Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The LAB MP in CON General ElectionTarget Number 1 knocks on my door – politicalbetting.com

245

Comments

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,039
    MrEd said:

    Who would have predicted this? CEO who runs meal alternative business in favour of a tax on meat - and the BBC treating him as if he has no skin in the game...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552

    Sure, but the interview makes his interest absolutely clear. It's a widespread view that we should eat less meat and reasonable for the BBC to interview the market leader in similar-tasting alternatives.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306

    And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
    How will being "pro-international co-operation" improve the management of the NHS? Is this meant to be a convoluted pro-immigration argument?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,764
    tlg86 said:

    For the first 3,000 metres our girls looked brilliant, but they really did go out too fast. Can they beat the Germans? I don't think so.

    They were fucked the moment they put the Lots Of Trouble Usually Serious decals on the forks.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,717

    Interesting

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58052378

    Short version - no COVID found on surfaces or in air samples in major UK stations or London underground.

    I do feel as though (thankfully) Covid doesn't stick to surfaces or in general air circulation for long. You have to be close to someone and breathe in their air: i.e. nearly person-to-person contact.

    At least, most of the time.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507

    Interesting

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58052378

    Short version - no COVID found on surfaces or in air samples in major UK stations or London underground.

    Which is yet more evidence that pointless repetitive hand sanitising is pointless with respect to covid.
  • IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Aslan said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's regrettable the whole Brexit saga ended up the way it did. Some sort of compromise between the two sides would have been preferable, and probably would have happened in the era before social media when everyone was more reasonable.

    The problem was that Europhiles, foreign and domestic, rejected compromise every step of the way with the British sovereignty position. They didn't want to address any concerns with the ludicrous CAP subsidies even after they promised Blair when he gave up half the rebate. They refused to budge on anything meaningful when Cameron tried to renegotiate, least of all be responsive to British democratic concerns around immigration. They then lost when the issue was put to the electorate in 2016, but learned nothing and kept on refusing to compromise. They preferred a full press attempt to overrule democracy when they had the numbers to have an EEA super soft Brexit. And even when they lost that, and got the warning of the Euro elections, they tried every backhand technique possible, including politicization of the speakership and overruling centuries of parliamentary tradition, rather than accept Theresa May's Chequers compromise. Finally, things went back to the ultimate referee, the British public, and they got obliterated. It was all so richly deserved and shows how, despite its flaws, democracy is the best system of government, keeping powerful elites subservient.
    I argued long and hard for Brexit, both on this board and generally, but your history of the Common Agricultural Policy isn't accurate.

    Back in 1990, the Common Agricultural Policy was an absolute disgrace, that used guaranteed purchase prices to result in appalling issues, such as the famous butter mountain and the wine lake.

    At that time, not only was the CAP enormously distorting of market economics, but it accounted for close to 90% of total EU disbursements. (Hence, the brilliant "The Gravy Train" by Malcolm Bradbury.)

    A succession of changes, led first by Margaret Thatcher (from the mid 80s), and mostly later by the Dutch (driven at least in part by the realisation that the CAP applied to Eastern Europe would be an utter disaster) resulted in both the way the CAP worked being reformed, and the the amount spent on agricultural subsidies collapsing. Excluding rural development funds, CAP payments in 2021 are just EUR40bn - and even if you include rural development (which is really stretching it), you only get to EUR55bn.

    Now, that number is undoubtedly still too large. But EUR40bn is simply not a lot of money across 447 million people. It's about EUR90 per person. And as a percentage of EU GDP that's more than 70% less than in 1990.

    There are a gazillion and one problems with the EU. But a lot of the issues with the CAP are no longer as true as they were. (Or shall we say, before we complain too much, let's see if the UK is spending less than GBP65/per person per year on agriculural subsidies in 2024...)
    And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...
    Brexit very frequently amounted to tilting at windmills
    Part of the problem was that politicians used the EU as the excuse. Can't do x because EU. Remainers did this as often as Brexiters. They thought that they were using a moral argument..... but it made the EU sound like the problem.
    The other interesting thing psychologically is the willing suspension of recognising reality vs the preference for "I believe it therefore it is true".

    As an example, Aslan the other day told us with a straight face that there is a UK customs zone. It doesn't matter that this categorically is no longer true. That the UK government tells you it isn't true. That you cannot ship products from GB to NI without crossing a customs border with all that entails.

    If you believe hard enough you can avoid unpleasant realities. Perhaps this is how the man personally responsible for the operation this GB / NI customs border (SofS for NI Brandon Lewis) can state that it doesn't exist also with a straight face. Doesn't change reality of course and eventually reality will sweep away the fantasy.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019
    Brexiters' CAP is the left's "no such thing as society" and the right's "there's no money left".

    Shorthand for all they hate about the opposing view.

    What was actually meant, or the reality of the situation is necessarily overlooked.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341

    Prince Charles agrees with my assessment that the cash-for-access row is more about the Conservative Party.

    The Telegraph understands that there is consternation inside Clarence House that the Prince of Wales “is being dragged into” a row that is a “political story about Tory infighting which the prince is being wrongly involved in”.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/08/01/prince-charles-believes-collateral-damage-tory-access-cash-scandal/ (£££)

    But lower down, it does seem rather murky:-
    Mr Amersi described his payments as “access capitalism”, adding: "Unless you have somebody like him [Ben Elliot] who opens these doors for you, it's not possible, it's not so easy."

    Mr Elliot will now face questions over whether he used his family connections to earn money for his company. The Financial Times separately revealed at the weekend that an elite group of Conservative Party donors - known as the Advisory Board - are being given monthly access to the prime minister or else Rishi Sunak, his Chancellor.


    The FT is also paywalled.


    Entirely coincidentally I'm sure, the Times is reporting this today - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bankers-bonus-cap-may-be-ditched-to-boost-city-520dnbtwd.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Prince Charles agrees with my assessment that the cash-for-access row is more about the Conservative Party.

    The Telegraph understands that there is consternation inside Clarence House that the Prince of Wales “is being dragged into” a row that is a “political story about Tory infighting which the prince is being wrongly involved in”.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/08/01/prince-charles-believes-collateral-damage-tory-access-cash-scandal/ (£££)

    But lower down, it does seem rather murky:-
    Mr Amersi described his payments as “access capitalism”, adding: "Unless you have somebody like him [Ben Elliot] who opens these doors for you, it's not possible, it's not so easy."

    Mr Elliot will now face questions over whether he used his family connections to earn money for his company. The Financial Times separately revealed at the weekend that an elite group of Conservative Party donors - known as the Advisory Board - are being given monthly access to the prime minister or else Rishi Sunak, his Chancellor.


    The FT is also paywalled.


    Well he would say that, wouldn't he?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    MrEd said:

    Who would have predicted this? CEO who runs meal alternative business in favour of a tax on meat - and the BBC treating him as if he has no skin in the game...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552

    Given the first sentence reads
    The founder of the world's biggest plant-based meat firm says a tax on meat could get people to cut their consumption of animal-based products...
    it takes a degree of perversity to view that as 'treating him as if he has no skin in the game',
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019
    Ollie Townend going gangbusters in the xc.
  • And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
    How will being "pro-international co-operation" improve the management of the NHS? Is this meant to be a convoluted pro-immigration argument?
    I was using "pro-international co-operation as a non-trigger alternative to "pro-European". The £350m a week that was never sent to Europe is now apparently being spent on the NHS. So make the point that this should mean an NHS which is better than it was, instead things are much worse.

    It isn't about hard facts like money and it never was. People wanted better, whether that be the NHS, their community, jobs, services. Brexit was the solution to their problems. So demand delivery of their personal manna from heaven. As it won't be delivered this speeds up the descaling of eyes so that we can start having conversations about having now left the EU where we go from here. We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341
    Some help needed, please, from the PB Brains Trust.

    Back in March 2020 - before lockdown was announced - my recollection is that, if you had Covid symptoms, the advice from the NHS was to isolate and not go to your GP etc.

    And that at the time it was not possible to get Covid tests as you can now, unless you went to hospital.

    Is that correct? Can anyone point me to the relevant NHS or government advice?

    Thanks in advance.
  • Nigelb said:

    MrEd said:

    Who would have predicted this? CEO who runs meal alternative business in favour of a tax on meat - and the BBC treating him as if he has no skin in the game...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552

    Given the first sentence reads
    The founder of the world's biggest plant-based meat firm says a tax on meat could get people to cut their consumption of animal-based products...
    it takes a degree of perversity to view that as 'treating him as if he has no skin in the game',
    I take the point that he has "skin in the game" - but as so many of these US plant-based companies are functional ponzi schemes I doubt that a UK meat tax makes any difference to him.

    The simple reality is that we cannot grow enough cow and chicken to feed the growing population. A reduction in meat consumption is required unless we plan to reduce the population of the earth of grow burgers on Mars.

    So taxes are coming regardless of what the Beyond Meat CEO thinks.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,942
    TOPPING said:

    Ollie Townend going gangbusters in the xc.

    Universal translator svp.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Nigelb said:

    MrEd said:

    Who would have predicted this? CEO who runs meal alternative business in favour of a tax on meat - and the BBC treating him as if he has no skin in the game...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552

    Given the first sentence reads
    The founder of the world's biggest plant-based meat firm says a tax on meat could get people to cut their consumption of animal-based products...
    it takes a degree of perversity to view that as 'treating him as if he has no skin in the game',
    And, as I am sure you noticed from reading the article, the biggest barrier to people buying his goods is the price of meat alternatives is too high for many people.

    Maybe the BBC should have focused on questioning him about that rather than why people’s cost of living has to go up with yet another tax addition.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306

    And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
    How will being "pro-international co-operation" improve the management of the NHS? Is this meant to be a convoluted pro-immigration argument?
    I was using "pro-international co-operation as a non-trigger alternative to "pro-European". The £350m a week that was never sent to Europe is now apparently being spent on the NHS. So make the point that this should mean an NHS which is better than it was, instead things are much worse.

    It isn't about hard facts like money and it never was. People wanted better, whether that be the NHS, their community, jobs, services. Brexit was the solution to their problems. So demand delivery of their personal manna from heaven. As it won't be delivered this speeds up the descaling of eyes so that we can start having conversations about having now left the EU where we go from here. We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated.
    "We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated."

    They can continue to do that for as long as you refuse to accept defeat and advocate various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    TOPPING said:

    Ollie Townend going gangbusters in the xc.

    Not in real time, presumably? (No spoilers...)
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341

    MrEd said:

    Who would have predicted this? CEO who runs meal alternative business in favour of a tax on meat - and the BBC treating him as if he has no skin in the game...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552

    Sure, but the interview makes his interest absolutely clear. It's a widespread view that we should eat less meat and reasonable for the BBC to interview the market leader in similar-tasting alternatives.
    A little more scepticism is in order - both about the nutritional value of the product these businesses are trying to sell (there has been some interesting research on this by a very close friend of mine who is an expert in this area. These businesses' claims don't stack up.) and the businesses themselves, which are loss-making and have been for years.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    TOPPING said:

    Ollie Townend going gangbusters in the xc.

    Universal translator svp.
    Performing at the top end of expectations on behalf of TeamGB in the cross country phase of the 3 day event at the Tokyo Olympics.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019
    edited August 2021

    TOPPING said:

    Ollie Townend going gangbusters in the xc.

    Universal translator svp.
    Team GB is first in the 3-day eventing going into the final phase which is the cross-country, an optimum-timed set of "natural" fences around a track of 2.7miles. I say "natural" - they look like logs and hedges but are precisely designed and built to test the horse's jumping ability.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019
    IshmaelZ said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ollie Townend going gangbusters in the xc.

    Not in real time, presumably? (No spoilers...)
    Ah. Well soz. But rode an amazing round.

    Had a horse off him once. He doesn't brook bad horses.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    edited August 2021
    Cyclefree said:

    Some help needed, please, from the PB Brains Trust.

    Back in March 2020 - before lockdown was announced - my recollection is that, if you had Covid symptoms, the advice from the NHS was to isolate and not go to your GP etc.

    And that at the time it was not possible to get Covid tests as you can now, unless you went to hospital.

    Is that correct? Can anyone point me to the relevant NHS or government advice?

    Thanks in advance.

    That still seems to be the advice:

    https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/using-the-nhs-and-other-health-services/

    It was certainly the advice my GP’s automated system gave me when I rang up to book a routine appointment. Took nearly a minute to get to the menu options.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    Cyclefree said:

    MrEd said:

    Who would have predicted this? CEO who runs meal alternative business in favour of a tax on meat - and the BBC treating him as if he has no skin in the game...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552

    Sure, but the interview makes his interest absolutely clear. It's a widespread view that we should eat less meat and reasonable for the BBC to interview the market leader in similar-tasting alternatives.
    A little more scepticism is in order - both about the nutritional value of the product these businesses are trying to sell (there has been some interesting research on this by a very close friend of mine who is an expert in this area. These businesses' claims don't stack up.) and the businesses themselves, which are loss-making and have been for years.
    What is your friends general opinion of the area - is it reasonable, fundamentally, but beset with chancers? Or is the area of meat alternatives fundamentally flawed?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ollie Townend going gangbusters in the xc.

    Universal translator svp.
    Team GB is first in the 3-day eventing going into the final phase which is the cross-country, an optimum-timed set of "natural" fences around a track of 2.7miles. I say "natural" - they look like logs and hedges but are precisely designed and built to test the horse's jumping ability.
    Show jumping comes last and in fact is happening as we speak - 9 am our time. Don't know how to watch though.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853
    It's amazing they never clip wheels in these TTTs.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019
    edited August 2021
    IshmaelZ said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ollie Townend going gangbusters in the xc.

    Universal translator svp.
    Team GB is first in the 3-day eventing going into the final phase which is the cross-country, an optimum-timed set of "natural" fences around a track of 2.7miles. I say "natural" - they look like logs and hedges but are precisely designed and built to test the horse's jumping ability.
    Show jumping comes last and in fact is happening as we speak - 9 am our time. Don't know how to watch though.
    yes sorry am on catch up. Started at 9am yes?

    Edit: was getting a bit excited his xc round was stunning.
  • YoungTurkYoungTurk Posts: 158
    How come the reported death rate in Tunisia is going up as the case rate is decreasing? Over one week I'd say lag, but over three and a half?

    image
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306
    Pulpstar said:

    It's amazing they never clip wheels in these TTTs.

    You'll jinx them.
  • And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
    How will being "pro-international co-operation" improve the management of the NHS? Is this meant to be a convoluted pro-immigration argument?
    I was using "pro-international co-operation as a non-trigger alternative to "pro-European". The £350m a week that was never sent to Europe is now apparently being spent on the NHS. So make the point that this should mean an NHS which is better than it was, instead things are much worse.

    It isn't about hard facts like money and it never was. People wanted better, whether that be the NHS, their community, jobs, services. Brexit was the solution to their problems. So demand delivery of their personal manna from heaven. As it won't be delivered this speeds up the descaling of eyes so that we can start having conversations about having now left the EU where we go from here. We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated.
    "We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated."

    They can continue to do that for as long as you refuse to accept defeat and advocate various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it.
    I don't want to rejoin the EU and they wouldn't have us back. I want to move onto what our place in the world now is so that it actually works. A significant part of that is delivery of the promised benefits. However you voted (and I voted leave remember) the promised benefits to the likes of the NHS and to jobs are good for everyone. So lets have them.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,822
    edited August 2021

    And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
    How will being "pro-international co-operation" improve the management of the NHS? Is this meant to be a convoluted pro-immigration argument?
    I was using "pro-international co-operation as a non-trigger alternative to "pro-European". The £350m a week that was never sent to Europe is now apparently being spent on the NHS. So make the point that this should mean an NHS which is better than it was, instead things are much worse.

    It isn't about hard facts like money and it never was. People wanted better, whether that be the NHS, their community, jobs, services. Brexit was the solution to their problems. So demand delivery of their personal manna from heaven. As it won't be delivered this speeds up the descaling of eyes so that we can start having conversations about having now left the EU where we go from here. We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated.
    "We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated."

    They can continue to do that for as long as you refuse to accept defeat and advocate various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it.
    Let's leave my nation and polity out of it, but currently what various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it are being hatched in yours? Is an Adonis and Grayling led putsch about to take place?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    TOPPING said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ollie Townend going gangbusters in the xc.

    Universal translator svp.
    Team GB is first in the 3-day eventing going into the final phase which is the cross-country, an optimum-timed set of "natural" fences around a track of 2.7miles. I say "natural" - they look like logs and hedges but are precisely designed and built to test the horse's jumping ability.
    Show jumping comes last and in fact is happening as we speak - 9 am our time. Don't know how to watch though.
    yes sorry am on catch up. Started at 9am yes?
    Yes. Live on eurosport or some coverage on BBC 1 apparently
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    YoungTurk said:

    How come the reported death rate in Tunisia is going up as the case rate is decreasing? Over one week I'd say lag, but over three and a half?

    image

    Running out of oxygen and beds due to the earlier case load, so more people are dying even if the disease itself is less prevalent?

    That’s the rather grim story that has happened elsewhere.

    Or it may just be a statistical correction.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    TOPPING said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ollie Townend going gangbusters in the xc.

    Not in real time, presumably? (No spoilers...)
    Ah. Well soz. But rode an amazing round.

    Had a horse off him once. He doesn't brook bad horses.
    No, I was saying I'm not going to do spoilers, I know whatt happened.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    edited August 2021

    And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
    How will being "pro-international co-operation" improve the management of the NHS? Is this meant to be a convoluted pro-immigration argument?
    I was using "pro-international co-operation as a non-trigger alternative to "pro-European". The £350m a week that was never sent to Europe is now apparently being spent on the NHS. So make the point that this should mean an NHS which is better than it was, instead things are much worse.

    It isn't about hard facts like money and it never was. People wanted better, whether that be the NHS, their community, jobs, services. Brexit was the solution to their problems. So demand delivery of their personal manna from heaven. As it won't be delivered this speeds up the descaling of eyes so that we can start having conversations about having now left the EU where we go from here. We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated.
    "We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated."

    They can continue to do that for as long as you refuse to accept defeat and advocate various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it.
    Let's leave my nation and polity out of it, but currently what various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it are being hatched in yours? Is an Adonis and Grayling led putsch about to take place?
    If I were you, I wouldn’t be so blasé about an Adonis and Grayling led putsch. They might attempt to seize power in England, get on the wrong train at King’s Cross and end up accidentally seizing power in Scotland instead.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306

    And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
    How will being "pro-international co-operation" improve the management of the NHS? Is this meant to be a convoluted pro-immigration argument?
    I was using "pro-international co-operation as a non-trigger alternative to "pro-European". The £350m a week that was never sent to Europe is now apparently being spent on the NHS. So make the point that this should mean an NHS which is better than it was, instead things are much worse.

    It isn't about hard facts like money and it never was. People wanted better, whether that be the NHS, their community, jobs, services. Brexit was the solution to their problems. So demand delivery of their personal manna from heaven. As it won't be delivered this speeds up the descaling of eyes so that we can start having conversations about having now left the EU where we go from here. We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated.
    "We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated."

    They can continue to do that for as long as you refuse to accept defeat and advocate various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it.
    I don't want to rejoin the EU and they wouldn't have us back. I want to move onto what our place in the world now is so that it actually works. A significant part of that is delivery of the promised benefits. However you voted (and I voted leave remember) the promised benefits to the likes of the NHS and to jobs are good for everyone. So lets have them.
    But you still advocate EEA membership which would render Brexit pointless.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,986
    I see Ed Clancy is still in the men's team pursuit squad. Another gold would put him level with Matthew Pinsent. I think golds at different olympics is more impressive than multiple golds at the same olympics, but I doubt Ed Clancy would get a look in for SPoTY because he isn't particularly well known.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,847
    Mr. Jessop, I did hear that. To be fair, I think Latifi was third at the time so it was a bloody weird situation for Williams (who got a great double points result).
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,942
    I see Lords have banned people bringing alcohol to the ground for the Hundred after disgraceful scenes forced authorities to close the bars early.

    What did they expect. Its hardly surprising if they dumb the game down.
  • YoungTurkYoungTurk Posts: 158

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    Well done Mohammad!

    This is why the SNP ultimately thrashed Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats: we worked twenty times harder than they did *between* elections.


    Labour were often even worse, not knocking a single door for decades in some areas of Glasgow, even at election times. They just assumed “everybody” was Labour.

    The Lib Dems were much better, but they simply lacked the vast numbers of door-knockers the local SNP branches could muster.

    The Unionists tried to compensate eventually by telephone canvassing, but it is just not as effective as seeing a pleasant face on your doorstep, especially if you recognise the person as being local. (Word to the wise Labour: bussing in hundreds of activists from northern England is profoundly unwise and counterproductive.)

    Technology has moved on, and with it have come major adjustments, but the key principle remains: meeting your potential voters works. It is one reason why PB is often such a surreal place when discussing Scotland, most posters around here have never knocked a single door in the country in their life, and therefore hold truly bizarre opinions about the Scots and their electoral behaviour.

    Will not the SNP learn complacency in due course ?
    Of course that is a risk, but my judgement is that it is profoundly unlikely pre-independence. On the other hand it is my hope and wish that the SNP become complacent post-independence and fizzle away.

    I read an awful lot of nonsense on this blog, but one of the biggest myths is that the SNP do not want independence. It was repeated several times yesterday.

    We are focussed on the main prize: sovereignty and becoming a normal country. Unionists would do well to simply acknowledge that (the wiser ones do) and work on that basis. Proclaiming that the SNP are anti-independence is just neo-complacency for the Unionist cause.

    The biggest change between the 80s and now is that the SNP are obviously much, much bigger, and that we are part of a much wider Yes community. That is a strength which Unionists often try to delude themselves is a weakness.
    If the SNP were really focused on independence not keeping power above all, Sturgeon would not have ruled out a wildcat referendum, Sturgeon would not have ruled out UDI and Salmond would not have felt forced to set up Alba
    Your disappointment at not having an excuse to send in the (barely operational) tanks is palpable. Still, no need for an AFV to truncheon a granny if push comes to shove.
    @HYUFD - You're trying to have it both ways.

    There are other words for "UDI" by a minority, so I agree that if one supports self-determination then the majority should be able to expect protection by the army against such "UDI" if necessary. But Sturgeon's ruling out of UDI is welcome for those who support real self-determination.

  • eekeek Posts: 22,056

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: Vettel disqualified. Rather sad for Aston Martin, and for him. Not enough fuel could be removed from the tank for testing. I wonder if a faulty sensor has cost them 18 points.

    Edited extra bit: but not yet. Apparently the team's appeal means they still get the points. For now.

    https://twitter.com/ChrisMedlandF1/status/1421950594672209930

    Got to feel a little sorry for them if they get the penalty.

    On another matter: did you hear Russell's 'What can I do to help Nicky (Latifi)?' It was an odd one, because whilst he was on the radio to Williams, in reality he was speaking to Mercedes: "I'll be a brilliant Number 2 driver to Hamilton." ;)
    Well you need to do something when the current No 2 has taken himself out while taking out the main opposition...
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341
    And in other no-shit Sherlock comment first made on here weeks/months ago - https://twitter.com/mayaoppenheim/status/1419978242619056132?s=21.

    The Independent has finally worked out that "The Met needs to get a grip".
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    https://mobile.twitter.com/RishiPersad1/status/1422105645529063424

    The conclusion of
    @Tokyo2020
    Eventing coming up this morning on BBC One from 10.45. Team GB in a strong position.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,145
    Cyclefree said:

    Some help needed, please, from the PB Brains Trust.

    Back in March 2020 - before lockdown was announced - my recollection is that, if you had Covid symptoms, the advice from the NHS was to isolate and not go to your GP etc.

    And that at the time it was not possible to get Covid tests as you can now, unless you went to hospital.

    Is that correct? Can anyone point me to the relevant NHS or government advice?

    Thanks in advance.

    Here's a flowchart from 18 March 2020 indicating patients with a certain symptom level should not be admitted to hosp. but sent home.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200331095354/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/873496/COVID-19_flow_chart.pdf

    Text version here I think:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200321210332/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-initial-investigation-of-possible-cases

    That's linked from this archive page:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200321210332/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-initial-investigation-of-possible-cases

    Page linking to snapshots of the Corona Guidance from that time:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200101000000*/https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus
  • theProletheProle Posts: 706

    Interesting

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58052378

    Short version - no COVID found on surfaces or in air samples in major UK stations or London underground.

    Which leaves the fairly obvious question - how on earth does it spread then? I'm not supprised they drew a blank on the surfaces, but I would have though you'd get some in air samples if you took plenty of them in busy places (probably more likely in railway carrages than on the platforms).
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279

    I see Lords have banned people bringing alcohol to the ground for the Hundred after disgraceful scenes forced authorities to close the bars early.

    What did they expect. Its hardly surprising if they dumb the game down.

    Is alcohol sold at t20 games? If so, was it worse than those?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306

    And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
    How will being "pro-international co-operation" improve the management of the NHS? Is this meant to be a convoluted pro-immigration argument?
    I was using "pro-international co-operation as a non-trigger alternative to "pro-European". The £350m a week that was never sent to Europe is now apparently being spent on the NHS. So make the point that this should mean an NHS which is better than it was, instead things are much worse.

    It isn't about hard facts like money and it never was. People wanted better, whether that be the NHS, their community, jobs, services. Brexit was the solution to their problems. So demand delivery of their personal manna from heaven. As it won't be delivered this speeds up the descaling of eyes so that we can start having conversations about having now left the EU where we go from here. We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated.
    "We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated."

    They can continue to do that for as long as you refuse to accept defeat and advocate various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it.
    Let's leave my nation and polity out of it, but currently what various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it are being hatched in yours? Is an Adonis and Grayling led putsch about to take place?
    A lot of people take for granted that Labour's next manifesto will include rejoining the single market as a minimum. I think this is unlikely, but it will upset a lot of people if it doesn't.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,942
    Cyclefree said:

    And in other no-shit Sherlock comment first made on here weeks/months ago - https://twitter.com/mayaoppenheim/status/1419978242619056132?s=21.

    The Independent has finally worked out that "The Met needs to get a grip".

    I hope you saw my note congratulating you on finding the one recent thread that wasn't anti Boris or anti Govt. You must have done some excellent research over many hours to find it. Even today's thread is why the Tories lost!
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 4,022
    For those who still believe Brexit was the right decision for economic reasons as opposed to political ones, here's some cheer:

    https://news.sky.com/story/hollywood-heads-to-hertfordshire-plans-for-700m-film-and-tv-studios-with-4-500-jobs-12370395

    This is the kind of thing which might in the long term justify the 2016 vote from an economic pov: if the UK becomes an economic western powerhouse.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019

    I see Lords have banned people bringing alcohol to the ground for the Hundred after disgraceful scenes forced authorities to close the bars early.

    What did they expect. Its hardly surprising if they dumb the game down.

    I have been to two cricket matches in my life. One a test at Lords many, many years ago and second the T20 at the Oval where they searched everyone on entry for booze.

    More for the profits of the Oval/Fosters (?) than the behaviour.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,317
    Nigelb said:

    MrEd said:

    Who would have predicted this? CEO who runs meal alternative business in favour of a tax on meat - and the BBC treating him as if he has no skin in the game...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552

    Given the first sentence reads
    The founder of the world's biggest plant-based meat firm says a tax on meat could get people to cut their consumption of animal-based products...
    it takes a degree of perversity to view that as 'treating him as if he has no skin in the game',
    There are a lot of dubious articles on the BBC; they are mostly those which convey an allegation of unsubstantiated abuse as if it were a fact, on the basis that it is 'telling someones story'.
    I don't think there is much wrong with this article, it puts across other points of view as well. It makes pretty clear that the guy is running a meat substitute business.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605
    tlg86 said:

    For the first 3,000 metres our girls looked brilliant, but they really did go out too fast. Can they beat the Germans? I don't think so.

    I think they can, there were some set up problems.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,908

    Cyclefree said:

    And in other no-shit Sherlock comment first made on here weeks/months ago - https://twitter.com/mayaoppenheim/status/1419978242619056132?s=21.

    The Independent has finally worked out that "The Met needs to get a grip".

    I hope you saw my note congratulating you on finding the one recent thread that wasn't anti Boris or anti Govt. You must have done some excellent research over many hours to find it. Even today's thread is why the Tories lost!
    I hear there's another site - Con House, is it? Tory Home? - that might provide content more to your taste :wink:
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,039

    Cyclefree said:

    MrEd said:

    Who would have predicted this? CEO who runs meal alternative business in favour of a tax on meat - and the BBC treating him as if he has no skin in the game...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552

    Sure, but the interview makes his interest absolutely clear. It's a widespread view that we should eat less meat and reasonable for the BBC to interview the market leader in similar-tasting alternatives.
    A little more scepticism is in order - both about the nutritional value of the product these businesses are trying to sell (there has been some interesting research on this by a very close friend of mine who is an expert in this area. These businesses' claims don't stack up.) and the businesses themselves, which are loss-making and have been for years.
    What is your friends general opinion of the area - is it reasonable, fundamentally, but beset with chancers? Or is the area of meat alternatives fundamentally flawed?
    I won't try to speak for Cyclefree and her friend, but as it's one of my work areas (and hence I have an interest, though not a financial one):

    There are two ways of having something like meat that isn't. One is plant-based alternatives, which is what this guy does. Quorn has been doing it for ages but there are lots of new entrants, some of them IMO much tastier than Quorn. For example, although I'm not vegetarian and I like ready meals I'm trying to cut back on meat, so I now eat Plant Pioneers' mock-chicken tikka masala instead of the chicken alternative. The taste is 90% identical and it would be perverse to insist that an animal dies for the sake of the 10% difference. Opinion is divided on the health aspect but there's no doubt that it's better for animals and little doubt that the environmental impact is less (because you don't need to knock down forests to grow grain to feed the factory farmed animals).

    The other is lab-grown meat. You take some original animal cells from a biopsy and grow the meat from those. This genuinely is meat, it's simply that you don't have to rear animals in often unpleasant conditions and then kill them. By definition it's neither healthier nor less healthy than meat. That's still at the new tech stage where individual portions are much more expensive, and as Cyclefree says the companies are all loss-making. But a lot of analysts think it will eventually (in 10-15 years) scale up to be cheaper than animal-grown meat (since obviously it's simpler than rearing animals) and investors are piling in, including meat companies hedging their bets. Naturally some will be chancers and only some will really succeed, but it's probably the way the world will change in the end.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279
    Heathener said:

    For those who still believe Brexit was the right decision for economic reasons as opposed to political ones, here's some cheer:

    https://news.sky.com/story/hollywood-heads-to-hertfordshire-plans-for-700m-film-and-tv-studios-with-4-500-jobs-12370395

    This is the kind of thing which might in the long term justify the 2016 vote from an economic pov: if the UK becomes an economic western powerhouse.

    Are there not some employment issues...... visiting staff etc ...... which will have to be sorted out?

    Welcome news for those in the supporting activities of course.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,014
    edited August 2021

    And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
    It is a very good question. Brexit is a failure, as evidenced by Leavers trying to shift blame. If Brexit were a success, we wouldn't be discussing it any more because Remainers would be keeping somewhat quiet. We would be talking about what works in the new world.

    But we do need to talk about how do things differently, in spite of the Brexit failure, or rather because of it. There's a mess to be dealt with.

    To your point, I think the "pro-international co-operation majority" needs to start from first principles and make the case for international co-operation, freedom of trade and movement, liberal values, international rules based order and national harmony.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,145
    edited August 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    Aslan said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's regrettable the whole Brexit saga ended up the way it did. Some sort of compromise between the two sides would have been preferable, and probably would have happened in the era before social media when everyone was more reasonable.

    The problem was that Europhiles, foreign and domestic, rejected compromise every step of the way with the British sovereignty position. They didn't want to address any concerns with the ludicrous CAP subsidies even after they promised Blair when he gave up half the rebate. They refused to budge on anything meaningful when Cameron tried to renegotiate, least of all be responsive to British democratic concerns around immigration. They then lost when the issue was put to the electorate in 2016, but learned nothing and kept on refusing to compromise. They preferred a full press attempt to overrule democracy when they had the numbers to have an EEA super soft Brexit. And even when they lost that, and got the warning of the Euro elections, they tried every backhand technique possible, including politicization of the speakership and overruling centuries of parliamentary tradition, rather than accept Theresa May's Chequers compromise. Finally, things went back to the ultimate referee, the British public, and they got obliterated. It was all so richly deserved and shows how, despite its flaws, democracy is the best system of government, keeping powerful elites subservient.
    Now, that number is undoubtedly still too large. But EUR40bn is simply not a lot of money across 447 million people. It's about EUR90 per person. And as a percentage of EU GDP that's more than 70% less than in 1990.

    There are a gazillion and one problems with the EU. But a lot of the issues with the CAP are no longer as true as they were. (Or shall we say, before we complain too much, let's see if the UK is spending less than GBP65/per person per year on agriculural subsidies in 2024...)
    It is still 33% of the EU budget, however.

    it will be interesting to see where they go from here.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,752

    And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
    How will being "pro-international co-operation" improve the management of the NHS? Is this meant to be a convoluted pro-immigration argument?
    I was using "pro-international co-operation as a non-trigger alternative to "pro-European". The £350m a week that was never sent to Europe is now apparently being spent on the NHS. So make the point that this should mean an NHS which is better than it was, instead things are much worse.

    It isn't about hard facts like money and it never was. People wanted better, whether that be the NHS, their community, jobs, services. Brexit was the solution to their problems. So demand delivery of their personal manna from heaven. As it won't be delivered this speeds up the descaling of eyes so that we can start having conversations about having now left the EU where we go from here. We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated.
    "We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated."

    They can continue to do that for as long as you refuse to accept defeat and advocate various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it.
    Let's leave my nation and polity out of it, but currently what various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it are being hatched in yours? Is an Adonis and Grayling led putsch about to take place?
    A lot of people take for granted that Labour's next manifesto will include rejoining the single market as a minimum. I think this is unlikely, but it will upset a lot of people if it doesn't.
    Who are these people? I haven't come across anybody in Labour or 'remainer' circles who expects the next manifesto to include rejoining the single market.

    Quite sensibly, Labour policy on Brexit issues at the moment is to keep fairly quiet. It's too early to devise an EU policy. As the consequences of Brexit unwind (for good or bad), Labour will reach a policy position in time for the next GE. That policy won't include rejoining as an option. Starmer is not stupid.
  • Cyclefree said:

    MrEd said:

    Who would have predicted this? CEO who runs meal alternative business in favour of a tax on meat - and the BBC treating him as if he has no skin in the game...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552

    Sure, but the interview makes his interest absolutely clear. It's a widespread view that we should eat less meat and reasonable for the BBC to interview the market leader in similar-tasting alternatives.
    A little more scepticism is in order - both about the nutritional value of the product these businesses are trying to sell (there has been some interesting research on this by a very close friend of mine who is an expert in this area. These businesses' claims don't stack up.) and the businesses themselves, which are loss-making and have been for years.
    What is your friends general opinion of the area - is it reasonable, fundamentally, but beset with chancers? Or is the area of meat alternatives fundamentally flawed?
    A perspective from inside the category. alternative protein is protein. It is either healthy or not healthy depending on what you do with it. There has been actual science research into the performance of these proteins vs pig, cow etc and they're good.

    The challenge for the industry is profit as you mention. Very easy to sink large sums into development with little return. Hence the endless rounds of funding and investors and the need to make grandiose claims.

    The market IS there though. Plant-based meat is worth nearly £600m in the UK alone and grew at 18% last year. Compound Annual Growth has been double digits for year after year after year and shows little sign of slowing.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019

    Cyclefree said:

    MrEd said:

    Who would have predicted this? CEO who runs meal alternative business in favour of a tax on meat - and the BBC treating him as if he has no skin in the game...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552

    Sure, but the interview makes his interest absolutely clear. It's a widespread view that we should eat less meat and reasonable for the BBC to interview the market leader in similar-tasting alternatives.
    A little more scepticism is in order - both about the nutritional value of the product these businesses are trying to sell (there has been some interesting research on this by a very close friend of mine who is an expert in this area. These businesses' claims don't stack up.) and the businesses themselves, which are loss-making and have been for years.
    What is your friends general opinion of the area - is it reasonable, fundamentally, but beset with chancers? Or is the area of meat alternatives fundamentally flawed?
    I won't try to speak for Cyclefree and her friend, but as it's one of my work areas (and hence I have an interest, though not a financial one):

    There are two ways of having something like meat that isn't. One is plant-based alternatives, which is what this guy does. Quorn has been doing it for ages but there are lots of new entrants, some of them IMO much tastier than Quorn. For example, although I'm not vegetarian and I like ready meals I'm trying to cut back on meat, so I now eat Plant Pioneers' mock-chicken tikka masala instead of the chicken alternative. The taste is 90% identical and it would be perverse to insist that an animal dies for the sake of the 10% difference. Opinion is divided on the health aspect but there's no doubt that it's better for animals and little doubt that the environmental impact is less (because you don't need to knock down forests to grow grain to feed the factory farmed animals).

    The other is lab-grown meat. You take some original animal cells from a biopsy and grow the meat from those. This genuinely is meat, it's simply that you don't have to rear animals in often unpleasant conditions and then kill them. By definition it's neither healthier nor less healthy than meat. That's still at the new tech stage where individual portions are much more expensive, and as Cyclefree says the companies are all loss-making. But a lot of analysts think it will eventually (in 10-15 years) scale up to be cheaper than animal-grown meat (since obviously it's simpler than rearing animals) and investors are piling in, including meat companies hedging their bets. Naturally some will be chancers and only some will really succeed, but it's probably the way the world will change in the end.
    How is it seen in the industry about when we don't need for example a national herd any more. A step forward for animal welfare or a step back?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,175
    FF43 said:

    But we do need to talk about how do things differently, in spite of the Brexit failure, or rather because of it. There's a mess to be dealt with.

    To your point, I think the "pro-international co-operation majority" needs to start from first principles and make the case for international co-operation, freedom of trade and movement, liberal values, international rules based order and national harmony.

    We are Brexit Britain! Come and trade with us.

    Look at our first shining example of International co-operation, freedom of trade and movement, liberal values, international rules based order and national harmony, the Northern Ireland Protocol!

    Oh, wait...
  • theProletheProle Posts: 706

    And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
    For good or ill, there has been a global pandemic. It's perhaps unsupprising that NHS waiting lists are at an all time high. I've no idea what would have occurred had an extra £350m a week been found without covid (I suspect just a gaint sucking sound, and no noticable improvements), nor yet do I have any idea if it would have been found. Neither do you.

    What I can tell you is that Brexit has done wonders for the balance of power between capital and low paid labour. We can debate if this is a good thing on a national scale till the cows come home, but if you're a semi-skilled metal basher in Chesterfield or Rotherham, Brexit is currently working out for you very nicely - and they are the sort of people who voted for it. Not because they are racists, but because they (correctly) thought that immigration was holding down their wages.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    theProle said:

    Interesting

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58052378

    Short version - no COVID found on surfaces or in air samples in major UK stations or London underground.

    Which leaves the fairly obvious question - how on earth does it spread then? I'm not supprised they drew a blank on the surfaces, but I would have though you'd get some in air samples if you took plenty of them in busy places (probably more likely in railway carrages than on the platforms).
    As usual, no links to primary data.... grrrrrr

    May guess is that the half life of COVID in such an environment is pretty low. So it is person-to-person transmission, not person-environment-person that happens.

    The air samplers wouldn't have been within a couple of feet of the people, at a guess.
  • And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
    How will being "pro-international co-operation" improve the management of the NHS? Is this meant to be a convoluted pro-immigration argument?
    I was using "pro-international co-operation as a non-trigger alternative to "pro-European". The £350m a week that was never sent to Europe is now apparently being spent on the NHS. So make the point that this should mean an NHS which is better than it was, instead things are much worse.

    It isn't about hard facts like money and it never was. People wanted better, whether that be the NHS, their community, jobs, services. Brexit was the solution to their problems. So demand delivery of their personal manna from heaven. As it won't be delivered this speeds up the descaling of eyes so that we can start having conversations about having now left the EU where we go from here. We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated.
    "We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated."

    They can continue to do that for as long as you refuse to accept defeat and advocate various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it.
    I don't want to rejoin the EU and they wouldn't have us back. I want to move onto what our place in the world now is so that it actually works. A significant part of that is delivery of the promised benefits. However you voted (and I voted leave remember) the promised benefits to the likes of the NHS and to jobs are good for everyone. So lets have them.
    But you still advocate EEA membership which would render Brexit pointless.
    "Brexit" is Britain's Exit from the European Union. The European Economic Area is not the European Union. "Pointless" for you perhaps where your aim was not just to leave the EU but a whole pile of other things, but not pointless if walking away from all the political EU stuff was the aim.

    No wonder you are still fighting the Vietnam ​Brexit war. You don't even know what "Brexit" is - moon on a stickism in full effect...
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,822
    Heathener said:

    For those who still believe Brexit was the right decision for economic reasons as opposed to political ones, here's some cheer:

    https://news.sky.com/story/hollywood-heads-to-hertfordshire-plans-for-700m-film-and-tv-studios-with-4-500-jobs-12370395

    This is the kind of thing which might in the long term justify the 2016 vote from an economic pov: if the UK becomes an economic western powerhouse.

    Is that the third or fourth time that's been posted?

    Rejoice, harder!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    Sunak leads the first ConHome next Tory leader survey in 2 years.

    Sunak 31%
    Truss 12%
    Mordaunt 11%
    Raab 8%
    Javid 7%
    Rees-Mogg 5%
    Baker 5%
    Gove 4%
    Patel 3%
    Tugendhat 3%
    Brady 2%
    Harper 2%
    Mercer 2%
    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2021/08/sunak-leads-our-first-next-tory-leader-survey-in-two-years.html
  • Heathener said:

    For those who still believe Brexit was the right decision for economic reasons as opposed to political ones, here's some cheer:

    https://news.sky.com/story/hollywood-heads-to-hertfordshire-plans-for-700m-film-and-tv-studios-with-4-500-jobs-12370395

    This is the kind of thing which might in the long term justify the 2016 vote from an economic pov: if the UK becomes an economic western powerhouse.

    A new film studio is Great News! But as the UK was already the go-to country for US film studios when we were in the EU how is this a benefit of Brexit?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019
    edited August 2021
    Of all the wonders of this site, watching @williamglenn and @RochdalePioneers discuss Brexit is one of the more entertaining ones.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341

    Cyclefree said:

    MrEd said:

    Who would have predicted this? CEO who runs meal alternative business in favour of a tax on meat - and the BBC treating him as if he has no skin in the game...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552

    Sure, but the interview makes his interest absolutely clear. It's a widespread view that we should eat less meat and reasonable for the BBC to interview the market leader in similar-tasting alternatives.
    A little more scepticism is in order - both about the nutritional value of the product these businesses are trying to sell (there has been some interesting research on this by a very close friend of mine who is an expert in this area. These businesses' claims don't stack up.) and the businesses themselves, which are loss-making and have been for years.
    What is your friends general opinion of the area - is it reasonable, fundamentally, but beset with chancers? Or is the area of meat alternatives fundamentally flawed?
    Beset with chancers and fundamentally flawed would sum it up.

    Creating meat products which aren't meat but look like it and sort of taste like it he thinks is fundamentally flawed - both because the nutritional value is much worse, there is lots of deception in how they are peddled (doesn't just apply to alternative meat companies but to some of the alternative milk & other products) and the business model is smoke and mirrors. Wouldn't touch it or the companies peddling it.

    Says that there are a lot of start up alternative food companies attracting lots of investment and making a bit of a noise at first but when you look at them over time, most burn money, fail and are simply unable to get market share or make money.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306
    edited August 2021

    And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
    How will being "pro-international co-operation" improve the management of the NHS? Is this meant to be a convoluted pro-immigration argument?
    I was using "pro-international co-operation as a non-trigger alternative to "pro-European". The £350m a week that was never sent to Europe is now apparently being spent on the NHS. So make the point that this should mean an NHS which is better than it was, instead things are much worse.

    It isn't about hard facts like money and it never was. People wanted better, whether that be the NHS, their community, jobs, services. Brexit was the solution to their problems. So demand delivery of their personal manna from heaven. As it won't be delivered this speeds up the descaling of eyes so that we can start having conversations about having now left the EU where we go from here. We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated.
    "We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated."

    They can continue to do that for as long as you refuse to accept defeat and advocate various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it.
    Let's leave my nation and polity out of it, but currently what various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it are being hatched in yours? Is an Adonis and Grayling led putsch about to take place?
    A lot of people take for granted that Labour's next manifesto will include rejoining the single market as a minimum. I think this is unlikely, but it will upset a lot of people if it doesn't.
    Who are these people? I haven't come across anybody in Labour or 'remainer' circles who expects the next manifesto to include rejoining the single market.

    Quite sensibly, Labour policy on Brexit issues at the moment is to keep fairly quiet. It's too early to devise an EU policy. As the consequences of Brexit unwind (for good or bad), Labour will reach a policy position in time for the next GE. That policy won't include rejoining as an option. Starmer is not stupid.
    People like Anas Sarwar are pushing for it to be Labour policy so it's not without advocates.

    I think hardcore Labour supporting Remainers assume that the party is only keeping quiet about it because of the "Tory press", or as part of Starmer's attempt to brand himself as patriotic.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,822

    And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
    How will being "pro-international co-operation" improve the management of the NHS? Is this meant to be a convoluted pro-immigration argument?
    I was using "pro-international co-operation as a non-trigger alternative to "pro-European". The £350m a week that was never sent to Europe is now apparently being spent on the NHS. So make the point that this should mean an NHS which is better than it was, instead things are much worse.

    It isn't about hard facts like money and it never was. People wanted better, whether that be the NHS, their community, jobs, services. Brexit was the solution to their problems. So demand delivery of their personal manna from heaven. As it won't be delivered this speeds up the descaling of eyes so that we can start having conversations about having now left the EU where we go from here. We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated.
    "We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated."

    They can continue to do that for as long as you refuse to accept defeat and advocate various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it.
    Let's leave my nation and polity out of it, but currently what various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it are being hatched in yours? Is an Adonis and Grayling led putsch about to take place?
    A lot of people take for granted that Labour's next manifesto will include rejoining the single market as a minimum. I think this is unlikely, but it will upset a lot of people if it doesn't.
    I'll take your word for it, but I'd assumed that the only folk having sleepless nights over Labour's next manifesto are the poor sods worrying about wtf they're going to put in it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853
    Never want to see a fall with the horses but wouldn't mind one of the german ones clipping a post with their hoof.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304

    Cyclefree said:

    And in other no-shit Sherlock comment first made on here weeks/months ago - https://twitter.com/mayaoppenheim/status/1419978242619056132?s=21.

    The Independent has finally worked out that "The Met needs to get a grip".

    I hope you saw my note congratulating you on finding the one recent thread that wasn't anti Boris or anti Govt. You must have done some excellent research over many hours to find it. Even today's thread is why the Tories lost!
    You don't have to come here. Re your comment the other day on OGH you need to remember it is his site, not yours and I think most of us think he does a great job.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341

    Cyclefree said:

    And in other no-shit Sherlock comment first made on here weeks/months ago - https://twitter.com/mayaoppenheim/status/1419978242619056132?s=21.

    The Independent has finally worked out that "The Met needs to get a grip".

    I hope you saw my note congratulating you on finding the one recent thread that wasn't anti Boris or anti Govt. You must have done some excellent research over many hours to find it. Even today's thread is why the Tories lost!
    I didn't but have been busy. Thank you anyway.

    It didn't take long to find it. I wrote it! In part, as a response to your complaint and to challenge myself to understand why the Tories are doing well electorally. It wasn't that hard.

    Always important to look at the facts and not just at what you would like to be true.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,387

    Cyclefree said:

    MrEd said:

    Who would have predicted this? CEO who runs meal alternative business in favour of a tax on meat - and the BBC treating him as if he has no skin in the game...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552

    Sure, but the interview makes his interest absolutely clear. It's a widespread view that we should eat less meat and reasonable for the BBC to interview the market leader in similar-tasting alternatives.
    A little more scepticism is in order - both about the nutritional value of the product these businesses are trying to sell (there has been some interesting research on this by a very close friend of mine who is an expert in this area. These businesses' claims don't stack up.) and the businesses themselves, which are loss-making and have been for years.
    What is your friends general opinion of the area - is it reasonable, fundamentally, but beset with chancers? Or is the area of meat alternatives fundamentally flawed?
    I won't try to speak for Cyclefree and her friend, but as it's one of my work areas (and hence I have an interest, though not a financial one):

    There are two ways of having something like meat that isn't. One is plant-based alternatives, which is what this guy does. Quorn has been doing it for ages but there are lots of new entrants, some of them IMO much tastier than Quorn. For example, although I'm not vegetarian and I like ready meals I'm trying to cut back on meat, so I now eat Plant Pioneers' mock-chicken tikka masala instead of the chicken alternative. The taste is 90% identical and it would be perverse to insist that an animal dies for the sake of the 10% difference. Opinion is divided on the health aspect but there's no doubt that it's better for animals and little doubt that the environmental impact is less (because you don't need to knock down forests to grow grain to feed the factory farmed animals).

    The other is lab-grown meat. You take some original animal cells from a biopsy and grow the meat from those. This genuinely is meat, it's simply that you don't have to rear animals in often unpleasant conditions and then kill them. By definition it's neither healthier nor less healthy than meat. That's still at the new tech stage where individual portions are much more expensive, and as Cyclefree says the companies are all loss-making. But a lot of analysts think it will eventually (in 10-15 years) scale up to be cheaper than animal-grown meat (since obviously it's simpler than rearing animals) and investors are piling in, including meat companies hedging their bets. Naturally some will be chancers and only some will really succeed, but it's probably the way the world will change in the end.
    I do think we also need to figure out what we are going to with respect to avoiding the mass extinction of domesticated species.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    YoungTurk said:

    How come the reported death rate in Tunisia is going up as the case rate is decreasing? Over one week I'd say lag, but over three and a half?

    image

    Is it date of death or date of report data?

    As we've seen from around the world lag time can be enormous, on the region of a month, to get complete data.
  • Scott_xP said:

    FF43 said:

    But we do need to talk about how do things differently, in spite of the Brexit failure, or rather because of it. There's a mess to be dealt with.

    To your point, I think the "pro-international co-operation majority" needs to start from first principles and make the case for international co-operation, freedom of trade and movement, liberal values, international rules based order and national harmony.

    We are Brexit Britain! Come and trade with us.

    Look at our first shining example of International co-operation, freedom of trade and movement, liberal values, international rules based order and national harmony, the Northern Ireland Protocol!

    Oh, wait...
    The migrant "crisis" being a prime example. There seems to be almost incandescent fury that our former international partners aren't co-operating in the way we want now that we have stopped being their partners and abrogated the various treaties we were participants in.

    The French won't let us just tow migrant boats into their waters - who could possibly have conceived that would be what they would do when we dump Dublin and the EU and propagandise against both and the French in particular. Who do they think they are!!!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,986
    Blimey, handle bar failure for an Australian in the men's team pursuit. I'd have thought that would be tough luck given that bicycle technology is part of the event, but it sounds like they might get a second go.
  • And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
    How will being "pro-international co-operation" improve the management of the NHS? Is this meant to be a convoluted pro-immigration argument?
    I was using "pro-international co-operation as a non-trigger alternative to "pro-European". The £350m a week that was never sent to Europe is now apparently being spent on the NHS. So make the point that this should mean an NHS which is better than it was, instead things are much worse.

    It isn't about hard facts like money and it never was. People wanted better, whether that be the NHS, their community, jobs, services. Brexit was the solution to their problems. So demand delivery of their personal manna from heaven. As it won't be delivered this speeds up the descaling of eyes so that we can start having conversations about having now left the EU where we go from here. We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated.
    "We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated."

    They can continue to do that for as long as you refuse to accept defeat and advocate various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it.
    Let's leave my nation and polity out of it, but currently what various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it are being hatched in yours? Is an Adonis and Grayling led putsch about to take place?
    A lot of people take for granted that Labour's next manifesto will include rejoining the single market as a minimum. I think this is unlikely, but it will upset a lot of people if it doesn't.
    Who are these people? I haven't come across anybody in Labour or 'remainer' circles who expects the next manifesto to include rejoining the single market.

    Quite sensibly, Labour policy on Brexit issues at the moment is to keep fairly quiet. It's too early to devise an EU policy. As the consequences of Brexit unwind (for good or bad), Labour will reach a policy position in time for the next GE. That policy won't include rejoining as an option. Starmer is not stupid.
    The gap might well be part of Starmer's problem at the moment. There are quite a lot of people who would rejoin in a heartbeat and are cross at Labour not backing that. Some remainer-rejoiners are nutters.

    But it's clear what the direction of travel will be- a gradual climb back up Barnier's staircase, because each step is individually rational. And the end point is still "if a large country is following all the rules, there's no benefit in not helping to form them." (The large country bit is why comparisons with Switzerland, Norway, or even Canada don't really work.)

    And the government knows this, hence the attempts to hold the line and salt the soul.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 4,022
    edited August 2021

    Heathener said:

    For those who still believe Brexit was the right decision for economic reasons as opposed to political ones, here's some cheer:

    https://news.sky.com/story/hollywood-heads-to-hertfordshire-plans-for-700m-film-and-tv-studios-with-4-500-jobs-12370395

    This is the kind of thing which might in the long term justify the 2016 vote from an economic pov: if the UK becomes an economic western powerhouse.

    A new film studio is Great News! But as the UK was already the go-to country for US film studios when we were in the EU how is this a benefit of Brexit?
    I expect financial and tax breaks to attract investment in the UK.

    This is on top of the remarkable new Sky Studios at Elstree which are eye-popping:

    https://www.skygroup.sky/article/sky-studios-elstree-and-bam-launch-partnership-with-elstree-screen-arts-academy

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 73,446
    edited August 2021
    How is that fair if you crash you get another go in the cycling?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306

    And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
    How will being "pro-international co-operation" improve the management of the NHS? Is this meant to be a convoluted pro-immigration argument?
    I was using "pro-international co-operation as a non-trigger alternative to "pro-European". The £350m a week that was never sent to Europe is now apparently being spent on the NHS. So make the point that this should mean an NHS which is better than it was, instead things are much worse.

    It isn't about hard facts like money and it never was. People wanted better, whether that be the NHS, their community, jobs, services. Brexit was the solution to their problems. So demand delivery of their personal manna from heaven. As it won't be delivered this speeds up the descaling of eyes so that we can start having conversations about having now left the EU where we go from here. We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated.
    "We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated."

    They can continue to do that for as long as you refuse to accept defeat and advocate various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it.
    I don't want to rejoin the EU and they wouldn't have us back. I want to move onto what our place in the world now is so that it actually works. A significant part of that is delivery of the promised benefits. However you voted (and I voted leave remember) the promised benefits to the likes of the NHS and to jobs are good for everyone. So lets have them.
    But you still advocate EEA membership which would render Brexit pointless.
    "Brexit" is Britain's Exit from the European Union. The European Economic Area is not the European Union. "Pointless" for you perhaps where your aim was not just to leave the EU but a whole pile of other things, but not pointless if walking away from all the political EU stuff was the aim.

    No wonder you are still fighting the Vietnam ​Brexit war. You don't even know what "Brexit" is - moon on a stickism in full effect...
    Please explain how following laws made by the EU institutions without any say constitutes "walking away from the political stuff"?

    Do you advocate a form of Scottish independence where Scotland will simply stop sending MPs to Westminster but still follow Westminster laws?
  • theProle said:

    And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
    For good or ill, there has been a global pandemic. It's perhaps unsupprising that NHS waiting lists are at an all time high. I've no idea what would have occurred had an extra £350m a week been found without covid (I suspect just a gaint sucking sound, and no noticable improvements), nor yet do I have any idea if it would have been found. Neither do you.

    What I can tell you is that Brexit has done wonders for the balance of power between capital and low paid labour. We can debate if this is a good thing on a national scale till the cows come home, but if you're a semi-skilled metal basher in Chesterfield or Rotherham, Brexit is currently working out for you very nicely - and they are the sort of people who voted for it. Not because they are racists, but because they (correctly) thought that immigration was holding down their wages.
    Supply and demand - we have cut supply so wages have to increase. The problem is that wages are not going to solve a lack of labour - which is why we had immigration in the first place. Yes your metal basher is getting paid more, but a shortage of metal bashers and new trade barriers threatens their industry. Higher pay for a brief period then unemployment isn't a benefit, nor is truck drivers coining it in whilst the industry is on its knees with uncontrolled shortages through lack of drivers.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    edited August 2021

    Scott_xP said:

    FF43 said:

    But we do need to talk about how do things differently, in spite of the Brexit failure, or rather because of it. There's a mess to be dealt with.

    To your point, I think the "pro-international co-operation majority" needs to start from first principles and make the case for international co-operation, freedom of trade and movement, liberal values, international rules based order and national harmony.

    We are Brexit Britain! Come and trade with us.

    Look at our first shining example of International co-operation, freedom of trade and movement, liberal values, international rules based order and national harmony, the Northern Ireland Protocol!

    Oh, wait...
    The migrant "crisis" being a prime example. There seems to be almost incandescent fury that our former international partners aren't co-operating in the way we want now that we have stopped being their partners and abrogated the various treaties we were participants in.

    The French won't let us just tow migrant boats into their waters - who could possibly have conceived that would be what they would do when we dump Dublin and the EU and propagandise against both and the French in particular. Who do they think they are!!!
    I can't see any change in the French behaviour relating to cross-channel illegal crossings. Before BREXIT, they would talk of cooperation, refuse to take back anyone who made it to the water and only work to secure the tunnel. The tunnel was protected because the image of stopping trains because of migrants on the track looked bad. No action was taken about the various people smugglers.

    After BREXIT, they talk of cooperation, refuse to take back anyone who made it to the water and only work to secure the tunnel. The tunnel is protected because the image of stopping trains because of migrants on the track looked bad. No action is taken about the various people smugglers.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,986

    How is that fair if you crash you get another go in the cycling?

    Bradley Wiggins reckons you only get a re-run if it happens on the first lap.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,822
    HYUFD said:

    Sunak leads the first ConHome next Tory leader survey in 2 years.

    Sunak 31%
    Truss 12%
    Mordaunt 11%
    Raab 8%
    Javid 7%
    Rees-Mogg 5%
    Baker 5%
    Gove 4%
    Patel 3%
    Tugendhat 3%
    Brady 2%
    Harper 2%
    Mercer 2%
    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2021/08/sunak-leads-our-first-next-tory-leader-survey-in-two-years.html

    Another correlated piece caught my eye.

    'From self-isolation to score annihilation – Johnson drops 36 points in our Cabinet League Table.'
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Pulpstar said:

    Never want to see a fall with the horses but wouldn't mind one of the german ones clipping a post with their hoof.

    Already happened, Jung broke a frangible pin in the cross country.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341
    MattW said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Some help needed, please, from the PB Brains Trust.

    Back in March 2020 - before lockdown was announced - my recollection is that, if you had Covid symptoms, the advice from the NHS was to isolate and not go to your GP etc.

    And that at the time it was not possible to get Covid tests as you can now, unless you went to hospital.

    Is that correct? Can anyone point me to the relevant NHS or government advice?

    Thanks in advance.

    Here's a flowchart from 18 March 2020 indicating patients with a certain symptom level should not be admitted to hosp. but sent home.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200331095354/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/873496/COVID-19_flow_chart.pdf

    Text version here I think:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200321210332/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-initial-investigation-of-possible-cases

    That's linked from this archive page:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200321210332/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-initial-investigation-of-possible-cases

    Page linking to snapshots of the Corona Guidance from that time:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200101000000*/https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus
    Thanks.

    What I'm looking for is what was available re testing for people at home. As far as I can recall back in mid-March you could not simply send off for a Covid test as you can now. Is that correct?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019
    edited August 2021
    mwadams said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MrEd said:

    Who would have predicted this? CEO who runs meal alternative business in favour of a tax on meat - and the BBC treating him as if he has no skin in the game...

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552

    Sure, but the interview makes his interest absolutely clear. It's a widespread view that we should eat less meat and reasonable for the BBC to interview the market leader in similar-tasting alternatives.
    A little more scepticism is in order - both about the nutritional value of the product these businesses are trying to sell (there has been some interesting research on this by a very close friend of mine who is an expert in this area. These businesses' claims don't stack up.) and the businesses themselves, which are loss-making and have been for years.
    What is your friends general opinion of the area - is it reasonable, fundamentally, but beset with chancers? Or is the area of meat alternatives fundamentally flawed?
    I won't try to speak for Cyclefree and her friend, but as it's one of my work areas (and hence I have an interest, though not a financial one):

    There are two ways of having something like meat that isn't. One is plant-based alternatives, which is what this guy does. Quorn has been doing it for ages but there are lots of new entrants, some of them IMO much tastier than Quorn. For example, although I'm not vegetarian and I like ready meals I'm trying to cut back on meat, so I now eat Plant Pioneers' mock-chicken tikka masala instead of the chicken alternative. The taste is 90% identical and it would be perverse to insist that an animal dies for the sake of the 10% difference. Opinion is divided on the health aspect but there's no doubt that it's better for animals and little doubt that the environmental impact is less (because you don't need to knock down forests to grow grain to feed the factory farmed animals).

    The other is lab-grown meat. You take some original animal cells from a biopsy and grow the meat from those. This genuinely is meat, it's simply that you don't have to rear animals in often unpleasant conditions and then kill them. By definition it's neither healthier nor less healthy than meat. That's still at the new tech stage where individual portions are much more expensive, and as Cyclefree says the companies are all loss-making. But a lot of analysts think it will eventually (in 10-15 years) scale up to be cheaper than animal-grown meat (since obviously it's simpler than rearing animals) and investors are piling in, including meat companies hedging their bets. Naturally some will be chancers and only some will really succeed, but it's probably the way the world will change in the end.
    I do think we also need to figure out what we are going to with respect to avoiding the mass extinction of domesticated species.
    Nick has not yet answered my question as to whether wiping out, say, the national bovine herd in the UK would be a step forward for animal welfare or a step back.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,822
    edited August 2021
    Dura_Ace said:

    tlg86 said:

    For the first 3,000 metres our girls looked brilliant, but they really did go out too fast. Can they beat the Germans? I don't think so.

    They were fucked the moment they put the Lots Of Trouble Usually Serious decals on the forks.
    Worked OK for Chris Boardman...

    Surprised you aren't going out to buy one:
    https://www.hopetech.com/news/hbt/

    A mere £25k, fully kitted out.

    Don't recommend turning up to the local track with that though, unless you are breaking Olympic records.

    I believe a TT version is in the works, so anyone will be able look ridiculous doing 15mph on the local Strava segment in full kit.
  • TOPPING said:

    Of all the wonders of this site, watching @williamglenn and @RochdalePioneers discuss Brexit is one of the more entertaining ones.

    I don't think we can discuss something so ill defined. When leaving the European Union - literally the question on the paper and the name of the action - would be "pointless" without leaving all the other things that aren't the EU then we're back to the genius of Douglas Adams.

    The answer to Life, The Universe and Everything is Brexit means Brexit Forty Two. The problem is that you don't know what question to ask...
  • tlg86 said:

    How is that fair if you crash you get another go in the cycling?

    Bradley Wiggins reckons you only get a re-run if it happens on the first lap.
    Well this is doubly unfair, Team GB now has to go sooner than they anticipated.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 73,446
    edited August 2021
    "i like ready meals"....has to be up with i like pineapple on my pizza.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,014
    Heathener said:

    For those who still believe Brexit was the right decision for economic reasons as opposed to political ones, here's some cheer:

    https://news.sky.com/story/hollywood-heads-to-hertfordshire-plans-for-700m-film-and-tv-studios-with-4-500-jobs-12370395

    This is the kind of thing which might in the long term justify the 2016 vote from an economic pov: if the UK becomes an economic western powerhouse.

    Sure. No-one will reference the investments that didn't happen because of Brexit. There's nothing to point to. International investment is down by about a third in relative terms since the Brexit vote, which isn't great. But the other two thirds still happens, of course.
  • Team GB are miles off pace here.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    tlg86 said:

    Blimey, handle bar failure for an Australian in the men's team pursuit. I'd have thought that would be tough luck given that bicycle technology is part of the event, but it sounds like they might get a second go.

    Personally, I wouldn’t want a second go. One handlebar failure would be quite enough for me.
  • And herein lies the Brexit conundrum. Aslan (an ironic choice of name...?) can bleat on about the evil Europhiles yet here he is spreading an absolute pack of lies about the EU and what it does. There were no "ludicrous CAP subsidies" to address, yet this non-existent non-issue was weaponised by him and his to deliver their deliverance from this non-thing...

    Posts like Aslan’s certainly explain Brexit, though perhaps not in the way intended.
    There is a challenge. On one hand it is absolutely right that you can't persuade Brexiteers that they were wrong. On the other hand they WERE wrong on so many issues (cf Aslan) and at some point reality will overtake the bullshit they were fed.

    Which is why I find the inability of the pro-international co-operation majority (lets not use the E word) to think of a way forward to be baffling. Brexit promised the moon on a stick. So lets side with the voters and demand our moon. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly and painfully clear there is no moon, then "why" may be relevant in a way that it isn't now.

    And stop quoting facts and stats. It isn't about £350m a week for the NHS - people have no idea how much that is or what it can buy. They want an NHS that delivers for them. And despite statistically more than £350m being added to (Covid) budgets the service is even more on its knees than it was. Brexit was to deliver salvation for our NHS so why are you having to wait 18 months in pain for your knee op? etc etc
    How will being "pro-international co-operation" improve the management of the NHS? Is this meant to be a convoluted pro-immigration argument?
    I was using "pro-international co-operation as a non-trigger alternative to "pro-European". The £350m a week that was never sent to Europe is now apparently being spent on the NHS. So make the point that this should mean an NHS which is better than it was, instead things are much worse.

    It isn't about hard facts like money and it never was. People wanted better, whether that be the NHS, their community, jobs, services. Brexit was the solution to their problems. So demand delivery of their personal manna from heaven. As it won't be delivered this speeds up the descaling of eyes so that we can start having conversations about having now left the EU where we go from here. We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated.
    "We can't do that whilst the winners continue to fight the enemy that they already defeated."

    They can continue to do that for as long as you refuse to accept defeat and advocate various schemes to reverse Brexit rather than consolidate it.
    I don't want to rejoin the EU and they wouldn't have us back. I want to move onto what our place in the world now is so that it actually works. A significant part of that is delivery of the promised benefits. However you voted (and I voted leave remember) the promised benefits to the likes of the NHS and to jobs are good for everyone. So lets have them.
    But you still advocate EEA membership which would render Brexit pointless.
    "Brexit" is Britain's Exit from the European Union. The European Economic Area is not the European Union. "Pointless" for you perhaps where your aim was not just to leave the EU but a whole pile of other things, but not pointless if walking away from all the political EU stuff was the aim.

    No wonder you are still fighting the Vietnam ​Brexit war. You don't even know what "Brexit" is - moon on a stickism in full effect...
    Please explain how following laws made by the EU institutions without any say constitutes "walking away from the political stuff"?

    Do you advocate a form of Scottish independence where Scotland will simply stop sending MPs to Westminster but still follow Westminster laws?
    Wowsers. You will never ever win your war because you don't know who the enemy is you are fighting.
  • ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    Blimey, handle bar failure for an Australian in the men's team pursuit. I'd have thought that would be tough luck given that bicycle technology is part of the event, but it sounds like they might get a second go.

    Personally, I wouldn’t want a second go. One handlebar failure would be quite enough for me.
    Have you ever been to a veldrome? I wouldn't fancy riding on that full stop!
  • Having a rider blow up so soon thats not good.
This discussion has been closed.