I suspect this is a really good and important thread even though it leaves me floundering.
I guess I would never answer a telephone poll and, if I did, I would probably lie especially about controversial issues. You've got to be really fired up about something to share your views to a real person on the other end of the phone. Even then, I'm not sure I would.
In other news, I'm starting to watch the way this Government continue their erosion of civil liberties. The latest assault on social media videos by Priti Patel may seem like a good thing to some people. It's all dressed up so reasonably, isn't it? Videos of migrants glamourise the crossing therefore they need to be censored.
Oh and I was pooh-pooh'ed for suggesting that the June 21st freedom day would be amended, pushed back or altered. Now it seems all but certain that freedoms will be restricted.
It's what the Johnson Government love and do. Frighten you all like little bunny rabbits beneath a sky full of eagles. Then, when you've scampered back into your burrows they remove a bit more of your warren. They erect a fence, for your protection of course, you understand? There will be sentry posts, to monitor the attackers and 'keep you safe.' And when you get a chance to express your gratitude, which will only be permitted for tagged members of the colony, you will lower your heads in obeisance. The great lords of the Johnson warren will thus be managing you in perpetuity.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
We seem to spend too much time on here hearing from Leicester and about Leicester. It’s a resolutely mediocre place. Its large Asian population is pretty much the only interesting thing about it.
The city's motto is "Semper Eadem" (always the same).
Just trying to address the metropolitan bias so prevalent in British politics 😀
Foxy it has of course the best hunting in the land. Which I'm sure you're proud of, hence your name.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find a hunt in Leicester. Do you mean rural Leicestershire? Rutland?
I do. And it's great that Foxy names himself in their honour.
As a fox, I am glad hunting has been banned. My username was originally carried over from a football site.
LOL.
Why do you think foxes are associated with Leicester or Leicestershire?.
It wasn't because of football.
No, and there used to be hunting regalia on the football insignia, but those days are gone and society has progressed.
You cannot be so stupid as to not realise the symbolism of a fox in Leicestershire. So why are you celebrating those bad old days?
I'm all for it but I thought better of you.
What’s this, PB night of the hunt?
Leave Foxy alone, pack of hyena!
Ha! He has chosen as a username something referencing a totemic activity in Leicestershire.
What have foxes got to do with dogging?
I'd watch it, @Foxy . Following the Sporran Crisis last night, I discovered certain people might make you into what is known as a "Full-Face Sporran". Perhaps you get to lift up the fox's chin to stow your valuables next to your valuables.
Presumably deters animal rights types from pinching your jewels.
Good morning everyone. And a nice bright one again.
Why am I not surprised that some people give one answer when they're anonymous, and a different one when someone rings up, so they're easily identifiable.
Good morning everyone. And a nice bright one again.
Why am I not surprised that some people give one answer when they're anonymous, and a different one when someone rings up, so they're easily identifiable.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
Good morning everyone. And a nice bright one again.
Why am I not surprised that some people give one answer when they're anonymous, and a different one when someone rings up, so they're easily identifiable.
Heavy rain here.
Good for the gardens, but we've had enough this week. Especially as we've been invited out to lunch en famille, and we may well have to walk to the venue.
Good morning everyone. And a nice bright one again.
Why am I not surprised that some people give one answer when they're anonymous, and a different one when someone rings up, so they're easily identifiable.
Heavy rain here.
We have that fine rain that soaks you through. And a bit of fog.
Come to think of it, wasn't Amazon notorious for not making a profit – after aggressive reinvestment?
That was my thought when I saw the threshold - whether it would actually be financially optimal for companies to reduce their profits below the threshold, compared to making more and paying the tax? That you can massage the profit figure downwards makes the risks worse.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
It will also be a useful wake up call for some.
I think some major charities are inevitably saying what they were always going to say. They are always jerking people around.
We have another one this morning - Oxfam harrumphing about "15% is not enough"; they didn't need to put that out, as it is so self-stereotyped that anyone could have assumed it was what they would say.
For practical politics, I think that the Gov should perhaps have pivoted a big chunk of ODA to COVI for one to two years, then put some of it into vaccine initiatives whilst applying appropriate pressure to teh Aid establishment.
Anyhoo - I have a day to spend on a roof.
Have a good day all, and stay safe @Foxy. Hope there are no sporran-makers in Leicester.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
Noone gives a shit what Cummings says... Yesterday's man if he ever was with a clear objective to get Boris.. totally untrustworthy.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
Noone gives a shit what Cummings says... Yesterday's man if he ever was with a clear objective to get Boris.. totally untrustworthy.
Good morning everyone. And a nice bright one again.
Why am I not surprised that some people give one answer when they're anonymous, and a different one when someone rings up, so they're easily identifiable.
Heavy rain here.
We have that fine rain that soaks you through. And a bit of fog.
Cloudy with Sun in Sussex ... mistyped as cloudy with sin in Sussex.... Rain is needed at Headingly to save Sussex.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
Noone gives a shit what Cummings says... Yesterday's man if he ever was with a clear objective to get Boris.. totally untrustworthy.
Both of them, of course!
I don't think Boris is yesterday's man. He is about as trustworthy as any other PM... let's think of Labour PMs.. oh dear....
FPT, there would be a great historical drama that could be made about the dance of death between Queen Isabella, Roger Mortimer, Edward II, Edward III and the De Spensers. I agree that the Tudors have been overused.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
Noone gives a shit what Cummings says... Yesterday's man if he ever was with a clear objective to get Boris.. totally untrustworthy.
True but Cummings was right and the government did fold on school meals, twice! So why waste political capital on fighting the inevitable?
The question is whether Boris has been tricked into making this cut which is economically unnecessary (since it is already a percentage), breaks his own manifesto pledge, and is opposed by the Conservative great and good.
And if so, who is the Machiavellian puppet-master jerking the Prime Minister's chain?
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
Noone gives a shit what Cummings says... Yesterday's man if he ever was with a clear objective to get Boris.. totally untrustworthy.
True. However. Just because a bitter dishonest psycho is saying something, doesn't mean it can't be true. Looking at BoJo's record over the years, it's hard to infer much in the way of political belief, except that he should sit in the Big Chair. Without his own North Star to navigate by, it's unsurprising that others will seek to persuade him to follow theirs and the PM will find that hard to resist.
FPT, there would be a great historical drama that could be made about the dance of death between Queen Isabella, Roger Mortimer, Edward II, Edward III and the De Spensers. I agree that the Tudors have been overused.
The end of the reign of Henry II would be quite fun as well. The Great Revolt, Henry the Young King and his death, the final uprising of Richard, the treachery of John...
Plus sex, tournaments and the odd strolling minstrel.
Oh and I was pooh-pooh'ed for suggesting that the June 21st freedom day would be amended, pushed back or altered. Now it seems all but certain that freedoms will be restricted.
It's what the Johnson Government love and do. Frighten you all like little bunny rabbits beneath a sky full of eagles. Then, when you've scampered back into your burrows they remove a bit more of your warren. They erect a fence, for your protection of course, you understand? There will be sentry posts, to monitor the attackers and 'keep you safe.' And when you get a chance to express your gratitude, which will only be permitted for tagged members of the colony, you will lower your heads in obeisance. The great lords of the Johnson warren will thus be managing you in perpetuity.
No - you said it would be cancelled in toto.
Most sensible people thought there was a chance it would go ahead and a chance that some restrictions (particularly on WFH and masks in public transport but hopefully not on social distancing) will continue for a period of time.
This government doesn’t like or desire the restrictions. There are very real costs associated. They are trying to balance between cost and public health. I personally think they are being over cautious - that’s the way that the politics drives them - but they aren’t power hungry maniacal wanna-be dictators like you seem to think
So don’t try changing the goalposts so you can claim some triumphant foresight when the likely happens.
Mr. Doethur, aye, Henry IV's a very interesting king. The early part of his biography by Ian Mortimer reads almost as a dual story of him and Richard II.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
I used to donate to larger charities but got more and more fed up with them being little more than political lobbyists and numerous phone calls after more money. Now I donate to small charities that are local. So, yes, I certainly have done the same.
Large charities are just big businesses and lobbying organisations in all but name. I have little time for them and their endless press releases recycled as news reports.
Mind you there is a vested interest here as many of these charities are recipients of this aid money.
Good morning everyone. And a nice bright one again.
Why am I not surprised that some people give one answer when they're anonymous, and a different one when someone rings up, so they're easily identifiable.
Heavy rain here.
sunny Ayrshire yet again. I am taking family for a nice lunch at Troon marina, nice lobster.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
The issue is magnified because we have fixed commitments to the EU development fund plus various other multilateral organisations so the cuts have disproportionately fallen on our own programmes. Which are typically much better than the multilateral ones (thanks to Andrew Mitchell we are actually very good at targeted and effective development aid)
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
I used to donate to larger charities but got more and more fed up with them being little more than political lobbyists and numerous phone calls after more money. Now I donate to small charities that are local. So, yes, I certainly have done the same.
Large charities are just big businesses and lobbying organisations in all but name. I have little time for them and their endless press releases recycled as news reports.
Mind you there is a vested interest here as many of these charities are recipients of this aid money.
I’ve very much done the same - my Dad was a pioneer of what today is called venture philanthropy and we’ve tried to continue his legacy
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
I used to donate to larger charities but got more and more fed up with them being little more than political lobbyists and numerous phone calls after more money. Now I donate to small charities that are local. So, yes, I certainly have done the same.
Large charities are just big businesses and lobbying organisations in all but name. I have little time for them and their endless press releases recycled as news reports.
Mind you there is a vested interest here as many of these charities are recipients of this aid money.
Every year I donate to an MND charity, as the horrible disease took our daughter away. Seven years ago now.
As an aside, I'm wondering about altering my betting approach a bit and making more bets with smaller sums. Hmm.
Good piece. I genuinely have no idea what might happen in this race, and I’m at work today so probably won’t be able to bet on it. Maybe the value is in a relatively quiet race, as we had in Monaco, rather than a demolition derby? I think Lewis is the most likely winner, unless we get a safety car at the wrong time for him.
Oh and I was pooh-pooh'ed for suggesting that the June 21st freedom day would be amended, pushed back or altered. Now it seems all but certain that freedoms will be restricted.
It's what the Johnson Government love and do. Frighten you all like little bunny rabbits beneath a sky full of eagles. Then, when you've scampered back into your burrows they remove a bit more of your warren. They erect a fence, for your protection of course, you understand? There will be sentry posts, to monitor the attackers and 'keep you safe.' And when you get a chance to express your gratitude, which will only be permitted for tagged members of the colony, you will lower your heads in obeisance. The great lords of the Johnson warren will thus be managing you in perpetuity.
No - you said it would be cancelled in toto.
Most sensible people thought there was a chance it would go ahead and a chance that some restrictions (particularly on WFH and masks in public transport but hopefully not on social distancing) will continue for a period of time.
This government doesn’t like or desire the restrictions. There are very real costs associated. They are trying to balance between cost and public health. I personally think they are being over cautious - that’s the way that the politics drives them - but they aren’t power hungry maniacal wanna-be dictators like you seem to think
So don’t try changing the goalposts so you can claim some triumphant foresight when the likely happens.
Taking lessons from LeadronicT is rarely advisable
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
I used to donate to larger charities but got more and more fed up with them being little more than political lobbyists and numerous phone calls after more money. Now I donate to small charities that are local. So, yes, I certainly have done the same.
Large charities are just big businesses and lobbying organisations in all but name. I have little time for them and their endless press releases recycled as news reports.
Mind you there is a vested interest here as many of these charities are recipients of this aid money.
Every year I donate to an MND charity, as the horrible disease took our daughter away. Seven years ago now.
It’s an horrendous condition, the BBC have been featuring three former professional sports players living with it. It’s been enlightening.
Mr. Sandpit, I agree on Hamilton being the likeliest winner. The straight line speed advantage means even if he falls behind Verstappen he has a great shot of taking the place back.
I don't think it'll be quiet, though. It might be, but the last three races there have had a total of 18 cars that failed to finish.
Oh and I was pooh-pooh'ed for suggesting that the June 21st freedom day would be amended, pushed back or altered. Now it seems all but certain that freedoms will be restricted.
It's what the Johnson Government love and do. Frighten you all like little bunny rabbits beneath a sky full of eagles. Then, when you've scampered back into your burrows they remove a bit more of your warren. They erect a fence, for your protection of course, you understand? There will be sentry posts, to monitor the attackers and 'keep you safe.' And when you get a chance to express your gratitude, which will only be permitted for tagged members of the colony, you will lower your heads in obeisance. The great lords of the Johnson warren will thus be managing you in perpetuity.
They don't care what you think. Because you are going to vote for them anyway.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
Noone gives a shit what Cummings says... Yesterday's man if he ever was with a clear objective to get Boris.. totally untrustworthy.
True but Cummings was right and the government did fold on school meals, twice! So why waste political capital on fighting the inevitable?
The question is whether Boris has been tricked into making this cut which is economically unnecessary (since it is already a percentage), breaks his own manifesto pledge, and is opposed by the Conservative great and good.
And if so, who is the Machiavellian puppet-master jerking the Prime Minister's chain?
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
I used to donate to larger charities but got more and more fed up with them being little more than political lobbyists and numerous phone calls after more money. Now I donate to small charities that are local. So, yes, I certainly have done the same.
Large charities are just big businesses and lobbying organisations in all but name. I have little time for them and their endless press releases recycled as news reports.
Mind you there is a vested interest here as many of these charities are recipients of this aid money.
Every year I donate to an MND charity, as the horrible disease took our daughter away. Seven years ago now.
It’s an horrendous condition, the BBC have been featuring three former professional sports players living with it. It’s been enlightening.
I’m so sorry for your loss too.
Thanks, Mr T. The dreadful thing is that it's like a very slow-motion car crash. You KNOW what's happening, what's going to happen and there's SFA you, or anyone else, can do about it. At the moment, anyway. Fortunately the MND charity is very good, and few, if any, quacks and charlatans get involved. The firm her husband worked for were very good about time off and 'fortunately', if that's the right word, she deteriorated quite quickly.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
Noone gives a shit what Cummings says... Yesterday's man if he ever was with a clear objective to get Boris.. totally untrustworthy.
True but Cummings was right and the government did fold on school meals, twice! So why waste political capital on fighting the inevitable?
The question is whether Boris has been tricked into making this cut which is economically unnecessary (since it is already a percentage), breaks his own manifesto pledge, and is opposed by the Conservative great and good.
And if so, who is the Machiavellian puppet-master jerking the Prime Minister's chain?
Nut Nut
You just had to give us all that mental image, didn’t you?
Good morning everyone. And a nice bright one again.
Why am I not surprised that some people give one answer when they're anonymous, and a different one when someone rings up, so they're easily identifiable.
Heavy rain here.
sunny Ayrshire yet again. I am taking family for a nice lunch at Troon marina, nice lobster.
Well, the nudge theory would suggest it’s a good idea. Want to not wear a mask and stand at the bar in the pub? Get your shots...
It certainly should apply for travellers. It's ridiculous to force the vaccinated to isolate and take expensive tests while unvaccinated Britons can do what they like.
Even the French - the FRENCH - are ahead of us on this.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
Come to think of it, wasn't Amazon notorious for not making a profit – after aggressive reinvestment?
The Spectator will almost certainly not have considered other measures which will also have an effect, one of the key ones from 2022, being the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive. It’s almost as if it’s complicated.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
I used to donate to larger charities but got more and more fed up with them being little more than political lobbyists and numerous phone calls after more money. Now I donate to small charities that are local. So, yes, I certainly have done the same.
Large charities are just big businesses and lobbying organisations in all but name. I have little time for them and their endless press releases recycled as news reports.
Mind you there is a vested interest here as many of these charities are recipients of this aid money.
Every year I donate to an MND charity, as the horrible disease took our daughter away. Seven years ago now.
It’s an horrendous condition, the BBC have been featuring three former professional sports players living with it. It’s been enlightening.
I’m so sorry for your loss too.
Thanks, Mr T. The dreadful thing is that it's like a very slow-motion car crash. You KNOW what's happening, what's going to happen and there's SFA you, or anyone else, can do about it. At the moment, anyway. Fortunately the MND charity is very good, and few, if any, quacks and charlatans get involved. The firm her husband worked for were very good about time off and 'fortunately', if that's the right word, she deteriorated quite quickly.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
Well, the nudge theory would suggest it’s a good idea. Want to not wear a mask and stand at the bar in the pub? Get your shots...
It certainly should apply for travellers. It's ridiculous to force the vaccinated to isolate and take expensive tests while unvaccinated Britons can do what they like.
Even the French - the FRENCH - are ahead of us on this.
Already the plan elsewhere in the British Isles - fully vaccinated will have less onerous/no border control requirements arriving in Guernsey:
Come to think of it, wasn't Amazon notorious for not making a profit – after aggressive reinvestment?
The Spectator will almost certainly not have considered other measures which will also have an effect, one of the key ones from 2022, being the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive. It’s almost as if it’s complicated.
Isn't that the one which was behind the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg wanting to leave the EU?
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
Noone gives a shit what Cummings says... Yesterday's man if he ever was with a clear objective to get Boris.. totally untrustworthy.
A lot of people did when he was testifying to the select committee saying what they wanted to hear
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
The issue is magnified because we have fixed commitments to the EU development fund plus various other multilateral organisations so the cuts have disproportionately fallen on our own programmes. Which are typically much better than the multilateral ones (thanks to Andrew Mitchell we are actually very good at targeted and effective development aid)
Come to think of it, wasn't Amazon notorious for not making a profit – after aggressive reinvestment?
The Spectator will almost certainly not have considered other measures which will also have an effect, one of the key ones from 2022, being the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive. It’s almost as if it’s complicated.
Like others, I’m waiting to see what any proposal actually does in practice - especially in the USA, where most of the target companies are listed and headquartered, and their politicians are famous for legislative shenanigans.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
Noone gives a shit what Cummings says... Yesterday's man if he ever was with a clear objective to get Boris.. totally untrustworthy.
A lot of people did when he was testifying to the select committee saying what they wanted to hear
Yet, strangely, he has provided no actual evidence for his claims and the deadline for doing so has passed.
Almost as though he was making shit up.
That said, I think the real problem is apart from his wilder and probably shortly to be ignored allegations, his character sketches - the really interesting part - didn’t tell us anything very new.
Blimey. For three wks, Belgium's top virologist and his family have been in hiding after being targeted by a far-right soldier who has a vendetta for virologists and #COVID19 lockdowns. The well-armed military shooting instructor is eluding a big dragnet... https://twitter.com/steveashleyplus/status/1401119906486181892
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
I used to donate to larger charities but got more and more fed up with them being little more than political lobbyists and numerous phone calls after more money. Now I donate to small charities that are local. So, yes, I certainly have done the same.
Large charities are just big businesses and lobbying organisations in all but name. I have little time for them and their endless press releases recycled as news reports.
Mind you there is a vested interest here as many of these charities are recipients of this aid money.
I’ve very much done the same - my Dad was a pioneer of what today is called venture philanthropy and we’ve tried to continue his legacy
Agreed.
It works if lots of people with links follow those links - for me that's diabetic, or local, charities, amongst others.
If my mum's probate finally emerges from the family court, my plan is to try and find a reasonably substantial donation to a local charity for part of a Covid recovery worker for a year for the local parish.
Well, the nudge theory would suggest it’s a good idea. Want to not wear a mask and stand at the bar in the pub? Get your shots...
It certainly should apply for travellers. It's ridiculous to force the vaccinated to isolate and take expensive tests while unvaccinated Britons can do what they like.
Even the French - the FRENCH - are ahead of us on this.
Already the plan elsewhere in the British Isles - fully vaccinated will have less onerous/no border control requirements arriving in Guernsey:
As I've said before on here, I think the Guernsey rules are still far too onerous, but at least they're better than the current UK ones.
Oh and I was pooh-pooh'ed for suggesting that the June 21st freedom day would be amended, pushed back or altered. Now it seems all but certain that freedoms will be restricted.
It's what the Johnson Government love and do. Frighten you all like little bunny rabbits beneath a sky full of eagles. Then, when you've scampered back into your burrows they remove a bit more of your warren. They erect a fence, for your protection of course, you understand? There will be sentry posts, to monitor the attackers and 'keep you safe.' And when you get a chance to express your gratitude, which will only be permitted for tagged members of the colony, you will lower your heads in obeisance. The great lords of the Johnson warren will thus be managing you in perpetuity.
No - you said it would be cancelled in toto.
Most sensible people thought there was a chance it would go ahead and a chance that some restrictions (particularly on WFH and masks in public transport but hopefully not on social distancing) will continue for a period of time.
This government doesn’t like or desire the restrictions. There are very real costs associated. They are trying to balance between cost and public health. I personally think they are being over cautious - that’s the way that the politics drives them - but they aren’t power hungry maniacal wanna-be dictators like you seem to think
So don’t try changing the goalposts so you can claim some triumphant foresight when the likely happens.
Taking lessons from LeadronicT is rarely advisable
Just patiently correcting the record. I would want to unwary to be caught out. Consider it public service
Hospital outbreak in Kanta-Häme, Finland: 80% of 80 people getting Indian variant in a Finnish hospital had received 1st dose of vaccine (40% of patients got infected & 7 died). Less problems among fully vaccinated personnel: vaccines work, after 2nd shot!
Come to think of it, wasn't Amazon notorious for not making a profit – after aggressive reinvestment?
The Spectator will almost certainly not have considered other measures which will also have an effect, one of the key ones from 2022, being the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive. It’s almost as if it’s complicated.
Isn't that the one which was behind the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg wanting to leave the EU?
Hospital outbreak in Kanta-Häme, Finland: 80% of 80 people getting Indian variant in a Finnish hospital had received 1st dose of vaccine (40% of patients got infected & 7 died). Less problems among fully vaccinated personnel: vaccines work, after 2nd shot!
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
The issue is magnified because we have fixed commitments to the EU development fund plus various other multilateral organisations so the cuts have disproportionately fallen on our own programmes. Which are typically much better than the multilateral ones (thanks to Andrew Mitchell we are actually very good at targeted and effective development aid)
Mitchell, of course, vehemently opposes the cut.
I believe he signed the letter but haven’t seen anything else
I don’t like the 0.7% model though. We should spend as much on quality projects as appropriate. The issue with the 0.7% is we ended up shovelling cash into crappy multilateral programmes (the EU one in particular - and this is nothing to do with my views on the EU it’s just crap - which I believe we give over £1bn a year to).
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
I used to donate to larger charities but got more and more fed up with them being little more than political lobbyists and numerous phone calls after more money. Now I donate to small charities that are local. So, yes, I certainly have done the same.
Large charities are just big businesses and lobbying organisations in all but name. I have little time for them and their endless press releases recycled as news reports.
Mind you there is a vested interest here as many of these charities are recipients of this aid money.
I’ve very much done the same - my Dad was a pioneer of what today is called venture philanthropy and we’ve tried to continue his legacy
Agreed.
It works if lots of people with links follow those links - for me that's diabetic, or local, charities, amongst others.
If my mum's probate finally emerges from the family court, my plan is to try and find a reasonably substantial donation to a local charity for part of a Covid recovery worker for a year for the local parish.
Admin, admin...
Send me a PM if you want and I can ask the team if they are working with any charities in your area. This is what we did in April for example
Hospital outbreak in Kanta-Häme, Finland: 80% of 80 people getting Indian variant in a Finnish hospital had received 1st dose of vaccine (40% of patients got infected & 7 died). Less problems among fully vaccinated personnel: vaccines work, after 2nd shot!
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
The issue is magnified because we have fixed commitments to the EU development fund plus various other multilateral organisations so the cuts have disproportionately fallen on our own programmes. Which are typically much better than the multilateral ones (thanks to Andrew Mitchell we are actually very good at targeted and effective development aid)
Mitchell, of course, vehemently opposes the cut.
I believe he signed the letter but haven’t seen anything else
I don’t like the 0.7% model though. We should spend as much on quality projects as appropriate. The issue with the 0.7% is we ended up shovelling cash into crappy multilateral programmes (the EU one in particular - and this is nothing to do with my views on the EU it’s just crap - which I believe we give over £1bn a year to).
Foreign aid should be a matter of individual choice through charitable contributions. We gain nothing from having the government borrow money from our grandchildren to send abroad on our behalf.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
The issue is magnified because we have fixed commitments to the EU development fund plus various other multilateral organisations so the cuts have disproportionately fallen on our own programmes. Which are typically much better than the multilateral ones (thanks to Andrew Mitchell we are actually very good at targeted and effective development aid)
Mitchell, of course, vehemently opposes the cut.
I believe he signed the letter but haven’t seen anything else
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
The issue is magnified because we have fixed commitments to the EU development fund plus various other multilateral organisations so the cuts have disproportionately fallen on our own programmes. Which are typically much better than the multilateral ones (thanks to Andrew Mitchell we are actually very good at targeted and effective development aid)
Mitchell, of course, vehemently opposes the cut.
I believe he signed the letter but haven’t seen anything else
I don’t like the 0.7% model though. We should spend as much on quality projects as appropriate. The issue with the 0.7% is we ended up shovelling cash into crappy multilateral programmes (the EU one in particular - and this is nothing to do with my views on the EU it’s just crap - which I believe we give over £1bn a year to).
I agree much of the money is just squandered by handing it out to organisations and dodgy governments just to meet targets. Projects at minimum should be jointly run by UK teams to ensure the money is going to where it is supposed to be and helping poor people , not despots , army , police , crooks, etc.
Good results from a small trial mixing the vaccines:
Heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 prime-boost vaccination elicits potent neutralizing antibody responses and T cell reactivity https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.30.21257971v1 Self-reported solicited symptoms after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime were in line with previous reports and less severe after the BNT162b2 boost. Antibody titers increased significantly over time resulting in strong neutralization titers 2 weeks after the BNT162b2 boost. Neutralizing activity against the prevalent strain B.1.1.7 was 3.9-fold higher than in individuals receiving homologous BNT162b2 vaccination, only 2-fold reduced for variant of concern B.1.351, and similar for variant B.1.617. In addition, CD4+ and CD8+ T cells reacted to SARS-CoV-2 spike peptide stimulus 2 weeks after the full vaccination.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
The issue is magnified because we have fixed commitments to the EU development fund plus various other multilateral organisations so the cuts have disproportionately fallen on our own programmes. Which are typically much better than the multilateral ones (thanks to Andrew Mitchell we are actually very good at targeted and effective development aid)
Mitchell, of course, vehemently opposes the cut.
I believe he signed the letter but haven’t seen anything else
I don’t like the 0.7% model though. We should spend as much on quality projects as appropriate. The issue with the 0.7% is we ended up shovelling cash into crappy multilateral programmes (the EU one in particular - and this is nothing to do with my views on the EU it’s just crap - which I believe we give over £1bn a year to).
I agree much of the money is just squandered by handing it out to organisations and dodgy governments just to meet targets. Projects at minimum should be jointly run by UK teams to ensure the money is going to where it is supposed to be and helping poor people , not despots , army , police , crooks, etc.
Agreed. It’s urgent they find a way to bypass such people, and give the money direct to those places in Scotland where it’s needed.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
The issue is magnified because we have fixed commitments to the EU development fund plus various other multilateral organisations so the cuts have disproportionately fallen on our own programmes. Which are typically much better than the multilateral ones (thanks to Andrew Mitchell we are actually very good at targeted and effective development aid)
Mitchell, of course, vehemently opposes the cut.
I believe he signed the letter but haven’t seen anything else
I don’t like the 0.7% model though. We should spend as much on quality projects as appropriate. The issue with the 0.7% is we ended up shovelling cash into crappy multilateral programmes (the EU one in particular - and this is nothing to do with my views on the EU it’s just crap - which I believe we give over £1bn a year to).
Foreign aid should be a matter of individual choice through charitable contributions. We gain nothing from having the government borrow money from our grandchildren to send abroad on our behalf.
Well that’s objectively not true thanks to Mitchell’s work.
For example funding secondary education for young girls in East Africa is the programme that has had the biggest single impact on combatting radicalism in the area. (The theory is that educated women + microfinance = small businesses. These lead to a stake in society and give them the freedom to choose their partners. And funnily enough they would rather pair up with stable productive members of society than radicals. And young men are smart enough to realise that if they want sex then they need to smarten up their act…)
Personally I see money spent on preventing terrorism rather than combatting the ill-effects as a really sensible investment. Too many people have some vision of the old-style type of aid writing cheques to our favourite dictators and kleptocrats. It’s really not like that anymore.*
* of course there will be mistakes made & im not speaking for the multilateral programmes, but DfID is pretty damn good. I just hope it survives the tender embrace of the FCO
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
The issue is magnified because we have fixed commitments to the EU development fund plus various other multilateral organisations so the cuts have disproportionately fallen on our own programmes. Which are typically much better than the multilateral ones (thanks to Andrew Mitchell we are actually very good at targeted and effective development aid)
Mitchell, of course, vehemently opposes the cut.
I believe he signed the letter but haven’t seen anything else
I don’t like the 0.7% model though. We should spend as much on quality projects as appropriate. The issue with the 0.7% is we ended up shovelling cash into crappy multilateral programmes (the EU one in particular - and this is nothing to do with my views on the EU it’s just crap - which I believe we give over £1bn a year to).
Foreign aid should be a matter of individual choice through charitable contributions. We gain nothing from having the government borrow money from our grandchildren to send abroad on our behalf.
There’s an argument for some government aid, to places suffering from disasters or unrest - and Covid vaccines! A lot of the spending goes to British companies and charities, so it’s not money just sent abroad, and civilian aid is usually more welcome than military assistance, other than in the aftermath of a major disaster.
The 0.7% target does generate a lot of waste though, and money goes on crap programmes just because we need to spend it. It’s a lot better than it used to be though, Mitchell did a good job on that. As noted by others, very few countries come close to the target aid spending. This year, we should drop pretty much everything that’s not committed already, and build a vaccine factory or two in the UK to supply the world.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
The issue is magnified because we have fixed commitments to the EU development fund plus various other multilateral organisations so the cuts have disproportionately fallen on our own programmes. Which are typically much better than the multilateral ones (thanks to Andrew Mitchell we are actually very good at targeted and effective development aid)
Mitchell, of course, vehemently opposes the cut.
I believe he signed the letter but haven’t seen anything else
I don’t like the 0.7% model though. We should spend as much on quality projects as appropriate. The issue with the 0.7% is we ended up shovelling cash into crappy multilateral programmes (the EU one in particular - and this is nothing to do with my views on the EU it’s just crap - which I believe we give over £1bn a year to).
Foreign aid should be a matter of individual choice through charitable contributions. We gain nothing from having the government borrow money from our grandchildren to send abroad on our behalf.
Well that’s objectively not true thanks to Mitchell’s work.
For example funding secondary education for young girls in East Africa is the programme that has had the biggest single impact on combatting radicalism in the area. (The theory is that educated women + microfinance = small businesses. These lead to a stake in society and give them the freedom to choose their partners. And funnily enough they would rather pair up with stable productive members of society than radicals. And young men are smart enough to realise that if they want sex then they need to smarten up their act…)
Even if the theory works in reality (and most aid ones don't), why can that not be done through individual charitable contributions if people think that is to their benefit?
Why do we have to be forced by the government to squander money we don't have?
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Well, the nudge theory would suggest it’s a good idea. Want to not wear a mask and stand at the bar in the pub? Get your shots...
It certainly should apply for travellers. It's ridiculous to force the vaccinated to isolate and take expensive tests while unvaccinated Britons can do what they like.
Even the French - the FRENCH - are ahead of us on this.
Already the plan elsewhere in the British Isles - fully vaccinated will have less onerous/no border control requirements arriving in Guernsey:
As I've said before on here, I think the Guernsey rules are still far too onerous, but at least they're better than the current UK ones.
One set of nieces, living in UK, and hoping to, severally, visit their mother, my sister, on Alderney this summer. She really needs a visit, particularly from either or preferably both of her daughters who are accustomed to dealing, in short order, with 'difficult' officialdom.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
The issue is magnified because we have fixed commitments to the EU development fund plus various other multilateral organisations so the cuts have disproportionately fallen on our own programmes. Which are typically much better than the multilateral ones (thanks to Andrew Mitchell we are actually very good at targeted and effective development aid)
Mitchell, of course, vehemently opposes the cut.
I believe he signed the letter but haven’t seen anything else
I don’t like the 0.7% model though. We should spend as much on quality projects as appropriate. The issue with the 0.7% is we ended up shovelling cash into crappy multilateral programmes (the EU one in particular - and this is nothing to do with my views on the EU it’s just crap - which I believe we give over £1bn a year to).
Foreign aid should be a matter of individual choice through charitable contributions. We gain nothing from having the government borrow money from our grandchildren to send abroad on our behalf.
There’s an argument for some government aid, to places suffering from disasters or unrest - and Covid vaccines! A lot of the spending goes to British companies and charities, so it’s not money just sent abroad, and civilian aid is usually more welcome than military assistance, other than in the aftermath of a major disaster.
The 0.7% target does generate a lot of waste though, and money goes on crap programmes just because we need to spend it. It’s a lot better than it used to be though, Mitchell did a good job on that. As noted by others, very few countries come close to the target aid spending. This year, we should drop pretty much everything that’s not committed already, and build a vaccine factory or two in the UK to supply the world.
Vaccine aid (including a proportion of the R&D costs) should be counted in the 0.7%. Bingo - we'd already be there.
Hospital outbreak in Kanta-Häme, Finland: 80% of 80 people getting Indian variant in a Finnish hospital had received 1st dose of vaccine (40% of patients got infected & 7 died). Less problems among fully vaccinated personnel: vaccines work, after 2nd shot!
I'm reminded of @Leon's theory that Covid has a hubris detector. Think you've got one over on the 'Rona, and it will bite back.
Which country made a big thing of delaying second doses to max out on first doses? It made sense at the time, but ...
Do try to make your glee a little less obvious. But if you insist on comparing how well countries are doing in getting second doses to their populations...
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Not officially but there are the usual leaks in the friendly papers which show that it has been decided internally and it's just a matter of time.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
Well, the nudge theory would suggest it’s a good idea. Want to not wear a mask and stand at the bar in the pub? Get your shots...
It certainly should apply for travellers. It's ridiculous to force the vaccinated to isolate and take expensive tests while unvaccinated Britons can do what they like.
Even the French - the FRENCH - are ahead of us on this.
Already the plan elsewhere in the British Isles - fully vaccinated will have less onerous/no border control requirements arriving in Guernsey:
As I've said before on here, I think the Guernsey rules are still far too onerous, but at least they're better than the current UK ones.
Just a thought on the by-elections: Boris is going to be all over the media, glad-handing world leaders at the G7 and announcing Big Shiny Popular New Stuff with them. He will be absolutely in his element.
Well, the nudge theory would suggest it’s a good idea. Want to not wear a mask and stand at the bar in the pub? Get your shots...
It certainly should apply for travellers. It's ridiculous to force the vaccinated to isolate and take expensive tests while unvaccinated Britons can do what they like.
Even the French - the FRENCH - are ahead of us on this.
Already the plan elsewhere in the British Isles - fully vaccinated will have less onerous/no border control requirements arriving in Guernsey:
As I've said before on here, I think the Guernsey rules are still far too onerous, but at least they're better than the current UK ones.
How would you modify them?
Off the top of my head, move vaccinated who've been to Amber from Green to Blue. And vaccinated who've been to Red from red to Amber seems like a sensible plan.
The Blue column is basically irrelevant at the moment because there are hardly any countries in it that are letting UK travellers in.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
Why should the BBC correct an inference possibly only you have drawn? In any case, it does. Your link gives figures of .5% GNI (a cut from .7% which was a manifesto commitment) and £10 billion.
The cut amounts to 30 per cent, which is a fair old chunk. No wonder it is opposed by many Conservatives as well as charities.
It isn't an inference 'only some people draw'; imo it is the normal political playbook of some development charities.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Dominic Cummings criticised the Prime Minister for getting into pointless fights over school meals. Are foreign aid cuts the same?
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
The issue is magnified because we have fixed commitments to the EU development fund plus various other multilateral organisations so the cuts have disproportionately fallen on our own programmes. Which are typically much better than the multilateral ones (thanks to Andrew Mitchell we are actually very good at targeted and effective development aid)
Mitchell, of course, vehemently opposes the cut.
I believe he signed the letter but haven’t seen anything else
I don’t like the 0.7% model though. We should spend as much on quality projects as appropriate. The issue with the 0.7% is we ended up shovelling cash into crappy multilateral programmes (the EU one in particular - and this is nothing to do with my views on the EU it’s just crap - which I believe we give over £1bn a year to).
Foreign aid should be a matter of individual choice through charitable contributions. We gain nothing from having the government borrow money from our grandchildren to send abroad on our behalf.
Well that’s objectively not true thanks to Mitchell’s work.
For example funding secondary education for young girls in East Africa is the programme that has had the biggest single impact on combatting radicalism in the area. (The theory is that educated women + microfinance = small businesses. These lead to a stake in society and give them the freedom to choose their partners. And funnily enough they would rather pair up with stable productive members of society than radicals. And young men are smart enough to realise that if they want sex then they need to smarten up their act…)
Even if the theory works in reality (and most aid ones don't), why can that not be done through individual charitable contributions if people think that is to their benefit?
Why do we have to be forced by the government to squander money we don't have?
For the same reason that governments build roads, schools and hospitals. There are some things that are better done collectively
But it’s very impressive the way that you dismiss a thoughtful argument with “well even it it works in reality” rather than engaging with the excellent work that has been done in the last decade precisely to make sure it works in reality!
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
There is also an ethical point, which is should one be vaccinating people (with the risks, however small, of side effects) not to protect them* but really to protect others?
Hospital outbreak in Kanta-Häme, Finland: 80% of 80 people getting Indian variant in a Finnish hospital had received 1st dose of vaccine (40% of patients got infected & 7 died). Less problems among fully vaccinated personnel: vaccines work, after 2nd shot!
I'm reminded of @Leon's theory that Covid has a hubris detector. Think you've got one over on the 'Rona, and it will bite back.
Which country made a big thing of delaying second doses to max out on first doses? It made sense at the time, but ...
And still does.
The emphasis on first doses during the winter helped bring infection rates down and then the switch towards second doses in the spring gave deeper protection to the vulnerable.
That will almost certainly happen with international travel, from the day everyone has been offered one jab. One test on arrival if you’ve been vaccinated, 10 days’ quarantine if you haven’t.
So, you’re advocating discrimination against children?
That is an excellent point.
Probably a time-limited one though as we move the vaccinated age limit down.
No decision has been made on vaccinating children.
Pfizer was approved for age 12 and up last week, and they’re currently trialling primary school children in the US. I’d expect 12+ to all be done before the schools go back in September.
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
“Little spreaders”. It’s a vile phase. Have you considered how this sounds. Have you considered the ethical considerations.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?
Comments
I guess I would never answer a telephone poll and, if I did, I would probably lie especially about controversial issues. You've got to be really fired up about something to share your views to a real person on the other end of the phone. Even then, I'm not sure I would.
In other news, I'm starting to watch the way this Government continue their erosion of civil liberties. The latest assault on social media videos by Priti Patel may seem like a good thing to some people. It's all dressed up so reasonably, isn't it? Videos of migrants glamourise the crossing therefore they need to be censored.
But hey.
Today's migrant crossing is tomorrow's demo.
It's what the Johnson Government love and do. Frighten you all like little bunny rabbits beneath a sky full of eagles. Then, when you've scampered back into your burrows they remove a bit more of your warren. They erect a fence, for your protection of course, you understand? There will be sentry posts, to monitor the attackers and 'keep you safe.' And when you get a chance to express your gratitude, which will only be permitted for tagged members of the colony, you will lower your heads in obeisance. The great lords of the Johnson warren will thus be managing you in perpetuity.
But I still got threaded.
Make them feel guilty; make what has happened sound as evil as possible; only acknowledge any good stuff with a huge and dominating bit of "but what about" rhetoric; and we will get the cash *and* get more money and influence for the future.
Whilst often paying their own management more than the Prime Minister.
They don't seem to want to acknowledge past achievements in their desparate scrabble to maintain the same old media lines.
Personally, I stopped supporting big charities some time ago because of this political stuff, with a small number of exceptions.
I am sure others have done the same.
It's up there items such with Oxfam's exaggerated analysis about 'inequality' by leaving out the pension entitlements we all have from the State.
If you are putting together a round-robin 'outraged' letter in that sort of arena, 1700 is perhaps per for the course.
That they get to play into some of the cruder political Twitter memes perhaps helps.
Presumably deters animal rights types from pinching your jewels.
https://proudlyscottish.com/traditional-fox-full-mask/
Unless the whole thing is a windup. Not a very woke video talking about them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5xMs0td9ts
Given people running around the country releasing beavers, these will perhaps be along soon.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-g7-tax-deal-is-an-unworkable-mess (£££)
Come to think of it, wasn't Amazon notorious for not making a profit – after aggressive reinvestment?
Why am I not surprised that some people give one answer when they're anonymous, and a different one when someone rings up, so they're easily identifiable.
The 30 per cent cut in aid (from 0.7 to 0.5% GNI) will be painful to recipients, even though it still leaves us among the more generous donors, but what is the point? Has the Prime Minister been sold an affordability argument and missed that the level of aid is tied to GNI so will automatically reflect economic contractions?
Is someone following their own agenda and jerking Boris around?
F1: having a tricky time picking between three potential bets. The agony of choice.
Well, one I'm definitely going for. It's the other two that are troublesome.
I think some major charities are inevitably saying what they were always going to say. They are always jerking people around.
We have another one this morning - Oxfam harrumphing about "15% is not enough"; they didn't need to put that out, as it is so self-stereotyped that anyone could have assumed it was what they would say.
For practical politics, I think that the Gov should perhaps have pivoted a big chunk of ODA to COVI for one to two years, then put some of it into vaccine initiatives whilst applying appropriate pressure to teh Aid establishment.
Anyhoo - I have a day to spend on a roof.
Have a good day all, and stay safe @Foxy. Hope there are no sporran-makers in Leicester.
Betting Post
F1: backed two things at the race (both Ladbrokes with boost):
Under 15.5 classified finishers at 2.35
Gasly to be winner outside the big four, 12
For the reasoning and some other betting ideas that were tempting but I didn't go for, give my pre-race ramble a read:
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2021/06/azerbaijan-pre-race-2021.html
As an aside, I'm wondering about altering my betting approach a bit and making more bets with smaller sums. Hmm.
I wrote about this very issue about 24 hours ago on this very board, and specifically pointed to ways to get operating margins below 10%.
(McKesson, AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health...)
The question is whether Boris has been tricked into making this cut which is economically unnecessary (since it is already a percentage), breaks his own manifesto pledge, and is opposed by the Conservative great and good.
And if so, who is the Machiavellian puppet-master jerking the Prime Minister's chain?
The Diadochi era, or the Knights of Saint John defending Rhodes against Suleiman the Magnificent.
However.
Just because a bitter dishonest psycho is saying something, doesn't mean it can't be true.
Looking at BoJo's record over the years, it's hard to infer much in the way of political belief, except that he should sit in the Big Chair. Without his own North Star to navigate by, it's unsurprising that others will seek to persuade him to follow theirs and the PM will find that hard to resist.
Plus sex, tournaments and the odd strolling minstrel.
What’s not to like?
Or we could go back earlier and do something with Aethelred the Unready. What a spectacular loser he really was, but his life was just extraordinary.
Most sensible people thought there was a chance it would go ahead and a chance that some restrictions (particularly on WFH and masks in public transport but hopefully not on social distancing) will continue for a period of time.
This government doesn’t like or desire the restrictions. There are very real costs associated. They are trying to balance between cost and public health. I personally think they are being over cautious - that’s the way that the politics drives them - but they aren’t power hungry maniacal wanna-be dictators like you seem to think
So don’t try changing the goalposts so you can claim some triumphant foresight when the likely happens.
Large charities are just big businesses and lobbying organisations in all but name. I have little time for them and their endless press releases recycled as news reports.
Mind you there is a vested interest here as many of these charities are recipients of this aid money.
I’m so sorry for your loss too.
I don't think it'll be quiet, though. It might be, but the last three races there have had a total of 18 cars that failed to finish.
The dreadful thing is that it's like a very slow-motion car crash. You KNOW what's happening, what's going to happen and there's SFA you, or anyone else, can do about it. At the moment, anyway.
Fortunately the MND charity is very good, and few, if any, quacks and charlatans get involved.
The firm her husband worked for were very good about time off and 'fortunately', if that's the right word, she deteriorated quite quickly.
Coronavirus live news: Tony Blair calls for greater freedoms for fully vaccinated people in UK
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1401439948981555203?s=20
Even the French - the FRENCH - are ahead of us on this.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/06/05/g7-tax-agreement-little-cheer/
Like others, I’m waiting to see what any proposal actually does in practice - especially in the USA, where most of the target companies are listed and headquartered, and their politicians are famous for legislative shenanigans.
Almost as though he was making shit up.
That said, I think the real problem is apart from his wilder and probably shortly to be ignored allegations, his character sketches - the really interesting part - didn’t tell us anything very new.
For three wks, Belgium's top virologist and his family have been in hiding after being targeted by a far-right soldier who has a vendetta for virologists and #COVID19 lockdowns. The well-armed military shooting instructor is eluding a big dragnet...
https://twitter.com/steveashleyplus/status/1401119906486181892
It works if lots of people with links follow those links - for me that's diabetic, or local, charities, amongst others.
If my mum's probate finally emerges from the family court, my plan is to try and find a reasonably substantial donation to a local charity for part of a Covid recovery worker for a year for the local parish.
Admin, admin...
https://twitter.com/TWenseleers/status/1401434052197076997?s=20
Israel has shown this. Data from Bolton showed it too.
Annual tweaks to take account of variants will be the norm.
It will be a constant battle. Virus v vaccine.
I don’t like the 0.7% model though. We should spend as much on quality projects as appropriate. The issue with the 0.7% is we ended up shovelling cash into crappy multilateral programmes (the EU one in particular - and this is nothing to do with my views on the EU it’s just crap - which I believe we give over £1bn a year to).
https://www.thefore.org/news/the-fore-announces-its-spring-2021-grantees/
Which country made a big thing of delaying second doses to max out on first doses? It made sense at the time, but ...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/06/02/boris-johnson-faces-huge-tory-rebellion-cuts-foreign-aid/
Heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 prime-boost vaccination elicits potent neutralizing antibody responses and T cell reactivity
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.30.21257971v1
Self-reported solicited symptoms after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime were in line with previous reports and less severe after the BNT162b2 boost. Antibody titers increased significantly over time resulting in strong neutralization titers 2 weeks after the BNT162b2 boost. Neutralizing activity against the prevalent strain B.1.1.7 was 3.9-fold higher than in individuals receiving homologous BNT162b2 vaccination, only 2-fold reduced for variant of concern B.1.351, and similar for variant B.1.617. In addition, CD4+ and CD8+ T cells reacted to SARS-CoV-2 spike peptide stimulus 2 weeks after the full vaccination.
For example funding secondary education for young girls in East Africa is the programme that has had the biggest single impact on combatting radicalism in the area. (The theory is that educated women + microfinance = small businesses. These lead to a stake in society and give them the freedom to choose their partners. And funnily enough they would rather pair up with stable productive members of society than radicals. And young men are smart enough to realise that if they want sex then they need to smarten up their act…)
Personally I see money spent on preventing terrorism rather than combatting the ill-effects as a really sensible investment. Too many people have some vision of the old-style type of aid writing cheques to our favourite dictators and kleptocrats. It’s really not like that anymore.*
* of course there will be mistakes made & im not speaking for the multilateral programmes, but DfID is pretty damn good. I just hope it survives the tender embrace of the FCO
The 0.7% target does generate a lot of waste though, and money goes on crap programmes just because we need to spend it. It’s a lot better than it used to be though, Mitchell did a good job on that. As noted by others, very few countries come close to the target aid spending. This year, we should drop pretty much everything that’s not committed already, and build a vaccine factory or two in the UK to supply the world.
Why do we have to be forced by the government to squander money we don't have?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGzDLpsoq5Y Here are two:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEX21WgJzA8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12HMw2JhDnY
She really needs a visit, particularly from either or preferably both of her daughters who are accustomed to dealing, in short order, with 'difficult' officialdom.
US: 40.86%
UK: 39.48%
Spain 21.94%
Italy 20.81
Germany 19.99%
France 17.85%
But yes, the little spreaders should be quarantined if they travel abroad unvaccinated.
Can't see it doing him any harm.
The Blue column is basically irrelevant at the moment because there are hardly any countries in it that are letting UK travellers in.
But it’s very impressive the way that you dismiss a thoughtful argument with “well even it it works in reality” rather than engaging with the excellent work that has been done in the last decade precisely to make sure it works in reality!
*look at the statistics
The emphasis on first doses during the winter helped bring infection rates down and then the switch towards second doses in the spring gave deeper protection to the vulnerable.
Looks like Boris got lucky again.
What if it’s decided that the ethical basis for vaccinating children is wrong?