The likes of Farage and Grimes need to say that the RNLI should be blocked from rescuing immigrants because their preferred option is for the immigrants to drown. If they don't say that then it's moral cowardice on their part.
Just bunged RNLI £20.
Fuck you Farage!!!
Good idea. Just done likewise.
It is my favourite charity: an organisation who's volunteers put their lives on the line for others day in day out unselfishly. It is the ultimate heroism.
Please set up a standing order and then you can say "Fuck You Farage with nobs on" every month.
Like any large organisation, the RNLI has some issues. Personally, I would much rather give money to the various small mountain rescue teams scattered around the country.
They are similarly selfless people. Sadly Farage has not denigrated them (yet) so you don't get the double pleasure of giving Farage the middle finger and supporting a worthy cause. Like to know about those issues you think RNLI has though?
Apparently their treatment of the independent lifeboats left can be quite poor - not at a local level, where the independent and RNLI teams can get on well, but at a higher level. Many people don't even know there are independent lifeboats...
Anecdotally, when I did my coastal walk I initially wanted to do it for the RNLI (as makes sense). They were not very helpful at a national level (although it should be said a couple of other walkers have raised money for them). Instead I raised money for the Riding for the Disabled Association, which was brilliant locally and better nationally.
Riding for disabled is brilliant. Gives such pleasure to people who often have it hard in life.
An anecdote: I visited one RDA group (I cannot remember which), where I chatted to the mother of a ~ten-year old girl with severe learning difficulties. The girl had never made an intelligible sound.
They have a 'choo-choo' game, where they put the kids on horses/ponies and take them around the arena, saying 'choo-choo' and pretending to pull a horn with their hand. The girl's mother was in tears when she told me that on their first visit to the RDA, the girl had said 'choo-choo'. It was the start of a marked improvement for her.
I'm in tears just remembering the conversation ...
Queen secretly lobbied Scottish ministers for climate law exemption - Monarch used secretive procedure to become only person in country not bound by a green energy rule
Interesting dilemma for the SG. They get blamed whatever they do - if they let the cat out of the bag it'd be nasty disrespectful republican SNP wall to wall for weeks.
The lowlifes
The lowliVes?
No, because lowlife is a portmanteau word de novo, and the irregular plurals no longer apply.
Like the Sukhoi Su-25 whose NATO reporting name is Frogfoot. One speaks of a squadron of Frogfoots, not of Frogfeet.
Do you think we should say midwifes instead of midwives?
No, because midwife is a single word of long standing. With an irregular plural ditto.
Lowlife is (apparently) two hundred yeas old. Hardly new!
The plural of lowlife is lowlife. Like sheep. The one which ought to be the case and isn't is mongeese instead of mongooses.
This morning my wife found £20 in our back garden. This time, just to be different, it was an RBS note.
That's £60 in the past week!
I feel like this needs reporting to someone, but I have no idea who.
I bet it'd make the local papers, with a picture of you pointing at the garden with a baffled look on your face.
Yes, or it would make a good LibDem leaflet, as a change from pointing at potholes...
It’s got to be somebody playing silly buggers now.
Which one of you is it?
Why not both - independently
Day 1 @SandyRentool finds £20 by chance Day 2 mrs sr decides to mess with him and put £20 in the same place Day 3 SR decides to mess with her and put £20 somewhere else in the garden…
I suppose my wife 'finding' the third note could be a bluff to throw me off the scent. But an RBS note - not from a cashpoint in Ilkley.
Is it a current one? Worth checking on the RBS site.
I wonder if someone has had an accident with their savings. Or worse.
A new, plastic note.
I guess someone flying above us in a light aircraft could have had a pile of cash blow out of the window. But turning up on different days is strange.
Are they turning up in the front garden in places where they can be seen from the pavement? It could be that someone is using your garden to communicate with someone else.
That was using the ONS mid-2019 figures, that has been updated to ONS mid-2020 which is now the gold standard. We know NIMS is an overestimate, especially in parts of the country where there are younger more transient populations aged under 40 because people move around and don't always de-register with healthcare in their previous location. We also know that NIMS purposefully overestimates the population so that healthcare provision can handle a worst case scenario (see the last 18 months).
Okay - why then, if it is so inaccurate, is NIMS still used in reporting and statistics?
The website says: "For English areas, these are provided for population surveillance purposes, and only people who have an NHS number and are currently alive are included. The denominator used is the number of people on the National Immunisation Management Service (NIMS) database"
This is absurd if, as you claim, ONS figures are more accurate.
The mid-2019 population figure I've seen is 353,000 so if ONS is correct, we have approximately 250,000 adults over 18 and 100,000 children under 18. I don't know if that's a realistic population division - I suspect other areas would be very different to 2 children for every 5 adults but I don't know.
I don't think ONS has got a full sense of the transient Newham population either but I'm happy to accept it's better than NIMS.
I'm also of the view these figures (like almost every graph and spreadsheet) are weaponised propaganda.
Quite a few of us have contacted the people who make the dash to get them to update the vaccination numbers to mid-2020 ONS now that they're out. I did it from my work email address as well which has a pretty imposing job title and company name and essentially accused them of giving the country incorrect data by using NIMS. I'm actually using the ONS data in a bunch of other things but I may also see if it's easy to map to the data we get from the PHE API.
ITV is in talks about striking a partnership deal with BT Sport but has ruled out a full takeover of the pay-TV sports channel.
Its chief executive, Dame Carolyn McCall, said ITV was eyeing a joint venture with BT as she stressed the importance of live sport to its fight against the streaming giants.
The Telegraph revealed in April that ITV was among a string of suitors - including the sports streaming service Dazn - after BT appointed bankers to explore potential partnerships for the channel.
Dame Carolyn said: "We have a good relationship with BT and BT Sport in particular, and we do constantly talk to them about how we might collaborate and cooperate. Those discussions are ongoing.
"We are not in the market for that kind of acquisition. We've been focused on our balance sheet and we still see uncertainty ahead, but collaboration and cooperation with BT Sport, absolutely."
Sport (and news at important moments) is pretty much the only thing people watch live.
That means advertisers pay a pretty penny for advertising during live sport such as Champions League, Europa League, and possibly the PL matches if they air live on ITV.
This morning my wife found £20 in our back garden. This time, just to be different, it was an RBS note.
That's £60 in the past week!
I feel like this needs reporting to someone, but I have no idea who.
I bet it'd make the local papers, with a picture of you pointing at the garden with a baffled look on your face.
Yes, or it would make a good LibDem leaflet, as a change from pointing at potholes...
It’s got to be somebody playing silly buggers now.
Which one of you is it?
Why not both - independently
Day 1 @SandyRentool finds £20 by chance Day 2 mrs sr decides to mess with him and put £20 in the same place Day 3 SR decides to mess with her and put £20 somewhere else in the garden…
I suppose my wife 'finding' the third note could be a bluff to throw me off the scent. But an RBS note - not from a cashpoint in Ilkley.
Is it a current one? Worth checking on the RBS site.
I wonder if someone has had an accident with their savings. Or worse.
A new, plastic note.
I guess someone flying above us in a light aircraft could have had a pile of cash blow out of the window. But turning up on different days is strange.
Someone getting you to spend their forgeries, just as a test?
Alex Cole-Hamilton boasting that he will be the first Lib Dem leader anywhere in the UK not tainted by the coalition government with the Conservatives.
To save anyone else the trouble, I looked it up.
Apparently he is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and apparently the Scottish Liberal Democrats are having a leadership election, in which he is a candidate (or actually the only candidate).
And here was me thinking he was world famous. He certainly acts like he is.
He's helped by you and everyone else on here getting into a flap about some comments.
If he is the irrelevance you assert, why even mention it?
Queen secretly lobbied Scottish ministers for climate law exemption - Monarch used secretive procedure to become only person in country not bound by a green energy rule
Interesting dilemma for the SG. They get blamed whatever they do - if they let the cat out of the bag it'd be nasty disrespectful republican SNP wall to wall for weeks.
Possibly because "if the cap fits...."
… talking of Unionist Ultras…
Don't be silly Stuart. I am a unionist largely on the same basis as I was a remainer (remember those folk?). I don't like people peddling hate getting their way, and while I realise that not all nationalists/separatists or leavers peddle hate, they keep some pretty bad company with a large number that do. Oh, and other than yourself and Carnyx, the other posters on here who are nats very much fall into the English-hater category and it is clear for all to see.
Usual septic pigswill from you I see.Flase licking Stuart and Carnyx's butts here to pretend you are not a Scottish hater cuts no mustard and fools no-one.
Welcome back Malcolm. We have missed your contribution 👍😊
This morning my wife found £20 in our back garden. This time, just to be different, it was an RBS note.
That's £60 in the past week!
I feel like this needs reporting to someone, but I have no idea who.
I bet it'd make the local papers, with a picture of you pointing at the garden with a baffled look on your face.
Yes, or it would make a good LibDem leaflet, as a change from pointing at potholes...
It’s got to be somebody playing silly buggers now.
Which one of you is it?
Why not both - independently
Day 1 @SandyRentool finds £20 by chance Day 2 mrs sr decides to mess with him and put £20 in the same place Day 3 SR decides to mess with her and put £20 somewhere else in the garden…
I suppose my wife 'finding' the third note could be a bluff to throw me off the scent. But an RBS note - not from a cashpoint in Ilkley.
Is it a current one? Worth checking on the RBS site.
I wonder if someone has had an accident with their savings. Or worse.
A new, plastic note.
I guess someone flying above us in a light aircraft could have had a pile of cash blow out of the window. But turning up on different days is strange.
Let's hope the local Chapo doesn't want them back.
This morning my wife found £20 in our back garden. This time, just to be different, it was an RBS note.
That's £60 in the past week!
I feel like this needs reporting to someone, but I have no idea who.
I bet it'd make the local papers, with a picture of you pointing at the garden with a baffled look on your face.
Yes, or it would make a good LibDem leaflet, as a change from pointing at potholes...
It’s got to be somebody playing silly buggers now.
Which one of you is it?
Why not both - independently
Day 1 @SandyRentool finds £20 by chance Day 2 mrs sr decides to mess with him and put £20 in the same place Day 3 SR decides to mess with her and put £20 somewhere else in the garden…
My last question wasn’t addressed to Sandy and Wor Lass. It was addressed to all PBers.
Queen secretly lobbied Scottish ministers for climate law exemption - Monarch used secretive procedure to become only person in country not bound by a green energy rule
Interesting dilemma for the SG. They get blamed whatever they do - if they let the cat out of the bag it'd be nasty disrespectful republican SNP wall to wall for weeks.
Possibly because "if the cap fits...."
… talking of Unionist Ultras…
Don't be silly Stuart. I am a unionist largely on the same basis as I was a remainer (remember those folk?). I don't like people peddling hate getting their way, and while I realise that not all nationalists/separatists or leavers peddle hate, they keep some pretty bad company with a large number that do. Oh, and other than yourself and Carnyx, the other posters on here who are nats very much fall into the English-hater category and it is clear for all to see.
Usual septic pigswill from you I see.Flase licking Stuart and Carnyx's butts here to pretend you are not a Scottish hater cuts no mustard and fools no-one.
‘Alistair Carmichael disassociates Lib Dems from Vince Cable’s comments on China’
Following Vince Cable’s interview with Nigel Farage in which the former Lib Dem leader said it was wrong to talk about a ‘genocide’ in China, Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael has robustly disagreed.
One can always count on Alistair Carmichael to take a strong stance on ethical issues.
Did you ever read the written judgement on the infamous court case? It is splendid reading for any PBer interestyed in the arcana of political law in the UK.
He admitted lying but defied anyone to prove what his motivation had been in lying?
Memory is too dim but I thought his defence relied rather on a specific interpretation of his motivation?
Alex Cole-Hamilton boasting that he will be the first Lib Dem leader anywhere in the UK not tainted by the coalition government with the Conservatives.
To save anyone else the trouble, I looked it up.
Apparently he is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and apparently the Scottish Liberal Democrats are having a leadership election, in which he is a candidate (or actually the only candidate).
And here was me thinking he was world famous. He certainly acts like he is.
He's helped by you and everyone else on here getting into a flap about some comments.
If he is the irrelevance you assert, why even mention it?
I can feel an ‘AC-H, the one the Nats fear’ coming on.
I seem to recall Carmichael was once described as a colossus on this site.
Quite a few of us have contacted the people who make the dash to get them to update the vaccination numbers to mid-2020 ONS now that they're out. I did it from my work email address as well which has a pretty imposing job title and company name and essentially accused them of giving the country incorrect data by using NIMS. I'm actually using the ONS data in a bunch of other things but I may also see if it's easy to map to the data we get from the PHE API.
Quite and you're to be commended for pointing out the issue.
I'm quite angry I've been following the Government's own data from its own website and it's as untrustworthy as all the other Covid data.
I take the point it will make the Newham data look "better" though I think we still lag a lot of the country. I'm also sure I've seen evidence of 105% vaccination in some areas where the ONS "estimate" has been shown to be an under-estimate.
Lies, damn lies and statistics - as someone once said.
Alex Cole-Hamilton boasting that he will be the first Lib Dem leader anywhere in the UK not tainted by the coalition government with the Conservatives.
To save anyone else the trouble, I looked it up.
Apparently he is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and apparently the Scottish Liberal Democrats are having a leadership election, in which he is a candidate (or actually the only candidate).
And here was me thinking he was world famous. He certainly acts like he is.
He's helped by you and everyone else on here getting into a flap about some comments.
If he is the irrelevance you assert, why even mention it?
Guidance from the FA re heading in football commences in the 21/22 season
How long before it is outlawed and changes football totally
It'd be interesting - wouldn't it? - to rework the entire history of football to show how it would have been without headers.
Eg the recent Euro quarter final would have been England 1 Ukraine 0. So we'd still have got through to the semis.
But that's just one example. I bet there would be some big changes to the record books. Wouldn't surprise me if it means Arsenal get more PL titles.
Would expect the average height of a pro footballer would drop to 5'7 ish within a decade if they actually outlaw headers. Limiting them in training is obviously very different.
Seems like a good business opportunity for one of those virtual reality headset type things to develop a heading training program that doesnt involve actual heading.
Alternatively, footballers could be made to wear helmets?
The decline of the old-fashioned target man in football is already under way. The Racing Post blames Pep Guardiola. This change in required skill-set is reflected in the new generation of English strikers. In the last decade or so, the national team has seen Peter Crouch, Rickie Lambert and Carroll lead the line.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
Alex Cole-Hamilton boasting that he will be the first Lib Dem leader anywhere in the UK not tainted by the coalition government with the Conservatives.
To save anyone else the trouble, I looked it up.
Apparently he is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and apparently the Scottish Liberal Democrats are having a leadership election, in which he is a candidate (or actually the only candidate).
And here was me thinking he was world famous. He certainly acts like he is.
He's helped by you and everyone else on here getting into a flap about some comments.
If he is the irrelevance you assert, why even mention it?
I can feel an ‘AC-H, the one the Nats fear’ coming on.
I seem to recall Carmichael was once described as a colossus on this site.
Out of curiosity, what annoys you more: that he lied, that he got away with it, or that he’s the one MP in Scotland who seems to be genuinely out of reach of the SNP?
I’m guessing that 1 and 2 are less than important to supporters of Nicola Sturgeon, if I’m honest...
The likes of Farage and Grimes need to say that the RNLI should be blocked from rescuing immigrants because their preferred option is for the immigrants to drown. If they don't say that then it's moral cowardice on their part.
Just bunged RNLI £20.
Fuck you Farage!!!
Good idea. Just done likewise.
It is my favourite charity: an organisation who's volunteers put their lives on the line for others day in day out unselfishly. It is the ultimate heroism.
Please set up a standing order and then you can say "Fuck You Farage with nobs on" every month.
Like any large organisation, the RNLI has some issues. Personally, I would much rather give money to the various small mountain rescue teams scattered around the country.
They are similarly selfless people. Sadly Farage has not denigrated them (yet) so you don't get the double pleasure of giving Farage the middle finger and supporting a worthy cause. Like to know about those issues you think RNLI has though?
Apparently their treatment of the independent lifeboats left can be quite poor - not at a local level, where the independent and RNLI teams can get on well, but at a higher level. Many people don't even know there are independent lifeboats...
Anecdotally, when I did my coastal walk I initially wanted to do it for the RNLI (as makes sense). They were not very helpful at a national level (although it should be said a couple of other walkers have raised money for them). Instead I raised money for the Riding for the Disabled Association, which was brilliant locally and better nationally.
Riding for disabled is brilliant. Gives such pleasure to people who often have it hard in life.
An anecdote: I visited one RDA group (I cannot remember which), where I chatted to the mother of a ~ten-year old girl with severe learning difficulties. The girl had never made an intelligible sound.
They have a 'choo-choo' game, where they put the kids on horses/ponies and take them around the arena, saying 'choo-choo' and pretending to pull a horn with their hand. The girl's mother was in tears when she told me that on their first visit to the RDA, the girl had said 'choo-choo'. It was the start of a marked improvement for her.
I'm in tears just remembering the conversation ...
I too have very positive experience of the RDA and the fantastic people involved in the organisation
(And I say this as someone so allergic to bloody horses that I can barely walk through an empty stable without serious breathing difficulties and horrendous eczema.)
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
Anthony Eden, 1955-57, Edward Heath 1970-74.
MacDonald did make it to the five year mark - in fact he was in office 1929-35.
Bonar Law served just 209 days as Prime Minister, not just shy of five years.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
You need to do some research, Ted Heath didn't make it to the five year mark, neither did Churchill.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
You need to do some research, Ted Heath didn't make it to the five year mark, neither did Churchill.
Although Churchill hardly had a healthy majority - just 18, wasn’t it, on a minority of the popular vote?
Queen secretly lobbied Scottish ministers for climate law exemption - Monarch used secretive procedure to become only person in country not bound by a green energy rule
Interesting dilemma for the SG. They get blamed whatever they do - if they let the cat out of the bag it'd be nasty disrespectful republican SNP wall to wall for weeks.
The lowlifes
The lowliVes?
Bollox lowlifes is the correct venacular , they don't have lives
Sometimes event draws can be evil! Talk about a grudge match! Mark Allen draws his ex (Reanna Evans) in the next snooker event. The split did not seem amicable as well given Allen wanted her banned from the TV Studio at the last event where she was commenting .
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
You need to do some research, Ted Heath didn't make it to the five year mark, neither did Churchill.
Although Churchill hardly had a healthy majority - just 18, wasn’t it, on a minority of the popular vote?
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
You need to do some research, Ted Heath didn't make it to the five year mark, neither did Churchill.
Although Churchill hardly had a healthy majority - just 18, wasn’t it, on a minority of the popular vote?
Yup, I also added SuperMac and Eden to my list.
Macmillan lasted for over six years - January 1957 to October 1963.
Alex Cole-Hamilton boasting that he will be the first Lib Dem leader anywhere in the UK not tainted by the coalition government with the Conservatives.
To save anyone else the trouble, I looked it up.
Apparently he is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and apparently the Scottish Liberal Democrats are having a leadership election, in which he is a candidate (or actually the only candidate).
And here was me thinking he was world famous. He certainly acts like he is.
He's helped by you and everyone else on here getting into a flap about some comments.
If he is the irrelevance you assert, why even mention it?
I can feel an ‘AC-H, the one the Nats fear’ coming on.
I seem to recall Carmichael was once described as a colossus on this site.
Out of curiosity, what annoys you more: that he lied, that he got away with it, or that he’s the one MP in Scotland who seems to be genuinely out of reach of the SNP?
I’m guessing that 1 and 2 are less than important to supporters of Nicola Sturgeon, if I’m honest...
Not sure why you think he figures so prominently in my thoughts, I don’t remember mentioning him for ages.
I’d say Ian Murray with the largest majority in Scotland is easily as unassailable. Those Morningside Tories are not for turning.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
You need to do some research, Ted Heath didn't make it to the five year mark, neither did Churchill.
Although Churchill hardly had a healthy majority - just 18, wasn’t it, on a minority of the popular vote?
Yup, I also added SuperMac and Eden to my list.
Macmillan lasted for over six years - January 1957 to October 1963.
But not the full five years after winning a healthy majority benchmark set by Philip.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
You need to do some research, Ted Heath didn't make it to the five year mark, neither did Churchill.
Ditto SuperMac and Eden.
What would you call a healthy majority? I was thinking 50+
Churchill and Heath never won a healthy majority. Macmillan was PM from 57 to 63 so he made it five years in office.
Eden you're right. Eden is the only postwar PM to win a 50+ seat majority but not make it to the five year mark in office.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
You need to do some research, Ted Heath didn't make it to the five year mark, neither did Churchill.
Ditto SuperMac and Eden.
What would you call a healthy majority? I was thinking 50+
Churchill and Heath never won a healthy majority. Macmillan was PM from 57 to 63 so he made it five years in office.
Eden you're right. Eden is the only postwar PM to win a 50+ seat majority but not make it to the five year mark in office.
Well by your logic the first Thatcher Ministry didn't have a healthy majority.
I've considered 30 seats plus a healthy majority.
Sir John Curtice and OGH will tell you that since the war the 1970 election is the only time a government with a healthy majority to be replaced by another party with a healthy majority.
If it is good enough for Curtice and OGH then it is good enough for me.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
You need to do some research, Ted Heath didn't make it to the five year mark, neither did Churchill.
Although Churchill hardly had a healthy majority - just 18, wasn’t it, on a minority of the popular vote?
Yup, I also added SuperMac and Eden to my list.
Macmillan lasted for over six years - January 1957 to October 1963.
But not the full five years after winning a healthy majority benchmark set by Philip.
You need to work on your grammar, I never set a benchmark of five years after winning a healthy majority.
I said "not made it to the 5 year mark in office" - not "5 years post election". I missed Eden but only him. Johnson' would reach five years in office in July 2024 not December.
Looking at the list of PMs who won a healthy majority, the only one postwar who didn't make it five years in office is Eden.
Queen secretly lobbied Scottish ministers for climate law exemption - Monarch used secretive procedure to become only person in country not bound by a green energy rule
Interesting dilemma for the SG. They get blamed whatever they do - if they let the cat out of the bag it'd be nasty disrespectful republican SNP wall to wall for weeks.
The lowlifes
The lowliVes?
No, because lowlife is a portmanteau word de novo, and the irregular plurals no longer apply.
Like the Sukhoi Su-25 whose NATO reporting name is Frogfoot. One speaks of a squadron of Frogfoots, not of Frogfeet.
Do you think we should say midwifes instead of midwives?
No, because midwife is a single word of long standing. With an irregular plural ditto.
Lowlife is (apparently) two hundred yeas old. Hardly new!
The plural of lowlife is lowlife. Like sheep. The one which ought to be the case and isn't is mongeese instead of mongooses.
These boys are not quite as smart as us old codgers who had a real education
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
You need to do some research, Ted Heath didn't make it to the five year mark, neither did Churchill.
Ditto SuperMac and Eden.
What would you call a healthy majority? I was thinking 50+
Churchill and Heath never won a healthy majority. Macmillan was PM from 57 to 63 so he made it five years in office.
Eden you're right. Eden is the only postwar PM to win a 50+ seat majority but not make it to the five year mark in office.
Well by your logic the first Thatcher Ministry didn't have a healthy majority.
I've considered 30 seats plus a healthy majority.
Sir John Curtice and OGH will tell you that since the war the 1970 election is the only time a government with a healthy majority to be replaced by another party with a healthy majority.
If it is good enough for Curtice and OGH then it is good enough for me.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
You need to do some research, Ted Heath didn't make it to the five year mark, neither did Churchill.
Ditto SuperMac and Eden.
What would you call a healthy majority? I was thinking 50+
Churchill and Heath never won a healthy majority. Macmillan was PM from 57 to 63 so he made it five years in office.
Eden you're right. Eden is the only postwar PM to win a 50+ seat majority but not make it to the five year mark in office.
Generally a majority of around 30 is considered ‘healthy’ or ‘working.’ Any less than that and the risk was deaths and ensuing by-elections would whittle it away to nothing (exhibit A - John Major).
Probably a bit less now as MPs are younger and healthier than they were.
Edit - I should also point out that MacDonald, like Churchill and Bonar Law, left office due to illness - in his case, dementia. Even after he had lost almost all his mental powers, however, he remained in the cabinet as Lord President of the Council until 1937.
There was no shortage of Tory MPs, incidentally, who were very unhappy that Baldwin had returned to No. 10 and thought the younger and more dynamic Neville Chamberlain should have become PM instead.
The likes of Farage and Grimes need to say that the RNLI should be blocked from rescuing immigrants because their preferred option is for the immigrants to drown. If they don't say that then it's moral cowardice on their part.
"Début août, il sera également obligatoire dans les cafés, restaurants, centres commerciaux, hôpitaux, maisons de retraite, établissements médico-sociaux, ainsi que pour les voyages en avion, train et car pour les trajets de longue distance."
Translation: "From the start of August, it [the pass sanitaire] will also be mandatory in cafés, restaurants, shopping centres, hospitals, old people's homes, and care homes, as well as for long-distance travel by air, train, and coach."
I couldn't find anything on that page restricting the meaning to those who work in hospitals, or who visit patients in hospitals. If it really is unrestricted, it means "no vaccine passport, no hospital treatment", even for example if an unvaccinated person gets run over in the street.
The document continues:
"Cette obligation s’appliquera aux 12-17 ans à partir du 30 septembre."
Translation: "This obligation will apply to those aged 12-17 from 30 September."
Alex Cole-Hamilton boasting that he will be the first Lib Dem leader anywhere in the UK not tainted by the coalition government with the Conservatives.
To save anyone else the trouble, I looked it up.
Apparently he is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and apparently the Scottish Liberal Democrats are having a leadership election, in which he is a candidate (or actually the only candidate).
And here was me thinking he was world famous. He certainly acts like he is.
He's helped by you and everyone else on here getting into a flap about some comments.
If he is the irrelevance you assert, why even mention it?
I can feel an ‘AC-H, the one the Nats fear’ coming on.
I seem to recall Carmichael was once described as a colossus on this site.
Out of curiosity, what annoys you more: that he lied, that he got away with it, or that he’s the one MP in Scotland who seems to be genuinely out of reach of the SNP?
I’m guessing that 1 and 2 are less than important to supporters of Nicola Sturgeon, if I’m honest...
Not sure why you think he figures so prominently in my thoughts, I don’t remember mentioning him for ages.
I’d say Ian Murray with the largest majority in Scotland is easily as unassailable. Those Morningside Tories are not for turning.
It’s not the size of his majority though - that’s always going to be tiny given the seat. It’s how hard his vote is to squeeze. I think I’m right in saying that his is the only seat in Scotland held by one party continuously since before 1979.
I just thought I detected a certain acerbity in your response. At no point did I suggest you were obsessed with him AFAICS.
Alex Cole-Hamilton boasting that he will be the first Lib Dem leader anywhere in the UK not tainted by the coalition government with the Conservatives.
To save anyone else the trouble, I looked it up.
Apparently he is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and apparently the Scottish Liberal Democrats are having a leadership election, in which he is a candidate (or actually the only candidate).
And here was me thinking he was world famous. He certainly acts like he is.
He's helped by you and everyone else on here getting into a flap about some comments.
If he is the irrelevance you assert, why even mention it?
I can feel an ‘AC-H, the one the Nats fear’ coming on.
I seem to recall Carmichael was once described as a colossus on this site.
Out of curiosity, what annoys you more: that he lied, that he got away with it, or that he’s the one MP in Scotland who seems to be genuinely out of reach of the SNP?
I’m guessing that 1 and 2 are less than important to supporters of Nicola Sturgeon, if I’m honest...
Not sure why you think he figures so prominently in my thoughts, I don’t remember mentioning him for ages.
I’d say Ian Murray with the largest majority in Scotland is easily as unassailable. Those Morningside Tories are not for turning.
It’s not the size of his majority though - that’s always going to be tiny given the seat. It’s how hard his vote is to squeeze. I think I’m right in saying that his is the only seat in Scotland held by one party continuously since before 1979.
I just thought I detected a certain acerbity in your response. At no point did I suggest you were obsessed with him AFAICS.
He is of no consequence in Scotland , like the tiny amount of MSP's they could not fill a taxi with all combined. As a lying cheating toerag he fits their profile perfectly. Have not seen or heard him since he was proven to be a liar in court. He is making easy money at the trough.
Alex Cole-Hamilton boasting that he will be the first Lib Dem leader anywhere in the UK not tainted by the coalition government with the Conservatives.
To save anyone else the trouble, I looked it up.
Apparently he is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and apparently the Scottish Liberal Democrats are having a leadership election, in which he is a candidate (or actually the only candidate).
And here was me thinking he was world famous. He certainly acts like he is.
He's helped by you and everyone else on here getting into a flap about some comments.
If he is the irrelevance you assert, why even mention it?
I can feel an ‘AC-H, the one the Nats fear’ coming on.
I seem to recall Carmichael was once described as a colossus on this site.
Out of curiosity, what annoys you more: that he lied, that he got away with it, or that he’s the one MP in Scotland who seems to be genuinely out of reach of the SNP?
I’m guessing that 1 and 2 are less than important to supporters of Nicola Sturgeon, if I’m honest...
Not sure why you think he figures so prominently in my thoughts, I don’t remember mentioning him for ages.
I’d say Ian Murray with the largest majority in Scotland is easily as unassailable. Those Morningside Tories are not for turning.
It’s not the size of his majority though - that’s always going to be tiny given the seat. It’s how hard his vote is to squeeze. I think I’m right in saying that his is the only seat in Scotland held by one party continuously since before 1979.
I just thought I detected a certain acerbity in your response. At no point did I suggest you were obsessed with him AFAICS.
He is of no consequence in Scotland , like the tiny amount of MSP's they could not fill a taxi with all combined. As a lying cheating toerag he fits their profile perfectly. Have not seen or heard him since he was proven to be a liar in court. He is making easy money at the trough.
According to this he's not making much at the trough.
The "People's Republic" (according to @MaxPB) gets another downpour - third or fourth this afternoon.
On topic, this isn't very difficult to figure out.
Boris Johnson will remain Conservative Party leader until he a) becomes an electoral liability and b) someone else exists who isn't and can take over.
It's debatable whether condition a) has been met - condition b) may exist in the form of Rishi Sunak but we need more polling evidence to confirm he would for example turn a 10-point Labour lead into a 10-point Conservative lead.
The Conservatives for now are in a strong polling position - whether that will be the case in 12-18 months I have no clue (and I doubt anyone else does).
We got lots of rain today.
Which means I have full water butts and get excellent blueberries next week, and probably through until late Sept.
Queen secretly lobbied Scottish ministers for climate law exemption - Monarch used secretive procedure to become only person in country not bound by a green energy rule
Interesting dilemma for the SG. They get blamed whatever they do - if they let the cat out of the bag it'd be nasty disrespectful republican SNP wall to wall for weeks.
The lowlifes
The lowliVes?
Bollox lowlifes is the correct venacular , they don't have lives
Lowlifes is the version Gollum or a Lolcat would use
The "People's Republic" (according to @MaxPB) gets another downpour - third or fourth this afternoon.
On topic, this isn't very difficult to figure out.
Boris Johnson will remain Conservative Party leader until he a) becomes an electoral liability and b) someone else exists who isn't and can take over.
It's debatable whether condition a) has been met - condition b) may exist in the form of Rishi Sunak but we need more polling evidence to confirm he would for example turn a 10-point Labour lead into a 10-point Conservative lead.
The Conservatives for now are in a strong polling position - whether that will be the case in 12-18 months I have no clue (and I doubt anyone else does).
We got lots of rain today.
Which means I have full water butts and get excellent blueberries next week, and probably through until late Sept.
Sandown racecourse has just abandoned its meeting halfway through so they can gather up two of every animal.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
You need to do some research, Ted Heath didn't make it to the five year mark, neither did Churchill.
Ditto SuperMac and Eden.
What would you call a healthy majority? I was thinking 50+
Churchill and Heath never won a healthy majority. Macmillan was PM from 57 to 63 so he made it five years in office.
Eden you're right. Eden is the only postwar PM to win a 50+ seat majority but not make it to the five year mark in office.
Generally a majority of around 30 is considered ‘healthy’ or ‘working.’ Any less than that and the risk was deaths and ensuing by-elections would whittle it away to nothing (exhibit A - John Major).
Major had a 21 seat majority that it took 4.5 years to lose.
I've never believed the usual explanation of why Attlee called an election in 1951 (fear of losing his majority and a desire to avoid a conflict with the monarch's travel plans the following year). He hadn't even lost any by-elections. There was Raymond Blackburn and that was it.
Alex Cole-Hamilton boasting that he will be the first Lib Dem leader anywhere in the UK not tainted by the coalition government with the Conservatives.
To save anyone else the trouble, I looked it up.
Apparently he is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and apparently the Scottish Liberal Democrats are having a leadership election, in which he is a candidate (or actually the only candidate).
And here was me thinking he was world famous. He certainly acts like he is.
He's helped by you and everyone else on here getting into a flap about some comments.
If he is the irrelevance you assert, why even mention it?
I can feel an ‘AC-H, the one the Nats fear’ coming on.
I seem to recall Carmichael was once described as a colossus on this site.
Out of curiosity, what annoys you more: that he lied, that he got away with it, or that he’s the one MP in Scotland who seems to be genuinely out of reach of the SNP?
I’m guessing that 1 and 2 are less than important to supporters of Nicola Sturgeon, if I’m honest...
Not sure why you think he figures so prominently in my thoughts, I don’t remember mentioning him for ages.
I’d say Ian Murray with the largest majority in Scotland is easily as unassailable. Those Morningside Tories are not for turning.
It’s not the size of his majority though - that’s always going to be tiny given the seat. It’s how hard his vote is to squeeze. I think I’m right in saying that his is the only seat in Scotland held by one party continuously since before 1979.
I just thought I detected a certain acerbity in your response. At no point did I suggest you were obsessed with him AFAICS.
He is of no consequence in Scotland , like the tiny amount of MSP's they could not fill a taxi with all combined. As a lying cheating toerag he fits their profile perfectly. Have not seen or heard him since he was proven to be a liar in court. He is making easy money at the trough.
According to this he's not making much at the trough.
Quite a few of us have contacted the people who make the dash to get them to update the vaccination numbers to mid-2020 ONS now that they're out. I did it from my work email address as well which has a pretty imposing job title and company name and essentially accused them of giving the country incorrect data by using NIMS. I'm actually using the ONS data in a bunch of other things but I may also see if it's easy to map to the data we get from the PHE API.
Quite and you're to be commended for pointing out the issue.
I'm quite angry I've been following the Government's own data from its own website and it's as untrustworthy as all the other Covid data.
I take the point it will make the Newham data look "better" though I think we still lag a lot of the country. I'm also sure I've seen evidence of 105% vaccination in some areas where the ONS "estimate" has been shown to be an under-estimate.
Lies, damn lies and statistics - as someone once said.
Thanks, it really annoys me that the dashboard is knowingly using a worse data source than is available.
Finger in the air I'd say Newham will get to about 80% fully vaccinated adults by the end of September plus a pretty large number of previously infected people taking population immunity to somewhere around 85% which is probably enough to hit herd immunity.
Some of the NIMS numbers are really quite badly wrong compared to the new ONS data. Personally I wouldn't use any of the age related or local area vaccination rates from it at all without getting the ONS numbers as the correct denominator.
Alex Cole-Hamilton boasting that he will be the first Lib Dem leader anywhere in the UK not tainted by the coalition government with the Conservatives.
To save anyone else the trouble, I looked it up.
Apparently he is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and apparently the Scottish Liberal Democrats are having a leadership election, in which he is a candidate (or actually the only candidate).
And here was me thinking he was world famous. He certainly acts like he is.
He's helped by you and everyone else on here getting into a flap about some comments.
If he is the irrelevance you assert, why even mention it?
I can feel an ‘AC-H, the one the Nats fear’ coming on.
I seem to recall Carmichael was once described as a colossus on this site.
Out of curiosity, what annoys you more: that he lied, that he got away with it, or that he’s the one MP in Scotland who seems to be genuinely out of reach of the SNP?
I’m guessing that 1 and 2 are less than important to supporters of Nicola Sturgeon, if I’m honest...
Not sure why you think he figures so prominently in my thoughts, I don’t remember mentioning him for ages.
I’d say Ian Murray with the largest majority in Scotland is easily as unassailable. Those Morningside Tories are not for turning.
It’s not the size of his majority though - that’s always going to be tiny given the seat. It’s how hard his vote is to squeeze. I think I’m right in saying that his is the only seat in Scotland held by one party continuously since before 1979.
I just thought I detected a certain acerbity in your response. At no point did I suggest you were obsessed with him AFAICS.
He is of no consequence in Scotland , like the tiny amount of MSP's they could not fill a taxi with all combined. As a lying cheating toerag he fits their profile perfectly. Have not seen or heard him since he was proven to be a liar in court. He is making easy money at the trough.
According to this he's not making much at the trough.
New self-isolation rules from 16th Aug will also apply to household contacts: for the first time since March last year, you don't have to stay home if someone you live with tests positive for covid (if you're double jabbed).
One thing that we might consider is that possibly the pingdemic has achieved what it was designed to do: By isolating contacts we break the chains of transmission.
Alex Cole-Hamilton boasting that he will be the first Lib Dem leader anywhere in the UK not tainted by the coalition government with the Conservatives.
To save anyone else the trouble, I looked it up.
Apparently he is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and apparently the Scottish Liberal Democrats are having a leadership election, in which he is a candidate (or actually the only candidate).
And here was me thinking he was world famous. He certainly acts like he is.
He's helped by you and everyone else on here getting into a flap about some comments.
If he is the irrelevance you assert, why even mention it?
I can feel an ‘AC-H, the one the Nats fear’ coming on.
I seem to recall Carmichael was once described as a colossus on this site.
Out of curiosity, what annoys you more: that he lied, that he got away with it, or that he’s the one MP in Scotland who seems to be genuinely out of reach of the SNP?
I’m guessing that 1 and 2 are less than important to supporters of Nicola Sturgeon, if I’m honest...
Not sure why you think he figures so prominently in my thoughts, I don’t remember mentioning him for ages.
I’d say Ian Murray with the largest majority in Scotland is easily as unassailable. Those Morningside Tories are not for turning.
It’s not the size of his majority though - that’s always going to be tiny given the seat. It’s how hard his vote is to squeeze. I think I’m right in saying that his is the only seat in Scotland held by one party continuously since before 1979.
I just thought I detected a certain acerbity in your response. At no point did I suggest you were obsessed with him AFAICS.
He is of no consequence in Scotland , like the tiny amount of MSP's they could not fill a taxi with all combined. As a lying cheating toerag he fits their profile perfectly. Have not seen or heard him since he was proven to be a liar in court. He is making easy money at the trough.
According to this he's not making much at the trough.
Alex Cole-Hamilton boasting that he will be the first Lib Dem leader anywhere in the UK not tainted by the coalition government with the Conservatives.
To save anyone else the trouble, I looked it up.
Apparently he is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and apparently the Scottish Liberal Democrats are having a leadership election, in which he is a candidate (or actually the only candidate).
And here was me thinking he was world famous. He certainly acts like he is.
He's helped by you and everyone else on here getting into a flap about some comments.
If he is the irrelevance you assert, why even mention it?
I can feel an ‘AC-H, the one the Nats fear’ coming on.
I seem to recall Carmichael was once described as a colossus on this site.
Out of curiosity, what annoys you more: that he lied, that he got away with it, or that he’s the one MP in Scotland who seems to be genuinely out of reach of the SNP?
I’m guessing that 1 and 2 are less than important to supporters of Nicola Sturgeon, if I’m honest...
Not sure that he is out of reach - look at the election figures. And the SNP catching up some of the way to the SLD in the 2021 Holyrood elections for both Orkney and Shetland.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
You need to do some research, Ted Heath didn't make it to the five year mark, neither did Churchill.
Ditto SuperMac and Eden.
What would you call a healthy majority? I was thinking 50+
Churchill and Heath never won a healthy majority. Macmillan was PM from 57 to 63 so he made it five years in office.
Eden you're right. Eden is the only postwar PM to win a 50+ seat majority but not make it to the five year mark in office.
Generally a majority of around 30 is considered ‘healthy’ or ‘working.’ Any less than that and the risk was deaths and ensuing by-elections would whittle it away to nothing (exhibit A - John Major).
Probably a bit less now as MPs are younger and healthier than they were.
Edit - I should also point out that MacDonald, like Churchill and Bonar Law, left office due to illness - in his case, dementia. Even after he had lost almost all his mental powers, however, he remained in the cabinet as Lord President of the Council until 1937.
There was no shortage of Tory MPs, incidentally, who were very unhappy that Baldwin had returned to No. 10 and thought the younger and more dynamic Neville Chamberlain should have become PM instead.
So setting the benchmark at 30 then looking post-war the only PMs who won a healthy majority who did not last five years in office were Heath and Eden (both of whom won smaller majorities than Boris incidentally).
The PMs who won a healthy majority and who did reach five years in office too were: Attlee, Macmillan, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair.
So five out of seven made it to five years in Downing Street. Two out of seven didn't.
And we're supposed to think laying Boris doing so at 55% is value?
Alex Cole-Hamilton boasting that he will be the first Lib Dem leader anywhere in the UK not tainted by the coalition government with the Conservatives.
To save anyone else the trouble, I looked it up.
Apparently he is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and apparently the Scottish Liberal Democrats are having a leadership election, in which he is a candidate (or actually the only candidate).
And here was me thinking he was world famous. He certainly acts like he is.
He's helped by you and everyone else on here getting into a flap about some comments.
If he is the irrelevance you assert, why even mention it?
I can feel an ‘AC-H, the one the Nats fear’ coming on.
I seem to recall Carmichael was once described as a colossus on this site.
Out of curiosity, what annoys you more: that he lied, that he got away with it, or that he’s the one MP in Scotland who seems to be genuinely out of reach of the SNP?
I’m guessing that 1 and 2 are less than important to supporters of Nicola Sturgeon, if I’m honest...
Not sure that he is out of reach - look at the election figures. And the SNP catching up some of the way to the SLD in the 2021 Holyrood elections for both Orkney and Shetland.
New self-isolation rules from 16th Aug will also apply to household contacts: for the first time since March last year, you don't have to stay home if someone you live with tests positive for covid (if you're double jabbed).
One thing that we might consider is that possibly the pingdemic has achieved what it was designed to do: By isolating contacts we break the chains of transmission.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
Alex Cole-Hamilton boasting that he will be the first Lib Dem leader anywhere in the UK not tainted by the coalition government with the Conservatives.
To save anyone else the trouble, I looked it up.
Apparently he is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and apparently the Scottish Liberal Democrats are having a leadership election, in which he is a candidate (or actually the only candidate).
And here was me thinking he was world famous. He certainly acts like he is.
He's helped by you and everyone else on here getting into a flap about some comments.
If he is the irrelevance you assert, why even mention it?
I can feel an ‘AC-H, the one the Nats fear’ coming on.
I seem to recall Carmichael was once described as a colossus on this site.
Out of curiosity, what annoys you more: that he lied, that he got away with it, or that he’s the one MP in Scotland who seems to be genuinely out of reach of the SNP?
I’m guessing that 1 and 2 are less than important to supporters of Nicola Sturgeon, if I’m honest...
Not sure that he is out of reach - look at the election figures. And the SNP catching up some of the way to the SLD in the 2021 Holyrood elections for both Orkney and Shetland.
But it was very poor form to lie through his teeth about a head of goivernment and about a foreign state's consular represantative.
The voters of Orkney and Shetland didn't seem to mind.
Their prerogative, of course, but an important element IIRC was that Danus Skene died before the 2017 election - Mr Skene was a very good local SNP candidate who did very well in 2015.
New self-isolation rules from 16th Aug will also apply to household contacts: for the first time since March last year, you don't have to stay home if someone you live with tests positive for covid (if you're double jabbed).
One thing that we might consider is that possibly the pingdemic has achieved what it was designed to do: By isolating contacts we break the chains of transmission.
Just an idle thought about T and T...
Lol, as if. They couldn't do it for 18 months.
Or they could, and transmission would be even higher without T&T.
If T&T cuts R by 0.3 from 1.5 then you're still going to see exponential growth. If T&T cuts R by 0.2 from 1.1 then that's the difference between exponential growth and decline. Despite being a smaller cut.
New self-isolation rules from 16th Aug will also apply to household contacts: for the first time since March last year, you don't have to stay home if someone you live with tests positive for covid (if you're double jabbed).
One thing that we might consider is that possibly the pingdemic has achieved what it was designed to do: By isolating contacts we break the chains of transmission.
Just an idle thought about T and T...
Lol, as if. They couldn't do it for 18 months.
So you are saying that one of Johnson's main weapons in fighting the pandemic was a crock of shite? There's me thinking that you were a fan of his 🤔
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
New self-isolation rules from 16th Aug will also apply to household contacts: for the first time since March last year, you don't have to stay home if someone you live with tests positive for covid (if you're double jabbed).
One thing that we might consider is that possibly the pingdemic has achieved what it was designed to do: By isolating contacts we break the chains of transmission.
Just an idle thought about T and T...
Lol, as if. They couldn't do it for 18 months.
So you are saying that one of Johnson's main weapons in fighting the pandemic was a crock of shite? There's me thinking that you were a fan of his 🤔
New self-isolation rules from 16th Aug will also apply to household contacts: for the first time since March last year, you don't have to stay home if someone you live with tests positive for covid (if you're double jabbed).
One thing that we might consider is that possibly the pingdemic has achieved what it was designed to do: By isolating contacts we break the chains of transmission.
Just an idle thought about T and T...
Lol, as if. They couldn't do it for 18 months.
Or they could, and transmission would be even higher without T&T.
If T&T cuts R by 0.3 from 1.5 then you're still going to see exponential growth. If T&T cuts R by 0.2 from 1.1 then that's the difference between exponential growth and decline. Despite being a smaller cut.
The official study showed it had a negligible effect on the R. Closing schools and it being summer is the big one.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
The likes of Farage and Grimes need to say that the RNLI should be blocked from rescuing immigrants because their preferred option is for the immigrants to drown. If they don't say that then it's moral cowardice on their part.
"Début août, il sera également obligatoire dans les cafés, restaurants, centres commerciaux, hôpitaux, maisons de retraite, établissements médico-sociaux, ainsi que pour les voyages en avion, train et car pour les trajets de longue distance."
Translation: "From the start of August, it [the pass sanitaire] will also be mandatory in cafés, restaurants, shopping centres, hospitals, old people's homes, and care homes, as well as for long-distance travel by air, train, and coach."
I couldn't find anything on that page restricting the meaning to those who work in hospitals, or who visit patients in hospitals. If it really is unrestricted, it means "no vaccine passport, no hospital treatment", even for example if an unvaccinated person gets run over in the street.
The document continues:
"Cette obligation s’appliquera aux 12-17 ans à partir du 30 septembre."
Translation: "This obligation will apply to those aged 12-17 from 30 September."
It seems that my interpretation was correct: Macron wants to deny all hospital treatment to the unvaccinated. They simply will not be allowed inside hospitals.
"Sky News Australia host James Morrow said: 'That is just a complete violation of the Hippocratic oath. I think that any doctor that obeyed that sort of mandate would be in absolute violation of their own ethics as a doctor.
'It doesn't matter when somebody comes into the ER on a gurney if they are some horrible person, a neo-nazi skinhead, whatever, a child molester. Any sort of evil person, they still get treatment.'"
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
Of course general elections are unpredictable, but if Boris makes it to 2024 and loses the election then the "out before 2024" bet is still a loser. He doesn't need to win the 2024 GE for him to make it to 2024.
Of course there could be a 2023 election, though if he looks likely to lose that, then he wouldn't call it.
The likes of Farage and Grimes need to say that the RNLI should be blocked from rescuing immigrants because their preferred option is for the immigrants to drown. If they don't say that then it's moral cowardice on their part.
"Début août, il sera également obligatoire dans les cafés, restaurants, centres commerciaux, hôpitaux, maisons de retraite, établissements médico-sociaux, ainsi que pour les voyages en avion, train et car pour les trajets de longue distance."
Translation: "From the start of August, it [the pass sanitaire] will also be mandatory in cafés, restaurants, shopping centres, hospitals, old people's homes, and care homes, as well as for long-distance travel by air, train, and coach."
I couldn't find anything on that page restricting the meaning to those who work in hospitals, or who visit patients in hospitals. If it really is unrestricted, it means "no vaccine passport, no hospital treatment", even for example if an unvaccinated person gets run over in the street.
The document continues:
"Cette obligation s’appliquera aux 12-17 ans à partir du 30 septembre."
Translation: "This obligation will apply to those aged 12-17 from 30 September."
It seems that my interpretation was correct: Macron wants to deny all hospital treatment to the unvaccinated. They simply will not be allowed inside hospitals.
"Sky News Australia host James Morrow said: 'That is just a complete violation of the Hippocratic oath. I think that any doctor that obeyed that sort of mandate would be in absolute violation of their own ethics as a doctor.
'It doesn't matter when somebody comes into the ER on a gurney if they are some horrible person, a neo-nazi skinhead, whatever, a child molester. Any sort of evil person, they still get treatment.'"
It says "Outsiders", but that's not a loony outfit - it's a show on Sky in Oz. James Morrow is the federal political editor at the (Australian) Daily Telegraph.
The likes of Farage and Grimes need to say that the RNLI should be blocked from rescuing immigrants because their preferred option is for the immigrants to drown. If they don't say that then it's moral cowardice on their part.
"Début août, il sera également obligatoire dans les cafés, restaurants, centres commerciaux, hôpitaux, maisons de retraite, établissements médico-sociaux, ainsi que pour les voyages en avion, train et car pour les trajets de longue distance."
Translation: "From the start of August, it [the pass sanitaire] will also be mandatory in cafés, restaurants, shopping centres, hospitals, old people's homes, and care homes, as well as for long-distance travel by air, train, and coach."
I couldn't find anything on that page restricting the meaning to those who work in hospitals, or who visit patients in hospitals. If it really is unrestricted, it means "no vaccine passport, no hospital treatment", even for example if an unvaccinated person gets run over in the street.
The document continues:
"Cette obligation s’appliquera aux 12-17 ans à partir du 30 septembre."
Translation: "This obligation will apply to those aged 12-17 from 30 September."
It seems that my interpretation was correct: Macron wants to deny all hospital treatment to the unvaccinated. They simply will not be allowed inside hospitals.
"Sky News Australia host James Morrow said: 'That is just a complete violation of the Hippocratic oath. I think that any doctor that obeyed that sort of mandate would be in absolute violation of their own ethics as a doctor.
'It doesn't matter when somebody comes into the ER on a gurney if they are some horrible person, a neo-nazi skinhead, whatever, a child molester. Any sort of evil person, they still get treatment.'"
Yeah if that's true then it's a shocker of a decision from Macron. Vaccine passports can probably be used for non-essential parts of life without too much controversy. Putting up the barrier for hospitals seems pretty awful.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
Yes.
My reasoning is:
1. There's still more seats to win from Labour as part of the Brexit realignment.
2. The new boundaries.
3. The Lib Dems can easily win a lot of votes across the South but only a handful of seats.
4. Johnson has a good story to tell on delivering Brexit and the vaccines, so I could see why voters would trust him to deliver on future promises. Starmer will struggle to deliver a united Labour Party or a personality.
5. I think they can keep the economic plates spinning until the end of 2023.
The likes of Farage and Grimes need to say that the RNLI should be blocked from rescuing immigrants because their preferred option is for the immigrants to drown. If they don't say that then it's moral cowardice on their part.
"Début août, il sera également obligatoire dans les cafés, restaurants, centres commerciaux, hôpitaux, maisons de retraite, établissements médico-sociaux, ainsi que pour les voyages en avion, train et car pour les trajets de longue distance."
Translation: "From the start of August, it [the pass sanitaire] will also be mandatory in cafés, restaurants, shopping centres, hospitals, old people's homes, and care homes, as well as for long-distance travel by air, train, and coach."
I couldn't find anything on that page restricting the meaning to those who work in hospitals, or who visit patients in hospitals. If it really is unrestricted, it means "no vaccine passport, no hospital treatment", even for example if an unvaccinated person gets run over in the street.
The document continues:
"Cette obligation s’appliquera aux 12-17 ans à partir du 30 septembre."
Translation: "This obligation will apply to those aged 12-17 from 30 September."
It seems that my interpretation was correct: Macron wants to deny all hospital treatment to the unvaccinated. They simply will not be allowed inside hospitals.
"Sky News Australia host James Morrow said: 'That is just a complete violation of the Hippocratic oath. I think that any doctor that obeyed that sort of mandate would be in absolute violation of their own ethics as a doctor.
'It doesn't matter when somebody comes into the ER on a gurney if they are some horrible person, a neo-nazi skinhead, whatever, a child molester. Any sort of evil person, they still get treatment.'"
Yeah if that's true then it's a shocker of a decision from Macron. Vaccine passports can probably be used for non-essential parts of life without too much controversy. Putting up the barrier for hospitals seems pretty awful.
Any French media reports on this? I suspect it's just lost in translation and applies to visitors only.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
I'd put that as odds against.
I think there's only a 40% chance he'll increase his majority.
The likes of Farage and Grimes need to say that the RNLI should be blocked from rescuing immigrants because their preferred option is for the immigrants to drown. If they don't say that then it's moral cowardice on their part.
"Début août, il sera également obligatoire dans les cafés, restaurants, centres commerciaux, hôpitaux, maisons de retraite, établissements médico-sociaux, ainsi que pour les voyages en avion, train et car pour les trajets de longue distance."
Translation: "From the start of August, it [the pass sanitaire] will also be mandatory in cafés, restaurants, shopping centres, hospitals, old people's homes, and care homes, as well as for long-distance travel by air, train, and coach."
I couldn't find anything on that page restricting the meaning to those who work in hospitals, or who visit patients in hospitals. If it really is unrestricted, it means "no vaccine passport, no hospital treatment", even for example if an unvaccinated person gets run over in the street.
The document continues:
"Cette obligation s’appliquera aux 12-17 ans à partir du 30 septembre."
Translation: "This obligation will apply to those aged 12-17 from 30 September."
It seems that my interpretation was correct: Macron wants to deny all hospital treatment to the unvaccinated. They simply will not be allowed inside hospitals.
"Sky News Australia host James Morrow said: 'That is just a complete violation of the Hippocratic oath. I think that any doctor that obeyed that sort of mandate would be in absolute violation of their own ethics as a doctor.
'It doesn't matter when somebody comes into the ER on a gurney if they are some horrible person, a neo-nazi skinhead, whatever, a child molester. Any sort of evil person, they still get treatment.'"
Yeah if that's true then it's a shocker of a decision from Macron. Vaccine passports can probably be used for non-essential parts of life without too much controversy. Putting up the barrier for hospitals seems pretty awful.
Any French media reports on this? I suspect it's just lost in translation and applies to visitors only.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
Yes.
My reasoning is:
1. There's still more seats to win from Labour as part of the Brexit realignment.
2. The new boundaries.
3. The Lib Dems can easily win a lot of votes across the South but only a handful of seats.
4. Johnson has a good story to tell on delivering Brexit and the vaccines, so I could see why voters would trust him to deliver on future promises. Starmer will struggle to deliver a united Labour Party or a personality.
5. I think they can keep the economic plates spinning until the end of 2023.
6. If Boris does win the BXP votes as per Hartlepool that gives 15 extra seats that he can take without any swing versus Labour.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
Yes.
My reasoning is:
1. There's still more seats to win from Labour as part of the Brexit realignment.
2. The new boundaries.
3. The Lib Dems can easily win a lot of votes across the South but only a handful of seats.
4. Johnson has a good story to tell on delivering Brexit and the vaccines, so I could see why voters would trust him to deliver on future promises. Starmer will struggle to deliver a united Labour Party or a personality.
5. I think they can keep the economic plates spinning until the end of 2023.
Are there any spreads on the next GE yet on seats? Could be a good value bet.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
Of course general elections are unpredictable, but if Boris makes it to 2024 and loses the election then the "out before 2024" bet is still a loser. He doesn't need to win the 2024 GE for him to make it to 2024.
Of course there could be a 2023 election, though if he looks likely to lose that, then he wouldn't call it.
If he looks likely to lose the election I don't think Tory MPs will let him contest it - he'd be out on his ear before 2024. This is why I think Starmer as next PM is such a bad bet.
If he looks good to win then I think the GE will be in 2023, and then who knows what might happen?
The reasons why I think OGH's bet is bad are all to do with the specifics of Johnson's appeal and the new post-Brexit politics. If I'm wrong on those specifics then I'm wrong on this bet.
Your arguments about the precedents are neither here nor there.
The likes of Farage and Grimes need to say that the RNLI should be blocked from rescuing immigrants because their preferred option is for the immigrants to drown. If they don't say that then it's moral cowardice on their part.
"Début août, il sera également obligatoire dans les cafés, restaurants, centres commerciaux, hôpitaux, maisons de retraite, établissements médico-sociaux, ainsi que pour les voyages en avion, train et car pour les trajets de longue distance."
Translation: "From the start of August, it [the pass sanitaire] will also be mandatory in cafés, restaurants, shopping centres, hospitals, old people's homes, and care homes, as well as for long-distance travel by air, train, and coach."
I couldn't find anything on that page restricting the meaning to those who work in hospitals, or who visit patients in hospitals. If it really is unrestricted, it means "no vaccine passport, no hospital treatment", even for example if an unvaccinated person gets run over in the street.
The document continues:
"Cette obligation s’appliquera aux 12-17 ans à partir du 30 septembre."
Translation: "This obligation will apply to those aged 12-17 from 30 September."
It seems that my interpretation was correct: Macron wants to deny all hospital treatment to the unvaccinated. They simply will not be allowed inside hospitals.
"Sky News Australia host James Morrow said: 'That is just a complete violation of the Hippocratic oath. I think that any doctor that obeyed that sort of mandate would be in absolute violation of their own ethics as a doctor.
'It doesn't matter when somebody comes into the ER on a gurney if they are some horrible person, a neo-nazi skinhead, whatever, a child molester. Any sort of evil person, they still get treatment.'"
Yeah if that's true then it's a shocker of a decision from Macron. Vaccine passports can probably be used for non-essential parts of life without too much controversy. Putting up the barrier for hospitals seems pretty awful.
Any French media reports on this? I suspect it's just lost in translation and applies to visitors only.
Some French media reports are saying "except in cases of urgency". I haven't read the bill yet. It went through Parliament on Sunday.
The likes of Farage and Grimes need to say that the RNLI should be blocked from rescuing immigrants because their preferred option is for the immigrants to drown. If they don't say that then it's moral cowardice on their part.
"Début août, il sera également obligatoire dans les cafés, restaurants, centres commerciaux, hôpitaux, maisons de retraite, établissements médico-sociaux, ainsi que pour les voyages en avion, train et car pour les trajets de longue distance."
Translation: "From the start of August, it [the pass sanitaire] will also be mandatory in cafés, restaurants, shopping centres, hospitals, old people's homes, and care homes, as well as for long-distance travel by air, train, and coach."
I couldn't find anything on that page restricting the meaning to those who work in hospitals, or who visit patients in hospitals. If it really is unrestricted, it means "no vaccine passport, no hospital treatment", even for example if an unvaccinated person gets run over in the street.
The document continues:
"Cette obligation s’appliquera aux 12-17 ans à partir du 30 septembre."
Translation: "This obligation will apply to those aged 12-17 from 30 September."
It seems that my interpretation was correct: Macron wants to deny all hospital treatment to the unvaccinated. They simply will not be allowed inside hospitals.
"Sky News Australia host James Morrow said: 'That is just a complete violation of the Hippocratic oath. I think that any doctor that obeyed that sort of mandate would be in absolute violation of their own ethics as a doctor.
'It doesn't matter when somebody comes into the ER on a gurney if they are some horrible person, a neo-nazi skinhead, whatever, a child molester. Any sort of evil person, they still get treatment.'"
I made the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that if you wanted to do the vaxxport route then open up the Nightingales for hospital treatment for the unvaccinated, and deny them mainstream hospital entry. If they don't want to take the vaccine, then still offer treatment but do so from a tent instead.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
Yes.
My reasoning is:
1. There's still more seats to win from Labour as part of the Brexit realignment.
2. The new boundaries.
3. The Lib Dems can easily win a lot of votes across the South but only a handful of seats.
4. Johnson has a good story to tell on delivering Brexit and the vaccines, so I could see why voters would trust him to deliver on future promises. Starmer will struggle to deliver a united Labour Party or a personality.
5. I think they can keep the economic plates spinning until the end of 2023.
I suspect the Brexit realignment will prove to be very much a five-minute wonder. By the next election most Leavers will have forgotten why they even voted for it, so negligible will seem its benefits. However, Boris might hang onto a reasonable chunk of Red Wallers who are just happy still to register how crap they think Labour is.
The likes of Farage and Grimes need to say that the RNLI should be blocked from rescuing immigrants because their preferred option is for the immigrants to drown. If they don't say that then it's moral cowardice on their part.
"Début août, il sera également obligatoire dans les cafés, restaurants, centres commerciaux, hôpitaux, maisons de retraite, établissements médico-sociaux, ainsi que pour les voyages en avion, train et car pour les trajets de longue distance."
Translation: "From the start of August, it [the pass sanitaire] will also be mandatory in cafés, restaurants, shopping centres, hospitals, old people's homes, and care homes, as well as for long-distance travel by air, train, and coach."
I couldn't find anything on that page restricting the meaning to those who work in hospitals, or who visit patients in hospitals. If it really is unrestricted, it means "no vaccine passport, no hospital treatment", even for example if an unvaccinated person gets run over in the street.
The document continues:
"Cette obligation s’appliquera aux 12-17 ans à partir du 30 septembre."
Translation: "This obligation will apply to those aged 12-17 from 30 September."
It seems that my interpretation was correct: Macron wants to deny all hospital treatment to the unvaccinated. They simply will not be allowed inside hospitals.
"Sky News Australia host James Morrow said: 'That is just a complete violation of the Hippocratic oath. I think that any doctor that obeyed that sort of mandate would be in absolute violation of their own ethics as a doctor.
'It doesn't matter when somebody comes into the ER on a gurney if they are some horrible person, a neo-nazi skinhead, whatever, a child molester. Any sort of evil person, they still get treatment.'"
Yeah if that's true then it's a shocker of a decision from Macron. Vaccine passports can probably be used for non-essential parts of life without too much controversy. Putting up the barrier for hospitals seems pretty awful.
Any French media reports on this? I suspect it's just lost in translation and applies to visitors only.
Some French media reports are saying "except in cases of urgency". I haven't read the bill yet. It went through Parliament on Sunday.
To confirm: health passes (les pass sanitaires) will be required at hospitals, except in cases of medical emergency.
The likes of Farage and Grimes need to say that the RNLI should be blocked from rescuing immigrants because their preferred option is for the immigrants to drown. If they don't say that then it's moral cowardice on their part.
Just bunged RNLI £20.
Fuck you Farage!!!
Good idea. Just done likewise.
It is my favourite charity: an organisation who's volunteers put their lives on the line for others day in day out unselfishly. It is the ultimate heroism.
Please set up a standing order and then you can say "Fuck You Farage with nobs on" every month.
Like any large organisation, the RNLI has some issues. Personally, I would much rather give money to the various small mountain rescue teams scattered around the country.
They are similarly selfless people. Sadly Farage has not denigrated them (yet) so you don't get the double pleasure of giving Farage the middle finger and supporting a worthy cause. Like to know about those issues you think RNLI has though?
Apparently their treatment of the independent lifeboats left can be quite poor - not at a local level, where the independent and RNLI teams can get on well, but at a higher level. Many people don't even know there are independent lifeboats...
Anecdotally, when I did my coastal walk I initially wanted to do it for the RNLI (as makes sense). They were not very helpful at a national level (although it should be said a couple of other walkers have raised money for them). Instead I raised money for the Riding for the Disabled Association, which was brilliant locally and better nationally.
Riding for disabled is brilliant. Gives such pleasure to people who often have it hard in life.
An anecdote: I visited one RDA group (I cannot remember which), where I chatted to the mother of a ~ten-year old girl with severe learning difficulties. The girl had never made an intelligible sound.
They have a 'choo-choo' game, where they put the kids on horses/ponies and take them around the arena, saying 'choo-choo' and pretending to pull a horn with their hand. The girl's mother was in tears when she told me that on their first visit to the RDA, the girl had said 'choo-choo'. It was the start of a marked improvement for her.
I'm in tears just remembering the conversation ...
Can second that.
My mum - died in 2019 - was involved with RDA as a Special School Physio for 20+ years. Transformative.
They used to get visits from Princess Anne, who has been Patron/President since 1971.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
Yes.
My reasoning is:
1. There's still more seats to win from Labour as part of the Brexit realignment.
2. The new boundaries.
3. The Lib Dems can easily win a lot of votes across the South but only a handful of seats.
4. Johnson has a good story to tell on delivering Brexit and the vaccines, so I could see why voters would trust him to deliver on future promises. Starmer will struggle to deliver a united Labour Party or a personality.
5. I think they can keep the economic plates spinning until the end of 2023.
I suspect the Brexit realignment will prove to be very much a five-minute wonder. By the next election most Leavers will have forgotten why they even voted for it, so negligible will seem its benefits. However, Boris might hang onto a reasonable chunk of Red Wallers who are just happy still to register how crap they think Labour is.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
Yes.
My reasoning is:
1. There's still more seats to win from Labour as part of the Brexit realignment.
2. The new boundaries.
3. The Lib Dems can easily win a lot of votes across the South but only a handful of seats.
4. Johnson has a good story to tell on delivering Brexit and the vaccines, so I could see why voters would trust him to deliver on future promises. Starmer will struggle to deliver a united Labour Party or a personality.
5. I think they can keep the economic plates spinning until the end of 2023.
I suspect the Brexit realignment will prove to be very much a five-minute wonder. By the next election most Leavers will have forgotten why they even voted for it, so negligible will seem its benefits. However, Boris might hang onto a reasonable chunk of Red Wallers who are just happy still to register how crap they think Labour is.
I think the Brexit realignment will last because it's about a lot more than Brexit - primarily it's about English nationalism. Brexit is just one manifestation of English nationalism. Even if we suppose that Brexit is a non-issue* at the next election English nationalism will still be there and will find itself a different manifestation.
* This would be a surprise, I expect we're going to be in perma-dispute with the EU for years in one way or another, keeping Brexit alive as an issue, and Johnson will be able to present himself as a defender of Brexit.
Thorough take down by Chris Snowden of the anti-vax and covid denier brigade. Especially the loons cheering the mad ex-nurse who thinks all doctors are Nazis:
"But without herd immunity for SARS-CoV-2, the refuseniks are on their own. They are facing an endemic disease armed with nothing but worming tablets and excessive faith in their immune system. That is their choice and whilst we should deter gullible people from being pulled into their orbit, we should not coerce them. There is no free ride this time. They alone will face the consequences of their actions."
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
I'd put that as odds against.
I think there's only a 40% chance he'll increase his majority.
Which seats do you have in mind and are you expecting the Tory poll vote margin to be in excess of the 11.7% of last time.
You also need to factor in the CON Remain seats where the LDs are in second place.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
Yes.
My reasoning is:
1. There's still more seats to win from Labour as part of the Brexit realignment.
2. The new boundaries.
3. The Lib Dems can easily win a lot of votes across the South but only a handful of seats.
4. Johnson has a good story to tell on delivering Brexit and the vaccines, so I could see why voters would trust him to deliver on future promises. Starmer will struggle to deliver a united Labour Party or a personality.
5. I think they can keep the economic plates spinning until the end of 2023.
I suspect the Brexit realignment will prove to be very much a five-minute wonder. By the next election most Leavers will have forgotten why they even voted for it, so negligible will seem its benefits. However, Boris might hang onto a reasonable chunk of Red Wallers who are just happy still to register how crap they think Labour is.
I think that is very wishful thinking, equivalent to the Liberals of the 1920s saying the shift to Labour was temporary and their voters would return. When people make the break, they don't just drift back.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
I'd put that as odds against.
I think there's only a 40% chance he'll increase his majority.
You - and @LostPassword - should be PILING on Con maj then. That's close to 40% at current prices and for that you get ANY majority not just one over 80.
This is when you make the big bucks. When you're miles away from consensus and turn out to be right.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
I'd put that as odds against.
I think there's only a 40% chance he'll increase his majority.
You - and @LostPassword - should be PILING on Con maj then. That's close to 40% at current prices and for that you get ANY majority not just one over 80.
This is when you make the big bucks. When you're miles away from consensus and turn out to be right.
Anyone who hasn't piled on the Con majority already needs to show their careful reasoning. Doubt it will be 80+, mind.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
Yes.
My reasoning is:
1. There's still more seats to win from Labour as part of the Brexit realignment.
2. The new boundaries.
3. The Lib Dems can easily win a lot of votes across the South but only a handful of seats.
4. Johnson has a good story to tell on delivering Brexit and the vaccines, so I could see why voters would trust him to deliver on future promises. Starmer will struggle to deliver a united Labour Party or a personality.
5. I think they can keep the economic plates spinning until the end of 2023.
I suspect the Brexit realignment will prove to be very much a five-minute wonder. By the next election most Leavers will have forgotten why they even voted for it, so negligible will seem its benefits. However, Boris might hang onto a reasonable chunk of Red Wallers who are just happy still to register how crap they think Labour is.
I think the Brexit realignment will last because it's about a lot more than Brexit - primarily it's about English nationalism. Brexit is just one manifestation of English nationalism. Even if we suppose that Brexit is a non-issue* at the next election English nationalism will still be there and will find itself a different manifestation.
* This would be a surprise, I expect we're going to be in perma-dispute with the EU for years in one way or another, keeping Brexit alive as an issue, and Johnson will be able to present himself as a defender of Brexit.
It's pessimistic but it's plausible. I'd want decent odds against, though, to back Con majority of over 80 at the next GE.
Sarah Caul @SarahCaul_ONS · 4h Using our ONS data for deaths registered up to June 2021, there has been 4 deaths where adverse reaction to the vaccine was mentioned on the death certificate. Of these, 0 had it as the underlying cause of death (8/9)
Watching BBC news for first time in a while. The Olympics report seems to be a handful of 5 second action clips filled in with minutes of reporters, athletes and officials talking.
Watching BBC news for first time in a while. The Olympics report seems to be a handful of 5 second action clips filled in with minutes of reporters, athletes and officials talking.
Comments
They have a 'choo-choo' game, where they put the kids on horses/ponies and take them around the arena, saying 'choo-choo' and pretending to pull a horn with their hand. The girl's mother was in tears when she told me that on their first visit to the RDA, the girl had said 'choo-choo'. It was the start of a marked improvement for her.
I'm in tears just remembering the conversation ...
The one which ought to be the case and isn't is mongeese instead of mongooses.
That means advertisers pay a pretty penny for advertising during live sport such as Champions League, Europa League, and possibly the PL matches if they air live on ITV.
/paranoia
Camera required...
Whoops!
@NHSEngland
·
1h
Amanda Pritchard has today been appointed as the new Chief Executive Officer of NHS England.
Amanda will be the first woman in the health service’s history to hold the post, which she will take up on Sunday 1 August.
Dido is for higher things I guess.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=eb9eeea6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=9452fba6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
I seem to recall Carmichael was once described as a colossus on this site.
I'm quite angry I've been following the Government's own data from its own website and it's as untrustworthy as all the other Covid data.
I take the point it will make the Newham data look "better" though I think we still lag a lot of the country. I'm also sure I've seen evidence of 105% vaccination in some areas where the ONS "estimate" has been shown to be an under-estimate.
Lies, damn lies and statistics - as someone once said.
This change in required skill-set is reflected in the new generation of English strikers. In the last decade or so, the national team has seen Peter Crouch, Rickie Lambert and Carroll lead the line.
Now, when the under-21 squad was announced for the European Championships this year, the three recognised strikers – Eddie Nketiah, Rhian Brewster and Mason Greenwood – are all less than six feet tall. Of the trio’s 58 senior goals at club level, only four have been headers.
https://www.racingpost.com/sport/the-thursday-column/andy-carroll-and-the-death-of-the-target-man/501527
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
I’m guessing that 1 and 2 are less than important to supporters of Nicola Sturgeon, if I’m honest...
(And I say this as someone so allergic to bloody horses that I can barely walk through an empty stable without serious breathing difficulties and horrendous eczema.)
MacDonald did make it to the five year mark - in fact he was in office 1929-35.
Bonar Law served just 209 days as Prime Minister, not just shy of five years.
Ditto SuperMac and Eden.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/snooker/58003683
I’d say Ian Murray with the largest majority in Scotland is easily as unassailable. Those Morningside Tories are not for turning.
Churchill and Heath never won a healthy majority. Macmillan was PM from 57 to 63 so he made it five years in office.
Eden you're right. Eden is the only postwar PM to win a 50+ seat majority but not make it to the five year mark in office.
I've considered 30 seats plus a healthy majority.
Sir John Curtice and OGH will tell you that since the war the 1970 election is the only time a government with a healthy majority to be replaced by another party with a healthy majority.
If it is good enough for Curtice and OGH then it is good enough for me.
I said "not made it to the 5 year mark in office" - not "5 years post election". I missed Eden but only him. Johnson' would reach five years in office in July 2024 not December.
Looking at the list of PMs who won a healthy majority, the only one postwar who didn't make it five years in office is Eden.
Probably a bit less now as MPs are younger and healthier than they were.
Edit - I should also point out that MacDonald, like Churchill and Bonar Law, left office due to illness - in his case, dementia. Even after he had lost almost all his mental powers, however, he remained in the cabinet as Lord President of the Council until 1937.
There was no shortage of Tory MPs, incidentally, who were very unhappy that Baldwin had returned to No. 10 and thought the younger and more dynamic Neville Chamberlain should have become PM instead.
"Début août, il sera également obligatoire dans les cafés, restaurants, centres commerciaux, hôpitaux, maisons de retraite, établissements médico-sociaux, ainsi que pour les voyages en avion, train et car pour les trajets de longue distance."
Translation: "From the start of August, it [the pass sanitaire] will also be mandatory in cafés, restaurants, shopping centres, hospitals, old people's homes, and care homes, as well as for long-distance travel by air, train, and coach."
I couldn't find anything on that page restricting the meaning to those who work in hospitals, or who visit patients in hospitals. If it really is unrestricted, it means "no vaccine passport, no hospital treatment", even for example if an unvaccinated person gets run over in the street.
The document continues:
"Cette obligation s’appliquera aux 12-17 ans à partir du 30 septembre."
Translation: "This obligation will apply to those aged 12-17 from 30 September."
I just thought I detected a certain acerbity in your response. At no point did I suggest you were obsessed with him AFAICS.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10785
Which means I have full water butts and get excellent blueberries next week, and probably through until late Sept.
I've never believed the usual explanation of why Attlee called an election in 1951 (fear of losing his majority and a desire to avoid a conflict with the monarch's travel plans the following year). He hadn't even lost any by-elections. There was Raymond Blackburn and that was it.
Finger in the air I'd say Newham will get to about 80% fully vaccinated adults by the end of September plus a pretty large number of previously infected people taking population immunity to somewhere around 85% which is probably enough to hit herd immunity.
Some of the NIMS numbers are really quite badly wrong compared to the new ONS data. Personally I wouldn't use any of the age related or local area vaccination rates from it at all without getting the ONS numbers as the correct denominator.
Just an idle thought about T and T...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkney_and_Shetland_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
But it was very poor form to lie through his teeth about a head of goivernment and about a foreign state's consular represantative.
The PMs who won a healthy majority and who did reach five years in office too were: Attlee, Macmillan, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair.
So five out of seven made it to five years in Downing Street. Two out of seven didn't.
And we're supposed to think laying Boris doing so at 55% is value?
If T&T cuts R by 0.3 from 1.5 then you're still going to see exponential growth.
If T&T cuts R by 0.2 from 1.1 then that's the difference between exponential growth and decline. Despite being a smaller cut.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57986166
Getting the yips is no big deal if you’re a golfer; if you’re a gymnast you could end up paralysed.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1467266/Emmanuel-Macron-latest-France-Covid-passport-hospital-pass-Hippocratic-sky-news-video-VN
"Sky News Australia host James Morrow said: 'That is just a complete violation of the Hippocratic oath. I think that any doctor that obeyed that sort of mandate would be in absolute violation of their own ethics as a doctor.
'It doesn't matter when somebody comes into the ER on a gurney if they are some horrible person, a neo-nazi skinhead, whatever, a child molester. Any sort of evil person, they still get treatment.'"
https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/announcements/439184-a-statement-from-the-family-of-andrew-devine
Of course there could be a 2023 election, though if he looks likely to lose that, then he wouldn't call it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPU_gyNC41E
It says "Outsiders", but that's not a loony outfit - it's a show on Sky in Oz.
James Morrow is the federal political editor at the (Australian) Daily Telegraph.
My reasoning is:
1. There's still more seats to win from Labour as part of the Brexit realignment.
2. The new boundaries.
3. The Lib Dems can easily win a lot of votes across the South but only a handful of seats.
4. Johnson has a good story to tell on delivering Brexit and the vaccines, so I could see why voters would trust him to deliver on future promises. Starmer will struggle to deliver a united Labour Party or a personality.
5. I think they can keep the economic plates spinning until the end of 2023.
I think there's only a 40% chance he'll increase his majority.
If he looks good to win then I think the GE will be in 2023, and then who knows what might happen?
The reasons why I think OGH's bet is bad are all to do with the specifics of Johnson's appeal and the new post-Brexit politics. If I'm wrong on those specifics then I'm wrong on this bet.
Your arguments about the precedents are neither here nor there.
But this is for everyone, not just visitors.
https://www.vie-publique.fr/loi/280798-projet-loi-vaccination-obligatoire-pass-sanitaire-gestion-crise-covid-19
My mum - died in 2019 - was involved with RDA as a Special School Physio for 20+ years. Transformative.
They used to get visits from Princess Anne, who has been Patron/President since 1971.
But that is possible.
The Red Wall needs strategy not tactics imo.
* This would be a surprise, I expect we're going to be in perma-dispute with the EU for years in one way or another, keeping Brexit alive as an issue, and Johnson will be able to present himself as a defender of Brexit.
“Biden announces stricter Buy America rules, increasing the % of a product considered "substantially all" made in the U.S. from 55% to 75%.”
https://twitter.com/kathrynw5/status/1420449181580267523
https://quillette.com/2021/07/28/vaccines-and-the-coronavirus-crank-crisis/
Ends with this warning:
"But without herd immunity for SARS-CoV-2, the refuseniks are on their own. They are facing an endemic disease armed with nothing but worming tablets and excessive faith in their immune system. That is their choice and whilst we should deter gullible people from being pulled into their orbit, we should not coerce them. There is no free ride this time. They alone will face the consequences of their actions."
You also need to factor in the CON Remain seats where the LDs are in second place.
This is when you make the big bucks. When you're miles away from consensus and turn out to be right.
@SarahCaul_ONS
·
4h
Using our ONS data for deaths registered up to June 2021, there has been 4 deaths where adverse reaction to the vaccine was mentioned on the death certificate. Of these, 0 had it as the underlying cause of death (8/9)
The Olympics report seems to be a handful of 5 second action clips filled in with minutes of reporters, athletes and officials talking.