I understand all of those words, individually. But together they make no sense to me. Can anyone translate?
If you replace 'pat' with 'firm' it kinda makes sense.
Very sensible of the UK regulators. Why on earth would we do otherwise? It's entirely the EU's stupid fault if they want to impose arbitrary and irrational restrictions on whether their banks can access the dominant European financial market; we don't have to match their stupidity.
While we're on the subject, why on earth are UK high street banks restricting whether EU residents can hold accounts here and closing ex-pat accounts? OK, the EU might not like us offering services to EU residents, but who cares what they like? It's none of their business.
Money laundering regulations and the lack of banking licenses in the EU.
If they are UK high street banks, operating accounts in the UK, what on earth have EU banking licenses got to do with anything? We can and do offer bank accounts to people from any country, and always have. For that matter I had a French bank account in 1974, and my father had a Swiss bank account in the 1960s, because he'd inherited some money there. There were no reciprocal banking licences as far as I know.
As for money laundering, what is the issue? We can check the identities as usual (in fact, these are existing accounts being closed).
You mentioned ex pat accounts.
You need a banking license in the EU state where the ex pat is, some banks have decided the cost outweighs any benefits.
Some UK banks are closing accounts now because of how Brexit is likely to change 'passporting' arrangements at the end of this year.
'Passporting' is when UK banks are allowed to provide services to customers in other states in the European Economic Area (EEA) – that's the European Union plus Iceland, Liechenstein and Norway – without having to get direct authorisation in those states. Current passporting rules are set to end on 31 December 2020 unless a new agreement is reached with the EU.
What that means is that, as things stand, from 1 January 2021 each UK bank will need to have separate authorisation in every EEA country it wants to operate in. This would mean applying for a licence in any of those countries it doesn't already trade in. As a result, some banks have decided to simply close accounts in countries where they no longer wish to operate.
The issue has been flagged by the Treasury Committee, with its chair Mel Stride this week calling for people to be given 'sufficient warning' if their account is being closed. He has written to the financial regulator asking it to set out how much notice banks should give.
As for EU citizens here, there's a tendency to remit large money transfers to and from EU states which causes all sorts of money laundering regulations, again costs outweigh the benefits.
One thing that really flags up checks is lots of/regular transactions with organisations like Western Union on your bank account.
It is UK accounts in UK branches of UK banks being closed (usually when an ex-pat keeps the account they had when they emigrated). So the bank isn't providing a banking service or operating in the EU country, it is providing a banking service in the UK. Why should we care a toss whether the EU likes this or not?
The rules and the law. You really don't KYC if they are operating a bank account overseas and remitting money in and out of it because that is what generally happens with ex pat accounts.
Customer transfers £5,000 from their Commerzbank account to their Barclays account in the UK, Barclays really wants to know where that £5k came from because AML and tax reasons.
It is the perfect emblem of Brexit, lots of problems with no discernible gain.
I think vax passports aren't a bad idea but the gap between the economy being reopened and all adults being offered a jab is... inconvienient. There'll be some fudge or other
Before the vaccination program is finished they're an evil imposition on the young. After it's finished then, given the likely level of uptake of the vaccines, they should be wholly unnecessary.
Certification might be needed for foreign travel; for domestic purposes, unless you want to punish anti-vaxxers and try to force them into line then it's a rotten idea.
Oh I absolubtely do want to punish antivaxxers, but not those not yet offered a jab. I'll be in that category a while tbh
Maybe but she still has a point, for a party that says it's in favour of the army the Tories have a tendency to make cuts.
I don't think it's a huge deal personally as I don't see us being in another traditional war again and even if we are in a major one the state will just bring in the draft.
I think vax passports aren't a bad idea but the gap between the economy being reopened and all adults being offered a jab is... inconvienient. There'll be some fudge or other
Before the vaccination program is finished they're an evil imposition on the young. After it's finished then, given the likely level of uptake of the vaccines, they should be wholly unnecessary.
Certification might be needed for foreign travel; for domestic purposes, unless you want to punish anti-vaxxers and try to force them into line then it's a rotten idea.
Oh I absolubtely do want to punish antivaxxers, but not those not yet offered a jab. I'll be in that category a while tbh
I think the youngsters yet to be jabbed get the PCR test or a temperature check on the door.
I think vax passports aren't a bad idea but the gap between the economy being reopened and all adults being offered a jab is... inconvienient. There'll be some fudge or other
Before the vaccination program is finished they're an evil imposition on the young. After it's finished then, given the likely level of uptake of the vaccines, they should be wholly unnecessary.
Certification might be needed for foreign travel; for domestic purposes, unless you want to punish anti-vaxxers and try to force them into line then it's a rotten idea.
Oh I absolubtely do want to punish antivaxxers, but not those not yet offered a jab. I'll be in that category a while tbh
Vaccination is not immunity. I'm still at risk and will not be going into a pub or restaurant that permits unvaccinated people to enter.
Why's that Big G? Do you not think Labour are interested in the defence of our country and the armed forces?
Maybe refer you to Jeremy Corbyn and other members of the labour party
That is history Big G.
You think
Most of the rest of the PB Tories have finally stopped going on about Corbyn (belatedly in some cases, but better late than never), given he is NO LONGER LABOUR LEADER.
I think vax passports aren't a bad idea but the gap between the economy being reopened and all adults being offered a jab is... inconvienient. There'll be some fudge or other
Before the vaccination program is finished they're an evil imposition on the young. After it's finished then, given the likely level of uptake of the vaccines, they should be wholly unnecessary.
Certification might be needed for foreign travel; for domestic purposes, unless you want to punish anti-vaxxers and try to force them into line then it's a rotten idea.
Oh I absolubtely do want to punish antivaxxers, but not those not yet offered a jab. I'll be in that category a while tbh
I think the youngsters yet to be jabbed get the PCR test or a temperature check on the door.
Maybe but she still has a point, for a party that says it's in favour of the army the Tories have a tendency to make cuts.
I don't think it's a huge deal personally as I don't see us being in another traditional war again and even if we are in a major one the state will just bring in the draft.
It's one of those things in politics, Labour has the NHS and the Tories have defence, despite the fact the Labour government is the only government to cut the NHS budget, and the Tories have cut troops a lot, Thatcher did it, John Major did it, and so did Dave.
Every so often a politician comes along and turns everything upside down like Dave did with the NHS and the country consistently trusted him over Labour when it came to the NHS. It drove Labour strategists mad, no matter what they did it had no impact.
I think vax passports aren't a bad idea but the gap between the economy being reopened and all adults being offered a jab is... inconvienient. There'll be some fudge or other
Before the vaccination program is finished they're an evil imposition on the young. After it's finished then, given the likely level of uptake of the vaccines, they should be wholly unnecessary.
Certification might be needed for foreign travel; for domestic purposes, unless you want to punish anti-vaxxers and try to force them into line then it's a rotten idea.
Oh I absolubtely do want to punish antivaxxers, but not those not yet offered a jab. I'll be in that category a while tbh
I think the youngsters yet to be jabbed get the PCR test or a temperature check on the door.
A temperature check on the door with an IR ray gun takes seconds and is unlikely to constitute much of an imposition. A bloody PCR test, on the other hand...
Are the under 50s now meant to order a PCR test and wait for the result to be processed before they can go out anywhere? Besides the enormous inconvenience I seriously doubt there's the necessary supply. As I pointed out earlier this evening, the gap between tests currently used and available supply is meant to be about 500,000 per day. JCVI Phase Two consists of approximately 21 million adults.
Maybe but she still has a point, for a party that says it's in favour of the army the Tories have a tendency to make cuts.
I don't think it's a huge deal personally as I don't see us being in another traditional war again and even if we are in a major one the state will just bring in the draft.
It is well known that Lab could torch every hospital and the Cons could reduce the army to a single mini metro-mounted .22 rifle and each would be known as the parties of the NHS and the armed forces respectively.
There are suggestions on Vote UK site that the Airdrie@Shotts by election may be on 29th April . Health reasons being cited to prevent combining with 6th May elections. Not sure I understand that though!
The Labour Party that ensured we got the bomb and took us into NATO.
They have been the champions of the army in their history.
But remember when you used to champion Boris Johnson and the Tories as the champions of the Scottish fisherfolk, now that's beyond parody.
A harsh jury might score you 0/3 there.
Brexit will eventually be good for Scottish fisherfolk, Labour just bumbled about after 1945, and the only thing the left have ever done for our armed forces is try to subvert them.
The very same people who opposed risk segmentation with a passion and vigour not seen this side of Last Tango in Paris, now muscularly support vaccine segmentation.
I think vax passports aren't a bad idea but the gap between the economy being reopened and all adults being offered a jab is... inconvienient. There'll be some fudge or other
Before the vaccination program is finished they're an evil imposition on the young. After it's finished then, given the likely level of uptake of the vaccines, they should be wholly unnecessary.
Certification might be needed for foreign travel; for domestic purposes, unless you want to punish anti-vaxxers and try to force them into line then it's a rotten idea.
Oh I absolubtely do want to punish antivaxxers, but not those not yet offered a jab. I'll be in that category a while tbh
I think the youngsters yet to be jabbed get the PCR test or a temperature check on the door.
A temperature check on the door with an IR ray gun takes seconds and is unlikely to constitute much of an imposition. A bloody PCR test, on the other hand...
Are the under 50s now meant to order a PCR test and wait for the result to be processed before they can go out anywhere? Besides the enormous inconvenience I seriously doubt there's the necessary supply. As I pointed out earlier this evening, the gap between tests currently used and available supply is meant to be about 500,000 per day. JCVI Phase Two consists of approximately 21 million adults.
The boomers will probably allocate us each one day per month where we get tested and can visit the pub. For a fee of course.
I think vax passports aren't a bad idea but the gap between the economy being reopened and all adults being offered a jab is... inconvienient. There'll be some fudge or other
Before the vaccination program is finished they're an evil imposition on the young. After it's finished then, given the likely level of uptake of the vaccines, they should be wholly unnecessary.
Certification might be needed for foreign travel; for domestic purposes, unless you want to punish anti-vaxxers and try to force them into line then it's a rotten idea.
Oh I absolubtely do want to punish antivaxxers, but not those not yet offered a jab. I'll be in that category a while tbh
I think the youngsters yet to be jabbed get the PCR test or a temperature check on the door.
A temperature check on the door with an IR ray gun takes seconds and is unlikely to constitute much of an imposition. A bloody PCR test, on the other hand...
Are the under 50s now meant to order a PCR test and wait for the result to be processed before they can go out anywhere? Besides the enormous inconvenience I seriously doubt there's the necessary supply. As I pointed out earlier this evening, the gap between tests currently used and available supply is meant to be about 500,000 per day. JCVI Phase Two consists of approximately 21 million adults.
The boomers will probably allocate us each one day per month where we get tested and can visit the pub. For a fee of course.
So. Do we think the govt will stick to the lockdown timetable? With deaths in double figures and the NHS seemingly protected?
And should they. Or not?
No changes until the other side of Easter. Maybe move things forward at four weeks not five afterwards. That should be helpful without huge risk.
Yeah, I think something like that is possible. They might get around it by using Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 games as 'test events' with full crowds, safe in the knowledge that everyone will then duly ignore any lingering rules that are due to be expunged on the following Monday morning.
I think vax passports aren't a bad idea but the gap between the economy being reopened and all adults being offered a jab is... inconvienient. There'll be some fudge or other
Before the vaccination program is finished they're an evil imposition on the young. After it's finished then, given the likely level of uptake of the vaccines, they should be wholly unnecessary.
Certification might be needed for foreign travel; for domestic purposes, unless you want to punish anti-vaxxers and try to force them into line then it's a rotten idea.
Oh I absolubtely do want to punish antivaxxers, but not those not yet offered a jab. I'll be in that category a while tbh
I think the youngsters yet to be jabbed get the PCR test or a temperature check on the door.
Wouldn't a LFD test be more appropriate ?
Yeah, I've got too many acronyms in my head today.
The largest cohort of young people that could head into a pub tommorow would be err.. health and social care workers with a massive female - male split.
Maybe but she still has a point, for a party that says it's in favour of the army the Tories have a tendency to make cuts.
I don't think it's a huge deal personally as I don't see us being in another traditional war again and even if we are in a major one the state will just bring in the draft.
It is well known that Lab could torch every hospital and the Cons could reduce the army to a single mini metro-mounted .22 rifle and each would be known as the parties of the NHS and the armed forces respectively.
Yeah of course, it's just a shame that neither party really live up to those reputations.
The largest cohort of young people that could head into a pub tommorow would be err.. health and social care workers with a massive female - male split.
So. Do we think the govt will stick to the lockdown timetable? With deaths in double figures and the NHS seemingly protected?
And should they. Or not?
No changes until the other side of Easter. Maybe move things forward at four weeks not five afterwards. That should be helpful without huge risk.
Yeah, I think something like that is possible. They might get around it by using Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 games as 'test events' with full crowds, safe in the knowledge that everyone will then duly ignore any lingering rules that are due to be expunged on the following Monday morning.
Jeez if they let Ascot go ahead I will be there every day.
I think vax passports aren't a bad idea but the gap between the economy being reopened and all adults being offered a jab is... inconvienient. There'll be some fudge or other
Before the vaccination program is finished they're an evil imposition on the young. After it's finished then, given the likely level of uptake of the vaccines, they should be wholly unnecessary.
Certification might be needed for foreign travel; for domestic purposes, unless you want to punish anti-vaxxers and try to force them into line then it's a rotten idea.
Oh I absolubtely do want to punish antivaxxers, but not those not yet offered a jab. I'll be in that category a while tbh
I think the youngsters yet to be jabbed get the PCR test or a temperature check on the door.
A temperature check on the door with an IR ray gun takes seconds and is unlikely to constitute much of an imposition. A bloody PCR test, on the other hand...
Are the under 50s now meant to order a PCR test and wait for the result to be processed before they can go out anywhere? Besides the enormous inconvenience I seriously doubt there's the necessary supply. As I pointed out earlier this evening, the gap between tests currently used and available supply is meant to be about 500,000 per day. JCVI Phase Two consists of approximately 21 million adults.
The boomers will probably allocate us each one day per month where we get tested and can visit the pub. For a fee of course.
Your optimism that the boomers would suddenly become so uncharacteristically generous is very optimistic.
The largest cohort of young people that could head into a pub tommorow would be err.. health and social care workers with a massive female - male split.
The only one of my sons who couldn't actually is a bar manager ........
I think vax passports aren't a bad idea but the gap between the economy being reopened and all adults being offered a jab is... inconvienient. There'll be some fudge or other
Before the vaccination program is finished they're an evil imposition on the young. After it's finished then, given the likely level of uptake of the vaccines, they should be wholly unnecessary.
Certification might be needed for foreign travel; for domestic purposes, unless you want to punish anti-vaxxers and try to force them into line then it's a rotten idea.
Oh I absolubtely do want to punish antivaxxers, but not those not yet offered a jab. I'll be in that category a while tbh
I think the youngsters yet to be jabbed get the PCR test or a temperature check on the door.
A temperature check on the door with an IR ray gun takes seconds and is unlikely to constitute much of an imposition. A bloody PCR test, on the other hand...
Are the under 50s now meant to order a PCR test and wait for the result to be processed before they can go out anywhere? Besides the enormous inconvenience I seriously doubt there's the necessary supply. As I pointed out earlier this evening, the gap between tests currently used and available supply is meant to be about 500,000 per day. JCVI Phase Two consists of approximately 21 million adults.
The boomers will probably allocate us each one day per month where we get tested and can visit the pub. For a fee of course.
It will be a Sunday. The pub will be in the Western Isles. Sorry, but we can’t take too many chances with you youngsters.
The largest cohort of young people that could head into a pub tommorow would be err.. health and social care workers with a massive female - male split.
The only one of my sons who couldn't actually is a bar manager ........
Lol a good point, barstaff are generally going to be near the back of the queue themselves.
I think vax passports aren't a bad idea but the gap between the economy being reopened and all adults being offered a jab is... inconvienient. There'll be some fudge or other
Before the vaccination program is finished they're an evil imposition on the young. After it's finished then, given the likely level of uptake of the vaccines, they should be wholly unnecessary.
Certification might be needed for foreign travel; for domestic purposes, unless you want to punish anti-vaxxers and try to force them into line then it's a rotten idea.
Oh I absolubtely do want to punish antivaxxers, but not those not yet offered a jab. I'll be in that category a while tbh
I think the youngsters yet to be jabbed get the PCR test or a temperature check on the door.
Wouldn't a LFD test be more appropriate ?
Yeah, I've got too many acronyms in my head today.
I'm not convinced that a process which involves a hospitality venue employing people to shove long thin cotton buds up punters' noses, setting up a mini laboratory to prep them and run the tests, and telling the punters to stand outside in a socially distanced queue for 15 minutes whilst waiting for a result, is any more practical than the PCR method.
I think vax passports aren't a bad idea but the gap between the economy being reopened and all adults being offered a jab is... inconvienient. There'll be some fudge or other
Before the vaccination program is finished they're an evil imposition on the young. After it's finished then, given the likely level of uptake of the vaccines, they should be wholly unnecessary.
Certification might be needed for foreign travel; for domestic purposes, unless you want to punish anti-vaxxers and try to force them into line then it's a rotten idea.
Oh I absolubtely do want to punish antivaxxers, but not those not yet offered a jab. I'll be in that category a while tbh
I think the youngsters yet to be jabbed get the PCR test or a temperature check on the door.
Wouldn't a LFD test be more appropriate ?
Yeah, I've got too many acronyms in my head today.
I'm not convinced that a process which involves a hospitality venue employing people to shove long thin cotton buds up punters' noses, setting up a mini laboratory to prep them and run the tests, and telling the punters to stand outside in a socially distanced queue for 15 minutes whilst waiting for a result, is any more practical than the PCR method.
Just make it a challenge, if the tester causes pain/draws blood then it is free drinks on the house.
Despite the obvious intent, that's a really useful document. I've been asking if there's something similar for a while as a guide to the actual steps that are required. Some of it seems bureaucratic for its own sake, but I think there is scope for a lot of efficiencies at various stages to make the process smoother and quicker.
Maybe but she still has a point, for a party that says it's in favour of the army the Tories have a tendency to make cuts.
I don't think it's a huge deal personally as I don't see us being in another traditional war again and even if we are in a major one the state will just bring in the draft.
It is well known that Lab could torch every hospital and the Cons could reduce the army to a single mini metro-mounted .22 rifle and each would be known as the parties of the NHS and the armed forces respectively.
Yeah of course, it's just a shame that neither party really live up to those reputations.
The UK has never been confident in what role HMF should play.
From MARILYN (how to keep the army up to strength) to Options for Change (how to reduce the army after the cold war) in the 80s/90s the UK really hasn't known what it wants its armed forces to be. Even up until now. Do we want to be a nimble, high tech outfit or a force that could retake the Falklands or a country that could provide 200 MBTs to theatre in support of the US.
I think vax passports aren't a bad idea but the gap between the economy being reopened and all adults being offered a jab is... inconvienient. There'll be some fudge or other
Before the vaccination program is finished they're an evil imposition on the young. After it's finished then, given the likely level of uptake of the vaccines, they should be wholly unnecessary.
Certification might be needed for foreign travel; for domestic purposes, unless you want to punish anti-vaxxers and try to force them into line then it's a rotten idea.
Oh I absolubtely do want to punish antivaxxers, but not those not yet offered a jab. I'll be in that category a while tbh
I think the youngsters yet to be jabbed get the PCR test or a temperature check on the door.
A temperature check on the door with an IR ray gun takes seconds and is unlikely to constitute much of an imposition. A bloody PCR test, on the other hand...
Are the under 50s now meant to order a PCR test and wait for the result to be processed before they can go out anywhere? Besides the enormous inconvenience I seriously doubt there's the necessary supply. As I pointed out earlier this evening, the gap between tests currently used and available supply is meant to be about 500,000 per day. JCVI Phase Two consists of approximately 21 million adults.
The boomers will probably allocate us each one day per month where we get tested and can visit the pub. For a fee of course.
I think vax passports aren't a bad idea but the gap between the economy being reopened and all adults being offered a jab is... inconvienient. There'll be some fudge or other
Before the vaccination program is finished they're an evil imposition on the young. After it's finished then, given the likely level of uptake of the vaccines, they should be wholly unnecessary.
Certification might be needed for foreign travel; for domestic purposes, unless you want to punish anti-vaxxers and try to force them into line then it's a rotten idea.
Oh I absolubtely do want to punish antivaxxers, but not those not yet offered a jab. I'll be in that category a while tbh
I think the youngsters yet to be jabbed get the PCR test or a temperature check on the door.
A temperature check on the door with an IR ray gun takes seconds and is unlikely to constitute much of an imposition. A bloody PCR test, on the other hand...
Are the under 50s now meant to order a PCR test and wait for the result to be processed before they can go out anywhere? Besides the enormous inconvenience I seriously doubt there's the necessary supply. As I pointed out earlier this evening, the gap between tests currently used and available supply is meant to be about 500,000 per day. JCVI Phase Two consists of approximately 21 million adults.
The boomers will probably allocate us each one day per month where we get tested and can visit the pub. For a fee of course.
On the plus (?) side, it'll be 'Grab a Granny Night' every night...
So. Do we think the govt will stick to the lockdown timetable? With deaths in double figures and the NHS seemingly protected?
And should they. Or not?
No changes until the other side of Easter. Maybe move things forward at four weeks not five afterwards. That should be helpful without huge risk.
Yeah, I think something like that is possible. They might get around it by using Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 games as 'test events' with full crowds, safe in the knowledge that everyone will then duly ignore any lingering rules that are due to be expunged on the following Monday morning.
Jeez if they let Ascot go ahead I will be there every day.
There was an idea to move Ascot back a week to the last week of June to enable a full crowd to attend but HMQ wouldn't have any of that modern nonsense.
Owners (2 per horse most days, 4 per horse on AW Finals day) are coming back to English courses from next Monday. From April 12th, it will be small crowds and larger crowds from May 17th.
No race meetings were included in "test" events for larger crowds as they did all that last year.
I think vax passports aren't a bad idea but the gap between the economy being reopened and all adults being offered a jab is... inconvienient. There'll be some fudge or other
Before the vaccination program is finished they're an evil imposition on the young. After it's finished then, given the likely level of uptake of the vaccines, they should be wholly unnecessary.
Certification might be needed for foreign travel; for domestic purposes, unless you want to punish anti-vaxxers and try to force them into line then it's a rotten idea.
Oh I absolubtely do want to punish antivaxxers, but not those not yet offered a jab. I'll be in that category a while tbh
I think the youngsters yet to be jabbed get the PCR test or a temperature check on the door.
Wouldn't a LFD test be more appropriate ?
Yeah, I've got too many acronyms in my head today.
I'm not convinced that a process which involves a hospitality venue employing people to shove long thin cotton buds up punters' noses, setting up a mini laboratory to prep them and run the tests, and telling the punters to stand outside in a socially distanced queue for 15 minutes whilst waiting for a result, is any more practical than the PCR method.
I think they wouldn't be able to introduce this until every adult has been offered the vaccine either one or both doses. Depending on the risk appetite. What I think will be a good compromise is for under 50s to qualify with just one dose but over 50s need both. Reducing the chance of under 50s to be hospitalised by 85% turns a 1/1000 chance to 1 in 7000. That's a huge difference for an already low risk cohort that means the chance of a hospital surge becomes zero.
Can anyone explain why Neil Gray was allowed to resign his seat and stand as an MSP, but Joanna Cherry wasn’t?
As I recall Cherry was offered the same option but refused it. I’m not sure why she felt it was such an obstacle.
Ah.
'She said: "It is unprecedented in our party’s history of dual mandates to demand that a parliamentarian make themselves and their constituency staff unemployed in order to be eligible to be a candidate. It is particularly unreasonable to demand this in the middle of a pandemic.'
The largest cohort of young people that could head into a pub tommorow would be err.. health and social care workers with a massive female - male split.
Loads of nurses in the pubs. Not 100% convinced the female-male imbalance would persist for long.
As I have said before, vax passports won't be an issue - the slim gap between us having herd immunity (at least on first jabs), the pubs being open and any real level of community spread could be just a few days....
The Labour Party that ensured we got the bomb and took us into NATO.
They have been the champions of the army in their history.
But remember when you used to champion Boris Johnson and the Tories as the champions of the Scottish fisherfolk, now that's beyond parody.
A harsh jury might score you 0/3 there.
Brexit will eventually be good for Scottish fisherfolk, Labour just bumbled about after 1945, and the only thing the left have ever done for our armed forces is try to subvert them.
Only a Tory would be so churlish.
@TSE is historically accurate about the first point - the same would of course have happened had the Conservatives been in power. It was Nye Bevan in opposition who coined the infamous phrase about "walking naked into the debating chamber" to describe the fate of Britain f it unilaterally disarmed.
As for point 2, it was Wilson who kept the British out of Vietnam which undoubtedly saved military lives but also committed the Army to Northern Ireland which didn't so a mixed outcome.
I'm not getting involved with fishermen or fish and especially Scottish variations of both.
As I have said before, vax passports won't be an issue - the slim gap between us having herd immunity (at least on first jabs), the pubs being open and any real level of community spread could be just a few days....
If 95% of people have been vaccinated, why bother with vaccination certificates (for domestic use)? The other 5% shouldn't be allowed to make life difficult for everyone else.
The largest cohort of young people that could head into a pub tommorow would be err.. health and social care workers with a massive female - male split.
Loads of nurses in the pubs. Not 100% convinced the female-male imbalance would persist for long.
Suddenly men everywhere will be contacting their local fake ID person!
He writes the Bagehot column in the Economist doesn't he? Its line used to be that the EU could do no wrong and the EU no good. If the EU is losing him on this, you might think that even they should reflect briefly.
So. Do we think the govt will stick to the lockdown timetable? With deaths in double figures and the NHS seemingly protected?
And should they. Or not?
No changes until the other side of Easter. Maybe move things forward at four weeks not five afterwards. That should be helpful without huge risk.
Yeah, I think something like that is possible. They might get around it by using Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 games as 'test events' with full crowds, safe in the knowledge that everyone will then duly ignore any lingering rules that are due to be expunged on the following Monday morning.
Jeez if they let Ascot go ahead I will be there every day.
There was an idea to move Ascot back a week to the last week of June to enable a full crowd to attend but HMQ wouldn't have any of that modern nonsense.
Owners (2 per horse most days, 4 per horse on AW Finals day) are coming back to English courses from next Monday. From April 12th, it will be small crowds and larger crowds from May 17th.
No race meetings were included in "test" events for larger crowds as they did all that last year.
The test event provision is there primarily to allow the government to circumnavigate its own rules without rescinding its own rules. Ergo, expect it to be used without prejudice if things are going well in June.
As I have said before, vax passports won't be an issue - the slim gap between us having herd immunity (at least on first jabs), the pubs being open and any real level of community spread could be just a few days....
If 95% of people have been vaccinated, why bother with vaccination certificates (for domestic use)? The other 5% shouldn't be allowed to make life difficult for everyone else.
I totally agree. Which is why they've always been a non starter. Not gonna happen. Next!
Can anyone explain why Neil Gray was allowed to resign his seat and stand as an MSP, but Joanna Cherry wasn’t?
As I recall Cherry was offered the same option but refused it. I’m not sure why she felt it was such an obstacle.
Ah.
'She said: "It is unprecedented in our party’s history of dual mandates to demand that a parliamentarian make themselves and their constituency staff unemployed in order to be eligible to be a candidate. It is particularly unreasonable to demand this in the middle of a pandemic.'
Supposedly she did not want to have to sack all her staff, she most certainly knew that she was going to be stiffed to let the imposter in anyway so did not agree. She should have gone and stood as an independent. Hopefully Bonnie Prince Bob will take enough votes off Robertson that he gets whipped, would be poetic justice.
As I have said before, vax passports won't be an issue - the slim gap between us having herd immunity (at least on first jabs), the pubs being open and any real level of community spread could be just a few days....
If 95% of people have been vaccinated, why bother with vaccination certificates (for domestic use)? The other 5% shouldn't be allowed to make life difficult for everyone else.
I totally agree. Which is why they've always been a non starter. Not gonna happen. Next!
Assumes that herd immunity is still a thing. Maybe it isn't, with the new variants.
Yougov is consistently showing higher Green vote shares than other pollsters - clearly to Labour's detriment. Yesterday's Yougov Wales Westminster poll also had Plaid on 17% - which appears very unlikely. Plaid would do well to reach 12%.
You have no knowledge of Welsh politics to make that statement
With respect I grew up in Wales and most of my family still live in Pembrokeshire. Beyond that , I suspect that your knowledge of the electoral history of the Wrexham ward quoted is far from complete.It has a very quirky history indeed! In 1995 it was the sole Tory gain from Labour across the country when won by Stuart Andrew - now MP for Pudsey. For many years it then became a LibDem stronghold before eventually falling to Labour - largely due to a strong personal vote for the candidate. Reading anything into that result would be a mistake - other than that the personal vote matters a great deal there.
Not interested in history, just the present and Plaid are doing a lot better than your presumed knowledge of Welsh politics and will hurt labour in May
Those who ignore history are doomed....
The trend matters and it is away from labour in Wales and Plaid are in reasonable shape and maybe the Lib Dems will become extinct in Wales in May
The very first Wales Assembly elections held in the late 1990s under Blair were good for Plaid. I recall Llanelly was captured from Labour.2016 saw Plaid win the Rhondda - but it meant very little when it came to the general elections in 2017 and 2019.
Plaid (Geraint Davies) won Rhondda in 1999 as well.
I’m not quite sure what your point is though given we’re talking about Assembly elections. Yes, Plaid will come third but they will probably have around 15 seats. And if, as seems likely, they are the only party apart from the big two to have any members at all they will still be incredibly important.
That’s entirely separate from their irrelevance at Westminster where next time they will almost certainly be reduced to just two seats.
As I have said before, vax passports won't be an issue - the slim gap between us having herd immunity (at least on first jabs), the pubs being open and any real level of community spread could be just a few days....
If 95% of people have been vaccinated, why bother with vaccination certificates (for domestic use)? The other 5% shouldn't be allowed to make life difficult for everyone else.
I totally agree. Which is why they've always been a non starter. Not gonna happen. Next!
Assumes that herd immunity is still a thing. Maybe it isn't, with the new variants.
Herd immunity is always a thing. Whether it can be achieved through the current vaccination regime is a different question.
The Labour Party that ensured we got the bomb and took us into NATO.
They have been the champions of the army in their history.
But remember when you used to champion Boris Johnson and the Tories as the champions of the Scottish fisherfolk, now that's beyond parody.
A harsh jury might score you 0/3 there.
Brexit will eventually be good for Scottish fisherfolk, Labour just bumbled about after 1945, and the only thing the left have ever done for our armed forces is try to subvert them.
Only a Tory would be so churlish.
@TSE is historically accurate about the first point - the same would of course have happened had the Conservatives been in power. It was Nye Bevan in opposition who coined the infamous phrase about "walking naked into the debating chamber" to describe the fate of Britain f it unilaterally disarmed.
As for point 2, it was Wilson who kept the British out of Vietnam which undoubtedly saved military lives but also committed the Army to Northern Ireland which didn't so a mixed outcome.
I'm not getting involved with fishermen or fish and especially Scottish variations of both.
I was of course being a little churlish, but I did say that.
Labour did very bad things to our defence manufacturing after 1945. They did very bad things to our manufacturing generally. It may well be the case that such things were inevitable, and as such it's a bit hard to jump up and down about it.
I think any PM would have kept the UK out of Vietnam. Intervening in the French world was never a runner.
Fairly sure on the fish - it'll take a while to be bourne out though.
It will be interesting to see how the swing to or from the SNP in Banff and Buchan Coast compares to other seats. Possibly an indication of the effect of Brexit on the fishing vote.
Despite the obvious intent, that's a really useful document. I've been asking if there's something similar for a while as a guide to the actual steps that are required. Some of it seems bureaucratic for its own sake, but I think there is scope for a lot of efficiencies at various stages to make the process smoother and quicker.
It actually makes the point that we're right to escape an institution that puts all that pointless red tape on its members. After all, why should it be any more work to send a pork chop to Paris than to Newcastle? Are French stomachs really so much more sensitive?
The UK has never been confident in what role HMF should play.
From MARILYN (how to keep the army up to strength) to Options for Change (how to reduce the army after the cold war) in the 80s/90s the UK really hasn't known what it wants its armed forces to be. Even up until now. Do we want to be a nimble, high tech outfit or a force that could retake the Falklands or a country that could provide 200 MBTs to theatre in support of the US.
That's symptomatic of the wider debate about the role and place of the UK in the world. We've never endured the chastening military experience of abject defeat and surrender - even Dunkirk, by any objective measure a disaster, has been turned into a "victory".
I've sat on both sides of the nuclear fence periodically. The problem is or seems to be the only way to guarantee peace is to seem to be prepared to destroy yourselves and your opponents. I've always doubted I would draw any comfort in my terror-filled last minutes of life knowing the citizens of Kharkov or Irkutsk were going to be joining me in oblivion within a few minutes. I've also always suspected Putin now and the Communists then were ever serious about invading western Europe and had no desire to inherit a radioactive wasteland.
So we're stuck with weapons we'll hopefully never use - I do question whether 260 warheads is significantly more a deterrent than 180 - how much mega-death do you need?
As for the Army, the recent Nagorno-Karabakh conflict seems to have been quite the eye-opener. To be fair, anyone who followed the Balkan Wars could have ascertained how World War 1 was going to be fought. If drone-based warfare is in, the thrust of the defence strategy seems reasonable. Perhaps the days of "big" armies are over.
Despite the obvious intent, that's a really useful document. I've been asking if there's something similar for a while as a guide to the actual steps that are required. Some of it seems bureaucratic for its own sake, but I think there is scope for a lot of efficiencies at various stages to make the process smoother and quicker.
It actually makes the point that we're right to escape an institution that puts all that pointless red tape on its members. After all, why should it be any more work to send a pork chop to Paris than to Newcastle? Are French stomachs really so much more sensitive?
I always supposed you a leaver but you've neatly made the case for the single market there.
Can anyone explain why Neil Gray was allowed to resign his seat and stand as an MSP, but Joanna Cherry wasn’t?
As I recall Cherry was offered the same option but refused it. I’m not sure why she felt it was such an obstacle.
Ah.
'She said: "It is unprecedented in our party’s history of dual mandates to demand that a parliamentarian make themselves and their constituency staff unemployed in order to be eligible to be a candidate. It is particularly unreasonable to demand this in the middle of a pandemic.'
The ban on double-hatting is taken to extremes in some cases. When I was an MP I flirted with standing for the European Parliament - speak 6 languages etc. - but Labour side that to be even considered as a candidate I must first resign my seat and therefore, as Cherry said, sack my staff. Given that I then might not have been selected, let alone elected, it took a millusecond to rule it out. I still don't understand it - if you win, sure, but to be even considered? (Yeah, not a problem now...)
Despite the obvious intent, that's a really useful document. I've been asking if there's something similar for a while as a guide to the actual steps that are required. Some of it seems bureaucratic for its own sake, but I think there is scope for a lot of efficiencies at various stages to make the process smoother and quicker.
It actually makes the point that we're right to escape an institution that puts all that pointless red tape on its members. After all, why should it be any more work to send a pork chop to Paris than to Newcastle? Are French stomachs really so much more sensitive?
I always supposed you a leaver but you've neatly made the case for the single market there.
No, I've made the case that the EU is shooting itself in the foot with all the protectionist non-tariff barriers as it is their consumers who are suffering, as were ours when we were in the EU.
(Actually though if the EU were just about the Single Market, I'd have less of a problem with remaining).
Why's that Big G? Do you not think Labour are interested in the defence of our country and the armed forces?
Maybe refer you to Jeremy Corbyn and other members of the labour party
That is history Big G.
You think
Most of the rest of the PB Tories have finally stopped going on about Corbyn (belatedly in some cases, but better late than never), given he is NO LONGER LABOUR LEADER.
I hope these measures are maintained even after the pandemic is over.
To be perfectly serious for a moment, it would be a very good idea if as much cross Channel trade as possible were taken off road haulage and put on shipping containers. Apart from anything else it would make it vastly easier for Britain to do a Taiwan the next time a Plague befalls us.
Strikes me that the single best piece of news this week is the fall in inflation. My no.1 concern is that too much easy money has been pumped into the system (especially in the US; my timeline is awash with people splurging their stimulus checks on luxury goods) and that we'd see lots of inflation (and rising bond prices) causing immense pain for public purses and private households over the coming years.
Avoiding that will make the recovery so much easier.
Despite the obvious intent, that's a really useful document. I've been asking if there's something similar for a while as a guide to the actual steps that are required. Some of it seems bureaucratic for its own sake, but I think there is scope for a lot of efficiencies at various stages to make the process smoother and quicker.
It actually makes the point that we're right to escape an institution that puts all that pointless red tape on its members. After all, why should it be any more work to send a pork chop to Paris than to Newcastle? Are French stomachs really so much more sensitive?
I always supposed you a leaver but you've neatly made the case for the single market there.
No, I've made the case that the EU is shooting itself in the foot with all the protectionist tariffs as it is their consumers who are suffering, as were ours when we were in the EU.
That's not what you've written
"to escape an institution that puts all that pointless red tape on its members. After all, why should it be any more work to send a pork chop to Paris than to Newcastle?"
This is the entire point of the European single market.
What are the best books to read about the Hungarian revolution (1956) and the Prague spring?
I'm keen to learn about the Soviet reaction/politics in both.
Raymond Pearson’s The rise and fall of the Soviet empire is a very good introduction, although it would only be an introduction given what you’re looking for.
Can anyone explain why Neil Gray was allowed to resign his seat and stand as an MSP, but Joanna Cherry wasn’t?
As I recall Cherry was offered the same option but refused it. I’m not sure why she felt it was such an obstacle.
Ah.
'She said: "It is unprecedented in our party’s history of dual mandates to demand that a parliamentarian make themselves and their constituency staff unemployed in order to be eligible to be a candidate. It is particularly unreasonable to demand this in the middle of a pandemic.'
Supposedly she did not want to have to sack all her staff, she most certainly knew that she was going to be stiffed to let the imposter in anyway so did not agree. She should have gone and stood as an independent. Hopefully Bonnie Prince Bob will take enough votes off Robertson that he gets whipped, would be poetic justice.
Aye, but she faced the same conditions as any other MP wanting to stand for Holyrood, not some special vendetta against her as was implied. She could still have put herself up for the Edinburgh Central SNP candidate election without resigning her Westminster seat as far as I can see.
The UK has never been confident in what role HMF should play.
From MARILYN (how to keep the army up to strength) to Options for Change (how to reduce the army after the cold war) in the 80s/90s the UK really hasn't known what it wants its armed forces to be. Even up until now. Do we want to be a nimble, high tech outfit or a force that could retake the Falklands or a country that could provide 200 MBTs to theatre in support of the US.
That's symptomatic of the wider debate about the role and place of the UK in the world. We've never endured the chastening military experience of abject defeat and surrender - even Dunkirk, by any objective measure a disaster, has been turned into a "victory".
I've sat on both sides of the nuclear fence periodically. The problem is or seems to be the only way to guarantee peace is to seem to be prepared to destroy yourselves and your opponents. I've always doubted I would draw any comfort in my terror-filled last minutes of life knowing the citizens of Kharkov or Irkutsk were going to be joining me in oblivion within a few minutes. I've also always suspected Putin now and the Communists then were ever serious about invading western Europe and had no desire to inherit a radioactive wasteland.
So we're stuck with weapons we'll hopefully never use - I do question whether 260 warheads is significantly more a deterrent than 180 - how much mega-death do you need?
As for the Army, the recent Nagorno-Karabakh conflict seems to have been quite the eye-opener. To be fair, anyone who followed the Balkan Wars could have ascertained how World War 1 was going to be fought. If drone-based warfare is in, the thrust of the defence strategy seems reasonable. Perhaps the days of "big" armies are over.
The days of big armies are definitely over. They are expensive, immobile and easy to wipe out with modern tech. Unless the UK has plans to invade and conquer somewhere (we don't) then we need a smaller, well equipped, mobile defence force, with reserves just in case
We probably won't ever use a tank again. Get rid of 90%. Invest all the spare cash in bots, drones, cyber
On the other hand, the new era of tech warfare, done remotely with robots, drones, internet attacks, offers a BETTER argument for the nuclear deterrent.
A rich capable aggressor could take out any country - or demand its surrender - if they had the technological superiority I outline. The one thing that would make them hesitate is a nuke pointing their way. This is why no one will tackle North Korea. They've got nukes. Ditto Israel
Despite the obvious intent, that's a really useful document. I've been asking if there's something similar for a while as a guide to the actual steps that are required. Some of it seems bureaucratic for its own sake, but I think there is scope for a lot of efficiencies at various stages to make the process smoother and quicker.
It actually makes the point that we're right to escape an institution that puts all that pointless red tape on its members. After all, why should it be any more work to send a pork chop to Paris than to Newcastle? Are French stomachs really so much more sensitive?
I always supposed you a leaver but you've neatly made the case for the single market there.
No, I've made the case that the EU is shooting itself in the foot with all the protectionist tariffs as it is their consumers who are suffering, as were ours when we were in the EU.
That's not what you've written
"to escape an institution that puts all that pointless red tape on its members. After all, why should it be any more work to send a pork chop to Paris than to Newcastle?"
This is the entire point of the European single market.
Yes, and as I say, I have no problem with that, and if the EU were only about that, I might not be bothered about remaining. But I am making a quite different point. about the EU shooting its consumers in their feet by making our pork go through all these processes for no good reason.
I would have a problem if I were a Frog eating pork and just because it happens to come from England it has to go through all these non-tariff barriers. It should make no difference whether we are in the EU or not.
When we were in the EU, our non-EU meat imports had to go through all this shit. Now we're out, our consumers can feast on non-EU meat without going through 23 stages.
Though no doubt Whitehall will put in place its own stages, left to itself. I just hope there are fewer of them.
I presume we've commented on the latest Forsa poll in Germany:
CDU/CSU 26% Greens 22% SPD 16% AfD 10% FDP 10% Linke 8%
Two coalition options - CDU/CSU/Green and Green/SDP/FDP both come up to 48%.
The dominance of Lega in Italy is also ending - latest Winpoll has them on just 22% with the Social Democrats on 20%, the FdL on 19% and M5 on 14%.
OTOH, in Denmark, the governing Social Democrats are on 34%, twenty points ahead of the Conservatives on 14% while Venstre has collapsed to just 12% with the Greens on 8%.
Remarkable polling from Poland as well - the governing PiS is down to 30% with the new PL2050 grouping polling 27%. They've had four defections in the Sejm - one of their interesting policies is the restoration of the Weimar Triangle seeing the future EU axis as between France, Germany and Poland.
The rules and the law. You really don't KYC if they are operating a bank account overseas and remitting money in and out of it because that is what generally happens with ex pat accounts.
Customer transfers £5,000 from their Commerzbank account to their Barclays account in the UK, Barclays really wants to know where that £5k came from because AML and tax reasons.
It is the perfect emblem of Brexit, lots of problems with no discernible gain.
But nothing's changed in that respect. The fact that we've left the EU is irrelevant: if the transaction would have been suspicious in 2020, then it's suspicious now. Equally if it wasn't suspicious then, then it isn't now. In most cases these accounts are used by ordinary people for receiving their pensions or paying bills in the UK.
It seems to me a classic case of regulatory groupthink. We're acting as though we were still bound by EU law - no longer getting the advantages of the Single Market, but clinging on to the disadvantages, for no discernible reason.
What are the best books to read about the Hungarian revolution (1956) and the Prague spring?
I'm keen to learn about the Soviet reaction/politics in both.
Raymond Pearson’s The rise and fall of the Soviet empire is a very good introduction, although it would only be an introduction given what you’re looking for.
Cheers, I've always been fascinated by the fact that Yuri Andropov was Ambassador to Hungary at the time of the Hungarian revolution and that it had a profound impact on him.
We should be rapidly unlocking at least back to the point we were at in July last year domestically, while keeping the border sealed to protect our gains domestically. That's the trade-off.
Telling people to stay at home when nobody is dying is unforgiveable.
Given what we know about the current strains, a full unlock now would quickly fill up ICU with 30-50 year olds.
That is why the roadmap is linking levels of vaccination to reducing the levels of restrictions.
I think that's a load of bollocks sorry.
More than a fifth over 50s have been vaccinated already, the vulnerable under 50s. The majority of adults have been vaccinated now, which means they're much less likely to pass the virus on.
With our level of vaccinations, even with the new variant, there's little reason why ICUs should escalate any more than they did last July.
Hospital admissions R is around 0.8
Who are all these people being admitted to hospital - *now*?
If you let rip, it's not long before you are back at admissions R of 1.x and then we are in the same position as Europe.
Hence a phased approach.
There's a five week lag between the effect of new vaccinations on hospital admissions.
How low do you think hospital admissions will be in five weeks ?
Hopefully nice and low. Hopefully.
We have a nice 0.8 (or so) R for hospitals at the moment. The issue is that 0.8 turns into 1.05 quite easily.
I don't want to do this all over again. At this point a 5 weeks is not much to ask to get security - at that point we will (the fuckwits willing) have the over 50s done to a high level - including getting areas such as Newham to a better state....
Actually 5 weeks for an entire country is an awful lot to ask. If we say that a life spent locked down is only getting 50% of its normal value (which I don't think is unreasonable), the 5 weeks of lockdown for the country represents about ~40,000 entire birth-death lifetimes lost, or 3 million years of life lost. That's the same loss of years of life as 300,000 covid deaths. If I told you that lifting lockdown now risks another 50k deaths (but its unlikely to be that bad, and there is a better than evens chance it's less than 10k), but retaining it for 5 weeks cost 300k deaths, this should be a no brainer.
You can't say lockdown life is only worth 50%... because then you'd have to admit it's been a complete and utter mistake.
500k lives saved (optimistically) with average 15 years of life left (very optimistic) gives 7.5m years of life saved.
Set against 60m people locked down for over 6 months at 50% life value is >15m years of life spent.
This analysis doesn't work because it assumes an alternative to lockdown in which, as the virus ran riot, people would have gone cheerfully about their daily lives as normal.
It's the fallacy at the heart of most of this sentiment. It denies the harsh reality of covid and hence is known as covid denialism.
I think there is a degree of middle ground available on this. Whilst people in places which haven't locked down have changed behaviour, a voluntary lockdown is a lot more satisfactory that a state mandated one. People can manage their own risk - so those at low risk continue mostly normal lives, those at high risk can go into hiding if they feel that is appropriate. People know what they value most, and actually have a pretty good idea of what's risky, and what isn't - governments are pretty useless at assessing both (see also the repeated insanity around people going to the beach or walking in the peak district). For example, for a three month block last year I didn't see the young lady I'm going out with, despite this being a trivial risk (she was working from home, living alone, not seeing anyone else). Without a lockdown, that would have been a non-issue, even if I'd been holding back on us going for dates in crowded pubs.
Incidentally people argue that state mandated closures were required so that business financial support could be put in place. This is a barefaced lie - there are plenty of ways the government could have hosed money in the correct directions without mandating closure (e.g. they could have compared VAT returns before and after the pandemic, and then made up a percentage of missing turnover), and the furlough scheme has no direct connection with mandated closures at-all.
If you said that life under lockdown was at 50% life value, and life with a pandemic but out a lockdown was 75% life value, then that still requires an incredibly optimistic view of the number of lives saved by the whole lockdown to work out on a cost benefit analysis.
But it's even worse now, as it's likely the lockdown isn't actually saving many lives anyway with where we are in the vaccination program - so we're now burning up the equivalent of 1000 lifetimes a day purely so the government doesn't have to risk getting egg on it's face if cases rise a bit more than expected, and some measure need reimposing. Its absolute scandal, and if they had a brain between them HM opposition should be on about it night and day. But they won't be, because they are also worried about the risk of a bit of eggsplash if relaxing goes wrong.
Where your argument fails is of course is because for a lot of people they might want to lock themselves down voluntarily but can't because of work. Without the furlough scheme most would not have been able to do other than carry on as normal and risk themselves.
Nor does your argument make sense in as much as you can't add up number of people x time lost in lockdown and say that is the same as x00,000 deaths. People lost some time is all but they are mostly at least still alive
There's also the "people can decide how much risk to accept" myth. They can't - it's not just about risk coming in, but risk going out. They're deciding how much risk to put on everyone around them. Under that system, anyone more than averagely vulnerable would need to lock themselves away completely as the lower risk people mingled freely (and quite possibly blew out the hospitals, anyway, because someone had told them they were safer than they actually were). It's a rephrasing of "why should I care about them? I should be fine!"
It's the Brazil solution, which isn't going well for the Brazilian healthcare system or the Brazilian people. But Bolsonaro should be a hero to the Lockdown Sceptics; he's the major leader most dedicated to following their ethos.
Except run the numbers. They have had about 300k deaths in a population of 211 million. Imagine instead they had locked down for six months, and this meant exactly zero virus deaths. If you rate life in lockdown as 50% wasted compared to normal life, then a 6 month lockdown for Brazil would represent 52 million wasted years of life. If a CV death in Brazil wastes an average 10 years of life, a 6 month lockdown would be the equivalent of 5.3 million deaths, which means that have 5 million to go before they reach breakeven.
One can argue about the 50% figure, but even at 25% its the equivalent of 2.6 million deaths.
If you want to make lockdown waste less life than the actual deaths, you have to say that lives lived under lockdown are only 2.8% wasted. If you told me that I could not be locked down in return for merely losing 2.8% of the time I would have been locked down for, I'd bite your hand off.
Comments
Customer transfers £5,000 from their Commerzbank account to their Barclays account in the UK, Barclays really wants to know where that £5k came from because AML and tax reasons.
It is the perfect emblem of Brexit, lots of problems with no discernible gain.
They have been the champions of the army in their history.
But remember when you used to champion Boris Johnson and the Tories as the champions of the Scottish fisherfolk, now that's beyond parody.
More spend, modernised for the new threats including cyber, and with over 100,000 soldiers including the reserves is fine by me
I don't think it's a huge deal personally as I don't see us being in another traditional war again and even if we are in a major one the state will just bring in the draft.
You are obsessed, or nostalgic, or ignorant.
Corbyn isn't even a Labour MP any more. Sorry.
Every so often a politician comes along and turns everything upside down like Dave did with the NHS and the country consistently trusted him over Labour when it came to the NHS. It drove Labour strategists mad, no matter what they did it had no impact.
I think Sir Keir is no Dave.
Quite simply for them, Boris Johnson's deal is rather worse for them than the CFP.
Are the under 50s now meant to order a PCR test and wait for the result to be processed before they can go out anywhere? Besides the enormous inconvenience I seriously doubt there's the necessary supply. As I pointed out earlier this evening, the gap between tests currently used and available supply is meant to be about 500,000 per day. JCVI Phase Two consists of approximately 21 million adults.
https://twitter.com/scotfoodjames/status/1374798863823990794
https://twitter.com/adwooldridge/status/1374786433152647171
Brexit will eventually be good for Scottish fisherfolk, Labour just bumbled about after 1945, and the only thing the left have ever done for our armed forces is try to subvert them.
I said it was like Chris Grayling and Gavin Williamson being in charge of the EU vaccine rollout.
Funny old world.
From MARILYN (how to keep the army up to strength) to Options for Change (how to reduce the army after the cold war) in the 80s/90s the UK really hasn't known what it wants its armed forces to be. Even up until now. Do we want to be a nimble, high tech outfit or a force that could retake the Falklands or a country that could provide 200 MBTs to theatre in support of the US.
Owners (2 per horse most days, 4 per horse on AW Finals day) are coming back to English courses from next Monday. From April 12th, it will be small crowds and larger crowds from May 17th.
No race meetings were included in "test" events for larger crowds as they did all that last year.
Ah.
'She said: "It is unprecedented in our party’s history of dual mandates to demand that a parliamentarian make themselves and their constituency staff unemployed in order to be eligible to be a candidate. It is particularly unreasonable to demand this in the middle of a pandemic.'
https://tinyurl.com/twyypk94
Avoid at all costs.
The percentage of adults having had one jab has increased today to 54.4% from 53.8% according to Sky News.
@TSE is historically accurate about the first point - the same would of course have happened had the Conservatives been in power. It was Nye Bevan in opposition who coined the infamous phrase about "walking naked into the debating chamber" to describe the fate of Britain f it unilaterally disarmed.
As for point 2, it was Wilson who kept the British out of Vietnam which undoubtedly saved military lives but also committed the Army to Northern Ireland which didn't so a mixed outcome.
I'm not getting involved with fishermen or fish and especially Scottish variations of both.
BBC News - Coronavirus: India temporarily halts Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine exports
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-56513371
What you mean having things like cricket matches with 60,000 people might not be a good idea?
BBC News - Boris Johnson: UK considering tougher measures on France arrivals
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56512782
I’m not quite sure what your point is though given we’re talking about Assembly elections. Yes, Plaid will come third but they will probably have around 15 seats. And if, as seems likely, they are the only party apart from the big two to have any members at all they will still be incredibly important.
That’s entirely separate from their irrelevance at Westminster where next time they will almost certainly be reduced to just two seats.
Labour did very bad things to our defence manufacturing after 1945. They did very bad things to our manufacturing generally. It may well be the case that such things were inevitable, and as such it's a bit hard to jump up and down about it.
I think any PM would have kept the UK out of Vietnam. Intervening in the French world was never a runner.
Fairly sure on the fish - it'll take a while to be bourne out though.
I've sat on both sides of the nuclear fence periodically. The problem is or seems to be the only way to guarantee peace is to seem to be prepared to destroy yourselves and your opponents. I've always doubted I would draw any comfort in my terror-filled last minutes of life knowing the citizens of Kharkov or Irkutsk were going to be joining me in oblivion within a few minutes. I've also always suspected Putin now and the Communists then were ever serious about invading western Europe and had no desire to inherit a radioactive wasteland.
So we're stuck with weapons we'll hopefully never use - I do question whether 260 warheads is significantly more a deterrent than 180 - how much mega-death do you need?
As for the Army, the recent Nagorno-Karabakh conflict seems to have been quite the eye-opener. To be fair, anyone who followed the Balkan Wars could have ascertained how World War 1 was going to be fought. If drone-based warfare is in, the thrust of the defence strategy seems reasonable. Perhaps the days of "big" armies are over.
What are the best books to read about the Hungarian revolution (1956) and the Prague spring?
I'm keen to learn about the Soviet reaction/politics in both.
(Actually though if the EU were just about the Single Market, I'd have less of a problem with remaining).
Avoiding that will make the recovery so much easier.
"to escape an institution that puts all that pointless red tape on its members. After all, why should it be any more work to send a pork chop to Paris than to Newcastle?"
This is the entire point of the European single market.
We probably won't ever use a tank again. Get rid of 90%. Invest all the spare cash in bots, drones, cyber
On the other hand, the new era of tech warfare, done remotely with robots, drones, internet attacks, offers a BETTER argument for the nuclear deterrent.
A rich capable aggressor could take out any country - or demand its surrender - if they had the technological superiority I outline. The one thing that would make them hesitate is a nuke pointing their way. This is why no one will tackle North Korea. They've got nukes. Ditto Israel
I would have a problem if I were a Frog eating pork and just because it happens to come from England it has to go through all these non-tariff barriers. It should make no difference whether we are in the EU or not.
When we were in the EU, our non-EU meat imports had to go through all this shit. Now we're out, our consumers can feast on non-EU meat without going through 23 stages.
Though no doubt Whitehall will put in place its own stages, left to itself. I just hope there are fewer of them.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/24/british-schools-are-institutionally-racist-that-must-change-fast
British schools are NOT institutionally racist. This shit is poisonous.
CDU/CSU 26%
Greens 22%
SPD 16%
AfD 10%
FDP 10%
Linke 8%
Two coalition options - CDU/CSU/Green and Green/SDP/FDP both come up to 48%.
The dominance of Lega in Italy is also ending - latest Winpoll has them on just 22% with the Social Democrats on 20%, the FdL on 19% and M5 on 14%.
OTOH, in Denmark, the governing Social Democrats are on 34%, twenty points ahead of the Conservatives on 14% while Venstre has collapsed to just 12% with the Greens on 8%.
Remarkable polling from Poland as well - the governing PiS is down to 30% with the new PL2050 grouping polling 27%. They've had four defections in the Sejm - one of their interesting policies is the restoration of the Weimar Triangle seeing the future EU axis as between France, Germany and Poland.
It seems to me a classic case of regulatory groupthink. We're acting as though we were still bound by EU law - no longer getting the advantages of the Single Market, but clinging on to the disadvantages, for no discernible reason.
I can probably guess what it hopes the result will be.
If you rate life in lockdown as 50% wasted compared to normal life, then a 6 month lockdown for Brazil would represent 52 million wasted years of life. If a CV death in Brazil wastes an average 10 years of life, a 6 month lockdown would be the equivalent of 5.3 million deaths, which means that have 5 million to go before they reach breakeven.
One can argue about the 50% figure, but even at 25% its the equivalent of 2.6 million deaths.
If you want to make lockdown waste less life than the actual deaths, you have to say that lives lived under lockdown are only 2.8% wasted. If you told me that I could not be locked down in return for merely losing 2.8% of the time I would have been locked down for, I'd bite your hand off.
No they should not.
Time to accelerate unlocking. Rapidly accelerate it.