1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Depends what you mean by 'the Greater Newcastle area'. But, putting that aside, Newcastle General.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Depends what you mean by 'the Greater Newcastle area'. But, putting that aside, Newcastle General.
Given the QE is about 800 yards from Newcastle City Centre, then it’s certainly Greater Newcastle. And the General, yes, of course, good shout.
Had my wisdom teeth out there. And spent a few days in the Freeman with either a twisted testicle or epididymitis. Managed to avoid the R I though..
I had my wisdom teeth removed at Newcastle General. So far, the only time I've been in hospital.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Don't get into that! I'm using Newcastle NHS Trust statistics. One of the 16 is in Cumbria. None in Gateshead.
The QE is about 800 yards from Newcastle Quayside FFS.
That's not my point at all. My point is that there are 16 hospitals. Most people would only be able to think of three. The dental, children's, traansplant, genetics, and numerous walk-in facilities are classed as hospitals but won't be able to take Covid patients. So, about a fifth in this NHS Trust, of hospitals are actually what folk think of when they think "hospital". General places that do a range of serious ailments. Therefore 1500 nationwide may be true. But not useful when it comes to Covid care.
Sounds about right - and if one assumes that if a covid patient is seriously ill enough to have to stay for say 10 days, and uses the 1250-oddf figure from that article Anabo found, then we get 1500 hospitalizations per day, leading to about 15000 person-days over 1250/5 hospitals, suggesting about 60 patients per hospital, which implies about half the relevant beds in each hospital (if Mr Lillico is right about that 100) are taken by covid parients. Only very rough, but on Fermi's piano tuner principle it is probably OK for order of magnitude. It is much more consistent with reports from Foxy, Scotland etc.
Indeed, but there is undoubtedly a regional effect with those anecdotes. Leicestershire/Rutland has been in a permanent state of crisis/brink since the pandemic began (and possibly before). For reasons unclear it has been a major hotspot - as Foxy’s reports suggest.
Yet my two ward doctor friends on the South Coast report no such problems. Indeed my NHS friends in general are the most dovish on covid, they tend to feel lockdowns and restrictions should be been and done with.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Depends what you mean by 'the Greater Newcastle area'. But, putting that aside, Newcastle General.
Closed in 2010.
Wow. It was a big hospital. But a faff to get to.
On any number of bus routes.
Using the old 'I wouldn't start from here' line, two buses coming from south of the river.
I see a Blair quote which Matt Singh retweeted about the 'cultural axis' which I thought was pretty on the ball.
[Blair] urged Sir Keir Starmer not to be defensive on cultural matters. "Keir will be smart enough not to engage in the culture war, but I don't think that's going to be enough for that vote[traditional voters], they're going to want him to engage on the right side of it. And that is not, by the way, 'We don't care about black lives', it's 'We can support the sentiment of these movements, but we're not subcontracting policy to them'. So whether it's Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, MeToo, trans rights, if you look as if you're in a negotiation with those groups over policy, you're not going to get those people back."
I've often felt there is a common tendency, not confined to the left but sometimes it feels particularly so, to go 'If X say Y about issue Z, that's that', so treating campaigning groups, whose agenda may be good, as the sole voice for a community or only important voice on a particular issue. Interestingly Stonewall felt until recently like one of those groups that it was not felt ok to criticise or pay obeisance to, but in the last few years that seems to have changed.
But regardless of the group, even if their views should be sought and carry a lot of weight for policy makers, we should always avoid subcontracting our views to another completely. Hence why it's normal for people to naturally incline to support things proposed by their own party, but they should never just mouth whatever it decides.
Isn't there also an element of subcontracting policy to 'traditional voters' implied in this?
I don't think so. It is saying listen to them and do...things generally that show you are on their side, but like any group of public it will be uncoordinated and vague in its responses and demands. Specific campaigning groups are much more focused in their policy demands. The 'Red Wall' such as it even exists responds to the mood music of policy that Keir or others will seek, XR and others will put out press releases saying 'Do X, don't do Y'. The emphasis seems to be whether Keir (or indeed the governemnt) attempts its own ideas taking account of what others say, or just seems to parrot what they are told.
Modern politics is pretty much a morass for parties, stumbling about between often conflicting voter blocs and pressure groups, but from my pov Labour seems stuck in it more firmly than others. I'd say SKS's flirtation (& tbf previous Labour leaders') with the Union flag has very much a whiff of parroting what they are told, in that case by focus groups and brand consultants.
That’s precisely the problem. They are all framing the culture war (such an annoying US import of a phrase by the way) as something people are on one or other side of. Therefore you need to say the right things to appease both sides.
It’s not that. It’s the need for political empathy, which politicians seem to have forgotten recently. Empathy means understanding what others think and why they feel that way. Putting yourself in their shoes. It doesn’t require you to agree with them. Just to understand.
That and explaining. Keir, like most of the Tory front bench, seems to have no inclination to explain his or the party’s reasoning. It’s hugely frustrating for anyone with a modicum of intelligence. That’s why I liked Blair, why I like Rory Stewart, and why - unfashionably - I also like Nick Clegg and Tim Farron.
"The 9/11 advice that Tony Blair didn’t take Before the invasion of Afghanistan, OpenDemocracy’s security expert briefed the UK government on what could happen. Here’s what he wrote"
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Depends what you mean by 'the Greater Newcastle area'. But, putting that aside, Newcastle General.
Closed in 2010.
Wow. It was a big hospital. But a faff to get to.
On any number of bus routes.
Using the old 'I wouldn't start from here' line, two buses coming from south of the river.
I lived in the West End (around Two Ball Lonnen) so certainly convenient for me. Was probably built at a time when hospitals were smaller & more frequent and it was assumed it was for Newcastle residents only.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Depends what you mean by 'the Greater Newcastle area'. But, putting that aside, Newcastle General.
Given the QE is about 800 yards from Newcastle City Centre, then it’s certainly Greater Newcastle. And the General, yes, of course, good shout.
Had my wisdom teeth out there. And spent a few days in the Freeman with either a twisted testicle or epididymitis. Managed to avoid the R I though..
I had my wisdom teeth removed at Newcastle General. So far, the only time I've been in hospital.
Coincidences... I lived just up the road from where the late Plato went to school.
If I was forced to choose between banning abortion or legalising the murder of unborn babies after 24 weeks, I’d ban abortion.
Thankfully, it’s not an issue that resonates much in this country so I don’t have to worry.
I’d hate the forced choice but abortion beyond viability should only be considered where the mothers life is at risk. If doctors can look after the child independently of the mother then there should be a duty of care for the child after a delivery of any kind.
Early on in pregnancy, however, I’d equate the morality of abortion to that of contraceptive.
There probably a grey area that is more open to debate, but I seem to recall a significant majority of abortions occur within the first 12 weeks in any case. I find that the debate over late term abortions is often used as a proxy battle by those who are more comfortable with Texas’ law than ours.
And amazing how yet again the editor of the lancet just carries on his merry way.
I am a proponent of the lab leak theory but I'm not overly excited by this story. Virology is a small world, and everyone at the top table is bound to have come across everyone else at some stage.
’The food shortages being reported by a growing number of household names are likely to last forever, a leading industry figure has said in a stark warning to the government.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
The food shortages being reported by a growing number of household names are likely to last forever, a leading industry figure has said in a stark warning to the government.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
And just a rider on abortion that to me is crucial:
"I believe that to take the life of an unborn child is morally wrong and I'd think ill of anybody involved in such an enterprise."
"Abortion should be illegal."
These are very different positions. The 1st is a statement of your views. The 2nd is imposing your views on everybody else.
Is that not the price of democracy? Some people’s views get imposed on others.
Yes, but with boundaries. Eg, a majority might wish to make it illegal for girls to go to university. Nevertheless this ought not to happen since there is something embedded in a higher authority - the constitution or the ECHR or the Supreme Court or whatever - which prevents the enactment of legislation which degrades people on account of their identity. This is essential in order to keep "democracy" in check. Democracy is a tool not a god. It's a means not an end. This concept is at the heart of Roe v Wade. Should a women's ownership of her own body be something protected at that higher level? I say it should.
It's strange that for so long Johnson supported such policies, hailing Thatcher as a hero. Strange how his change of mind coincides with taking over the Tory Party.
’The food shortages being reported by a growing number of household names are likely to last forever, a leading industry figure has said in a stark warning to the government.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
I see we are back to the ludicrous hyperbolic stuff over Brexit. Its like 2010 government cuts and back to Wigan Pier narrative and Brexit means hospital running out of all vital medicines. And the result is the public stop listening / don't believe a word the media say.
A more likely and realistic outcome is friction meaning end of absolute rock bottom prices which we have become so used to.
If I was forced to choose between banning abortion or legalising the murder of unborn babies after 24 weeks, I’d ban abortion.
Thankfully, it’s not an issue that resonates much in this country so I don’t have to worry.
I’d hate the forced choice but abortion beyond viability should only be considered where the mothers life is at risk. If doctors can look after the child independently of the mother then there should be a duty of care for the child after a delivery of any kind.
Early on in pregnancy, however, I’d equate the morality of abortion to that of contraceptive.
There probably a grey area that is more open to debate, but I seem to recall a significant majority of abortions occur within the first 12 weeks in any case. I find that the debate over late term abortions is often used as a proxy battle by those who are more comfortable with Texas’ law than ours.
So I’m coming from the opposite side to that view. Someone posted on Facebook a logic as to why they were pro-choice that went “we don’t force people to donate bone marrow, women should have control of their bodies.” That’s obviously bollocks unless you think a line shouldn’t be drawn somewhere.
On your point of it being morally equivalent to contraception, that may be so, but I think we should say to kids not treat it as such because it can cause mental distress.
As you say, most abortions are likely to be quite early, so whilst I’m uncomfortable with the limit being 24 weeks, it doesn’t keep me awake at night. I think I read that it’s 24 weeks because some problems don’t show up until that late. There’s an actress who wants to abolish the test for Down’s because she doesn’t want that condition to be eliminated from society. Thing is, having an abortion for such a reason is why some people think it should be available.
And yes, the mother’s life must come first (they should get vaccinated). I’d also move to inducing labour at 38 weeks. My friends would have a healthy four year-old if that was the policy and the mother’s life would not have been endangered.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Depends what you mean by 'the Greater Newcastle area'. But, putting that aside, Newcastle General.
Given the QE is about 800 yards from Newcastle City Centre, then it’s certainly Greater Newcastle. And the General, yes, of course, good shout.
Had my wisdom teeth out there. And spent a few days in the Freeman with either a twisted testicle or epididymitis. Managed to avoid the R I though..
I had my wisdom teeth removed at Newcastle General. So far, the only time I've been in hospital.
Coincidences... I lived just up the road from where the late Plato went to school.
I shall have to reassess my idea on where is the cradle of European civilisation.
’The food shortages being reported by a growing number of household names are likely to last forever, a leading industry figure has said in a stark warning to the government.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
That 'compounded by Brexit' line really makes me laugh. Even if we were still in the EU we would be in exactly the same position.
Why? Because according to the latest briefing from Transport Intelligence there is a current shortage across Europe of 400,000 drivers. Poland is short a staggering 124,000 drivers and Germany and France between 45,000 and 60,000 each. The idea that allowing drivers to come and work here would make any difference when there are no drivers to come in the first place is laughable. (Though as an aside I still maintain we should let anyone work here who wants to but that is a different matter).
Poor working conditions and poor pay are the main causes with many drivers leaving the profession and few wanting to join. Companies driving pay down and the Just in Time system have brought the whole edifice to breaking point. They can't even honestly blame covid given that these problems were already developing in 2019.
And amazing how yet again the editor of the lancet just carries on his merry way.
I am a proponent of the lab leak theory but I'm not overly excited by this story. Virology is a small world, and everyone at the top table is bound to have come across everyone else at some stage.
Links are of course to be expected. What is shocking is how many of them, closely working with Wuhan and Daszak, signed this letter - which effectively silenced debate on lab leak for a year - while actually declaring they had no ‘conflict of interest’.
It's strange that for so long Johnson supported such policies, hailing Thatcher as a hero. Strange how his change of mind coincides with taking over the Tory Party.
A man with no principles at all, it's pathetic
Wow. The speculation that Boris wants to be PM for years to come - for longer than Maggie - is fascinating. I think the NI rise has worked like a charm in that respect: only Rishi could credibly have been able to mount any kind of challenge, but NI has now tied him inescapably to the Boris project. Boris is now in complete control of the agenda.
’The food shortages being reported by a growing number of household names are likely to last forever, a leading industry figure has said in a stark warning to the government.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
’The food shortages being reported by a growing number of household names are likely to last forever, a leading industry figure has said in a stark warning to the government.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
Didn’t we do this a few months ago with Edinburgh or Newcastle?
There were technically about 10-12 hospitals but that included specialist places such as ENT, ophthalmology, cancer etc. There were only 3-4 DGH type hospitals
This nuanced abortion debate shows how ultimately futile stoking Culture Wars is. Most people are not fanatics, but fall somewhere in the middle. Sadly. The loonies and professional activists make most noise. And attempt to force everyone else to choose a side. I refuse to join a team. On this, and several other hot button CW issues.
And amazing how yet again the editor of the lancet just carries on his merry way.
I am a proponent of the lab leak theory but I'm not overly excited by this story. Virology is a small world, and everyone at the top table is bound to have come across everyone else at some stage.
Links are of course to be expected. What is shocking is how many of them, closely working with Wuhan and Daszak, signed this letter - which effectively silenced debate on lab leak for a year - while actually declaring they had no ‘conflict of interest’.
THAT is the shocking bit
Its not shocking if they had something to cover up.
Therefore we can conclude that there was something to cover up.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
Didn’t we do this a few months ago with Edinburgh or Newcastle?
There were technically about 10-12 hospitals but that included specialist places such as ENT, ophthalmology, cancer etc. There were only 3-4 DGH type hospitals
This seems like a terrible move? Brexit in 2024, has he run out of ideas?
"You elected me in 2019 to Get Brexit Done. It was such a success vote for me and I'll do it again!"
I think this is just a way to humiliate and demoralize his Remainer enemies: 'I won on "Get Brexit Done", Brexit flopped, but I'm going to win all over again on the same slogan and my admirers will lap it up and there's nothing you can do about it.'
It's strange that for so long Johnson supported such policies, hailing Thatcher as a hero. Strange how his change of mind coincides with taking over the Tory Party.
A man with no principles at all, it's pathetic
Wow. The speculation that Boris wants to be PM for years to come - for longer than Maggie - is fascinating. I think the NI rise has worked like a charm in that respect: only Rishi could credibly have been able to mount any kind of challenge, but NI has now tied him inescapably to the Boris project. Boris is now in complete control of the agenda.
That takes us to 2030 before he's gone. Summat to live for I guess. But I'm not sure I can summon up the will.
I see a Blair quote which Matt Singh retweeted about the 'cultural axis' which I thought was pretty on the ball.
[Blair] urged Sir Keir Starmer not to be defensive on cultural matters. "Keir will be smart enough not to engage in the culture war, but I don't think that's going to be enough for that vote[traditional voters], they're going to want him to engage on the right side of it. And that is not, by the way, 'We don't care about black lives', it's 'We can support the sentiment of these movements, but we're not subcontracting policy to them'. So whether it's Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, MeToo, trans rights, if you look as if you're in a negotiation with those groups over policy, you're not going to get those people back."
I've often felt there is a common tendency, not confined to the left but sometimes it feels particularly so, to go 'If X say Y about issue Z, that's that', so treating campaigning groups, whose agenda may be good, as the sole voice for a community or only important voice on a particular issue. Interestingly Stonewall felt until recently like one of those groups that it was not felt ok to criticise or pay obeisance to, but in the last few years that seems to have changed.
But regardless of the group, even if their views should be sought and carry a lot of weight for policy makers, we should always avoid subcontracting our views to another completely. Hence why it's normal for people to naturally incline to support things proposed by their own party, but they should never just mouth whatever it decides.
Isn't there also an element of subcontracting policy to 'traditional voters' implied in this?
I don't think so. It is saying listen to them and do...things generally that show you are on their side, but like any group of public it will be uncoordinated and vague in its responses and demands. Specific campaigning groups are much more focused in their policy demands. The 'Red Wall' such as it even exists responds to the mood music of policy that Keir or others will seek, XR and others will put out press releases saying 'Do X, don't do Y'. The emphasis seems to be whether Keir (or indeed the governemnt) attempts its own ideas taking account of what others say, or just seems to parrot what they are told.
Modern politics is pretty much a morass for parties, stumbling about between often conflicting voter blocs and pressure groups, but from my pov Labour seems stuck in it more firmly than others. I'd say SKS's flirtation (& tbf previous Labour leaders') with the Union flag has very much a whiff of parroting what they are told, in that case by focus groups and brand consultants.
The flaggery was indeed focus-grouped, is what I hear. It's an attempt to slay the notion that we (Labour) don't "love Britain". One must hope it works and it's a quick death so that we can stop it.
This nuanced abortion debate shows how ultimately futile stoking Culture Wars is. Most people are not fanatics, but fall somewhere in the middle. Sadly. The loonies and professional activists make most noise. And attempt to force everyone else to choose a side. I refuse to join a team. On this, and several other hot button CW issues.
The problem is that the pro-choice side present themselves as morally right. They talk in absolute terms. Once someone agrees that there should be a time limit on it, then you’re not all that different to the other side. Your just arguing about where to draw the line.
I don’t approve of what’s proposed I’m Texas (though, to be honest, I couldn’t give a shot what happens in the US any more than anywhere else that isn’t England), but the opposition shouldn’t present their views as being moral absolutes that shouldn’t be open to debate.
For those who can't get enough of Bulgarian General Elections, 2021 has really been your year. Round 3 is now scheduled to take place on 14th November.
For Norwegians, the voting occurs on Monday and the final (you'd think) Norfakta poll - fieldwork 7th and 8th September so quite old (arguably):
Not the best poll for Labour but better for Centre and the centre-left bloc still looking likely to win on Monday. I make it 52.4% for the Red bloc of parties and 37.9% for the Blue bloc of parties so a huge lead.
Last time Blue won by 48.8 to 46.1 so a 2.7% lead has become a 14.5% deficit which I make an 8.6% swing from centre-right to centre-left which should be more than enough.
The one conundrum is there has been no polling within the 19 multi-member constituencies so we don't know how an 8.5% national swing will translate locally. One projection has Labour winning 14 of the 19 constituencies but that's meaningless.
And amazing how yet again the editor of the lancet just carries on his merry way.
I am a proponent of the lab leak theory but I'm not overly excited by this story. Virology is a small world, and everyone at the top table is bound to have come across everyone else at some stage.
Links are of course to be expected. What is shocking is how many of them, closely working with Wuhan and Daszak, signed this letter - which effectively silenced debate on lab leak for a year - while actually declaring they had no ‘conflict of interest’.
THAT is the shocking bit
Its not shocking if they had something to cover up.
Therefore we can conclude that there was something to cover up.
’The food shortages being reported by a growing number of household names are likely to last forever, a leading industry figure has said in a stark warning to the government.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
That 'compounded by Brexit' line really makes me laugh. Even if we were still in the EU we would be in exactly the same position.
Why? Because according to the latest briefing from Transport Intelligence there is a current shortage across Europe of 400,000 drivers. Poland is short a staggering 124,000 drivers and Germany and France between 45,000 and 60,000 each. The idea that allowing drivers to come and work here would make any difference when there are no drivers to come in the first place is laughable. (Though as an aside I still maintain we should let anyone work here who wants to but that is a different matter).
Poor working conditions and poor pay are the main causes with many drivers leaving the profession and few wanting to join. Companies driving pay down and the Just in Time system have brought the whole edifice to breaking point. They can't even honestly blame covid given that these problems were already developing in 2019.
Indeed.
Given the claim is that 'the Eastern Europeans have all gone home' I'm not sure how the proposed solution of 'lets get some Eastern Europeans to work for less money' makes sense.
’The food shortages being reported by a growing number of household names are likely to last forever, a leading industry figure has said in a stark warning to the government.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
I see we are back to the ludicrous hyperbolic stuff
We left it for a time?
It feels like we've had nothing but 6 weeks of continuous fag packet calculations about the economics of carting elderly relatives off to the knackers yard.
Anyone know anywhere reasonable to park in Edinburgh?
Isn't there a park and ride?
Several. For instance Ingliston near airport, Straiton to the south etc. Some are on the ring road. Lothian Buses website will explain. The Straiton one is reasonably quick for the south central area. Not so familiat with Ingliston for the western sector.
Is Ingliston where the Scottish metropolitan woke elite live? Islington north of the border?
I doubt it very much! It's next to the airport - in fact is the airport. Is West Drayton chic? I don't know.
Suden thought: not sure if the park and ride there is free. Gallowgate had better check. The others are, IIRC.
Sheriffhall Park and Ride would be more convenient coming from the A1/A68 and then get the 33/49 bus in, also Newcraighall Park and ride for the Borders railway but the train service has been reduced.
Some kind of polite demo here in Lucerne. Can’t see it from my riverside restaurant table, but it sounds like a lot of people with whistles, chanting ‘USA, USA’
Hmm. On 9/11? 20th annivo?
Right wing Switzers sticking it to the Talib Man? Students still hating on Trump?!
I see a Blair quote which Matt Singh retweeted about the 'cultural axis' which I thought was pretty on the ball.
[Blair] urged Sir Keir Starmer not to be defensive on cultural matters. "Keir will be smart enough not to engage in the culture war, but I don't think that's going to be enough for that vote[traditional voters], they're going to want him to engage on the right side of it. And that is not, by the way, 'We don't care about black lives', it's 'We can support the sentiment of these movements, but we're not subcontracting policy to them'. So whether it's Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, MeToo, trans rights, if you look as if you're in a negotiation with those groups over policy, you're not going to get those people back."
I've often felt there is a common tendency, not confined to the left but sometimes it feels particularly so, to go 'If X say Y about issue Z, that's that', so treating campaigning groups, whose agenda may be good, as the sole voice for a community or only important voice on a particular issue. Interestingly Stonewall felt until recently like one of those groups that it was not felt ok to criticise or pay obeisance to, but in the last few years that seems to have changed.
But regardless of the group, even if their views should be sought and carry a lot of weight for policy makers, we should always avoid subcontracting our views to another completely. Hence why it's normal for people to naturally incline to support things proposed by their own party, but they should never just mouth whatever it decides.
Isn't there also an element of subcontracting policy to 'traditional voters' implied in this?
I don't think so. It is saying listen to them and do...things generally that show you are on their side, but like any group of public it will be uncoordinated and vague in its responses and demands. Specific campaigning groups are much more focused in their policy demands. The 'Red Wall' such as it even exists responds to the mood music of policy that Keir or others will seek, XR and others will put out press releases saying 'Do X, don't do Y'. The emphasis seems to be whether Keir (or indeed the governemnt) attempts its own ideas taking account of what others say, or just seems to parrot what they are told.
Modern politics is pretty much a morass for parties, stumbling about between often conflicting voter blocs and pressure groups, but from my pov Labour seems stuck in it more firmly than others. I'd say SKS's flirtation (& tbf previous Labour leaders') with the Union flag has very much a whiff of parroting what they are told, in that case by focus groups and brand consultants.
That’s precisely the problem. They are all framing the culture war (such an annoying US import of a phrase by the way) as something people are on one or other side of. Therefore you need to say the right things to appease both sides.
It’s not that. It’s the need for political empathy, which politicians seem to have forgotten recently. Empathy means understanding what others think and why they feel that way. Putting yourself in their shoes. It doesn’t require you to agree with them. Just to understand.
That and explaining. Keir, like most of the Tory front bench, seems to have no inclination to explain his or the party’s reasoning. It’s hugely frustrating for anyone with a modicum of intelligence. That’s why I liked Blair, why I like Rory Stewart, and why - unfashionably - I also like Nick Clegg and Tim Farron.
Totally agree. The territory between ignoring and pandering is large yet few seem to fancy occupying it.
I see a Blair quote which Matt Singh retweeted about the 'cultural axis' which I thought was pretty on the ball.
[Blair] urged Sir Keir Starmer not to be defensive on cultural matters. "Keir will be smart enough not to engage in the culture war, but I don't think that's going to be enough for that vote[traditional voters], they're going to want him to engage on the right side of it. And that is not, by the way, 'We don't care about black lives', it's 'We can support the sentiment of these movements, but we're not subcontracting policy to them'. So whether it's Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, MeToo, trans rights, if you look as if you're in a negotiation with those groups over policy, you're not going to get those people back."
I've often felt there is a common tendency, not confined to the left but sometimes it feels particularly so, to go 'If X say Y about issue Z, that's that', so treating campaigning groups, whose agenda may be good, as the sole voice for a community or only important voice on a particular issue. Interestingly Stonewall felt until recently like one of those groups that it was not felt ok to criticise or pay obeisance to, but in the last few years that seems to have changed.
But regardless of the group, even if their views should be sought and carry a lot of weight for policy makers, we should always avoid subcontracting our views to another completely. Hence why it's normal for people to naturally incline to support things proposed by their own party, but they should never just mouth whatever it decides.
Isn't there also an element of subcontracting policy to 'traditional voters' implied in this?
I don't think so. It is saying listen to them and do...things generally that show you are on their side, but like any group of public it will be uncoordinated and vague in its responses and demands. Specific campaigning groups are much more focused in their policy demands. The 'Red Wall' such as it even exists responds to the mood music of policy that Keir or others will seek, XR and others will put out press releases saying 'Do X, don't do Y'. The emphasis seems to be whether Keir (or indeed the governemnt) attempts its own ideas taking account of what others say, or just seems to parrot what they are told.
Modern politics is pretty much a morass for parties, stumbling about between often conflicting voter blocs and pressure groups, but from my pov Labour seems stuck in it more firmly than others. I'd say SKS's flirtation (& tbf previous Labour leaders') with the Union flag has very much a whiff of parroting what they are told, in that case by focus groups and brand consultants.
The flaggery was indeed focus-grouped, is what I hear. It's an attempt to slay the notion that we (Labour) don't "love Britain". One must hope it works and it's a quick death so that we can stop it.
Labour does love Britain, it's about time it is more proud of the very good things it has done for it.
This nuanced abortion debate shows how ultimately futile stoking Culture Wars is. Most people are not fanatics, but fall somewhere in the middle. Sadly. The loonies and professional activists make most noise. And attempt to force everyone else to choose a side. I refuse to join a team. On this, and several other hot button CW issues.
The problem is that the pro-choice side present themselves as morally right. They talk in absolute terms. Once someone agrees that there should be a time limit on it, then you’re not all that different to the other side. Your just arguing about where to draw the line.
I don’t approve of what’s proposed I’m Texas (though, to be honest, I couldn’t give a shot what happens in the US any more than anywhere else that isn’t England), but the opposition shouldn’t present their views as being moral absolutes that shouldn’t be open to debate.
Don't the pro-life side also present themselves as morally right? There should be no abortion. In absolute terms? Once you agree to a time limit, etc.,etc. That's the problem right there.
Wow. The speculation that Boris wants to be PM for years to come - for longer than Maggie - is fascinating. I think the NI rise has worked like a charm in that respect: only Rishi could credibly have been able to mount any kind of challenge, but NI has now tied him inescapably to the Boris project. Boris is now in complete control of the agenda.
Yet the notion of him "going on and on" as someone else once put it is making all kind of hostages to fortune.
I suspect he wants to out-serve Margaret Thatcher but he will know all PMs have a shelf life as both Thatcher and Blair found out and there comes a point when the person themselves, the people or the Party decide enough is enough and compel/persuade/cajole them on their way.
The trouble is, if you announce your pre-retirement, that starts the clock on the campaign for your successor. I wonder if Wilson understood that - Cameron certainly didn't.
There's also the mental and physical toll of the job - it may lose its lustre after a while.
A wise man once said when the curtain falls it's time to get off the stage - I wonder if Johnson will overstay his welcome and will need to be removed.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Don't get into that! I'm using Newcastle NHS Trust statistics. One of the 16 is in Cumbria. None in Gateshead.
The QE is about 800 yards from Newcastle Quayside FFS.
That's not my point at all. My point is that there are 16 hospitals. Most people would only be able to think of three. The dental, children's, traansplant, genetics, and numerous walk-in facilities are classed as hospitals but won't be able to take Covid patients. So, about a fifth in this NHS Trust, of hospitals are actually what folk think of when they think "hospital". General places that do a range of serious ailments. Therefore 1500 nationwide may be true. But not useful when it comes to Covid care.
Sounds about right - and if one assumes that if a covid patient is seriously ill enough to have to stay for say 10 days, and uses the 1250-oddf figure from that article Anabo found, then we get 1500 hospitalizations per day, leading to about 15000 person-days over 1250/5 hospitals, suggesting about 60 patients per hospital, which implies about half the relevant beds in each hospital (if Mr Lillico is right about that 100) are taken by covid parients. Only very rough, but on Fermi's piano tuner principle it is probably OK for order of magnitude. It is much more consistent with reports from Foxy, Scotland etc.
Indeed, but there is undoubtedly a regional effect with those anecdotes. Leicestershire/Rutland has been in a permanent state of crisis/brink since the pandemic began (and possibly before). For reasons unclear it has been a major hotspot - as Foxy’s reports suggest.
Yet my two ward doctor friends on the South Coast report no such problems. Indeed my NHS friends in general are the most dovish on covid, they tend to feel lockdowns and restrictions should be been and done with.
Fair enough, but one doesn't want to let things get so bad that every hospital in the land, even Tunbridge Wells, has collapsed.
Another thing on abortion, I was forced to do GCSE Religious Education (the only good thing was our teacher was pro-Mugabe, we had some fantastic arguments).
Anyway, we had questions like “explain how a Buddhist might feel about abortion giving references to religious teachings.” The message of the course and the reason we had to do it was so that we’d show respect to others who have different values to our own.
Now I think Evangelical Christians are nuts. But as an atheist, I respect them as much as any other conservative religious group. Just because they are white and speak English doesn’t change a thing.
Some kind of polite demo here in Lucerne. Can’t see it from my riverside restaurant table, but it sounds like a lot of people with whistles, chanting ‘USA, USA’
Hmm. On 9/11? 20th annivo?
Right wing Switzers sticking it to the Talib Man? Students still hating on Trump?!
Aha. Problem solved. Big protest against vaxports apparently. Not sure how that chimes with chanting ‘USA USA’ but hey
Some kind of polite demo here in Lucerne. Can’t see it from my riverside restaurant table, but it sounds like a lot of people with whistles, chanting ‘USA, USA’
Hmm. On 9/11? 20th annivo?
Right wing Switzers sticking it to the Talib Man? Students still hating on Trump?!
Aha. Problem solved. Big protest against vaxports apparently. Not sure how that chimes with chanting ‘USA USA’ but hey
This nuanced abortion debate shows how ultimately futile stoking Culture Wars is. Most people are not fanatics, but fall somewhere in the middle. Sadly. The loonies and professional activists make most noise. And attempt to force everyone else to choose a side. I refuse to join a team. On this, and several other hot button CW issues.
Abortion is an extreme debate in the USA because it is decided by the courts and so fanatically binary.
Abortion is not an extreme debate in Europe because it is decided by the voters and so fluidly moderate.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Depends what you mean by 'the Greater Newcastle area'. But, putting that aside, Newcastle General.
Given the QE is about 800 yards from Newcastle City Centre, then it’s certainly Greater Newcastle. And the General, yes, of course, good shout.
Had my wisdom teeth out there. And spent a few days in the Freeman with either a twisted testicle or epididymitis. Managed to avoid the R I though..
I had my wisdom teeth removed at Newcastle General. So far, the only time I've been in hospital.
Coincidences... I lived just up the road from where the late Plato went to school.
I shall have to reassess my idea on where is the cradle of European civilisation.
Personally, I am ambivalent about abortion, but do think my opinion on this is not very much matter as a male who will never be in that situation. I would be happy if we had female only votes on the issue.
There is an interesting and nuanced article in the Atlantic about mother and daughter in Wade vs Roe. The case took so long that the pregnancy went to term.
I think abortion has the potential to confound the prediction in the thread header. As far as I can tell from a brief google, political opinion on abortion is best described as, "Using the terms ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life' is almost a party ID term"
However, the biggest challenge for the Democrats, particularly in the mid-terms, has often been in driving turnout. This surely has to be an issue with the potential to boost Democrat turnout.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the law when they eventually get around to hearing a case on the issue (as opposed to their current blind eye stance), then I can see it becoming very unpopular indeed with all but the most ideologically committed. Whether that happens before next year’s election is another matter.
In the longer term I think the state will flip. Next year feels too soon, though - which is why O’Rourke, despite being the Democrats best candidate by a distance, is very reluctant to commit.
In the long run neither 'on demand' or 'never' are sustainable positions from a humanistic, liberal point of view. One day we will look back on both positions as we do slavery now. The dialogue of the deaf between these two untenable positions is deeply depressing.
False equivalence. I support time limits but 'on demand' is far less repugnant than never. In practice, women by and large being not entirely devoid of intelligence and humanity, 'on demand' doesn't equate to casually aborting on a whim, or to loads of virtually full grown babies being terminated just prior to birth. A "woman's right to choose" means a "woman's right to make this difficult decision if she feels she has to".
Never, otoh, means that once a woman falls pregnant her status as a human being is degraded to that of carrier of the unborn child within her. Regardless of her own feelings on the matter she must carry it in her womb and expanding belly for 9 months and deliver it into the world. Imagine being in that position if you don't wish to become its mother. Brutal. And think about what it means and represents. It means the state owns her body. It's an overt (ie in law) statement that women matter less than men. It's indefensible and it's no surprise that so many of those who seek to defend it are in thrall to backward patriarchal religions.
At what point in time does the unborn child have rights?
When they have the ability to sue their parents.
So you are ok with abortion at any point before birth then?
Personally, I am ambivalent about abortion, but do think my opinion on this is not very much matter as a male who will never be in that situation. I would be happy if we had female only votes on the issue.
There is an interesting and nuanced article in the Atlantic about mother and daughter in Wade vs Roe. The case took so long that the pregnancy went to term.
Gawd this is bliss. They just gone and given me a glass of super-Tuscan red. Three yards from my table the fish leap from the glittering river Reuss, right under the graceful volutes of the Jesuit church. The reflected alpine sunshine dapples the painted medieval ceiling; rich old ladies snooze, and dream of furtive bank accounts
Personally, I am ambivalent about abortion, but do think my opinion on this is not very much matter as a male who will never be in that situation. I would be happy if we had female only votes on the issue.
There is an interesting and nuanced article in the Atlantic about mother and daughter in Wade vs Roe. The case took so long that the pregnancy went to term.
Sorry, but that’s rubbish. Men have a right to a say on when we decide a child is a child.
Agree. And, if it let solely a woman’s choice, then scrap financial obligations on the father to support the child. After all, men have no role (if you take the view abortion is a women-only issue)
Was there a universe where Brown could have won an election, or was he always going to lose?
Yes, he famously bottled it when he could have won.
I thought some of the polls at the time indicated it was likely he'd have lost Labour's majority? Haven't we had such arguments here before?
It all rather depends on whether people think his initial bump would have held up in a GE campaign, or whether his position and leadership was inherently weak and that would have won out.
Gawd this is bliss. They just gone and given me a glass of super-Tuscan red. Three yards from my table the fish leap from the glittering river Reuss, right under the graceful volutes of the Jesuit church. The reflected alpine sunshine dapples the painted medieval ceiling; rich old ladies snooze, and dream of furtive bank accounts
I think abortion has the potential to confound the prediction in the thread header. As far as I can tell from a brief google, political opinion on abortion is best described as, "Using the terms ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life' is almost a party ID term"
However, the biggest challenge for the Democrats, particularly in the mid-terms, has often been in driving turnout. This surely has to be an issue with the potential to boost Democrat turnout.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the law when they eventually get around to hearing a case on the issue (as opposed to their current blind eye stance), then I can see it becoming very unpopular indeed with all but the most ideologically committed. Whether that happens before next year’s election is another matter.
In the longer term I think the state will flip. Next year feels too soon, though - which is why O’Rourke, despite being the Democrats best candidate by a distance, is very reluctant to commit.
In the long run neither 'on demand' or 'never' are sustainable positions from a humanistic, liberal point of view. One day we will look back on both positions as we do slavery now. The dialogue of the deaf between these two untenable positions is deeply depressing.
False equivalence. I support time limits but 'on demand' is far less repugnant than never. In practice, women by and large being not entirely devoid of intelligence and humanity, 'on demand' doesn't equate to casually aborting on a whim, or to loads of virtually full grown babies being terminated just prior to birth. A "woman's right to choose" means a "woman's right to make this difficult decision if she feels she has to".
Never, otoh, means that once a woman falls pregnant her status as a human being is degraded to that of carrier of the unborn child within her. Regardless of her own feelings on the matter she must carry it in her womb and expanding belly for 9 months and deliver it into the world. Imagine being in that position if you don't wish to become its mother. Brutal. And think about what it means and represents. It means the state owns her body. It's an overt (ie in law) statement that women matter less than men. It's indefensible and it's no surprise that so many of those who seek to defend it are in thrall to backward patriarchal religions.
At what point in time does the unborn child have rights?
When they have the ability to sue their parents.
So you are ok with abortion at any point before birth then?
Are you okay with putting women who suffer miscarriages at risk of being dragged through the legal system then?
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
If so, it really does show SKS is out of touch.
No one wants to go into a care home, no one wants to put their parent into a care home.
It is only done when home care has become impossible.
It is already an absolute last resort.
This is something Mrs C and I discuss on occasion, since we're both over 80. The over-riding problem that we see with home care is isolation. The idea of living alone and someone arriving at 6.30 or so and putting us to bed, even if we can manage the TV remote is extremely unattractive. My mother, unsafe on her own at 90 after my father died (and he wasn't much help) decided that she wanted to into a home near where my sister lived, but not with my sister, and I can fully understand her reasoning. She slowly got herself from her room into the lounge where she could talk to fellow residents, and where the staff went to and fro.
I might feel differently closer to the time but I agree. If I can't look after myself, and a good care home was available I would prefer that to home care. Of course it is different if only bad care homes are available. It needs proper funding and good wages, not the smoke and mirrors sticking plaster we have been offered as the fix for the next decade.
See my comment at 10.08. The trouble is that the money available to Care Home Managers is frequently inadequate. One of the best Homes I've came across was run by a charity; the Motor Trades Benevolent; there was wide range of activities and plenty of support. It was also in a very big building.... I think the one-time mansion of an early motor magnate, which meant that there was room for several levels of care, as the residents level of need increased.
I rather think the Dutch have it right with their dementia village. It sounds a very thought through place. Pity that my Dutch isn't very good!
My Mother in Law died last week, which may be part of my gloomy mood. She had been in residential care, self funded from the sale of her bungalow. She had been widowed a couple of years and could no longer manage on her own between physical frailty, mostly arthritis, and getting rather amiably muddled.
She rather enjoyed the company, being cooked for and did lots of arts and crafts as well as activities such as poetry readings. She didn't have a bad few years at all, except for covid restrictions, and the home managed those as well as they could. It cost about £80 000 in all, so wouldn't have been affected by the recent announced plans, which in any case don't start for 2 years or cover accommodation or food. She has an estate of a little less than the same sum.
She was a lovely lady and will be much missed, and enjoyable company to nearly the end. RIP
There is a lot of good stuff going on in Alzheimer’s. Dementia villages are one (the Dutch are good but others are using them now). I like the idea of homes built on an oval footprint - dementia patients like to walk but get stymied by corners so stand looking at the wall and get very stressed and upset, but with a continuous corridor without corners they don’t face that problem
I see a Blair quote which Matt Singh retweeted about the 'cultural axis' which I thought was pretty on the ball.
[Blair] urged Sir Keir Starmer not to be defensive on cultural matters. "Keir will be smart enough not to engage in the culture war, but I don't think that's going to be enough for that vote[traditional voters], they're going to want him to engage on the right side of it. And that is not, by the way, 'We don't care about black lives', it's 'We can support the sentiment of these movements, but we're not subcontracting policy to them'. So whether it's Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, MeToo, trans rights, if you look as if you're in a negotiation with those groups over policy, you're not going to get those people back."
I've often felt there is a common tendency, not confined to the left but sometimes it feels particularly so, to go 'If X say Y about issue Z, that's that', so treating campaigning groups, whose agenda may be good, as the sole voice for a community or only important voice on a particular issue. Interestingly Stonewall felt until recently like one of those groups that it was not felt ok to criticise or pay obeisance to, but in the last few years that seems to have changed.
But regardless of the group, even if their views should be sought and carry a lot of weight for policy makers, we should always avoid subcontracting our views to another completely. Hence why it's normal for people to naturally incline to support things proposed by their own party, but they should never just mouth whatever it decides.
Isn't there also an element of subcontracting policy to 'traditional voters' implied in this?
I don't think so. It is saying listen to them and do...things generally that show you are on their side, but like any group of public it will be uncoordinated and vague in its responses and demands. Specific campaigning groups are much more focused in their policy demands. The 'Red Wall' such as it even exists responds to the mood music of policy that Keir or others will seek, XR and others will put out press releases saying 'Do X, don't do Y'. The emphasis seems to be whether Keir (or indeed the governemnt) attempts its own ideas taking account of what others say, or just seems to parrot what they are told.
Modern politics is pretty much a morass for parties, stumbling about between often conflicting voter blocs and pressure groups, but from my pov Labour seems stuck in it more firmly than others. I'd say SKS's flirtation (& tbf previous Labour leaders') with the Union flag has very much a whiff of parroting what they are told, in that case by focus groups and brand consultants.
The flaggery was indeed focus-grouped, is what I hear. It's an attempt to slay the notion that we (Labour) don't "love Britain". One must hope it works and it's a quick death so that we can stop it.
My approximate rule is that if you don’t have real conviction over a subject or can’t successfully fake it, stay away from it. I know that’s difficult if you’re the leader of HMG’s opposition, but the great wobbling jelly of moral vacancy gets away with it all the time. No one seems to know or care what BJ’s view on trans rights are, or even seem curious about them.
It can’t be beyond the wit of man or ppb director to sit SKS down and find out what is the authentic Keir and why he loves the place in which he lives: 5 a side with your mates, a pint in your favourite pub, a stretch of countryside. Schmaltzy maybe but no fcuking flags.
I think abortion has the potential to confound the prediction in the thread header. As far as I can tell from a brief google, political opinion on abortion is best described as, "Using the terms ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life' is almost a party ID term"
However, the biggest challenge for the Democrats, particularly in the mid-terms, has often been in driving turnout. This surely has to be an issue with the potential to boost Democrat turnout.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the law when they eventually get around to hearing a case on the issue (as opposed to their current blind eye stance), then I can see it becoming very unpopular indeed with all but the most ideologically committed. Whether that happens before next year’s election is another matter.
In the longer term I think the state will flip. Next year feels too soon, though - which is why O’Rourke, despite being the Democrats best candidate by a distance, is very reluctant to commit.
In the long run neither 'on demand' or 'never' are sustainable positions from a humanistic, liberal point of view. One day we will look back on both positions as we do slavery now. The dialogue of the deaf between these two untenable positions is deeply depressing.
False equivalence. I support time limits but 'on demand' is far less repugnant than never. In practice, women by and large being not entirely devoid of intelligence and humanity, 'on demand' doesn't equate to casually aborting on a whim, or to loads of virtually full grown babies being terminated just prior to birth. A "woman's right to choose" means a "woman's right to make this difficult decision if she feels she has to".
Never, otoh, means that once a woman falls pregnant her status as a human being is degraded to that of carrier of the unborn child within her. Regardless of her own feelings on the matter she must carry it in her womb and expanding belly for 9 months and deliver it into the world. Imagine being in that position if you don't wish to become its mother. Brutal. And think about what it means and represents. It means the state owns her body. It's an overt (ie in law) statement that women matter less than men. It's indefensible and it's no surprise that so many of those who seek to defend it are in thrall to backward patriarchal religions.
At what point in time does the unborn child have rights?
If you mean at what point should it become illegal to abort, I think we have a reasonable settlement here. What do you think?
Viability is the dividing line for me. I think about 20 weeks but would have it assessed every few years by an expert committee to depoliticise it (or at least try to…)
Keir Starmer should get up in that Labour Conference and tell the country once again that the Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 was good and did good things. And most people would agree.
Child poverty reduced, homelessness almost eliminated, peace in NI. It is an absolute disgrace how embarrassed Labour is of its own history!
It's strange that for so long Johnson supported such policies, hailing Thatcher as a hero. Strange how his change of mind coincides with taking over the Tory Party.
A man with no principles at all, it's pathetic
Wow. The speculation that Boris wants to be PM for years to come - for longer than Maggie - is fascinating. I think the NI rise has worked like a charm in that respect: only Rishi could credibly have been able to mount any kind of challenge, but NI has now tied him inescapably to the Boris project. Boris is now in complete control of the agenda.
I think that speculation is nonsense. It's precisely because there have been rumblings, justified or otherwise, that he is overcompensating and talking about a decade more in power etc. It's like people supporting the most extreme Covid restriction in a poll to show seriousness, by talking about beating Maggie it's just code for 'I'm in control and going nowhere'.
This seems like a terrible move? Brexit in 2024, has he run out of ideas?
"You elected me in 2019 to Get Brexit Done. It was such a success vote for me and I'll do it again!"
I think this is just a way to humiliate and demoralize his Remainer enemies: 'I won on "Get Brexit Done", Brexit flopped, but I'm going to win all over again on the same slogan and my admirers will lap it up and there's nothing you can do about it.'
Its a sound plan no?
We all know that the electoral calculus favours the appeal to Leave. I'm sure some hardy CCHQ data scientist knows exactly the ratio of ardent Brexiteers they need to rile up to maintain the majority. To me it seems the Conservatives are emulating the American cultural divide and hammering in the plugs and feathers. Because the demography works and will for the foreseeable.
Remain voters are packed in the metros and cracked everywhere else.
’The food shortages being reported by a growing number of household names are likely to last forever, a leading industry figure has said in a stark warning to the government.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
That 'compounded by Brexit' line really makes me laugh. Even if we were still in the EU we would be in exactly the same position.
Why? Because according to the latest briefing from Transport Intelligence there is a current shortage across Europe of 400,000 drivers. Poland is short a staggering 124,000 drivers and Germany and France between 45,000 and 60,000 each. The idea that allowing drivers to come and work here would make any difference when there are no drivers to come in the first place is laughable. (Though as an aside I still maintain we should let anyone work here who wants to but that is a different matter).
Poor working conditions and poor pay are the main causes with many drivers leaving the profession and few wanting to join. Companies driving pay down and the Just in Time system have brought the whole edifice to breaking point. They can't even honestly blame covid given that these problems were already developing in 2019.
There's a very simple way to test this proposition, which, as mentioned a few times earlier on here, is to see whether our north-western neighbours in Europe are having similar levels of shortages of supply. So far they aren't, as far as has been reported, so that would seem to suggest Brexit is indeed a major factor.
It's strange that for so long Johnson supported such policies, hailing Thatcher as a hero. Strange how his change of mind coincides with taking over the Tory Party.
A man with no principles at all, it's pathetic
Wow. The speculation that Boris wants to be PM for years to come - for longer than Maggie - is fascinating. I think the NI rise has worked like a charm in that respect: only Rishi could credibly have been able to mount any kind of challenge, but NI has now tied him inescapably to the Boris project. Boris is now in complete control of the agenda.
I think that speculation is nonsense. It's precisely because there have been rumblings, justified or otherwise, that he is overcompensating and talking about a decade more in power etc. It's like people supporting the most extreme Covid restriction in a poll to show seriousness, by talking about beating Maggie it's just code for 'I'm in control and going nowhere'.
Agreed, it has a whiff of trying to mask weakness.
Mr. Stodge, disagree, suspect Cameron just wanted to help Osborne be seen as the heir apparent.
Perhaps but that wasn't the desired effect. In any case, none of it mattered as it turned out.
I suppose it's worth asking (and especially the Conservative members on here) - supposing REMAIN had won and Cameron had continued as PM for another 18 months and then stood down, would the resulting leadership contest have been a coronation for Osborne who, to be fair, had insinuated any number of his supporters in key positions or would there have been a challenge from May or someone else?
What would have been Johnson's fate in an Osborne-led Government?
The experience of Brown probably mitigated against an apparent coronation - after all, Wilson's resignation led to a contest for Labour leader in 1976.
Gawd this is bliss. They just gone and given me a glass of super-Tuscan red. Three yards from my table the fish leap from the glittering river Reuss, right under the graceful volutes of the Jesuit church. The reflected alpine sunshine dapples the painted medieval ceiling; rich old ladies snooze, and dream of furtive bank accounts
Not having any descendants I'm thinking about what I might need to fund myself. Does your State Pension get reduced when you go into a care home? It would be worth thinking about what I might have to pay as a top up to afford a nice country house rather than cabbage water and wee.
No, OAP remains the same. You are also entitled to an Attendance Allowance, which has several levels. Further, as per my comments up thread about the Motor Trades Benevolent Association, are there any professional or social organisations to which you belong which might assist with support, both financial and advisory. I know mine does.
I think this misunderstand John's question? As I understand it:
1. If you have savings above a minimum level the council pay nothing and you fund the home yourself, at £1000/week or so. You can retain your OAP and so on. 2. If after a while your savings drop below that level, the council will pay for the cheapest available local care home. In return they will take all your OAP except for a minimal weekly pocket money allowance. 3. Your friends and relatives, but NOT you, are allowed to top that up to help you go to the country house option (I've not understood why you can't, but perhaps it's felt you shouldn't feel pressured to give up your limited remaining savings).
The package announced by Johnson will supposedly tweak some of this when and if it eventually happens, limiting your total payments to £86,000 (after which I presume you switch from 1 to 2) and between £20K and £86K making a contribution. But two things I'm not sure about (and am not sure Johnson is either):
a) The co-payments of undisclosed size between £20K and £86K - will they be regardless of what decisions you've made about which home, or only if you choose the cheapest? b) When you hit the £86K limit, do you move to category 2, and are you still not allowed to top it up yourself? Because if so, you will be a wealthy resident of a wee-smelling sink care home.
Worth remembering that only I think 10% of us do end up in care homes. But in any case definitely get professional advice.
The “no top up provision” is because of the insane concept of equality that the payers have. It’s the same with NHS - either you are all NHS (ie you don’t get to pay extra for a new medicine prior to NICE review regardless of whether it is approved) or you are all private (you can have the medicine but the NHS will charge you for everything else as well). Apparently topping up encouraged rich people to use state provided services that they have contributed to through taxation.
Under the gov't plans, which would see a contribution if your assets are between £26k and £86k - it must be a top up system, or a contribution system which is a top up when looked at upside down.
Hopefully it will allow you to top it up. The current system appears to discriminate against those who are not wealthy, but have saved enough money for their retirement and would like to spend some of it to better themselves.
Having said that, if I accept I'm not going to pass it on, I could fund myself for a few years.
The trick is to buy the best you can afford until you run out of money. Councils don’t like to move a resident who is settled and end up paying for the home they are in
Personally, I am ambivalent about abortion, but do think my opinion on this is not very much matter as a male who will never be in that situation. I would be happy if we had female only votes on the issue.
There is an interesting and nuanced article in the Atlantic about mother and daughter in Wade vs Roe. The case took so long that the pregnancy went to term.
This nuanced abortion debate shows how ultimately futile stoking Culture Wars is. Most people are not fanatics, but fall somewhere in the middle. Sadly. The loonies and professional activists make most noise. And attempt to force everyone else to choose a side. I refuse to join a team. On this, and several other hot button CW issues.
The problem is that the pro-choice side present themselves as morally right. They talk in absolute terms. Once someone agrees that there should be a time limit on it, then you’re not all that different to the other side. Your just arguing about where to draw the line.
I don’t approve of what’s proposed I’m Texas (though, to be honest, I couldn’t give a shot what happens in the US any more than anywhere else that isn’t England), but the opposition shouldn’t present their views as being moral absolutes that shouldn’t be open to debate.
The right-to-life side also present themselves as morally right. Rather more dogmatically and without caveat, in fact. The pressure to move from "reasonable limits" to "ban" is greater than that to move from "reasonable limits" to "no limits". But, yes, agreed, the debate for most people is what constitutes "reasonable", and America is (as per usual) more polarized and heated on this than we are.
Personally, I am ambivalent about abortion, but do think my opinion on this is not very much matter as a male who will never be in that situation. I would be happy if we had female only votes on the issue.
There is an interesting and nuanced article in the Atlantic about mother and daughter in Wade vs Roe. The case took so long that the pregnancy went to term.
Personally, I am ambivalent about abortion, but do think my opinion on this is not very much matter as a male who will never be in that situation. I would be happy if we had female only votes on the issue.
There is an interesting and nuanced article in the Atlantic about mother and daughter in Wade vs Roe. The case took so long that the pregnancy went to term.
Sorry, but that’s rubbish. Men have a right to a say on when we decide a child is a child.
Agree. And, if it let solely a woman’s choice, then scrap financial obligations on the father to support the child. After all, men have no role (if you take the view abortion is a women-only issue)
Bollocks.
It is the woman's body, it is the woman who needs to be responsible for her own body during the term.
Post labour, the child is the child of both parents and has their own body, they're no longer in either parents body anymore.
If like Schwarzenegger in Junior a man were to be pregnant it would be their body, their choice.
I think abortion has the potential to confound the prediction in the thread header. As far as I can tell from a brief google, political opinion on abortion is best described as, "Using the terms ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life' is almost a party ID term"
However, the biggest challenge for the Democrats, particularly in the mid-terms, has often been in driving turnout. This surely has to be an issue with the potential to boost Democrat turnout.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the law when they eventually get around to hearing a case on the issue (as opposed to their current blind eye stance), then I can see it becoming very unpopular indeed with all but the most ideologically committed. Whether that happens before next year’s election is another matter.
In the longer term I think the state will flip. Next year feels too soon, though - which is why O’Rourke, despite being the Democrats best candidate by a distance, is very reluctant to commit.
In the long run neither 'on demand' or 'never' are sustainable positions from a humanistic, liberal point of view. One day we will look back on both positions as we do slavery now. The dialogue of the deaf between these two untenable positions is deeply depressing.
False equivalence. I support time limits but 'on demand' is far less repugnant than never. In practice, women by and large being not entirely devoid of intelligence and humanity, 'on demand' doesn't equate to casually aborting on a whim, or to loads of virtually full grown babies being terminated just prior to birth. A "woman's right to choose" means a "woman's right to make this difficult decision if she feels she has to".
Never, otoh, means that once a woman falls pregnant her status as a human being is degraded to that of carrier of the unborn child within her. Regardless of her own feelings on the matter she must carry it in her womb and expanding belly for 9 months and deliver it into the world. Imagine being in that position if you don't wish to become its mother. Brutal. And think about what it means and represents. It means the state owns her body. It's an overt (ie in law) statement that women matter less than men. It's indefensible and it's no surprise that so many of those who seek to defend it are in thrall to backward patriarchal religions.
At what point in time does the unborn child have rights?
When they have the ability to sue their parents.
So you are ok with abortion at any point before birth then?
Are you okay with putting women who suffer miscarriages at risk of being dragged through the legal system then?
This nuanced abortion debate shows how ultimately futile stoking Culture Wars is. Most people are not fanatics, but fall somewhere in the middle. Sadly. The loonies and professional activists make most noise. And attempt to force everyone else to choose a side. I refuse to join a team. On this, and several other hot button CW issues.
Abortion is an extreme debate in the USA because it is decided by the courts and so fanatically binary.
Abortion is not an extreme debate in Europe because it is decided by the voters and so fluidly moderate.
Not sure how you get that. In the US, it's anything but binary. The situation is highly nuanced and varies across states.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
When the NHS adds a new cancer or whatever unit to an existing hospital, Johnson calls it a "new hospital". So maybe that is where there is confusion.
Again, in fairness to Lilico, he is basing his post on the only available number. PBers often protest this number, but AFAIK fail to produce any other reliable quantification.
There are c. 100,000 general and acute beds in the English NHS. An average of 765 admissions per day over the past week or so has led to 6,400 beds with covid patients. Doubling the intake would lead to about 12,500-13,000 covid patients. This is about one in eight of all general and acute beds in the English NHS.
When covid beds are occupied, it takes more than 1:1 in terms of beds, as distancing and protective measures are taken. A 12-13% covid loading would equate to an effective loading of 15-20% in terms of beds no longer available.
The NHS usually runs at over 90% loading of general and acute beds. Accordingly, we’re looking at problems.
I’d have said up to 500 admissions per day would be not too much a problem and within capacity. 500-1000 would be running hot and putting increasing pressure on. 1000-1500 would be unsustainable beyond the short term, and 1500+ a real problem.
This nuanced abortion debate shows how ultimately futile stoking Culture Wars is. Most people are not fanatics, but fall somewhere in the middle. Sadly. The loonies and professional activists make most noise. And attempt to force everyone else to choose a side. I refuse to join a team. On this, and several other hot button CW issues.
The problem is that the pro-choice side present themselves as morally right. They talk in absolute terms. Once someone agrees that there should be a time limit on it, then you’re not all that different to the other side. Your just arguing about where to draw the line.
I don’t approve of what’s proposed I’m Texas (though, to be honest, I couldn’t give a shot what happens in the US any more than anywhere else that isn’t England), but the opposition shouldn’t present their views as being moral absolutes that shouldn’t be open to debate.
The right-to-life side also present themselves as morally right. Rather more dogmatically and without caveat, in fact. The pressure to move from "reasonable limits" to "ban" is greater than that to move from "reasonable limits" to "no limits". But, yes, agreed, the debate for most people is what constitutes "reasonable", and America is (as per usual) more polarized and heated on this than we are.
Has anywhere banned abortion after its been legalised ?
Its easy to take the extreme purity position and regard yourself as righteous in the safe knowledge that its not going to happen in reality.
So what about Texas ? Well I'm rather struck by the notice that Texas expected the Supreme Court to overturn their law thereby allowing them to wallow in glorious 'repression' but are now going to be stuck with its consequences.
Gawd this is bliss. They just gone and given me a glass of super-Tuscan red. Three yards from my table the fish leap from the glittering river Reuss, right under the graceful volutes of the Jesuit church. The reflected alpine sunshine dapples the painted medieval ceiling; rich old ladies snooze, and dream of furtive bank accounts
There are plenty of ways to play the current system to your "advantage". When my mother died, my father, brother and I agreed her half of the house would be held in Trust to my brother and me. We were advised that after seven years it would then be legally "ours" and could not be counted toward my father's care costs.
That was correct - when my father was being assessed for care we were able to show he owned only half his property so the charge was set against only half his property.
I suspect many shrewd families do this to circumvent full care costs - now, this may be morally good or not but it's a legal and financial fact.
The lesson I learned is if you want your children to inherit anything, make sure you have nothing.
@HYUFD commented yesterday evening re a proposal to seek grater tax from landlords. It was too late for me to respond but do we have an accurate view of the profile of "landlords"? Yes, I suspect many have one property but I have local knowledge of one individual who owns and lets out 90 properties. Now, he is his own Letting Agent as I understand it but he has applied to Newham for grants for loft conversions and extensions to get even more people into his property.
The HMO situation is even murkier - we know there are 3-bedroom semis where twenty or more (usually men) sleep all round London. We also know there's a big market in illegal sub-letting so if you want to go after the landlord/private rental market be aware it's a complicated Pandora's Can of worms.
That last sentence is my early nomination for Mixed Metaphor Award which is like Mixed Martial Arts only slightly less violent.
Personally, I am ambivalent about abortion, but do think my opinion on this is not very much matter as a male who will never be in that situation. I would be happy if we had female only votes on the issue.
There is an interesting and nuanced article in the Atlantic about mother and daughter in Wade vs Roe. The case took so long that the pregnancy went to term.
Sorry, but that’s rubbish. Men have a right to a say on when we decide a child is a child.
Yes, I agree. However, on a thankfully remote hypothetical just for the sake of argument, a referendum on banning abortion, firstly I'd say it shouldn't happen since democracy must have its boundaries (my previous post to you), and secondly if it did happen, I wouldn't consider it valid unless there was a majority of women in favour as well as an overall majority. This isn't purely a women's issue but it is mainly a women's issue.
This nuanced abortion debate shows how ultimately futile stoking Culture Wars is. Most people are not fanatics, but fall somewhere in the middle. Sadly. The loonies and professional activists make most noise. And attempt to force everyone else to choose a side. I refuse to join a team. On this, and several other hot button CW issues.
The problem is that the pro-choice side present themselves as morally right. They talk in absolute terms. Once someone agrees that there should be a time limit on it, then you’re not all that different to the other side. Your just arguing about where to draw the line.
I don’t approve of what’s proposed I’m Texas (though, to be honest, I couldn’t give a shot what happens in the US any more than anywhere else that isn’t England), but the opposition shouldn’t present their views as being moral absolutes that shouldn’t be open to debate.
The right-to-life side also present themselves as morally right. Rather more dogmatically and without caveat, in fact. The pressure to move from "reasonable limits" to "ban" is greater than that to move from "reasonable limits" to "no limits". But, yes, agreed, the debate for most people is what constitutes "reasonable", and America is (as per usual) more polarized and heated on this than we are.
Has anywhere banned abortion after its been legalised ?
Its easy to take the extreme purity position and regard yourself as righteous in the safe knowledge that its not going to happen in reality.
So what about Texas ? Well I'm rather struck by the notice that Texas expected the Supreme Court to overturn their law thereby allowing them to wallow in glorious 'repression' but are now going to be stuck with its consequences.
If they didn't want the consequences, they should have thought of that earlier and been more careful.
’The food shortages being reported by a growing number of household names are likely to last forever, a leading industry figure has said in a stark warning to the government.
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
That 'compounded by Brexit' line really makes me laugh. Even if we were still in the EU we would be in exactly the same position.
Why? Because according to the latest briefing from Transport Intelligence there is a current shortage across Europe of 400,000 drivers. Poland is short a staggering 124,000 drivers and Germany and France between 45,000 and 60,000 each. The idea that allowing drivers to come and work here would make any difference when there are no drivers to come in the first place is laughable. (Though as an aside I still maintain we should let anyone work here who wants to but that is a different matter).
Poor working conditions and poor pay are the main causes with many drivers leaving the profession and few wanting to join. Companies driving pay down and the Just in Time system have brought the whole edifice to breaking point. They can't even honestly blame covid given that these problems were already developing in 2019.
There's a very simple way to test this proposition, which, as mentioned a few times earlier on here, is to see whether our north-western neighbours in Europe are having similar levels of shortages of supply. So far they aren't, as far as has been reported, so that would seem to suggest Brexit is indeed a major factor.
Except there have been anecdotal reports of issues across Europe and the USA. Just as there have been anecdotal reports of issues in the UK.
The difference is that in the UK there's a whole bunch of obsessives especially on FBPE Twitter who'll cry and share others years if their local Waitrose is out of their favourite bottled water.
Whereas in any normal country consumers would think "oh that's sold out. I'll get this instead."
Personally, I am ambivalent about abortion, but do think my opinion on this is not very much matter as a male who will never be in that situation. I would be happy if we had female only votes on the issue.
There is an interesting and nuanced article in the Atlantic about mother and daughter in Wade vs Roe. The case took so long that the pregnancy went to term.
Sorry, but that’s rubbish. Men have a right to a say on when we decide a child is a child.
Agree. And, if it let solely a woman’s choice, then scrap financial obligations on the father to support the child. After all, men have no role (if you take the view abortion is a women-only issue)
Bollocks.
It is the woman's body, it is the woman who needs to be responsible for her own body during the term.
Post labour, the child is the child of both parents and has their own body, they're no longer in either parents body anymore.
If like Schwarzenegger in Junior a man were to be pregnant it would be their body, their choice.
Wrong, on several levels.
The argument is that, it’s my body, my choice (which, by the way, you don’t seem to extend to anti-vacc people like @contrarian) and therefore men have no say in the process. If that’s the case - and men are excluded from the process because they are not carrying the child - then the flip side occurs when they are asked for money. You can’t bang on being all your choice and telling men to keep out of it when you want one course but then come with the begging bowl when you are looking for support and the father won’t provide it.
Comments
Yet my two ward doctor friends on the South Coast report no such problems. Indeed my NHS friends in general are the most dovish on covid, they tend to feel lockdowns and restrictions should be been and done with.
Thankfully, it’s not an issue that resonates much in this country so I don’t have to worry.
It’s not that. It’s the need for political empathy, which politicians seem to have forgotten recently. Empathy means understanding what others think and why they feel that way. Putting yourself in their shoes. It doesn’t require you to agree with them. Just to understand.
That and explaining. Keir, like most of the Tory front bench, seems to have no inclination to explain his or the party’s reasoning. It’s hugely frustrating for anyone with a modicum of intelligence. That’s why I liked Blair, why I like Rory Stewart, and why - unfashionably - I also like Nick Clegg and Tim Farron.
"The 9/11 advice that Tony Blair didn’t take
Before the invasion of Afghanistan, OpenDemocracy’s security expert briefed the UK government on what could happen. Here’s what he wrote"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9980101/Taliban-BEHEAD-Afghan-soldier-chilling-video-celebrate-holding-severed-head-victim.html
This seems like a terrible move? Brexit in 2024, has he run out of ideas?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-9980009/Emma-Raducanus-Open-final-against-Leylah-Fernandez-set-shown-Channel-4.html
26 of the 27 signatories on the infamous letter in the Lancet linked to Wuhan lab
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/10/revealed-scientists-dismissed-wuhan-lab-theory-linked-chinese/
And amazing how yet again the editor of the lancet just carries on his merry way.
Early on in pregnancy, however, I’d equate the morality of abortion to that of contraceptive.
There probably a grey area that is more open to debate, but I seem to recall a significant majority of abortions occur within the first 12 weeks in any case. I find that the debate over late term abortions is often used as a proxy battle by those who are more comfortable with Texas’ law than ours.
Beautiful sunny day in Lucerne and I’m eating fresh gilt-head by the river Reuss and I’m STILL infuriated by this.
Pff!
Ian Wright, CEO of the Food & Drink Federation, said the system that for decades had meant British consumers could expect a full range of food or drink items in their supermarkets and restaurants was "over" and probably not coming back.
A shortage of lorry drivers and workers elsewhere in supply chains, compounded by Brexit and the Covid pandemic, has triggered shortages of food and other items in recent weeks…’
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/food-shortages-last-forever
It's strange that for so long Johnson supported such policies, hailing Thatcher as a hero. Strange how his change of mind coincides with taking over the Tory Party.
A man with no principles at all, it's pathetic
A more likely and realistic outcome is friction meaning end of absolute rock bottom prices which we have become so used to.
On your point of it being morally equivalent to contraception, that may be so, but I think we should say to kids not treat it as such because it can cause mental distress.
As you say, most abortions are likely to be quite early, so whilst I’m uncomfortable with the limit being 24 weeks, it doesn’t keep me awake at night. I think I read that it’s 24 weeks because some problems don’t show up until that late. There’s an actress who wants to abolish the test for Down’s because she doesn’t want that condition to be eliminated from society. Thing is, having an abortion for such a reason is why some people think it should be available.
And yes, the mother’s life must come first (they should get vaccinated). I’d also move to inducing labour at 38 weeks. My friends would have a healthy four year-old if that was the policy and the mother’s life would not have been endangered.
Why? Because according to the latest briefing from Transport Intelligence there is a current shortage across Europe of 400,000 drivers. Poland is short a staggering 124,000 drivers and Germany and France between 45,000 and 60,000 each. The idea that allowing drivers to come and work here would make any difference when there are no drivers to come in the first place is laughable. (Though as an aside I still maintain we should let anyone work here who wants to but that is a different matter).
Poor working conditions and poor pay are the main causes with many drivers leaving the profession and few wanting to join. Companies driving pay down and the Just in Time system have brought the whole edifice to breaking point. They can't even honestly blame covid given that these problems were already developing in 2019.
THAT is the shocking bit
There were technically about 10-12 hospitals but that included specialist places such as ENT, ophthalmology, cancer etc. There were only 3-4 DGH type hospitals
Most people are not fanatics, but fall somewhere in the middle.
Sadly. The loonies and professional activists make most noise. And attempt to force everyone else to choose a side.
I refuse to join a team. On this, and several other hot button CW issues.
Therefore we can conclude that there was something to cover up.
Summat to live for I guess. But I'm not sure I can summon up the will.
I don’t approve of what’s proposed I’m Texas (though, to be honest, I couldn’t give a shot what happens in the US any more than anywhere else that isn’t England), but the opposition shouldn’t present their views as being moral absolutes that shouldn’t be open to debate.
For those who can't get enough of Bulgarian General Elections, 2021 has really been your year. Round 3 is now scheduled to take place on 14th November.
For Norwegians, the voting occurs on Monday and the final (you'd think) Norfakta poll - fieldwork 7th and 8th September so quite old (arguably):
Changes from 2017 Storting election:
Labour: 24.0% (-3.4)
Conservative: 19.1% (-5.9)
Centre Party: 14.8% (+4.5)
Progress Party: 11.4% (-3.8)
Socialist Left: 8.2% (+2.2)
Greens: 5.9% (+2.7)
Red Party: 5.4% (+3.0)
Liberal: 3.8% (-0.6)
Christian People's Party: 3.6% (-0.6)
Not the best poll for Labour but better for Centre and the centre-left bloc still looking likely to win on Monday. I make it 52.4% for the Red bloc of parties and 37.9% for the Blue bloc of parties so a huge lead.
Last time Blue won by 48.8 to 46.1 so a 2.7% lead has become a 14.5% deficit which I make an 8.6% swing from centre-right to centre-left which should be more than enough.
The one conundrum is there has been no polling within the 19 multi-member constituencies so we don't know how an 8.5% national swing will translate locally. One projection has Labour winning 14 of the 19 constituencies but that's meaningless.
Given the claim is that 'the Eastern Europeans have all gone home' I'm not sure how the proposed solution of 'lets get some Eastern Europeans to work for less money' makes sense.
Pay rates will rise and rightly so.
Hmm. On 9/11? 20th annivo?
Right wing Switzers sticking it to the Talib Man? Students still hating on Trump?!
That's the problem right there.
I suspect he wants to out-serve Margaret Thatcher but he will know all PMs have a shelf life as both Thatcher and Blair found out and there comes a point when the person themselves, the people or the Party decide enough is enough and compel/persuade/cajole them on their way.
The trouble is, if you announce your pre-retirement, that starts the clock on the campaign for your successor. I wonder if Wilson understood that - Cameron certainly didn't.
There's also the mental and physical toll of the job - it may lose its lustre after a while.
A wise man once said when the curtain falls it's time to get off the stage - I wonder if Johnson will overstay his welcome and will need to be removed.
Anyway, we had questions like “explain how a Buddhist might feel about abortion giving references to religious teachings.” The message of the course and the reason we had to do it was so that we’d show respect to others who have different values to our own.
Now I think Evangelical Christians are nuts. But as an atheist, I respect them as much as any other conservative religious group. Just because they are white and speak English doesn’t change a thing.
Abortion is not an extreme debate in Europe because it is decided by the voters and so fluidly moderate.
Personally, I am ambivalent about abortion, but do think my opinion on this is not very much matter as a male who will never be in that situation. I would be happy if we had female only votes on the issue.
There is an interesting and nuanced article in the Atlantic about mother and daughter in Wade vs Roe. The case took so long that the pregnancy went to term.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/09/jane-roe-v-wade-baby-norma-mccorvey/620009/?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
But that would have taken courage to call one nor do I think he could have accepted having a lower majority than Blair either.
Alternatively a narrow Labour win in 1992 leading to a Conservative win in 1997 might have seen a Brown led Labour winning in 2006 or 2010.
How Much Does it Cost to Evict a Tenant?
In most cases it costs either £1,300 or £2,200 to evict a tenant in the UK, depending on whether you go with the cheaper-but-slower county court or you spend more for a speedier High Court eviction. Either way, you'll incur costs during each of the three stages of eviction.
https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/business-insurance/landlord-insurance-uk/average-cost-evict-tenant#costbreakdown
(Note: loss of rent, cleaning, damage, redecoration are all on top of that.)
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.050847,8.3052131,3a,75y,330.91h,84.88t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipPdtkvR4aCC9dkgwDvbSki1yQ7wmDLmEU2Znzl3!2e10!3e11!6shttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipPdtkvR4aCC9dkgwDvbSki1yQ7wmDLmEU2Znzl3=w203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya223.15959-ro-0-fo100!7i5792!8i2896
https://hogeweyk.dementiavillage.com/
My Mother in Law died last week, which may be part of my gloomy mood. She had been in residential care, self funded from the sale of her bungalow. She had been widowed a couple of years and could no longer manage on her own between physical frailty, mostly arthritis, and getting rather amiably muddled.
She rather enjoyed the company, being cooked for and did lots of arts and crafts as well as activities such as poetry readings. She didn't have a bad few years at all, except for covid restrictions, and the home managed those as well as they could. It cost about £80 000 in all, so wouldn't have been affected by the recent announced plans, which in any case don't start for 2 years or cover accommodation or food. She has an estate of a little less than the same sum.
She was a lovely lady and will be much missed, and enjoyable company to nearly the end. RIP
There is a lot of good stuff going on in Alzheimer’s. Dementia villages are one (the Dutch are good but others are using them now). I like the idea of homes built on an oval footprint - dementia patients like to walk but get stymied by corners so stand looking at the wall and get very stressed and upset, but with a continuous corridor without corners they don’t face that problem
It can’t be beyond the wit of man or ppb director to sit SKS down and find out what is the authentic Keir and why he loves the place in which he lives: 5 a side with your mates, a pint in your favourite pub, a stretch of countryside. Schmaltzy maybe but no fcuking flags.
Child poverty reduced, homelessness almost eliminated, peace in NI. It is an absolute disgrace how embarrassed Labour is of its own history!
We all know that the electoral calculus favours the appeal to Leave. I'm sure some hardy CCHQ data scientist knows exactly the ratio of ardent Brexiteers they need to rile up to maintain the majority. To me it seems the Conservatives are emulating the American cultural divide and hammering in the plugs and feathers. Because the demography works and will for the foreseeable.
Remain voters are packed in the metros and cracked everywhere else.
I suppose it's worth asking (and especially the Conservative members on here) - supposing REMAIN had won and Cameron had continued as PM for another 18 months and then stood down, would the resulting leadership contest have been a coronation for Osborne who, to be fair, had insinuated any number of his supporters in key positions or would there have been a challenge from May or someone else?
What would have been Johnson's fate in an Osborne-led Government?
The experience of Brown probably mitigated against an apparent coronation - after all, Wilson's resignation led to a contest for Labour leader in 1976.
Yes, I’m eating at the restaurant terrace you can see in that view. Hold on, I’ll post a pic
Cheers, PB
Congrats
It is the woman's body, it is the woman who needs to be responsible for her own body during the term.
Post labour, the child is the child of both parents and has their own body, they're no longer in either parents body anymore.
If like Schwarzenegger in Junior a man were to be pregnant it would be their body, their choice.
An average of 765 admissions per day over the past week or so has led to 6,400 beds with covid patients.
Doubling the intake would lead to about 12,500-13,000 covid patients.
This is about one in eight of all general and acute beds in the English NHS.
When covid beds are occupied, it takes more than 1:1 in terms of beds, as distancing and protective measures are taken. A 12-13% covid loading would equate to an effective loading of 15-20% in terms of beds no longer available.
The NHS usually runs at over 90% loading of general and acute beds. Accordingly, we’re looking at problems.
I’d have said up to 500 admissions per day would be not too much a problem and within capacity. 500-1000 would be running hot and putting increasing pressure on. 1000-1500 would be unsustainable beyond the short term, and 1500+ a real problem.
Its easy to take the extreme purity position and regard yourself as righteous in the safe knowledge that its not going to happen in reality.
So what about Texas ? Well I'm rather struck by the notice that Texas expected the Supreme Court to overturn their law thereby allowing them to wallow in glorious 'repression' but are now going to be stuck with its consequences.
There are plenty of ways to play the current system to your "advantage". When my mother died, my father, brother and I agreed her half of the house would be held in Trust to my brother and me. We were advised that after seven years it would then be legally "ours" and could not be counted toward my father's care costs.
That was correct - when my father was being assessed for care we were able to show he owned only half his property so the charge was set against only half his property.
I suspect many shrewd families do this to circumvent full care costs - now, this may be morally good or not but it's a legal and financial fact.
The lesson I learned is if you want your children to inherit anything, make sure you have nothing.
@HYUFD commented yesterday evening re a proposal to seek grater tax from landlords. It was too late for me to respond but do we have an accurate view of the profile of "landlords"? Yes, I suspect many have one property but I have local knowledge of one individual who owns and lets out 90 properties. Now, he is his own Letting Agent as I understand it but he has applied to Newham for grants for loft conversions and extensions to get even more people into his property.
The HMO situation is even murkier - we know there are 3-bedroom semis where twenty or more (usually men) sleep all round London. We also know there's a big market in illegal sub-letting so if you want to go after the landlord/private rental market be aware it's a complicated Pandora's Can of worms.
That last sentence is my early nomination for Mixed Metaphor Award which is like Mixed Martial Arts only slightly less violent.
https://www.wbur.org/endlessthread/2019/11/29/underunderstood-9-11-hoax
Simultaneously enlightening and saddening
The difference is that in the UK there's a whole bunch of obsessives especially on FBPE Twitter who'll cry and share others years if their local Waitrose is out of their favourite bottled water.
Whereas in any normal country consumers would think "oh that's sold out. I'll get this instead."
The argument is that, it’s my body, my choice (which, by the way, you don’t seem to extend to anti-vacc people like @contrarian) and therefore men have no say in the process. If that’s the case - and men are excluded from the process because they are not carrying the child - then the flip side occurs when they are asked for money. You can’t bang on being all your choice and telling men to keep out of it when you want one course but then come with the begging bowl when you are looking for support and the father won’t provide it.