Reapers don't conform to STANAG 4671 so they cannot be operated in civvie airspace. They are also based in Akrotiri so it's a bit of a long transit to get on station over Bournemouth.
MQ-9B Protector can but they aren't arriving until 2023.
Someone stirring.
That drone photo is not in the newspaper story.
Politics for all has put amusing embellishments into other tweets too - the picture of the Beirut explosion into the "Bomb Bristol" story for instance.
Dogs are great pets. They are great members of the family. The problem is when they have stupid, entitled owners who take them off the lead and can't run as fast as their dog when it has spotted something/someone "interesting". Which is all of us.
You should have to pass a pooch proficiency test before you can own one.
Seems a good dose of Adam Smith is required this morning.
Perhaps the PM could read out a chapter or two?
It isn't the philosophical truth of the statement that I object to - 'capitalism' was fine, even 'profit motive' would have been fine. He had to make it that bit fruitier and be terribly amusing and say 'greed', though heaven knows it's hardly an original point. If it wasn't a blunder he wouldn't have withdrawn it immediately and they wouldn't now be spinning about it referring to a cheese and pickle sandwich.
Morning all!
It is the truth though.
It is sad that people telling the truth get attacked for doing so because the words are not deemed polite.
It may be sad, but Boris knows everything he says will be seized upon.
With sustained numbers like those, I wonder if German politics might turn Italian, with lots of unstable, ever-revolving but never-evolving governments held hostage by small parties or independents?
Not really. There are two possible coalitions that are close to a majority, CDU-Green (48% in this poll, out of the 92% that would make it over the threshold to get seat) or Green-SPD-Left (44%). If necessary for a stable majority, the FDP would probably back CDU-Green, despite the fundamental Green/FDP difference of attitude to business. But a shift of a few points to either bloc would make majority government feasible without the FDP, and German politics doesn't produce many defections, so you can govern for years on a majority of 1. The far-right AfD remain on the margins with a slight decline over time, so are not in any of the calculations.
Are you saying *shock horror* that he might have Conservative principles today that he had seven years ago.
Shocking, absolutely shocking that a Conservative Prime Minister might have Conservative principles.
You'd never see an SNP First Minister saying today that Scotland should be independent if she said that seven years ago would you? Because that would be repeating yourself in your eyes.
I’ve just posted someone else’s tweet. Bit early to to be triggered into a caffeine-laden, saliva-flecked defence of BJ ain’t it?
If you choose to post a Tweet without comment it generally implies you're endorsing the comment.
Why would a politician having the same principles they had seven years ago be something to criticise?
They shouldn't end up as far behind as currently feared. A focus on jabbing not jabbering would help with that.
That chart is plain fantasy though. What we have all painfully learned is that vaccine supply is lumpy and inherently unpredictable. Suggesting that the EU will have a smooth 120m vaccines a month, month after month, suggests to me that whoever created it has no idea what they are talking about.
Perhaps. But the UK's vaccine rollout after an initial exponential growth period has for months now trended at a remarkably flat line.
It may be lumpy but it may average at those amounts.
And yet what we are seeing is a surge in vaccine right now which is expected to fall for up to a month in a couple of weeks time slowing down the program. Our peak day was over 850k but we are averaging something like 400k. We have the capacity to do more but we don't have the stocks.
There are many things that are just baffling about the EU effort but one of them is the failure by Member States to use what they have, to create the capacity to get vaccines into arms efficiently. The EU is starting to point the finger about this which, although it will hardly improve relations, may well contain a significant element of truth. And that is before the idiocy in Italy where prosecutors are seizing vaccine.
I have said all along that the biggest problem in vaccination will be the distribution and delivery infrastructure. The NHS has a very good system for this, but much of the world has a more fragmented retail health sector.
I think people don't realise quite how fragmented the health system is in Germany. If I call for an anbulance I'll get through to the fire service who'll decide to send an ambulance. That ambulance could be run by the German Red Cross, the Johanniters, the Maltesers or maybe someone else. They will take me to the nearest hospital in the city, which could be run by an organisation that's part of the catholic church, or the evangelical church, or the university, or some other organisation. Because the ambulance staff are very limited in what treatment they can do themselves it often happens that they decide a doctor is needed and they will call for a Notarzt who will then arrive in a Notarzt car.
My GP has her own practice, total staff 2: her and a receptionist. The practice is open Monday-Friday but only in the mornings, plus 2 afternoons a week. This is fairly typical. She is expecting to get 20 doses a week initially of the vaccine after Easter, yes it sounds pitiful but I'm not sure she could cope with many more. At least she can vaccinate herself and her receptionist, and check which of the most vulnerable people on her books haven't been vaccinated yet.
My wife works in the emergency department of a hospital that is run by an organisation that runs precisely one hospital (and a couple of care homes).
The dedicated vaccination centres are running pretty efficiently, but just don't have enough doses at the moment to do more. Hospitals, care homes, the police, and others are running their own vaccination programs, with varying degrees of efficiency.
I believe the unused doses you hear about in Germany are mainly reserved doses held back to guarantee people their second dose. With AZ they have clearly relaxed this rule to always keep a second dose for every first dose administered because they have basically not yet started the AZ second doses but have already administered a lot more than half the AZ doses delivered. With Moderna they have administered less then half the doses delivered so I guess still sticking strictly to keeping second doses back, but I'm not really sure.
Greed and capitalism undoubtedly produced the vaccine. I don't see any problem in admitting that. Astra Zeneca is providing the vaccine at cost price currently, but is only obliged to do so while the pandemic officially exists. Once the WHO declares it is at an end - and covid becomes endemic - then it can start charging more. With boosters becoming a regular part of health systems across the world that is a licence to print money (especially given how easy it is to produce, store and distribute the Oxford/AZN jab). Furthermore, being involved with the vaccine may well have kept AZN's share price higher over the last year than it otherwise would have been. So what? We got vaccines. That is the important bit. Before I start worrying about companies and others making money from the huge amounts they throw at R&D I want to be shown a system that will work better. I have yet to see one.
Capitalist innovation is one thing, though supported heavily by government spending up front, but I think where greed hurts is in the bungs to Tory doners, cronies and mates from the pub.
I was assured yesterday that such things are NOT open corruption. Of course! Its entirely normal for a 9 figure PPE contract to be awarded without tender to the landlord of the Health Secretary's local pub.
In terms of size, Britain is in the sour spot relative to the EU: too small to be an equal, too big to be a client; not powerful enough to assert its will in trade negotiations but hefty enough to cause trouble.
That is a blueprint for relations on a downward spiral, which neither side wants or knows how to avert. Johnson has called for a cooperative front against a third Covid wave. Many EU national leaders are not sold on the Commission’s threat of a vaccine export ban. Compromise on AstraZeneca is available. But in the longer term, the tensions are structural and hard to overcome when all reserves of trust are spent.
Our Canvassers have seen the return of "They're all the same" that disappeared in 2017 and 2019
I actually met a voter who said "They're all the same" in 2019 about Johnson and Corbyn! I said, "Honestly, what do we have to do to persuade you we're different??" She mumbled grumpily and closed the door.
Well, quite. I mean it’s not like you had a leader from a posh background who pretends to be a friend to ordinary people, who makes racist remarks, who is lazy, disorganised and not very bright, and is a love rat famous for spending money he hasn’t got on things he doesn’t need.
That anyone would think Labour was the same as the Tories is just amazing.
That is a post that will make no sense to anybody but will get applause from those who would wish it to be true.
To sum up Ydoethur's statement, Johnson and Corbyn are the two cheeks of the same sorry arse.
The missing category is "Mostly - but occasionally not, but only when there was really an extremely low/zero risk of transmitting Covid. Like 4 people who have spent months self-isolating/had both jabs weeks back, meeting outdoors, with a fire-pit between them...." As is not unknown in Devon.
Greed and capitalism undoubtedly produced the vaccine. I don't see any problem in admitting that. Astra Zeneca is providing the vaccine at cost price currently, but is only obliged to do so while the pandemic officially exists. Once the WHO declares it is at an end - and covid becomes endemic - then it can start charging more. With boosters becoming a regular part of health systems across the world that is a licence to print money (especially given how easy it is to produce, store and distribute the Oxford/AZN jab). Furthermore, being involved with the vaccine may well have kept AZN's share price higher over the last year than it otherwise would have been. So what? We got vaccines. That is the important bit. Before I start worrying about companies and others making money from the huge amounts they throw at R&D I want to be shown a system that will work better. I have yet to see one.
Capitalist innovation is one thing, though supported heavily by government spending up front, but I think where greed hurts is in the bungs to Tory doners, cronies and mates from the pub.
Science produced the vaccine, capitalism was suspended.
Science was funded by government money (to an extent), which in turn is largely predicated on taxes paid by businesses and private individuals, and money borrowed from financial markets. It's all tied in together.
To attribute the vaccine to capitalism is wrong. First and foremost it was science, then it was the purchasing and logistical power of government to focus on an urgent goal, then somewhere down the line capitalism played a role along with Dolly Parton.
Yeah capitalism played no role, that's why state run institutions have produced the vaccine instead of companies. Oh no, wait, no that's not true.
Capitalism produced all the western vaccines apart from arguably Oxford/AZN.
Strip out the scientists and see how you get on. This is primarily a triumph of science, then government logistics. Capitalism played a supporting role and has largely been suspended whilst governments expedite funding.
Scientists working for companies seeking to make a profit, yes. Again with the sole exception of Oxford/AZN.
Pfizer, Moderna, J&J - these aren't nationalised institutions.
I don't think you have to worry about the financial health of the scientists involved. They will all be nobly accepting all kinds of nominal positions at various companies. so that said companies can have their bio on their websites.
I find this type of conversation astonishing. Why should it be a bad thing that the scientists get recognition, financial or otherwise? What is wrong with pharma companies making profits that go into all our pension and investment funds? It seems in some peoples eyes the only people that have any virtue are those working for the public sector and particularly the NHS.
I may disappoint them to know that some of the greediest and self serving individuals I have ever come across in my working life are not in the private sector but work as hospital doctors, and I don't think GPs are much better.
This does not mean they are all like it before some of you start virtue signalling, just that there is a similar proportion of such people as there are in other walks of life. There are a number of doctors who want the very nice NHS consultants salary, their huge pensions, the private practice income and also claim ownership of patents that they develop while working for the NHS (though the latter practice has become harder for the hard pressed souls).
"Greed" whatever that is, is not confined to the private sector
What is the appeal in owning a psychotic breed of dog that is a ticking time bomb? Every time one of these dogs mauls a seal or a baby its always "he was such a gentle animal" from the owner.
As an investor I would be hesitant to buy AZ if I thought that benevolence characterised their business model. AIUI it was the Ox bit that insisted on the no-profit line. But they deserve full credit for agreeing that, at least for the duration.
I'd be more put off by their backhanded corporate communications. As a drug developer, they have an excellent recent track record.
Seems a good dose of Adam Smith is required this morning.
Perhaps the PM could read out a chapter or two?
It isn't the philosophical truth of the statement that I object to - 'capitalism' was fine, even 'profit motive' would have been fine. He had to make it that bit fruitier and be terribly amusing and say 'greed', though heaven knows it's hardly an original point. If it wasn't a blunder he wouldn't have withdrawn it immediately and they wouldn't now be spinning about it referring to a cheese and pickle sandwich.
Morning all!
It is the truth though.
It is sad that people telling the truth get attacked for doing so because the words are not deemed polite.
It may be sad, but Boris knows everything he says will be seized upon.
He also knows that for some this adds to the picture of 'Good old Boris. Doesn't care. What a lad, eh?"
Our Canvassers have seen the return of "They're all the same" that disappeared in 2017 and 2019
I actually met a voter who said "They're all the same" in 2019 about Johnson and Corbyn! I said, "Honestly, what do we have to do to persuade you we're different??" She mumbled grumpily and closed the door.
Well, quite. I mean it’s not like you had a leader from a posh background who pretends to be a friend to ordinary people, who makes racist remarks, who is lazy, disorganised and not very bright, and is a love rat famous for spending money he hasn’t got on things he doesn’t need.
That anyone would think Labour was the same as the Tories is just amazing.
...a post that will make no sense to anybody but will get applause from those who would wish it to be true.
Makes complete sense to me. Unless you're referring to your own post and not @ydoethur 's ?
Seems a good dose of Adam Smith is required this morning.
Perhaps the PM could read out a chapter or two?
It isn't the philosophical truth of the statement that I object to - 'capitalism' was fine, even 'profit motive' would have been fine. He had to make it that bit fruitier and be terribly amusing and say 'greed', though heaven knows it's hardly an original point. If it wasn't a blunder he wouldn't have withdrawn it immediately and they wouldn't now be spinning about it referring to a cheese and pickle sandwich.
Morning all!
It is the truth though.
It is sad that people telling the truth get attacked for doing so because the words are not deemed polite.
Tbf BJ telling the truth would be a bit of a shock to anyone, even some of the acolytes I dare say.
As an investor I would be hesitant to buy AZ if I thought that benevolence characterised their business model. AIUI it was the Ox bit that insisted on the no-profit line. But they deserve full credit for agreeing that, at least for the duration.
I'd be more put off by their backhanded corporate communications. As a drug developer, they have an excellent recent track record.
They have been reluctant to fan the flames in the face of irrational provocation from EU leaders. And in the one response I have seen in the Italian press Soriot comes over as capable and coherent.
In terms of size, Britain is in the sour spot relative to the EU: too small to be an equal, too big to be a client; not powerful enough to assert its will in trade negotiations but hefty enough to cause trouble.
That would be more convincing if the EU didn't have bad relations with just about every one of its neighbours, of any size.
In the old days, when I used to go to meetings in Brussels professionally, you'd even get some Eurocrats to admit that that slightly bothers them, over a beer in the Grande Place.
Greed and capitalism work. Its just not polite to say that.
Without getting into the underlying argument, anyone who sees deep meaning in a Boris Johnson joke is building on sand. He makes jokes for two reasons: (1) he enjoys making them (2) he likes indulging his audience. Making a "greed is good" joke to an audience of Tory MPs ticks both boxes - it sounds mildly naughty, yet the audience will agree with the underlying premise, as Philip does.
Fine, but get him in front of an audience of NHS workers, and he's perfectly capable of making a "greed is bad" comment too, with some humorous twist that he's capable of thinking up. I shouldn't think he really has a strong view one way or the other.
The Tories aren't thinking this through. They should invite newly elected Tory MPs in red wall seats to bid for the construction of the Gulag which political prisoners such as asylum seekers can he "housed" in. Money can be made in construction and operation of the facility as well as for small business people who can sell rotten shellfish we can't export to be hurled in hate at the walls.
In terms of size, Britain is in the sour spot relative to the EU: too small to be an equal, too big to be a client; not powerful enough to assert its will in trade negotiations but hefty enough to cause trouble.
That is a blueprint for relations on a downward spiral, which neither side wants or knows how to avert. Johnson has called for a cooperative front against a third Covid wave. Many EU national leaders are not sold on the Commission’s threat of a vaccine export ban. Compromise on AstraZeneca is available. But in the longer term, the tensions are structural and hard to overcome when all reserves of trust are spent.
A Guardian classic, from one of their better writers. 1) We are doomed 2) It certainly isn't the fault of the Guardian or anyone who supports it 3) Everyone else has gone wrong (except in part the EU) 4) There are no solutions, and we certainly don't have any 5) Democracy, a free press, moderate government, European peace and unparalleled wealth make no difference. We are doomed. Keep clicking or the Guardian stops making money 6) No we have not noticed that we have become a self parody.
They shouldn't end up as far behind as currently feared. A focus on jabbing not jabbering would help with that.
That chart is plain fantasy though. What we have all painfully learned is that vaccine supply is lumpy and inherently unpredictable. Suggesting that the EU will have a smooth 120m vaccines a month, month after month, suggests to me that whoever created it has no idea what they are talking about.
Perhaps. But the UK's vaccine rollout after an initial exponential growth period has for months now trended at a remarkably flat line.
It may be lumpy but it may average at those amounts.
And yet what we are seeing is a surge in vaccine right now which is expected to fall for up to a month in a couple of weeks time slowing down the program. Our peak day was over 850k but we are averaging something like 400k. We have the capacity to do more but we don't have the stocks.
There are many things that are just baffling about the EU effort but one of them is the failure by Member States to use what they have, to create the capacity to get vaccines into arms efficiently. The EU is starting to point the finger about this which, although it will hardly improve relations, may well contain a significant element of truth. And that is before the idiocy in Italy where prosecutors are seizing vaccine.
I have said all along that the biggest problem in vaccination will be the distribution and delivery infrastructure. The NHS has a very good system for this, but much of the world has a more fragmented retail health sector.
I think people don't realise quite how fragmented the health system is in Germany. If I call for an anbulance I'll get through to the fire service who'll decide to send an ambulance. That ambulance could be run by the German Red Cross, the Johanniters, the Maltesers or maybe someone else. They will take me to the nearest hospital in the city, which could be run by an organisation that's part of the catholic church, or the evangelical church, or the university, or some other organisation. Because the ambulance staff are very limited in what treatment they can do themselves it often happens that they decide a doctor is needed and they will call for a Notarzt who will then arrive in a Notarzt car.
My GP has her own practice, total staff 2: her and a receptionist. The practice is open Monday-Friday but only in the mornings, plus 2 afternoons a week. This is fairly typical. She is expecting to get 20 doses a week initially of the vaccine after Easter, yes it sounds pitiful but I'm not sure she could cope with many more. At least she can vaccinate herself and her receptionist, and check which of the most vulnerable people on her books haven't been vaccinated yet.
My wife works in the emergency department of a hospital that is run by an organisation that runs precisely one hospital (and a couple of care homes).
The dedicated vaccination centres are running pretty efficiently, but just don't have enough doses at the moment to do more. Hospitals, care homes, the police, and others are running their own vaccination programs, with varying degrees of efficiency.
I believe the unused doses you hear about in Germany are mainly reserved doses held back to guarantee people their second dose. With AZ they have clearly relaxed this rule to always keep a second dose for every first dose administered because they have basically not yet started the AZ second doses but have already administered a lot more than half the AZ doses delivered. With Moderna they have administered less then half the doses delivered so I guess still sticking strictly to keeping second doses back, but I'm not really sure.
Thanks for this. One of the issues is we are very used to the NHS in the UK, which for all its flaws, is actually pretty integrated. We also routinely get news stories from abroad about how much better other systems are (whether that is objectively true I can't say). At the moment it is en vogue to say that France, with a similar number of cases to the UK, but much fewer deaths, must have a better healthcare system. That may be true, but unless people from the UK experience it, mostly we are guessing.
(Unless the captain of the MV Ever Given happens to be a PBer, that is.)
OK, so which PBer do you vote most likely to get a super-freighter stuck in an international waterway?
Has SeanT once of this parish found new employment since travel writing isn't really happening?
Yes, he's a renowned (by himself anyway) napper of stone-age sex toys.
However, it is just possible, that he does his best napping while on sea duty with the merchant marine.
Certainly napping on duty might explain THIS fine mess.
Can’t believe no one has fingered @Dura_Ace for this.
Sneaked out to Suez for a reunion with old shipmates, and during the celebrations he ‘persuaded’ the pilot to let him attempt to drift the vessel. It’s not as though he hasn’t confessed to similar with other vehicles.
I would have got it out of there with a full send.
Greed and capitalism undoubtedly produced the vaccine. I don't see any problem in admitting that. Astra Zeneca is providing the vaccine at cost price currently, but is only obliged to do so while the pandemic officially exists. Once the WHO declares it is at an end - and covid becomes endemic - then it can start charging more. With boosters becoming a regular part of health systems across the world that is a licence to print money (especially given how easy it is to produce, store and distribute the Oxford/AZN jab). Furthermore, being involved with the vaccine may well have kept AZN's share price higher over the last year than it otherwise would have been. So what? We got vaccines. That is the important bit. Before I start worrying about companies and others making money from the huge amounts they throw at R&D I want to be shown a system that will work better. I have yet to see one.
Capitalist innovation is one thing, though supported heavily by government spending up front, but I think where greed hurts is in the bungs to Tory doners, cronies and mates from the pub.
Science produced the vaccine, capitalism was suspended.
Science was funded by government money (to an extent), which in turn is largely predicated on taxes paid by businesses and private individuals, and money borrowed from financial markets. It's all tied in together.
To attribute the vaccine to capitalism is wrong. First and foremost it was science, then it was the purchasing and logistical power of government to focus on an urgent goal, then somewhere down the line capitalism played a role along with Dolly Parton.
Yeah capitalism played no role, that's why state run institutions have produced the vaccine instead of companies. Oh no, wait, no that's not true.
Capitalism produced all the western vaccines apart from arguably Oxford/AZN.
Strip out the scientists and see how you get on. This is primarily a triumph of science, then government logistics. Capitalism played a supporting role and has largely been suspended whilst governments expedite funding.
Scientists working for companies seeking to make a profit, yes. Again with the sole exception of Oxford/AZN.
Pfizer, Moderna, J&J - these aren't nationalised institutions.
I don't think you have to worry about the financial health of the scientists involved. They will all be nobly accepting all kinds of nominal positions at various companies. so that said companies can have their bio on their websites.
I find this type of conversation astonishing. Why should it be a bad thing that the scientists get recognition, financial or otherwise? What is wrong with pharma companies making profits that go into all our pension and investment funds? It seems in some peoples eyes the only people that have any virtue are those working for the public sector and particularly the NHS.
I may disappoint them to know that some of the greediest and self serving individuals I have ever come across in my working life are not in the private sector but work as hospital doctors, and I don't think GPs are much better.
This does not mean they are all like it before some of you start virtue signalling, just that there is a similar proportion of such people as there are in other walks of life. There are a number of doctors who want the very nice NHS consultants salary, their huge pensions, the private practice income and also claim ownership of patents that they develop while working for the NHS (though the latter practice has become harder for the hard pressed souls).
"Greed" whatever that is, is not confined to the private sector
Having at one time been in a position where some GP's wouldn't correct prescriptions unless they were given a stamped addressed envelope ........ when the alternative was to send the patient back to swear at the receptionist .....I would concur. In my experience members of all professions, except possibly the clergy can be motivated by money over ethics.
BBC now saying No 10 has clarified that BJ was referring to business's hunger for success or some such, sandwich story obviously classic Kuenssbergian bullshit (which means the new version isn't I'm sure).
Greed and capitalism undoubtedly produced the vaccine. I don't see any problem in admitting that. Astra Zeneca is providing the vaccine at cost price currently, but is only obliged to do so while the pandemic officially exists. Once the WHO declares it is at an end - and covid becomes endemic - then it can start charging more. With boosters becoming a regular part of health systems across the world that is a licence to print money (especially given how easy it is to produce, store and distribute the Oxford/AZN jab). Furthermore, being involved with the vaccine may well have kept AZN's share price higher over the last year than it otherwise would have been. So what? We got vaccines. That is the important bit. Before I start worrying about companies and others making money from the huge amounts they throw at R&D I want to be shown a system that will work better. I have yet to see one.
Capitalist innovation is one thing, though supported heavily by government spending up front, but I think where greed hurts is in the bungs to Tory doners, cronies and mates from the pub.
Science produced the vaccine, capitalism was suspended.
Science was funded by government money (to an extent), which in turn is largely predicated on taxes paid by businesses and private individuals, and money borrowed from financial markets. It's all tied in together.
To attribute the vaccine to capitalism is wrong. First and foremost it was science, then it was the purchasing and logistical power of government to focus on an urgent goal, then somewhere down the line capitalism played a role along with Dolly Parton.
Yeah capitalism played no role, that's why state run institutions have produced the vaccine instead of companies. Oh no, wait, no that's not true.
Capitalism produced all the western vaccines apart from arguably Oxford/AZN.
Strip out the scientists and see how you get on. This is primarily a triumph of science, then government logistics. Capitalism played a supporting role and has largely been suspended whilst governments expedite funding.
Scientists working for companies seeking to make a profit, yes. Again with the sole exception of Oxford/AZN.
Pfizer, Moderna, J&J - these aren't nationalised institutions.
I don't think you have to worry about the financial health of the scientists involved. They will all be nobly accepting all kinds of nominal positions at various companies. so that said companies can have their bio on their websites.
I find this type of conversation astonishing. Why should it be a bad thing that the scientists get recognition, financial or otherwise? What is wrong with pharma companies making profits that go into all our pension and investment funds? It seems in some peoples eyes the only people that have any virtue are those working for the public sector and particularly the NHS.
I may disappoint them to know that some of the greediest and self serving individuals I have ever come across in my working life are not in the private sector but work as hospital doctors, and I don't think GPs are much better.
This does not mean they are all like it before some of you start virtue signalling, just that there is a similar proportion of such people as there are in other walks of life. There are a number of doctors who want the very nice NHS consultants salary, their huge pensions, the private practice income and also claim ownership of patents that they develop while working for the NHS (though the latter practice has become harder for the hard pressed souls).
"Greed" whatever that is, is not confined to the private sector
Plus science is built on quite big teams - not all of who will be in the public eye, or earning big salaries. I chose to work in science for the love of science, not for the financial reward. If that had been my driving force I'd have whored myself out on the University milk round. Instead I still have a career I love, get excited when we make even tiny breakthroughs, but have a far lower salary than many under 30 in different careers.
Our Canvassers have seen the return of "They're all the same" that disappeared in 2017 and 2019
I actually met a voter who said "They're all the same" in 2019 about Johnson and Corbyn! I said, "Honestly, what do we have to do to persuade you we're different??" She mumbled grumpily and closed the door.
Well, quite. I mean it’s not like you had a leader from a posh background who pretends to be a friend to ordinary people, who makes racist remarks, who is lazy, disorganised and not very bright, and is a love rat famous for spending money he hasn’t got on things he doesn’t need.
That anyone would think Labour was the same as the Tories is just amazing.
That is a post that will make no sense to anybody but will get applause from those who would wish it to be true.
To sum up Ydoethur's statement, Johnson and Corbyn are the two cheeks of the same sorry arse.
Interesting. Let's just examine " a leader from a posh background who pretends to be a friend to ordinary people, who makes racist remarks, who is lazy, disorganised and not very bright," Sounds like Corbyn all over.
Thinking about it, could CDU/CSU, SPD and FDP work if they get over 50% between them? It's the Greens that the FDP don't like, isn't it?
Theoretically possible, but the SPD really didn't want to stay in government as junior partners last time around so I would say very unlikely. On the current polling numbers Union + the Greens is easily the most likely coalition. Where it gets more interesting is if the Greens end up being the largest party.
The Tories aren't thinking this through. They should invite newly elected Tory MPs in red wall seats to bid for the construction of the Gulag which political prisoners such as asylum seekers can he "housed" in. Money can be made in construction and operation of the facility as well as for small business people who can sell rotten shellfish we can't export to be hurled in hate at the walls.
From what the shadow Home Secretary was saying on media this morning, can anyone suggest what Labour's policy is? Despite having the luxury of not having to implement anything he says he gave not a single answer or the smallest clue on R4 this morning.
In terms of size, Britain is in the sour spot relative to the EU: too small to be an equal, too big to be a client; not powerful enough to assert its will in trade negotiations but hefty enough to cause trouble.
All of those things were known to the EU when they decided to give Cameron nothing meaningful he could take to the UKs voters. As with vaccines, they just don't think things through beyond "this is our position, which is immutable".
Mr. Foremain, except that the incumbent is a self-regarding desperate-to-be-liked creature of ambition without any concerns over ideology, whereas Corbyn is the exact opposite, content to be utterly powerless provided he gets to wallow in his own far left self-righteousness.
Thinking about it, could CDU/CSU, SPD and FDP work if they get over 50% between them? It's the Greens that the FDP don't like, isn't it?
Theoretically possible, but the SPD really didn't want to stay in government as junior partners last time around so I would say very unlikely. On the current polling numbers Union + the Greens is easily the most likely coalition. Where it gets more interesting is if the Greens end up being the largest party.
But the union and Greens might not get an outright majority between them. Could you see them governing as a minority administration? It's one thing for a single party just short of a majority to govern, quite another for a coalition to do so.
The danger for Labour is that conservative voters think they're "acceptable" without actually voting for them whilst the left deserts them for the greens or something.
This is the perennial problem with Labour idealogues, they hate compromise more than they do the Conservatives. This is why they are content to see perpetual Johnson and disappointed at three terms of Blair.
I am not content for a perpetual Boris but for now I am content that he continues in post and on Blair I voted for two of his three terms and was not at all disappointed when he left office
Greed and capitalism undoubtedly produced the vaccine. I don't see any problem in admitting that. Astra Zeneca is providing the vaccine at cost price currently, but is only obliged to do so while the pandemic officially exists. Once the WHO declares it is at an end - and covid becomes endemic - then it can start charging more. With boosters becoming a regular part of health systems across the world that is a licence to print money (especially given how easy it is to produce, store and distribute the Oxford/AZN jab). Furthermore, being involved with the vaccine may well have kept AZN's share price higher over the last year than it otherwise would have been. So what? We got vaccines. That is the important bit. Before I start worrying about companies and others making money from the huge amounts they throw at R&D I want to be shown a system that will work better. I have yet to see one.
Capitalist innovation is one thing, though supported heavily by government spending up front, but I think where greed hurts is in the bungs to Tory doners, cronies and mates from the pub.
Science produced the vaccine, capitalism was suspended.
Science was funded by government money (to an extent), which in turn is largely predicated on taxes paid by businesses and private individuals, and money borrowed from financial markets. It's all tied in together.
To attribute the vaccine to capitalism is wrong. First and foremost it was science, then it was the purchasing and logistical power of government to focus on an urgent goal, then somewhere down the line capitalism played a role along with Dolly Parton.
Yeah capitalism played no role, that's why state run institutions have produced the vaccine instead of companies. Oh no, wait, no that's not true.
Capitalism produced all the western vaccines apart from arguably Oxford/AZN.
Strip out the scientists and see how you get on. This is primarily a triumph of science, then government logistics. Capitalism played a supporting role and has largely been suspended whilst governments expedite funding.
Scientists working for companies seeking to make a profit, yes. Again with the sole exception of Oxford/AZN.
Pfizer, Moderna, J&J - these aren't nationalised institutions.
I don't think you have to worry about the financial health of the scientists involved. They will all be nobly accepting all kinds of nominal positions at various companies. so that said companies can have their bio on their websites.
I find this type of conversation astonishing. Why should it be a bad thing that the scientists get recognition, financial or otherwise? What is wrong with pharma companies making profits that go into all our pension and investment funds? It seems in some peoples eyes the only people that have any virtue are those working for the public sector and particularly the NHS.
I may disappoint them to know that some of the greediest and self serving individuals I have ever come across in my working life are not in the private sector but work as hospital doctors, and I don't think GPs are much better.
This does not mean they are all like it before some of you start virtue signalling, just that there is a similar proportion of such people as there are in other walks of life. There are a number of doctors who want the very nice NHS consultants salary, their huge pensions, the private practice income and also claim ownership of patents that they develop while working for the NHS (though the latter practice has become harder for the hard pressed souls).
"Greed" whatever that is, is not confined to the private sector
Plus science is built on quite big teams - not all of who will be in the public eye, or earning big salaries. I chose to work in science for the love of science, not for the financial reward. If that had been my driving force I'd have whored myself out on the University milk round. Instead I still have a career I love, get excited when we make even tiny breakthroughs, but have a far lower salary than many under 30 in different careers.
Indeed, and credit to you, and the millions of scientists and other workers and professionals all around the world that work for private and public sector that quietly get on with their job without shouting "look at me". It would be nice if they got a little more recognition.
In terms of size, Britain is in the sour spot relative to the EU: too small to be an equal, too big to be a client; not powerful enough to assert its will in trade negotiations but hefty enough to cause trouble.
All of those things were known to the EU when they decided to give Cameron nothing meaningful he could take to the UKs voters. As with vaccines, they just don't think things through beyond "this is our position, which is immutable".
Cameron wanted cake-ism. Further the UKIP-ers, inflamed by the likes of Boris would have come back for more. If the people at the top of the EU don't trust the present leadership in UK, who can blame them?
Greed and capitalism work. Its just not polite to say that.
Without getting into the underlying argument, anyone who sees deep meaning in a Boris Johnson joke is building on sand. He makes jokes for two reasons: (1) he enjoys making them (2) he likes indulging his audience. Making a "greed is good" joke to an audience of Tory MPs ticks both boxes - it sounds mildly naughty, yet the audience will agree with the underlying premise, as Philip does.
Fine, but get him in front of an audience of NHS workers, and he's perfectly capable of making a "greed is bad" comment too, with some humorous twist that he's capable of thinking up. I shouldn't think he really has a strong view one way or the other.
'Greed' is a value not a fact. In our language it is definitionally bad, but it can't be possible to agree what it comprises. Any sort of active self interest could be described as greed, but none has to be. I think Boris knows all that. Among other things he thinks, and so far has succeeded, that causing occasional 'offence' is politically fine for him.
Mr. Foremain, except that the incumbent is a self-regarding desperate-to-be-liked creature of ambition without any concerns over ideology, whereas Corbyn is the exact opposite, content to be utterly powerless provided he gets to wallow in his own far left self-righteousness.
Yes, that is where the two cheeks part, if that is not too revolting a metaphor!
Our Canvassers have seen the return of "They're all the same" that disappeared in 2017 and 2019
I actually met a voter who said "They're all the same" in 2019 about Johnson and Corbyn! I said, "Honestly, what do we have to do to persuade you we're different??" She mumbled grumpily and closed the door.
Well, quite. I mean it’s not like you had a leader from a posh background who pretends to be a friend to ordinary people, who makes racist remarks, who is lazy, disorganised and not very bright, and is a love rat famous for spending money he hasn’t got on things he doesn’t need.
That anyone would think Labour was the same as the Tories is just amazing.
That is a post that will make no sense to anybody but will get applause from those who would wish it to be true.
To sum up Ydoethur's statement, Johnson and Corbyn are the two cheeks of the same sorry arse.
SKS and every Tory and Labour leader since 1979 are quite literally all part of the same neo liberal arise.(except for jezza)
Both inevitable and perfectly fine imo. The notion that everyone will follow all of the rules until the day they are formally lifted is detached from reality. By the time the government says people can do a certain thing, many will already be doing it. I'm sure this is priced into the planning.
The Tories aren't thinking this through. They should invite newly elected Tory MPs in red wall seats to bid for the construction of the Gulag which political prisoners such as asylum seekers can he "housed" in. Money can be made in construction and operation of the facility as well as for small business people who can sell rotten shellfish we can't export to be hurled in hate at the walls.
The Brexit seats voted to leave the EU because they didn't want foreigners. No red wall seat MP is going to willingly accept a asylum in their constituency.
What is the appeal in owning a psychotic breed of dog that is a ticking time bomb? Every time one of these dogs mauls a seal or a baby its always "he was such a gentle animal" from the owner.
The holy trinity:
He never bites (of dogs just after dog has bitten) He never kicks (of horses, just after...) It never rains here usually at this time of year (amidst deluge...)
They shouldn't end up as far behind as currently feared. A focus on jabbing not jabbering would help with that.
That chart is plain fantasy though. What we have all painfully learned is that vaccine supply is lumpy and inherently unpredictable. Suggesting that the EU will have a smooth 120m vaccines a month, month after month, suggests to me that whoever created it has no idea what they are talking about.
Perhaps. But the UK's vaccine rollout after an initial exponential growth period has for months now trended at a remarkably flat line.
It may be lumpy but it may average at those amounts.
And yet what we are seeing is a surge in vaccine right now which is expected to fall for up to a month in a couple of weeks time slowing down the program. Our peak day was over 850k but we are averaging something like 400k. We have the capacity to do more but we don't have the stocks.
There are many things that are just baffling about the EU effort but one of them is the failure by Member States to use what they have, to create the capacity to get vaccines into arms efficiently. The EU is starting to point the finger about this which, although it will hardly improve relations, may well contain a significant element of truth. And that is before the idiocy in Italy where prosecutors are seizing vaccine.
I have said all along that the biggest problem in vaccination will be the distribution and delivery infrastructure. The NHS has a very good system for this, but much of the world has a more fragmented retail health sector.
I think people don't realise quite how fragmented the health system is in Germany. If I call for an anbulance I'll get through to the fire service who'll decide to send an ambulance. That ambulance could be run by the German Red Cross, the Johanniters, the Maltesers or maybe someone else. They will take me to the nearest hospital in the city, which could be run by an organisation that's part of the catholic church, or the evangelical church, or the university, or some other organisation. Because the ambulance staff are very limited in what treatment they can do themselves it often happens that they decide a doctor is needed and they will call for a Notarzt who will then arrive in a Notarzt car.
My GP has her own practice, total staff 2: her and a receptionist. The practice is open Monday-Friday but only in the mornings, plus 2 afternoons a week. This is fairly typical. She is expecting to get 20 doses a week initially of the vaccine after Easter, yes it sounds pitiful but I'm not sure she could cope with many more. At least she can vaccinate herself and her receptionist, and check which of the most vulnerable people on her books haven't been vaccinated yet.
My wife works in the emergency department of a hospital that is run by an organisation that runs precisely one hospital (and a couple of care homes).
The dedicated vaccination centres are running pretty efficiently, but just don't have enough doses at the moment to do more. Hospitals, care homes, the police, and others are running their own vaccination programs, with varying degrees of efficiency.
I believe the unused doses you hear about in Germany are mainly reserved doses held back to guarantee people their second dose. With AZ they have clearly relaxed this rule to always keep a second dose for every first dose administered because they have basically not yet started the AZ second doses but have already administered a lot more than half the AZ doses delivered. With Moderna they have administered less then half the doses delivered so I guess still sticking strictly to keeping second doses back, but I'm not really sure.
Thanks for this. One of the issues is we are very used to the NHS in the UK, which for all its flaws, is actually pretty integrated. We also routinely get news stories from abroad about how much better other systems are (whether that is objectively true I can't say). At the moment it is en vogue to say that France, with a similar number of cases to the UK, but much fewer deaths, must have a better healthcare system. That may be true, but unless people from the UK experience it, mostly we are guessing.
I think a lot of us tend to have a bit of an agenda when making comparisons, and there tend to be pluses and minuses to the different systems (along with different amounts spent). Which tends to make people advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or advocate spending a lot of effort on big reorganisations, rather than looking at how to try and incorporate best practice without disrupting everything needlessly.
On a related note, before this pandemic there was quite a bit of criticism in Germany of the inefficiency of running a health system with so much "spare" capacity in terms of intensive care beds. That criticism has stopped, at least for now.
In terms of size, Britain is in the sour spot relative to the EU: too small to be an equal, too big to be a client; not powerful enough to assert its will in trade negotiations but hefty enough to cause trouble.
All of those things were known to the EU when they decided to give Cameron nothing meaningful he could take to the UKs voters. As with vaccines, they just don't think things through beyond "this is our position, which is immutable".
Cameron wanted cake-ism. Further the UKIP-ers, inflamed by the likes of Boris would have come back for more. If the people at the top of the EU don't trust the present leadership in UK, who can blame them?
To keep us in the EU, Cameron needed cake-ism to be offered.
Ironically, if the EU do play silly buggers with vaccineS, then the argument for keeping the UK's borders shut may be an easier sell - floated in the Daily Mail, yesterday:
Thinking about it, could CDU/CSU, SPD and FDP work if they get over 50% between them? It's the Greens that the FDP don't like, isn't it?
Theoretically possible, but the SPD really didn't want to stay in government as junior partners last time around so I would say very unlikely. On the current polling numbers Union + the Greens is easily the most likely coalition. Where it gets more interesting is if the Greens end up being the largest party.
But the union and Greens might not get an outright majority between them. Could you see them governing as a minority administration? It's one thing for a single party just short of a majority to govern, quite another for a coalition to do so.
Just to add, of course, the parties will win more seats than their share of the vote because of those parties not reaching the threshold. So if the CDU/CSU + Greens is c.48% of the vote, that should get them over the line in terms of seats.
The good/bad news for Cons/Lab is that the more Lab demonises Boris the less they focus on the "ishoos". Liar, corrupt, incompetent...all may be true of BoJo but the opposition would say that, wouldn't they, so there's no electoral cut through.
Meanwhile, people genuinely like Boris and the Cons carry on governing the country.
The Tories aren't thinking this through. They should invite newly elected Tory MPs in red wall seats to bid for the construction of the Gulag which political prisoners such as asylum seekers can he "housed" in. Money can be made in construction and operation of the facility as well as for small business people who can sell rotten shellfish we can't export to be hurled in hate at the walls.
It is of course populist politics, but it will have resonance. I regard myself as a centrist, but I do find it quite galling that anyone who is claiming to be fleeing persecution can travel through a number of perfectly safe states and then say, "actually I want to claim safety in a place much further away that also involves me risking my family in an inflatable".
They shouldn't end up as far behind as currently feared. A focus on jabbing not jabbering would help with that.
That chart is plain fantasy though. What we have all painfully learned is that vaccine supply is lumpy and inherently unpredictable. Suggesting that the EU will have a smooth 120m vaccines a month, month after month, suggests to me that whoever created it has no idea what they are talking about.
Perhaps. But the UK's vaccine rollout after an initial exponential growth period has for months now trended at a remarkably flat line.
It may be lumpy but it may average at those amounts.
And yet what we are seeing is a surge in vaccine right now which is expected to fall for up to a month in a couple of weeks time slowing down the program. Our peak day was over 850k but we are averaging something like 400k. We have the capacity to do more but we don't have the stocks.
There are many things that are just baffling about the EU effort but one of them is the failure by Member States to use what they have, to create the capacity to get vaccines into arms efficiently. The EU is starting to point the finger about this which, although it will hardly improve relations, may well contain a significant element of truth. And that is before the idiocy in Italy where prosecutors are seizing vaccine.
I have said all along that the biggest problem in vaccination will be the distribution and delivery infrastructure. The NHS has a very good system for this, but much of the world has a more fragmented retail health sector.
I think people don't realise quite how fragmented the health system is in Germany. If I call for an anbulance I'll get through to the fire service who'll decide to send an ambulance. That ambulance could be run by the German Red Cross, the Johanniters, the Maltesers or maybe someone else. They will take me to the nearest hospital in the city, which could be run by an organisation that's part of the catholic church, or the evangelical church, or the university, or some other organisation. Because the ambulance staff are very limited in what treatment they can do themselves it often happens that they decide a doctor is needed and they will call for a Notarzt who will then arrive in a Notarzt car.
My GP has her own practice, total staff 2: her and a receptionist. The practice is open Monday-Friday but only in the mornings, plus 2 afternoons a week. This is fairly typical. She is expecting to get 20 doses a week initially of the vaccine after Easter, yes it sounds pitiful but I'm not sure she could cope with many more. At least she can vaccinate herself and her receptionist, and check which of the most vulnerable people on her books haven't been vaccinated yet.
My wife works in the emergency department of a hospital that is run by an organisation that runs precisely one hospital (and a couple of care homes).
The dedicated vaccination centres are running pretty efficiently, but just don't have enough doses at the moment to do more. Hospitals, care homes, the police, and others are running their own vaccination programs, with varying degrees of efficiency.
I believe the unused doses you hear about in Germany are mainly reserved doses held back to guarantee people their second dose. With AZ they have clearly relaxed this rule to always keep a second dose for every first dose administered because they have basically not yet started the AZ second doses but have already administered a lot more than half the AZ doses delivered. With Moderna they have administered less then half the doses delivered so I guess still sticking strictly to keeping second doses back, but I'm not really sure.
Thanks for this. One of the issues is we are very used to the NHS in the UK, which for all its flaws, is actually pretty integrated. We also routinely get news stories from abroad about how much better other systems are (whether that is objectively true I can't say). At the moment it is en vogue to say that France, with a similar number of cases to the UK, but much fewer deaths, must have a better healthcare system. That may be true, but unless people from the UK experience it, mostly we are guessing.
One thing I understand very well is Germany Privacy laws.
So it didn't surprise me that it's proven impossible to identify people by age to prioritise the people being vaccinated. The only bit that did surprise was them finding a list (telephone directories) which provided enough information to allow them to hunt for names that are more likely to be old.
The danger for Labour is that conservative voters think they're "acceptable" without actually voting for them whilst the left deserts them for the greens or something.
This is the perennial problem with Labour idealogues, they hate compromise more than they do the Conservatives. This is why they are content to see perpetual Johnson and disappointed at three terms of Blair.
I am not content for a perpetual Boris but for now I am content that he continues in post and on Blair I voted for two of his three terms and was not at all disappointed when he left office
He must be very relieved as you have previously wanted him gone today/after Brexit/after Covid.
The Tories aren't thinking this through. They should invite newly elected Tory MPs in red wall seats to bid for the construction of the Gulag which political prisoners such as asylum seekers can he "housed" in. Money can be made in construction and operation of the facility as well as for small business people who can sell rotten shellfish we can't export to be hurled in hate at the walls.
It is of course populist politics, but it will have resonance. I regard myself as a centrist, but I do find it quite galling that anyone who is claiming to be fleeing persecution can travel through a number of perfectly safe states and then say, "actually I want to claim safety in a place much further away that also involves me risking my family in an inflatable".
Something I agree with you on.
I welcome refugees and migration in general. But we should be helping those in need, not those selfish/stupid/dangerous enough to be putting themselves or their family in dinghies from the hostile dangerous state of ... France.
There are millions of refugees in Turkey etc law-abidingly seeking refuge. I would agree with Turkey a straight swap, someone who comes in a dinghy in exchange for one or even two refugees from a camp.
The danger for Labour is that conservative voters think they're "acceptable" without actually voting for them whilst the left deserts them for the greens or something.
This is the perennial problem with Labour idealogues, they hate compromise more than they do the Conservatives. This is why they are content to see perpetual Johnson and disappointed at three terms of Blair.
I am not content for a perpetual Boris but for now I am content that he continues in post and on Blair I voted for two of his three terms and was not at all disappointed when he left office
He must be very relieved as you have previously wanted him gone today/after Brexit/after Covid.
Our Canvassers have seen the return of "They're all the same" that disappeared in 2017 and 2019
I actually met a voter who said "They're all the same" in 2019 about Johnson and Corbyn! I said, "Honestly, what do we have to do to persuade you we're different??" She mumbled grumpily and closed the door.
Well, quite. I mean it’s not like you had a leader from a posh background who pretends to be a friend to ordinary people, who makes racist remarks, who is lazy, disorganised and not very bright, and is a love rat famous for spending money he hasn’t got on things he doesn’t need.
That anyone would think Labour was the same as the Tories is just amazing.
That is a post that will make no sense to anybody but will get applause from those who would wish it to be true.
To sum up Ydoethur's statement, Johnson and Corbyn are the two cheeks of the same sorry arse.
SKS and every Tory and Labour leader since 1979 are quite literally all part of the same neo liberal arise.(except for jezza)
Voters like "neo liberalism" then. Campaigning against it is like campaigning for Communism - worthy if thats your thing, but utterly pointless.
'Mr Mundell, who ran the Scottish office from 2015 to 2019, said that it was not enough just to make the economic case for the UK staying together. He told today’s Chopper’s Politics podcast, which you can listen to easily on the audio player above: “Unionists have not to be frightened about making an emotional case for the United Kingdom. “We've been very, very focused previously, I think, on the facts, which, you know, I think in themselves are very, very compelling. But, you know, there needs to be an emotional case for the United Kingdom as well, a heart case, as well as a head case.”'
Wonder if Boris was a CEO of a PLC which companies would have fired him for yesterday's comment. Essentially he was trying to make a joke trashing business people as 'greedy'.Of course the old private snobbery of a public school/oxbridge set who simultanouisly try to scrooge off the self made 30 years ago Gerald Ratner lost his CEO job for trying to make a joke which basically trashed his own jewellery products. Boris (and Ratner) are/were saying a lot more about themselves than about people in business. Plenty of people in business want to make money by offering products and services in a way that they can take a pride in.And anyone who does the stockmarket will find opportunities to invest in those business's. Part of Warren Buffett success is based on spotting and avoiding greedy rip off merchants.
Indeed.
I doubt many Conservative politicians have any experience or understanding of what free market wealth creating business is.
Judging by how eagerly they get paid for vague services after they leave politics they know a lot about greed however.
Reapers don't conform to STANAG 4671 so they cannot be operated in civvie airspace. They are also based in Akrotiri so it's a bit of a long transit to get on station over Bournemouth.
MQ-9B Protector can but they aren't arriving until 2023.
Someone stirring.
That drone photo is not in the newspaper story.
Politics for all has put amusing embellishments into other tweets too - the picture of the Beirut explosion into the "Bomb Bristol" story for instance.
Are you saying *shock horror* that he might have Conservative principles today that he had seven years ago.
Shocking, absolutely shocking that a Conservative Prime Minister might have Conservative principles.
You'd never see an SNP First Minister saying today that Scotland should be independent if she said that seven years ago would you? Because that would be repeating yourself in your eyes.
I’ve just posted someone else’s tweet. Bit early to to be triggered into a caffeine-laden, saliva-flecked defence of BJ ain’t it?
If you choose to post a Tweet without comment it generally implies you're endorsing the comment.
Why would a politician having the same principles they had seven years ago be something to criticise?
So why did he attempt to obfuscate the comment ?
Probably because he was smart enough to realise that the comments, while legitimate, would be seized upon by critics both domestic and foreign.
The good/bad news for Cons/Lab is that the more Lab demonises Boris the less they focus on the "ishoos". Liar, corrupt, incompetent...all may be true of BoJo but the opposition would say that, wouldn't they, so there's no electoral cut through.
Meanwhile, people genuinely like Boris and the Cons carry on governing the country.
So - can Starmer land a blow at PMQs about "greed" and 1% for nurses?
I'm a little surprised that Starmer has not yet managed to get Boris to REALLY contradict himself during PMQ's.
Or if he has, it hasn't been juicy enough to be widely reported.
Or, as someone will point out, he has, and I've missed it.
It'll be billed as the battle of the Gordons today, Gekko Vs Brittas*.
*actually, given the Brittas moniker is simply down to the quite ordinary projection of a mild South London accent, the labelling smacks of pure form class snobbery to me, but is not surprising or unique.
The Tories aren't thinking this through. They should invite newly elected Tory MPs in red wall seats to bid for the construction of the Gulag which political prisoners such as asylum seekers can he "housed" in. Money can be made in construction and operation of the facility as well as for small business people who can sell rotten shellfish we can't export to be hurled in hate at the walls.
The Brexit seats voted to leave the EU because they didn't want foreigners. No red wall seat MP is going to willingly accept a asylum in their constituency.
They wouldn't be walking the streets! They would be incarcerated - going off how much the knuckle-draggers seem to hate forrin scroungers you think they'd be happy to make some money off them.
Besides which it would be far cheaper than Patel's batshit ideas like floating them on a ship or housing them on Rockall. Value for Money, local jobs AND a place you can take the kids to teach the next generation to be as hateful as you are.
The Tories aren't thinking this through. They should invite newly elected Tory MPs in red wall seats to bid for the construction of the Gulag which political prisoners such as asylum seekers can he "housed" in. Money can be made in construction and operation of the facility as well as for small business people who can sell rotten shellfish we can't export to be hurled in hate at the walls.
It is of course populist politics, but it will have resonance. I regard myself as a centrist, but I do find it quite galling that anyone who is claiming to be fleeing persecution can travel through a number of perfectly safe states and then say, "actually I want to claim safety in a place much further away that also involves me risking my family in an inflatable".
Something I agree with you on.
I welcome refugees and migration in general. But we should be helping those in need, not those selfish/stupid/dangerous enough to be putting themselves or their family in dinghies from the hostile dangerous state of ... France.
There are millions of refugees in Turkey etc law-abidingly seeking refuge. I would agree with Turkey a straight swap, someone who comes in a dinghy in exchange for one or even two refugees from a camp.
It's more complex, isn't it. Many of those refugees have some connection with UK such as a relative here already. Others have some ability to speak English...... one of the worlds universal languages.
One wonders why, when Patel's parents decided to leave Uganda, they came to Hertfordshire instead of making for their ancestral Gujerat.
They shouldn't end up as far behind as currently feared. A focus on jabbing not jabbering would help with that.
That chart is plain fantasy though. What we have all painfully learned is that vaccine supply is lumpy and inherently unpredictable. Suggesting that the EU will have a smooth 120m vaccines a month, month after month, suggests to me that whoever created it has no idea what they are talking about.
Perhaps. But the UK's vaccine rollout after an initial exponential growth period has for months now trended at a remarkably flat line.
It may be lumpy but it may average at those amounts.
And yet what we are seeing is a surge in vaccine right now which is expected to fall for up to a month in a couple of weeks time slowing down the program. Our peak day was over 850k but we are averaging something like 400k. We have the capacity to do more but we don't have the stocks.
There are many things that are just baffling about the EU effort but one of them is the failure by Member States to use what they have, to create the capacity to get vaccines into arms efficiently. The EU is starting to point the finger about this which, although it will hardly improve relations, may well contain a significant element of truth. And that is before the idiocy in Italy where prosecutors are seizing vaccine.
I have said all along that the biggest problem in vaccination will be the distribution and delivery infrastructure. The NHS has a very good system for this, but much of the world has a more fragmented retail health sector.
I think people don't realise quite how fragmented the health system is in Germany. If I call for an anbulance I'll get through to the fire service who'll decide to send an ambulance. That ambulance could be run by the German Red Cross, the Johanniters, the Maltesers or maybe someone else. They will take me to the nearest hospital in the city, which could be run by an organisation that's part of the catholic church, or the evangelical church, or the university, or some other organisation. Because the ambulance staff are very limited in what treatment they can do themselves it often happens that they decide a doctor is needed and they will call for a Notarzt who will then arrive in a Notarzt car.
My GP has her own practice, total staff 2: her and a receptionist. The practice is open Monday-Friday but only in the mornings, plus 2 afternoons a week. This is fairly typical. She is expecting to get 20 doses a week initially of the vaccine after Easter, yes it sounds pitiful but I'm not sure she could cope with many more. At least she can vaccinate herself and her receptionist, and check which of the most vulnerable people on her books haven't been vaccinated yet.
My wife works in the emergency department of a hospital that is run by an organisation that runs precisely one hospital (and a couple of care homes).
The dedicated vaccination centres are running pretty efficiently, but just don't have enough doses at the moment to do more. Hospitals, care homes, the police, and others are running their own vaccination programs, with varying degrees of efficiency.
I believe the unused doses you hear about in Germany are mainly reserved doses held back to guarantee people their second dose. With AZ they have clearly relaxed this rule to always keep a second dose for every first dose administered because they have basically not yet started the AZ second doses but have already administered a lot more than half the AZ doses delivered. With Moderna they have administered less then half the doses delivered so I guess still sticking strictly to keeping second doses back, but I'm not really sure.
Thanks for this. One of the issues is we are very used to the NHS in the UK, which for all its flaws, is actually pretty integrated. We also routinely get news stories from abroad about how much better other systems are (whether that is objectively true I can't say). At the moment it is en vogue to say that France, with a similar number of cases to the UK, but much fewer deaths, must have a better healthcare system. That may be true, but unless people from the UK experience it, mostly we are guessing.
The GP stuff resembles the service that many get from their GPSs in the UK. My local one is very good, but a number of people locally use A&E at a nearby hospital, since they can't get appointments within the same week etc.
Wasn't there a hospital trial of a GP style service attached to A&E to help people doing this?
The Tories aren't thinking this through. They should invite newly elected Tory MPs in red wall seats to bid for the construction of the Gulag which political prisoners such as asylum seekers can he "housed" in. Money can be made in construction and operation of the facility as well as for small business people who can sell rotten shellfish we can't export to be hurled in hate at the walls.
It is of course populist politics, but it will have resonance. I regard myself as a centrist, but I do find it quite galling that anyone who is claiming to be fleeing persecution can travel through a number of perfectly safe states and then say, "actually I want to claim safety in a place much further away that also involves me risking my family in an inflatable".
Something I agree with you on.
I welcome refugees and migration in general. But we should be helping those in need, not those selfish/stupid/dangerous enough to be putting themselves or their family in dinghies from the hostile dangerous state of ... France.
There are millions of refugees in Turkey etc law-abidingly seeking refuge. I would agree with Turkey a straight swap, someone who comes in a dinghy in exchange for one or even two refugees from a camp.
It's more complex, isn't it. Many of those refugees have some connection with UK such as a relative here already. Others have some ability to speak English...... one of the worlds universal languages.
One wonders why, when Patel's parents decided to leave Uganda, they came to Hertfordshire instead of their ancestral Gujerat.
An estimated 1.35 billion people speak English, should we house them all?
Why should eg an English speaking impoverished woman or child refugee alone in Turkey who has a relative here be unable to come here but a healthy young man who has money to pay people smugglers for a ride in a dinghy across the Channel can make it?
There is nothing "generous" in prioritising people based on their willingness and ability to pay people smugglers.
Greed and capitalism undoubtedly produced the vaccine. I don't see any problem in admitting that. Astra Zeneca is providing the vaccine at cost price currently, but is only obliged to do so while the pandemic officially exists. Once the WHO declares it is at an end - and covid becomes endemic - then it can start charging more. With boosters becoming a regular part of health systems across the world that is a licence to print money (especially given how easy it is to produce, store and distribute the Oxford/AZN jab). Furthermore, being involved with the vaccine may well have kept AZN's share price higher over the last year than it otherwise would have been. So what? We got vaccines. That is the important bit. Before I start worrying about companies and others making money from the huge amounts they throw at R&D I want to be shown a system that will work better. I have yet to see one.
Capitalist innovation is one thing, though supported heavily by government spending up front, but I think where greed hurts is in the bungs to Tory doners, cronies and mates from the pub.
Science produced the vaccine, capitalism was suspended.
Science was funded by government money (to an extent), which in turn is largely predicated on taxes paid by businesses and private individuals, and money borrowed from financial markets. It's all tied in together.
To attribute the vaccine to capitalism is wrong. First and foremost it was science, then it was the purchasing and logistical power of government to focus on an urgent goal, then somewhere down the line capitalism played a role along with Dolly Parton.
Yeah capitalism played no role, that's why state run institutions have produced the vaccine instead of companies. Oh no, wait, no that's not true.
Capitalism produced all the western vaccines apart from arguably Oxford/AZN.
Strip out the scientists and see how you get on. This is primarily a triumph of science, then government logistics. Capitalism played a supporting role and has largely been suspended whilst governments expedite funding.
Scientists working for companies seeking to make a profit, yes. Again with the sole exception of Oxford/AZN.
Pfizer, Moderna, J&J - these aren't nationalised institutions.
I don't think you have to worry about the financial health of the scientists involved. They will all be nobly accepting all kinds of nominal positions at various companies. so that said companies can have their bio on their websites.
I find this type of conversation astonishing. Why should it be a bad thing that the scientists get recognition, financial or otherwise? What is wrong with pharma companies making profits that go into all our pension and investment funds? It seems in some peoples eyes the only people that have any virtue are those working for the public sector and particularly the NHS.
I may disappoint them to know that some of the greediest and self serving individuals I have ever come across in my working life are not in the private sector but work as hospital doctors, and I don't think GPs are much better.
This does not mean they are all like it before some of you start virtue signalling, just that there is a similar proportion of such people as there are in other walks of life. There are a number of doctors who want the very nice NHS consultants salary, their huge pensions, the private practice income and also claim ownership of patents that they develop while working for the NHS (though the latter practice has become harder for the hard pressed souls).
"Greed" whatever that is, is not confined to the private sector
Having at one time been in a position where some GP's wouldn't correct prescriptions unless they were given a stamped addressed envelope ........ when the alternative was to send the patient back to swear at the receptionist .....I would concur. In my experience members of all professions, except possibly the clergy can be motivated by money over ethics.
I think that's right. You get virtue and vice in both sectors. Of course you do. Also money is not imo as much of a driver for people as often assumed. You need more than that to make you throw your heart & soul into something.
Our Canvassers have seen the return of "They're all the same" that disappeared in 2017 and 2019
I actually met a voter who said "They're all the same" in 2019 about Johnson and Corbyn! I said, "Honestly, what do we have to do to persuade you we're different??" She mumbled grumpily and closed the door.
I can actually think of a number of ways that Johnson and Corbyn are the same. London based. Larger than life. Popular with activist base in the party. Have been divorced.
But for now, he has tens of thousands of lives in the bank, saved by his vaccine procurement and roll-out.....
I would accept that Johnson is entitled to the credit for anything that goes well on his watch, but please don't attribute personal credit where it is not due
As to the excess deaths issue, it is crass to suggest Johnson is directly responsible for the expired lives of 126,000 people from Covid, although as their deaths occurred on his watch, the buck stops with him. That said, there is an argument to be made that some deaths could have been preventable if Johnson has not "personally" ignored Dominic Cummings' advice for a September lockdown. That is for the enquiry.
The Tories aren't thinking this through. They should invite newly elected Tory MPs in red wall seats to bid for the construction of the Gulag which political prisoners such as asylum seekers can he "housed" in. Money can be made in construction and operation of the facility as well as for small business people who can sell rotten shellfish we can't export to be hurled in hate at the walls.
It is of course populist politics, but it will have resonance. I regard myself as a centrist, but I do find it quite galling that anyone who is claiming to be fleeing persecution can travel through a number of perfectly safe states and then say, "actually I want to claim safety in a place much further away that also involves me risking my family in an inflatable".
Something I agree with you on.
I welcome refugees and migration in general. But we should be helping those in need, not those selfish/stupid/dangerous enough to be putting themselves or their family in dinghies from the hostile dangerous state of ... France.
There are millions of refugees in Turkey etc law-abidingly seeking refuge. I would agree with Turkey a straight swap, someone who comes in a dinghy in exchange for one or even two refugees from a camp.
It's more complex, isn't it. Many of those refugees have some connection with UK such as a relative here already. Others have some ability to speak English...... one of the worlds universal languages.
One wonders why, when Patel's parents decided to leave Uganda, they came to Hertfordshire instead of their ancestral Gujerat.
An estimated 1.35 billion people speak English, should we house them all?
Why should eg an English speaking impoverished woman or child refugee alone in Turkey who has a relative here be unable to come here but a healthy young man who has money to pay people smugglers for a ride in a dinghy across the Channel can make it?
There is nothing "generous" in prioritising people based on their willingness and ability to pay people smugglers.
If you really want to reductio ad absurdem, then I suggest you wonder whether the healthy young man can, once settled, build a life here, pay taxes and contribute to our economy.
The Tories aren't thinking this through. They should invite newly elected Tory MPs in red wall seats to bid for the construction of the Gulag which political prisoners such as asylum seekers can he "housed" in. Money can be made in construction and operation of the facility as well as for small business people who can sell rotten shellfish we can't export to be hurled in hate at the walls.
The Brexit seats voted to leave the EU because they didn't want foreigners. No red wall seat MP is going to willingly accept a asylum in their constituency.
The question is how many MPs of any sort are queueing up to offer?
BTW there are more complications. An announcement recently opening the doors to millions of HK refugees was received without much comment either from left or right. So a straight 'racist' critique about Brexiteers etc won't quite do.
The Tories aren't thinking this through. They should invite newly elected Tory MPs in red wall seats to bid for the construction of the Gulag which political prisoners such as asylum seekers can he "housed" in. Money can be made in construction and operation of the facility as well as for small business people who can sell rotten shellfish we can't export to be hurled in hate at the walls.
It is of course populist politics, but it will have resonance. I regard myself as a centrist, but I do find it quite galling that anyone who is claiming to be fleeing persecution can travel through a number of perfectly safe states and then say, "actually I want to claim safety in a place much further away that also involves me risking my family in an inflatable".
Something I agree with you on.
I welcome refugees and migration in general. But we should be helping those in need, not those selfish/stupid/dangerous enough to be putting themselves or their family in dinghies from the hostile dangerous state of ... France.
There are millions of refugees in Turkey etc law-abidingly seeking refuge. I would agree with Turkey a straight swap, someone who comes in a dinghy in exchange for one or even two refugees from a camp.
It's more complex, isn't it. Many of those refugees have some connection with UK such as a relative here already. Others have some ability to speak English...... one of the worlds universal languages.
One wonders why, when Patel's parents decided to leave Uganda, they came to Hertfordshire instead of their ancestral Gujerat.
An estimated 1.35 billion people speak English, should we house them all?
Why should eg an English speaking impoverished woman or child refugee alone in Turkey who has a relative here be unable to come here but a healthy young man who has money to pay people smugglers for a ride in a dinghy across the Channel can make it?
There is nothing "generous" in prioritising people based on their willingness and ability to pay people smugglers.
If you really want to reductio ad absurdem, then I suggest you wonder whether the healthy young man can, once settled, build a life here, pay taxes and contribute to our economy.
Its not absurd and yes they can, that's called economic migration and we allow economic migration through other routes too.
If you want economic migration then getting the highly skilled or those with skill shortages here is best.
If you want to be kind then legitimate refugees from camps is best.
In no way is selection by people smugglers best. Or do you think people smugglers risking people's lives are the best means of migration?
The Tories aren't thinking this through. They should invite newly elected Tory MPs in red wall seats to bid for the construction of the Gulag which political prisoners such as asylum seekers can he "housed" in. Money can be made in construction and operation of the facility as well as for small business people who can sell rotten shellfish we can't export to be hurled in hate at the walls.
The Brexit seats voted to leave the EU because they didn't want foreigners. No red wall seat MP is going to willingly accept a asylum in their constituency.
The question is how many MPs of any sort are queueing up to offer?
BTW there are more complications. An announcement recently opening the doors to millions of HK refugees was received without much comment either from left or right. So a straight 'racist' critique about Brexiteers etc won't quite do.
They aren't asylum seekers. Those are the ones who come here on dinghies to simultaneously take all the jobs AND claim benefits. An announcement about HK *possible* migrants hasn't remotely cut through onto people's consciousness. Yet.
Thinking about it, could CDU/CSU, SPD and FDP work if they get over 50% between them? It's the Greens that the FDP don't like, isn't it?
Theoretically possible, but the SPD really didn't want to stay in government as junior partners last time around so I would say very unlikely. On the current polling numbers Union + the Greens is easily the most likely coalition. Where it gets more interesting is if the Greens end up being the largest party.
But the union and Greens might not get an outright majority between them. Could you see them governing as a minority administration? It's one thing for a single party just short of a majority to govern, quite another for a coalition to do so.
I think a coalition that doesn't even have a majority in parliament is definitely not going to happen in Germany. No way. Even single-faction minority government is extremely unlikely (not that any single faction is likely to get near a majority anyway).
But when you look at these polls remember there are 6-8% for parties that won't meet the threshold and so won't get into parliament. Therefore parties that get 47 or 48% between them will get a slim majority, so pretty likely that Union+Greens will get a majority.
But there are a number of other possibilities - the only one that doesn't include the Greens would be like you suggest Union-SPD-FDP. It seems unlikely. Worth nothing that in the Bundesländer the FDP are currently in 3 coalitions: NRW: CDU, FDP Rheinland Pfalz: SPD, FDP, Greens Schleswig Holstein: CDU, Greens, FDP
current coalitions can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_Germany Greens (SPD too) are currently in coalitions at the state level with all the other parties except the AfD, which no other party will work with. (CDU/CSU and FDP won't work with die Linke either) The Greens are the major partner only in Baden-Württemburg, where the CDU are junior partners.
Of course there are different issues at national level, and it's different being part of a coalition that includes the Greens, to being part of a coalition led by the Greens. But the biggest block last time around for the FDP (or reason given for crashing the coalition negotiations) was immigration, which isn't so much of issue now, so I wouldn't rule out the FDP being part of a coalition with the Greens at the federal level despite the differences.
Comments
Dogs are great pets. They are great members of the family. The problem is when they have stupid, entitled owners who take them off the lead and can't run as fast as their dog when it has spotted something/someone "interesting". Which is all of us.
You should have to pass a pooch proficiency test before you can own one.
My GP has her own practice, total staff 2: her and a receptionist. The practice is open Monday-Friday but only in the mornings, plus 2 afternoons a week. This is fairly typical. She is expecting to get 20 doses a week initially of the vaccine after Easter, yes it sounds pitiful but I'm not sure she could cope with many more. At least she can vaccinate herself and her receptionist, and check which of the most vulnerable people on her books haven't been vaccinated yet.
My wife works in the emergency department of a hospital that is run by an organisation that runs precisely one hospital (and a couple of care homes).
The dedicated vaccination centres are running pretty efficiently, but just don't have enough doses at the moment to do more. Hospitals, care homes, the police, and others are running their own vaccination programs, with varying degrees of efficiency.
I believe the unused doses you hear about in Germany are mainly reserved doses held back to guarantee people their second dose. With AZ they have clearly relaxed this rule to always keep a second dose for every first dose administered because they have basically not yet started the AZ second doses but have already administered a lot more than half the AZ doses delivered. With Moderna they have administered less then half the doses delivered so I guess still sticking strictly to keeping second doses back, but I'm not really sure.
That is a blueprint for relations on a downward spiral, which neither side wants or knows how to avert. Johnson has called for a cooperative front against a third Covid wave. Many EU national leaders are not sold on the Commission’s threat of a vaccine export ban. Compromise on AstraZeneca is available. But in the longer term, the tensions are structural and hard to overcome when all reserves of trust are spent.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/24/trust-britain-covid-vaccine-compromise
I may disappoint them to know that some of the greediest and self serving individuals I have ever come across in my working life are not in the private sector but work as hospital doctors, and I don't think GPs are much better.
This does not mean they are all like it before some of you start virtue signalling, just that there is a similar proportion of such people as there are in other walks of life. There are a number of doctors who want the very nice NHS consultants salary, their huge pensions, the private practice income and also claim ownership of patents that they develop while working for the NHS (though the latter practice has become harder for the hard pressed souls).
"Greed" whatever that is, is not confined to the private sector
Who'd a thunk it!
I for one am very glad justice has at last been done.
As a drug developer, they have an excellent recent track record.
Unless you're referring to your own post and not @ydoethur 's ?
In the old days, when I used to go to meetings in Brussels professionally, you'd even get some Eurocrats to admit that that slightly bothers them, over a beer in the Grande Place.
Fine, but get him in front of an audience of NHS workers, and he's perfectly capable of making a "greed is bad" comment too, with some humorous twist that he's capable of thinking up. I shouldn't think he really has a strong view one way or the other.
1) We are doomed
2) It certainly isn't the fault of the Guardian or anyone who supports it
3) Everyone else has gone wrong (except in part the EU)
4) There are no solutions, and we certainly don't have any
5) Democracy, a free press, moderate government, European peace and unparalleled wealth make no difference. We are doomed. Keep clicking or the Guardian stops making money
6) No we have not noticed that we have become a self parody.
In my experience members of all professions, except possibly the clergy can be motivated by money over ethics.
Cheeks of the same arse indeed.
BRB filling my car to the brim with petrol...
He never bites (of dogs just after dog has bitten)
He never kicks (of horses, just after...)
It never rains here usually at this time of year (amidst deluge...)
On a related note, before this pandemic there was quite a bit of criticism in Germany of the inefficiency of running a health system with so much "spare" capacity in terms of intensive care beds. That criticism has stopped, at least for now.
The EU were too stupid to read the signs.
https://twitter.com/mailplus/status/1374405981493358604?s=20
One day he's going to get somebody killed.
Meanwhile, people genuinely like Boris and the Cons carry on governing the country.
Or if he has, it hasn't been juicy enough to be widely reported.
Or, as someone will point out, he has, and I've missed it.
So it didn't surprise me that it's proven impossible to identify people by age to prioritise the people being vaccinated. The only bit that did surprise was them finding a list (telephone directories) which provided enough information to allow them to hunt for names that are more likely to be old.
I welcome refugees and migration in general. But we should be helping those in need, not those selfish/stupid/dangerous enough to be putting themselves or their family in dinghies from the hostile dangerous state of ... France.
There are millions of refugees in Turkey etc law-abidingly seeking refuge. I would agree with Turkey a straight swap, someone who comes in a dinghy in exchange for one or even two refugees from a camp.
'Mr Mundell, who ran the Scottish office from 2015 to 2019, said that it was not enough just to make the economic case for the UK staying together.
He told today’s Chopper’s Politics podcast, which you can listen to easily on the audio player above: “Unionists have not to be frightened about making an emotional case for the United Kingdom.
“We've been very, very focused previously, I think, on the facts, which, you know, I think in themselves are very, very compelling. But, you know, there needs to be an emotional case for the United Kingdom as well, a heart case, as well as a head case.”'
They've certainly got the head cases.
https://twitter.com/themajorityscot/status/1374364429358350337?s=20
I doubt many Conservative politicians have any experience or understanding of what free market wealth creating business is.
Judging by how eagerly they get paid for vague services after they leave politics they know a lot about greed however.
New image from the other side. It’s properly stuck, they’re going to need more than a few more diggers to get it out!
Its just the same as cancel culture.
*actually, given the Brittas moniker is simply down to the quite ordinary projection of a mild South London accent, the labelling smacks of pure form class snobbery to me, but is not surprising or unique.
Besides which it would be far cheaper than Patel's batshit ideas like floating them on a ship or housing them on Rockall. Value for Money, local jobs AND a place you can take the kids to teach the next generation to be as hateful as you are.
One wonders why, when Patel's parents decided to leave Uganda, they came to Hertfordshire instead of making for their ancestral Gujerat.
Wasn't there a hospital trial of a GP style service attached to A&E to help people doing this?
Why should eg an English speaking impoverished woman or child refugee alone in Turkey who has a relative here be unable to come here but a healthy young man who has money to pay people smugglers for a ride in a dinghy across the Channel can make it?
There is nothing "generous" in prioritising people based on their willingness and ability to pay people smugglers.
https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1374651931210227721?s=20
As to the excess deaths issue, it is crass to suggest Johnson is directly responsible for the expired lives of 126,000 people from Covid, although as their deaths occurred on his watch, the buck stops with him. That said, there is an argument to be made that some deaths could have been preventable if Johnson has not "personally" ignored Dominic Cummings' advice for a September lockdown. That is for the enquiry.
BTW there are more complications. An announcement recently opening the doors to millions of HK refugees was received without much comment either from left or right. So a straight 'racist' critique about Brexiteers etc won't quite do.
If you want economic migration then getting the highly skilled or those with skill shortages here is best.
If you want to be kind then legitimate refugees from camps is best.
In no way is selection by people smugglers best. Or do you think people smugglers risking people's lives are the best means of migration?
It won't solve anything unless they can unground it by either removing sand or removing weight from the boat.
The boat needs to float and currently it isn't..
Genevieve Roth believes that all white people are 'rife with internalised racism and unconscious bias'."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9395755/Marrying-husband-realise-racist-Harry-Meghans-new-strategist-says.html#comments
But when you look at these polls remember there are 6-8% for parties that won't meet the threshold and so won't get into parliament. Therefore parties that get 47 or 48% between them will get a slim majority, so pretty likely that Union+Greens will get a majority.
But there are a number of other possibilities - the only one that doesn't include the Greens would be like you suggest Union-SPD-FDP. It seems unlikely. Worth nothing that in the Bundesländer the FDP are currently in 3 coalitions:
NRW: CDU, FDP
Rheinland Pfalz: SPD, FDP, Greens
Schleswig Holstein: CDU, Greens, FDP
current coalitions can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_Germany
Greens (SPD too) are currently in coalitions at the state level with all the other parties except the AfD, which no other party will work with. (CDU/CSU and FDP won't work with die Linke either)
The Greens are the major partner only in Baden-Württemburg, where the CDU are junior partners.
Of course there are different issues at national level, and it's different being part of a coalition that includes the Greens, to being part of a coalition led by the Greens. But the biggest block last time around for the FDP (or reason given for crashing the coalition negotiations) was immigration, which isn't so much of issue now, so I wouldn't rule out the FDP being part of a coalition with the Greens at the federal level despite the differences.