Reposting this from the last thread - an actual randomised control trial (and a very large one) - on the efficacy of masks, just published. The conclusions (masks do reduce transmission significantly) might not hold for Delta, but I think the trial is ongoing.
Correction: The trial found and I quote "an imprecise zero" reduction in prevalence for cloth masks. Vaccines work as an intervention, cloth masks are a bad joke and a fashion choice not science at this point. [snip]
That's a very odd way of putting it (in the paper, I know you're quoting). What they did was fail to find evidence of an effect.* It would be interesting to see the power calculations (I expect there in there somewhere but haven't read the whole thing) for what kind of effect size they powered for. Prevalence was fairly low too, which won't have helped the study power.
(I say this as someone not wearing a mask presently except when asked to, which includes e.g. signs on shop doors)
*Again, as I commented before, of an effect of promoting cloth masks. That's the intervention, that's what is tested. As not everyone wore the masks provided and some people in the control groups wore masks, the study will underestimate the efficacy of actually wearing a mask.
Even when mandatory by law people had a tendency to be wearing masks around their neck, under their mouth, under their nose etc.
If your argument it works is with an idealised population, using idealised masks, worn ideally, properly handled and properly cleaned ... Then that's as bad a joke as saying Communism works it's just the people who are flawed.
Cloth masks were a reasonable intervention to try when vaccines weren't available and clinical masks weren't either. The science is they don't meaningfully work in the position we're in now so good riddance to them.
If you refuse to learn from the evidence of how things operate in the real world then that's not good science.
There are two questions (sub-questions on types of masks also important of course) - Does promoting mask use help? - Does wearing a mask help?
The most important one for governments is the first, which this trial addresses. The important one for an individual deciding whether to wear a mask if not required to do so by law is the second. The individual is also interested in the does it protect me question, of course (but pre-vaccines I think many of us, at least under 50 or so, were more concerned about the risk we posed to more vulnerable people than the risk to ourselves - I didn't mask up primarily to protect myself; the mask I was using would not be very effective for that)
The second question is also important for governments because if masks work but promoting them doesn't then there are other options such as enforcing mask use.
To take a different example, studies I've worked on. Interventions telling depressed people to go running don't work. Drill down into the data though and those who actually go running see improvement in depressive symptoms. So running (or exercising) works, but an intervention telling people to do it does not. That's useful information for the person suffering from depression - exercise. It's useful information for the government, simply promoting exercise won't work.
We're not really of opposing opinions here, I think. I don't think there should be masks required by law at present. Vaccination is almost done, certainly for the most vulnerable. If we don't stop mass mask wearing now, when will we? (There is an argument to wait for the exit wave to subside - I don't have that strong an opinion on that either way, but we do need an end point). Vulnerable people or those who have refused vaccination would do well to wear protective masks themselves (not cloth masks), but it's their choice. They need to be told that a cloth mask isn't going to protect them much.
But masks, of any type, look to have been useful in curbing transmission - it's logical that they would do so. They'd also help for other respiratory conditions, but we don't routinely require people to wear masks for those, so we should not now, in a post-vaccine UK, do so for Covid. Vaccines don't change mask efficacy, but they do change the need for them (and the other NPIs, such as distancing).
Edit to add: My argument isn't that masks work in idealised conditions (that's irrelevant). It's that the study underestimates the real world effects of wearing masks because take up was still relatively low in the intervention group and take-up was not tiny in the control group.
Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Pray tell under what circumstances Johnson is going to fire a Trident missile at North Korea, China or Pakistan?
When they fire one at us. Are they all going to be this easy?
If the international environment ever deteriorated so far that Pakistan, North Korea or China fire a nuclear weapon at the Yookay then a nuclear “deterrent” will have clearly failed, along with the human species.
But the point is that the deterrent hasn't failed. The nuclear deterrent has been the best thing for peace humanity has ever invented.
We had thousands of years of major wars, ever getting more serious, until eventually the "war to end all wars" was followed by WWII ending with the dropping of the atomic bombs.
The only thing that has ensured no further world wars is not NATO, its not the EU, its not diplomacy. It is the nuclear deterrent. It works.
The following people have their fingers on the nuclear buttons:
Joe Biden Vladimir Putin Boris Johnson Emmanuel Macron Xi Jinping Narendra Modi Imran Khan Kim Jong-un Naftali Bennett ? ? ?
Sleep well tonight. These brave souls are ensuring peace on our planet. What a privilege to live under their paternal wings. World’s greatest ever invention.
Don't think Bennet's quite such a risk compared with Netanyahu. Same applies to Biden and Trump.
Not sure that is a very ringing endorsement!
Of course many countries without nuclear "deterrent" have enjoyed 75 years of peace, while those with them have all indulged in multiple wars...
Thanks to freeriding under the shield of protection of those who do have nuclear weapons.
The theatre of war has never to my knowledge been in a country with nukes (not counting things like Falkland's since that's not our country). But plenty of countries without nukes have been the theatre of war.
We already are dependent on the USA for maintenence and targeting of our "independent deterrent".
I would scrap the fleet and missiles, and spend the savings on more effective defences against the real risks to the country.
Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Weapons designed for the mass incineration of cities are an evil that should not be held in a civilised country.
Totally right. One day we'll get there.
And go back to having invasions and wars with bullets instead? Rather than no wars due to the threat of weapons that by their very existence means we don't need to fight and can be peaceful instead?
Why would you want that?
Goodness me. Have you paying any attention at all to goings-on in Afghanistan for the last 20 years?
Or are you arguing to give the Taliban nuclear weapons?
Particularly Eth and BTC. Those are the big two tbh. I switched my DOGE for 0.16 eth, feels more stable
Actually the NFT craze is showing up the massive problem with Ethereum, it can't handle significant traffic. Its so bad now that with these NFT flips, people are often paying $500 per transaction in gas fees (exsctly what crypto is supposed to improve upon compared to traditional banking). Juat like Bitcoin won't become the digital currency in your pocket, as it can't handle the volume of transactions.
There are all sorts of add-ons to Ethereum to enable expansion of low cost transactions, side chains, off chain, layer 2....but most is still barely working, theoretical or vaperware.
It's fair to be jaded with promises of ethereum stuff but tbf layer 2 is actually shipping. Simple payments and token transfers are done and have been working great for a year or so (zksync, loopring), optimistic rollups are shipping (optimism is nearly shipped, arbitrum went live literally yesterday), zkrollups with contract support will almost definitely ship this year (next iteration of zksync).
I think the question remains is all the "patching" on top of ethereum better than a new L1 solution such Cardona or Polkadot? Or will they ultimately all co-exist with bridges?
That's fair. The benefit is that competing layer 2 teams go much faster than one core dev team. You can start again with a whole competing base layer from whichever team does that fastest at any given moment, but then you have to move the users over. But there are definitely also downsides to the layered approach.
PS Cardano is a hustle, don't touch it with a bargepole. Polkadot is a proper project, another interesting one right now is Solana.
I think one thing that Defi and NFTs have shown is that there is utility in this. Not $10m for a stupid avatar picture utility, but unlike Bitcoin there is now proper real world use cases being deployed e.g. peer to peer lending, finally low cost transactions, which provided regulation doesn't absolutely kill, does have future potential.
Once feature of blockchain transactions is the possibility of embedding a verified history. Which for compliance, anti-money laundering, taxation etc could reduce costs and improve the situation at the same time.
When I asked Starmer to reflect on the sources of Labour’s decline, he highlighted two moments from its years in power: the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, which Starmer opposed as a QC at the time, and Labour’s failure to defend its economic record after the 2008 financial crash. There was, Starmer thinks, a “lack of confidence from 2010 onwards, to defend the last Labour government, and to make the argument that the financial crash wasn’t the fault of the Labour government”.
Particularly Eth and BTC. Those are the big two tbh. I switched my DOGE for 0.16 eth, feels more stable
Actually the NFT craze is showing up the massive problem with Ethereum, it can't handle significant traffic. Its so bad now that with these NFT flips, people are often paying $500 per transaction in gas fees (exsctly what crypto is supposed to improve upon compared to traditional banking). Juat like Bitcoin won't become the digital currency in your pocket, as it can't handle the volume of transactions.
There are all sorts of add-ons to Ethereum to enable expansion of low cost transactions, side chains, off chain, layer 2....but most is still barely working, theoretical or vaperware.
It's fair to be jaded with promises of ethereum stuff but tbf layer 2 is actually shipping. Simple payments and token transfers are done and have been working great for a year or so (zksync, loopring), optimistic rollups are shipping (optimism is nearly shipped, arbitrum went live literally yesterday), zkrollups with contract support will almost definitely ship this year (next iteration of zksync).
Thanks. I didn't understand a word of that.
In fact, I don't understand bitcoin, cryptocurrency, Ethereum, Tether, NFTs or any of this stuff about virtual money. I feel ignorant and out of the loop. Can anybody here point me to a simpleton's, beginner's guide to all this stuff so I can get my head round it?
Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Pray tell under what circumstances Johnson is going to fire a Trident missile at North Korea, China or Pakistan?
The circumstances where China, Pakistan, or North Korea might chuck one in our direction would be if we disarmed.
We all know how China behaves with its "Wolf Warrior" diplomacy, and Russia is no better - it ruthlessly exploits weakness wherever it can.
Without a deterrent we'd be subject to nuclear blackmail, and vulnerable to use of their (very large) conventional forces wherever they chose to use them - so the realpolitik effect would be one of utter retrenchment and meekness as they set the global agenda, and a steady erosion of domestic freedoms here too.
I sleep very safe in my bed at night knowing there's always an armed British sub roaming somewhere anonymously under the sea, 24/7, 365 days a year.
Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Pray tell under what circumstances Johnson is going to fire a Trident missile at North Korea, China or Pakistan?
When they fire one at us. Are they all going to be this easy?
If the international environment ever deteriorated so far that Pakistan, North Korea or China fire a nuclear weapon at the Yookay then a nuclear “deterrent” will have clearly failed, along with the human species.
But the point is that the deterrent hasn't failed. The nuclear deterrent has been the best thing for peace humanity has ever invented.
We had thousands of years of major wars, ever getting more serious, until eventually the "war to end all wars" was followed by WWII ending with the dropping of the atomic bombs.
The only thing that has ensured no further world wars is not NATO, its not the EU, its not diplomacy. It is the nuclear deterrent. It works.
The following people have their fingers on the nuclear buttons:
Joe Biden Vladimir Putin Boris Johnson Emmanuel Macron Xi Jinping Narendra Modi Imran Khan Kim Jong-un Naftali Bennett ? ? ?
Sleep well tonight. These brave souls are ensuring peace on our planet. What a privilege to live under their paternal wings. World’s greatest ever invention.
Don't think Bennet's quite such a risk compared with Netanyahu. Same applies to Biden and Trump.
Not sure that is a very ringing endorsement!
Of course many countries without nuclear "deterrent" have enjoyed 75 years of peace, while those with them have all indulged in multiple wars...
Thanks to freeriding under the shield of protection of those who do have nuclear weapons.
The theatre of war has never to my knowledge been in a country with nukes (not counting things like Falkland's since that's not our country). But plenty of countries without nukes have been the theatre of war.
We already are dependent on the USA for maintenence and targeting of our "independent deterrent".
I would scrap the fleet and missiles, and spend the savings on more effective defences against the real risks to the country.
I don't think there's any moral distinction to be drawn between the possession of nuclear weapons oneself, and being part of an alliance that possess them and will use them on one's behalf.
And, I certainly don't think that if the world's democracies dismantled their nuclear arsenals, the world's dictatorships would be tempted to follow suit. Trusting to the goodwill of the world's dictators would be a major error.
It is, thanks for that. Depressing reading for me, as a left of centre type, but I agree with pretty mich everything said.
Interesting that Farage doesn’t blame Labour for the 2008 crash, but deregulation in the previous decades. Shame that horse has well and truly bolted and Labour still carry the blame for it. Osborne did his job well.
Incidentally, did you recommend the Zamoyski book on Napoleon to me? I think it was you. Just started it, enjoying it so far, very interesting, thank you.
“We were inclined to say a steel worker can become a coder. They didn’t hear that as an invitation. They thought it was a reproach.”
That sounds like a reference to the election that Clinton managed to lose.
When a massive round of redundancies was announced in American journalism, at around that time, a number of people made comments to journalists who had defended statements similar to that. That they, the journalists, should learn to code.... apparently that was a bit rude.
On topic what is the mechanism by which Suga loses his position? Looks like his government is unpopular but his party is leading the polls. Do the public vote for a party and then the winning party chooses their PM?
The main mechanism is that before the general election, he first has to run for a new term as LDP leader. This is looking a little bit uncertain because he's uncharismatic and not very good, and the voters are generally quite narked off about the dozy vaccine rollout and the silly olympics and all the states of emergency. However he'd probably still win the general election albeit while losing seats, so it's partly a question of internal factional politics and partly a question of whether the LDP would rather roll the dice and trade a likely win but with loss of seats for... something else.
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
I think it was patently obvious that the pool of European immigrant workers were prepared to work for lower wages. But they weren't slaves. We were happy to use their services. The question is: where's the moral objection?
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
According the Beeb, Raab says the UK government "will not be recognising the Taliban any time in the foreseeable future", but adds "we do see the need for direct engagement".
Distinction without a difference? Anyway, why not recognise them? They are unquestionable the government in Afghanistan, whether or not we like the idea!
Reposting this from the last thread - an actual randomised control trial (and a very large one) - on the efficacy of masks, just published. The conclusions (masks do reduce transmission significantly) might not hold for Delta, but I think the trial is ongoing.
Correction: The trial found and I quote "an imprecise zero" reduction in prevalence for cloth masks. Vaccines work as an intervention, cloth masks are a bad joke and a fashion choice not science at this point. [snip]
That's a very odd way of putting it (in the paper, I know you're quoting). What they did was fail to find evidence of an effect.* It would be interesting to see the power calculations (I expect there in there somewhere but haven't read the whole thing) for what kind of effect size they powered for. Prevalence was fairly low too, which won't have helped the study power.
(I say this as someone not wearing a mask presently except when asked to, which includes e.g. signs on shop doors)
*Again, as I commented before, of an effect of promoting cloth masks. That's the intervention, that's what is tested. As not everyone wore the masks provided and some people in the control groups wore masks, the study will underestimate the efficacy of actually wearing a mask.
I'm not sure that's correct? As they have measured mask-wearing in both sets of communities, they will underestimate/overestimate efficacy only if their measurements are inaccurate.
What is impressive to me is that just a 40% ish uptake of mask-wearing vs. 10% ish can have a measurable impact on disease prevalence.
And they did find that the cloth masks led to a reduction in COVID symptoms, but (probably) because only 40% agreed to give blood, they couldn't identify an effect for cloth masks on seroprevalence.
Again, I haven't read the whole thing, but I understand the headline figures are for the intervention only.
There are tables in the appendix (A6/7) that purport to include adjustment for actual mask wearing although in the bits I've read it's not clear exactly how that is done and whether it's post-intervention mask wearing or baseline mask wearing.
"In Figure 1 (and Tables A6 and A7), we report results from a regression of symptomatic seroprevalence on a treatment indicator, clustering at the village level and controlling for fixed effects for each pair of control-treatment villages. In the tables, we report results with and without additional controls for baseline symptoms and mask-wearing rates"
Good point on the report of symptoms. The whole thing looks a little under powered, it may be that the consent to giving blood was lower than anticipated or indeed Covid prevalence lower than expected.
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
But these dastardly immigrants were creating jobs with wages that an Englishman shouldn't have to tolerate.
More leaking from FCDO officials against Dominic Raab -- arguably that's biggest argument for sacking him. Given the level of leaking, he's clearly lost control of his department, which can't be sustainable.
According the Beeb, Raab says the UK government "will not be recognising the Taliban any time in the foreseeable future", but adds "we do see the need for direct engagement".
Distinction without a difference? Anyway, why not recognise them? They are unquestionable the government in Afghanistan, whether or not we like the idea!
Happens all the time. Barely anyone recognised them last time despite being in charge for years. Will be more this time.
Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Pray tell under what circumstances Johnson is going to fire a Trident missile at North Korea, China or Pakistan?
The circumstances where China, Pakistan, or North Korea might chuck one in our direction would be if we disarmed.
We all know how China behaves with its "Wolf Warrior" diplomacy, and Russia is no better - it ruthlessly exploits weakness wherever it can.
Without a deterrent we'd be subject to nuclear blackmail, and vulnerable to use of their (very large) conventional forces wherever they chose to use them - so the realpolitik effect would be one of utter retrenchment and meekness as they set the global agenda, and a steady erosion of domestic freedoms here too.
I sleep very safe in my bed at night knowing there's always an armed British sub roaming somewhere anonymously under the sea, 24/7, 365 days a year.
Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Pray tell under what circumstances Johnson is going to fire a Trident missile at North Korea, China or Pakistan?
The circumstances where China, Pakistan, or North Korea might chuck one in our direction would be if we disarmed.
We all know how China behaves with its "Wolf Warrior" diplomacy, and Russia is no better - it ruthlessly exploits weakness wherever it can.
Without a deterrent we'd be subject to nuclear blackmail, and vulnerable to use of their (very large) conventional forces wherever they chose to use them - so the realpolitik effect would be one of utter retrenchment and meekness as they set the global agenda, and a steady erosion of domestic freedoms here too.
I sleep very safe in my bed at night knowing there's always an armed British sub roaming somewhere anonymously under the sea, 24/7, 365 days a year.
Yes. It is interesting in this context to look at the reaction of Russia to the possibility of placing ABM systems in Europe.
Such ABM systems would not defend the US against a Russia attack - basic (sub)orbital mechanics.
However, as a side effect, they would defend the states where they are placed against a Russian attack. The Russians regard as sacrosanct their position in Eastern Europe - that there, they are The Big Dog. Not being able to talk to Poland (say) as a Nuclear Power to An Inferior Power was unthinkable...
Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Pray tell under what circumstances Johnson is going to fire a Trident missile at North Korea, China or Pakistan?
When they fire one at us. Are they all going to be this easy?
If the international environment ever deteriorated so far that Pakistan, North Korea or China fire a nuclear weapon at the Yookay then a nuclear “deterrent” will have clearly failed, along with the human species.
But the point is that the deterrent hasn't failed. The nuclear deterrent has been the best thing for peace humanity has ever invented.
We had thousands of years of major wars, ever getting more serious, until eventually the "war to end all wars" was followed by WWII ending with the dropping of the atomic bombs.
The only thing that has ensured no further world wars is not NATO, its not the EU, its not diplomacy. It is the nuclear deterrent. It works.
The following people have their fingers on the nuclear buttons:
Joe Biden Vladimir Putin Boris Johnson Emmanuel Macron Xi Jinping Narendra Modi Imran Khan Kim Jong-un Naftali Bennett ? ? ?
Sleep well tonight. These brave souls are ensuring peace on our planet. What a privilege to live under their paternal wings. World’s greatest ever invention.
Don't think Bennet's quite such a risk compared with Netanyahu. Same applies to Biden and Trump.
Not sure that is a very ringing endorsement!
Of course many countries without nuclear "deterrent" have enjoyed 75 years of peace, while those with them have all indulged in multiple wars...
Thanks to freeriding under the shield of protection of those who do have nuclear weapons.
The theatre of war has never to my knowledge been in a country with nukes (not counting things like Falkland's since that's not our country). But plenty of countries without nukes have been the theatre of war.
We already are dependent on the USA for maintenence and targeting of our "independent deterrent".
Trident uses laser ring giro INS/stellar cartography for guidance so the UK can autonomously target. However the whole thing would fall apart pretty quickly without the massive and ongoing technical support from the USN. At some point somebody in the Pentagon is going to look at that row in Excel and ask why the fuck they are doing it.
You are correct about it being a colossal waste of money that hollows out other defence capabilities. Each one of the four Dreadnoughts is going to consume 2% of the defence annual budget to operate and that's after the massive 50bn+ cost of acquiring them.
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
I think it was patently obvious that the pool of European immigrant workers were prepared to work for lower wages. But they weren't slaves. We were happy to use their services. The question is: where's the moral objection?
It is pretty hard to judge the long term effects on the Labour market just yet. Certainly at the moment many sectors are short of workers and others have surplus. It will take a few years for it to settle.
We may well find an increase in the cost of social care due to higher pay for staff, but some of the need for HGV drivers may well just disappear due to onshore of supply chains both here and EU, while other business models simply just become uncompetitive due to increased costs and loss of markets, such as areas of fishing and farming.
On topic what is the mechanism by which Suga loses his position? Looks like his government is unpopular but his party is leading the polls. Do the public vote for a party and then the winning party chooses their PM?
The main mechanism is that before the general election, he first has to run for a new term as LDP leader. This is looking a little bit uncertain because he's uncharismatic and not very good, and the voters are generally quite narked off about the dozy vaccine rollout and the silly olympics and all the states of emergency. However he'd probably still win the general election albeit while losing seats, so it's partly a question of internal factional politics and partly a question of whether the LDP would rather roll the dice and trade a likely win but with loss of seats for... something else.
Assuming Trudeau is narrowly re elected and Scholz becomes German chancellor, then by October Boris and Suga will be the only centre right leaders left in the G7, so who does end up Japanese PM will be of extra importance to this UK Tory government
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
I think it was patently obvious that the pool of European immigrant workers were prepared to work for lower wages. But they weren't slaves. We were happy to use their services. The question is: where's the moral objection?
Not just that. Unless we Buy British (or First World) for everything, we are using the services of people in distant countries who are probably paid less than UK workers. It's less visible, but it's largely the same principle.
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
It does, if the brain surgeon is willing to work for less than I want.
Now its no where near as bad for the brain surgeon than it is a lower paid worker but we really should be careful regarding all migration not just high paid work.
For reference the salary needed to import an IT working is £30k a year, so in that sector migration still applies a lot of pressure on salaries.
Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Weapons designed for the mass incineration of cities are an evil that should not be held in a civilised country.
Totally right. One day we'll get there.
And go back to having invasions and wars with bullets instead? Rather than no wars due to the threat of weapons that by their very existence means we don't need to fight and can be peaceful instead?
Why would you want that?
Goodness me. Have you paying any attention at all to goings-on in Afghanistan for the last 20 years?
Or are you arguing to give the Taliban nuclear weapons?
Afghanistan has no nuclear deterrent.
Since I'm interested in our defence more than anything else I see no bonus to us in proliferation. Proliferation would stop wars elsewhere, but stopping wars here is my priority and nukes have successfully done that.
But hypothetically if in 2001 the Taliban had a credible nuclear deterrent then we would never have invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Just as we never invaded the USSR.
George Osborne had promised to match Labour’s spending plans in 2007, prior to the crash. Once it hit, he decried those plans. Labour had “maxed out the nation’s credit card”, he told parliament, failing to “fix the roof while the sun was shining”. In reality, Britain’s net debt fell under Labour, from 37 per cent of GDP in 1997 to 34 per cent on the eve of the 2008 crash. That statistic may seem dry, but it is critical: Britain’s debt soared (to 64 per cent of GDP by the 2010 election) only after the crash hit. Had Labour lost in 2007, that debt would have risen on Osborne’s watch.
I think this is the problem the Labour Party has. It thinks it's just unlucky.
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
I think it was patently obvious that the pool of European immigrant workers were prepared to work for lower wages. But they weren't slaves. We were happy to use their services. The question is: where's the moral objection?
Not just that. Unless we Buy British (or First World) for everything, we are using the services of people in distant countries who are probably paid less than UK workers. It's less visible, but it's largely the same principle.
I often reflect that a lot of things we use are made by people treated like crap, or actual near slavery. I tell people the human misery makes my cheap clothes extra soft, or make the tea taste better.
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
And will create even more problems for Brits. Would this apply to potential workers or retirees or both?
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
It does, if the brain surgeon is willing to work for less than I want.
Now its no where near as bad for the brain surgeon than it is a lower paid worker but we really should be careful regarding all migration not just high paid work.
For reference the salary needed to import an IT working is £30k a year, so in that sector migration still applies a lot of pressure on salaries.
The issue is that there is not a glut of brain surgeons world wide.
So even with open door policy for emigration of brain surgeons (pretty much every country has this, in effect) you are not going to see an oversupply or even a complete filling of roles. Which in turn means no downward pressure on wages.
This is because at high level qualification jobs (think equivalent to Russell Group University education and above) the world is training people slower than demand is increasing. This in turn is because a number of developing countries have started the transition to service economies. India and China want their brain surgeons in increasing numbers.
Despite efforts to massively increase the scale of education in such countries, they are not keeping up with demand.
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
And will create even more problems for Brits. Would this apply to potential workers or retirees or both?
Barrnier wants an end to all migration from non EU nations to the EU for 3-5 years if he is elected French President next year, whether workers or retirees
Second wave vs third wave. If the BBC is going to continue giving us daily updates of how many people die from this endemic disease, it should do the same for all other causes of death.
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
And will create even more problems for Brits. Would this apply to potential workers or retirees or both?
Barrnier wants an end to all migration from non EU nations to the EU for 3-5 years if he is elected French President next year, whether workers or retirees
That's going to upset the Express readers who were planning a retirement in Spain! Oh dear, how sad!
On topic what is the mechanism by which Suga loses his position? Looks like his government is unpopular but his party is leading the polls. Do the public vote for a party and then the winning party chooses their PM?
The main mechanism is that before the general election, he first has to run for a new term as LDP leader. This is looking a little bit uncertain because he's uncharismatic and not very good, and the voters are generally quite narked off about the dozy vaccine rollout and the silly olympics and all the states of emergency. However he'd probably still win the general election albeit while losing seats, so it's partly a question of internal factional politics and partly a question of whether the LDP would rather roll the dice and trade a likely win but with loss of seats for... something else.
Assuming Trudeau is narrowly re elected and Scholz becomes German chancellor, then by October Boris and Suga will be the only centre right leaders left in the G7, so who does end up Japanese PM will be of extra importance to this UK Tory government
Your first assumption is a pretty big one. I make it about 50/50 right now. O'Toole has surprised on the upside thus far. He is running as a traditional Canadian Progressive Conservative, not Reform. He can afford to, and it makes electoral sense. He seems to have learned from Nova Scotia.
Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Weapons designed for the mass incineration of cities are an evil that should not be held in a civilised country.
Totally right. One day we'll get there.
And go back to having invasions and wars with bullets instead? Rather than no wars due to the threat of weapons that by their very existence means we don't need to fight and can be peaceful instead?
Why would you want that?
Goodness me. Have you paying any attention at all to goings-on in Afghanistan for the last 20 years?
Or are you arguing to give the Taliban nuclear weapons?
Afghanistan has no nuclear deterrent.
Since I'm interested in our defence more than anything else I see no bonus to us in proliferation. Proliferation would stop wars elsewhere, but stopping wars here is my priority and nukes have successfully done that.
But hypothetically if in 2001 the Taliban had a credible nuclear deterrent then we would never have invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Just as we never invaded the USSR.
If every country had nuclear weapons then nobody would invade anywhere, hence Taiwan may get them to keep out China
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
And will create even more problems for Brits. Would this apply to potential workers or retirees or both?
Barrnier wants an end to all migration from non EU nations to the EU for 3-5 years if he is elected French President next year, whether workers or retirees
That's going to upset the Express readers who were planning a retirement in Spain! Oh dear, how sad!
Though obviously we would respond in kind with the same rules if UK migrants were treated on the same basis as African, Latin American, Russian and Asian migrants by France
Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Weapons designed for the mass incineration of cities are an evil that should not be held in a civilised country.
Totally right. One day we'll get there.
And go back to having invasions and wars with bullets instead? Rather than no wars due to the threat of weapons that by their very existence means we don't need to fight and can be peaceful instead?
Why would you want that?
Goodness me. Have you paying any attention at all to goings-on in Afghanistan for the last 20 years?
Or are you arguing to give the Taliban nuclear weapons?
Afghanistan has no nuclear deterrent.
Since I'm interested in our defence more than anything else I see no bonus to us in proliferation. Proliferation would stop wars elsewhere, but stopping wars here is my priority and nukes have successfully done that.
But hypothetically if in 2001 the Taliban had a credible nuclear deterrent then we would never have invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Just as we never invaded the USSR.
If every country had nuclear weapons then nobody would invade anywhere, hence Taiwan may get them to keep out China
You don't think the Chinese would risk it? It wouldn't take too much to wipe out Taiwan, but China's a lot bigger and there are a lot more Chinese. Would Taiwan nuke Beijing, with all the cultural implications?
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
And will create even more problems for Brits. Would this apply to potential workers or retirees or both?
Barrnier wants an end to all migration from non EU nations to the EU for 3-5 years if he is elected French President next year, whether workers or retirees
That's going to upset the Express readers who were planning a retirement in Spain! Oh dear, how sad!
It's PB's Leon I feel sorry for. Wasn't Greece his retirement destination of choice?
Yes, as I was saying yesterday, Dura Ace is a common or garden antivaxxer. The reason he gets away with it whereas Contrarian receives daily attacks for it is just good oldfashioned craven PB sycophancy. There is no significant difference in the two antivaxxers’ positions.
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
And will create even more problems for Brits. Would this apply to potential workers or retirees or both?
Barrnier wants an end to all migration from non EU nations to the EU for 3-5 years if he is elected French President next year, whether workers or retirees
That is going to bugger up a lot of plans for people looking to retire in France, Spain etc.
Second wave vs third wave. If the BBC is going to continue giving us daily updates of how many people die from this endemic disease, it should do the same for all other causes of death.
On topic what is the mechanism by which Suga loses his position? Looks like his government is unpopular but his party is leading the polls. Do the public vote for a party and then the winning party chooses their PM?
The main mechanism is that before the general election, he first has to run for a new term as LDP leader. This is looking a little bit uncertain because he's uncharismatic and not very good, and the voters are generally quite narked off about the dozy vaccine rollout and the silly olympics and all the states of emergency. However he'd probably still win the general election albeit while losing seats, so it's partly a question of internal factional politics and partly a question of whether the LDP would rather roll the dice and trade a likely win but with loss of seats for... something else.
Assuming Trudeau is narrowly re elected and Scholz becomes German chancellor, then by October Boris and Suga will be the only centre right leaders left in the G7, so who does end up Japanese PM will be of extra importance to this UK Tory government
Your first assumption is a pretty big one. I make it about 50/50 right now. O'Toole has surprised on the upside thus far. He is running as a traditional Canadian Progressive Conservative, not Reform. He can afford to, and it makes electoral sense. He seems to have learned from Nova Scotia.
At the moment I expect the Conservatives to get most votes and a small swing to them relative to 2019 but the Liberals to still win most seats.
The latest popular vote projection based on the polls average is Conservatives 33.8% and Liberals 31.2% but in seats the Liberals would still be narrowly ahead 138 to 132 for the Conservatives. https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
Though of course it would be good news for Boris if Erin O'Toole, a fellow conservative with a positive view of Brexit, was elected Canadian PM
On topic what is the mechanism by which Suga loses his position? Looks like his government is unpopular but his party is leading the polls. Do the public vote for a party and then the winning party chooses their PM?
The main mechanism is that before the general election, he first has to run for a new term as LDP leader. This is looking a little bit uncertain because he's uncharismatic and not very good, and the voters are generally quite narked off about the dozy vaccine rollout and the silly olympics and all the states of emergency. However he'd probably still win the general election albeit while losing seats, so it's partly a question of internal factional politics and partly a question of whether the LDP would rather roll the dice and trade a likely win but with loss of seats for... something else.
Assuming Trudeau is narrowly re elected and Scholz becomes German chancellor, then by October Boris and Suga will be the only centre right leaders left in the G7, so who does end up Japanese PM will be of extra importance to this UK Tory government
Your first assumption is a pretty big one. I make it about 50/50 right now. O'Toole has surprised on the upside thus far. He is running as a traditional Canadian Progressive Conservative, not Reform. He can afford to, and it makes electoral sense. He seems to have learned from Nova Scotia.
At the moment I expect the Conservatives to get most votes and a small swing to them relative to 2019 but the Liberals to still win most seats.
The latest popular vote projection based on the polls average is Conservatives 33.8% and Liberals 31.2% but in seats the Liberals would still be narrowly ahead 138 to 132 for the Conservatives. https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
Though of course it would be good news for Boris if Erin O'Toole, a fellow conservative with a positive view of Brexit, was elected Canadian PM
You mean that Erin O'Toole is a Populist Nationalist?
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
I think it was patently obvious that the pool of European immigrant workers were prepared to work for lower wages. But they weren't slaves. We were happy to use their services. The question is: where's the moral objection?
Not just that. Unless we Buy British (or First World) for everything, we are using the services of people in distant countries who are probably paid less than UK workers. It's less visible, but it's largely the same principle.
I often reflect that a lot of things we use are made by people treated like crap, or actual near slavery. I tell people the human misery makes my cheap clothes extra soft, or make the tea taste better.
Economic migration was required because of a feature of society that, many progressives seem to have abandoned as clarion call.
Societal development - law, corruption level, public services - play a fundamental role in productivity.
So the actual cost of doing something = societal structure * company structure * worker employment cost
The NHS, for example, makes workers more productive than in countries where health case is an expensive, often unreachable disaster.
So, while you can get value out of cheaper t-shirts made in a gulag for Muslims in China, it is much harder to get the same productivity cost multiplier from them.
This is why, when offshoring is objectively measured at anchoring, the cheapest location is not the one with the cheapest workers.
I worked for a company that had development units in India, Bulgaria & the UK (to name a few - there were a dozen countries altogether).
Development in London was second cheapest in terms of actual results per dollar.
So, if you take economic migrants, they will rapidly increase their productivity to the UK norms, when they get the benefits of the society around them. Of course, they will (less) rapidly demand pay to match. But that is OK, you simply import some more with initially lower expectations.
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
And will create even more problems for Brits. Would this apply to potential workers or retirees or both?
Barrnier wants an end to all migration from non EU nations to the EU for 3-5 years if he is elected French President next year, whether workers or retirees
That's going to upset the Express readers who were planning a retirement in Spain! Oh dear, how sad!
It's PB's Leon I feel sorry for. Wasn't Greece his retirement destination of choice?
The French can't even control their own borders. How are they going to control everyone else's when rest-of-the-world migration is a national issue and nothing to do with the EU?
Second wave vs third wave. If the BBC is going to continue giving us daily updates of how many people die from this endemic disease, it should do the same for all other causes of death.
Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Weapons designed for the mass incineration of cities are an evil that should not be held in a civilised country.
Totally right. One day we'll get there.
And go back to having invasions and wars with bullets instead? Rather than no wars due to the threat of weapons that by their very existence means we don't need to fight and can be peaceful instead?
Why would you want that?
Goodness me. Have you paying any attention at all to goings-on in Afghanistan for the last 20 years?
Or are you arguing to give the Taliban nuclear weapons?
Afghanistan has no nuclear deterrent.
Since I'm interested in our defence more than anything else I see no bonus to us in proliferation. Proliferation would stop wars elsewhere, but stopping wars here is my priority and nukes have successfully done that.
But hypothetically if in 2001 the Taliban had a credible nuclear deterrent then we would never have invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Just as we never invaded the USSR.
If every country had nuclear weapons then nobody would invade anywhere, hence Taiwan may get them to keep out China
You don't think the Chinese would risk it? It wouldn't take too much to wipe out Taiwan, but China's a lot bigger and there are a lot more Chinese. Would Taiwan nuke Beijing, with all the cultural implications?
Having nuclear weapons would at least enable Taiwan to threaten that prospect and give greater insurance to its self defence than now as China would be taking a much bigger risk invading
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
And will create even more problems for Brits. Would this apply to potential workers or retirees or both?
Barrnier wants an end to all migration from non EU nations to the EU for 3-5 years if he is elected French President next year, whether workers or retirees
None at all? Whatsoever? Acaademics, doctors, footballers? That's a radical policy indeed. Never seen anyone propose that in a democracy AFAIAA.
Completely offtopic but someone elsewhere has just suggested a perfect solution to dealing with the Universal Credit uplift that disappears on October 1st.
Keep it but don't increase any payments for x years until inflation consumes all £20 of the current uplift.
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
And will create even more problems for Brits. Would this apply to potential workers or retirees or both?
Barrnier wants an end to all migration from non EU nations to the EU for 3-5 years if he is elected French President next year, whether workers or retirees
That's going to upset the Express readers who were planning a retirement in Spain! Oh dear, how sad!
Though obviously we would respond in kind with the same rules if UK migrants were treated on the same basis as African, Latin American, Russian and Asian migrants by France
Not going to happen. The labour shortage is bad enough as it is. In fact, I expect the government will soon be embarking upon a campaign aimed at attracting immigrant workers.
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
And will create even more problems for Brits. Would this apply to potential workers or retirees or both?
Barrnier wants an end to all migration from non EU nations to the EU for 3-5 years if he is elected French President next year, whether workers or retirees
That's going to upset the Express readers who were planning a retirement in Spain! Oh dear, how sad!
It's PB's Leon I feel sorry for. Wasn't Greece his retirement destination of choice?
The EU has been proposing reform before during and after the 2004 Directive.
At this point we should believe it when it happens.
Yes, as I was saying yesterday, Dura Ace is a common or garden antivaxxer. The reason he gets away with it whereas Contrarian receives daily attacks for it is just good oldfashioned craven PB sycophancy. There is no significant difference in the two antivaxxers’ positions.
Dura Ace makes us giggle nervously. Contrarian, not so much.
Yes, as I was saying yesterday, Dura Ace is a common or garden antivaxxer. The reason he gets away with it whereas Contrarian receives daily attacks for it is just good oldfashioned craven PB sycophancy. There is no significant difference in the two antivaxxers’ positions.
Dura Ace makes us giggle nervously. Contrarian, not so much.
Yes, as I say, sycophancy. Glad we cleared that up at last.
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
And will create even more problems for Brits. Would this apply to potential workers or retirees or both?
Barrnier wants an end to all migration from non EU nations to the EU for 3-5 years if he is elected French President next year, whether workers or retirees
None at all? Whatsoever? Acaademics, doctors, footballers? That's a radical policy indeed. Never seen anyone propose that in a democracy AFAIAA.
As always, theres 'good' migration and 'bad' migration. I expect people when they say they want to limit or stop it don't mean all of it.
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
And will create even more problems for Brits. Would this apply to potential workers or retirees or both?
Barrnier wants an end to all migration from non EU nations to the EU for 3-5 years if he is elected French President next year, whether workers or retirees
WRT retirees I'm not sure that the Mediterranean countries would be keen at choking off billions of Euros in property sales, etc.
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
And will create even more problems for Brits. Would this apply to potential workers or retirees or both?
Barrnier wants an end to all migration from non EU nations to the EU for 3-5 years if he is elected French President next year, whether workers or retirees
That's going to upset the Express readers who were planning a retirement in Spain! Oh dear, how sad!
Presumably it would not affect EU citizens currently residing in an non-EU country...
Could be a good opportunity for entrepreneurial Eastern EU countries (for example) to offer a fast track to citizenship for UK retirees (for a hefty processing fee, no requirement to then settle in that country).
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
And will create even more problems for Brits. Would this apply to potential workers or retirees or both?
Barrnier wants an end to all migration from non EU nations to the EU for 3-5 years if he is elected French President next year, whether workers or retirees
That's going to upset the Express readers who were planning a retirement in Spain! Oh dear, how sad!
Though obviously we would respond in kind with the same rules if UK migrants were treated on the same basis as African, Latin American, Russian and Asian migrants by France
Not going to happen. The labour shortage is bad enough as it is. In fact, I expect the government will soon be embarking upon a campaign aimed at attracting immigrant workers.
This would be for French workers and retirees only, if migration for UK workers and retirees to France was banned completely by a President Barnier.
The UK would still treat rest of the world migrants other than from France with the same points system as now
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
And will create even more problems for Brits. Would this apply to potential workers or retirees or both?
Barrnier wants an end to all migration from non EU nations to the EU for 3-5 years if he is elected French President next year, whether workers or retirees
That's going to upset the Express readers who were planning a retirement in Spain! Oh dear, how sad!
If it happens it will upset the Spain, Portugal and Cyprus rather more.
Second wave vs third wave. If the BBC is going to continue giving us daily updates of how many people die from this endemic disease, it should do the same for all other causes of death.
Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Pray tell under what circumstances Johnson is going to fire a Trident missile at North Korea, China or Pakistan?
When they fire one at us. Are they all going to be this easy?
If the international environment ever deteriorated so far that Pakistan, North Korea or China fire a nuclear weapon at the Yookay then a nuclear “deterrent” will have clearly failed, along with the human species.
But the point is that the deterrent hasn't failed. The nuclear deterrent has been the best thing for peace humanity has ever invented.
We had thousands of years of major wars, ever getting more serious, until eventually the "war to end all wars" was followed by WWII ending with the dropping of the atomic bombs.
The only thing that has ensured no further world wars is not NATO, its not the EU, its not diplomacy. It is the nuclear deterrent. It works.
The following people have their fingers on the nuclear buttons:
Joe Biden Vladimir Putin Boris Johnson Emmanuel Macron Xi Jinping Narendra Modi Imran Khan Kim Jong-un Naftali Bennett ? ? ?
Sleep well tonight. These brave souls are ensuring peace on our planet. What a privilege to live under their paternal wings. World’s greatest ever invention.
Don't think Bennet's quite such a risk compared with Netanyahu. Same applies to Biden and Trump.
Not sure that is a very ringing endorsement!
Of course many countries without nuclear "deterrent" have enjoyed 75 years of peace, while those with them have all indulged in multiple wars...
Thanks to freeriding under the shield of protection of those who do have nuclear weapons.
The theatre of war has never to my knowledge been in a country with nukes (not counting things like Falkland's since that's not our country). But plenty of countries without nukes have been the theatre of war.
We already are dependent on the USA for maintenence and targeting of our "independent deterrent".
Trident uses laser ring giro INS/stellar cartography for guidance so the UK can autonomously target. However the whole thing would fall apart pretty quickly without the massive and ongoing technical support from the USN. At some point somebody in the Pentagon is going to look at that row in Excel and ask why the fuck they are doing it.
You are correct about it being a colossal waste of money that hollows out other defence capabilities. Each one of the four Dreadnoughts is going to consume 2% of the defence annual budget to operate and that's after the massive 50bn+ cost of acquiring them.
Yes, as I was saying yesterday, Dura Ace is a common or garden antivaxxer. The reason he gets away with it whereas Contrarian receives daily attacks for it is just good oldfashioned craven PB sycophancy. There is no significant difference in the two antivaxxers’ positions.
Dura Ace makes us giggle nervously. Contrarian, not so much.
Yes, as I say, sycophancy. Glad we cleared that up at last.
I don't recall Dura Ace saying anything anti-vax, apart from saying that he won't take the vaccines because of animal testing.
Contrarian, on the other hand posts quite a few anti-vax memes, and then tries to defend them, when called on it. Then retreats and tries again....
Almost £1 million a year is more than the salary paid to the global CEO of BAE Systems, the UK's largest manufacturing company. So how could such a salary be justified for a comparatively small - and failing - shipyard, Ferguson Marine? It beggars belief.
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
And will create even more problems for Brits. Would this apply to potential workers or retirees or both?
Barrnier wants an end to all migration from non EU nations to the EU for 3-5 years if he is elected French President next year, whether workers or retirees
He may say he wants to do that but firstly that doesn't mean he really does, secondly even if he does he has to win the election first, and thirdly France doesn't have the power to set EU migration policy.
More leaking from FCDO officials against Dominic Raab -- arguably that's biggest argument for sacking him. Given the level of leaking, he's clearly lost control of his department, which can't be sustainable.
The problem with that is that you are left with nobody at all who has any idea of how things work - neither the replacement civil servants nor the incompetent politicians.
So you are left with a bunch of incompetents in charge who go round shouting, screaming and stamping their feet. Probably swearing as well. But nobody takes any notice of them at all, because none of it makes any sense.
Yes, as I was saying yesterday, Dura Ace is a common or garden antivaxxer. The reason he gets away with it whereas Contrarian receives daily attacks for it is just good oldfashioned craven PB sycophancy. There is no significant difference in the two antivaxxers’ positions.
I'm unsure that's correct. It might just be that Dura_ace contributes with his usual style on many different topics; his antivaxxery therefore somewhat gets drowned out.
In contrast, I get the impression Contrarian walks around town with a sandwich board with 'I HAVE NOT TAKEN THE VACCINE' crayoned on it. There seems to be little else about him from his PB contributions.
Yes, as I was saying yesterday, Dura Ace is a common or garden antivaxxer. The reason he gets away with it whereas Contrarian receives daily attacks for it is just good oldfashioned craven PB sycophancy. There is no significant difference in the two antivaxxers’ positions.
There is a significant difference, apart from an aesthetic preference for someone who doesn't jump on their personal hobbyhorse every chance they get.
One expressed a personal opinion (only when asked) based on their own principles, the other repeatedly presents their position as part of a larger group of liberty lovers fighting against the Man, the morally superior view compared to us sheeple. That pernicious mindset (not limited to vaccination matters by any means) leads to protests with hate figures hung in effigy, Capitols stormed and 'My name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain'.
I think we should institute a Right Said Fred Maths award
@skynews Adults who are fully vaccinated are 47% less likely to have long COVID if they contract #COVID19, a study says
@TheFreds So 53% more likely? That’s not impressive.
47% is a really disappointing number but the overall effect presumably would reflect the fact that the fully vaccinated are also less likely to catch Covid in the first place. Does anybody know what the current estimate of the multiplier is there?
£87 a night in Switzerland. What were they staying in a travelodge?
In the Bavarian sunshine, where I am currently lunching, you'd get a decent hotel for that. In Switzerland it would cost a little more, though hotels are one of the few things where Swiss prices aren't hugely out of line
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
And will create even more problems for Brits. Would this apply to potential workers or retirees or both?
Barrnier wants an end to all migration from non EU nations to the EU for 3-5 years if he is elected French President next year, whether workers or retirees
None at all? Whatsoever? Acaademics, doctors, footballers? That's a radical policy indeed. Never seen anyone propose that in a democracy AFAIAA.
As always, theres 'good' migration and 'bad' migration. I expect people when they say they want to limit or stop it don't mean all of it.
I'm pickin' up good migration Societal integration I'm pickin' up good migration Resulting in wage deflation I'm pickin' up good migration Preserve the culture of our nation
I think we should institute a Right Said Fred Maths award
@skynews Adults who are fully vaccinated are 47% less likely to have long COVID if they contract #COVID19, a study says
@TheFreds So 53% more likely? That’s not impressive.
The sad thing is that a significant proportion of people will read what Right Said Fred says and belief them...
Thinking about it, perhaps it would be better to say that unvaccinated people are twice as likely (that's right, isn't it? ) to get long covid compared with those who have been vaccinated.
What's been really funny is the same people saying EU workers didn't result in wages being held down for working classes now blaming worker shortages and the resulting wage inflation on Brexit. They can both be true.
Personally I always thought that there were some areas where EU immigration was holding down local wages.
In high end skilled jobs, there is a world wide shortage. So economic migration doesn't hit the wages of top brain surgeons etc.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
Barnier has now proposed ending immigration from outside the EU for 3-5 years, so it seems the price for freedom of movement from within the EU if he had stayed in it would ultimately have been even harder restrictions on immigration from outside the EU than we now have post Brexit
And will create even more problems for Brits. Would this apply to potential workers or retirees or both?
Barrnier wants an end to all migration from non EU nations to the EU for 3-5 years if he is elected French President next year, whether workers or retirees
He may say he wants to do that but firstly that doesn't mean he really does, secondly even if he does he has to win the election first, and thirdly France doesn't have the power to set EU migration policy.
Second wave vs third wave. If the BBC is going to continue giving us daily updates of how many people die from this endemic disease, it should do the same for all other causes of death.
It's weird they have only included some G20 leaders. For example, Australia has an election next year. I guess they have left out Merkel as everyone knows she is leaving
It may or may not be the case that "everyone knows she is leaving", but in the real world it is far from inconceivable that the next German GE renders an inconclusive result, with no coalition being able to form a majority government, ultimately necessitating a new election.
This would be without precedent during the 70 odd year run of the Federal Republic, but in 2017 we came within inches of exactly that scenario. Such a process could easily take up to a year, she would commissarially stay in office all that time.
Almost £1 million a year is more than the salary paid to the global CEO of BAE Systems, the UK's largest manufacturing company. So how could such a salary be justified for a comparatively small - and failing - shipyard, Ferguson Marine? It beggars belief.
Our company has put up a vaccine wall on "company events". Only people with medical exemptions will be allowed to come to social events. I have no idea how it will be policed but tbh I can't think of a single person who isn't vaccinated. I think this is aimed at the non-UK staff in NYC.
I think we should institute a Right Said Fred Maths award
@skynews Adults who are fully vaccinated are 47% less likely to have long COVID if they contract #COVID19, a study says
@TheFreds So 53% more likely? That’s not impressive.
47% is a really disappointing number but the overall effect presumably would reflect the fact that the fully vaccinated are also less likely to catch Covid in the first place. Does anybody know what the current estimate of the multiplier is there?
What it means is this -
- Vaccination is really really good at preventing serious illness - If you are in the small group who have been vaccinated and still get seriously ill, then your chance of getting long COVID is halved, as a further benefit.
That Mr Raab’s Foreign Office is not a happy place is hardly surprising, given his ideological leanings. But the atmosphere has been worsened by his personality, variously described as “tightly wound”, “controlling” and “cold”. Some officials have taken to calling him “five i’s”, a double reference to the “five eyes” arrangement that sees Britain share intelligence with America, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and what they see as his attributes: insular, imperious, idle, irascible and ignorant. He has handled this hostile environment by sidelining ambassadors and surrounding himself with special advisers. But the cost has been high. He has built no close relationships with his counterparts around the world, failing to talk to foreign ministers in Afghanistan, Pakistan and several of the surrounding states in the six months leading up to the fall of Kabul. Important decisions have been shaped by callow youths who have seldom strayed outside the Westminster village, rather than by seasoned diplomats.
Generally shit show over Covid-19 and the fact most Japanese wanted him to cancel the Olympics/Paralympics which have became superspreader events in Japan.
Plus he's not very good, been in office for a year as well.
Replace as applicable British, Euros, UK and 2 years.
Dura is antivax because of 'big pharma' and 'animals'.
Contrarian is antivax because of 'government' and 'privacy'.
Same shit, different reasons.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Not really. I mean I might have missed something, but Dura Ace has given a personal decision based, as I understand it, on moral principle. I don't remember Dura Ace spreading misinformation about vaccines, which Contrarian does. I would respect Contrarian if it was eg a principled opposition to forcing people to get vaccinated against their will, but it comes with a whole load of anti-vax rubbish.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
I think we should institute a Right Said Fred Maths award
@skynews Adults who are fully vaccinated are 47% less likely to have long COVID if they contract #COVID19, a study says
@TheFreds So 53% more likely? That’s not impressive.
47% is a really disappointing number but the overall effect presumably would reflect the fact that the fully vaccinated are also less likely to catch Covid in the first place. Does anybody know what the current estimate of the multiplier is there?
The Sky story doesn't say - weirdly it gives these numbers "Some 6,030 app users reported testing positive for COVID-19 at least 14 days after their first vaccination, but before their second, while 2,370 reported testing positive at least seven days after their second dose." but no figures for unvaxed..
And slightly more helpfully - "Professor Tim Spector from King's College, and lead investigator of the Zoe COVID study, said: "Vaccinations are massively reducing the chances of people getting long COVID in two ways.
"Firstly, by reducing the risk of any symptoms by eight-to-10-fold, and then by halving the chances of any infection turning into long COVID, if it does happen""
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
Tough on abortion. Soft as s*** on the causes of abortion. Appears to be the Republican slogan.
Completely offtopic but someone elsewhere has just suggested a perfect solution to dealing with the Universal Credit uplift that disappears on October 1st.
Keep it but don't increase any payments for x years until inflation consumes all £20 of the current uplift.
That would lead to x years of negative headlines, while dropping the uplift gets headlines today that then go away.
Second wave vs third wave. If the BBC is going to continue giving us daily updates of how many people die from this endemic disease, it should do the same for all other causes of death.
That's a striking graph. January really was horrendous.
You scamp!
I don't think that was the purpose Carlotta intended the reference for. The opposite in fact, "only" circa 100 deaths a day from Covid now, so why bother?
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
Tough on abortion. Soft as s*** on the causes of abortion. Appears to be the Republican slogan.
The Republican religious right have much in common with the Taliban.
Completely offtopic but someone elsewhere has just suggested a perfect solution to dealing with the Universal Credit uplift that disappears on October 1st.
Keep it but don't increase any payments for x years until inflation consumes all £20 of the current uplift.
The trouble is they were planning not to increase for years way before the uplift.
Second wave vs third wave. If the BBC is going to continue giving us daily updates of how many people die from this endemic disease, it should do the same for all other causes of death.
That's a striking graph. January really was horrendous.
You scamp!
I don't think that was the purpose Carlotta intended the reference for. The opposite in fact, "only" circa 100 deaths a day from Covid now, so why bother?
Agreed we shouldn't bother.
[I know you may be facetious with your "only" but I'm not]
Comments
- Does promoting mask use help?
- Does wearing a mask help?
The most important one for governments is the first, which this trial addresses.
The important one for an individual deciding whether to wear a mask if not required to do so by law is the second. The individual is also interested in the does it protect me question, of course (but pre-vaccines I think many of us, at least under 50 or so, were more concerned about the risk we posed to more vulnerable people than the risk to ourselves - I didn't mask up primarily to protect myself; the mask I was using would not be very effective for that)
The second question is also important for governments because if masks work but promoting them doesn't then there are other options such as enforcing mask use.
To take a different example, studies I've worked on. Interventions telling depressed people to go running don't work. Drill down into the data though and those who actually go running see improvement in depressive symptoms. So running (or exercising) works, but an intervention telling people to do it does not. That's useful information for the person suffering from depression - exercise. It's useful information for the government, simply promoting exercise won't work.
We're not really of opposing opinions here, I think. I don't think there should be masks required by law at present. Vaccination is almost done, certainly for the most vulnerable. If we don't stop mass mask wearing now, when will we? (There is an argument to wait for the exit wave to subside - I don't have that strong an opinion on that either way, but we do need an end point). Vulnerable people or those who have refused vaccination would do well to wear protective masks themselves (not cloth masks), but it's their choice. They need to be told that a cloth mask isn't going to protect them much.
But masks, of any type, look to have been useful in curbing transmission - it's logical that they would do so. They'd also help for other respiratory conditions, but we don't routinely require people to wear masks for those, so we should not now, in a post-vaccine UK, do so for Covid. Vaccines don't change mask efficacy, but they do change the need for them (and the other NPIs, such as distancing).
Edit to add: My argument isn't that masks work in idealised conditions (that's irrelevant). It's that the study underestimates the real world effects of wearing masks because take up was still relatively low in the intervention group and take-up was not tiny in the control group.
I would scrap the fleet and missiles, and spend the savings on more effective defences against the real risks to the country.
Or are you arguing to give the Taliban nuclear weapons?
He must have missed this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyuXF8KkwCM
https://twitter.com/thefreds/status/1433356023734091777?s=21
In fact, I don't understand bitcoin, cryptocurrency, Ethereum, Tether, NFTs or any of this stuff about virtual money. I feel ignorant and out of the loop. Can anybody here point me to a simpleton's, beginner's guide to all this stuff so I can get my head round it?
Without a deterrent we'd be subject to nuclear blackmail, and vulnerable to use of their (very large) conventional forces wherever they chose to use them - so the realpolitik effect would be one of utter retrenchment and meekness as they set the global agenda, and a steady erosion of domestic freedoms here too.
I sleep very safe in my bed at night knowing there's always an armed British sub roaming somewhere anonymously under the sea, 24/7, 365 days a year.
And, I certainly don't think that if the world's democracies dismantled their nuclear arsenals, the world's dictatorships would be tempted to follow suit. Trusting to the goodwill of the world's dictators would be a major error.
That sounds like a reference to the election that Clinton managed to lose.
When a massive round of redundancies was announced in American journalism, at around that time, a number of people made comments to journalists who had defended statements similar to that. That they, the journalists, should learn to code.... apparently that was a bit rude.
In the lower skilled jobs, there isn't a world wide shortage.
According the Beeb, Raab says the UK government "will not be recognising the Taliban any time in the foreseeable future", but adds "we do see the need for direct engagement".
Distinction without a difference? Anyway, why not recognise them? They are unquestionable the government in Afghanistan, whether or not we like the idea!
There are tables in the appendix (A6/7) that purport to include adjustment for actual mask wearing although in the bits I've read it's not clear exactly how that is done and whether it's post-intervention mask wearing or baseline mask wearing.
"In Figure 1 (and Tables A6 and A7), we report results from a regression of symptomatic seroprevalence on a treatment indicator, clustering at the village level and controlling for fixed effects for each pair of control-treatment villages. In the tables, we report results with and without additional controls for baseline symptoms and mask-wearing rates"
Good point on the report of symptoms. The whole thing looks a little under powered, it may be that the consent to giving blood was lower than anticipated or indeed Covid prevalence lower than expected.
Such ABM systems would not defend the US against a Russia attack - basic (sub)orbital mechanics.
However, as a side effect, they would defend the states where they are placed against a Russian attack. The Russians regard as sacrosanct their position in Eastern Europe - that there, they are The Big Dog. Not being able to talk to Poland (say) as a Nuclear Power to An Inferior Power was unthinkable...
You are correct about it being a colossal waste of money that hollows out other defence capabilities. Each one of the four Dreadnoughts is going to consume 2% of the defence annual budget to operate and that's after the massive 50bn+ cost of acquiring them.
We may well find an increase in the cost of social care due to higher pay for staff, but some of the need for HGV drivers may well just disappear due to onshore of supply chains both here and EU, while other business models simply just become uncompetitive due to increased costs and loss of markets, such as areas of fishing and farming.
Now its no where near as bad for the brain surgeon than it is a lower paid worker but we really should be careful regarding all migration not just high paid work.
For reference the salary needed to import an IT working is £30k a year, so in that sector migration still applies a lot of pressure on salaries.
Since I'm interested in our defence more than anything else I see no bonus to us in proliferation. Proliferation would stop wars elsewhere, but stopping wars here is my priority and nukes have successfully done that.
But hypothetically if in 2001 the Taliban had a credible nuclear deterrent then we would never have invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Just as we never invaded the USSR.
George Osborne had promised to match Labour’s spending plans in 2007, prior to the crash. Once it hit, he decried those plans. Labour had “maxed out the nation’s credit card”, he told parliament, failing to “fix the roof while the sun was shining”. In reality, Britain’s net debt fell under Labour, from 37 per cent of GDP in 1997 to 34 per cent on the eve of the 2008 crash. That statistic may seem dry, but it is critical: Britain’s debt soared (to 64 per cent of GDP by the 2010 election) only after the crash hit. Had Labour lost in 2007, that debt would have risen on Osborne’s watch.
I think this is the problem the Labour Party has. It thinks it's just unlucky.
So even with open door policy for emigration of brain surgeons (pretty much every country has this, in effect) you are not going to see an oversupply or even a complete filling of roles. Which in turn means no downward pressure on wages.
This is because at high level qualification jobs (think equivalent to Russell Group University education and above) the world is training people slower than demand is increasing. This in turn is because a number of developing countries have started the transition to service economies. India and China want their brain surgeons in increasing numbers.
Despite efforts to massively increase the scale of education in such countries, they are not keeping up with demand.
https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1433364050377953280?s=20
Oh dear, how sad!
Progressive Conservative, not Reform. He can afford to, and it makes electoral sense. He seems to have learned from Nova Scotia.
Would Taiwan nuke Beijing, with all the cultural implications?
The latest popular vote projection based on the polls average is Conservatives 33.8% and Liberals 31.2% but in seats the Liberals would still be narrowly ahead 138 to 132 for the Conservatives.
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
Though of course it would be good news for Boris if Erin O'Toole, a fellow conservative with a positive view of Brexit, was elected Canadian PM
Societal development - law, corruption level, public services - play a fundamental role in productivity.
So the actual cost of doing something = societal structure * company structure * worker employment cost
The NHS, for example, makes workers more productive than in countries where health case is an expensive, often unreachable disaster.
So, while you can get value out of cheaper t-shirts made in a gulag for Muslims in China, it is much harder to get the same productivity cost multiplier from them.
This is why, when offshoring is objectively measured at anchoring, the cheapest location is not the one with the cheapest workers.
I worked for a company that had development units in India, Bulgaria & the UK (to name a few - there were a dozen countries altogether).
Development in London was second cheapest in terms of actual results per dollar.
So, if you take economic migrants, they will rapidly increase their productivity to the UK norms, when they get the benefits of the society around them. Of course, they will (less) rapidly demand pay to match. But that is OK, you simply import some more with initially lower expectations.
As great as it was that we got the vaccines as fast as we did it came just a month or so late to affect that wave.
Keep it but don't increase any payments for x years until inflation consumes all £20 of the current uplift.
At this point we should believe it when it happens.
Could be a good opportunity for entrepreneurial Eastern EU countries (for example) to offer a fast track to citizenship for UK retirees (for a hefty processing fee, no requirement to then settle in that country).
The UK would still treat rest of the world migrants other than from France with the same points system as now
I still don't think people understand how badly the various UK governments messed it up over winter
@skynews Adults who are fully vaccinated are 47% less likely to have long COVID if they contract #COVID19, a study says
@TheFreds So 53% more likely? That’s not impressive.
Contrarian, on the other hand posts quite a few anti-vax memes, and then tries to defend them, when called on it. Then retreats and tries again....
Almost £1 million a year is more than the salary paid to the global CEO of BAE Systems, the UK's largest manufacturing company. So how could such a salary be justified for a comparatively small - and failing - shipyard, Ferguson Marine? It beggars belief.
https://twitter.com/PaulJSweeney/status/1432991792778129410?s=20
So you are left with a bunch of incompetents in charge who go round shouting, screaming and stamping their feet. Probably swearing as well. But nobody takes any notice of them at all, because none of it makes any sense.
In contrast, I get the impression Contrarian walks around town with a sandwich board with 'I HAVE NOT TAKEN THE VACCINE' crayoned on it. There seems to be little else about him from his PB contributions.
One expressed a personal opinion (only when asked) based on their own principles, the other repeatedly presents their position as part of a larger group of liberty lovers fighting against the Man, the morally superior view compared to us sheeple. That pernicious mindset (not limited to vaccination matters by any means) leads to protests with hate figures hung in effigy, Capitols stormed and 'My name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain'.
Societal integration
I'm pickin' up good migration
Resulting in wage deflation
I'm pickin' up good migration
Preserve the culture of our nation
I love the colourful clothes they wear...
This would be without precedent during the 70 odd year run of the Federal Republic, but in 2017 we came within inches of exactly that scenario. Such a process could easily take up to a year, she would commissarially stay in office all that time.
#Scotland-BeaconOfProbity
Contrarian is antivax because of 'government' and 'privacy'.
Same shit, different reasons.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Wrong Said Fred
- Vaccination is really really good at preventing serious illness
- If you are in the small group who have been vaccinated and still get seriously ill, then your chance of getting long COVID is halved, as a further benefit.
https://www.economist.com/britain/britains-foreign-secretary-isnt-up-to-the-job/21804153
Contrarian - is very much this is why you shouldn't be vaccinated.
I would respect Contrarian if it was eg a principled opposition to forcing people to get vaccinated against their will, but it comes with a whole load of anti-vax rubbish.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
"Some 6,030 app users reported testing positive for COVID-19 at least 14 days after their first vaccination, but before their second, while 2,370 reported testing positive at least seven days after their second dose."
but no figures for unvaxed..
And slightly more helpfully -
"Professor Tim Spector from King's College, and lead investigator of the Zoe COVID study, said: "Vaccinations are massively reducing the chances of people getting long COVID in two ways.
"Firstly, by reducing the risk of any symptoms by eight-to-10-fold, and then by halving the chances of any infection turning into long COVID, if it does happen""
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-chances-of-long-covid-almost-halved-by-having-both-jabs-study-finds-12396661?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter
There are "shocking failings" and "blatant hypocrisy" in the way major UK religious groups handle child sex abuse allegations, an inquiry has found...
It said the religious leaders also blamed victims for their abuse, and relied on religious dogma when responding to allegations.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58420270
Appears to be the Republican slogan.
I don't think that was the purpose Carlotta intended the reference for. The opposite in fact, "only" circa 100 deaths a day from Covid now, so why bother?
[I know you may be facetious with your "only" but I'm not]