense at all you would have waited and got the figures after a year. You would be sure to have still seen a drop in exports but at least the numbers would have been in some way representative. But like big kids you are all just too impatient to try and be proved right and of course you fear this is about as good as it is going to get for you.
Fair enough, forgive my impatience, but I am quite confident that (setting aside the negative impact of the pandemic) reductions in exports to the EU will not be offset by Liz Truss's amazing roll-over deals with the rest of the world.
Why any of you are trying to paper over the negative economic effects is surprising. To be fair to genuine Leavers like yourself, you have never claimed it was anything other than a reclamation of our sovereignty, and negative effects were inevitable. I accept that argument, I don't believe we needed to reclaim sovereignty personally, but enough people did to make the difference. I don't accept however Philip Thompson's claim is that we can ignore bad Brexit news because no one is interested.
I never said that.
I said everyone reasonable knew that the January figures were pretty meaningless due to stockpiling, lockdown, people waiting to see how the border coped and other reasons so Scott hyperventilating over them made no sense. January being disrupted was factored in to everyone's expectations already.
Saying that trade was down in January is like saying that business was slow on 25/12. Entirely to be expected under the circumstances.
Good to read something positive and hopeful from a left of centre perspective for a change. Vastly prefer American Rescue to American Carnage or America First. Details would have been different, and size much smaller, but the spirit of that is what I would have hoped to see from a Labour government here if they were in charge of coming out of the pandemic. Channeling Tony -
"This is a moment to seize. The Kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us."
So 100 Tweets later does anyone here other that Scott and to an extent Richard Nabavi care about today's numbers?
If they were positive numbers they would be of great interest to you, and you would be trumpeting them from the rooftops. The fact that bad numbers don't fit your narrative means they can be disregarded.
What is the point of political discourse if one can only discuss issues that put the Government/Brexit/ Boris Johnson in a positive light?
Not really because December's numbers were very positive - did anyone here trumpet them as "businesses excited we're going to leave the EU, look at all this trade"?
No, of course not, don't be ridiculous.
Ridiculous! How rude and dismissive.
A 19% decline in World/UK trade for January, which under the circumstances doesn't seem too bad, absolutely through the roof decline in EU/UK trade- all of it not explained by stockpiling or Covid, worries me.
But hey, continue to post your only positive news old bollocks, people on here seem to like it.
Sadly you are another one like Richard Nabavi who has been so desperate to see Brexit as a disaster that you fail to demonstrate even the slightest bit of informed analysis on these numbers. Thankfully the Guardian does. It points out that the ONS itself says that these numbers are not to be considered accurate or final because they have changed the way they record the imports and exports which will make them appear worse than actuality. They also point out that the drop is significantly warped by the fact that so many companies in the EU were stockpiling in advance of the deadline for fear of what would happen to supply chains. They also say they are unable at the moment to define how much of the drop is due to lockdowns and covid affecting exports.
If you had had any sense at all you would have waited and got the figures after a year. You would be sure to have still seen a drop in exports but at least the numbers would have been in some way representative. But like big kids you are all just too impatient to try and be proved right and of course you fear this is about as good as it is going to get for you.
Fair enough, forgive my impatience, but I am quite confident that (setting aside the negative impact of the pandemic) reductions in exports to the EU will not be offset by Liz Truss's amazing roll-over deals with the rest of the world.
Why any of you are trying to paper over the negative economic effects is surprising. To be fair to genuine Leavers like yourself, you have never claimed it was anything other than a reclamation of our sovereignty, and negative effects were inevitable. I accept that argument, I don't believe we needed to reclaim sovereignty personally, but enough people did to make the difference. I don't accept however Philip Thompson's claim is that we can ignore bad Brexit news because no one is interested.
I never said that.
I said everyone reasonable knew that the January figures were pretty meaningless due to stockpiling, lockdown, people waiting to see how the border coped and other reasons so Scott hyperventilating over them made no sense. January being disrupted was factored in to everyone's expectations already.
Saying that trade was down in January is like saying that business was slow on 25/12. Entirely to be expected under the circumstances.
There you go again! They are "meaningless" because they don't fulfil your narrative.
I watched less than 60 seconds of his last public announcement and had to turn it off
25ths going to be invoked.
Acting President Kamala Harris, possibly before year end.
Trump will go big on the "who knew what, when " angle.
It is totally mad having someone that age being president, his public appearances will get less and less and he will be gone in 2 years.
I can't agree with that. It is worth remembering that both the UK and US had war time leaders who were known to be unwell and one of whom died in office. What matters is what they do whilst they are in office, not necessarily how long they were there for.
Also you can guarantee most of the people bringing up Biden's age today in four years will be silent about the age of Trump when/if he runs in 2024.
Funnily enough, it's because of his age that I don't see Trump running in 2024.
I think it was David Frum who said that whether or not Trump wants to run he will have to run for two primary reasons
1) The grift, Trump needs the money, what better way than via another Presidential run
2) It will offer him some sort of de facto protection from (federal) prosecution. He can say he's being persecuted by the POTUS from running, a perception the Biden adminstration may wish to avoid.
Another disappointing day...might that is why Jezza doesn't seem to have managed to get a jab yet.
If the first dose rollout isn’t to be brought to a standstill when the second dose volumes hit, this needs to ramp up higher than this.
Meant to be imminent. If we get much past the start of next week and we're still not hitting record breaking totals, that would be the time to start worrying.
So 100 Tweets later does anyone here other that Scott and to an extent Richard Nabavi care about today's numbers?
If they were positive numbers they would be of great interest to you, and you would be trumpeting them from the rooftops. The fact that bad numbers don't fit your narrative means they can be disregarded.
What is the point of political discourse if one can only discuss issues that put the Government/Brexit/ Boris Johnson in a positive light?
Not really because December's numbers were very positive - did anyone here trumpet them as "businesses excited we're going to leave the EU, look at all this trade"?
No, of course not, don't be ridiculous.
Ridiculous! How rude and dismissive.
A 19% decline in World/UK trade for January, which under the circumstances doesn't seem too bad, absolutely through the roof decline in EU/UK trade- all of it not explained by stockpiling or Covid, worries me.
But hey, continue to post your only positive news old bollocks, people on here seem to like it.
Sadly you are another one like Richard Nabavi who has been so desperate to see Brexit as a disaster that you fail to demonstrate even the slightest bit of informed analysis on these numbers. Thankfully the Guardian does. It points out that the ONS itself says that these numbers are not to be considered accurate or final because they have changed the way they record the imports and exports which will make them appear worse than actuality. They also point out that the drop is significantly warped by the fact that so many companies in the EU were stockpiling in advance of the deadline for fear of what would happen to supply chains. They also say they are unable at the moment to define how much of the drop is due to lockdowns and covid affecting exports.
If you had had any sense at all you would have waited and got the figures after a year. You would be sure to have still seen a drop in exports but at least the numbers would have been in some way representative. But like big kids you are all just too impatient to try and be proved right and of course you fear this is about as good as it is going to get for you.
Fair enough, forgive my impatience, but I am quite confident that (setting aside the negative impact of the pandemic) reductions in exports to the EU will not be offset by Liz Truss's amazing roll-over deals with the rest of the world.
Why any of you are trying to paper over the negative economic effects is surprising. To be fair to genuine Leavers like yourself, you have never claimed it was anything other than a reclamation of our sovereignty, and negative effects were inevitable. I accept that argument, I don't believe we needed to reclaim sovereignty personally, but enough people did to make the difference. I don't accept however Philip Thompson's claim is that we can ignore bad Brexit news because no one is interested.
I never said that.
I said everyone reasonable knew that the January figures were pretty meaningless due to stockpiling, lockdown, people waiting to see how the border coped and other reasons so Scott hyperventilating over them made no sense. January being disrupted was factored in to everyone's expectations already.
Saying that trade was down in January is like saying that business was slow on 25/12. Entirely to be expected under the circumstances.
There you go again! They are "meaningless" because they don't fulfil your narrative.
Don't you know how it works by now?
PB Tories can pick and choose at will, they can never be wrong
So 100 Tweets later does anyone here other that Scott and to an extent Richard Nabavi care about today's numbers?
If they were positive numbers they would be of great interest to you, and you would be trumpeting them from the rooftops. The fact that bad numbers don't fit your narrative means they can be disregarded.
What is the point of political discourse if one can only discuss issues that put the Government/Brexit/ Boris Johnson in a positive light?
Not really because December's numbers were very positive - did anyone here trumpet them as "businesses excited we're going to leave the EU, look at all this trade"?
No, of course not, don't be ridiculous.
Ridiculous! How rude and dismissive.
A 19% decline in World/UK trade for January, which under the circumstances doesn't seem too bad, absolutely through the roof decline in EU/UK trade- all of it not explained by stockpiling or Covid, worries me.
But hey, continue to post your only positive news old bollocks, people on here seem to like it.
Sadly you are another one like Richard Nabavi who has been so desperate to see Brexit as a disaster that you fail to demonstrate even the slightest bit of informed analysis on these numbers. Thankfully the Guardian does. It points out that the ONS itself says that these numbers are not to be considered accurate or final because they have changed the way they record the imports and exports which will make them appear worse than actuality. They also point out that the drop is significantly warped by the fact that so many companies in the EU were stockpiling in advance of the deadline for fear of what would happen to supply chains. They also say they are unable at the moment to define how much of the drop is due to lockdowns and covid affecting exports.
If you had had any sense at all you would have waited and got the figures after a year. You would be sure to have still seen a drop in exports but at least the numbers would have been in some way representative. But like big kids you are all just too impatient to try and be proved right and of course you fear this is about as good as it is going to get for you.
Fair enough, forgive my impatience, but I am quite confident that (setting aside the negative impact of the pandemic) reductions in exports to the EU will not be offset by Liz Truss's amazing roll-over deals with the rest of the world.
Why any of you are trying to paper over the negative economic effects is surprising. To be fair to genuine Leavers like yourself, you have never claimed it was anything other than a reclamation of our sovereignty, and negative effects were inevitable. I accept that argument, I don't believe we needed to reclaim sovereignty personally, but enough people did to make the difference. I don't accept however Philip Thompson's claim is that we can ignore bad Brexit news because no one is interested.
I never said that.
I said everyone reasonable knew that the January figures were pretty meaningless due to stockpiling, lockdown, people waiting to see how the border coped and other reasons so Scott hyperventilating over them made no sense. January being disrupted was factored in to everyone's expectations already.
Saying that trade was down in January is like saying that business was slow on 25/12. Entirely to be expected under the circumstances.
There you go again! They are "meaningless" because they don't fulfil your narrative.
No. 🤦♂️🙄
They're meaningless because they're baked in. We all knew that January was disrupted.
Saying that January was disrupted isn't news because we all were awake in January. But the reports are that by February the volumes were back towards normal levels. So if Feb/March figures are similarly disrupted that would be news, but it isn't going to happen.
I watched less than 60 seconds of his last public announcement and had to turn it off
25ths going to be invoked.
Acting President Kamala Harris, possibly before year end.
Trump will go big on the "who knew what, when " angle.
It is totally mad having someone that age being president, his public appearances will get less and less and he will be gone in 2 years.
I can't agree with that. It is worth remembering that both the UK and US had war time leaders who were known to be unwell and one of whom died in office. What matters is what they do whilst they are in office, not necessarily how long they were there for.
Also you can guarantee most of the people bringing up Biden's age today in four years will be silent about the age of Trump when/if he runs in 2024.
Funnily enough, it's because of his age that I don't see Trump running in 2024.
Does anyone really want the hideous spectacle of America tearing itself apart with Harris v Trump in 2024?
How long after this first dose can I expect some immunity to kick in? T'internet is not clear. Some say it slowly rises from day 1 - and keeps rising for months.
Others say there is no evidence for any immunity until about 22 days in... or at least that's how it reads - but then it is quite high
Yes, Camden. One week behind me in the same place. I asked that question when I got it and was told I'd have most of the protection "in 2 or 3 weeks"
What time are you on btw? I could nip down and get your autograph. I've already got Giles Coren's.
I watched less than 60 seconds of his last public announcement and had to turn it off
25ths going to be invoked.
Acting President Kamala Harris, possibly before year end.
Trump will go big on the "who knew what, when " angle.
It is totally mad having someone that age being president, his public appearances will get less and less and he will be gone in 2 years.
I can't agree with that. It is worth remembering that both the UK and US had war time leaders who were known to be unwell and one of whom died in office. What matters is what they do whilst they are in office, not necessarily how long they were there for.
Also you can guarantee most of the people bringing up Biden's age today in four years will be silent about the age of Trump when/if he runs in 2024.
Funnily enough, it's because of his age that I don't see Trump running in 2024.
Does anyone really want the hideous spectacle of America tearing itself apart with Harris v Trump in 2024?
England is bang on the UK average for total jabs but Scotland and Northern Ireland are a long way behind Wales. Wales is also implementing a shorter dosing schedule.
England is bang on the UK average for total jabs but Scotland and Northern Ireland are a long way behind Wales. Wales is also implementing a shorter dosing schedule.
How long after this first dose can I expect some immunity to kick in? T'internet is not clear. Some say it slowly rises from day 1 - and keeps rising for months.
Others say there is no evidence for any immunity until about 22 days in... or at least that's how it reads - but then it is quite high
Yes, Camden. One week behind me in the same place. I asked that question when I got it and was told I'd have most of the protection "in 2 or 3 weeks"
What time are you on btw? I could nip down and get your autograph. I've already got Giles Coren's.
Expect some protection beginning about 7 days out, rising to maximum protection from the 1st dose at about 3 weeks. Then full protection (i.e. the full protection you personally will get) about 2 weeks after the booster shot.
So 100 Tweets later does anyone here other that Scott and to an extent Richard Nabavi care about today's numbers?
If they were positive numbers they would be of great interest to you, and you would be trumpeting them from the rooftops. The fact that bad numbers don't fit your narrative means they can be disregarded.
What is the point of political discourse if one can only discuss issues that put the Government/Brexit/ Boris Johnson in a positive light?
Not really because December's numbers were very positive - did anyone here trumpet them as "businesses excited we're going to leave the EU, look at all this trade"?
No, of course not, don't be ridiculous.
Ridiculous! How rude and dismissive.
A 19% decline in World/UK trade for January, which under the circumstances doesn't seem too bad, absolutely through the roof decline in EU/UK trade- all of it not explained by stockpiling or Covid, worries me.
But hey, continue to post your only positive news old bollocks, people on here seem to like it.
Sadly you are another one like Richard Nabavi who has been so desperate to see Brexit as a disaster that you fail to demonstrate even the slightest bit of informed analysis on these numbers. Thankfully the Guardian does. It points out that the ONS itself says that these numbers are not to be considered accurate or final because they have changed the way they record the imports and exports which will make them appear worse than actuality. They also point out that the drop is significantly warped by the fact that so many companies in the EU were stockpiling in advance of the deadline for fear of what would happen to supply chains. They also say they are unable at the moment to define how much of the drop is due to lockdowns and covid affecting exports.
If you had had any sense at all you would have waited and got the figures after a year. You would be sure to have still seen a drop in exports but at least the numbers would have been in some way representative. But like big kids you are all just too impatient to try and be proved right and of course you fear this is about as good as it is going to get for you.
Fair enough, forgive my impatience, but I am quite confident that (setting aside the negative impact of the pandemic) reductions in exports to the EU will not be offset by Liz Truss's amazing roll-over deals with the rest of the world.
Why any of you are trying to paper over the negative economic effects is surprising. To be fair to genuine Leavers like yourself, you have never claimed it was anything other than a reclamation of our sovereignty, and negative effects were inevitable. I accept that argument, I don't believe we needed to reclaim sovereignty personally, but enough people did to make the difference. I don't accept however Philip Thompson's claim is that we can ignore bad Brexit news because no one is interested.
This is where I think the Pro-EU side arguing about the economics is completely pointless. They are never going to win any one around with these arguments. When you look at what the arguments were - and what they continue to be - it is all based, in the medium to long term, on reductions in predicted GDP growth. We are told that the increase in GDP will be so many % less than it otherwise would have been if we had not left. It is not even the case that in the medium term GDP will drop. It just won't grow as fast.
Well colour me unimpressed. If this past year has shown us anything it is that the future is never certain and that there are so many factors that can increase or decrease GDP that it is pointless worrying about it. We will always adapt and that adaptation will be no where near as painful as people fear.
My genuine belief - which I know is not universally popular - is that Brexit has, by accident, saved thousands of lives in Britain. I could never have predicted it before hand not only because the pandemic was unpredictable but because I genuinely didn't think the EU would make such a mess of its response. But put against that result, and even ignoring my views on sovereignty, a reduction in GDP growth really isn't something I am going to be worried about.
I watched less than 60 seconds of his last public announcement and had to turn it off
25ths going to be invoked.
Acting President Kamala Harris, possibly before year end.
Trump will go big on the "who knew what, when " angle.
It is totally mad having someone that age being president, his public appearances will get less and less and he will be gone in 2 years.
I can't agree with that. It is worth remembering that both the UK and US had war time leaders who were known to be unwell and one of whom died in office. What matters is what they do whilst they are in office, not necessarily how long they were there for.
Also you can guarantee most of the people bringing up Biden's age today in four years will be silent about the age of Trump when/if he runs in 2024.
Funnily enough, it's because of his age that I don't see Trump running in 2024.
Does anyone really want the hideous spectacle of America tearing itself apart with Harris v Trump in 2024?
No centre ground there at all, the culture wars in full
If you think that voters - especially Tory voters - have the slightest concern about a small cut in the aid budget at a time when we're whacking up taxes to fill a giant fiscal hole, then you're frankly out of your mind. You're lucky we're not cutting aid to zero for the next several years until we get back on our feet.
I think you've misunderstood the piece - I'm very clear that voters would be happy to cut the aid budget. The issue is that MPs may have a different view. We won't know until its crunch time in parliament. The fact that the govt is delaying suggests to me they know it might be a close vote.
The MPs are there to represent their voters. If they don't - and instead prefer to load us down with taxes while we borrow 15 billion a year to give away - then the party and / or its voters should give them the boot with extreme gusto. May, Mitchell, Davis and any other idiots should take heed.
We trust our MPs to weigh up the evidence and use their judgement so we don't have to, hence an MP may vote in a different way to the mob. It is the same reason we have juries in trials and not react to the mob opinion. The MPs are also representing those voters who do not vote for them, all of them.
And if they want to keep their jobs, they can respect the wishes of the 'mob' - otherwise known as the voters who elected them. Entirely up to them.
Awfully crude and populist, you're getting. It's like you take the shape & tone of whatever iteration your party happens to be in. So if Johnson falls and Rory Stewart somehow emerges to take the Cons in a "internationalist and open compassionate conservatism" direction, that will suddenly be you too, on here writing no end of namby pamby posts.
I fail to see the outrage, unless you're an actual heifer.
I mean what adjectives do you use for someone who managed to lose a council seat to the Tories and then a parliamentary seat to the Tories that the Tories have never held before in a little over two years?
If only we had @ydoethur around. There's an Eric Heifer pun dying to be made.
I assume his absence is due to the return to school rather than anything else I have missed?
And what about @Sandpit I was pondering the other day? Not noticed him but then I've been on a bit less of late.
He is around. I have noticed him 'liking' a few posts today.
I watched less than 60 seconds of his last public announcement and had to turn it off
25ths going to be invoked.
Acting President Kamala Harris, possibly before year end.
Trump will go big on the "who knew what, when " angle.
It is totally mad having someone that age being president, his public appearances will get less and less and he will be gone in 2 years.
I can't agree with that. It is worth remembering that both the UK and US had war time leaders who were known to be unwell and one of whom died in office. What matters is what they do whilst they are in office, not necessarily how long they were there for.
Also you can guarantee most of the people bringing up Biden's age today in four years will be silent about the age of Trump when/if he runs in 2024.
Funnily enough, it's because of his age that I don't see Trump running in 2024.
Does anyone really want the hideous spectacle of America tearing itself apart with Harris v Trump in 2024?
On topic there was such an easy option for Boris Johnson that would have enhanced our reputation around the world and saved lives and yet he chose this.
You still haven't worked out why Cameron's best election result was a majority of 10, have you?
We know you're not very bright and would defend Boris Johnson even if he took a dump in your living room, so I'll explain it to you like if you're a five year old.
When David Cameron became Tory leader he started on 198 MPs, when Boris Johnson became Tory leader he started on 317* MPs.
One started from a much lower base, the other benefited from the hard work of the other one.
*It would have been 331 MPs but for Mrs May.
I'm afraid you have it exactly the wrong way around. Starting on 198 MPs, the first hundred or so were the lowest of low-hanging fruit, especially against a government that had been in power for 13 years - and yet Cameron still failed to win a majority first time, and never exceeded 36% of the vote in either attempt. The more MPs you accumulate, the more your returns diminish, as each additional MP requires a relatively greater 'effort' than the last one.
Bearing all that in mind, Boris Johnson increased his total number of MPs from 317 to 365 (with a 40-year record vote share for any party) after his party had already been in government for over 9 years - breaking just about every rule of electoral gravity in existence. His achievement outclasses Dave's many times over.
And he didn't do it by promising to prioritize the needs of other countries over those of the UK and its citizens, that's for damned sure.
Yes. And the results of the previous election don't have much impact on this time, as I showed in a thread a while back. Dave was popular with exactly the kind of metropolitan liberals who like Starmer (at any rate until he launched the EU referendum), and are disproportionately influential in the media, but Boris is much more popular with the C1s and C2s who are more numerous and better represented outside London.
If you think that voters - especially Tory voters - have the slightest concern about a small cut in the aid budget at a time when we're whacking up taxes to fill a giant fiscal hole, then you're frankly out of your mind. You're lucky we're not cutting aid to zero for the next several years until we get back on our feet.
I think you've misunderstood the piece - I'm very clear that voters would be happy to cut the aid budget. The issue is that MPs may have a different view. We won't know until its crunch time in parliament. The fact that the govt is delaying suggests to me they know it might be a close vote.
The MPs are there to represent their voters. If they don't - and instead prefer to load us down with taxes while we borrow 15 billion a year to give away - then the party and / or its voters should give them the boot with extreme gusto. May, Mitchell, Davis and any other idiots should take heed.
We trust our MPs to weigh up the evidence and use their judgement so we don't have to, hence an MP may vote in a different way to the mob. It is the same reason we have juries in trials and not react to the mob opinion. The MPs are also representing those voters who do not vote for them, all of them.
And if they want to keep their jobs, they can respect the wishes of the 'mob' - otherwise known as the voters who elected them. Entirely up to them.
Awfully crude and populist, you're getting. It's like you take the shape & tone of whatever iteration your party happens to be in. So if Johnson falls and Rory Stewart somehow emerges to take the Cons in a "internationalist and open compassionate conservatism" direction, that will suddenly be you too, on here writing no end of namby pamby posts.
Nope, because I wouldn't agree with it either personally or politically. Having said that, I have a soft spot for Rory Stewart and don't think he'd ultimately turn out to be quite as namby-pamby as his non-Tory admirers imagine.
So 100 Tweets later does anyone here other that Scott and to an extent Richard Nabavi care about today's numbers?
If they were positive numbers they would be of great interest to you, and you would be trumpeting them from the rooftops. The fact that bad numbers don't fit your narrative means they can be disregarded.
What is the point of political discourse if one can only discuss issues that put the Government/Brexit/ Boris Johnson in a positive light?
Not really because December's numbers were very positive - did anyone here trumpet them as "businesses excited we're going to leave the EU, look at all this trade"?
No, of course not, don't be ridiculous.
Ridiculous! How rude and dismissive.
A 19% decline in World/UK trade for January, which under the circumstances doesn't seem too bad, absolutely through the roof decline in EU/UK trade- all of it not explained by stockpiling or Covid, worries me.
But hey, continue to post your only positive news old bollocks, people on here seem to like it.
Sadly you are another one like Richard Nabavi who has been so desperate to see Brexit as a disaster that you fail to demonstrate even the slightest bit of informed analysis on these numbers. Thankfully the Guardian does. It points out that the ONS itself says that these numbers are not to be considered accurate or final because they have changed the way they record the imports and exports which will make them appear worse than actuality. They also point out that the drop is significantly warped by the fact that so many companies in the EU were stockpiling in advance of the deadline for fear of what would happen to supply chains. They also say they are unable at the moment to define how much of the drop is due to lockdowns and covid affecting exports.
If you had had any sense at all you would have waited and got the figures after a year. You would be sure to have still seen a drop in exports but at least the numbers would have been in some way representative. But like big kids you are all just too impatient to try and be proved right and of course you fear this is about as good as it is going to get for you.
Fair enough, forgive my impatience, but I am quite confident that (setting aside the negative impact of the pandemic) reductions in exports to the EU will not be offset by Liz Truss's amazing roll-over deals with the rest of the world.
Why any of you are trying to paper over the negative economic effects is surprising. To be fair to genuine Leavers like yourself, you have never claimed it was anything other than a reclamation of our sovereignty, and negative effects were inevitable. I accept that argument, I don't believe we needed to reclaim sovereignty personally, but enough people did to make the difference. I don't accept however Philip Thompson's claim is that we can ignore bad Brexit news because no one is interested.
I never said that.
I said everyone reasonable knew that the January figures were pretty meaningless due to stockpiling, lockdown, people waiting to see how the border coped and other reasons so Scott hyperventilating over them made no sense. January being disrupted was factored in to everyone's expectations already.
Saying that trade was down in January is like saying that business was slow on 25/12. Entirely to be expected under the circumstances.
There you go again! They are "meaningless" because they don't fulfil your narrative.
No. 🤦♂️🙄
They're meaningless because they're baked in. We all knew that January was disrupted.
Saying that January was disrupted isn't news because we all were awake in January. But the reports are that by February the volumes were back towards normal levels. So if Feb/March figures are similarly disrupted that would be news, but it isn't going to happen.
England is bang on the UK average for total jabs but Scotland and Northern Ireland are a long way behind Wales. Wales is also implementing a shorter dosing schedule.
BiB - not much of a surprise...
Even allowing for the weight of English population on the figures it's very close though
Of 18+ population (Max is 200%)
UK 47.006% Wales 51.295% England 47.008% NI 45.702% Scotland 44.970%
Bit sad that aid for the world's poorest has been identified as a wedge issue in the war on woke but I think the author is right - it has. 0.7% was a manifesto commitment and it's utter bullshit that we now can't afford it because of the pandemic. The reason for the cut is pure politics and of the most poisonous type. They think Red Wall voters - as in generic term for working class Leavers who used to vote Labour - will see this and go, "Yeah, too right. Charity begins at home innit. Good on yer, Boris." I hope they're wrong. I hope this reductive patronizing pandering view of their voter base comes back and bites them in their fat cynical arses. So there.
Ok, but we can test the grandstanding here with the counter-argument: if cutting from 0.7% to 0.5% costs "hundreds of thousands" of lives then it stands to reason that having it at 0.7% rather than 1% also costs "hundreds of thousands" of lives, and we should spend more.
So, if you're concerned about saving lives above all else then you should be arguing for an increase on the basis that the current level of spending is a tragedy. Otherwise you are innately conceding an affordability argument that you don't really want to engage in.
I don't see much of that so I'm forced to conclude it's just grandstanding.
I can argue for higher quite compellingly but all that would do is trigger a whole bunch of "If you're so concerned about it why don't YOU give all your money to Oxfam? Total hypocrite if you don't" type grief from the likes of anotherrichard and pagan and the general band of reactionary reductives. Then I'd get frustrated and tetchy and start having spats with people. Not appropriate for a Friday.
More seriously, on a pure "spend where the need is greatest" rationale every rich country would be allocating an order of magnitude more to overseas aid than they do at the moment. And every single one of them could afford it. But one has to be realistic and recognize that the limits of domestic political acceptability are in the current range of nought point something of GDP.
Public sector pay is frozen. Private sector is struggling to survive. Even nurses aren't getting much of a pay rise.
But you want to take billions more from those nurses etc in taxes to give on aid than our neighbours give. Why?
Nurses will be ringfenced (if you can imagine such a thing) but I'll be making some hard choices elsewhere. You must wait for my Autumn Statement for the detail.
England is bang on the UK average for total jabs but Scotland and Northern Ireland are a long way behind Wales. Wales is also implementing a shorter dosing schedule.
BiB - not much of a surprise...
Even allowing for the weight of English population on the figures it's very close though
Of 18+ population (Max is 200%)
UK 47.006% Wales 51.295% England 47.008% NI 45.702% Scotland 44.970%
If you think that voters - especially Tory voters - have the slightest concern about a small cut in the aid budget at a time when we're whacking up taxes to fill a giant fiscal hole, then you're frankly out of your mind. You're lucky we're not cutting aid to zero for the next several years until we get back on our feet.
I think you've misunderstood the piece - I'm very clear that voters would be happy to cut the aid budget. The issue is that MPs may have a different view. We won't know until its crunch time in parliament. The fact that the govt is delaying suggests to me they know it might be a close vote.
The MPs are there to represent their voters. If they don't - and instead prefer to load us down with taxes while we borrow 15 billion a year to give away - then the party and / or its voters should give them the boot with extreme gusto. May, Mitchell, Davis and any other idiots should take heed.
We trust our MPs to weigh up the evidence and use their judgement so we don't have to, hence an MP may vote in a different way to the mob. It is the same reason we have juries in trials and not react to the mob opinion. The MPs are also representing those voters who do not vote for them, all of them.
And if they want to keep their jobs, they can respect the wishes of the 'mob' - otherwise known as the voters who elected them. Entirely up to them.
It doesn't work like that does it though. We have a party system so you are voting for a plethora of stuff and the centre of each party normally keeps the populist lunatics at bay.
Are you in favour of bringing back hanging because that is what the mob would often vote for, particularly after any outrage.
England is bang on the UK average for total jabs but Scotland and Northern Ireland are a long way behind Wales. Wales is also implementing a shorter dosing schedule.
BiB - not much of a surprise...
Even allowing for the weight of English population on the figures it's very close though
Of 18+ population (Max is 200%)
UK 47.006% Wales 51.295% England 47.008% NI 45.702% Scotland 44.970%
A US professor at Georgetown University has been fired for expressing sadness and frustration that black students don't do as well as they should at the college. She actually said she feels "angst" at the situation.
Yet still got fired. Just for mentioning this inequality. Take that in, and what it implies for the future.
By the same logic, someone in the police or politics saying they feel bad at black people being poorer should also be fired.
What an odd story. I feel there must be more to it?
Normally you would, but the US is having a meltdown at the moment....see Sharon Osborne having to apologize for defending a friend against unsubstantiated claims of racism based solely on tone used when talking.
Since it is Mandarin for um or er, I doubt the PM will be giving any press conferences in Chinese.
I don't know the whole story, but I think some of the things that will trigger from that excerpt of the conversation is:
1. general statement that black students do worse without evidence or context 2. 'some really good ones' could readily be understood that others are there because of positive discrimination in recruitment 3. much research shows that social expectations drive much of student performance in hard subjects because it creates an angst in the students' minds as to whether they can perform to standard, and this taxes both their cognitive resources and their willpower. It has been shown to be a real effect in women in mathematics, minorities in law schools, and many other fields. If you set positive expectations and remove that angst, performance in these groups goes up; if you set expectations that they will struggle, guess what - they do struggle.
It may well be in relation to 3. that the school is most upset with the professor.
I fail to see the outrage, unless you're an actual heifer.
I mean what adjectives do you use for someone who managed to lose a council seat to the Tories and then a parliamentary seat to the Tories that the Tories have never held before in a little over two years?
If only we had @ydoethur around. There's an Eric Heifer pun dying to be made.
I assume his absence is due to the return to school rather than anything else I have missed?
And what about @Sandpit I was pondering the other day? Not noticed him but then I've been on a bit less of late.
He is around. I have noticed him 'liking' a few posts today.
England is bang on the UK average for total jabs but Scotland and Northern Ireland are a long way behind Wales. Wales is also implementing a shorter dosing schedule.
BiB - not much of a surprise...
Even allowing for the weight of English population on the figures it's very close though
Of 18+ population (Max is 200%)
UK 47.006% Wales 51.295% England 47.008% NI 45.702% Scotland 44.970%
I wonder whether the population estimates for Wales are off?
Maybe there's been an influx of Londoners to the Drakeford idyll?
Reminder #28495951 that Goodwin used to be quite an interesting academic before he became a populist berk forever tweeting on behalf of the right in the culture war. Wouldn't be surprised to see him joining Lozza Fox's new outfit and standing for something somewhere.
Reminder #28495951 that Goodwin used to be quite an interesting academic before he became a populist berk forever tweeting on behalf of the right in the culture war. Wouldn't be surprised to see him joining Lozza Fox's new outfit and standing for something somewhere.
I know - how very dare he remind you of the reality of public opinion...
Comments
Most people don't really care.
Eventually there would be enough vaccines to do everyone in the UK as will happen in all developed countries as it is. But the claimed success for the UK programme is that it is doing it quicker than other countries, not that it is doing it at all. That success depended on the EU not securing vaccines for itself that it could have done.
Yet still got fired. Just for mentioning this inequality. Take that in, and what it implies for the future.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/georgetown-law-professor-fired-after-comments-about-black-students/2603777/
By the same logic, someone in the police or politics saying they feel bad at black people being poorer should also be fired.
What gets me about the Brexiters is how scared they are of the EU and how much they believe (wrongly) that it bullied poor little Britain.
Have some confidence in your own nation, man.
Unless a curfew, or men otherwise changing their behaviour, is going to actually lead to women being safe, as opposed to feeling safe, then i'm not sure where the discussion is going.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-54107329
The genius was that it was sugar coated in a utopian "lets all nationalities live, love and laugh together" spirit that beared almost no resemblance to reality. So corporate finance was enabled by a mass of people who would shudder at the idea they were doing so.
As Lord Glasman said "Capitalism's Greatest con trick"
https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1370317440635314176
When David Cameron became Tory leader he started on 198 MPs, when Boris Johnson became Tory leader he started on 317* MPs.
One started from a much lower base, the other benefited from the hard work of the other one.
*It would have been 331 MPs but for Mrs May.
I am Biden's opponent politically, but I do feel very sorry for him.
What I will say is, nobody looks fitter to my untrained eye than those pro cyclists. The sprinters look like sheets of metal and the climbers are humanoid in its purest, most ruthless form - no place on those bods for anything that doesn't contribute to its one and only purpose of slugging up a mountain on a pushbike.
Acting President Kamala Harris, possibly before year end.
Trump will go big on the "who knew what, when " angle.
I have far more confidence in my nation freed from the Eurofanatics than you do given you think we are incapable of surviving without being part of the EU. Have some confidence in your own independent nation, man.
Or if it goes badly
US academe is now so paranoid about racism or just perceived racism that merely mentioning any disparity in outcome, between races - even when you do that out of concern - is enough to get you fired.
America is completely fucked if it continues down this road. Presumably we are not far behind, as we watch Kew Gardens renaming all their flowers coz racist
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/12/sarah-everard-update-human-remains-found-kent-woodland-missing/
I doubt it will occur before the midterms. Best for Kamala if she does take over to do so after 21 January 2022, then she has the potential to seek two elections of her own rather than one.
Another disappointing day...might that is why Jezza doesn't seem to have managed to get a jab yet.
https://www.kew.org/kew-gardens/whats-in-the-gardens/lake-and-sackler-crossing
It would be interesting to calculate how many people died to pay for that bridge.
https://twitter.com/hugogye/status/1370374831947022336?s=21
https://twitter.com/hugogye/status/1370375231521628161?s=21
Apart from Nixon I think the only ones who've left office prematurely are because of death?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/magazine/affirmative-action-asian-american-harvard.html
Why any of you are trying to paper over the negative economic effects is surprising. To be fair to genuine Leavers like yourself, you have never claimed it was anything other than a reclamation of our sovereignty, and negative effects were inevitable. I accept that argument, I don't believe we needed to reclaim sovereignty personally, but enough people did to make the difference. I don't accept however Philip Thompson's claim is that we can ignore bad Brexit news because no one is interested.
Bearing all that in mind, Boris Johnson increased his total number of MPs from 317 to 365 (with a 40-year record vote share for any party) after his party had already been in government for over 9 years - breaking just about every rule of electoral gravity in existence. His achievement outclasses Dave's many times over.
And he didn't do it by promising to prioritize the needs of other countries over those of the UK and its citizens, that's for damned sure.
Still, the media will swoon because of her identity and when she falls from power it will be because America is racist.
I said everyone reasonable knew that the January figures were pretty meaningless due to stockpiling, lockdown, people waiting to see how the border coped and other reasons so Scott hyperventilating over them made no sense. January being disrupted was factored in to everyone's expectations already.
Saying that trade was down in January is like saying that business was slow on 25/12. Entirely to be expected under the circumstances.
"This is a moment to seize. The Kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us."
1) The grift, Trump needs the money, what better way than via another Presidential run
2) It will offer him some sort of de facto protection from (federal) prosecution. He can say he's being persecuted by the POTUS from running, a perception the Biden adminstration may wish to avoid.
PB Tories can pick and choose at will, they can never be wrong
They're meaningless because they're baked in. We all knew that January was disrupted.
Saying that January was disrupted isn't news because we all were awake in January. But the reports are that by February the volumes were back towards normal levels. So if Feb/March figures are similarly disrupted that would be news, but it isn't going to happen.
What time are you on btw? I could nip down and get your autograph. I've already got Giles Coren's.
That's about double the UK rate.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1370370453370503174?s=20
Well colour me unimpressed. If this past year has shown us anything it is that the future is never certain and that there are so many factors that can increase or decrease GDP that it is pointless worrying about it. We will always adapt and that adaptation will be no where near as painful as people fear.
My genuine belief - which I know is not universally popular - is that Brexit has, by accident, saved thousands of lives in Britain. I could never have predicted it before hand not only because the pandemic was unpredictable but because I genuinely didn't think the EU would make such a mess of its response. But put against that result, and even ignoring my views on sovereignty, a reduction in GDP growth really isn't something I am going to be worried about.
We just need the doses.
https://twitter.com/financialreview/status/1370376622608683008?s=21
Of 18+ population (Max is 200%)
UK 47.006%
Wales 51.295%
England 47.008%
NI 45.702%
Scotland 44.970%
https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1370380861208678401?s=20
Are you in favour of bringing back hanging because that is what the mob would often vote for, particularly after any outrage.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/priority-groups-for-phase-2-of-the-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccination-programme-advice-from-the-jcvi/jcvi-interim-statement-on-phase-2-of-the-covid-19-vaccination-programme
1. general statement that black students do worse without evidence or context
2. 'some really good ones' could readily be understood that others are there because of positive discrimination in recruitment
3. much research shows that social expectations drive much of student performance in hard subjects because it creates an angst in the students' minds as to whether they can perform to standard, and this taxes both their cognitive resources and their willpower. It has been shown to be a real effect in women in mathematics, minorities in law schools, and many other fields. If you set positive expectations and remove that angst, performance in these groups goes up; if you set expectations that they will struggle, guess what - they do struggle.
It may well be in relation to 3. that the school is most upset with the professor.
Maybe there's been an influx of Londoners to the Drakeford idyll?