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

135

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    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!
    I’d rather ride on it than slide along it on my arse due to falling off.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 73,446
    edited August 2021
    Team GB ain't getting a medal in that event, in which they traditionally are dominant.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    Having a rider blow up so soon thats not good.

    Blimey. Sounds like there are some quite unusual hazards in this one.

    Are we talking mines, or is he just seriously annoyed?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853

    Having a rider blow up so soon thats not good.

    Team GB obviously didn't make his err porridge correctly this morning.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 4,022
    FF43 said:

    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.
    I'm not personally a fan of Brexit but there are two sides to this and if Brexit is to be anything other than a political decision we need investment to build.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306

    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...
    What would you say to a hypothetical Scot in a few years who complains that they only voted to leave the UK, not the currency or the trade zone?
  • 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...
    What would you say to a hypothetical Scot in a few years who complains that they only voted to leave the UK, not the currency or the trade zone?
    That depends on the question they were asked! As the GB customs zone (there is no longer a UK customs zone) is not the UK then a vote to leave the UK is not the same as leaving the GB customs zone. The Isle of Man is not in the UK but it is in the GB customs zone.

    If you believe that customs union means it IS part of the UK after all then perhaps you might want to have a word with their government and tell them the error of their ways.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,014
    Heathener said:

    FF43 said:

    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.
    I'm not personally a fan of Brexit but there are two sides to this and if Brexit is to be anything other than a political decision we need investment to build.
    Indeed. If we are to create the environment for more investment and other good things, we need to understand the consequences of Brexit, and given they are mostly bad, mitigate those consequences.

    For different reasons, neither Leavers nor Remainers are interested in damage limitation.
  • 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.
    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.
    If Anas Sarwar (Scotland, pro EU anti-Brexit) is the best you can come up with, that illustrates my point.

    I didn't realise that being pro-EU meant that you can't be patriotic.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605

    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?
    Aiui a lot of the inwards investment for film and TV is coming to the UK because the UK government is trusted not to force production companies to make "local" content here. Production houses feel as though they have complete freedom to make what they want that they know won't be the case in the EU where language quotas are commonplace and cultural value tests are looming.
  • BBC News - China Covid: Concerns grow as Delta outbreak spreads
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-58052894
  • TOPPING said:

    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.
    Many years ago I was lucky enough to spend a day at a Lords’ Test in one of the hospitality boxes: the Chairman of Governors had access to one as he was something very senior at the company that owned it, and he offered it to the teachers at the school who took cricket teams (which I did at the time).
    Turns out that a bunch of PE staff can consume an awful lot of alcohol between start of play at 10:30 or so and the close at 7:00 (extra time was allowed as Zimbabwe were deep into their second innings and it looked like the match would be over soon, which turned out to be accurate).
    It was great fun, but I’m surprised I remember any of it given that I think I may have drunk more on that day than any other in my life, with the possible exception of the day I finished finals.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306

    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...
    What would you say to a hypothetical Scot in a few years who complains that they only voted to leave the UK, not the currency or the trade zone?
    That depends on the question they were asked! As the GB customs zone (there is no longer a UK customs zone) is not the UK then a vote to leave the UK is not the same as leaving the GB customs zone. The Isle of Man is not in the UK but it is in the GB customs zone.
    So Scotland could vote for independence and then become a crown dependency? That's an interesting suggestion.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 73,446
    edited August 2021
    MaxPB said:

    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?
    Aiui a lot of the inwards investment for film and TV is coming to the UK because the UK government is trusted not to force production companies to make "local" content here. Production houses feel as though they have complete freedom to make what they want that they know won't be the case in the EU where language quotas are commonplace and cultural value tests are looming.
    It would be quite funny if the French language content ends up being made in these new studios....
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507

    tlg86 said:

    Totally O/t, but on the 'language subject" I found this on the Guardian website, from Jonathan Bosanquet:

    "The full horror of the Hundred is with us and commentators have been told to be careful about using terms such as yorker, googly and bouncer for fear that they might not sit easily with the new audience the “sport” is aimed at. Mmm. The report goes on to say: “Sky and the England and Wales Cricket Board have launched what they describe as an ‘industry-first augmented reality experience’ in which fans will be able to download avatars of the players on the Hundred or Sky app.”

    I find The Hundred quite entertaining, but the relentless and apparently forced positivity of the team finding spectators who've 'never been to a cricket match before' smacks of desperation.

    Has any other sport ever tried to do something like this? It’s almost like some weird cult trying to pretend that history doesn’t exist.
    On the other hand:

    I'm not into cricket at all. Whilst I find such terms endearing and funny, they're also a sort-of barrier to watching.

    All sports have their own lingo and terminology. It's just that in many sports - e.g. motor sports - it's fairly obvious who is in the lead, even to a first-time watcher. Cricket (and things like baseball) are slow and ponderous sports, and it can be far from obvious what the heck is going on to a first-time watcher.

    So yes, it may help attract new viewers. Would it help attract me? Frankly, yes. If I had any spare time at the moment...
    Cricket can mystify the casual. I'll never forget a German colleague watching a second innings of a game (or possible the last innings of a test) and the batting team had lost 5 wickets and were half way to the score needed. To my colleague he thought they were on course (numerically he was right, it was heading for a tight finish) but to a cricket fan of course they were in trouble as five of the best batsmen had been dismissed and the ones to come were mainly bowlers of indifferent batting ability.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605

    MaxPB said:

    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?
    Aiui a lot of the inwards investment for film and TV is coming to the UK because the UK government is trusted not to force production companies to make "local" content here. Production houses feel as though they have complete freedom to make what they want that they know won't be the case in the EU where language quotas are commonplace and cultural value tests are looming.
    It would be quite funny if the French language content ends up being made in these new studios....
    There's actually a pretty decent chance it will.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,296

    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 am also not sure the continuity remainers on here understand what was put forward on the bus - I voted remain by the way.

    The message wasn't spend this much or that much on the NHS. The message was should we be part of an international grouping where we put additional strain on the NHS through the level of immigration, or would we rather spend the money that was spent on membership on the health of the nation. If you consider it that way then the argument is more nuanced. Of course because RP thinks the leavers are stupid then he thinks that they must have been duped.

    And remainers at the time took the bait, they repeated and repeated that the number was wrong and it should be 200m or whatever, and all they were doing was repeating their opponents line and people were still thinking yes I'd rather spend the adjusted figure on the NHS.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019
    edited August 2021

    TOPPING said:

    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.
    Many years ago I was lucky enough to spend a day at a Lords’ Test in one of the hospitality boxes: the Chairman of Governors had access to one as he was something very senior at the company that owned it, and he offered it to the teachers at the school who took cricket teams (which I did at the time).
    Turns out that a bunch of PE staff can consume an awful lot of alcohol between start of play at 10:30 or so and the close at 7:00 (extra time was allowed as Zimbabwe were deep into their second innings and it looked like the match would be over soon, which turned out to be accurate).
    It was great fun, but I’m surprised I remember any of it given that I think I may have drunk more on that day than any other in my life, with the possible exception of the day I finished finals.
    I always advise against such events (ie all day sports with corporate hospitality or "boxes" eg cricket, horse racing, etc), especially for stag parties for the same reason. It is hours and hours of drinking and who wouldn't in such an environment.
  • 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...
    What would you say to a hypothetical Scot in a few years who complains that they only voted to leave the UK, not the currency or the trade zone?
    That depends on the question they were asked! As the GB customs zone (there is no longer a UK customs zone) is not the UK then a vote to leave the UK is not the same as leaving the GB customs zone. The Isle of Man is not in the UK but it is in the GB customs zone.
    So Scotland could vote for independence and then become a crown dependency? That's an interesting suggestion.
    Vote for independence and retain the monarchy, absolutely.

    I honestly don't think you have a clue though. Have just given you a direct example of where "the UK" and the "Customs Union" are completely separate entities with different memberships. "No, they're the same" is your response. Whatever.

    Just don't insist that black is in fact white and get run over on the next Zebra Crossing.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,973
    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.

    The level of Unionist complacency during the 1980s and 90s was monumental. Although they did wake up a bit during the early 2000s, by 2015 there were still lots of SLab MPs who still didn’t have the faintest scoobie who their voters were. Or by that late date, rather their former voters.

    Take Angus for example, a former Tory stronghold. We received intelligence that the Con canvass records were so unsophisticated that their organiser pointed down a few streets and proclaimed that these were Conservative voters. When the SNP subsequently built up a detailed picture of how the individuals living at those addresses actually voted, we discovered that not one single registered elector in any of those streets was a Con voter. Conservative arrogance and ignorance like that was pretty much universal throughout the areas they held up until their collapse.

    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 ?
    They already have and lost half their members.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited August 2021
    British voters are now the least likely in the world to think referendums are an effective means of settling the most important political issues
    https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1422120479461187588?s=20
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,847
    Mr. G, can't imagine those who donated on the condition of a ring-fenced second referendum fund are thrilled how that turned out.

    Not pro-separation, of course, but things like that should be honoured otherwise it hugely degrades trust in politics.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,874
    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 am also not sure the continuity remainers on here understand what was put forward on the bus - I voted remain by the way.

    The message wasn't spend this much or that much on the NHS. The message was should we be part of an international grouping where we put additional strain on the NHS through the level of immigration, or would we rather spend the money that was spent on membership on the health of the nation. If you consider it that way then the argument is more nuanced. Of course because RP thinks the leavers are stupid then he thinks that they must have been duped.

    And remainers at the time took the bait, they repeated and repeated that the number was wrong and it should be 200m or whatever, and all they were doing was repeating their opponents line and people were still thinking yes I'd rather spend the adjusted figure on the NHS.
    Question. "The message wasn't spend this much or that much on the NHS.". How can you say that with a straight face when the bus looked like this?


    The value of the figure isn't the issue - I've already said that people have no idea how much £350m is or what NHS services it can buy. They wanted a better NHS as you said. But you can't say "The message wasn't spend this much or that much on the NHS." when "spend £350m a week on the NHS" was the entire message on the bus. Come on...

    EDIT - as for "RP thinks the leavers are stupid" as I was a leave voter that would be pretty funny. I know the organisers of the leave campaign think people are stupid, and with some leave voters still fighting the Vietnam Brexit war after winning its true that many have been weaponised. Stupid though? No, they voted for change against the system. What will undo the thing is that the change they want and the change hard right Tory influencers want isn't the same.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279
    Cyclefree 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?
    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.

    Some years ago I got involved in the Alternative Health business....... vitamin supplements, homeopathic medicines, and so on..... and went to a few conferences.
    It was very very noticeable that there were two groups of attenders, who rarely spoke to each other.
    One was the people who were in it for the money..... well dressed youngish men, who talked 'normal business'.
    The other were (almost) sandals and beards..... or long flowing dresses for the women..... types who regarded replacing 'scientific' medicines as a crusade in which they had a duty to convert the unbeliever.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    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.
    Many years ago I was lucky enough to spend a day at a Lords’ Test in one of the hospitality boxes: the Chairman of Governors had access to one as he was something very senior at the company that owned it, and he offered it to the teachers at the school who took cricket teams (which I did at the time).
    Turns out that a bunch of PE staff can consume an awful lot of alcohol between start of play at 10:30 or so and the close at 7:00 (extra time was allowed as Zimbabwe were deep into their second innings and it looked like the match would be over soon, which turned out to be accurate).
    It was great fun, but I’m surprised I remember any of it given that I think I may have drunk more on that day than any other in my life, with the possible exception of the day I finished finals.
    I always advise against such events (ie all day sports with corporate hospitality or "boxes" eg cricket, horse racing, etc), especially for stag parties for the same reason. It is hours and hours of drinking and who wouldn't in such an environment.
    As this was free (for me and the other teachers at least: the chairman was paying) I don’t think I have any grounds to complain.
    And I do remember that a lot of wickets fell, even if I couldn’t tell you much about any of them without looking it up.
  • TOPPING said:

    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.
    Yeah, he's had half an hour! It is an interesting question but also a bit of a straw man, at least for the foreseeable future.

    In other news, pre-lockdown the consensus in the works cafe was that meat-substitute sausage rolls were better than the real thing.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,039
    edited August 2021
    TOPPING said:

    mwadams said:



    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.
    I hadn't seen your query, Topping, sorry. In practice animals are reared, fattened and slaughtered at a brisk pace, so no animal currently alive is likely to be affected by a market change starting in 10-15 years. I'm more concerned about the suffering of individual animals than the growth or decline of particular breeds, but I think it's really unlikely that farm animals will disappear altogether - there will always be people who do prefer animal meat for the forseeable future (our lifetime, at least), and if it's from cows reared in high-welfare conditions I don't have much quarrel with it. But I wouldn't feel there was any special reason to insist that we have a very large number of farm animals instead of a smaller number.

    Farmers would obviously be affected, but in Britain factory farming is a small sector dominated by large owners who are usually quite unsentimental about the business (it's hard to regard a bunch of sheds with masses of chickens with affection) - if it becomes more profitable to sell meat from laboratories or plants instead of dead animals, then that's what they'll do. The smaller sector with high-welfare pasture fed grazing livestock is likely to continue for the forseeable future, in my view.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    TOPPING said:

    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.
    Many years ago I was lucky enough to spend a day at a Lords’ Test in one of the hospitality boxes: the Chairman of Governors had access to one as he was something very senior at the company that owned it, and he offered it to the teachers at the school who took cricket teams (which I did at the time).
    Turns out that a bunch of PE staff can consume an awful lot of alcohol between start of play at 10:30 or so and the close at 7:00 (extra time was allowed as Zimbabwe were deep into their second innings and it looked like the match would be over soon, which turned out to be accurate).
    It was great fun, but I’m surprised I remember any of it given that I think I may have drunk more on that day than any other in my life, with the possible exception of the day I finished finals.
    I would guess that was the 2000 Test? With Graeme Hick’s final test century and Alec Stewart’s 13th(?).
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,973

    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.

    The level of Unionist complacency during the 1980s and 90s was monumental. Although they did wake up a bit during the early 2000s, by 2015 there were still lots of SLab MPs who still didn’t have the faintest scoobie who their voters were. Or by that late date, rather their former voters.

    Take Angus for example, a former Tory stronghold. We received intelligence that the Con canvass records were so unsophisticated that their organiser pointed down a few streets and proclaimed that these were Conservative voters. When the SNP subsequently built up a detailed picture of how the individuals living at those addresses actually voted, we discovered that not one single registered elector in any of those streets was a Con voter. Conservative arrogance and ignorance like that was pretty much universal throughout the areas they held up until their collapse.

    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.
    TUD, amazing as it may seem on this one he is actually correct. She made sure she did not have a decent majority with her SNP2 rhetoric which allowed a shedload of unionist list MSP's. If she had any real interest in ever having a referendum she would have urged them to vote ALBA. Her hatred of Salmond and desperation to keep all power in her hands was just a terrible decision. That and her other stuff will come to haunt her, she will go down as Scotland's Ceaușescu.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 1,524
    edited August 2021

    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...
    What would you say to a hypothetical Scot in a few years who complains that they only voted to leave the UK, not the currency or the trade zone?
    That depends on the question they were asked! As the GB customs zone (there is no longer a UK customs zone) is not the UK then a vote to leave the UK is not the same as leaving the GB customs zone. The Isle of Man is not in the UK but it is in the GB customs zone.
    So Scotland could vote for independence and then become a crown dependency? That's an interesting suggestion.
    Well the political pendulum swings in strange ways. However I think that we are about to see a major fall in support for the monarchy across the board. Its not just the Harry & Meghan soap opera or the nasty piece of work that is Andrew. There is, I think, an increasing sense that the after the Queen dies then some pretty significant changes will be needed, and these changes are beyond what the court can deal with.

    The Ben Elliott sleaze is not at all helpful and reinforces the sense of institutional decline.

    www.Republic.org.uk is reporting a significant growth in membership and support.


  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341
    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.
    Here are some interesting studies in this area on the nutritional differences.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0963996921004853

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-93100-3?s=09

    And this is what is in a Beyond Meat product. It's not so much beyond meat as beyond anything even remotely resembling a plant product.

    https://twitter.com/fleroy1974/status/1413210283162615811?s=21.
  • ydoethur said:

    TOPPING said:

    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.
    Many years ago I was lucky enough to spend a day at a Lords’ Test in one of the hospitality boxes: the Chairman of Governors had access to one as he was something very senior at the company that owned it, and he offered it to the teachers at the school who took cricket teams (which I did at the time).
    Turns out that a bunch of PE staff can consume an awful lot of alcohol between start of play at 10:30 or so and the close at 7:00 (extra time was allowed as Zimbabwe were deep into their second innings and it looked like the match would be over soon, which turned out to be accurate).
    It was great fun, but I’m surprised I remember any of it given that I think I may have drunk more on that day than any other in my life, with the possible exception of the day I finished finals.
    I would guess that was the 2000 Test? With Graeme Hick’s final test century and Alec Stewart’s 13th(?).
    We only saw Zimbabwe bat: they lost 19 wickets (having been one down at the start) and so lost the test by an innings and a number of runs that I couldn’t tell you without looking it up.
    2000 sounds about right though.
  • TOPPING said:

    mwadams said:



    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.
    I hadn't seen your query, Topping, sorry. In practice animals are reared, fattened and slaughtered at a brisk pace, so no animal currently alive is likely to be affected by a market change starting in 10-15 years. I'm more concerned about the suffering of individual animals than the growth or decline of particular breeds, but I think it's really unlikely that farm animals will disappear altogether - there will always be people who do prefer animal meat for the forseeable future (our lifetime, at least), and if it's from cows reared in high-welfare conditions I don't have much quarrel with it. But I wouldn't feel there was any special reason to insist that we have a very large number of farm animals instead of a smaller number.

    Farmers would obviously be affected, but in Britain factory farming is a small sector dominated by large owners who are usually quite unsentimental about the business (it's hard to regard a bunch of sheds with masses of chickens with affection) - if it becomes more profitable to sell meat from laboratories or plants instead of dead animals, then that's what they'll do. The smaller sector with high-welfare pasture fed grazing livestock is likely to continue for the forseeable future, in my view.
    My perspective is that alt-meat will be great for farming because there is a chance to actually make money. Meat will continue to be a significant food source, but is going to continue to become more expensive. Cut the crap end of meat from the market and replace that with cheaper plant-based and farmers can invest in quality and sell it for more.
  • Cyclefree said:

    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.
    Here are some interesting studies in this area on the nutritional differences.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0963996921004853

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-93100-3?s=09

    And this is what is in a Beyond Meat product. It's not so much beyond meat as beyond anything even remotely resembling a plant product.

    https://twitter.com/fleroy1974/status/1413210283162615811?s=21.
    South park did a funny episode based on this.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    MrEd said:

    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.
    Maybe they should - but maybe you should have made that point in the first place.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,764

    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.

    Hope bottom brackets are good (PF30 variant) but that thing's junk.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019

    TOPPING said:

    mwadams said:



    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.
    I hadn't seen your query, Topping, sorry. In practice animals are reared, fattened and slaughtered at a brisk pace, so no animal currently alive is likely to be affected by a market change starting in 10-15 years. I'm more concerned about the suffering of individual animals than the growth or decline of particular breeds, but I think it's really unlikely that farm animals will disappear altogether - there will always be people who do prefer animal meat for the forseeable future (our lifetime, at least), and if it's from cows reared in high-welfare conditions I don't have much quarrel with it. But I wouldn't feel there was any special reason to insist that we have a very large number of farm animals instead of a smaller number.

    Farmers would obviously be affected, but in Britain factory farming is a small sector dominated by large owners who are usually quite unsentimental about the business (it's hard to regard a bunch of sheds with masses of chickens with affection) - if it becomes more profitable to sell meat from laboratories or plants instead of dead animals, then that's what they'll do. The smaller sector with high-welfare pasture fed grazing livestock is likely to continue for the forseeable future, in my view.
    Thanks very much that makes sense. I wasn't talking about any animal alive today just in general if/when national herds become niche markets. Which in time is what you are suggesting will logically happen with those small, high-welfare units.

    I suppose if those millions of animals don't exist one way or another then the issue of their welfare is moot. I was just interested in the idea of whether it is thought in the industry (including your oversight industry) whether not to have those sheds of chickens and have instead artificially produced or plant-based meat would be a desirable end state.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,719
    Cicero said:

    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...
    What would you say to a hypothetical Scot in a few years who complains that they only voted to leave the UK, not the currency or the trade zone?
    That depends on the question they were asked! As the GB customs zone (there is no longer a UK customs zone) is not the UK then a vote to leave the UK is not the same as leaving the GB customs zone. The Isle of Man is not in the UK but it is in the GB customs zone.
    So Scotland could vote for independence and then become a crown dependency? That's an interesting suggestion.
    Well the political pendulum swings in strange ways. However I think that we are about to see a major fall in support for the monarchy across the board. Its not just the Harry & Meghan soap opera or the nasty piece of work that is Andrew. There is, I think, an increasing sense that the after the Queen dies then some pretty significant changes will be needed, and these changes are beyond what the court can deal with.

    The Ben Elliott sleaze is not at all helpful and reinforces the sense of institutional decline.

    www.Republic.org.uk is reporting a significant growth in membership and support.


    Any Republican hoping that the Queen dying is going to bring about a huge dropoff in support for the Royal Family is in for a nasty shock when it actually happens. Charles isn't much liked right now, but the sight of him eulogising his mother is going to give him a pretty massive boost. Camilla isn't proving to be nearly as much of a turnoff as anyone thought, either.

    And they always forget that the coronation will be swiftly followed by the investiture of William and Kate as Prince and Princess of Wales. And, regardless of how people feel about Charles, almost everyone absolutely loves William and Kate.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    ydoethur said:

    TOPPING said:

    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.
    Many years ago I was lucky enough to spend a day at a Lords’ Test in one of the hospitality boxes: the Chairman of Governors had access to one as he was something very senior at the company that owned it, and he offered it to the teachers at the school who took cricket teams (which I did at the time).
    Turns out that a bunch of PE staff can consume an awful lot of alcohol between start of play at 10:30 or so and the close at 7:00 (extra time was allowed as Zimbabwe were deep into their second innings and it looked like the match would be over soon, which turned out to be accurate).
    It was great fun, but I’m surprised I remember any of it given that I think I may have drunk more on that day than any other in my life, with the possible exception of the day I finished finals.
    I would guess that was the 2000 Test? With Graeme Hick’s final test century and Alec Stewart’s 13th(?).
    We only saw Zimbabwe bat: they lost 19 wickets (having been one down at the start) and so lost the test by an innings and a number of runs that I couldn’t tell you without looking it up.
    2000 sounds about right though.
    That must have been day 3 of the 2003 Test then, when they batted second and followed on.

    https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/zimbabwe-tour-of-england-and-ireland-2003-61990/england-vs-zimbabwe-1st-test-64032/full-scorecard

    Shame you missed the wicket the night before. It was the first wicket of a young, promising bowler whom people thought might be quite good.

    And 18 years later Mr James Anderson is still pretty damn good...
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019

    TOPPING said:

    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.
    Yeah, he's had half an hour! It is an interesting question but also a bit of a straw man, at least for the foreseeable future.

    In other news, pre-lockdown the consensus in the works cafe was that meat-substitute sausage rolls were better than the real thing.
    Yeah but did you use red or brown sauce?

    Slather anything in enough condiments and it tastes pretty good.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 3,873
    edited August 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    snip
    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...)

    Didn't the UK have to pay a lot more than that per person for France's farmers' payments? We got just under €4bn in CAP payments from the EU in 2015, from a total of €53bn, so about 7.5% of the total, having contributed 12.57% of the 2015 EU budget total after rebates.

    I don't know how the maths would work out when all other things are factored in in, but I don't think we were paying only £65 quid a person for our farmers' CAP payments.

    According to
    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/common-agricultural-policy
    and
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/483344/EU_finances_2015_final_web_09122015.pdf
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,545
    JRM saying that vaccine passports are "not a British way to behave"

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1422117549400018946

    Rentoul makes the point that maybe he thinks he has a chance at the top job? He's surprised me before.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,145
    Cyclefree said:

    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?
    The announcement of the service for people at home seems to have have been around March 25th:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/25/uk-coronavirus-mass-home-testing-to-be-made-available-within-days

    So that implies not available, or at least not widely available, before then.

    That's as far as I can get easily.

    Perhaps more in questions in the House.
  • TOPPING said:

    mwadams said:



    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.
    I hadn't seen your query, Topping, sorry. In practice animals are reared, fattened and slaughtered at a brisk pace, so no animal currently alive is likely to be affected by a market change starting in 10-15 years. I'm more concerned about the suffering of individual animals than the growth or decline of particular breeds, but I think it's really unlikely that farm animals will disappear altogether - there will always be people who do prefer animal meat for the forseeable future (our lifetime, at least), and if it's from cows reared in high-welfare conditions I don't have much quarrel with it. But I wouldn't feel there was any special reason to insist that we have a very large number of farm animals instead of a smaller number.

    Farmers would obviously be affected, but in Britain factory farming is a small sector dominated by large owners who are usually quite unsentimental about the business (it's hard to regard a bunch of sheds with masses of chickens with affection) - if it becomes more profitable to sell meat from laboratories or plants instead of dead animals, then that's what they'll do. The smaller sector with high-welfare pasture fed grazing livestock is likely to continue for the forseeable future, in my view.
    My perspective is that alt-meat will be great for farming because there is a chance to actually make money. Meat will continue to be a significant food source, but is going to continue to become more expensive. Cut the crap end of meat from the market and replace that with cheaper plant-based and farmers can invest in quality and sell it for more.
    Last weekend I was at the Mid-Devon show down in Tiverton. The main reason for it is the showing of different animals of more breeds than I could name (think Crufts but for farm animals rather than dogs). There will be people who are interested in and want to raise rare breeds for as long as it is financially doable I think.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,822
    edited August 2021
    malcolmg said:

    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.

    The level of Unionist complacency during the 1980s and 90s was monumental. Although they did wake up a bit during the early 2000s, by 2015 there were still lots of SLab MPs who still didn’t have the faintest scoobie who their voters were. Or by that late date, rather their former voters.

    Take Angus for example, a former Tory stronghold. We received intelligence that the Con canvass records were so unsophisticated that their organiser pointed down a few streets and proclaimed that these were Conservative voters. When the SNP subsequently built up a detailed picture of how the individuals living at those addresses actually voted, we discovered that not one single registered elector in any of those streets was a Con voter. Conservative arrogance and ignorance like that was pretty much universal throughout the areas they held up until their collapse.

    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.
    TUD, amazing as it may seem on this one he is actually correct. She made sure she did not have a decent majority with her SNP2 rhetoric which allowed a shedload of unionist list MSP's. If she had any real interest in ever having a referendum she would have urged them to vote ALBA. Her hatred of Salmond and desperation to keep all power in her hands was just a terrible decision. That and her other stuff will come to haunt her, she will go down as Scotland's Ceaușescu.
    Malc, politics is a tough old game and if you can't manage the first step of getting ordinary punters to vote for you, the game's a bogey. Complaining that the game's fixed or that your opponents are rotters won't change anything, something Salmond used to understand very well.
    I personally can't see how having an extra 5 or 10 Alba MSPs in Hollyrood would have moved us an inch closer to a referendum, but I'm willing to listen if you can talk me through how it might have worked.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    TOPPING said:

    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.
    Many years ago I was lucky enough to spend a day at a Lords’ Test in one of the hospitality boxes: the Chairman of Governors had access to one as he was something very senior at the company that owned it, and he offered it to the teachers at the school who took cricket teams (which I did at the time).
    Turns out that a bunch of PE staff can consume an awful lot of alcohol between start of play at 10:30 or so and the close at 7:00 (extra time was allowed as Zimbabwe were deep into their second innings and it looked like the match would be over soon, which turned out to be accurate).
    It was great fun, but I’m surprised I remember any of it given that I think I may have drunk more on that day than any other in my life, with the possible exception of the day I finished finals.
    I would guess that was the 2000 Test? With Graeme Hick’s final test century and Alec Stewart’s 13th(?).
    We only saw Zimbabwe bat: they lost 19 wickets (having been one down at the start) and so lost the test by an innings and a number of runs that I couldn’t tell you without looking it up.
    2000 sounds about right though.
    That must have been day 3 of the 2003 Test then, when they batted second and followed on.

    https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/zimbabwe-tour-of-england-and-ireland-2003-61990/england-vs-zimbabwe-1st-test-64032/full-scorecard

    Shame you missed the wicket the night before. It was the first wicket of a young, promising bowler whom people thought might be quite good.

    And 18 years later Mr James Anderson is still pretty damn good...
    Thanks for that: it’s nice to be able to pin down some of the events of my life a little better. That was a great day, though never to be repeated.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,308
    DougSeal said:

    JRM saying that vaccine passports are "not a British way to behave"

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1422117549400018946

    Rentoul makes the point that maybe he thinks he has a chance at the top job? He's surprised me before.

    I've rather forgotten but is Rees-Mogg still a member of the government? An extraordinary intervention if so and underlines the fact that Boris has the whiff of political death about him.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    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.
    Yeah, he's had half an hour! It is an interesting question but also a bit of a straw man, at least for the foreseeable future.

    In other news, pre-lockdown the consensus in the works cafe was that meat-substitute sausage rolls were better than the real thing.
    Yeah but did you use red or brown sauce?

    Slather anything in enough condiments and it tastes pretty good.
    Tbh I never tried it. Just reporting what happened.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    TOPPING said:

    mwadams said:



    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.
    I hadn't seen your query, Topping, sorry. In practice animals are reared, fattened and slaughtered at a brisk pace, so no animal currently alive is likely to be affected by a market change starting in 10-15 years. I'm more concerned about the suffering of individual animals than the growth or decline of particular breeds, but I think it's really unlikely that farm animals will disappear altogether - there will always be people who do prefer animal meat for the forseeable future (our lifetime, at least), and if it's from cows reared in high-welfare conditions I don't have much quarrel with it. But I wouldn't feel there was any special reason to insist that we have a very large number of farm animals instead of a smaller number.

    Farmers would obviously be affected, but in Britain factory farming is a small sector dominated by large owners who are usually quite unsentimental about the business (it's hard to regard a bunch of sheds with masses of chickens with affection) - if it becomes more profitable to sell meat from laboratories or plants instead of dead animals, then that's what they'll do. The smaller sector with high-welfare pasture fed grazing livestock is likely to continue for the forseeable future, in my view.
    My perspective is that alt-meat will be great for farming because there is a chance to actually make money. Meat will continue to be a significant food source, but is going to continue to become more expensive. Cut the crap end of meat from the market and replace that with cheaper plant-based and farmers can invest in quality and sell it for more.
    Last weekend I was at the Mid-Devon show down in Tiverton. The main reason for it is the showing of different animals of more breeds than I could name (think Crufts but for farm animals rather than dogs). There will be people who are interested in and want to raise rare breeds for as long as it is financially doable I think.
    Not so. All sorts of fantastic horse and pony breeds (Cleveland Bay, Suffolk Punch, Exmoor) are in serious danger. You get a positive feedback going: the fewer other breeders the fewer shows to go to therefore far away and expensive to get to, the fewer breeding options etc
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Laura Collet just one penalty in jumping, UK still looking good for team gold
  • Looking out the window now across the Forest of Bowland and Yorkshire Dales, I can see both cattle and sheep on the improved land below the grouse moor and sheep on the moor itself. In the distance are the Lakeland hills with a wind farm just visible. There are four working farms in the Dale compared to dozens in the past - farms have consolidated and old farm building converted to housing for, mainly, retired couples who have sold up down south and bought properties big enough to accommodate families when they visit. Two recent incomers are planting trees on former farmland - mainly traditional varieties rather than fast growing trees for biofuel.
    One wonders what the view will be in 20 years time.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    edited August 2021
    Endillion said:

    Cicero said:

    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...
    What would you say to a hypothetical Scot in a few years who complains that they only voted to leave the UK, not the currency or the trade zone?
    That depends on the question they were asked! As the GB customs zone (there is no longer a UK customs zone) is not the UK then a vote to leave the UK is not the same as leaving the GB customs zone. The Isle of Man is not in the UK but it is in the GB customs zone.
    So Scotland could vote for independence and then become a crown dependency? That's an interesting suggestion.
    Well the political pendulum swings in strange ways. However I think that we are about to see a major fall in support for the monarchy across the board. Its not just the Harry & Meghan soap opera or the nasty piece of work that is Andrew. There is, I think, an increasing sense that the after the Queen dies then some pretty significant changes will be needed, and these changes are beyond what the court can deal with.

    The Ben Elliott sleaze is not at all helpful and reinforces the sense of institutional decline.

    www.Republic.org.uk is reporting a significant growth in membership and support.


    Any Republican hoping that the Queen dying is going to bring about a huge dropoff in support for the Royal Family is in for a nasty shock when it actually happens. Charles isn't much liked right now, but the sight of him eulogising his mother is going to give him a pretty massive boost. Camilla isn't proving to be nearly as much of a turnoff as anyone thought, either.

    And they always forget that the coronation will be swiftly followed by the investiture of William and Kate as Prince and Princess of Wales. And, regardless of how people feel about Charles, almost everyone absolutely loves William and Kate.
    The other problem, is that Charles has actually been ahead of the woke curve on a number of areas.

    He was raising what could be called institutional racism as a problem in 80s. Multiculturalism - "Defender of faiths". Long term involvement in environmental matters. Interest in the quality of housing.

    You can say that some of his ideas on these things are wrong. But as the Guardian found out when they published his letters to ministers, not many people objected to what he was saying on them.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,230

    DougSeal said:

    JRM saying that vaccine passports are "not a British way to behave"

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1422117549400018946

    Rentoul makes the point that maybe he thinks he has a chance at the top job? He's surprised me before.

    I've rather forgotten but is Rees-Mogg still a member of the government? An extraordinary intervention if so and underlines the fact that Boris has the whiff of political death about him.
    He's Leader of the House.
    Suggests to me the PM doesn't have a plan.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    TOPPING said:

    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.
    Many years ago I was lucky enough to spend a day at a Lords’ Test in one of the hospitality boxes: the Chairman of Governors had access to one as he was something very senior at the company that owned it, and he offered it to the teachers at the school who took cricket teams (which I did at the time).
    Turns out that a bunch of PE staff can consume an awful lot of alcohol between start of play at 10:30 or so and the close at 7:00 (extra time was allowed as Zimbabwe were deep into their second innings and it looked like the match would be over soon, which turned out to be accurate).
    It was great fun, but I’m surprised I remember any of it given that I think I may have drunk more on that day than any other in my life, with the possible exception of the day I finished finals.
    I would guess that was the 2000 Test? With Graeme Hick’s final test century and Alec Stewart’s 13th(?).
    We only saw Zimbabwe bat: they lost 19 wickets (having been one down at the start) and so lost the test by an innings and a number of runs that I couldn’t tell you without looking it up.
    2000 sounds about right though.
    That must have been day 3 of the 2003 Test then, when they batted second and followed on.

    https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/zimbabwe-tour-of-england-and-ireland-2003-61990/england-vs-zimbabwe-1st-test-64032/full-scorecard

    Shame you missed the wicket the night before. It was the first wicket of a young, promising bowler whom people thought might be quite good.

    And 18 years later Mr James Anderson is still pretty damn good...
    Thanks for that: it’s nice to be able to pin down some of the events of my life a little better. That was a great day, though never to be repeated.
    ‘If you can remember Jimmy Anderson’s 5-73, you weren’t there.’

    And I wasn’t. I watched on Channel 4 in a small flat in Aberystwyth.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304
    edited August 2021
    OT and in response to @squareroot2

    In any election when a party gains x number of seats it is very rare for them to gain exactly the top x targets. They will in fact gain some harder to get seats and lose out on some easier ones. Any party with any sense will want to look at why, particularly ones which are real outliers. Hence OGH's article was particularly interesting regarding his experience.

    The idea that this is another 'why the Tories lost' thread is bizarre. There is nothing negative about the Tories in this article at all. Anyone who sees this as another negative Tory thread really has a very biased view of life. If anything it is a positive thread as it shows that, all other things being equal, they nearly won even bigger.

    Being anti Tory is failing to identify why you didn't win seats which you should have won, but if that is the route you want to go down.....
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,341
    MattW said:

    Cyclefree said:

    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?
    The announcement of the service for people at home seems to have have been around March 25th:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/25/uk-coronavirus-mass-home-testing-to-be-made-available-within-days

    So that implies not available, or at least not widely available, before then.

    That's as far as I can get easily.

    Perhaps more in questions in the House.
    Thanks. Those were finger prick tests. But I don't think they became widely available. It was not until April or later that any sort of home testing really started, as far as I can tell.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Looking out the window now across the Forest of Bowland and Yorkshire Dales, I can see both cattle and sheep on the improved land below the grouse moor and sheep on the moor itself. In the distance are the Lakeland hills with a wind farm just visible. There are four working farms in the Dale compared to dozens in the past - farms have consolidated and old farm building converted to housing for, mainly, retired couples who have sold up down south and bought properties big enough to accommodate families when they visit. Two recent incomers are planting trees on former farmland - mainly traditional varieties rather than fast growing trees for biofuel.
    One wonders what the view will be in 20 years time.

    Appalling waste of good farmland.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    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?
    5G, duh.

    (I will be very disappointed if no one has made that joke yet)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    FF43 said:

    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.
    People point to or predict investments not happening because of Brexit all the time. Tesla springs to mind.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491

    "i like ready meals"....has to be up with i like pineapple on my pizza.

    Some are very good now!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491

    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.
    Quite. It's a pretty useful area for them when they want a diplomatic tet a tet.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    TOPPING said:

    mwadams said:



    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.
    I hadn't seen your query, Topping, sorry. In practice animals are reared, fattened and slaughtered at a brisk pace, so no animal currently alive is likely to be affected by a market change starting in 10-15 years. I'm more concerned about the suffering of individual animals than the growth or decline of particular breeds, but I think it's really unlikely that farm animals will disappear altogether - there will always be people who do prefer animal meat for the forseeable future (our lifetime, at least), and if it's from cows reared in high-welfare conditions I don't have much quarrel with it. But I wouldn't feel there was any special reason to insist that we have a very large number of farm animals instead of a smaller number.

    Farmers would obviously be affected, but in Britain factory farming is a small sector dominated by large owners who are usually quite unsentimental about the business (it's hard to regard a bunch of sheds with masses of chickens with affection) - if it becomes more profitable to sell meat from laboratories or plants instead of dead animals, then that's what they'll do. The smaller sector with high-welfare pasture fed grazing livestock is likely to continue for the forseeable future, in my view.
    My perspective is that alt-meat will be great for farming because there is a chance to actually make money. Meat will continue to be a significant food source, but is going to continue to become more expensive. Cut the crap end of meat from the market and replace that with cheaper plant-based and farmers can invest in quality and sell it for more.
    Last weekend I was at the Mid-Devon show down in Tiverton. The main reason for it is the showing of different animals of more breeds than I could name (think Crufts but for farm animals rather than dogs). There will be people who are interested in and want to raise rare breeds for as long as it is financially doable I think.
    Not so. All sorts of fantastic horse and pony breeds (Cleveland Bay, Suffolk Punch, Exmoor) are in serious danger. You get a positive feedback going: the fewer other breeders the fewer shows to go to therefore far away and expensive to get to, the fewer breeding options etc
    I can see that a lot of effort is required. I am a bit more hopeful that, as far as possible, there are people prepared to put in the effort rather than just go for the obvious breeds that everyone else uses, even if not all breeds are ultimately viable.

    I did decide that my favourite breed of cattle were the Dexters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter_cattle

  • dixiedean said:

    DougSeal said:

    JRM saying that vaccine passports are "not a British way to behave"

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1422117549400018946

    Rentoul makes the point that maybe he thinks he has a chance at the top job? He's surprised me before.

    I've rather forgotten but is Rees-Mogg still a member of the government? An extraordinary intervention if so and underlines the fact that Boris has the whiff of political death about him.
    He's Leader of the House.
    Suggests to me the PM doesn't have a plan.
    It is a "Conservative and Unionist" government that does policies that directly contradict the name. Shagger gets away with it because of support within the parliamentary party which was largely Brexit driven.

    We can see this starting to fall away, with even self-styled "Brexit Hardman" Steve Baker going all-guns blazing after the people who delivered his version of Brexit. If the Moggster is now intervening to point out that "your papers please" is about as unconservative as you can get then who knows where this goes.

    Remember though that the Prime Minister has two primary ambitions in life - being Prime Minister and having sex with as many women as possible. Political ideology isn't on there as high up, so watch him not only pivot to drop the vax passport but insist that no such idea was ever considered.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    IshmaelZ said:

    Looking out the window now across the Forest of Bowland and Yorkshire Dales, I can see both cattle and sheep on the improved land below the grouse moor and sheep on the moor itself. In the distance are the Lakeland hills with a wind farm just visible. There are four working farms in the Dale compared to dozens in the past - farms have consolidated and old farm building converted to housing for, mainly, retired couples who have sold up down south and bought properties big enough to accommodate families when they visit. Two recent incomers are planting trees on former farmland - mainly traditional varieties rather than fast growing trees for biofuel.
    One wonders what the view will be in 20 years time.

    Appalling waste of good farmland.
    Good farm land in the Dales? I suspect your definition of good land differs from that of an arable farmer.

    Most Dales farmers are dairy and sheep for unavoidable reasons.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,883

    Endillion said:

    Cicero said:

    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...
    What would you say to a hypothetical Scot in a few years who complains that they only voted to leave the UK, not the currency or the trade zone?
    That depends on the question they were asked! As the GB customs zone (there is no longer a UK customs zone) is not the UK then a vote to leave the UK is not the same as leaving the GB customs zone. The Isle of Man is not in the UK but it is in the GB customs zone.
    So Scotland could vote for independence and then become a crown dependency? That's an interesting suggestion.
    Well the political pendulum swings in strange ways. However I think that we are about to see a major fall in support for the monarchy across the board. Its not just the Harry & Meghan soap opera or the nasty piece of work that is Andrew. There is, I think, an increasing sense that the after the Queen dies then some pretty significant changes will be needed, and these changes are beyond what the court can deal with.

    The Ben Elliott sleaze is not at all helpful and reinforces the sense of institutional decline.

    www.Republic.org.uk is reporting a significant growth in membership and support.


    Any Republican hoping that the Queen dying is going to bring about a huge dropoff in support for the Royal Family is in for a nasty shock when it actually happens. Charles isn't much liked right now, but the sight of him eulogising his mother is going to give him a pretty massive boost. Camilla isn't proving to be nearly as much of a turnoff as anyone thought, either.

    And they always forget that the coronation will be swiftly followed by the investiture of William and Kate as Prince and Princess of Wales. And, regardless of how people feel about Charles, almost everyone absolutely loves William and Kate.
    The other problem, is that Charles has actually been ahead of the woke curve on a number of areas.

    He was raising what could be called institutional racism as a problem in 80s. Multiculturalism - "Defender of faiths". Long term involvement in environmental matters. Interest in the quality of housing.

    You can say that some of his ideas on these things are wrong. But as the Guardian found out when they published his letters to ministers, not many people objected to what he was saying on them.
    And there remains the enticing prospect that under his reign a cart-load of brutalist architects will be hanged at Tyburn, drawn at Centre Point and finally quartered at Euston. I understand a suitable scaffold has already been erected.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Nigelb said:

    MrEd said:

    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.
    Maybe they should - but maybe you should have made that point in the first place.
    Mmmm, I did - my point was the BBC was taking his words at face value and not questioning him enough on his own motives.

    Glad to see you have accepted my point though.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    HYUFD said:

    British voters are now the least likely in the world to think referendums are an effective means of settling the most important political issues
    https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1422120479461187588?s=20

    If you're not Switzerland certainly. And in our system politicians pseudo but not really delegating a question on general issues back to the public was bound to be chaotic.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    kle4 said:

    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.
    Quite. It's a pretty useful area for them when they want a diplomatic tet a tet.
    The ultimate reason that the French will do nothing is that they can't export the migrants any other way. So they stay in the Calais area. The locals *HATE* them and want them gone. The French police and border service work really hard to make their lives unpleasant. So, when they get in a RIB and head for the UK - for the French, Problem Solved.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    TOPPING said:

    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.
    Many years ago I was lucky enough to spend a day at a Lords’ Test in one of the hospitality boxes: the Chairman of Governors had access to one as he was something very senior at the company that owned it, and he offered it to the teachers at the school who took cricket teams (which I did at the time).
    Turns out that a bunch of PE staff can consume an awful lot of alcohol between start of play at 10:30 or so and the close at 7:00 (extra time was allowed as Zimbabwe were deep into their second innings and it looked like the match would be over soon, which turned out to be accurate).
    It was great fun, but I’m surprised I remember any of it given that I think I may have drunk more on that day than any other in my life, with the possible exception of the day I finished finals.
    I would guess that was the 2000 Test? With Graeme Hick’s final test century and Alec Stewart’s 13th(?).
    We only saw Zimbabwe bat: they lost 19 wickets (having been one down at the start) and so lost the test by an innings and a number of runs that I couldn’t tell you without looking it up.
    2000 sounds about right though.
    That must have been day 3 of the 2003 Test then, when they batted second and followed on.

    https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/zimbabwe-tour-of-england-and-ireland-2003-61990/england-vs-zimbabwe-1st-test-64032/full-scorecard

    Shame you missed the wicket the night before. It was the first wicket of a young, promising bowler whom people thought might be quite good.

    And 18 years later Mr James Anderson is still pretty damn good...
    Thanks for that: it’s nice to be able to pin down some of the events of my life a little better. That was a great day, though never to be repeated.
    ‘If you can remember Jimmy Anderson’s 5-73, you weren’t there.’

    And I wasn’t. I watched on Channel 4 in a small flat in Aberystwyth.
    Ah: I, on the other hand, was there and had completely forgotten that he got a five-for.

    The disadvantage of the hospitality box...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    dixiedean said:

    DougSeal said:

    JRM saying that vaccine passports are "not a British way to behave"

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1422117549400018946

    Rentoul makes the point that maybe he thinks he has a chance at the top job? He's surprised me before.

    I've rather forgotten but is Rees-Mogg still a member of the government? An extraordinary intervention if so and underlines the fact that Boris has the whiff of political death about him.
    He's Leader of the House.
    Suggests to me the PM doesn't have a plan.
    It is a "Conservative and Unionist" government that does policies that directly contradict the name. Shagger gets away with it because of support within the parliamentary party which was largely Brexit driven.

    We can see this starting to fall away, with even self-styled "Brexit Hardman" Steve Baker going all-guns blazing after the people who delivered his version of Brexit. If the Moggster is now intervening to point out that "your papers please" is about as unconservative as you can get then who knows where this goes.

    Remember though that the Prime Minister has two primary ambitions in life - being Prime Minister and having sex with as many women as possible. Political ideology isn't on there as high up, so watch him not only pivot to drop the vax passport but insist that no such idea was ever considered.
    Vax passports are relatively popular though in the polls and the PM is very poll driven when deciding what to do (apparently the first thing he does every morning is check the polling on the key issues of the day).

    If Starmer does not oppose them (perhaps with testing added as an alternative) he could get them through even if 50-100 Tories vote against
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    TOPPING said:

    mwadams said:



    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.
    I hadn't seen your query, Topping, sorry. In practice animals are reared, fattened and slaughtered at a brisk pace, so no animal currently alive is likely to be affected by a market change starting in 10-15 years. I'm more concerned about the suffering of individual animals than the growth or decline of particular breeds, but I think it's really unlikely that farm animals will disappear altogether - there will always be people who do prefer animal meat for the forseeable future (our lifetime, at least), and if it's from cows reared in high-welfare conditions I don't have much quarrel with it. But I wouldn't feel there was any special reason to insist that we have a very large number of farm animals instead of a smaller number.

    Farmers would obviously be affected, but in Britain factory farming is a small sector dominated by large owners who are usually quite unsentimental about the business (it's hard to regard a bunch of sheds with masses of chickens with affection) - if it becomes more profitable to sell meat from laboratories or plants instead of dead animals, then that's what they'll do. The smaller sector with high-welfare pasture fed grazing livestock is likely to continue for the forseeable future, in my view.
    My perspective is that alt-meat will be great for farming because there is a chance to actually make money. Meat will continue to be a significant food source, but is going to continue to become more expensive. Cut the crap end of meat from the market and replace that with cheaper plant-based and farmers can invest in quality and sell it for more.
    Last weekend I was at the Mid-Devon show down in Tiverton. The main reason for it is the showing of different animals of more breeds than I could name (think Crufts but for farm animals rather than dogs). There will be people who are interested in and want to raise rare breeds for as long as it is financially doable I think.
    Not so. All sorts of fantastic horse and pony breeds (Cleveland Bay, Suffolk Punch, Exmoor) are in serious danger. You get a positive feedback going: the fewer other breeders the fewer shows to go to therefore far away and expensive to get to, the fewer breeding options etc
    I can see that a lot of effort is required. I am a bit more hopeful that, as far as possible, there are people prepared to put in the effort rather than just go for the obvious breeds that everyone else uses, even if not all breeds are ultimately viable.

    I did decide that my favourite breed of cattle were the Dexters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter_cattle

    But Suffolks and Clevelands are bloody lovely (always found Exmoors a bit gloomy). As draft horses they are without a job, and so will edible beasts be in a post edible world.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Looking out the window now across the Forest of Bowland and Yorkshire Dales, I can see both cattle and sheep on the improved land below the grouse moor and sheep on the moor itself. In the distance are the Lakeland hills with a wind farm just visible. There are four working farms in the Dale compared to dozens in the past - farms have consolidated and old farm building converted to housing for, mainly, retired couples who have sold up down south and bought properties big enough to accommodate families when they visit. Two recent incomers are planting trees on former farmland - mainly traditional varieties rather than fast growing trees for biofuel.
    One wonders what the view will be in 20 years time.

    Appalling waste of good farmland.
    Planting trees is likely to be rewarded under the new rural payments scheme once it is announced.

    One further comment on the view… there is now a breeding colony of seagulls on the moor and jackdaw numbers have increased tremendously; both as a consequence of the overnight withdrawal of licences to control the populations by trapping or shooting - buzzard numbers are also growing. As a result, curlew nests have been badly hit by predators - thanks Chris Packam and friends.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,039
    TOPPING said:



    Thanks very much that makes sense. I wasn't talking about any animal alive today just in general if/when national herds become niche markets. Which in time is what you are suggesting will logically happen with those small, high-welfare units.

    I suppose if those millions of animals don't exist one way or another then the issue of their welfare is moot. I was just interested in the idea of whether it is thought in the industry (including your oversight industry) whether not to have those sheds of chickens and have instead artificially produced or plant-based meat would be a desirable end state.

    I think so, don't you? Lots of people are just not very keen on soya and vegetables and reluctant to make the food experience into 2 unpalatable meals a day, but uncomfortable with killing animals to feed themselves, especially sheds of animals raised in grim conditions. If they can have exactly the same product without killing anything, it would be odd to insist.

    As others have posted, there will be effects on the farming landscape, but that does evolve anyway. The fields of grazing animals and villages with loads of chickens running around which I remember as a kid have largely been replaced by industrial farms - you can drive through large areas of countryside and almost never see a farm animal.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    TOPPING said:

    mwadams said:



    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.
    I hadn't seen your query, Topping, sorry. In practice animals are reared, fattened and slaughtered at a brisk pace, so no animal currently alive is likely to be affected by a market change starting in 10-15 years. I'm more concerned about the suffering of individual animals than the growth or decline of particular breeds, but I think it's really unlikely that farm animals will disappear altogether - there will always be people who do prefer animal meat for the forseeable future (our lifetime, at least), and if it's from cows reared in high-welfare conditions I don't have much quarrel with it. But I wouldn't feel there was any special reason to insist that we have a very large number of farm animals instead of a smaller number.

    Farmers would obviously be affected, but in Britain factory farming is a small sector dominated by large owners who are usually quite unsentimental about the business (it's hard to regard a bunch of sheds with masses of chickens with affection) - if it becomes more profitable to sell meat from laboratories or plants instead of dead animals, then that's what they'll do. The smaller sector with high-welfare pasture fed grazing livestock is likely to continue for the forseeable future, in my view.
    My perspective is that alt-meat will be great for farming because there is a chance to actually make money. Meat will continue to be a significant food source, but is going to continue to become more expensive. Cut the crap end of meat from the market and replace that with cheaper plant-based and farmers can invest in quality and sell it for more.
    Last weekend I was at the Mid-Devon show down in Tiverton. The main reason for it is the showing of different animals of more breeds than I could name (think Crufts but for farm animals rather than dogs). There will be people who are interested in and want to raise rare breeds for as long as it is financially doable I think.
    Not so. All sorts of fantastic horse and pony breeds (Cleveland Bay, Suffolk Punch, Exmoor) are in serious danger. You get a positive feedback going: the fewer other breeders the fewer shows to go to therefore far away and expensive to get to, the fewer breeding options etc
    I can see that a lot of effort is required. I am a bit more hopeful that, as far as possible, there are people prepared to put in the effort rather than just go for the obvious breeds that everyone else uses, even if not all breeds are ultimately viable.

    I did decide that my favourite breed of cattle were the Dexters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter_cattle

    But Suffolks and Clevelands are bloody lovely (always found Exmoors a bit gloomy). As draft horses they are without a job, and so will edible beasts be in a post edible world.
    It was notable that there were significantly fewer heavy horses than they normally get.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Germans all gone clear in show jumping
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    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.
    Agreed. I'm not sure what "Brexit Policy" will arise (if any) but it'd shock me to see SM membership in there. It brings Free Movement into the frame and if there's one thing Labour don't want to have back in the conversation it's this. Because for all the more arcane and cerebral - yes, ok, I know, but I'm feeling generous - reasons advanced for leaving the EU, it is this perception of our country being too easy for outsiders to penetrate which most animated (and still does) lots of the people Starmer needs to win round in order to be competitive at the next GE.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491

    Endillion said:

    Cicero said:

    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...
    What would you say to a hypothetical Scot in a few years who complains that they only voted to leave the UK, not the currency or the trade zone?
    That depends on the question they were asked! As the GB customs zone (there is no longer a UK customs zone) is not the UK then a vote to leave the UK is not the same as leaving the GB customs zone. The Isle of Man is not in the UK but it is in the GB customs zone.
    So Scotland could vote for independence and then become a crown dependency? That's an interesting suggestion.
    Well the political pendulum swings in strange ways. However I think that we are about to see a major fall in support for the monarchy across the board. Its not just the Harry & Meghan soap opera or the nasty piece of work that is Andrew. There is, I think, an increasing sense that the after the Queen dies then some pretty significant changes will be needed, and these changes are beyond what the court can deal with.

    The Ben Elliott sleaze is not at all helpful and reinforces the sense of institutional decline.

    www.Republic.org.uk is reporting a significant growth in membership and support.


    Any Republican hoping that the Queen dying is going to bring about a huge dropoff in support for the Royal Family is in for a nasty shock when it actually happens. Charles isn't much liked right now, but the sight of him eulogising his mother is going to give him a pretty massive boost. Camilla isn't proving to be nearly as much of a turnoff as anyone thought, either.

    And they always forget that the coronation will be swiftly followed by the investiture of William and Kate as Prince and Princess of Wales. And, regardless of how people feel about Charles, almost everyone absolutely loves William and Kate.
    The other problem, is that Charles has actually been ahead of the woke curve on a number of areas.

    He was raising what could be called institutional racism as a problem in 80s. Multiculturalism - "Defender of faiths". Long term involvement in environmental matters. Interest in the quality of housing.

    You can say that some of his ideas on these things are wrong. But as the Guardian found out when they published his letters to ministers, not many people objected to what he was saying on them.
    Charles should be fine, I think he knows what is expected of him. Family fallout from his children's families may well be damaging though.

    The Queens death will lead to reflection on the monarchy and I'd expect more overt republicanism from some high profile people in the UK but it will remain. The Caribbean islands will all go (many have intended to for ages anyway), and the question will at least be raised in Canada, Aus and NZ.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    Cicero said:

    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...
    What would you say to a hypothetical Scot in a few years who complains that they only voted to leave the UK, not the currency or the trade zone?
    That depends on the question they were asked! As the GB customs zone (there is no longer a UK customs zone) is not the UK then a vote to leave the UK is not the same as leaving the GB customs zone. The Isle of Man is not in the UK but it is in the GB customs zone.
    So Scotland could vote for independence and then become a crown dependency? That's an interesting suggestion.
    Well the political pendulum swings in strange ways. However I think that we are about to see a major fall in support for the monarchy across the board. Its not just the Harry & Meghan soap opera or the nasty piece of work that is Andrew. There is, I think, an increasing sense that the after the Queen dies then some pretty significant changes will be needed, and these changes are beyond what the court can deal with.

    The Ben Elliott sleaze is not at all helpful and reinforces the sense of institutional decline.

    www.Republic.org.uk is reporting a significant growth in membership and support.


    There will be some shift, while 85% of voters have a positive view of the Queen and that cuts across party lines with 98% of Tories and 77% of Labour voters viewing her positively Charles is rather less popular.

    The Prince of Wales is only viewed positively by 58% and that is much more divided on party lines, with 78% of Tories viewing him positively but only 44% of Labour voters, so expect Republic to get a boost from the left when he becomes King.

    Balance should be restored by William though who 76% view positively, including 69% of Labour voters as well as 96% of Tories
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/op5ota7eih/The Times Royal Favourability.pdf
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,719

    Endillion said:

    Cicero said:

    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...
    What would you say to a hypothetical Scot in a few years who complains that they only voted to leave the UK, not the currency or the trade zone?
    That depends on the question they were asked! As the GB customs zone (there is no longer a UK customs zone) is not the UK then a vote to leave the UK is not the same as leaving the GB customs zone. The Isle of Man is not in the UK but it is in the GB customs zone.
    So Scotland could vote for independence and then become a crown dependency? That's an interesting suggestion.
    Well the political pendulum swings in strange ways. However I think that we are about to see a major fall in support for the monarchy across the board. Its not just the Harry & Meghan soap opera or the nasty piece of work that is Andrew. There is, I think, an increasing sense that the after the Queen dies then some pretty significant changes will be needed, and these changes are beyond what the court can deal with.

    The Ben Elliott sleaze is not at all helpful and reinforces the sense of institutional decline.

    www.Republic.org.uk is reporting a significant growth in membership and support.


    Any Republican hoping that the Queen dying is going to bring about a huge dropoff in support for the Royal Family is in for a nasty shock when it actually happens. Charles isn't much liked right now, but the sight of him eulogising his mother is going to give him a pretty massive boost. Camilla isn't proving to be nearly as much of a turnoff as anyone thought, either.

    And they always forget that the coronation will be swiftly followed by the investiture of William and Kate as Prince and Princess of Wales. And, regardless of how people feel about Charles, almost everyone absolutely loves William and Kate.
    The other problem, is that Charles has actually been ahead of the woke curve on a number of areas.

    He was raising what could be called institutional racism as a problem in 80s. Multiculturalism - "Defender of faiths". Long term involvement in environmental matters. Interest in the quality of housing.

    You can say that some of his ideas on these things are wrong. But as the Guardian found out when they published his letters to ministers, not many people objected to what he was saying on them.
    As I recall, there was always significantly less objection to what he was saying than the potentially inappropriate use of his position to influence government policy.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,908
    kle4 said:

    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?
    5G, duh.

    (I will be very disappointed if no one has made that joke yet)
    If you compare heat maps of Covid deaths with maps of 5G coverage, it is pretty compelling!

    Of course, https://xkcd.com/1138/ may apply :wink:
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,387
    DougSeal said:

    JRM saying that vaccine passports are "not a British way to behave"

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1422117549400018946

    Rentoul makes the point that maybe he thinks he has a chance at the top job? He's surprised me before.

    If not king, king-maker?
  • Cyclefree 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?
    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.

    The great thing about meat and dairy alternatives is that they are an excellent gateway drug. When I first went plant based, they helped me transition away from eating meat (I'd already knocked dairy on the head). Over time we just started eating less of them and now rarely buy them. In fact the only time I ever really eat them is if I'm in a pub or cafe. Beyond Meat Burgers are superb, by the way.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306
    IshmaelZ said:

    Germans all gone clear in show jumping

    My money's still on the horses.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited August 2021
    kle4 said:

    Endillion said:

    Cicero said:

    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...
    What would you say to a hypothetical Scot in a few years who complains that they only voted to leave the UK, not the currency or the trade zone?
    That depends on the question they were asked! As the GB customs zone (there is no longer a UK customs zone) is not the UK then a vote to leave the UK is not the same as leaving the GB customs zone. The Isle of Man is not in the UK but it is in the GB customs zone.
    So Scotland could vote for independence and then become a crown dependency? That's an interesting suggestion.
    Well the political pendulum swings in strange ways. However I think that we are about to see a major fall in support for the monarchy across the board. Its not just the Harry & Meghan soap opera or the nasty piece of work that is Andrew. There is, I think, an increasing sense that the after the Queen dies then some pretty significant changes will be needed, and these changes are beyond what the court can deal with.

    The Ben Elliott sleaze is not at all helpful and reinforces the sense of institutional decline.

    www.Republic.org.uk is reporting a significant growth in membership and support.


    Any Republican hoping that the Queen dying is going to bring about a huge dropoff in support for the Royal Family is in for a nasty shock when it actually happens. Charles isn't much liked right now, but the sight of him eulogising his mother is going to give him a pretty massive boost. Camilla isn't proving to be nearly as much of a turnoff as anyone thought, either.

    And they always forget that the coronation will be swiftly followed by the investiture of William and Kate as Prince and Princess of Wales. And, regardless of how people feel about Charles, almost everyone absolutely loves William and Kate.
    The other problem, is that Charles has actually been ahead of the woke curve on a number of areas.

    He was raising what could be called institutional racism as a problem in 80s. Multiculturalism - "Defender of faiths". Long term involvement in environmental matters. Interest in the quality of housing.

    You can say that some of his ideas on these things are wrong. But as the Guardian found out when they published his letters to ministers, not many people objected to what he was saying on them.
    Charles should be fine, I think he knows what is expected of him. Family fallout from his children's families may well be damaging though.

    The Queens death will lead to reflection on the monarchy and I'd expect more overt republicanism from some high profile people in the UK but it will remain. The Caribbean islands will all go (many have intended to for ages anyway), and the question will at least be raised in Canada, Aus and NZ.
    Half the Caribbean islands like Trinidad have either gone to republics or are about to like Barbados though yes I expect the remainder will go under Charles.

    Australia will likely have a second referendum on the monarchy but only if and when Labor get back in, NZ would likely then follow Aus, I think it would be closer than 1999 when 55% voted against a republic but William and Kate could still swing it.

    Canada is least likely to go as both the Liberal PM Trudeau and the Leader of the Opposition Conservatives Erin O'Toole are constitutional monarchists, only the minority NDP and the BQ are republican
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    mwadams said:

    DougSeal said:

    JRM saying that vaccine passports are "not a British way to behave"

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1422117549400018946

    Rentoul makes the point that maybe he thinks he has a chance at the top job? He's surprised me before.

    If not king, king-maker?
    JRM is a sell out, Baker is the true voice of the awkward squad of MPs who'd like to believe they can be kingmakers.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,387
    kle4 said:

    Endillion said:

    Cicero said:

    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...
    What would you say to a hypothetical Scot in a few years who complains that they only voted to leave the UK, not the currency or the trade zone?
    That depends on the question they were asked! As the GB customs zone (there is no longer a UK customs zone) is not the UK then a vote to leave the UK is not the same as leaving the GB customs zone. The Isle of Man is not in the UK but it is in the GB customs zone.
    So Scotland could vote for independence and then become a crown dependency? That's an interesting suggestion.
    Well the political pendulum swings in strange ways. However I think that we are about to see a major fall in support for the monarchy across the board. Its not just the Harry & Meghan soap opera or the nasty piece of work that is Andrew. There is, I think, an increasing sense that the after the Queen dies then some pretty significant changes will be needed, and these changes are beyond what the court can deal with.

    The Ben Elliott sleaze is not at all helpful and reinforces the sense of institutional decline.

    www.Republic.org.uk is reporting a significant growth in membership and support.


    Any Republican hoping that the Queen dying is going to bring about a huge dropoff in support for the Royal Family is in for a nasty shock when it actually happens. Charles isn't much liked right now, but the sight of him eulogising his mother is going to give him a pretty massive boost. Camilla isn't proving to be nearly as much of a turnoff as anyone thought, either.

    And they always forget that the coronation will be swiftly followed by the investiture of William and Kate as Prince and Princess of Wales. And, regardless of how people feel about Charles, almost everyone absolutely loves William and Kate.
    The other problem, is that Charles has actually been ahead of the woke curve on a number of areas.

    He was raising what could be called institutional racism as a problem in 80s. Multiculturalism - "Defender of faiths". Long term involvement in environmental matters. Interest in the quality of housing.

    You can say that some of his ideas on these things are wrong. But as the Guardian found out when they published his letters to ministers, not many people objected to what he was saying on them.
    Charles should be fine, I think he knows what is expected of him. Family fallout from his children's families may well be damaging though.

    The Queens death will lead to reflection on the monarchy and I'd expect more overt republicanism from some high profile people in the UK but it will remain. The Caribbean islands will all go (many have intended to for ages anyway), and the question will at least be raised in Canada, Aus and NZ.
    I think people underestimate the extent to which people who would vote against the "British Monarchy" as head-of-state" are not prepared to do so when that is also a vote against QE2. I think you are absolutely right that the Caribbean islands will forge their own path, but I'm fairly certain at least 2/3 of the latter will also cleave away within 10 years of QE2's death.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Cicero said:

    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...
    What would you say to a hypothetical Scot in a few years who complains that they only voted to leave the UK, not the currency or the trade zone?
    That depends on the question they were asked! As the GB customs zone (there is no longer a UK customs zone) is not the UK then a vote to leave the UK is not the same as leaving the GB customs zone. The Isle of Man is not in the UK but it is in the GB customs zone.
    So Scotland could vote for independence and then become a crown dependency? That's an interesting suggestion.
    Well the political pendulum swings in strange ways. However I think that we are about to see a major fall in support for the monarchy across the board. Its not just the Harry & Meghan soap opera or the nasty piece of work that is Andrew. There is, I think, an increasing sense that the after the Queen dies then some pretty significant changes will be needed, and these changes are beyond what the court can deal with.

    The Ben Elliott sleaze is not at all helpful and reinforces the sense of institutional decline.

    www.Republic.org.uk is reporting a significant growth in membership and support.


    Any Republican hoping that the Queen dying is going to bring about a huge dropoff in support for the Royal Family is in for a nasty shock when it actually happens. Charles isn't much liked right now, but the sight of him eulogising his mother is going to give him a pretty massive boost. Camilla isn't proving to be nearly as much of a turnoff as anyone thought, either.

    And they always forget that the coronation will be swiftly followed by the investiture of William and Kate as Prince and Princess of Wales. And, regardless of how people feel about Charles, almost everyone absolutely loves William and Kate.
    The other problem, is that Charles has actually been ahead of the woke curve on a number of areas.

    He was raising what could be called institutional racism as a problem in 80s. Multiculturalism - "Defender of faiths". Long term involvement in environmental matters. Interest in the quality of housing.

    You can say that some of his ideas on these things are wrong. But as the Guardian found out when they published his letters to ministers, not many people objected to what he was saying on them.
    As I recall, there was always significantly less objection to what he was saying than the potentially inappropriate use of his position to influence government policy.
    The problem with that is that writing letters to ministers is actually inside the unwritten constitutional role for the monarchy.

    Which is why the Guardian thing fell on its face.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Andrew Hoy clear round for Aus

    And he is SIXTY TWO!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,986
    IshmaelZ said:

    Andrew Hoy clear round for Aus

    And he is SIXTY TWO!

    Not a sport.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Townsend up now
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    IshmaelZ said:

    Townsend up now

    Townend
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605
    Gold for horsing!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279
    Another gold!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    GOOOOOOLD!!!!
  • tlg86 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Andrew Hoy clear round for Aus

    And he is SIXTY TWO!

    Not a sport.
    I thought horse racing was the Sport of Kings? So other types of riding should also be sports, perhaps of lesser nobility: the Sport of Earls perhaps?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    tlg86 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Andrew Hoy clear round for Aus

    And he is SIXTY TWO!

    Not a sport.
    Seems to me to meet the altius citius fortius tests, and I can promise you it is scarier than anything else on offer in Tokyo. Try it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    edited August 2021
    mwadams said:

    kle4 said:

    Endillion said:

    Cicero said:

    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...
    What would you say to a hypothetical Scot in a few years who complains that they only voted to leave the UK, not the currency or the trade zone?
    That depends on the question they were asked! As the GB customs zone (there is no longer a UK customs zone) is not the UK then a vote to leave the UK is not the same as leaving the GB customs zone. The Isle of Man is not in the UK but it is in the GB customs zone.
    So Scotland could vote for independence and then become a crown dependency? That's an interesting suggestion.
    Well the political pendulum swings in strange ways. However I think that we are about to see a major fall in support for the monarchy across the board. Its not just the Harry & Meghan soap opera or the nasty piece of work that is Andrew. There is, I think, an increasing sense that the after the Queen dies then some pretty significant changes will be needed, and these changes are beyond what the court can deal with.

    The Ben Elliott sleaze is not at all helpful and reinforces the sense of institutional decline.

    www.Republic.org.uk is reporting a significant growth in membership and support.


    Any Republican hoping that the Queen dying is going to bring about a huge dropoff in support for the Royal Family is in for a nasty shock when it actually happens. Charles isn't much liked right now, but the sight of him eulogising his mother is going to give him a pretty massive boost. Camilla isn't proving to be nearly as much of a turnoff as anyone thought, either.

    And they always forget that the coronation will be swiftly followed by the investiture of William and Kate as Prince and Princess of Wales. And, regardless of how people feel about Charles, almost everyone absolutely loves William and Kate.
    The other problem, is that Charles has actually been ahead of the woke curve on a number of areas.

    He was raising what could be called institutional racism as a problem in 80s. Multiculturalism - "Defender of faiths". Long term involvement in environmental matters. Interest in the quality of housing.

    You can say that some of his ideas on these things are wrong. But as the Guardian found out when they published his letters to ministers, not many people objected to what he was saying on them.
    Charles should be fine, I think he knows what is expected of him. Family fallout from his children's families may well be damaging though.

    The Queens death will lead to reflection on the monarchy and I'd expect more overt republicanism from some high profile people in the UK but it will remain. The Caribbean islands will all go (many have intended to for ages anyway), and the question will at least be raised in Canada, Aus and NZ.
    I think people underestimate the extent to which people who would vote against the "British Monarchy" as head-of-state" are not prepared to do so when that is also a vote against QE2. I think you are absolutely right that the Caribbean islands will forge their own path, but I'm fairly certain at least 2/3 of the latter will also cleave away within 10 years of QE2's death.
    Certainly possible. I dont think anywhere but the UK is a cert in the medium term, though as HYUFD notes it seems less of a live issue in Canada for whatever reason.

    Long term, well, there are not many monarchies left these days. The 'do you want president X?' factor is the strongest card that will remain, but it all depends on the next generation not blowing the whole institution up. And given there's at least one who seems to want that and others unintentionally contributing and it's a non zero chance but my money is on retention - most problems of monarchy are just not massive in practical terms when the Commons is preeminent anyway - hence why the Caribbean islands despite political and popular consensus have taken their sweet time.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,014
    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    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.
    People point to or predict investments not happening because of Brexit all the time. Tesla springs to mind.
    Fair point some people do. Automotive is interesting because European car manufacturers are investing huge amounts in electrification. In the same week as Stellantis announced van manufacturing in Ellesmere Port with an investment of £100 million, partly paid for by selling off most of the plant, it also announced €30 billion of investment in electrification, none of it coming to the UK. BMW and Mercedes are investing similar amounts; Volkswagen €70 billion; Renault €10 billion. All within the next five to ten years.

    It looks like the UK may be getting a niche in the medium term in ICE as manufacturers look to maximise their sunk investments in fossil fuel technology. Ellesmere Port is part of that. Van production is moved out of Ruesselsheim to clear the decks for electric vehicle manufacture. BMW is moving some ICE manufacture from Bavaria to Hams Hall.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,822
    I thought the first rule of code names is that they should not be immediately identifiable with their subject?

    Chris Musson
    @ChrisMusson
    EXCL: Cops ditch tag “Operation Bunter” for Boris Johnson's next visit to Scotland, after warnings they were effectively branding him Billy Bunter.

    Source: "People pointed out the foolishness of calling it after a fat, posh, English public schoolboy."
    https://thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-
This discussion has been closed.