I would like to see the modelling paper that shows reducing second dose to 10 week gap vs 12 week gap gets you more bang for your buck than just blitzing all the unvaccinated age groups.
So far plenty of research shows that for Pfizer / Moderna basically the second dose only a small amount to efficacy, especially when you have left it to 10 weeks, it is more about the second dose giving you the boost for long lasting protection.
iirc Whitty said this decision was not unanimous in the committee. Pretty sure he emphasised that at the presser.
My personal opinion is that it is introducing potential for chaos into a system that has been near exemplary so far.
If works, don't try and fix it.
Yes, I think that would be my concern. From all reports the system has always been a little bit organized chaos, but has worked well because of the simplicity of those who are eligible, you get what you are given and everybody comes back in ~12 weeks.
Now we have different vaccines for different people while also shifting the timelines. More moving parts the more danger of issues.
I would like to see the modelling paper that shows reducing second dose to 10 week gap vs 12 week gap gets you more bang for your buck than just blitzing all the unvaccinated age groups.
So far plenty of research shows that for Pfizer / Moderna basically the second dose only a small amount to efficacy, especially when you have left it to 10 weeks, it is more about the second dose giving you the boost for long lasting protection.
iirc Whitty said this decision was not unanimous in the committee. Pretty sure he emphasised that at the presser.
My personal opinion is that it is introducing potential for chaos into a system that has been near exemplary so far.
If works, don't try and fix it.
Yes, I think that would be my concern. From all reports the system has always been a little bit organized chaos, but has worked well because of the simplicity of those who are eligible, you get what you are given and everybody comes back in ~12 weeks.
Now we have different vaccines for different people while also shifting the timelines.
I have a vested interested in panicking here as I am due by 2nd AZ next Saturday. Exactly 12 weeks to the hour.
They better not fuck around with any appointments before the end of next weekend is my view.
Too late for that. They will have to go ahead as it’s much too short a notice to reverse them.
The key is that they need to go ahead without a rise in cases.
We know there will be a rise in cases - our firm has had advice that cases are going to go up.
But, that's not the issue - it is hospitalizations and deaths we need to focus on
We don’t know there will be a rise in cases. We all ‘knew’ there would be after the 8th-15th March, and there wasn’t. These relaxations are actually quite minor by comparison.
There might be a rise, but then again there might not.
Didn't the same modellers tell us that schools shouldn't be opened back in March? Cases would spike up massively etc etc etc...
Yes. And I thought they were right.
And they were wrong. And so was I.
It’s now becoming clear that there wasn’t a large reservoir of dormant cases in the community, which was the killer punch in September. Can’t spread the virus if it isn’t there.
Controversial I know, but I don't think schools alone were that big of a deal in September.
Instead I think that August holidays, combined with University Freshers Flu were the two big punches. Schools aggrevated that, but had it not been for the August holidays I don't think the schools would have been that much of a problem.
Schools weren't a big issue last June.
Incidence of virus was low, but crucially secondary schools were also not fully open last June. The students were going in in rotas, as were staff.
Back to the tweeted front page, it's quite telling that the front page itself doesn't include any juicy quote, just a government advisors stating the obvious (numbers of variant infections likely rise - doesn't even necessarily mean overall number of infections - and unvacinated at more risk). That makes me suspect the headline quote is from a nobody, otherwise they'd surely have led with "big scientist says rethink" in the story instead of all the waffle?
The named scientist is Professor Andrew Hayward. He has consistently taken a different public opinion to the government position (some I agree with, some I don't and some turned out to be right, some rubbish).
I can well imagine he has given a juicy quote as he hasn't pulled punches previously e.g. claiming open schools in March was reckless.
Opening all schools on 8 March ‘reckless’, NERVTAG scientist tells LBC
Aye, and we'll find out soon enough. But the sub header mentions top advisor (Hayward, presumably) warning on India strain,which is in the first page quote and then 'scientists' delay. The latter could be just a rehash of our friends from IndSAGE.
There were sensible people saying panic last year and they were right. The one person on SAGE I knew before this all kicked off was despairing of the Christmas unlockdown before it happened, but pretty relaxed now.
I would like to see the modelling paper that shows reducing second dose to 10 week gap vs 12 week gap gets you more bang for your buck than just blitzing all the unvaccinated age groups.
So far plenty of research shows that for Pfizer / Moderna basically the second dose only a small amount to efficacy, especially when you have left it to 10 weeks, it is more about the second dose giving you the boost for long lasting protection.
iirc Whitty said this decision was not unanimous in the committee. Pretty sure he emphasised that at the presser.
My personal opinion is that it is introducing potential for chaos into a system that has been near exemplary so far.
If works, don't try and fix it.
The other aspect is the psychological. I've had the date of my second jab ringed since before I had my first. I am prepared. A phone call out of the blue saying turn up at short notice...not so. Also. Most over 50s work. So will have chosen a convenient time or arranged time off I imagine? They can't just rock up at the drop of a hat.
Talking of jabs , I had my second one today and I noticed that all the bays for people to be seated were numbered to 20 but there was no bay 13. I asked why not and was told that there were too many superstitious people. And no 13 bay had had to be removed as people would not sit in it... Jeez.....
Lots of hotels don’t have floor number 13 (they obviously have a thirteenth floor). There is a measurable difference in room changes and suicides…
Apparently flying on a Friday 13th is great. Cheaper fares and lots of empty seats.
My wife freaked out a bit when she found out our new build is going to be number 13......
Give it a name instead: "not number 13"
I thought I'd look up why 13 was unlucky following the discussion. No really obvious explanation, and it seems to be lucky in France and Italy.
Anyway @Floater, it turns out that in number theory it's also a 'happy number', so perhaps that'll cheer your good lady.
Friday 13 is unlucky because on that day in 1307 the French king arrested the Templars
Telegraph saying that appts for 2nd dose in next ten days should stay as they are, after that any that are longer than 8 weeks should be brought forward.
Maybe I won't have to drive 2hrs to my second dose after all....
I drove 45 mins and v pleasant it was too . Understand if your jab was in Cumbernauld....
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
They're subject to rocket attacks because Israel engages with illegal occupation. Stop the illegal occupations; conflict over.
You think its that simple .......
Go read the Hamas charter for starters
It's not that simple.
But it's also the case that there is no viable Palestinian state so long as Israel keeps allowing settlers to build there, and uses the full force of the Israeli state to support them.
If you're a Palestinian in those circumstances, do you support those Palestinians who are committed to dialog with Israel? Or do you support the ones who lob missiles?
And if you're an Israeli in Tel Aviv, do you support the army going in and destroying the guys sending the rockets? Or do you support someone who promises dialog with the people sending the rockets over.
If I were a Palestinian, I'd probably support Hamas. And if I was an Israeli, I'd probably support Bibi.
Someone has to break the stalemate. Because the alternative isn't good for the Israelis or the Palestinians.
I would like to see the modelling paper that shows reducing second dose to 10 week gap vs 12 week gap gets you more bang for your buck than just blitzing all the unvaccinated age groups.
So far plenty of research shows that for Pfizer / Moderna basically the second dose only a small amount to efficacy, especially when you have left it to 10 weeks, it is more about the second dose giving you the boost for long lasting protection.
iirc Whitty said this decision was not unanimous in the committee. Pretty sure he emphasised that at the presser.
My personal opinion is that it is introducing potential for chaos into a system that has been near exemplary so far.
If works, don't try and fix it.
The other aspect is the psychological. I've had the date of my second jab ringed since before I had my first. I am prepared. A phone call out of the blue saying turn up at short notice...not so. Also. Most over 50s work. So will have chosen a convenient time or arranged time off I imagine? They can't just rock up at the drop of a hat.
Yep. Exactly the kind of thing that is going to cause a mess.
This smacks of 'we must be seen to do something' government frankly rather than 'steady under fire'.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
They're subject to rocket attacks because Israel engages with illegal occupation. Stop the illegal occupations; conflict over.
You are aware that Hamas regards no part of Israel as legitimate? When do you think they will stop? When they have driven every last Jew into the sea?
You are aware that Nippy regards no part of Westminster as legitimate? When do you think they will stop? When they have driven every last Brit/Scot into the sea?
You must be trolling.
Nippy regards Westminster as legitimate over England at least.
Touche. Nice technicality. Y'know some of us Scots have to live in Scotland?
That's the difference though, Nippy wants independence for Scotland.
Hamas do not want independence for Gaza. They want the death and destruction of the Israeli state, from sea to sea.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
I can be quite ignorant sometimes. I don't know if Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, for example. I do however know that it is a major city in Israel and Israel occupies parts of Palestine illegally. What are the Palestinians supposed to do?
Attacking the IDF would be more legitimate than firing rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas.
Of course it would.
Likewise, it would be more legitimate for the Israelis to execute individual Hamas member than to strike at Gaza City.
Unfortunately, when we're injured, we tend to strike out fairly indisciminately.
Talking of jabs , I had my second one today and I noticed that all the bays for people to be seated were numbered to 20 but there was no bay 13. I asked why not and was told that there were too many superstitious people. And no 13 bay had had to be removed as people would not sit in it... Jeez.....
Lots of hotels don’t have floor number 13 (they obviously have a thirteenth floor). There is a measurable difference in room changes and suicides…
Apparently flying on a Friday 13th is great. Cheaper fares and lots of empty seats.
My wife freaked out a bit when she found out our new build is going to be number 13......
Give it a name instead: "not number 13"
I thought I'd look up why 13 was unlucky following the discussion. No really obvious explanation, and it seems to be lucky in France and Italy.
Anyway @Floater, it turns out that in number theory it's also a 'happy number', so perhaps that'll cheer your good lady.
Friday 13 is unlucky because on that day in 1307 the French king arrested the Templars
Maybe that's really Friday 2nd now though as there were 11 days that went missing in the calendar switch.
You win the PB Periodical Pedantry Pendent
*Pendant
No, pendent, in the sense of remaining undecided - same root as pending
I would like to see the modelling paper that shows reducing second dose to 10 week gap vs 12 week gap gets you more bang for your buck than just blitzing all the unvaccinated age groups.
So far plenty of research shows that for Pfizer / Moderna basically the second dose only a small amount to efficacy, especially when you have left it to 10 weeks, it is more about the second dose giving you the boost for long lasting protection.
iirc Whitty said this decision was not unanimous in the committee. Pretty sure he emphasised that at the presser.
My personal opinion is that it is introducing potential for chaos into a system that has been near exemplary so far.
If works, don't try and fix it.
The other aspect is the psychological. I've had the date of my second jab ringed since before I had my first. I am prepared. A phone call out of the blue saying turn up at short notice...not so. Also. Most over 50s work. So will have chosen a convenient time or arranged time off I imagine? They can't just rock up at the drop of a hat.
Yep. Exactly the kind of thing that is going to cause a mess.
This smacks of 'we must be seen to do something' government frankly rather than 'steady under fire'.
My partner has been double jabbed. But she works in mental health. She needs to give a month's notice to postpone an appointment in all but the most dire circumstances. She has Thursdays off, so she booked for Thursday. And shuffled around her Friday appointments in case she felt unwell. Which proved to be prescient. The nature of her work and her clientele means getting a sub in is not an option. Can imagine there are a few in such a boat.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
They're subject to rocket attacks because Israel engages with illegal occupation. Stop the illegal occupations; conflict over.
You are aware that Hamas regards no part of Israel as legitimate? When do you think they will stop? When they have driven every last Jew into the sea?
You are aware that Nippy regards no part of Westminster as legitimate? When do you think they will stop? When they have driven every last Brit/Scot into the sea?
You must be trolling.
Nippy regards Westminster as legitimate over England at least.
Touche. Nice technicality. Y'know some of us Scots have to live in Scotland?
That's the difference though, Nippy wants independence for Scotland.
Hamas do not want independence for Gaza. They want the death and destruction of the Israeli state, from sea to sea.
Whatever dude. i just don't want a hard border on the mainland.
The Labour Right especially seem to regard anything which challenges the status quo as a deeply unpalatable, ‘far left’ view. Nonsense like that paved the way for crazies like Corbyn to get the leadership in the first place. Most mainstream Labour candidates in the last 3 leadership elections have been bland and dull. If you want to defeat what you see as the ‘far left’ you cannot be those things.
I would like to see the modelling paper that shows reducing second dose to 10 week gap vs 12 week gap gets you more bang for your buck than just blitzing all the unvaccinated age groups.
So far plenty of research shows that for Pfizer / Moderna basically the second dose only a small amount to efficacy, especially when you have left it to 10 weeks, it is more about the second dose giving you the boost for long lasting protection.
iirc Whitty said this decision was not unanimous in the committee. Pretty sure he emphasised that at the presser.
My personal opinion is that it is introducing potential for chaos into a system that has been near exemplary so far.
If works, don't try and fix it.
The other aspect is the psychological. I've had the date of my second jab ringed since before I had my first. I am prepared. A phone call out of the blue saying turn up at short notice...not so. Also. Most over 50s work. So will have chosen a convenient time or arranged time off I imagine? They can't just rock up at the drop of a hat.
Don't know if this has been standard for long, but no one I know locally who has been jabbed in the past week has a second date booked in (surprised me as I thought this had become standard). Intentionally leaving flexibility from here onwards?
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
Politics has been involved in sports long before BLM. People have right to express their views, if people don’t like that, then they can also air their disagreement.
It’s odd when you see people getting upset at footballers airing their views on politics and wanting to censure them, but then on the other hand complaining about snowflakes and cancel culture.
N Yorks vaccine update - my wife, 35, pfizered today at a local centre that previously (even a week ago when I, 39,was done) only stocked AZN (Max's prediction correct). My 33 year old brother in law is in on Wednesday. Unless this is antivaxxer central, the pace is astonishing.
Glad to hear there weren't any issues! I have mine on Monday and I'm very much looking forwards to it. My wife is pretty annoyed about the idea of under 30s being pushed back to July to enable over 50s to get second doses faster but I'm not sure it's going to happen or be necessary given that she will get Pfizer or Moderna while most of those second doses are AZ. I still maintain that we have a more than 75% chance that all over 18s will have been offered the first dose by the time we get to June 21st and everyone will have had their second by the time we get to the end of July.
From my calculations earlier in the week we should get to 35-37 year olds invited on Tuesday or Wednesday, 32-34 year olds on the following Monday and then 30/31 over the weekend and then under 30s will start to get it from the beginning of June at a rate of around 300-400k per day covering single year cohorts in 2-4 days. With a few big days I think all 18+ will be done before the final step.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
They're subject to rocket attacks because Israel engages with illegal occupation. Stop the illegal occupations; conflict over.
You think its that simple .......
Go read the Hamas charter for starters
It's not that simple.
But it's also the case that there is no viable Palestinian state so long as Israel keeps allowing settlers to build there, and uses the full force of the Israeli state to support them.
If you're a Palestinian in those circumstances, do you support those Palestinians who are committed to dialog with Israel? Or do you support the ones who lob missiles?
And if you're an Israeli in Tel Aviv, do you support the army going in and destroying the guys sending the rockets? Or do you support someone who promises dialog with the people sending the rockets over.
If I were a Palestinian, I'd probably support Hamas. And if I was an Israeli, I'd probably support Bibi.
Someone has to break the stalemate. Because the alternative isn't good for the Israelis or the Palestinians.
I find the term "settlers" to be very pejorative. If someone gets a new build home in this country you'd never call them a settler.
I'm not aware of Israel building any "settlements" in Gaza, so Hamas attacking Israel from Gaza has nothing to do with settlements surely?
East Jerusalem is a part of Israel so how are anybody there "settlers"?
If Israel is building on land they've not annexed then fair enough to call those settlers.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
They're subject to rocket attacks because Israel engages with illegal occupation. Stop the illegal occupations; conflict over.
You think its that simple .......
Go read the Hamas charter for starters
It's not that simple.
But it's also the case that there is no viable Palestinian state so long as Israel keeps allowing settlers to build there, and uses the full force of the Israeli state to support them.
If you're a Palestinian in those circumstances, do you support those Palestinians who are committed to dialog with Israel? Or do you support the ones who lob missiles?
And if you're an Israeli in Tel Aviv, do you support the army going in and destroying the guys sending the rockets? Or do you support someone who promises dialog with the people sending the rockets over.
If I were a Palestinian, I'd probably support Hamas. And if I was an Israeli, I'd probably support Bibi.
Someone has to break the stalemate. Because the alternative isn't good for the Israelis or the Palestinians.
Any possible solution seems like it will have to come as completely as a shock, as there's no way to steadily increment a way to progress on the issues at hand. And yet despite it being the holy land praying for a miracle seems a poor option.
The Labour Right especially seem to regard anything which challenges the status quo as a deeply unpalatable, ‘far left’ view. Nonsense like that paved the way for crazies like Corbyn to get the leadership in the first place. Most mainstream Labour candidates in the last 3 leadership elections have been bland and dull. If you want to defeat what you see as the ‘far left’ you cannot be those things.
But who does labour have thats both sane and charismatic?
The Labour Right especially seem to regard anything which challenges the status quo as a deeply unpalatable, ‘far left’ view. Nonsense like that paved the way for crazies like Corbyn to get the leadership in the first place. Most mainstream Labour candidates in the last 3 leadership elections have been bland and dull. If you want to defeat what you see as the ‘far left’ you cannot be those things.
The Labour Right is the most conservative faction in UK politics. Everything is basically fine bar a little tinkering. Brexit, and Corbyn too, shows there is a giant market for summat radical.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
Politics has been involved in sports long before BLM. People have right to express their views, if people don’t like that, then they can also air their disagreement.
It’s odd when you see people getting upset at footballers airing their views on politics and wanting to censure them, but then on the other hand complaining about snowflakes and cancel culture.
That's true, and yet politics being kept out of sport as much as possible is something that seems to be widely accepted. People don't get super mad about sporting bodies being strict on such things, other than some usual poppy hysteria and the like. I presume as people like to imagine sport as being unifying, so inasmuch as possible wanting those involved in it to keep their opinions to themselves is accepted as the price of that.
Re: Israel/Palestine - I'm always really surprised at how small the Palestinian territories are.
Gaza has over 2 million people and is roughly the same size as Rutland The West Bank has 3.3 million people and is roughly the size of Norfolk Israel has 9 million people and is roughly the size of Wales
The Labour Right especially seem to regard anything which challenges the status quo as a deeply unpalatable, ‘far left’ view. Nonsense like that paved the way for crazies like Corbyn to get the leadership in the first place. Most mainstream Labour candidates in the last 3 leadership elections have been bland and dull. If you want to defeat what you see as the ‘far left’ you cannot be those things.
But who does labour have thats both sane and charismatic?
At the moment, Burnham for me is looking like their best bet. But someone else could emerge in the coming years as well.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
I can be quite ignorant sometimes. I don't know if Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, for example. I do however know that it is a major city in Israel and Israel occupies parts of Palestine illegally. What are the Palestinians supposed to do?
Attacking the IDF would be more legitimate than firing rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas.
Of course it would.
Likewise, it would be more legitimate for the Israelis to execute individual Hamas member than to strike at Gaza City.
Unfortunately, when we're injured, we tend to strike out fairly indisciminately.
Isn't that what Israel are doing? They are doing precision strikes on leading Hamas figures, not just firing indiscriminately into Gaza City.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
They're subject to rocket attacks because Israel engages with illegal occupation. Stop the illegal occupations; conflict over.
You think its that simple .......
Go read the Hamas charter for starters
It's not that simple.
But it's also the case that there is no viable Palestinian state so long as Israel keeps allowing settlers to build there, and uses the full force of the Israeli state to support them.
If you're a Palestinian in those circumstances, do you support those Palestinians who are committed to dialog with Israel? Or do you support the ones who lob missiles?
And if you're an Israeli in Tel Aviv, do you support the army going in and destroying the guys sending the rockets? Or do you support someone who promises dialog with the people sending the rockets over.
If I were a Palestinian, I'd probably support Hamas. And if I was an Israeli, I'd probably support Bibi.
Someone has to break the stalemate. Because the alternative isn't good for the Israelis or the Palestinians.
I find the term "settlers" to be very pejorative. If someone gets a new build home in this country you'd never call them a settler.
I'm not aware of Israel building any "settlements" in Gaza, so Hamas attacking Israel from Gaza has nothing to do with settlements surely?
East Jerusalem is a part of Israel so how are anybody there "settlers"?
If Israel is building on land they've not annexed then fair enough to call those settlers.
I believe settlers comes from the fact that the "settlers" move in and cleanse the area of palestinian of their homes before building their own...much like the americans did to the indians. Not surprised its perjorative
The Labour Right especially seem to regard anything which challenges the status quo as a deeply unpalatable, ‘far left’ view. Nonsense like that paved the way for crazies like Corbyn to get the leadership in the first place. Most mainstream Labour candidates in the last 3 leadership elections have been bland and dull. If you want to defeat what you see as the ‘far left’ you cannot be those things.
The Labour Right is the most conservative faction in UK politics. Everything is basically fine bar a little tinkering. Brexit, and Corbyn too, shows there is a giant market for summat radical.
Pretty much.
They are oddly still obsessed with Corbyn and his fraction....it’s like he’s no longer leading the party. His fraction have little power in the party these days. They are pretty much Twitter commentators, for the most part.
The going gaga over the Blair op Ed this week was weird as well. Not once did outline what the alternative vision for Labour should be. Just said what he believes Labour shouldn’t be. That’s been the issue with the Labour Right since 2010. They can talk about how much they hate the left all day, but can only offer meaningless platitudes when it comes outlining what they actually believe.
That's the difference though, Nippy wants independence for Scotland.
Does she?
She will only want it when she is certain she can get it. Given the Holyrood election last month, it's far too risky for her to hold a second referendum because there's a good chance she'll lose.
The good thing for her is her unwitting ally Boris Johnson who props up her Nationalist credentials every time he waves his Unionist credentials by refusing a second vote.
The truth is there is huge risk for them both - he can't be the Conservative PM who "loses" Scotland while she can't be the SNP leader who loses a second vote.
It's therefore in neither of their interests for there to be a vote as the status quo suits them both so well.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
They're subject to rocket attacks because Israel engages with illegal occupation. Stop the illegal occupations; conflict over.
You think its that simple .......
Go read the Hamas charter for starters
It's not that simple.
But it's also the case that there is no viable Palestinian state so long as Israel keeps allowing settlers to build there, and uses the full force of the Israeli state to support them.
If you're a Palestinian in those circumstances, do you support those Palestinians who are committed to dialog with Israel? Or do you support the ones who lob missiles?
And if you're an Israeli in Tel Aviv, do you support the army going in and destroying the guys sending the rockets? Or do you support someone who promises dialog with the people sending the rockets over.
If I were a Palestinian, I'd probably support Hamas. And if I was an Israeli, I'd probably support Bibi.
Someone has to break the stalemate. Because the alternative isn't good for the Israelis or the Palestinians.
I find the term "settlers" to be very pejorative. If someone gets a new build home in this country you'd never call them a settler.
I'm not aware of Israel building any "settlements" in Gaza, so Hamas attacking Israel from Gaza has nothing to do with settlements surely?
East Jerusalem is a part of Israel so how are anybody there "settlers"?
If Israel is building on land they've not annexed then fair enough to call those settlers.
I believe when people talk of settlers they mean the settlements in the West Bank. As the years go by, more settlements are built, and they make a continuous Palestinian state in the West Bank impossible without vast population exchange, and that's kinda the idea.
It's annexation by the back door, bit like Russia in the Donbas.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
Politics has been involved in sports long before BLM. People have right to express their views, if people don’t like that, then they can also air their disagreement.
It’s odd when you see people getting upset at footballers airing their views on politics and wanting to censure them, but then on the other hand complaining about snowflakes and cancel culture.
That's true, and yet politics being kept out of sport as much as possible is something that seems to be widely accepted. People don't get super mad about sporting bodies being strict on such things, other than some usual poppy hysteria and the like. I presume as people like to imagine sport as being unifying, so inasmuch as possible wanting those involved in it to keep their opinions to themselves is accepted as the price of that.
Of course, people don’t like politics and sport to mix. But the reality is, they have for sometime and that’s not something that I can see changing anytime soon.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
They're subject to rocket attacks because Israel engages with illegal occupation. Stop the illegal occupations; conflict over.
You think its that simple .......
Go read the Hamas charter for starters
It's not that simple.
But it's also the case that there is no viable Palestinian state so long as Israel keeps allowing settlers to build there, and uses the full force of the Israeli state to support them.
If you're a Palestinian in those circumstances, do you support those Palestinians who are committed to dialog with Israel? Or do you support the ones who lob missiles?
And if you're an Israeli in Tel Aviv, do you support the army going in and destroying the guys sending the rockets? Or do you support someone who promises dialog with the people sending the rockets over.
If I were a Palestinian, I'd probably support Hamas. And if I was an Israeli, I'd probably support Bibi.
Someone has to break the stalemate. Because the alternative isn't good for the Israelis or the Palestinians.
I find the term "settlers" to be very pejorative. If someone gets a new build home in this country you'd never call them a settler.
I'm not aware of Israel building any "settlements" in Gaza, so Hamas attacking Israel from Gaza has nothing to do with settlements surely?
East Jerusalem is a part of Israel so how are anybody there "settlers"?
If Israel is building on land they've not annexed then fair enough to call those settlers.
I believe settlers comes from the fact that the "settlers" move in and cleanse the area of palestinian of their homes before building their own...much like the americans did to the indians. Not surprised its perjorative
"Settlers" is a mistranslation of a Hebrew word used to describe early members of the Kibbutz movement (or, more generally, people working on developing the land via agriculture/forestry). "Pioneers" would be a better translation, but "settlers" is the one that has stuck in the international lexicon.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
They're subject to rocket attacks because Israel engages with illegal occupation. Stop the illegal occupations; conflict over.
You think its that simple .......
Go read the Hamas charter for starters
It's not that simple.
But it's also the case that there is no viable Palestinian state so long as Israel keeps allowing settlers to build there, and uses the full force of the Israeli state to support them.
If you're a Palestinian in those circumstances, do you support those Palestinians who are committed to dialog with Israel? Or do you support the ones who lob missiles?
And if you're an Israeli in Tel Aviv, do you support the army going in and destroying the guys sending the rockets? Or do you support someone who promises dialog with the people sending the rockets over.
If I were a Palestinian, I'd probably support Hamas. And if I was an Israeli, I'd probably support Bibi.
Someone has to break the stalemate. Because the alternative isn't good for the Israelis or the Palestinians.
I find the term "settlers" to be very pejorative. If someone gets a new build home in this country you'd never call them a settler.
I'm not aware of Israel building any "settlements" in Gaza, so Hamas attacking Israel from Gaza has nothing to do with settlements surely?
East Jerusalem is a part of Israel so how are anybody there "settlers"?
If Israel is building on land they've not annexed then fair enough to call those settlers.
I believe when people talk of settlers they mean the settlements in the West Bank. As the years go by, more settlements are built, and they make a continuous Palestinian state in the West Bank impossible without vast population exchange, and that's kinda the idea.
It's annexation by the back door, bit like Russia in the Donbas.
It's often used in this sense to argue that Israel shouldn't exist, ironically by people living in America.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
I can be quite ignorant sometimes. I don't know if Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, for example. I do however know that it is a major city in Israel and Israel occupies parts of Palestine illegally. What are the Palestinians supposed to do?
Attacking the IDF would be more legitimate than firing rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas.
Of course it would.
Likewise, it would be more legitimate for the Israelis to execute individual Hamas member than to strike at Gaza City.
Unfortunately, when we're injured, we tend to strike out fairly indisciminately.
Isn't that what Israel are doing? They are doing precision strikes on leading Hamas figures, not just firing indiscriminately into Gaza City.
Putting aside the rights and wrongs, I find the technology to first fire the "door knock" before then blow up the building in such a densely built up area mind blowing.
They literally fire on a building such that it will rock it but not destroy it.
@williamglenn the thing is, even if that was true historically, the fact is Israel is there now, and there's 9m of them. They're not going away. So smarmy pseudo-intellectual characterisations of the state as a "settler colony" are irrelevant.
By that logic the whole of South America is a European settler colony. The USA is a European settler colony. It adds absolutely nothing.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
They're subject to rocket attacks because Israel engages with illegal occupation. Stop the illegal occupations; conflict over.
You think its that simple .......
Go read the Hamas charter for starters
It's not that simple.
But it's also the case that there is no viable Palestinian state so long as Israel keeps allowing settlers to build there, and uses the full force of the Israeli state to support them.
If you're a Palestinian in those circumstances, do you support those Palestinians who are committed to dialog with Israel? Or do you support the ones who lob missiles?
And if you're an Israeli in Tel Aviv, do you support the army going in and destroying the guys sending the rockets? Or do you support someone who promises dialog with the people sending the rockets over.
If I were a Palestinian, I'd probably support Hamas. And if I was an Israeli, I'd probably support Bibi.
Someone has to break the stalemate. Because the alternative isn't good for the Israelis or the Palestinians.
I find the term "settlers" to be very pejorative. If someone gets a new build home in this country you'd never call them a settler.
I'm not aware of Israel building any "settlements" in Gaza, so Hamas attacking Israel from Gaza has nothing to do with settlements surely?
East Jerusalem is a part of Israel so how are anybody there "settlers"?
If Israel is building on land they've not annexed then fair enough to call those settlers.
I believe when people talk of settlers they mean the settlements in the West Bank. As the years go by, more settlements are built, and they make a continuous Palestinian state in the West Bank impossible without vast population exchange, and that's kinda the idea.
It's annexation by the back door, bit like Russia in the Donbas.
It's often used in this sense to argue that Israel shouldn't exist, ironically by people living in America.
And of course is bollocks. The whole crux of the issue is that both the Jews and the Arabs have lived on that land for 1000s of years, and hence why it isn't possible to simply say that bits yours.
It isn't like Western Europeans going to the Americas and replacing the native population.
@williamglenn the thing is, even if that was true historically, the fact is Israel is there now, and there's 9m of them. They're not going away. So smarmy pseudo-intellectual characterisations of the state as a "settler colony" are irrelevant.
By that logic the whole of South America is a European settler colony. The USA is a European settler colony. It adds absolutely nothing.
Anshel Pfeffer אנשיל פפר @AnshelPfeffer A week ago Israel was about to have a new government supported by right-wing, left-wing, centrist and Arab parties which was to concentrate on a “civilian agenda” and “reconciliation.” 5 days of internecine violence shattered that illusion. It’s still Netanyahu’s Israel.
@williamglenn the thing is, even if that was true historically, the fact is Israel is there now, and there's 9m of them. They're not going away. So smarmy pseudo-intellectual characterisations of the state as a "settler colony" are irrelevant.
By that logic the whole of South America is a European settler colony. The USA is a European settler colony. It adds absolutely nothing.
The Labour Right especially seem to regard anything which challenges the status quo as a deeply unpalatable, ‘far left’ view. Nonsense like that paved the way for crazies like Corbyn to get the leadership in the first place. Most mainstream Labour candidates in the last 3 leadership elections have been bland and dull. If you want to defeat what you see as the ‘far left’ you cannot be those things.
The Labour Right is the most conservative faction in UK politics. Everything is basically fine bar a little tinkering. Brexit, and Corbyn too, shows there is a giant market for summat radical.
Pretty much.
They are oddly still obsessed with Corbyn and his fraction....it’s like he’s no longer leading the party. His fraction have little power in the party these days. They are pretty much Twitter commentators, for the most part.
The going gaga over the Blair op Ed this week was weird as well. Not once did outline what the alternative vision for Labour should be. Just said what he believes Labour shouldn’t be. That’s been the issue with the Labour Right since 2010. They can talk about how much they hate the left all day, but can only offer meaningless platitudes when it comes outlining what they actually believe.
That Geoff Norcott said something similar on the interview linked by @Floater. The Labour right don’t come up with any ideas or show enthusiasm that inspires people, they just sit, wait & hope for things to go wrong so they might get a chance to manage it better. People hate on Corbyn, but he had conviction in what he said, & a idea for a different Britain. He ended up unpopular, but there was a time when it looked like winning, and he no doubt inspired a lot of people
Sunday Tel reporting that ministers expect the daily vaccination rate to hit 800k within a couple of weeks or so, thanks to the stockpile of doses that's been built up.
Meanwhile Sunday Times says 35+ will get the call-up on Monday.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
They're subject to rocket attacks because Israel engages with illegal occupation. Stop the illegal occupations; conflict over.
You think its that simple .......
Go read the Hamas charter for starters
It's not that simple.
But it's also the case that there is no viable Palestinian state so long as Israel keeps allowing settlers to build there, and uses the full force of the Israeli state to support them.
If you're a Palestinian in those circumstances, do you support those Palestinians who are committed to dialog with Israel? Or do you support the ones who lob missiles?
And if you're an Israeli in Tel Aviv, do you support the army going in and destroying the guys sending the rockets? Or do you support someone who promises dialog with the people sending the rockets over.
If I were a Palestinian, I'd probably support Hamas. And if I was an Israeli, I'd probably support Bibi.
Someone has to break the stalemate. Because the alternative isn't good for the Israelis or the Palestinians.
I find the term "settlers" to be very pejorative. If someone gets a new build home in this country you'd never call them a settler.
I'm not aware of Israel building any "settlements" in Gaza, so Hamas attacking Israel from Gaza has nothing to do with settlements surely?
East Jerusalem is a part of Israel so how are anybody there "settlers"?
If Israel is building on land they've not annexed then fair enough to call those settlers.
I believe when people talk of settlers they mean the settlements in the West Bank. As the years go by, more settlements are built, and they make a continuous Palestinian state in the West Bank impossible without vast population exchange, and that's kinda the idea.
It's annexation by the back door, bit like Russia in the Donbas.
Yes, it is rather like what the English did in Ulster in the 17th century.
The Labour Right especially seem to regard anything which challenges the status quo as a deeply unpalatable, ‘far left’ view. Nonsense like that paved the way for crazies like Corbyn to get the leadership in the first place. Most mainstream Labour candidates in the last 3 leadership elections have been bland and dull. If you want to defeat what you see as the ‘far left’ you cannot be those things.
The Labour Right is the most conservative faction in UK politics. Everything is basically fine bar a little tinkering. Brexit, and Corbyn too, shows there is a giant market for summat radical.
Pretty much.
They are oddly still obsessed with Corbyn and his fraction....it’s like he’s no longer leading the party. His fraction have little power in the party these days. They are pretty much Twitter commentators, for the most part.
The going gaga over the Blair op Ed this week was weird as well. Not once did outline what the alternative vision for Labour should be. Just said what he believes Labour shouldn’t be. That’s been the issue with the Labour Right since 2010. They can talk about how much they hate the left all day, but can only offer meaningless platitudes when it comes outlining what they actually believe.
That Geoff Norcott said something similar on the interview linked by @Floater. The Labour right don’t come up with any ideas or show enthusiasm that inspires people, they just sit, wait & hope for things to go wrong so they might get a chance to manage it better. People hate on Corbyn, but he had conviction in what he said, & a idea for a different Britain. He ended up unpopular, but there was a time when it looked like winning, and he no doubt inspired a lot of people
The whole political scene has been struggling for ideas for the 21st Century for many years now. Corbyn was advocating failed 1970s ideas, May offered absolutely no new ideas, Boris offers some more spending in targeted left behind areas as part of some sort of nebulous "levelling up" and some acceleration in things like electric car roll out.
As I linked down thread, AI can now automatically write the estate agent listing / pitch....this stuff is only going to increase and many middle class jobs are going to be going, yet very little thinking on what we are going to do, how to change society for the actual world we live in etc.
The think tanks these days just seem to pump out basically lobbying pieces for more or less spending, depending on their slant, but rarely much more.
The Labour Right especially seem to regard anything which challenges the status quo as a deeply unpalatable, ‘far left’ view. Nonsense like that paved the way for crazies like Corbyn to get the leadership in the first place. Most mainstream Labour candidates in the last 3 leadership elections have been bland and dull. If you want to defeat what you see as the ‘far left’ you cannot be those things.
The Labour Right is the most conservative faction in UK politics. Everything is basically fine bar a little tinkering. Brexit, and Corbyn too, shows there is a giant market for summat radical.
Pretty much.
They are oddly still obsessed with Corbyn and his fraction....it’s like he’s no longer leading the party. His fraction have little power in the party these days. They are pretty much Twitter commentators, for the most part.
The going gaga over the Blair op Ed this week was weird as well. Not once did outline what the alternative vision for Labour should be. Just said what he believes Labour shouldn’t be. That’s been the issue with the Labour Right since 2010. They can talk about how much they hate the left all day, but can only offer meaningless platitudes when it comes outlining what they actually believe.
That Geoff Norcott said something similar on the interview linked by @Floater. The Labour right don’t come up with any ideas or show enthusiasm that inspires people, they just sit, wait & hope for things to go wrong so they might get a chance to manage it better. People hate on Corbyn, but he had conviction in what he said, & a idea for a different Britain. He ended up unpopular, but there was a time when it looked like winning, and he no doubt inspired a lot of people
The whole political scene has been struggling for ideas for the 21st Century for many years now. Corbyn was advocating failed 1970s ideas, May offered absolutely no ideas, Boris offers some more spending in targeted left behind areas as part of some sort of nebulous "levelling up" and some acceleration in things like electric car roll out.
As I linked down thread, AI can now automatically write the estate agent listing / pitch....this stuff is only going to increase and many middle class jobs are going to be going, yet very little thinking on what we are going to do, how to change society for the actual world we live in etc.
This isn’t a world shattering idea, or my idea, but a clever bloke I used to work with reckoned there’d be a big market for rich people employing humans to do what the masses get machines to do
I suppose that is already the case with things like hand made shoes/shirts
The Labour Right especially seem to regard anything which challenges the status quo as a deeply unpalatable, ‘far left’ view. Nonsense like that paved the way for crazies like Corbyn to get the leadership in the first place. Most mainstream Labour candidates in the last 3 leadership elections have been bland and dull. If you want to defeat what you see as the ‘far left’ you cannot be those things.
The Labour Right is the most conservative faction in UK politics. Everything is basically fine bar a little tinkering. Brexit, and Corbyn too, shows there is a giant market for summat radical.
Pretty much.
They are oddly still obsessed with Corbyn and his fraction....it’s like he’s no longer leading the party. His fraction have little power in the party these days. They are pretty much Twitter commentators, for the most part.
The going gaga over the Blair op Ed this week was weird as well. Not once did outline what the alternative vision for Labour should be. Just said what he believes Labour shouldn’t be. That’s been the issue with the Labour Right since 2010. They can talk about how much they hate the left all day, but can only offer meaningless platitudes when it comes outlining what they actually believe.
That Geoff Norcott said something similar on the interview linked by @Floater. The Labour right don’t come up with any ideas or show enthusiasm that inspires people, they just sit, wait & hope for things to go wrong so they might get a chance to manage it better. People hate on Corbyn, but he had conviction in what he said, & a idea for a different Britain. He ended up unpopular, but there was a time when it looked like winning, and he no doubt inspired a lot of people
The whole political scene has been struggling for ideas for the 21st Century for many years now. Corbyn was advocating failed 1970s ideas, May offered absolutely no ideas, Boris offers some more spending in targeted left behind areas as part of some sort of nebulous "levelling up" and some acceleration in things like electric car roll out.
As I linked down thread, AI can now automatically write the estate agent listing / pitch....this stuff is only going to increase and many middle class jobs are going to be going, yet very little thinking on what we are going to do, how to change society for the actual world we live in etc.
This isn’t a world shattering idea, or my idea, but a clever bloke I used to work with reckoned there’d be a big market for rich people employing humans to do what the masses get machines to do
I suppose that is already the case with things like hand made shoes/shirts
Already happening...."bespoke" services have been on the rise for several years. From getting people to customize items e.g. trainers, furniture etc, to offering the ability to outsource jobs that you don't want to do e.g. dog walking.
What a lot of middle class people I know do, is buy a load of branded stuff, then spend money on a few unique items that will guarantee they will have different stuff to the Jones.
The question are those industries ever going to be big enough to replace say 7/8 out of 10 estate agents or accountants not being needed.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
They're subject to rocket attacks because Israel engages with illegal occupation. Stop the illegal occupations; conflict over.
Hamas believe that the Jews should be wiped from the face of the earth. You’re naive if you believe that ending “illegal occupations” would end the conflict
Don't forget that some time ago Israel withdrew from Gaza, including removing settlements.
That Geoff Norcott said something similar on the interview linked by @Floater. The Labour right don’t come up with any ideas or show enthusiasm that inspires people, they just sit, wait & hope for things to go wrong so they might get a chance to manage it better. People hate on Corbyn, but he had conviction in what he said, & a idea for a different Britain. He ended up unpopular, but there was a time when it looked like winning, and he no doubt inspired a lot of people
Let's be fair - "Third Way" or centre-left Blairism, had a long and successful tenure from the mid-90s to the GFC. However, since then I've yet to hear anyone on the centre-left come up with a coherent economic model for the 2020s and beyond.
All the centre-right had in response was austerity and that had only a limited and patchy run. Now, the centre-right has surrendered fiscal conservatism in favour of populism since it knows the only way to keep the voters happy is to throw free money at them.
This has been facilitated by an unprecedented period of low interest rates and low inflation. Nobody under 40 even knows what inflation is and most people under 30 have no real sense of high interest rates.
IF this period is ending and we are moving back to a less economically favourable period for investors, individuals and Governments, there will be political consequences.
We are used to cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values and stock markets - that is in effect the economic model which has existed since the mid 90s and even the GFC didn't really affect it too much.
The Labour Right especially seem to regard anything which challenges the status quo as a deeply unpalatable, ‘far left’ view. Nonsense like that paved the way for crazies like Corbyn to get the leadership in the first place. Most mainstream Labour candidates in the last 3 leadership elections have been bland and dull. If you want to defeat what you see as the ‘far left’ you cannot be those things.
The Labour Right is the most conservative faction in UK politics. Everything is basically fine bar a little tinkering. Brexit, and Corbyn too, shows there is a giant market for summat radical.
Pretty much.
They are oddly still obsessed with Corbyn and his fraction....it’s like he’s no longer leading the party. His fraction have little power in the party these days. They are pretty much Twitter commentators, for the most part.
The going gaga over the Blair op Ed this week was weird as well. Not once did outline what the alternative vision for Labour should be. Just said what he believes Labour shouldn’t be. That’s been the issue with the Labour Right since 2010. They can talk about how much they hate the left all day, but can only offer meaningless platitudes when it comes outlining what they actually believe.
That Geoff Norcott said something similar on the interview linked by @Floater. The Labour right don’t come up with any ideas or show enthusiasm that inspires people, they just sit, wait & hope for things to go wrong so they might get a chance to manage it better. People hate on Corbyn, but he had conviction in what he said, & a idea for a different Britain. He ended up unpopular, but there was a time when it looked like winning, and he no doubt inspired a lot of people
The whole political scene has been struggling for ideas for the 21st Century for many years now. Corbyn was advocating failed 1970s ideas, May offered absolutely no new ideas, Boris offers some more spending in targeted left behind areas as part of some sort of nebulous "levelling up" and some acceleration in things like electric car roll out.
As I linked down thread, AI can now automatically write the estate agent listing / pitch....this stuff is only going to increase and many middle class jobs are going to be going, yet very little thinking on what we are going to do, how to change society for the actual world we live in etc.
The think tanks these days just seem to pump out basically lobbying pieces for more or less spending, depending on their slant, but rarely much more.
Why do we insist on developing something — namely AI — which is going to make life worse for so many people? Doesn't really make sense. Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean that you should.
Azerbaijani Army sends armored troops to Zangezur*
Update: The US is closely monitoring the situation on the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and expects Azerbaijan to immediately pull back its forces.
Sunday Tel reporting that ministers expect the daily vaccination rate to hit 800k within a couple of weeks or so, thanks to the stockpile of doses that's been built up.
Meanwhile Sunday Times says 35+ will get the call-up on Monday.
The Labour Right especially seem to regard anything which challenges the status quo as a deeply unpalatable, ‘far left’ view. Nonsense like that paved the way for crazies like Corbyn to get the leadership in the first place. Most mainstream Labour candidates in the last 3 leadership elections have been bland and dull. If you want to defeat what you see as the ‘far left’ you cannot be those things.
The Labour Right is the most conservative faction in UK politics. Everything is basically fine bar a little tinkering. Brexit, and Corbyn too, shows there is a giant market for summat radical.
Pretty much.
They are oddly still obsessed with Corbyn and his fraction....it’s like he’s no longer leading the party. His fraction have little power in the party these days. They are pretty much Twitter commentators, for the most part.
The going gaga over the Blair op Ed this week was weird as well. Not once did outline what the alternative vision for Labour should be. Just said what he believes Labour shouldn’t be. That’s been the issue with the Labour Right since 2010. They can talk about how much they hate the left all day, but can only offer meaningless platitudes when it comes outlining what they actually believe.
That Geoff Norcott said something similar on the interview linked by @Floater. The Labour right don’t come up with any ideas or show enthusiasm that inspires people, they just sit, wait & hope for things to go wrong so they might get a chance to manage it better. People hate on Corbyn, but he had conviction in what he said, & a idea for a different Britain. He ended up unpopular, but there was a time when it looked like winning, and he no doubt inspired a lot of people
A lot of it comes across like that Harry Enfield character "You don't want to do it like that, you want to do it like this." The Labour Right want to do exactly the same things, but slightly differently. Which is then seen as whiny and nit picking. (This has been hugely apparent with the pandemic). At least Corbyn didnt want to do it at all. But summat else.
Labour have the same problem the Tories had in the early 2000s. It doesn't actually matter what you say, many of the public believe you have very different values to them, and the only way you can really show them you aren't going to in the Tories case close the NHS down or in Labour's case going to embrace BLM / XR platform positions, is to be in power.
That Geoff Norcott said something similar on the interview linked by @Floater. The Labour right don’t come up with any ideas or show enthusiasm that inspires people, they just sit, wait & hope for things to go wrong so they might get a chance to manage it better. People hate on Corbyn, but he had conviction in what he said, & a idea for a different Britain. He ended up unpopular, but there was a time when it looked like winning, and he no doubt inspired a lot of people
Let's be fair - "Third Way" or centre-left Blairism, had a long and successful tenure from the mid-90s to the GFC. However, since then I've yet to hear anyone on the centre-left come up with a coherent economic model for the 2020s and beyond.
All the centre-right had in response was austerity and that had only a limited and patchy run. Now, the centre-right has surrendered fiscal conservatism in favour of populism since it knows the only way to keep the voters happy is to throw free money at them.
This has been facilitated by an unprecedented period of low interest rates and low inflation. Nobody under 40 even knows what inflation is and most people under 30 have no real sense of high interest rates.
IF this period is ending and we are moving back to a less economically favourable period for investors, individuals and Governments, there will be political consequences.
We are used to cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values and stock markets - that is in effect the economic model which has existed since the mid 90s and even the GFC didn't really affect it too much.
At what point is this "bubble" going to burst?
Yes. Maybe that was just because Blair was a good salesman? Anyone else who tries to peddle it gets blown out of the water
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
They're subject to rocket attacks because Israel engages with illegal occupation. Stop the illegal occupations; conflict over.
Hamas believe that the Jews should be wiped from the face of the earth. You’re naive if you believe that ending “illegal occupations” would end the conflict
Don't forget that some time ago Israel withdrew from Gaza, including removing settlements.
That did not exactly work.
Isn't that when the Islamists went around lobbing gay people off tall buildings?
Sunday Tel reporting that ministers expect the daily vaccination rate to hit 800k within a couple of weeks or so, thanks to the stockpile of doses that's been built up.
Meanwhile Sunday Times says 35+ will get the call-up on Monday.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
They're subject to rocket attacks because Israel engages with illegal occupation. Stop the illegal occupations; conflict over.
You think its that simple .......
Go read the Hamas charter for starters
It's not that simple.
But it's also the case that there is no viable Palestinian state so long as Israel keeps allowing settlers to build there, and uses the full force of the Israeli state to support them.
If you're a Palestinian in those circumstances, do you support those Palestinians who are committed to dialog with Israel? Or do you support the ones who lob missiles?
And if you're an Israeli in Tel Aviv, do you support the army going in and destroying the guys sending the rockets? Or do you support someone who promises dialog with the people sending the rockets over.
If I were a Palestinian, I'd probably support Hamas. And if I was an Israeli, I'd probably support Bibi.
Someone has to break the stalemate. Because the alternative isn't good for the Israelis or the Palestinians.
I find the term "settlers" to be very pejorative. If someone gets a new build home in this country you'd never call them a settler.
I'm not aware of Israel building any "settlements" in Gaza, so Hamas attacking Israel from Gaza has nothing to do with settlements surely?
East Jerusalem is a part of Israel so how are anybody there "settlers"?
If Israel is building on land they've not annexed then fair enough to call those settlers.
I believe when people talk of settlers they mean the settlements in the West Bank. As the years go by, more settlements are built, and they make a continuous Palestinian state in the West Bank impossible without vast population exchange, and that's kinda the idea.
It's annexation by the back door, bit like Russia in the Donbas.
It's often used in this sense to argue that Israel shouldn't exist, ironically by people living in America.
And of course is bollocks. The whole crux of the issue is that both the Jews and the Arabs have lived on that land for 1000s of years, and hence why it isn't possible to simply say that bits yours.
It isn't like Western Europeans going to the Americas and replacing the native population.
I was watching a youtube "news" show on the conflict - the presenter said the problems came when jews started moving into the area in the 1880's .............
The Labour Right especially seem to regard anything which challenges the status quo as a deeply unpalatable, ‘far left’ view. Nonsense like that paved the way for crazies like Corbyn to get the leadership in the first place. Most mainstream Labour candidates in the last 3 leadership elections have been bland and dull. If you want to defeat what you see as the ‘far left’ you cannot be those things.
The Labour Right is the most conservative faction in UK politics. Everything is basically fine bar a little tinkering. Brexit, and Corbyn too, shows there is a giant market for summat radical.
Pretty much.
They are oddly still obsessed with Corbyn and his fraction....it’s like he’s no longer leading the party. His fraction have little power in the party these days. They are pretty much Twitter commentators, for the most part.
The going gaga over the Blair op Ed this week was weird as well. Not once did outline what the alternative vision for Labour should be. Just said what he believes Labour shouldn’t be. That’s been the issue with the Labour Right since 2010. They can talk about how much they hate the left all day, but can only offer meaningless platitudes when it comes outlining what they actually believe.
That Geoff Norcott said something similar on the interview linked by @Floater. The Labour right don’t come up with any ideas or show enthusiasm that inspires people, they just sit, wait & hope for things to go wrong so they might get a chance to manage it better. People hate on Corbyn, but he had conviction in what he said, & a idea for a different Britain. He ended up unpopular, but there was a time when it looked like winning, and he no doubt inspired a lot of people
Ultimately for all we claim to be cynical about them I think we want our leaders to, well, lead. Hard to define, of course, and a safety first managerial approach works for some (me for a start) and in the right circumstances might be enough, but even if they do just end up following what they think the public wants, we need it to seem like they have ideas and conviction.
Political ideology is a confused mess even with parties anyway, and among the public it is even more chaotic - they can easily accept things they might say they would not, depending on how it is framed and who does it. That's not saying the public is stupid, just that coherent ideology is a nonsense in the real world, so leaders can take a chance on driving change or switching their own positions, as if they are good enough people will accept it.
Sunday Tel reporting that ministers expect the daily vaccination rate to hit 800k within a couple of weeks or so, thanks to the stockpile of doses that's been built up.
Meanwhile Sunday Times says 35+ will get the call-up on Monday.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
They're subject to rocket attacks because Israel engages with illegal occupation. Stop the illegal occupations; conflict over.
You think its that simple .......
Go read the Hamas charter for starters
It's not that simple.
But it's also the case that there is no viable Palestinian state so long as Israel keeps allowing settlers to build there, and uses the full force of the Israeli state to support them.
If you're a Palestinian in those circumstances, do you support those Palestinians who are committed to dialog with Israel? Or do you support the ones who lob missiles?
And if you're an Israeli in Tel Aviv, do you support the army going in and destroying the guys sending the rockets? Or do you support someone who promises dialog with the people sending the rockets over.
If I were a Palestinian, I'd probably support Hamas. And if I was an Israeli, I'd probably support Bibi.
Someone has to break the stalemate. Because the alternative isn't good for the Israelis or the Palestinians.
I find the term "settlers" to be very pejorative. If someone gets a new build home in this country you'd never call them a settler.
I'm not aware of Israel building any "settlements" in Gaza, so Hamas attacking Israel from Gaza has nothing to do with settlements surely?
East Jerusalem is a part of Israel so how are anybody there "settlers"?
If Israel is building on land they've not annexed then fair enough to call those settlers.
I believe when people talk of settlers they mean the settlements in the West Bank. As the years go by, more settlements are built, and they make a continuous Palestinian state in the West Bank impossible without vast population exchange, and that's kinda the idea.
It's annexation by the back door, bit like Russia in the Donbas.
It's often used in this sense to argue that Israel shouldn't exist, ironically by people living in America.
And of course is bollocks. The whole crux of the issue is that both the Jews and the Arabs have lived on that land for 1000s of years, and hence why it isn't possible to simply say that bits yours.
It isn't like Western Europeans going to the Americas and replacing the native population.
I was watching a youtube "news" show on the conflict - the presenter said the problems came when jews started moving into the area in the 1880's .............
That Geoff Norcott said something similar on the interview linked by @Floater. The Labour right don’t come up with any ideas or show enthusiasm that inspires people, they just sit, wait & hope for things to go wrong so they might get a chance to manage it better. People hate on Corbyn, but he had conviction in what he said, & a idea for a different Britain. He ended up unpopular, but there was a time when it looked like winning, and he no doubt inspired a lot of people
Let's be fair - "Third Way" or centre-left Blairism, had a long and successful tenure from the mid-90s to the GFC. However, since then I've yet to hear anyone on the centre-left come up with a coherent economic model for the 2020s and beyond.
All the centre-right had in response was austerity and that had only a limited and patchy run. Now, the centre-right has surrendered fiscal conservatism in favour of populism since it knows the only way to keep the voters happy is to throw free money at them.
This has been facilitated by an unprecedented period of low interest rates and low inflation. Nobody under 40 even knows what inflation is and most people under 30 have no real sense of high interest rates.
IF this period is ending and we are moving back to a less economically favourable period for investors, individuals and Governments, there will be political consequences.
We are used to cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values and stock markets - that is in effect the economic model which has existed since the mid 90s and even the GFC didn't really affect it too much.
At what point is this "bubble" going to burst?
Yes. Maybe that was just because Blair was a good salesman? Anyone else who tries to peddle it gets blown out of the water
A good salesman needs customers who are at least willing to consider a purchase though. Not sure that is there for what Blair (or Cameron for that matter) were offering just now.
Sunday Tel reporting that ministers expect the daily vaccination rate to hit 800k within a couple of weeks or so, thanks to the stockpile of doses that's been built up.
Meanwhile Sunday Times says 35+ will get the call-up on Monday.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
Politics has been involved in sports long before BLM. People have right to express their views, if people don’t like that, then they can also air their disagreement.
It’s odd when you see people getting upset at footballers airing their views on politics and wanting to censure them, but then on the other hand complaining about snowflakes and cancel culture.
That's true, and yet politics being kept out of sport as much as possible is something that seems to be widely accepted. People don't get super mad about sporting bodies being strict on such things, other than some usual poppy hysteria and the like. I presume as people like to imagine sport as being unifying, so inasmuch as possible wanting those involved in it to keep their opinions to themselves is accepted as the price of that.
Of course, people don’t like politics and sport to mix. But the reality is, they have for sometime and that’s not something that I can see changing anytime soon.
But just because a principle is not universally adhered to does not mean it should be abandoned either. So I don't really see it as that unreasonable or inevitably contradictory to prefer some areas be less saturated with political arguments compared to others.
Sunday Tel reporting that ministers expect the daily vaccination rate to hit 800k within a couple of weeks or so, thanks to the stockpile of doses that's been built up.
Meanwhile Sunday Times says 35+ will get the call-up on Monday.
Given I am now hooked into Bill Gates Skynet can't they just do a firmware update on me....actually thinking about Windows 10 updates, I am not sure I fancy hanging on "Updating 30%....." for hours.
That Geoff Norcott said something similar on the interview linked by @Floater. The Labour right don’t come up with any ideas or show enthusiasm that inspires people, they just sit, wait & hope for things to go wrong so they might get a chance to manage it better. People hate on Corbyn, but he had conviction in what he said, & a idea for a different Britain. He ended up unpopular, but there was a time when it looked like winning, and he no doubt inspired a lot of people
Let's be fair - "Third Way" or centre-left Blairism, had a long and successful tenure from the mid-90s to the GFC. However, since then I've yet to hear anyone on the centre-left come up with a coherent economic model for the 2020s and beyond.
All the centre-right had in response was austerity and that had only a limited and patchy run. Now, the centre-right has surrendered fiscal conservatism in favour of populism since it knows the only way to keep the voters happy is to throw free money at them.
This has been facilitated by an unprecedented period of low interest rates and low inflation. Nobody under 40 even knows what inflation is and most people under 30 have no real sense of high interest rates.
IF this period is ending and we are moving back to a less economically favourable period for investors, individuals and Governments, there will be political consequences.
We are used to cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values and stock markets - that is in effect the economic model which has existed since the mid 90s and even the GFC didn't really affect it too much.
At what point is this "bubble" going to burst?
Wow, us borderline gen y/z people really have got lucky
I found out the other day that my firm's grad salary is only a few percent up on where it was in 2010, and still is marginally above market rate for the industry. In other words a 33-50% paycut in real terms for grads. I'm just ecstatic about the prospect of more inflation.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
Politics has been involved in sports long before BLM. People have right to express their views, if people don’t like that, then they can also air their disagreement.
It’s odd when you see people getting upset at footballers airing their views on politics and wanting to censure them, but then on the other hand complaining about snowflakes and cancel culture.
That's true, and yet politics being kept out of sport as much as possible is something that seems to be widely accepted. People don't get super mad about sporting bodies being strict on such things, other than some usual poppy hysteria and the like. I presume as people like to imagine sport as being unifying, so inasmuch as possible wanting those involved in it to keep their opinions to themselves is accepted as the price of that.
Of course, people don’t like politics and sport to mix. But the reality is, they have for sometime and that’s not something that I can see changing anytime soon.
But just because a principle is not universally adhered to does not mean it should be abandoned either. So I don't really see it as that unreasonable or inevitably contradictory to prefer some areas be less saturated with political arguments compared to others.
I personally don’t have an issue with sportspeople having and airing their views. If I have a problem with their views, I’ll be critical of those views, not their right to express them.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
They should protest Hamas using civilians to shield their rockets.
Maybe they're protesting against the illegal occupations? In fact; I'm fairly sure they are. Anyway, other than us all getting some good visuals on the old TV, what have you got to say for yourself MaxPB; except for you being a committed zionist?
Civilians in Tel Aviv are not "occupying" anything, and yet they are subject to rocket attacks.
They're subject to rocket attacks because Israel engages with illegal occupation. Stop the illegal occupations; conflict over.
You think its that simple .......
Go read the Hamas charter for starters
It's not that simple.
But it's also the case that there is no viable Palestinian state so long as Israel keeps allowing settlers to build there, and uses the full force of the Israeli state to support them.
If you're a Palestinian in those circumstances, do you support those Palestinians who are committed to dialog with Israel? Or do you support the ones who lob missiles?
And if you're an Israeli in Tel Aviv, do you support the army going in and destroying the guys sending the rockets? Or do you support someone who promises dialog with the people sending the rockets over.
If I were a Palestinian, I'd probably support Hamas. And if I was an Israeli, I'd probably support Bibi.
Someone has to break the stalemate. Because the alternative isn't good for the Israelis or the Palestinians.
I find the term "settlers" to be very pejorative. If someone gets a new build home in this country you'd never call them a settler.
I'm not aware of Israel building any "settlements" in Gaza, so Hamas attacking Israel from Gaza has nothing to do with settlements surely?
East Jerusalem is a part of Israel so how are anybody there "settlers"?
If Israel is building on land they've not annexed then fair enough to call those settlers.
I believe when people talk of settlers they mean the settlements in the West Bank. As the years go by, more settlements are built, and they make a continuous Palestinian state in the West Bank impossible without vast population exchange, and that's kinda the idea.
It's annexation by the back door, bit like Russia in the Donbas.
It's often used in this sense to argue that Israel shouldn't exist, ironically by people living in America.
And of course is bollocks. The whole crux of the issue is that both the Jews and the Arabs have lived on that land for 1000s of years, and hence why it isn't possible to simply say that bits yours.
It isn't like Western Europeans going to the Americas and replacing the native population.
I was watching a youtube "news" show on the conflict - the presenter said the problems came when jews started moving into the area in the 1880's .............
1880 BC ?
To be fair, the issue became much bigger after 1897 (not the 1880s) when Herzl started the modem movement to persuade Jews to move to Palestine.
But the Jews and the Muslims (and the Christians) have all been having "difficulties" in that area for... well... ever.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
Politics has been involved in sports long before BLM. People have right to express their views, if people don’t like that, then they can also air their disagreement.
It’s odd when you see people getting upset at footballers airing their views on politics and wanting to censure them, but then on the other hand complaining about snowflakes and cancel culture.
That's true, and yet politics being kept out of sport as much as possible is something that seems to be widely accepted. People don't get super mad about sporting bodies being strict on such things, other than some usual poppy hysteria and the like. I presume as people like to imagine sport as being unifying, so inasmuch as possible wanting those involved in it to keep their opinions to themselves is accepted as the price of that.
Of course, people don’t like politics and sport to mix. But the reality is, they have for sometime and that’s not something that I can see changing anytime soon.
But just because a principle is not universally adhered to does not mean it should be abandoned either. So I don't really see it as that unreasonable or inevitably contradictory to prefer some areas be less saturated with political arguments compared to others.
Neither are particularly edifying. 1) Surely there should be room in the world for not-politics? Surely it's not unreasonable to have two hours away from politics? Can we not just have a sphere where we can agree about one thing ( in this case the enjoyability of football) without having to agree about everything. 2) Just because someone is good at one thing - like football or acting - it does not follow that they will be good at other things - like thinking. The opinion sofa footballer or actor are of no more interest than those of a plumber. And if my plumber turned up swathed in a Palestinian flag I would get another plumber. 3) This applies just as much to celebrities in competently expressing opinions I agree with. Though that rarely happens.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
Politics has been involved in sports long before BLM. People have right to express their views, if people don’t like that, then they can also air their disagreement.
It’s odd when you see people getting upset at footballers airing their views on politics and wanting to censure them, but then on the other hand complaining about snowflakes and cancel culture.
That's true, and yet politics being kept out of sport as much as possible is something that seems to be widely accepted. People don't get super mad about sporting bodies being strict on such things, other than some usual poppy hysteria and the like. I presume as people like to imagine sport as being unifying, so inasmuch as possible wanting those involved in it to keep their opinions to themselves is accepted as the price of that.
Of course, people don’t like politics and sport to mix. But the reality is, they have for sometime and that’s not something that I can see changing anytime soon.
But just because a principle is not universally adhered to does not mean it should be abandoned either. So I don't really see it as that unreasonable or inevitably contradictory to prefer some areas be less saturated with political arguments compared to others.
I personally don’t have an issue with sportspeople having and airing their views. If I have a problem with their views, I’ll be critical of those views, not their right to express them.
Yes, I agree. I wouldn't be very influenced by someone I admired for football trying to persuade me about Palestine, any more than I choose my margarine based on which celebrity or influencer claims to like it, but they've got a right to say whatever they want.
When it's pressed face to face it can be tiresome, like my Sainsbury deliverer haranguing me about the virtues of Donald Trump. But saying something to the media? Why not?
Good news for your evening! A new study out of Oxford confirms current coronavirus vaccines work well against B.1.617.2! AstraZeneca and Pfizer doses still create enough antibodies to neutralize B.1.617.2 and significantly diminish the risk of hospitalization and death.
So, why is it OK for footballers to virtue signal about BLM, by kneeling and whatever, but it is not OK for them to virtue-signal about Palestine, which is lietrally being sat on until it expires like George Floyd under Derek Chauvin, and is several million rather than 1 person?
Politics has been involved in sports long before BLM. People have right to express their views, if people don’t like that, then they can also air their disagreement.
It’s odd when you see people getting upset at footballers airing their views on politics and wanting to censure them, but then on the other hand complaining about snowflakes and cancel culture.
That's true, and yet politics being kept out of sport as much as possible is something that seems to be widely accepted. People don't get super mad about sporting bodies being strict on such things, other than some usual poppy hysteria and the like. I presume as people like to imagine sport as being unifying, so inasmuch as possible wanting those involved in it to keep their opinions to themselves is accepted as the price of that.
Of course, people don’t like politics and sport to mix. But the reality is, they have for sometime and that’s not something that I can see changing anytime soon.
But just because a principle is not universally adhered to does not mean it should be abandoned either. So I don't really see it as that unreasonable or inevitably contradictory to prefer some areas be less saturated with political arguments compared to others.
I personally don’t have an issue with sportspeople having and airing their views. If I have a problem with their views, I’ll be critical of those views, not their right to express them.
Yes, I agree. I wouldn't be very influenced by someone I admired for football trying to persuade me about Palestine, any more than I choose my margarine based on which celebrity or influencer claims to like it, but they've got a right to say whatever they want.
When it's pressed face to face it can be tiresome, like my Sainsbury deliverer haranguing me about the virtues of Donald Trump. But saying something to the media? Why not?
Can we all agree a “poor manners” exception? That is to say, if you’re invited on to a television programme to discuss something unrelated, it’s poor manners to start wanting to discuss a different thing you know to be contentious, and you know will upset people.
(Clearly doesn’t apply to taking the knee but might apply to other things).
It'll be hard to keep that lead when the bills (furlough, UC top up etc) need to be paid.....not sure how long the magic money tree will keep fruiting.....
Mike Bird @Birdyword Vaccination rates in England (and the rest of the UK) are really astounding. We spent a year talking about antivax sentiment and hesitancy, but the proportions actually not getting vaccinated are practically rounding errors. (via @COVID19actuary )
Comments
Now we have different vaccines for different people while also shifting the timelines. More moving parts the more danger of issues.
They better not fuck around with any appointments before the end of next weekend is my view.
There were sensible people saying panic last year and they were right. The one person on SAGE I knew before this all kicked off was despairing of the Christmas unlockdown before it happened, but pretty relaxed now.
Anyway, we'll find out shortly.
A phone call out of the blue saying turn up at short notice...not so.
Also. Most over 50s work. So will have chosen a convenient time or arranged time off I imagine? They can't just rock up at the drop of a hat.
But it's also the case that there is no viable Palestinian state so long as Israel keeps allowing settlers to build there, and uses the full force of the Israeli state to support them.
If you're a Palestinian in those circumstances, do you support those Palestinians who are committed to dialog with Israel? Or do you support the ones who lob missiles?
And if you're an Israeli in Tel Aviv, do you support the army going in and destroying the guys sending the rockets? Or do you support someone who promises dialog with the people sending the rockets over.
If I were a Palestinian, I'd probably support Hamas. And if I was an Israeli, I'd probably support Bibi.
Someone has to break the stalemate. Because the alternative isn't good for the Israelis or the Palestinians.
This smacks of 'we must be seen to do something' government frankly rather than 'steady under fire'.
Hamas do not want independence for Gaza. They want the death and destruction of the Israeli state, from sea to sea.
Likewise, it would be more legitimate for the Israelis to execute individual Hamas member than to strike at Gaza City.
Unfortunately, when we're injured, we tend to strike out fairly indisciminately.
She has Thursdays off, so she booked for Thursday.
And shuffled around her Friday appointments in case she felt unwell. Which proved to be prescient.
The nature of her work and her clientele means getting a sub in is not an option.
Can imagine there are a few in such a boat.
The Labour Right especially seem to regard anything which challenges the status quo as a deeply unpalatable, ‘far left’ view. Nonsense like that paved the way for crazies like Corbyn to get the leadership in the first place. Most mainstream Labour candidates in the last 3 leadership elections have been bland and dull. If you want to defeat what you see as the ‘far left’ you cannot be those things.
It’s odd when you see people getting upset at footballers airing their views on politics and wanting to censure them, but then on the other hand complaining about snowflakes and cancel culture.
From my calculations earlier in the week we should get to 35-37 year olds invited on Tuesday or Wednesday, 32-34 year olds on the following Monday and then 30/31 over the weekend and then under 30s will start to get it from the beginning of June at a rate of around 300-400k per day covering single year cohorts in 2-4 days. With a few big days I think all 18+ will be done before the final step.
I'm not aware of Israel building any "settlements" in Gaza, so Hamas attacking Israel from Gaza has nothing to do with settlements surely?
East Jerusalem is a part of Israel so how are anybody there "settlers"?
If Israel is building on land they've not annexed then fair enough to call those settlers.
Everything is basically fine bar a little tinkering.
Brexit, and Corbyn too, shows there is a giant market for summat radical.
Gaza has over 2 million people and is roughly the same size as Rutland
The West Bank has 3.3 million people and is roughly the size of Norfolk
Israel has 9 million people and is roughly the size of Wales
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/05/15/northern-ireland-protocol-dead-water-senior-ally-boris-johnson/
They are oddly still obsessed with Corbyn and his fraction....it’s like he’s no longer leading the party. His fraction have little power in the party these days. They are pretty much Twitter commentators, for the most part.
The going gaga over the Blair op Ed this week was weird as well. Not once did outline what the alternative vision for Labour should be. Just said what he believes Labour shouldn’t be. That’s been the issue with the Labour Right since 2010. They can talk about how much they hate the left all day, but can only offer meaningless platitudes when it comes outlining what they actually believe.
She will only want it when she is certain she can get it. Given the Holyrood election last month, it's far too risky for her to hold a second referendum because there's a good chance she'll lose.
The good thing for her is her unwitting ally Boris Johnson who props up her Nationalist credentials every time he waves his Unionist credentials by refusing a second vote.
The truth is there is huge risk for them both - he can't be the Conservative PM who "loses" Scotland while she can't be the SNP leader who loses a second vote.
It's therefore in neither of their interests for there to be a vote as the status quo suits them both so well.
The pointless dance and debate continues...
It's annexation by the back door, bit like Russia in the Donbas.
BXP were 17% lower in Batley & Spen
Labour were 17% higher
other parties were at simulate levels.
They literally fire on a building such that it will rock it but not destroy it.
By that logic the whole of South America is a European settler colony. The USA is a European settler colony. It adds absolutely nothing.
It isn't like Western Europeans going to the Americas and replacing the native population.
@AnshelPfeffer
A week ago Israel was about to have a new government supported by right-wing, left-wing, centrist and Arab parties which was to concentrate on a “civilian agenda” and “reconciliation.” 5 days of internecine violence shattered that illusion. It’s still Netanyahu’s Israel.
https://twitter.com/AnshelPfeffer/status/1393453601914245120
Interesting thread.
Meanwhile Sunday Times says 35+ will get the call-up on Monday.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1393685351919759365?s=20
Which has worked out great, obviously.
As I linked down thread, AI can now automatically write the estate agent listing / pitch....this stuff is only going to increase and many middle class jobs are going to be going, yet very little thinking on what we are going to do, how to change society for the actual world we live in etc.
The think tanks these days just seem to pump out basically lobbying pieces for more or less spending, depending on their slant, but rarely much more.
I suppose that is already the case with things like hand made shoes/shirts
What a lot of middle class people I know do, is buy a load of branded stuff, then spend money on a few unique items that will guarantee they will have different stuff to the Jones.
The question are those industries ever going to be big enough to replace say 7/8 out of 10 estate agents or accountants not being needed.
That did not exactly work.
@BritainElects
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 44% (+2)
LAB: 31% (-6)
LDEM: 8% (+1)
GRN: 7% (+3)
via
@OpiniumResearch"
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1393642817487052805
All the centre-right had in response was austerity and that had only a limited and patchy run. Now, the centre-right has surrendered fiscal conservatism in favour of populism since it knows the only way to keep the voters happy is to throw free money at them.
This has been facilitated by an unprecedented period of low interest rates and low inflation. Nobody under 40 even knows what inflation is and most people under 30 have no real sense of high interest rates.
IF this period is ending and we are moving back to a less economically favourable period for investors, individuals and Governments, there will be political consequences.
We are used to cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values and stock markets - that is in effect the economic model which has existed since the mid 90s and even the GFC didn't really affect it too much.
At what point is this "bubble" going to burst?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9583001/Sir-Keir-Starmers-Labour-Party-touch-public-opinion-poll-finds.html
https://twitter.com/EndGameWW3/status/1393688113998860307
Azerbaijani Army sends armored troops to Zangezur*
Update: The US is closely monitoring the situation on the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and expects Azerbaijan to immediately pull back its forces.
The Labour Right want to do exactly the same things, but slightly differently. Which is then seen as whiny and nit picking. (This has been hugely apparent with the pandemic).
At least Corbyn didnt want to do it at all. But summat else.
After Years of Quiet, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Exploded. Why Now? https://nyti.ms/3btF4wX
Political ideology is a confused mess even with parties anyway, and among the public it is even more chaotic - they can easily accept things they might say they would not, depending on how it is framed and who does it. That's not saying the public is stupid, just that coherent ideology is a nonsense in the real world, so leaders can take a chance on driving change or switching their own positions, as if they are good enough people will accept it.
Not sure that is there for what Blair (or Cameron for that matter) were offering just now.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/pfizer-moderna-jabs-may-help-guard-against-next-coronavirus/
Given I am now hooked into Bill Gates Skynet can't they just do a firmware update on me....actually thinking about Windows 10 updates, I am not sure I fancy hanging on "Updating 30%....." for hours.
I found out the other day that my firm's grad salary is only a few percent up on where it was in 2010, and still is marginally above market rate for the industry. In other words a 33-50% paycut in real terms for grads. I'm just ecstatic about the prospect of more inflation.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/05/15/treasury-prepares-bonfire-eu-red-tape/
Singapore on Thames idea is getting another outing.
But the Jews and the Muslims (and the Christians) have all been having "difficulties" in that area for... well... ever.
1) Surely there should be room in the world for not-politics? Surely it's not unreasonable to have two hours away from politics? Can we not just have a sphere where we can agree about one thing ( in this case the enjoyability of football) without having to agree about everything.
2) Just because someone is good at one thing - like football or acting - it does not follow that they will be good at other things - like thinking. The opinion sofa footballer or actor are of no more interest than those of a plumber. And if my plumber turned up swathed in a Palestinian flag I would get another plumber.
3) This applies just as much to celebrities in competently expressing opinions I agree with. Though that rarely happens.
When it's pressed face to face it can be tiresome, like my Sainsbury deliverer haranguing me about the virtues of Donald Trump. But saying something to the media? Why not?
FindOutNow: Con +13%
Opinium: Con +13%
YouGov: Con +15%
Redfield & Wilton: Con +11%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2021
Labour = Chelsea.
https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1393721604694237189
(Clearly doesn’t apply to taking the knee but might apply to other things).