We need to build rail capacity, and we need to build a million or two more houses.
If those decisions cost a few seats in certain areas then so be it, they’re still the right decisions and are electorally popular elsewhere.
The Lib Dem’s can’t call the Tories populist, while they remain in favour of increased immigration but limited building of houses and infrastructure.
But only the Conservatives are in favour of handing all decisions about planning and development over to the large house-building companies.
When I say "Conservatives" in this context, I mean the Johnson-Conservatives, not the traditional decent ones, who now vote Lib Dem.
I am a traditional decent conservative but would never vote lib dem
So you support handing planning decisions over to the big builders, eh? - leaving local people with no say about the amount of development that takes place? And leaving them to pay all the costs of new infrastructure that the incomers are going to need?
We need to build rail capacity, and we need to build a million or two more houses.
If those decisions cost a few seats in certain areas then so be it, they’re still the right decisions and are electorally popular elsewhere.
The Lib Dem’s can’t call the Tories populist, while they remain in favour of increased immigration but limited building of houses and infrastructure.
But only the Conservatives are in favour of handing all decisions about planning and development over to the large house-building companies.
When I say "Conservatives" in this context, I mean the Johnson-Conservatives, not the traditional decent ones, who now vote Lib Dem.
I am a traditional decent conservative but would never vote lib dem
So you support handing planning decisions over to the big builders, eh? - leaving local people with no say about the amount of development that takes place? And leaving them to pay all the costs of new infrastructure that the incomers are going to need?
Dear God, the sort of nonsense you get on Twitter
If you don’t agree with x you automatically support y.
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
We need to build rail capacity, and we need to build a million or two more houses.
If those decisions cost a few seats in certain areas then so be it, they’re still the right decisions and are electorally popular elsewhere.
The Lib Dem’s can’t call the Tories populist, while they remain in favour of increased immigration but limited building of houses and infrastructure.
But only the Conservatives are in favour of handing all decisions about planning and development over to the large house-building companies.
When I say "Conservatives" in this context, I mean the Johnson-Conservatives, not the traditional decent ones, who now vote Lib Dem.
I am a traditional decent conservative but would never vote lib dem
So you support handing planning decisions over to the big builders, eh? - leaving local people with no say about the amount of development that takes place? And leaving them to pay all the costs of new infrastructure that the incomers are going to need?
Dear God, the sort of nonsense you get on Twitter
If you don’t agree with x you automatically support y.
I was thinking earlier that clippP could be enough on his own to put me off Lib dems - However there are more reasonable Lib Dems out there
We need to build rail capacity, and we need to build a million or two more houses.
If those decisions cost a few seats in certain areas then so be it, they’re still the right decisions and are electorally popular elsewhere.
The Lib Dem’s can’t call the Tories populist, while they remain in favour of increased immigration but limited building of houses and infrastructure.
But only the Conservatives are in favour of handing all decisions about planning and development over to the large house-building companies.
When I say "Conservatives" in this context, I mean the Johnson-Conservatives, not the traditional decent ones, who now vote Lib Dem.
I am a traditional decent conservative but would never vote lib dem
So you support handing planning decisions over to the big builders, eh? - leaving local people with no say about the amount of development that takes place? And leaving them to pay all the costs of new infrastructure that the incomers are going to need?
Dear God, the sort of nonsense you get on Twitter
If you don’t agree with x you automatically support y.
They will build the infrastructure and maybe a new school and doctors surgery but without doctors and teachers to run them.. sounds great, reality v different
The Lib Dems would be worse than the tories. I voted LD because of Brexit and as a protest against The Tories but I will not vote LD again, not that it matters in.my constituency. .
We need to build rail capacity, and we need to build a million or two more houses.
If those decisions cost a few seats in certain areas then so be it, they’re still the right decisions and are electorally popular elsewhere.
The Lib Dem’s can’t call the Tories populist, while they remain in favour of increased immigration but limited building of houses and infrastructure.
But only the Conservatives are in favour of handing all decisions about planning and development over to the large house-building companies.
When I say "Conservatives" in this context, I mean the Johnson-Conservatives, not the traditional decent ones, who now vote Lib Dem.
I am a traditional decent conservative but would never vote lib dem
Why not?
An honest answer is that while I thought the coalition was a good government, the lib dems reneged on tuition fees, but of recent times the way they have done everything to stop brexit, and would follow a far more pro eu stance than I could support, I could not vote lib dem
I voted remain and I did not vote for Boris in the leadership ballot, but I respect the result of the referendum and could not acceed to rejoining the EU, indeed as it turns out I am quite content with brexit
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
If the government is advocating regular LFTs, as PB claims, why can’t it use them to liberate weddings? Instead it’s banned dancing and insists that bridesmaids wear masks.
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
I've seen adverts but i don't know anyone who does it. I don't know people with school age kids anymore so that might explain it partially. Some people I have mentioned it to have said they have heard the LFT are useless - false positives a lot of the time. iirc that is a bit out of date but people still think it. Although the FDA have said they are useless - so who the feck knows any more.
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
If you have children, you build play castles out of lateral flow test boxes.... We get given them all the time.
We need to build rail capacity, and we need to build a million or two more houses.
If those decisions cost a few seats in certain areas then so be it, they’re still the right decisions and are electorally popular elsewhere.
The Lib Dem’s can’t call the Tories populist, while they remain in favour of increased immigration but limited building of houses and infrastructure.
But only the Conservatives are in favour of handing all decisions about planning and development over to the large house-building companies.
When I say "Conservatives" in this context, I mean the Johnson-Conservatives, not the traditional decent ones, who now vote Lib Dem.
I am a traditional decent conservative but would never vote lib dem
So you support handing planning decisions over to the big builders, eh? - leaving local people with no say about the amount of development that takes place? And leaving them to pay all the costs of new infrastructure that the incomers are going to need?
Dear God, the sort of nonsense you get on Twitter
If you don’t agree with x you automatically support y.
I was thinking earlier that clippP could be enough on his own to put me off Lib dems - However there are more reasonable Lib Dems out there
Yeah, there are sensible ones and then there are the ‘piss diamonds’ on Twitter.
We need to build rail capacity, and we need to build a million or two more houses.
If those decisions cost a few seats in certain areas then so be it, they’re still the right decisions and are electorally popular elsewhere.
The Lib Dem’s can’t call the Tories populist, while they remain in favour of increased immigration but limited building of houses and infrastructure.
But only the Conservatives are in favour of handing all decisions about planning and development over to the large house-building companies.
When I say "Conservatives" in this context, I mean the Johnson-Conservatives, not the traditional decent ones, who now vote Lib Dem.
I am a traditional decent conservative but would never vote lib dem
So you support handing planning decisions over to the big builders, eh? - leaving local people with no say about the amount of development that takes place? And leaving them to pay all the costs of new infrastructure that the incomers are going to need?
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
Did my first test this week. Went in to London to see a company where it was their first in-person meeting for 15 months. So they apologised for being a bit OTT, knowing the three attendees from or side were all double jabbed plus more then two weeks. But seeing our negative tests meant they were entirely relaxed throughout the couple of hours we were there, so what the hell.
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
I've seen adverts but i don't know anyone who does it. I don't know people with school age kids anymore so that might explain it partially. Some people I have mentioned it to have said they have heard the LFT are useless - false positives a lot of the time. iirc that is a bit out of date but people still think it. Although the FDA have said they are useless - so who the feck knows any more.
I have a school age son and as far as I know he has never been tested and nor have any of his schoolmates.
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
Did my first test this week. Went in to London to see a company where it was their first in-person meeting for 15 months. So they apologised for being a bit OTT, knowing the three attendees from or side were all double jabbed plus more then two weeks. But seeing our negative tests meant they were entirely relaxed throughout the couple of hours we were there, so what the hell.
I had a temperature check in a restaurant yesterday, otherwise I have never been tested at all.
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
If you have children, you build play castles out of lateral flow test boxes.... We get given them all the time.
Not here. We have never received a single one from the school.
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
I've seen adverts but i don't know anyone who does it. I don't know people with school age kids anymore so that might explain it partially. Some people I have mentioned it to have said they have heard the LFT are useless - false positives a lot of the time. iirc that is a bit out of date but people still think it. Although the FDA have said they are useless - so who the feck knows any more.
They are more prone to false positives than PCR. This is known. The idea is that if you get a positive, get a PCR test to check.
Quite a bit of medical establishment, round the world, has a massive problem with the idea of cheap mass screening, with less than perfect tests. Part of it is a cultural problem - all proper tests must be done in a laboratory, by someone in a white coat... part is a lack of understanding of the statistical basis for using a quick but inaccurate test.
Why can't I watch the football in 4k or even full HD on via iPlayer on my PC....not acceptable in 2021.
Buy some better equipment?
I have a very expensive telly, but i am working and high quality monitors and its ridiculous that iplayer only.pumps out 720p to pc.
They’re downgrading computer streams, to stop people uploading pirate HD feeds?
Or, paying the hosting fees for a couple of million 4k streams is too expensive?
Presumably it's fairly trivial to work out the headers smart TVs send to the BBC, so as to get the 4k stream directly, so (like most anti piracy measures) it'll inconvenience legitimate users while not actually guarding against piracy at all.
Licencing deals may require that streams greater than 720p only go via DRMed channels. Not impossible to crack, but not as simple as “send the right cookies, get 4k data back in the clear”.
I don't think thats the case here, iplayer is all drmed and the only way to watch the games in 4k is via iplayer. But they are restricting to internet streams to certain devices, because only newish tvs have the non-standard version of HDR they use.
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
If you have children, you build play castles out of lateral flow test boxes.... We get given them all the time.
Not here. We have never received a single one from the school.
Interesting - mind you, our schools seem to be proactive and generally trying to do stuff.
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
I've seen adverts but i don't know anyone who does it. I don't know people with school age kids anymore so that might explain it partially. Some people I have mentioned it to have said they have heard the LFT are useless - false positives a lot of the time. iirc that is a bit out of date but people still think it. Although the FDA have said they are useless - so who the feck knows any more.
I have a school age son and as far as I know he has never been tested and nor have any of his schoolmates.
How old?
Edit - if he’s not 2ndary school age, it’s not surprising. If he is, then that tells me he’s not bringing his testing kit home having decided he doesn’t want to do it.
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
I've seen adverts but i don't know anyone who does it. I don't know people with school age kids anymore so that might explain it partially. Some people I have mentioned it to have said they have heard the LFT are useless - false positives a lot of the time. iirc that is a bit out of date but people still think it. Although the FDA have said they are useless - so who the feck knows any more.
I have a school age son and as far as I know he has never been tested and nor have any of his schoolmates.
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
I've seen adverts but i don't know anyone who does it. I don't know people with school age kids anymore so that might explain it partially. Some people I have mentioned it to have said they have heard the LFT are useless - false positives a lot of the time. iirc that is a bit out of date but people still think it. Although the FDA have said they are useless - so who the feck knows any more.
I have a school age son and as far as I know he has never been tested and nor have any of his schoolmates.
How old?
He’s at primary school
If he were at secondary school, as explained in my edit above, it would be different.
But as I also said, I’m not sure how many children are doing them. Unpleasant process and of very little practical value.
We need to build rail capacity, and we need to build a million or two more houses.
If those decisions cost a few seats in certain areas then so be it, they’re still the right decisions and are electorally popular elsewhere.
The Lib Dem’s can’t call the Tories populist, while they remain in favour of increased immigration but limited building of houses and infrastructure.
But only the Conservatives are in favour of handing all decisions about planning and development over to the large house-building companies.
When I say "Conservatives" in this context, I mean the Johnson-Conservatives, not the traditional decent ones, who now vote Lib Dem.
I am a traditional decent conservative but would never vote lib dem
So you support handing planning decisions over to the big builders, eh? - leaving local people with no say about the amount of development that takes place? And leaving them to pay all the costs of new infrastructure that the incomers are going to need?
Yes.
Not to the big builders though, but to anyone that builds, yes absolutely.
You supporting the Liberal Democrats have presumably been in favour of rampant immigration leading to a more than 10 million increase in population. If you increase population you need more houses and existing residents have no ethical right to tell new residents that they're not entitled to a home.
If you have a better idea of where they can live instead, without saying brownfield, I'd love to hear it.
Karmas a bitch. New houses being needed is the quid pro quo of getting increased population.
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
I've seen adverts but i don't know anyone who does it. I don't know people with school age kids anymore so that might explain it partially. Some people I have mentioned it to have said they have heard the LFT are useless - false positives a lot of the time. iirc that is a bit out of date but people still think it. Although the FDA have said they are useless - so who the feck knows any more.
I have a school age son and as far as I know he has never been tested and nor have any of his schoolmates.
How old?
He’s at primary school
If he were at secondary school, as explained in my edit above, it would be different.
But as I also said, I’m not sure how many children are doing them. Unpleasant process and of very little practical value.
If you aren’t sick, you get a positive test, you have to isolate for a fortnight along with everyone else in your year group even though there’s nothing wrong with you. Is that right? So one can see why there is a disincentive to get tested.
The article’s right that parachuting in Fleet, however capable an MP he might have made, rather than choosing a candidate with local roots was a mistake that allowed the notion that the Tories were taking one of its safest seats for granted to gain credibility.
The HS2 point is however a red herring. Fleet’s leaflets were anti HS2. As was the late MP, the LibDem candidate, the local Tory councillors, LibDem councillors, and a large majority of the residents. It’s just the way things are round there - unsurprisingly, given that a railway line is being cut through the area that won’t benefit them at all.
If Sarah managed to capture the mantle of more vigorous champion for locals’ concerns, that’s to her credit, in a field when every candidate was anti HS2. Many voters look for the most effective local champion as their MP.
They are more prone to false positives than PCR. This is known. The idea is that if you get a positive, get a PCR test to check.
Quite a bit of medical establishment, round the world, has a massive problem with the idea of cheap mass screening, with less than perfect tests. Part of it is a cultural problem - all proper tests must be done in a laboratory, by someone in a white coat... part is a lack of understanding of the statistical basis for using a quick but inaccurate test.
Yep, LFTs on their own are a bad idea, but for screening they are a good idea. We could probably make good use of even cheaper less sensitive tests to catch more cases.
“I am motivated by support for equality, social justice and internationalism. That is the Labour brand,” he said. “The conclusion I have reached is that this government needs to be replaced. The reality is that the Labour party is the only vehicle that can achieve that objective. There is no other credible option.”
The article’s right that parachuting in Fleet, however capable an MP he might have made, rather than choosing a candidate with local roots was a mistake that allowed the notion that the Tories were taking one of its safest seats for granted to gain credibility.
The HS2 point is however a red herring. Fleet’s leaflets were anti HS2. As was the late MP, the LibDem candidate, the local Tory councillors, LibDem councillors, and a large majority of the residents. It’s just the way things are round there - unsurprisingly, given that a railway line is being cut through the area that won’t benefit them at all.
If Sarah managed to capture the mantle of more vigorous champion for locals’ concerns, that’s to her credit, in a field when every candidate was anti HS2. Many voters look for the most effective local champion as their MP.
HS2 is surely a done deal now, anyway.
And 17% of LibDem MPs are now called Sarah.
MP Sarah's main achievement will probably be to ensure that all the spoil heaps from HS2 excavation for the track up to Birmingham are dumped in her constituency....
“I am motivated by support for equality, social justice and internationalism. That is the Labour brand,” he said. “The conclusion I have reached is that this government needs to be replaced. The reality is that the Labour party is the only vehicle that can achieve that objective. There is no other credible option.”
And i am not at all bitter and twisted that i wasn't given a place in the Lord's...
They are more prone to false positives than PCR. This is known. The idea is that if you get a positive, get a PCR test to check.
Quite a bit of medical establishment, round the world, has a massive problem with the idea of cheap mass screening, with less than perfect tests. Part of it is a cultural problem - all proper tests must be done in a laboratory, by someone in a white coat... part is a lack of understanding of the statistical basis for using a quick but inaccurate test.
Yep, LFTs on their own are a bad idea, but for screening they are a good idea. We could probably make good use of even cheaper less sensitive tests to catch more cases.
Tim Spector of ZOE said one time that if you test positive on an LFT you should simply take a second. You are very unlikely to get two false positives.
The article’s right that parachuting in Fleet, however capable an MP he might have made, rather than choosing a candidate with local roots was a mistake that allowed the notion that the Tories were taking one of its safest seats for granted to gain credibility.
The HS2 point is however a red herring. Fleet’s leaflets were anti HS2. As was the late MP, the LibDem candidate, the local Tory councillors, LibDem councillors, and a large majority of the residents. It’s just the way things are round there - unsurprisingly, given that a railway line is being cut through the area that won’t benefit them at all.
If Sarah managed to capture the mantle of more vigorous champion for locals’ concerns, that’s to her credit, in a field when every candidate was anti HS2. Many voters look for the most effective local champion as their MP.
HS2 is surely a done deal now, anyway.
And 17% of LibDem MPs are now called Sarah.
MP Sarah's main achievement will probably be to ensure that all the spoil heaps from HS2 excavation for the track up to Birmingham are dumped in her constituency....
Are you suggesting that the government that you slavishly support is maliciously spiteful?
“I am motivated by support for equality, social justice and internationalism. That is the Labour brand,” he said. “The conclusion I have reached is that this government needs to be replaced. The reality is that the Labour party is the only vehicle that can achieve that objective. There is no other credible option.”
The rat who joined a sinking ship! Yeaaaaahh Ratfans!
They are more prone to false positives than PCR. This is known. The idea is that if you get a positive, get a PCR test to check.
Quite a bit of medical establishment, round the world, has a massive problem with the idea of cheap mass screening, with less than perfect tests. Part of it is a cultural problem - all proper tests must be done in a laboratory, by someone in a white coat... part is a lack of understanding of the statistical basis for using a quick but inaccurate test.
Yep, LFTs on their own are a bad idea, but for screening they are a good idea. We could probably make good use of even cheaper less sensitive tests to catch more cases.
Tim Spector of ZOE said one time that if you test positive on an LFT you should simply take a second. You are very unlikely to get two false positives.
I think that is probably broadly correct, but there's little harm in going straight to the PCR.
I think ideally we'd have an ultra-cheap and fast test for daily use, if you get a positive do an LFT, if that is positive do the PCR. I've read about very cheap and fast tests but as yet they don't seem to have achieved much adoption anywhere, this is possibly because they are considered too insensitive by the medical profession, but as a bottom tier for mass screening they may make sense.
If the government is advocating regular LFTs, as PB claims, why can’t it use them to liberate weddings? Instead it’s banned dancing and insists that bridesmaids wear masks.
I'm in favour of maintaining the mask rules for wedding in perpetuity. But I'm kinky.
“I am motivated by support for equality, social justice and internationalism. That is the Labour brand,” he said. “The conclusion I have reached is that this government needs to be replaced. The reality is that the Labour party is the only vehicle that can achieve that objective. There is no other credible option.”
And I want my place in the House of Lords and Keir will give me that
We need to build rail capacity, and we need to build a million or two more houses.
If those decisions cost a few seats in certain areas then so be it, they’re still the right decisions and are electorally popular elsewhere.
The Lib Dem’s can’t call the Tories populist, while they remain in favour of increased immigration but limited building of houses and infrastructure.
But only the Conservatives are in favour of handing all decisions about planning and development over to the large house-building companies.
When I say "Conservatives" in this context, I mean the Johnson-Conservatives, not the traditional decent ones, who now vote Lib Dem.
I am a traditional decent conservative but would never vote lib dem
So you support handing planning decisions over to the big builders, eh? - leaving local people with no say about the amount of development that takes place? And leaving them to pay all the costs of new infrastructure that the incomers are going to need?
I do not support NIMBY
Yes you do.
If Shell announced plans to build a giant refinery in your constituency, which would dramatically worsen traffic and increase pollution, you'd fight for it to be built elsewhere.
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
I've seen adverts but i don't know anyone who does it. I don't know people with school age kids anymore so that might explain it partially. Some people I have mentioned it to have said they have heard the LFT are useless - false positives a lot of the time. iirc that is a bit out of date but people still think it. Although the FDA have said they are useless - so who the feck knows any more.
They are more prone to false positives than PCR. This is known. The idea is that if you get a positive, get a PCR test to check.
Quite a bit of medical establishment, round the world, has a massive problem with the idea of cheap mass screening, with less than perfect tests. Part of it is a cultural problem - all proper tests must be done in a laboratory, by someone in a white coat... part is a lack of understanding of the statistical basis for using a quick but inaccurate test.
Yes: if vaccines had not arrived, mass lateral flow tests implemented properly could have done an incredible job of controlling the virus without the need for draconian measures.
Schools beginning to be disrupted again in this part of North Yorkshire… anecdotally but maybe unsurprisingly Delta variant spreading more readily knocking out pupils and younger staff. Will be a real shame if another year 6 gets a disrupted run up to their transition to senior school.
We need to build rail capacity, and we need to build a million or two more houses.
If those decisions cost a few seats in certain areas then so be it, they’re still the right decisions and are electorally popular elsewhere.
The Lib Dem’s can’t call the Tories populist, while they remain in favour of increased immigration but limited building of houses and infrastructure.
But only the Conservatives are in favour of handing all decisions about planning and development over to the large house-building companies.
When I say "Conservatives" in this context, I mean the Johnson-Conservatives, not the traditional decent ones, who now vote Lib Dem.
I am a traditional decent conservative but would never vote lib dem
Why not?
An honest answer is that while I thought the coalition was a good government, the lib dems reneged on tuition fees, but of recent times the way they have done everything to stop brexit, and would follow a far more pro eu stance than I could support, I could not vote lib dem
I voted remain and I did not vote for Boris in the leadership ballot, but I respect the result of the referendum and could not acceed to rejoining the EU, indeed as it turns out I am quite content with brexit
So you support the Tories who forced tuition fees on the Lib Dems instead. Some twisted logic there!
Incidentally it is not LD policy to Rejoin. So wrong again.
Lib Dems do not object to house building, just want it controlled by elected local councillors rather than developers who coincidentally make large donations to the Conservative Party.
It is not NIMBYism, it is about local accountability.
We need to build rail capacity, and we need to build a million or two more houses.
If those decisions cost a few seats in certain areas then so be it, they’re still the right decisions and are electorally popular elsewhere.
The Lib Dem’s can’t call the Tories populist, while they remain in favour of increased immigration but limited building of houses and infrastructure.
But only the Conservatives are in favour of handing all decisions about planning and development over to the large house-building companies.
When I say "Conservatives" in this context, I mean the Johnson-Conservatives, not the traditional decent ones, who now vote Lib Dem.
I am a traditional decent conservative but would never vote lib dem
Why not?
An honest answer is that while I thought the coalition was a good government, the lib dems reneged on tuition fees, but of recent times the way they have done everything to stop brexit, and would follow a far more pro eu stance than I could support, I could not vote lib dem
I voted remain and I did not vote for Boris in the leadership ballot, but I respect the result of the referendum and could not acceed to rejoining the EU, indeed as it turns out I am quite content with brexit
So you support the Tories who forced tuition fees on the Lib Dems instead. Some twisted logic there!
Incidentally it is not LD policy to Rejoin. So wrong again.
Lib Dems do not object to house building, just want it controlled by elected local councillors rather than developers who coincidentally make large donations to the Conservative Party.
It is not NIMBYism, it is about local accountability.
Local accountability is NIMBYism.
Lib Dems supported for years open borders which has led to millions of people coming to this country with locals not getting a say on that. Those locals need a place to live and as they grow up, get married and have families they need houses to live in not flats in a city.
Unless you want locals to say people can't come to live somewhere, why should locals be allowed a say in what is constructed? Its hypocritical, if you allow people to come to live here they are right to expect somewhere to live.
Why can't I watch the football in 4k or even full HD on via iPlayer on my PC....not acceptable in 2021.
Buy some better equipment?
I have a very expensive telly, but i am working and high quality monitors and its ridiculous that iplayer only.pumps out 720p to pc.
They’re downgrading computer streams, to stop people uploading pirate HD feeds?
Or, paying the hosting fees for a couple of million 4k streams is too expensive?
Presumably it's fairly trivial to work out the headers smart TVs send to the BBC, so as to get the 4k stream directly, so (like most anti piracy measures) it'll inconvenience legitimate users while not actually guarding against piracy at all.
Licencing deals may require that streams greater than 720p only go via DRMed channels. Not impossible to crack, but not as simple as “send the right cookies, get 4k data back in the clear”.
Fair point.
Of course, given the requirement of backward compatibility, all those DRM-ed streams are using DRM from about a decade ago, and which was cracked before my son was born.
You’ve been too busy since to update your hacking skills?
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
I've seen adverts but i don't know anyone who does it. I don't know people with school age kids anymore so that might explain it partially. Some people I have mentioned it to have said they have heard the LFT are useless - false positives a lot of the time. iirc that is a bit out of date but people still think it. Although the FDA have said they are useless - so who the feck knows any more.
They are more prone to false positives than PCR. This is known. The idea is that if you get a positive, get a PCR test to check.
Quite a bit of medical establishment, round the world, has a massive problem with the idea of cheap mass screening, with less than perfect tests. Part of it is a cultural problem - all proper tests must be done in a laboratory, by someone in a white coat... part is a lack of understanding of the statistical basis for using a quick but inaccurate test.
Yes: if vaccines had not arrived, mass lateral flow tests implemented properly could have done an incredible job of controlling the virus without the need for draconian measures.
The problem with LFT tests is more that their false positive/false negative figures are based on testing of symptomatic subjects, rather than asymptomatic subjects, which is how we are being asked to use them.
“I am motivated by support for equality, social justice and internationalism. That is the Labour brand,” he said. “The conclusion I have reached is that this government needs to be replaced. The reality is that the Labour party is the only vehicle that can achieve that objective. There is no other credible option.”
That desperate for a peerage? The times I met him he made my flesh crawl.
Shocked to hear Bercow has joined the labour party.
In 2014 or 2015 I posted on here that the should be a realignment of the parties, as things had changed so much - it would be nice to find it
It was something along the lines of
Conservatives - a mix of rich, landed gentry Eton types and working class UKIP - WWC ex Labour Labour - Middle class graduates Lib Dems - Cameroons
That sounds too accurate to be true.. but it was something like that I think, and it has happened
Not quite. Ukip are now irrelevant. The LD vote is opportunist (see C&A) and mostly in the south, with lots of well off Nimbys. Labour support is in detached enclaves of urban, posh, intellectual, poor, woke and Bame with no common agenda. Only the Tories have a coherent spectrum of support among the aspirational middling sort. (The number of 'landed gentry Eton types' is minutely small).
We need to build rail capacity, and we need to build a million or two more houses.
If those decisions cost a few seats in certain areas then so be it, they’re still the right decisions and are electorally popular elsewhere.
The Lib Dem’s can’t call the Tories populist, while they remain in favour of increased immigration but limited building of houses and infrastructure.
But only the Conservatives are in favour of handing all decisions about planning and development over to the large house-building companies.
When I say "Conservatives" in this context, I mean the Johnson-Conservatives, not the traditional decent ones, who now vote Lib Dem.
I am a traditional decent conservative but would never vote lib dem
So you support handing planning decisions over to the big builders, eh? - leaving local people with no say about the amount of development that takes place? And leaving them to pay all the costs of new infrastructure that the incomers are going to need?
I do not support NIMBY
Yes you do.
If Shell announced plans to build a giant refinery in your constituency, which would dramatically worsen traffic and increase pollution, you'd fight for it to be built elsewhere.
I would fight for it. The more jobs and prosperity the better.
Schools beginning to be disrupted again in this part of North Yorkshire… anecdotally but maybe unsurprisingly Delta variant spreading more readily knocking out pupils and younger staff. Will be a real shame if another year 6 gets a disrupted run up to their transition to senior school.
Is the virus knocking them out, or is the government knocking them out, by forcing them to stay at home for a fortnight when there’s nothing wrong with them?
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
Did my first test this week. Went in to London to see a company where it was their first in-person meeting for 15 months. So they apologised for being a bit OTT, knowing the three attendees from or side were all double jabbed plus more then two weeks. But seeing our negative tests meant they were entirely relaxed throughout the couple of hours we were there, so what the hell.
I had a temperature check in a restaurant yesterday, otherwise I have never been tested at all.
Only place I've been where I needed any sort of COVID test during the pandemic, was a temperature check whenever I went down to King Co Elections to observe last Fall; was (and I think still is) mandatory for anyone entering the building.
We need to build rail capacity, and we need to build a million or two more houses.
If those decisions cost a few seats in certain areas then so be it, they’re still the right decisions and are electorally popular elsewhere.
The Lib Dem’s can’t call the Tories populist, while they remain in favour of increased immigration but limited building of houses and infrastructure.
But only the Conservatives are in favour of handing all decisions about planning and development over to the large house-building companies.
When I say "Conservatives" in this context, I mean the Johnson-Conservatives, not the traditional decent ones, who now vote Lib Dem.
I am a traditional decent conservative but would never vote lib dem
Why not?
An honest answer is that while I thought the coalition was a good government, the lib dems reneged on tuition fees, but of recent times the way they have done everything to stop brexit, and would follow a far more pro eu stance than I could support, I could not vote lib dem
I voted remain and I did not vote for Boris in the leadership ballot, but I respect the result of the referendum and could not acceed to rejoining the EU, indeed as it turns out I am quite content with brexit
So you support the Tories who forced tuition fees on the Lib Dems instead. Some twisted logic there!
Incidentally it is not LD policy to Rejoin. So wrong again.
Lib Dems do not object to house building, just want it controlled by elected local councillors rather than developers who coincidentally make large donations to the Conservative Party.
It is not NIMBYism, it is about local accountability.
Local accountability is NIMBYism.
Lib Dems supported for years open borders which has led to millions of people coming to this country with locals not getting a say on that. Those locals need a place to live and as they grow up, get married and have families they need houses to live in not flats in a city.
Unless you want locals to say people can't come to live somewhere, why should locals be allowed a say in what is constructed? Its hypocritical, if you allow people to come to live here they are right to expect somewhere to live.
That is complete bollocks.
Yes immigration requires infrastructure alongside its benefits, including housing. That doesn't mean that people accountable locally should not get a say in where the houses are built. In my parish the LD councillors objected to one building site, while supporting a larger one, better located to roads etc. This was endorsed in the village plan plebiscite and hundreds of new houses are under construction there with local support. We all want to keep our village school, shops, bus service, sports teams viable, just want a say in where they are built. After all we are the ones that have to adapt to it.
“I am motivated by support for equality, social justice and internationalism. That is the Labour brand,” he said. “The conclusion I have reached is that this government needs to be replaced. The reality is that the Labour party is the only vehicle that can achieve that objective. There is no other credible option.”
And I want my place in the House of Lords and Keir will give me that
How very spiteful.
People's political views change. Maybe Brecow's story is extreme, but it's not unique. Parties also change. The Conservatives of 2021 aren't the Conservatives of even 2017, let alone 2010. If Brecow is of the view that Johnson is a wrongun and that joining Labour is the best way to oppose that, best of luck to him.
It's showing a damn sight more integrity than those who knew Johnson shouldn't be let near the levers of power, but acquiesced in his victory and now sing his praises.
Shocked to hear Bercow has joined the labour party.
In 2014 or 2015 I posted on here that the should be a realignment of the parties, as things had changed so much - it would be nice to find it
It was something along the lines of
Conservatives - a mix of rich, landed gentry Eton types and working class UKIP - WWC ex Labour Labour - Middle class graduates Lib Dems - Cameroons
That sounds too accurate to be true.. but it was something like that I think, and it has happened
Not quite. Ukip are now irrelevant. The LD vote is opportunist (see C&A) and mostly in the south, with lots of well off Nimbys. Labour support is in detached enclaves of urban, posh, intellectual, poor, woke and Bame with no common agenda. Only the Tories have a coherent spectrum of support among the aspirational middling sort. (The number of 'landed gentry Eton types' is minutely small).
Well I said it 2014/15 when UKIP were relevant! They have kind of merged into the new Tories
We need to build rail capacity, and we need to build a million or two more houses.
If those decisions cost a few seats in certain areas then so be it, they’re still the right decisions and are electorally popular elsewhere.
The Lib Dem’s can’t call the Tories populist, while they remain in favour of increased immigration but limited building of houses and infrastructure.
But only the Conservatives are in favour of handing all decisions about planning and development over to the large house-building companies.
When I say "Conservatives" in this context, I mean the Johnson-Conservatives, not the traditional decent ones, who now vote Lib Dem.
I am a traditional decent conservative but would never vote lib dem
Why not?
An honest answer is that while I thought the coalition was a good government, the lib dems reneged on tuition fees, but of recent times the way they have done everything to stop brexit, and would follow a far more pro eu stance than I could support, I could not vote lib dem
I voted remain and I did not vote for Boris in the leadership ballot, but I respect the result of the referendum and could not acceed to rejoining the EU, indeed as it turns out I am quite content with brexit
So you support the Tories who forced tuition fees on the Lib Dems instead. Some twisted logic there!
Incidentally it is not LD policy to Rejoin. So wrong again.
Lib Dems do not object to house building, just want it controlled by elected local councillors rather than developers who coincidentally make large donations to the Conservative Party.
It is not NIMBYism, it is about local accountability.
Local accountability is NIMBYism.
Lib Dems supported for years open borders which has led to millions of people coming to this country with locals not getting a say on that. Those locals need a place to live and as they grow up, get married and have families they need houses to live in not flats in a city.
Unless you want locals to say people can't come to live somewhere, why should locals be allowed a say in what is constructed? Its hypocritical, if you allow people to come to live here they are right to expect somewhere to live.
The servants should live out of eyesight. Vote Waitrose.
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
I've seen adverts but i don't know anyone who does it. I don't know people with school age kids anymore so that might explain it partially. Some people I have mentioned it to have said they have heard the LFT are useless - false positives a lot of the time. iirc that is a bit out of date but people still think it. Although the FDA have said they are useless - so who the feck knows any more.
They are more prone to false positives than PCR. This is known. The idea is that if you get a positive, get a PCR test to check.
Quite a bit of medical establishment, round the world, has a massive problem with the idea of cheap mass screening, with less than perfect tests. Part of it is a cultural problem - all proper tests must be done in a laboratory, by someone in a white coat... part is a lack of understanding of the statistical basis for using a quick but inaccurate test.
Yes: if vaccines had not arrived, mass lateral flow tests implemented properly could have done an incredible job of controlling the virus without the need for draconian measures.
The problem with LFT tests is more that their false positive/false negative figures are based on testing of symptomatic subjects, rather than asymptomatic subjects, which is how we are being asked to use them.
“I am motivated by support for equality, social justice and internationalism. That is the Labour brand,” he said. “The conclusion I have reached is that this government needs to be replaced. The reality is that the Labour party is the only vehicle that can achieve that objective. There is no other credible option.”
And I want my place in the House of Lords and Keir will give me that
How very spiteful.
People's political views change. Maybe Brecow's story is extreme, but it's not unique. Parties also change. The Conservatives of 2021 aren't the Conservatives of even 2017, let alone 2010. If Brecow is of the view that Johnson is a wrongun and that joining Labour is the best way to oppose that, best of luck to him.
It's showing a damn sight more integrity than those who knew Johnson shouldn't be let near the levers of power, but acquiesced in his victory and now sing his praises.
Schools beginning to be disrupted again in this part of North Yorkshire… anecdotally but maybe unsurprisingly Delta variant spreading more readily knocking out pupils and younger staff. Will be a real shame if another year 6 gets a disrupted run up to their transition to senior school.
Is the virus knocking them out, or is the government knocking them out, by forcing them to stay at home for a fortnight when there’s nothing wrong with them?
The DfE has been ordering schools to ignore government guidance on quarantine - or to be exact to interpret it to the strict letter of ‘within two meters’ - precisely to avoid large numbers being sent home and schools having to close.
Nothing to do with disruption to education, everything to do with not wanting to admit their strategy had failed completely.
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
I've seen adverts but i don't know anyone who does it. I don't know people with school age kids anymore so that might explain it partially. Some people I have mentioned it to have said they have heard the LFT are useless - false positives a lot of the time. iirc that is a bit out of date but people still think it. Although the FDA have said they are useless - so who the feck knows any more.
They are more prone to false positives than PCR. This is known. The idea is that if you get a positive, get a PCR test to check.
Quite a bit of medical establishment, round the world, has a massive problem with the idea of cheap mass screening, with less than perfect tests. Part of it is a cultural problem - all proper tests must be done in a laboratory, by someone in a white coat... part is a lack of understanding of the statistical basis for using a quick but inaccurate test.
Yes: if vaccines had not arrived, mass lateral flow tests implemented properly could have done an incredible job of controlling the virus without the need for draconian measures.
The problem with LFT tests is more that their false positive/false negative figures are based on testing of symptomatic subjects, rather than asymptomatic subjects, which is how we are being asked to use them.
Aren't all +ve lfts backed up with a pcr ?
Yes, it is the false negatives that are the main problem.
“I am motivated by support for equality, social justice and internationalism. That is the Labour brand,” he said. “The conclusion I have reached is that this government needs to be replaced. The reality is that the Labour party is the only vehicle that can achieve that objective. There is no other credible option.”
And I want my place in the House of Lords and Keir will give me that
How very spiteful.
People's political views change. Maybe Brecow's story is extreme, but it's not unique. Parties also change. The Conservatives of 2021 aren't the Conservatives of even 2017, let alone 2010. If Brecow is of the view that Johnson is a wrongun and that joining Labour is the best way to oppose that, best of luck to him.
It's showing a damn sight more integrity than those who knew Johnson shouldn't be let near the levers of power, but acquiesced in his victory and now sing his praises.
Monday Club to Labour Party. Nah!
Wonder if he'll give an exclusive to GB News and AF Neil?!
It was surprisingly cruel of This Week to keep taking the piss out of Bercow's height as they did, playing out to "Big John" over footage of him. You dont see things like that much nowadays
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
“I am motivated by support for equality, social justice and internationalism. That is the Labour brand,” he said. “The conclusion I have reached is that this government needs to be replaced. The reality is that the Labour party is the only vehicle that can achieve that objective. There is no other credible option.”
And I want my place in the House of Lords and Keir will give me that
How very spiteful.
People's political views change. Maybe Brecow's story is extreme, but it's not unique. Parties also change. The Conservatives of 2021 aren't the Conservatives of even 2017, let alone 2010. If Brecow is of the view that Johnson is a wrongun and that joining Labour is the best way to oppose that, best of luck to him.
It's showing a damn sight more integrity than those who knew Johnson shouldn't be let near the levers of power, but acquiesced in his victory and now sing his praises.
I believe however that he is the first former speaker to join a political party since Manners Sutton in the 1830s.
Interesting to see @Philip_Thompson is effectively willing to get rid of local government in aid of “the market”.
I suspect Conservative voters across the land are not happy with their local councillors being overruled. That is why there is significant trouble brewing within the party over the issue.
Of course, those arrogant metropolitan elites may treat their voters with even more contempt, and I cannot see that ending well.
Given that we keep reading about these events at weekends, which then often seem to be offering relatively few doses to the extent that demand far far exceeds supply, one wonders if the point of them is actually the maximise vaccine distribution, or as much to create the stories of "long queues, many disappointed". The theory being is that the more the message is that the jab is this season's "must have" amongst the young the more likely it is that high take up will be generated (and via the intended distribution route of booking through the website etc). Because these "football ground" events are still a relatively small number of the overall vaccines distributed.
Now that they’re open to anyone over 18, they need to change the marketing tactics. The younger groups aren’t worried about dying of covid, and need incentives to get vaccinated. They never go to their GP anyway, so encouraging queues (and making young people think of necessity and scarcity) might be the best way to go.
The Scottish Government is running TV ads about how it wants everyone, double jabbed or not, to take twice weekly covid tests to see if they're asymptomatic even if feeling fine.
As a general vaccine marketing tactic for anyone, let alone younger people, this seems...questionable.
That is the policy in England too.
Is it? How come nobody is even aware of it then? Who is actually doing this?
There's been TV adverts about it. It's a box of 7 lateral flow tests that you can get for free from pharmacies or delivered to your door. I've had two boxes and usually take one of the tests if I'm going to meet people. I know a few others amongst my friends who do too.
I have never seen a single advert about this, and have met anyone who tests themselves twice a week. Maybe I’m unusual. Dunno.
I've seen adverts but i don't know anyone who does it. I don't know people with school age kids anymore so that might explain it partially. Some people I have mentioned it to have said they have heard the LFT are useless - false positives a lot of the time. iirc that is a bit out of date but people still think it. Although the FDA have said they are useless - so who the feck knows any more.
They are more prone to false positives than PCR. This is known. The idea is that if you get a positive, get a PCR test to check.
Quite a bit of medical establishment, round the world, has a massive problem with the idea of cheap mass screening, with less than perfect tests. Part of it is a cultural problem - all proper tests must be done in a laboratory, by someone in a white coat... part is a lack of understanding of the statistical basis for using a quick but inaccurate test.
Yes: if vaccines had not arrived, mass lateral flow tests implemented properly could have done an incredible job of controlling the virus without the need for draconian measures.
The problem with LFT tests is more that their false positive/false negative figures are based on testing of symptomatic subjects, rather than asymptomatic subjects, which is how we are being asked to use them.
Aren't all +ve lfts backed up with a pcr ?
Yes, it is the false negatives that are the main problem.
Not always. One colleague had five LFTs from two batches come back positive. Each time, a PCR test came back negative.
“I am motivated by support for equality, social justice and internationalism. That is the Labour brand,” he said. “The conclusion I have reached is that this government needs to be replaced. The reality is that the Labour party is the only vehicle that can achieve that objective. There is no other credible option.”
And I want my place in the House of Lords and Keir will give me that
How very spiteful.
People's political views change. Maybe Brecow's story is extreme, but it's not unique. Parties also change. The Conservatives of 2021 aren't the Conservatives of even 2017, let alone 2010. If Brecow is of the view that Johnson is a wrongun and that joining Labour is the best way to oppose that, best of luck to him.
It's showing a damn sight more integrity than those who knew Johnson shouldn't be let near the levers of power, but acquiesced in his victory and now sing his praises.
Monday Club to Labour Party. Nah!
Heaven has a place for a sinner who truly repents.
Comments
If you don’t agree with x you automatically support y.
@Gabriel_Pogrund
·
50m
EXC: Keir Starmer has removed his top aide Morgan McSweeney as chief of staff.
Starmer has asked him to "take a more strategic role" ahead of the next general election. Dates/details of new post TBC.
Biggest casualty in overhaul of Labour's top team yet
The Lib Dems would be worse than the tories. I voted LD because of Brexit and as a protest against The Tories but I will not vote LD again, not that it matters in.my constituency. .
I voted remain and I did not vote for Boris in the leadership ballot, but I respect the result of the referendum and could not acceed to rejoining the EU, indeed as it turns out I am quite content with brexit
So I assumed this had been discontinued.
Quite a bit of medical establishment, round the world, has a massive problem with the idea of cheap mass screening, with less than perfect tests. Part of it is a cultural problem - all proper tests must be done in a laboratory, by someone in a white coat... part is a lack of understanding of the statistical basis for using a quick but inaccurate test.
Edit - if he’s not 2ndary school age, it’s not surprising. If he is, then that tells me he’s not bringing his testing kit home having decided he doesn’t want to do it.
But as I also said, I’m not sure how many children are doing them. Unpleasant process and of very little practical value.
Not to the big builders though, but to anyone that builds, yes absolutely.
You supporting the Liberal Democrats have presumably been in favour of rampant immigration leading to a more than 10 million increase in population. If you increase population you need more houses and existing residents have no ethical right to tell new residents that they're not entitled to a home.
If you have a better idea of where they can live instead, without saying brownfield, I'd love to hear it.
Karmas a bitch. New houses being needed is the quid pro quo of getting increased population.
Yep, I can confirm that the amount of people I know who are doing that - or even know about it - is the cube root of sod all.
The article’s right that parachuting in Fleet, however capable an MP he might have made, rather than choosing a candidate with local roots was a mistake that allowed the notion that the Tories were taking one of its safest seats for granted to gain credibility.
The HS2 point is however a red herring. Fleet’s leaflets were anti HS2. As was the late MP, the LibDem candidate, the local Tory councillors, LibDem councillors, and a large majority of the residents. It’s just the way things are round there - unsurprisingly, given that a railway line is being cut through the area that won’t benefit them at all.
If Sarah managed to capture the mantle of more vigorous champion for locals’ concerns, that’s to her credit, in a field when every candidate was anti HS2. Many voters look for the most effective local champion as their MP.
HS2 is surely a done deal now, anyway.
And 17% of LibDem MPs are now called Sarah.
“I am motivated by support for equality, social justice and internationalism. That is the Labour brand,” he said. “The conclusion I have reached is that this government needs to be replaced. The reality is that the Labour party is the only vehicle that can achieve that objective. There is no other credible option.”
...
https://www.libdems.org.uk/mps
It was something along the lines of
Conservatives - a mix of rich, landed gentry Eton types and working class
UKIP - WWC ex Labour
Labour - Middle class graduates
Lib Dems - Cameroons
That sounds too accurate to be true.. but it was something like that I think, and it has happened
I think ideally we'd have an ultra-cheap and fast test for daily use, if you get a positive do an LFT, if that is positive do the PCR. I've read about very cheap and fast tests but as yet they don't seem to have achieved much adoption anywhere, this is possibly because they are considered too insensitive by the medical profession, but as a bottom tier for mass screening they may make sense.
If Shell announced plans to build a giant refinery in your constituency, which would dramatically worsen traffic and increase pollution, you'd fight for it to be built elsewhere.
Incidentally it is not LD policy to Rejoin. So wrong again.
Lib Dems do not object to house building, just want it controlled by elected local councillors rather than developers who coincidentally make large donations to the Conservative Party.
It is not NIMBYism, it is about local accountability.
It'd be outrageous if it is still in place in September after every willing adult has been fully vaccinated.
Lib Dems supported for years open borders which has led to millions of people coming to this country with locals not getting a say on that. Those locals need a place to live and as they grow up, get married and have families they need houses to live in not flats in a city.
Unless you want locals to say people can't come to live somewhere, why should locals be allowed a say in what is constructed? Its hypocritical, if you allow people to come to live here they are right to expect somewhere to live.
I wonder if Pfizer can be persuaded to provide consultancy services for running vaccine trials and scaling up vaccine production to other companies?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swedish-pm-faces-crisis-left-party-weighs-no-confidence-vote-2021-06-17/
Yes immigration requires infrastructure alongside its benefits, including housing. That doesn't mean that people accountable locally should not get a say in where the houses are built. In my parish the LD councillors objected to one building site, while supporting a larger one, better located to roads etc. This was endorsed in the village plan plebiscite and hundreds of new houses are under construction there with local support. We all want to keep our village school, shops, bus service, sports teams viable, just want a say in where they are built. After all we are the ones that have to adapt to it.
The two are mutually incompatible.
People's political views change. Maybe Brecow's story is extreme, but it's not unique.
Parties also change. The Conservatives of 2021 aren't the Conservatives of even 2017, let alone 2010.
If Brecow is of the view that Johnson is a wrongun and that joining Labour is the best way to oppose that, best of luck to him.
It's showing a damn sight more integrity than those who knew Johnson shouldn't be let near the levers of power, but acquiesced in his victory and now sing his praises.
Nothing to do with disruption to education, everything to do with not wanting to admit their strategy had failed completely.
It was surprisingly cruel of This Week to keep taking the piss out of Bercow's height as they did, playing out to "Big John" over footage of him. You dont see things like that much nowadays
Of course, those arrogant metropolitan elites may treat their voters with even more contempt, and I cannot see that ending well.
Boy, did that cause chaos on the cover...
They really are the party of the guilt ridden upper middle class elite