I do not expect a further lockdown unless the virus escapes the vaccines
Life seems to be back to near normal and of course the booster jabs are on their way
On the French strop has any EU country come out in support of them
I have heard it said that in any security crisis the US would be their first call for help
It is unfortunate that France has fallen out with AUKUS but ultimately this is not about France or Europe, but the defence of the Trans Pacific and just as EU countries would if under threat, Australia has turned to the US
Shame it was done in a way that divided the democracies on the security council, Once the low rent frog bashing subsides that may be seen as an unnecessary error that ironically weakens us against the Chinese.
The reality of the situation was that Australia needed nuclear powered subs and France did not offer that
The strategic need for Australia and the Trans Pacific made the US the only viable partner and the UK and US have shared expertise hence AUKUS
France has overacted
This could have been done in a way that the French were not embarrassed, which would have benefited us all if our goal is to present a united front to balance Chinese power. Cheap headlines trumped long term interests.
I think you are missing the wider picture
This is not about France but Australia and its defence requirements for the whole Trans-Pacific
AUKUS has been welcomed by Starmer and Blackford, and throughout the Trans-Pacific and I understand some EU countries
These are not cheap headlines and there is an irony that the French are not slow in wanting to embarrass the UK if the opportunity arises
It’s ironic and tragic that in a move designed to counter growing Chinese power we have divided the democracies on the security council and thereby weakened us relative to the Chinese.
It’s a shame that they didn’t find a route in the Pacific that kept us united. Why couldn’t the Aussies have both types of submarines?
Well, the Attack class order was for 12 submarines. Australia are having enough trouble keeping their existing six Collins-class subs crewed. Reducing the Attack-class order would have had hefty penalties. Then you have the problem of maintaining two very different types of sub, with very different kit and equipment.
Also, NG and France's behaviour throughout this has not been that good IMO. It's not all Australia's fault.
Then you finally get the issue that the Attack-class didn't really meet their needs in the first place.
It’s harmful bullshit if that’s what you mean by “useful”.
Western democracies have fundamental values - freedom of speech, of assembly, of religion - that our forefathers fought and bled to secure. We must stick up for those values and not kowtow to an authoritarian dictatorship for a couple of brass farthings
What happens to those values of freedom of speech, of assembly and of religion when the representatives of our country get on the blower to Riyadh?
I'm reading the travel rule changes announced yesterday.
It says:
"Passengers who aren’t recognised as being fully vaccinated with authorised vaccines and certificates under England’s international travel rules, will still have to take a pre-departure test, a day 2 and day 8 PCR test and self-isolate for 10 days upon their return from a non-red list country under the new two-tiered travel programme. Test to Release will remain an option for unvaccinated passengers who wish to shorten their isolation period."
So children (of vaccinated parents) returning to UK (who will not, of course, had time for their two jabs) will be caught by this?
At the moment a non-vaccinated child returning to UK from green or Amber needs a pre-departure test and a Day 2 PCR only. This change means that this continues PLUS needs Day 8 test AND has to quarantine.
I think I must have misunderstood?
The children rules were previously stated afterwards as an exemption so would be surprised if they are not the same. Just probably not in the paragraph you read
It’s ironic and tragic that in a move designed to counter growing Chinese power we have divided the democracies on the security council and thereby weakened us relative to the Chinese.
It’s a shame that they didn’t find a route in the Pacific that kept us united. Why couldn’t the Aussies have both types of submarines?
Well, the Attack class order was for 12 submarines. Australia are having enough trouble keeping their existing six Collins-class subs crewed. Reducing the Attack-class order would have had hefty penalties. Then you have the problem of maintaining two very different types of sub, with very different kit and equipment.
Also, NG and France's behaviour throughout this has not been that good IMO. It's not all Australia's fault.
Then you finally get the issue that the Attack-class didn't really meet their needs in the first place.
It’s harmful bullshit if that’s what you mean by “useful”.
Western democracies have fundamental values - freedom of speech, of assembly, of religion - that our forefathers fought and bled to secure. We must stick up for those values and not kowtow to an authoritarian dictatorship for a couple of brass farthings
Hmmm. You must be very upset when HMG pursues brass farthings all over the Middle East.
The fundamental British dedication to hypocrisy trumps all values.
Mr. Jonathan, possibly, but has not Macron said on the record that he wants a middle course between the USA (a democracy) and China (a tyrannical dictatorship complete with concentration camps)?
If you think for one moment about Boris has said on record, I hope we are all able to look beyond current leaders and remember long term interests. I am not sure we gain anything from embarrassing the French, beyond indulging in old skool cheap laughs.
One is obliged to point out at this juncture that the French, and the rest of the EU leaders in attendance, didn't think twice about ambushing the British Government at its own G7 summit, and trying to subvert the whole thing into a pantomime about the Northern Ireland trade spat. Not much evidence of sacrificing the urge to humiliate for the benefit of the long-term interest there.
Resorting to a playground “look miss they started it” is hardly constructive. Of course the French indulge in nonsense of their own. The point is, this sort of division only benefits our enemies. Everyone needs to grow up a bit IMO.
Fundamentally you're right. It's just a shame that so many of those expressing po-faced outrage over the treatment of the poor, delicate Emmanuel Macron and his hurt feelings are the self-same people who wet themselves laughing when Boris Johnson was taken to task by the EU leaders at Carbis Bay.
It's almost as if most of these arguments are less about the rights and wrongs of any given situation, and more to do with the enemy of my enemy being my friend. Fancy that.
I'm reading the travel rule changes announced yesterday.
It says:
"Passengers who aren’t recognised as being fully vaccinated with authorised vaccines and certificates under England’s international travel rules, will still have to take a pre-departure test, a day 2 and day 8 PCR test and self-isolate for 10 days upon their return from a non-red list country under the new two-tiered travel programme. Test to Release will remain an option for unvaccinated passengers who wish to shorten their isolation period."
So children (of vaccinated parents) returning to UK (who will not, of course, had time for their two jabs) will be caught by this?
At the moment a non-vaccinated child returning to UK from green or Amber needs a pre-departure test and a Day 2 PCR only. This change means that this continues PLUS needs Day 8 test AND has to quarantine.
I think I must have misunderstood?
The children rules were previously stated afterwards as an exemption so would be surprised if they are not the same. Just probably not in the paragraph you read
I agree, but if the rules are changing to make clear distinction between vaccinated and unvaccinated arrivals including children then those booking Oct Half Term family holidays are in for a nasty shock.
I do not expect a further lockdown unless the virus escapes the vaccines
Life seems to be back to near normal and of course the booster jabs are on their way
On the French strop has any EU country come out in support of them
I have heard it said that in any security crisis the US would be their first call for help
It is unfortunate that France has fallen out with AUKUS but ultimately this is not about France or Europe, but the defence of the Trans Pacific and just as EU countries would if under threat, Australia has turned to the US
The submarines are some decade or two off service. The more immediate effect is more US forces based in Australia. This is quite an interesting piece from Australia on what it all means:
"Hugh White : what SM has done this week. He has tied Australia to a deal that undermines our sovereign capabilities,overspends on hardware we can barely be confident of operating,& drags us closer to front line of a war we may have no interest in fighting."
I did wonder if the US or even the UK may allocate a nuclear sub to Australia to smooth the process of integration
It's not like borrowing a Ford Focus to nip to Aldi. Insurmountable (for the US) security concerns aside; how would they command, crew and maintain it?
If they want boats before 2035 the only option is to buy the two Astutes under construction at Barrow. The tories, who never saw a defence cut they didn't like, would love this but it might not be politically sustainable in Australia - I don't know.
I had wondered about Barrow and it does seem a possibility, but as you say it is not like borrowing a Ford focus to nip to Aldi
More anecdata concerning the disintegration of the NHS:
People with cancer forced to go private
In January this year, Steve Deeman in Nottinghamshire was looking at an eight-week delay to have the lesion on his forehead diagnosed. “It was suspicious looking and grew quite rapidly over the next few weeks,” said the 69-year-old retired teacher.
He was referred to a local hospital dermatology department in early March and was given a consultation appointment for May. “I decided I couldn’t wait that long and sought private medical care a few days later,” he said.
Deeman saw a specialist dermatologist who diagnosed the lesion as cancerous and it was removed the next day. His treatment so far has cost about £1,500 but further follow-ups have been recommended which could bring the total to £2,000. “I was fortunate in that I was able to afford treatment but there are a lot of people who wouldn’t be able to.”
When Fabien needed to have a decayed tooth removed in May, his dentist told him that he would have to wait up to three years to have it done on the NHS. In disbelief, the 27-year-old from Edinburgh rang 50 dental practices but without any luck. He had no choice but to go private. Having lost his job during the pandemic, he was on universal credit and had to borrow the £600 from his family.
If you've the means and knowhow to trade in shares then private healthcare groups are probably a good bet. As the latter piece goes on to say, quoting the director of a health think tank,
“There is a big risk that unless government provides adequate funding for the NHS, more and more people will be forced to pay privately, which in turn will undermine middle-class support for a tax-funded NHS.
“It’s not likely that we will end up with a US-style insurance system. But a two-tier system, where the NHS is a residual service for those without the means to pay is a possibility – ultimately these are political choices.”
Certainly there is likely to be a boom in the sector, both from the self pay private market and in terms of outsourcing of NHS work, which is a major source of income to private hospitals. That said the performance of Spire shares hasn't been great recently.
It is curious although the Spire price has been more influenced by take over speculation than anything else. What I find strange is that the private medical sector is not absolutely booming with significant new capital being raised and deployed. It is going to take a decade for the NHS to recover from the backlog now in place and many, many more are going to go private. If you are in pain from a hip or knee and being told to wait 2 or more years for a replacement it is an absolute no brainer if you can afford it. If you are working it even makes economic sense.
The free at the point of delivery service in the NHS has always kept this sector quite small in this country but it just seems inevitable that there is going to be a large expansion. I would expect some of the American players to invest.
Another example of rhetoric missing reality. Much fanfare last week with the news London offices were apparently now full again with people returning to work at desks in vast numbers amidst signs London was back to normal and all this usual positive propaganda.
The truth, in terms of passenger transport numbers, is very different. On the tube, passenger numbers reached 54% of pre-Covid on Thursday 9th. The numbers travelling have been pretty static since mid-August. There's been no mass return at least on the Underground.
The numbers are improving at the weekend - up to 70% of pre-Covid numbers so obviously there are those who re getting out and about for leisure (presumably) and that's my anecdotal evidence as well. Yet there's been no attempt to re-balance the service by putting more trains on at the weekend and taking off some of the very quiet off-peak weekday services (I forgot, they can't, condition of the Government bailout etc).
Indeed, when a rail company like South-West Railways tries to argue reduced passenger numbers don't justify maintaining current levels of service, they get pilloried with local Conservative County Councillors and Liberal Democrat District Councillors all lining up to be the passengers' friend and champion:
The Treasury is driving this - as the Government looks to turn off the financial lifeline to train companies which led to empty trains running up and down the rails day after day, the train companies are trying to figure out what a 40% reduction in peak traffic means longer term for their operating model and viability. Inevitably, it means fewer trains across the network and some stations will see a reduced train service.
Yes, very funny. Ditto your earlier contribution re: Australia.
Your alternative idea being, presumably, that China's neighbours should all accept that they are hopelessly outmatched, that any kind of military establishment is therefore a pointless waste of money, and they should therefore simply roll over?
Abolishing the defence budget would, after all, leave vast amounts of money to spend on the dissemination of Xi Jinping Thought and to create statues and other monuments to His everlasting glory.
I don't think that China is a military threat to anywhere other than Taiwan, which remains unfinished business as far as Xi is concerned. I don't think that anyone but America, Korea or Japan could defend Taiwan.
China's expansion outside its historic borders is economic rather than military, particularly in Africa and other primary producers. If we want to counter that influence then it needs to be an economic and political response rather than a military one.
We need to cut our dependence on Chinese capital and exports, and expand our development and investments in Africa. I don't think that we can do that while running such a massive current account deficit with them, and as @rcs1000 has demonstrated, the way to do that is to up our savings rate. I would also favour a carbon import tax, which would equalise or reverse the financial advantage that China gets from cheap coal power (though this would also hit the USA, Australia and other High CO2 producing countries).
I do not expect a further lockdown unless the virus escapes the vaccines
Life seems to be back to near normal and of course the booster jabs are on their way
On the French strop has any EU country come out in support of them
I have heard it said that in any security crisis the US would be their first call for help
It is unfortunate that France has fallen out with AUKUS but ultimately this is not about France or Europe, but the defence of the Trans Pacific and just as EU countries would if under threat, Australia has turned to the US
The submarines are some decade or two off service. The more immediate effect is more US forces based in Australia. This is quite an interesting piece from Australia on what it all means:
"Hugh White : what SM has done this week. He has tied Australia to a deal that undermines our sovereign capabilities,overspends on hardware we can barely be confident of operating,& drags us closer to front line of a war we may have no interest in fighting."
I did wonder if the US or even the UK may allocate a nuclear sub to Australia to smooth the process of integration
It's not like borrowing a Ford Focus to nip to Aldi. Insurmountable (for the US) security concerns aside; how would they command, crew and maintain it?
If they want boats before 2035 the only option is to buy the two Astutes under construction at Barrow. The tories, who never saw a defence cut they didn't like, would love this but it might not be politically sustainable in Australia - I don't know.
I had wondered about Barrow and it does seem a possibility, but as you say it is not like borrowing a Ford focus to nip to Aldi
It did make me smile
I’d be amazed if @Dura_Ace would ever borrow anything so staid as a Ford Focus 🙂
So I'm picking up from some posters a prejudice that US = bad and EU = good, so therefore Australia is now on the bad team. Have I got that right?
I think there is genuine worry by those who support the EU just how much this is going to damage not only France's reputation but the wider implications for the EU itself on security and defence
I have not heard a response to the crisis from any EU member, but if the EU was under threat it would be the US they would turn to, not their own non existent defence force
This is the biggest crisis the EU has faced and trying to blame AUKUS will not cut it
It’s ironic and tragic that in a move designed to counter growing Chinese power we have divided the democracies on the security council and thereby weakened us relative to the Chinese.
It’s a shame that they didn’t find a route in the Pacific that kept us united. Why couldn’t the Aussies have both types of submarines?
Well, the Attack class order was for 12 submarines. Australia are having enough trouble keeping their existing six Collins-class subs crewed. Reducing the Attack-class order would have had hefty penalties. Then you have the problem of maintaining two very different types of sub, with very different kit and equipment.
Also, NG and France's behaviour throughout this has not been that good IMO. It's not all Australia's fault.
Then you finally get the issue that the Attack-class didn't really meet their needs in the first place.
It’s harmful bullshit if that’s what you mean by “useful”.
Western democracies have fundamental values - freedom of speech, of assembly, of religion - that our forefathers fought and bled to secure. We must stick up for those values and not kowtow to an authoritarian dictatorship for a couple of brass farthings
Hmmm. You must be very upset when HMG pursues brass farthings all over the Middle East.
The fundamental British dedication to hypocrisy trumps all values.
Hypocricy and passive aggression are the two fields where Britain is still truly world class.
I do not expect a further lockdown unless the virus escapes the vaccines
Life seems to be back to near normal and of course the booster jabs are on their way
On the French strop has any EU country come out in support of them
I have heard it said that in any security crisis the US would be their first call for help
It is unfortunate that France has fallen out with AUKUS but ultimately this is not about France or Europe, but the defence of the Trans Pacific and just as EU countries would if under threat, Australia has turned to the US
The submarines are some decade or two off service. The more immediate effect is more US forces based in Australia. This is quite an interesting piece from Australia on what it all means:
"Hugh White : what SM has done this week. He has tied Australia to a deal that undermines our sovereign capabilities,overspends on hardware we can barely be confident of operating,& drags us closer to front line of a war we may have no interest in fighting."
I did wonder if the US or even the UK may allocate a nuclear sub to Australia to smooth the process of integration
It's not like borrowing a Ford Focus to nip to Aldi. Insurmountable (for the US) security concerns aside; how would they command, crew and maintain it?
If they want boats before 2035 the only option is to buy the two Astutes under construction at Barrow. The tories, who never saw a defence cut they didn't like, would love this but it might not be politically sustainable in Australia - I don't know.
One reason the French deal became unaffordable and delayed was the insistence that at least 60% of the cost was to be spent in Australia, to keep their submarine yards viable in terms of expertise and economically.
I do not expect a further lockdown unless the virus escapes the vaccines
Life seems to be back to near normal and of course the booster jabs are on their way
On the French strop has any EU country come out in support of them
I have heard it said that in any security crisis the US would be their first call for help
It is unfortunate that France has fallen out with AUKUS but ultimately this is not about France or Europe, but the defence of the Trans Pacific and just as EU countries would if under threat, Australia has turned to the US
The submarines are some decade or two off service. The more immediate effect is more US forces based in Australia. This is quite an interesting piece from Australia on what it all means:
"Hugh White : what SM has done this week. He has tied Australia to a deal that undermines our sovereign capabilities,overspends on hardware we can barely be confident of operating,& drags us closer to front line of a war we may have no interest in fighting."
I did wonder if the US or even the UK may allocate a nuclear sub to Australia to smooth the process of integration
It's not like borrowing a Ford Focus to nip to Aldi. Insurmountable (for the US) security concerns aside; how would they command, crew and maintain it?
If they want boats before 2035 the only option is to buy the two Astutes under construction at Barrow. The tories, who never saw a defence cut they didn't like, would love this but it might not be politically sustainable in Australia - I don't know.
I had wondered about Barrow and it does seem a possibility, but as you say it is not like borrowing a Ford focus to nip to Aldi
It did make me smile
I’d be amazed if @Dura_Ace would ever borrow anything so staid as a Ford Focus 🙂
I once drove a borrowed Mk.1 Focus from Minsk to Moscow in December. It cost me more in bribes to various cops than the car was worth.
Covid has shown up quite how sparse our weapons against disease are. The vaccines were later then we needed, even fat a brilliantly accelerated development. Therapeutic developments have been very disappointing.
I would like to see a Manhattan Project on therapeutics. The world needs to throw billions into development of drugs and strategies that will help keep people out of hospital from even 'normal' illnesses such as flu.
An issue is that vaccines have been seen to work and, in a couple of cases, vastly profitable. The sector will throw lots of money into vaccines. But vaccines are inevitable delayed; they need to be developed for each individual illness. Therapeutic drugs and techniques can help with many different illnesses that attack in similar ways.
Whilst I agree that your analysis was correct in 2019, where we in the west at least had grown very complacent (the east were better prepared, hence their better early responses to this) I think that we have had our Manhattan project already. We know vastly more about viruses, epidemiology and what works than we ever have. We have had the incredible response of big Pharma in producing a series of successful vaccines in incredibly short time.
Of those by far the most remarkable to me as a layman remains the Novavax vaccine developed by computer modelling of the virus without even bothering to work on the virus itself. The implications of this sort of capability in devising new medicines are just mind blowing both in terms of speed of development and cost. We absolutely need to keep this going but I have no doubt that that sort of tech is going to change all pharma for ever. It is ground breaking. I confidently predict that within the next 30 years more lives will be saved by this than have been lost to Covid.
Two difficulties with JosiasJessop's view:
Can it happen? It hasn't really happened with malaria yet, and that really is number one in the world for effects.
Secondly, the difficulty with all effective treatments is that the better you are at it the longer people live to have multiple. chronic, painful, expensive problems. We have overcome the idea that the NHS would steadily reduce the need for medical services and realise that the more successfully you spend money to keep people alive the more you have to spend to keep them alive even longer.
Our society right now models this exactly, with the additional absurdity that because there are so many old ill people to look after young people can't afford to have children at even replacement levels anywhere in the western world.
Mr. Jonathan, possibly, but has not Macron said on the record that he wants a middle course between the USA (a democracy) and China (a tyrannical dictatorship complete with concentration camps)?
If you think for one moment about Boris has said on record, I hope we are all able to look beyond current leaders and remember long term interests. I am not sure we gain anything from embarrassing the French, beyond indulging in old skool cheap laughs.
One is obliged to point out at this juncture that the French, and the rest of the EU leaders in attendance, didn't think twice about ambushing the British Government at its own G7 summit, and trying to subvert the whole thing into a pantomime about the Northern Ireland trade spat. Not much evidence of sacrificing the urge to humiliate for the benefit of the long-term interest there.
Resorting to a playground “look miss they started it” is hardly constructive. Of course the French indulge in nonsense of their own. The point is, this sort of division only benefits our enemies. Everyone needs to grow up a bit IMO.
Fundamentally you're right. It's just a shame that so many of those expressing po-faced outrage over the treatment of the poor, delicate Emmanuel Macron and his hurt feelings are the self-same people who wet themselves laughing when Boris Johnson was taken to task by the EU leaders at Carbis Bay.
It's almost as if most of these arguments are less about the rights and wrongs of any given situation, and more to do with the enemy of my enemy being my friend. Fancy that.
What's really hilarious was how the Carbis Bay stuff has played out. Supposedly Macron hugging Biden was a sign that Biden would ensure Boris lost the "sausage war".
Back in the real world as those of us more sceptical in nature expected Biden is more worried about the threats of real wars and China than sausage wars.
The legacy of Carbis Bay seems to be that in reality Biden and Boris were working with ScoMo to get AUKUS set up. Oh and Boris has continued to unilaterally determine the sausage rules and nobody, let alone Biden, is saying otherwise.
Your Wiki link suggest they were largely Syria based which of course is on the Med? Seems something of a golden age in Islam, at least compared to your and my ancestors who were likely grubbing about for root vegetables in muddy fields at the time.
I do not expect a further lockdown unless the virus escapes the vaccines
Life seems to be back to near normal and of course the booster jabs are on their way
On the French strop has any EU country come out in support of them
I have heard it said that in any security crisis the US would be their first call for help
It is unfortunate that France has fallen out with AUKUS but ultimately this is not about France or Europe, but the defence of the Trans Pacific and just as EU countries would if under threat, Australia has turned to the US
The submarines are some decade or two off service. The more immediate effect is more US forces based in Australia. This is quite an interesting piece from Australia on what it all means:
"Hugh White : what SM has done this week. He has tied Australia to a deal that undermines our sovereign capabilities,overspends on hardware we can barely be confident of operating,& drags us closer to front line of a war we may have no interest in fighting."
I did wonder if the US or even the UK may allocate a nuclear sub to Australia to smooth the process of integration
It's not like borrowing a Ford Focus to nip to Aldi. Insurmountable (for the US) security concerns aside; how would they command, crew and maintain it?
If they want boats before 2035 the only option is to buy the two Astutes under construction at Barrow. The tories, who never saw a defence cut they didn't like, would love this but it might not be politically sustainable in Australia - I don't know.
I had wondered about Barrow and it does seem a possibility, but as you say it is not like borrowing a Ford focus to nip to Aldi
It did make me smile
I’d be amazed if @Dura_Ace would ever borrow anything so staid as a Ford Focus 🙂
I once drove a borrowed Mk.1 Focus from Minsk to Moscow in December. It cost me more in bribes to various cops than the car was worth.
So I'm picking up from some posters a prejudice that US = bad and EU = good, so therefore Australia is now on the bad team. Have I got that right?
I think there is genuine worry by those who support the EU just how much this is going to damage not only France's reputation but the wider implications for the EU itself on security and defence
I have not heard a response to the crisis from any EU member, but if the EU was under threat it would be the US they would turn to, not their own non existent defence force
This is the biggest crisis the EU has faced and trying to blame AUKUS will not cut it
I don't think this is a crisis for the EU at all, which is why there has been no real comment there on it, apart from French vested interests.
Your Wiki link suggest they were largely Syria based which of course is on the Med? Seems something of a golden age in Islam, at least compared to your and my ancestors who were likely grubbing about for root vegetables in muddy fields at the time.
Speak for yourself. I’m Welsh. We did sheep and cattle.
Err. That is to say, we raised sheep and cattle and ate them as mutton and beef.
"Snubbing the French is a foolish mistake Rifts over submarine contracts and migrant patrols have soured relations with a nation that should be our closest ally Matthew Parris" (£)
For a nation that is supposed to be our closest ally they have a funny way of showing it....crap like quasi effective vaccines, the dicking about with not allowing lorry drivers back onto ferries around Christmas, despite them posing virtually no risk, etc.
France will never be anybody's closest ally, certainly not ours. They have a wildly excessive view of their place in the world. They are a democratic China - needy, chippy, unpredictable and unfortunately nuclear armed.
They clearly see an opportunity with the retirement of Merkel to resume their "rightful" position as leaders of the EU. I fear another disappointment for them.
So I'm picking up from some posters a prejudice that US = bad and EU = good, so therefore Australia is now on the bad team. Have I got that right?
I think there is genuine worry by those who support the EU just how much this is going to damage not only France's reputation but the wider implications for the EU itself on security and defence
I have not heard a response to the crisis from any EU member, but if the EU was under threat it would be the US they would turn to, not their own non existent defence force
This is the biggest crisis the EU has faced and trying to blame AUKUS will not cut it
I don't think this is a crisis for the EU at all, which is why there has been no real comment there on it, apart from French vested interests.
Germany has just put out statement expressing great concern at the implications of AUKUS
Dr. Foxy, New Zealand is isolated and has been far chummier with the Communists than they might wish to be.
As for Australia, the rising threat of China is something that must be accounted for. Sure, you can feed a crocodile, but appeasement does not work. Australia must be able to defend itself.
New Zealand is and has been a non-nuclear state for three decades - that's why ANZUS was suspended as NZ didn't want American nuclear submarines in its waters which is, I think, the main reason Auckland has been excluded from the AUKUS discussions.
NZ, like Australia, has significant trading links with China worth a lot to the NZ economy. Tourism from the mainland was growing strongly pre-pandemic as well.
In any case, are we seriously arguing China is a significant military threat to Australia and New Zealand? It may be more significant if, for instance, China did a deal with Fiji and established a military base at Suva or Nadi or some other island.
China shares a border with many other countries - Russia, India, Afghanistan and Vietnam to name but four. Are we offering them any kind of guarantee or support against Chinese military expansionism? I doubt it but again that's missing the point - China is achieving economically what the PLA couldn't do militarily. It effectively controls parts of Africa - Chinese funded infrastructure may be about getting access to resources but the local Governments aren't going to say no to improved road and rail links and the economic benefits they bring.
How has the West responded to China's economic imperialism (that's what it is)? Answer it hasn't. The thinking and the rhetoric remains trapped in the Cold War - a couple of nuclear submarines versus providing jobs and a better standard of living for thousands of impoverished people. I think we know what works.
Another example of rhetoric missing reality. Much fanfare last week with the news London offices were apparently now full again with people returning to work at desks in vast numbers amidst signs London was back to normal and all this usual positive propaganda.
The truth, in terms of passenger transport numbers, is very different. On the tube, passenger numbers reached 54% of pre-Covid on Thursday 9th. The numbers travelling have been pretty static since mid-August. There's been no mass return at least on the Underground.
The numbers are improving at the weekend - up to 70% of pre-Covid numbers so obviously there are those who re getting out and about for leisure (presumably) and that's my anecdotal evidence as well. Yet there's been no attempt to re-balance the service by putting more trains on at the weekend and taking off some of the very quiet off-peak weekday services (I forgot, they can't, condition of the Government bailout etc).
Indeed, when a rail company like South-West Railways tries to argue reduced passenger numbers don't justify maintaining current levels of service, they get pilloried with local Conservative County Councillors and Liberal Democrat District Councillors all lining up to be the passengers' friend and champion:
The Treasury is driving this - as the Government looks to turn off the financial lifeline to train companies which led to empty trains running up and down the rails day after day, the train companies are trying to figure out what a 40% reduction in peak traffic means longer term for their operating model and viability. Inevitably, it means fewer trains across the network and some stations will see a reduced train service.
Yes. The "Covid is over, everyone back to work plebs" rhetoric sharply contrasts with the rapid work to reduce rail services long term into cities. On topic there won't be another lockdown even if the NHS does fall over this winter as many warn it may. Even if the government tried to impose one people would ignore it- unless there was a catastrophic new variant that rendered the vaccines useless.
What is very clear from usage patterns is that punters are much happier travelling for leisure than they are work. Indeed reductions in foreign holidays plus a change of working patterns seems to have turbocharged domestic leisure activities.
Considering the seriousness of the blow which has been delivered to our industrial and strategic interests, the need is felt in Paris to reassess our foreign policy, in the Indo-Pacific area, vs the US and NATO, vs China etc. How far it will go? I don’t know.
So I'm picking up from some posters a prejudice that US = bad and EU = good, so therefore Australia is now on the bad team. Have I got that right?
I think there is genuine worry by those who support the EU just how much this is going to damage not only France's reputation but the wider implications for the EU itself on security and defence
I have not heard a response to the crisis from any EU member, but if the EU was under threat it would be the US they would turn to, not their own non existent defence force
This is the biggest crisis the EU has faced and trying to blame AUKUS will not cut it
I don't think this is a crisis for the EU at all, which is why there has been no real comment there on it, apart from French vested interests.
Germany has just put out statement expressing great concern at the implications of AUKUS
If they don’t want people to imply they can’t be trusted, they should stop behaving like Russia’s poodle.
I do not expect a further lockdown unless the virus escapes the vaccines
Life seems to be back to near normal and of course the booster jabs are on their way
On the French strop has any EU country come out in support of them
I have heard it said that in any security crisis the US would be their first call for help
It is unfortunate that France has fallen out with AUKUS but ultimately this is not about France or Europe, but the defence of the Trans Pacific and just as EU countries would if under threat, Australia has turned to the US
The submarines are some decade or two off service. The more immediate effect is more US forces based in Australia. This is quite an interesting piece from Australia on what it all means:
"Hugh White : what SM has done this week. He has tied Australia to a deal that undermines our sovereign capabilities,overspends on hardware we can barely be confident of operating,& drags us closer to front line of a war we may have no interest in fighting."
I did wonder if the US or even the UK may allocate a nuclear sub to Australia to smooth the process of integration
It's not like borrowing a Ford Focus to nip to Aldi. Insurmountable (for the US) security concerns aside; how would they command, crew and maintain it?
If they want boats before 2035 the only option is to buy the two Astutes under construction at Barrow. The tories, who never saw a defence cut they didn't like, would love this but it might not be politically sustainable in Australia - I don't know.
One reason the French deal became unaffordable and delayed was the insistence that at least 60% of the cost was to be spent in Australia, to keep their submarine yards viable in terms of expertise and economically.
Does that still apply?
I must say that while I recognise our historic ties with Australia, I still remain to be convinced that we should be prepared to get involved in wars, or rumours of wars, 12,000 miles/20,00 km away, given that we withdrew from East of Suez in the early 70's and only returned on the coattails of the US 30 years later.
I do not expect a further lockdown unless the virus escapes the vaccines
Life seems to be back to near normal and of course the booster jabs are on their way
On the French strop has any EU country come out in support of them
I have heard it said that in any security crisis the US would be their first call for help
It is unfortunate that France has fallen out with AUKUS but ultimately this is not about France or Europe, but the defence of the Trans Pacific and just as EU countries would if under threat, Australia has turned to the US
Shame it was done in a way that divided the democracies on the security council, Once the low rent frog bashing subsides that may be seen as an unnecessary error that ironically weakens us against the Chinese.
France (or rather its politicians) is responsible for it's own reactions, no one else, just as no one else is responsible for the UK's actions but the UK. That's why excusing the petulance of the division on the catalysing incident is wrong.
Being angry and annoyed would be understandable (presumably - people seem to go back and forth on it being meaningless, and if it is the anger makes no sense), but they've chosen to respond the way they have not been required to respond that way. Just as we might lament the EUs negotiating toughness but we still chose how to respond and if that was wrong their actions dont excuse us.
Unless the negative consequences were inevitable - and the more tempered criticisms show that is not so - it cannot be pinned on the initial act.
Covid has shown up quite how sparse our weapons against disease are. The vaccines were later then we needed, even fat a brilliantly accelerated development. Therapeutic developments have been very disappointing.
I would like to see a Manhattan Project on therapeutics. The world needs to throw billions into development of drugs and strategies that will help keep people out of hospital from even 'normal' illnesses such as flu.
An issue is that vaccines have been seen to work and, in a couple of cases, vastly profitable. The sector will throw lots of money into vaccines. But vaccines are inevitable delayed; they need to be developed for each individual illness. Therapeutic drugs and techniques can help with many different illnesses that attack in similar ways.
Whilst I agree that your analysis was correct in 2019, where we in the west at least had grown very complacent (the east were better prepared, hence their better early responses to this) I think that we have had our Manhattan project already. We know vastly more about viruses, epidemiology and what works than we ever have. We have had the incredible response of big Pharma in producing a series of successful vaccines in incredibly short time.
Of those by far the most remarkable to me as a layman remains the Novavax vaccine developed by computer modelling of the virus without even bothering to work on the virus itself. The implications of this sort of capability in devising new medicines are just mind blowing both in terms of speed of development and cost. We absolutely need to keep this going but I have no doubt that that sort of tech is going to change all pharma for ever. It is ground breaking. I confidently predict that within the next 30 years more lives will be saved by this than have been lost to Covid.
Two difficulties with JosiasJessop's view:
Can it happen? It hasn't really happened with malaria yet, and that really is number one in the world for effects.
Secondly, the difficulty with all effective treatments is that the better you are at it the longer people live to have multiple. chronic, painful, expensive problems. We have overcome the idea that the NHS would steadily reduce the need for medical services and realise that the more successfully you spend money to keep people alive the more you have to spend to keep them alive even longer.
Our society right now models this exactly, with the additional absurdity that because there are so many old ill people to look after young people can't afford to have children at even replacement levels anywhere in the western world.
Yes, the flaw in the plan is that no one gets out of here alive. Truly effective treatments against something like dementia, for example, would save huge sums in the short term and unending grief but people will die of something else and it won't necessarily be cheap.
Dr. Foxy, New Zealand is isolated and has been far chummier with the Communists than they might wish to be.
As for Australia, the rising threat of China is something that must be accounted for. Sure, you can feed a crocodile, but appeasement does not work. Australia must be able to defend itself.
New Zealand is and has been a non-nuclear state for three decades - that's why ANZUS was suspended as NZ didn't want American nuclear submarines in its waters which is, I think, the main reason Auckland has been excluded from the AUKUS discussions.
NZ, like Australia, has significant trading links with China worth a lot to the NZ economy. Tourism from the mainland was growing strongly pre-pandemic as well.
In any case, are we seriously arguing China is a significant military threat to Australia and New Zealand? It may be more significant if, for instance, China did a deal with Fiji and established a military base at Suva or Nadi or some other island.
China shares a border with many other countries - Russia, India, Afghanistan and Vietnam to name but four. Are we offering them any kind of guarantee or support against Chinese military expansionism? I doubt it but again that's missing the point - China is achieving economically what the PLA couldn't do militarily. It effectively controls parts of Africa - Chinese funded infrastructure may be about getting access to resources but the local Governments aren't going to say no to improved road and rail links and the economic benefits they bring.
How has the West responded to China's economic imperialism (that's what it is)? Answer it hasn't. The thinking and the rhetoric remains trapped in the Cold War - a couple of nuclear submarines versus providing jobs and a better standard of living for thousands of impoverished people. I think we know what works.
Exactly. The Belt and Road initiative will bring a lot of Central Asia and MENA into the Chinese sphere of influence, and far from trying to counter this influence, we have just abandoned Central Asia.
Your Wiki link suggest they were largely Syria based which of course is on the Med? Seems something of a golden age in Islam, at least compared to your and my ancestors who were likely grubbing about for root vegetables in muddy fields at the time.
Speak for yourself. I’m Welsh. We did sheep and cattle.
Err. That is to say, we raised sheep and cattle and ate them as mutton and beef.
You just add in cattle to make yourselves feel more manly. We all know it is the sheep really.
More anecdata concerning the disintegration of the NHS:
People with cancer forced to go private
In January this year, Steve Deeman in Nottinghamshire was looking at an eight-week delay to have the lesion on his forehead diagnosed. “It was suspicious looking and grew quite rapidly over the next few weeks,” said the 69-year-old retired teacher.
He was referred to a local hospital dermatology department in early March and was given a consultation appointment for May. “I decided I couldn’t wait that long and sought private medical care a few days later,” he said.
Deeman saw a specialist dermatologist who diagnosed the lesion as cancerous and it was removed the next day. His treatment so far has cost about £1,500 but further follow-ups have been recommended which could bring the total to £2,000. “I was fortunate in that I was able to afford treatment but there are a lot of people who wouldn’t be able to.”
When Fabien needed to have a decayed tooth removed in May, his dentist told him that he would have to wait up to three years to have it done on the NHS. In disbelief, the 27-year-old from Edinburgh rang 50 dental practices but without any luck. He had no choice but to go private. Having lost his job during the pandemic, he was on universal credit and had to borrow the £600 from his family.
If you've the means and knowhow to trade in shares then private healthcare groups are probably a good bet. As the latter piece goes on to say, quoting the director of a health think tank,
“There is a big risk that unless government provides adequate funding for the NHS, more and more people will be forced to pay privately, which in turn will undermine middle-class support for a tax-funded NHS.
“It’s not likely that we will end up with a US-style insurance system. But a two-tier system, where the NHS is a residual service for those without the means to pay is a possibility – ultimately these are political choices.”
Certainly there is likely to be a boom in the sector, both from the self pay private market and in terms of outsourcing of NHS work, which is a major source of income to private hospitals. That said the performance of Spire shares hasn't been great recently.
It is curious although the Spire price has been more influenced by take over speculation than anything else. What I find strange is that the private medical sector is not absolutely booming with significant new capital being raised and deployed. It is going to take a decade for the NHS to recover from the backlog now in place and many, many more are going to go private. If you are in pain from a hip or knee and being told to wait 2 or more years for a replacement it is an absolute no brainer if you can afford it. If you are working it even makes economic sense.
The free at the point of delivery service in the NHS has always kept this sector quite small in this country but it just seems inevitable that there is going to be a large expansion. I would expect some of the American players to invest.
The NHS has, of course, been an established fact of life for such a very long time that it simply doesn't occur to a lot of people who might benefit from going private to do so. Private hospitals are either not thought of at all, or bring to mind images of cosmetic vanity procedures and/or being something very exclusive for royalty and rich celebrities.
It takes time for such a mindset to change, but if comfortably off middle-aged and retired folk with reasonably deep pockets find themselves having to wait years for necessary surgery, then change it surely will.
I think there is genuine worry by those who support the EU just how much this is going to damage not only France's reputation but the wider implications for the EU itself on security and defence
I have not heard a response to the crisis from any EU member, but if the EU was under threat it would be the US they would turn to, not their own non existent defence force
This is the biggest crisis the EU has faced and trying to blame AUKUS will not cut it
That's just nonsense. Conflating the EU and NATO is a cheap jibe which doesn't cut it any more.
Those members of the EU not in NATO (Ireland) and those members of NATO not in the EU (Iceland, Turkey) might see it differently.
I assume nothing about AUKUS changes the US commitment to the defence of western Europe from any aggression in the name of collective defence and security. Washington is still prepared to go to war to defend Riga, Vilnius and even Paris and to call this "the biggest crisis the EU has faced" is absurd hyperbole.
Certainly, compared with the Eurozone crisis of 2008-10, AUKUS is insignificant.
Your Wiki link suggest they were largely Syria based which of course is on the Med? Seems something of a golden age in Islam, at least compared to your and my ancestors who were likely grubbing about for root vegetables in muddy fields at the time.
Speak for yourself. I’m Welsh. We did sheep and cattle.
Err. That is to say, we raised sheep and cattle and ate them as mutton and beef.
You just add in cattle to make yourselves feel more manly. We all know it is the sheep really.
Well, there aren’t as many places in Wales you can raise cattle. There is a reason why the second-largest native Welsh castle is bizarrely parked in a medium-sized valley in the middle of nowhere.
But sheep get everywhere. Last line of defence against the Chinese, we turn the sheep on them, and they will do unto Xi as they did unto Jeremy Clarkson.
I do not expect a further lockdown unless the virus escapes the vaccines
Life seems to be back to near normal and of course the booster jabs are on their way
On the French strop has any EU country come out in support of them
I have heard it said that in any security crisis the US would be their first call for help
It is unfortunate that France has fallen out with AUKUS but ultimately this is not about France or Europe, but the defence of the Trans Pacific and just as EU countries would if under threat, Australia has turned to the US
The submarines are some decade or two off service. The more immediate effect is more US forces based in Australia. This is quite an interesting piece from Australia on what it all means:
"Hugh White : what SM has done this week. He has tied Australia to a deal that undermines our sovereign capabilities,overspends on hardware we can barely be confident of operating,& drags us closer to front line of a war we may have no interest in fighting."
I do not expect a further lockdown unless the virus escapes the vaccines
Life seems to be back to near normal and of course the booster jabs are on their way
On the French strop has any EU country come out in support of them
I have heard it said that in any security crisis the US would be their first call for help
It is unfortunate that France has fallen out with AUKUS but ultimately this is not about France or Europe, but the defence of the Trans Pacific and just as EU countries would if under threat, Australia has turned to the US
The submarines are some decade or two off service. The more immediate effect is more US forces based in Australia. This is quite an interesting piece from Australia on what it all means:
"Hugh White : what SM has done this week. He has tied Australia to a deal that undermines our sovereign capabilities,overspends on hardware we can barely be confident of operating,& drags us closer to front line of a war we may have no interest in fighting."
I did wonder if the US or even the UK may allocate a nuclear sub to Australia to smooth the process of integration
It's not like borrowing a Ford Focus to nip to Aldi. Insurmountable (for the US) security concerns aside; how would they command, crew and maintain it?
If they want boats before 2035 the only option is to buy the two Astutes under construction at Barrow. The tories, who never saw a defence cut they didn't like, would love this but it might not be politically sustainable in Australia - I don't know.
One reason the French deal became unaffordable and delayed was the insistence that at least 60% of the cost was to be spent in Australia, to keep their submarine yards viable in terms of expertise and economically.
That 60% started out at 90%. The French admitted it would be more like 60%.
Dr. Foxy, that does disregard that China has grabbed half a sea and used their military might to make the claim.
I agree that, in terms of military attacks 'only' Taiwan seems to be on the table right now. But then, China recently cut the legs from under Tencent (costing it $60bn in market value overnight) so drastic changes in direction are entirely possible. If property problems worsen and domestic woes are on the up, military adventures are a common go-to for leaders wanting to bolster their popularity.
I think there is genuine worry by those who support the EU just how much this is going to damage not only France's reputation but the wider implications for the EU itself on security and defence
I have not heard a response to the crisis from any EU member, but if the EU was under threat it would be the US they would turn to, not their own non existent defence force
This is the biggest crisis the EU has faced and trying to blame AUKUS will not cut it
That's just nonsense. Conflating the EU and NATO is a cheap jibe which doesn't cut it any more.
Those members of the EU not in NATO (Ireland) and those members of NATO not in the EU (Iceland, Turkey) might see it differently.
I assume nothing about AUKUS changes the US commitment to the defence of western Europe from any aggression in the name of collective defence and security. Washington is still prepared to go to war to defend Riga, Vilnius and even Paris and to call this "the biggest crisis the EU has faced" is absurd hyperbole.
Certainly, compared with the Eurozone crisis of 2008-10, AUKUS is insignificant.
In defence terms it is and is anyone confident that NATO is relevant
Your Wiki link suggest they were largely Syria based which of course is on the Med? Seems something of a golden age in Islam, at least compared to your and my ancestors who were likely grubbing about for root vegetables in muddy fields at the time.
Speak for yourself. I’m Welsh. We did sheep and cattle.
Err. That is to say, we raised sheep and cattle and ate them as mutton and beef.
You just add in cattle to make yourselves feel more manly. We all know it is the sheep really.
It was both
The mountain sheep are sweeter, But the valley sheep are fatter; We therefore deemed it meeter To carry off the latter. We made an expedition; We met a host, and quelled it; We forced a strong position, And killed the men who held it.
On Dyfed's richest valley, Where herds of kine were browsing, We made a mighty sally, To furnish our carousing. Fierce warriors rushed to meet us; We met them, and o'erthrew them: They struggled hard to beat us; But we conquered them, and slew them.
As we drove our prize at leisure, The king marched forth to catch us: His rage surpassed all measure, But his people could not match us. He fled to his hall-pillars; And, ere our force we led off, Some sacked his house and cellars, While others cut his head off.
We there, in strife bewild'ring, Spilt blood enough to swim in: We orphaned many children, And widowed many women. The eagles and the ravens We glutted with our foemen; The heroes and the cravens, The spearmen and the bowmen.
We brought away from battle, And much their land bemoaned them, Two thousand head of cattle, And the head of him who owned them: Ednyfed, king of Dyfed, His head was borne before us; His wine and beasts supplied our feasts, And his overthrow, our chorus.
Yes. The "Covid is over, everyone back to work plebs" rhetoric sharply contrasts with the rapid work to reduce rail services long term into cities. On topic there won't be another lockdown even if the NHS does fall over this winter as many warn it may. Even if the government tried to impose one people would ignore it- unless there was a catastrophic new variant that rendered the vaccines useless.
What is very clear from usage patterns is that punters are much happier travelling for leisure than they are work. Indeed reductions in foreign holidays plus a change of working patterns seems to have turbocharged domestic leisure activities.
Some of that, last year certainly, was the furloughed having time and money on their hands.
This year it's just been about people being able to get out and about at the weekends. The stupidity is rail operators still see the weekend as the time to carry out engineering works.
Transport providers need to embrace the new reality - more services at the weekend, engineering works carried out during the off-peak daytime or perhaps using Monday and Friday, the two quietest days of the work week) rather than at the weekends.
It is part of the cultural rebalancing that will be the one of the legacies of the virus.
I see, in news completely unrelated to AUSAUK or whatever the fuck its called, Argentina are getting JF-17s from China via Pakistan. Johnson might get his 𝔽𝕒𝕝𝕜𝕝𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕄𝕠𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥 yet.
More anecdata concerning the disintegration of the NHS:
People with cancer forced to go private
In January this year, Steve Deeman in Nottinghamshire was looking at an eight-week delay to have the lesion on his forehead diagnosed. “It was suspicious looking and grew quite rapidly over the next few weeks,” said the 69-year-old retired teacher.
He was referred to a local hospital dermatology department in early March and was given a consultation appointment for May. “I decided I couldn’t wait that long and sought private medical care a few days later,” he said.
Deeman saw a specialist dermatologist who diagnosed the lesion as cancerous and it was removed the next day. His treatment so far has cost about £1,500 but further follow-ups have been recommended which could bring the total to £2,000. “I was fortunate in that I was able to afford treatment but there are a lot of people who wouldn’t be able to.”
When Fabien needed to have a decayed tooth removed in May, his dentist told him that he would have to wait up to three years to have it done on the NHS. In disbelief, the 27-year-old from Edinburgh rang 50 dental practices but without any luck. He had no choice but to go private. Having lost his job during the pandemic, he was on universal credit and had to borrow the £600 from his family.
If you've the means and knowhow to trade in shares then private healthcare groups are probably a good bet. As the latter piece goes on to say, quoting the director of a health think tank,
“There is a big risk that unless government provides adequate funding for the NHS, more and more people will be forced to pay privately, which in turn will undermine middle-class support for a tax-funded NHS.
“It’s not likely that we will end up with a US-style insurance system. But a two-tier system, where the NHS is a residual service for those without the means to pay is a possibility – ultimately these are political choices.”
Certainly there is likely to be a boom in the sector, both from the self pay private market and in terms of outsourcing of NHS work, which is a major source of income to private hospitals. That said the performance of Spire shares hasn't been great recently.
It is curious although the Spire price has been more influenced by take over speculation than anything else. What I find strange is that the private medical sector is not absolutely booming with significant new capital being raised and deployed. It is going to take a decade for the NHS to recover from the backlog now in place and many, many more are going to go private. If you are in pain from a hip or knee and being told to wait 2 or more years for a replacement it is an absolute no brainer if you can afford it. If you are working it even makes economic sense.
The free at the point of delivery service in the NHS has always kept this sector quite small in this country but it just seems inevitable that there is going to be a large expansion. I would expect some of the American players to invest.
The NHS has, of course, been an established fact of life for such a very long time that it simply doesn't occur to a lot of people who might benefit from going private to do so. Private hospitals are either not thought of at all, or bring to mind images of cosmetic vanity procedures and/or being something very exclusive for royalty and rich celebrities.
It takes time for such a mindset to change, but if comfortably off middle-aged and retired folk with reasonably deep pockets find themselves having to wait years for necessary surgery, then change it surely will.
The driving force for me is likely to be employers who do not want employees on long term sick. If you have an HGV driver who cannot work because of a dodgy knee, for example, do you lose him or get it sorted? Maybe when it was easy to take the next one off the rack from eastern Europe the answer was the former but now?
If your employee has an accident do you pay for instant access to physiotherapy to get him or her back on their feet soonest or wait? Some insurance companies are now paying for claimants to get such help on the basis that it reduces their wage claim losses but the same logic applies to employers.
Most people do not use private care on a one off basis but the number who get the benefit of it through polices offered by their employers will increase and having access to such rights will make an employer more attractive.
Your Wiki link suggest they were largely Syria based which of course is on the Med? Seems something of a golden age in Islam, at least compared to your and my ancestors who were likely grubbing about for root vegetables in muddy fields at the time.
Speak for yourself. I’m Welsh. We did sheep and cattle.
Err. That is to say, we raised sheep and cattle and ate them as mutton and beef.
You just add in cattle to make yourselves feel more manly. We all know it is the sheep really.
Corgis were originally cattle herding dogs, not sheepdogs. Strangely, sheepdogs are bigger than cattle-herding dogs.
Your Wiki link suggest they were largely Syria based which of course is on the Med? Seems something of a golden age in Islam, at least compared to your and my ancestors who were likely grubbing about for root vegetables in muddy fields at the time.
Speak for yourself. I’m Welsh. We did sheep and cattle.
Err. That is to say, we raised sheep and cattle and ate them as mutton and beef.
You just add in cattle to make yourselves feel more manly. We all know it is the sheep really.
Corgis were originally cattle herding dogs, not sheepdogs. Strangely, sheepdogs are bigger than cattle-herding dogs.
You can overawe a sheep by being bigger.
Difficult to do that to cattle so better to be out of kicking distance.
So I'm picking up from some posters a prejudice that US = bad and EU = good, so therefore Australia is now on the bad team. Have I got that right?
I think there is genuine worry by those who support the EU just how much this is going to damage not only France's reputation but the wider implications for the EU itself on security and defence
I have not heard a response to the crisis from any EU member, but if the EU was under threat it would be the US they would turn to, not their own non existent defence force
This is the biggest crisis the EU has faced and trying to blame AUKUS will not cut it
I don't think this is a crisis for the EU at all, which is why there has been no real comment there on it, apart from French vested interests.
Germany has just put out statement expressing great concern at the implications of AUKUS
They're worried that they are going to have to spend money on their own defence rather than the latest Beemer?
Covid has shown up quite how sparse our weapons against disease are. The vaccines were later then we needed, even fat a brilliantly accelerated development. Therapeutic developments have been very disappointing.
I would like to see a Manhattan Project on therapeutics. The world needs to throw billions into development of drugs and strategies that will help keep people out of hospital from even 'normal' illnesses such as flu.
An issue is that vaccines have been seen to work and, in a couple of cases, vastly profitable. The sector will throw lots of money into vaccines. But vaccines are inevitable delayed; they need to be developed for each individual illness. Therapeutic drugs and techniques can help with many different illnesses that attack in similar ways.
Whilst I agree that your analysis was correct in 2019, where we in the west at least had grown very complacent (the east were better prepared, hence their better early responses to this) I think that we have had our Manhattan project already. We know vastly more about viruses, epidemiology and what works than we ever have. We have had the incredible response of big Pharma in producing a series of successful vaccines in incredibly short time.
Of those by far the most remarkable to me as a layman remains the Novavax vaccine developed by computer modelling of the virus without even bothering to work on the virus itself. The implications of this sort of capability in devising new medicines are just mind blowing both in terms of speed of development and cost. We absolutely need to keep this going but I have no doubt that that sort of tech is going to change all pharma for ever. It is ground breaking. I confidently predict that within the next 30 years more lives will be saved by this than have been lost to Covid.
Two difficulties with JosiasJessop's view:
Can it happen? It hasn't really happened with malaria yet, and that really is number one in the world for effects.
Secondly, the difficulty with all effective treatments is that the better you are at it the longer people live to have multiple. chronic, painful, expensive problems. We have overcome the idea that the NHS would steadily reduce the need for medical services and realise that the more successfully you spend money to keep people alive the more you have to spend to keep them alive even longer.
Our society right now models this exactly, with the additional absurdity that because there are so many old ill people to look after young people can't afford to have children at even replacement levels anywhere in the western world.
Yes, the flaw in the plan is that no one gets out of here alive. Truly effective treatments against something like dementia, for example, would save huge sums in the short term and unending grief but people will die of something else and it won't necessarily be cheap.
Not necessarily. Most modern medicine is about adding life to years rather than years to life, with quality of life and Disability Adjusted Life-years considered very important.
Longevity is not infinitely expandable, so the population age pyramid tends to become columnar rather than pyramid shaped.
There is potential for raising longevity further, but more important is to improve independence in old age. This is one way to square Social Care costs. Healthy elderly folk don't need SC and indeed often contribute economically.
Your Wiki link suggest they were largely Syria based which of course is on the Med? Seems something of a golden age in Islam, at least compared to your and my ancestors who were likely grubbing about for root vegetables in muddy fields at the time.
Speak for yourself. I’m Welsh. We did sheep and cattle.
Err. That is to say, we raised sheep and cattle and ate them as mutton and beef.
You just add in cattle to make yourselves feel more manly. We all know it is the sheep really.
Corgis were originally cattle herding dogs, not sheepdogs. Strangely, sheepdogs are bigger than cattle-herding dogs.
You can overawe a sheep by being bigger.
Difficult to do that to cattle so better to be out of kicking distance.
Plus some sheepdogs are herding dogs (collies) others are defence against wolves (patous, Alsatians), where the wolf is your comparator. I don't know if there was ever a UK wolf defence breed.
It’s ironic and tragic that in a move designed to counter growing Chinese power we have divided the democracies on the security council and thereby weakened us relative to the Chinese.
It’s a shame that they didn’t find a route in the Pacific that kept us united. Why couldn’t the Aussies have both types of submarines?
Well, the Attack class order was for 12 submarines. Australia are having enough trouble keeping their existing six Collins-class subs crewed. Reducing the Attack-class order would have had hefty penalties. Then you have the problem of maintaining two very different types of sub, with very different kit and equipment.
Also, NG and France's behaviour throughout this has not been that good IMO. It's not all Australia's fault.
Then you finally get the issue that the Attack-class didn't really meet their needs in the first place.
It’s harmful bullshit if that’s what you mean by “useful”.
Western democracies have fundamental values - freedom of speech, of assembly, of religion - that our forefathers fought and bled to secure. We must stick up for those values and not kowtow to an authoritarian dictatorship for a couple of brass farthings
No, it is from an Australian satirical comedy show.
I still have a lot of Australian family, and several direct relatives buried in Australian military cemeteries, so please spare the sanctimony.
Meanwhile we arm the salafists of KSA to the teeth, so spare us the bullshit on standing up for freedom of religion and human rights.
Your Wiki link suggest they were largely Syria based which of course is on the Med? Seems something of a golden age in Islam, at least compared to your and my ancestors who were likely grubbing about for root vegetables in muddy fields at the time.
Speak for yourself. I’m Welsh. We did sheep and cattle.
Err. That is to say, we raised sheep and cattle and ate them as mutton and beef.
You just add in cattle to make yourselves feel more manly. We all know it is the sheep really.
Corgis were originally cattle herding dogs, not sheepdogs. Strangely, sheepdogs are bigger than cattle-herding dogs.
You can overawe a sheep by being bigger.
Difficult to do that to cattle so better to be out of kicking distance.
Those of my Welsh ancestors who owned, or rented land, were sheep farmers in mid-Wales. The ones from SW Wales seem to have generally worked for someone else.
I think there is genuine worry by those who support the EU just how much this is going to damage not only France's reputation but the wider implications for the EU itself on security and defence
I have not heard a response to the crisis from any EU member, but if the EU was under threat it would be the US they would turn to, not their own non existent defence force
This is the biggest crisis the EU has faced and trying to blame AUKUS will not cut it
That's just nonsense. Conflating the EU and NATO is a cheap jibe which doesn't cut it any more.
Those members of the EU not in NATO (Ireland) and those members of NATO not in the EU (Iceland, Turkey) might see it differently.
I assume nothing about AUKUS changes the US commitment to the defence of western Europe from any aggression in the name of collective defence and security. Washington is still prepared to go to war to defend Riga, Vilnius and even Paris and to call this "the biggest crisis the EU has faced" is absurd hyperbole.
Certainly, compared with the Eurozone crisis of 2008-10, AUKUS is insignificant.
In defence terms it is and is anyone confident that NATO is relevant
The EU is not a military body and never has been. The embryonic WEU and the Franco-German corps were attempts to try to make a pan-European defence force but NATO is and has been a hugely successful alliance.
Is it "relevant"? The Conservatives, the Daily Mail and others keep banging on about the "threat" from Putin, Someone on here yesterday claimed the Russian Army was ready to sweep across Europe and could conquer the whole European landmass up to and including the Channel.
Not convinced and a couple of aircraft flying over the North Sea and a rusty old battleship sailing up the Channel don't exactly give me sleepless nights.
In any case, Putin isn't stupid enough to risk armageddon by trying to annex Estonia so for now NATO remains the primary guarantor of British defence. What AUKUS has done, arguably, is to raise tensions and create a new front line in the Pacific. Is an attempted Chinese invasion of Taiwan analogous to a Russian push into Estonia - it would seem so?
It's not even a solid policy of containment - it's a half-guarantee to a couple of places but, as I argued earlier, if you are serious about containing China (which we aren't), what about guarantees to India, Russia, Vietnam and Afghanistan (all of whom border China as does North Korea of course)?
It's analogous to the Ukraine - we aren't going to rush to Kiev's defence if Putin decides to move in. They aren't in NATO so we're not obliged.
Covid has shown up quite how sparse our weapons against disease are. The vaccines were later then we needed, even fat a brilliantly accelerated development. Therapeutic developments have been very disappointing.
I would like to see a Manhattan Project on therapeutics. The world needs to throw billions into development of drugs and strategies that will help keep people out of hospital from even 'normal' illnesses such as flu.
An issue is that vaccines have been seen to work and, in a couple of cases, vastly profitable. The sector will throw lots of money into vaccines. But vaccines are inevitable delayed; they need to be developed for each individual illness. Therapeutic drugs and techniques can help with many different illnesses that attack in similar ways.
Whilst I agree that your analysis was correct in 2019, where we in the west at least had grown very complacent (the east were better prepared, hence their better early responses to this) I think that we have had our Manhattan project already. We know vastly more about viruses, epidemiology and what works than we ever have. We have had the incredible response of big Pharma in producing a series of successful vaccines in incredibly short time.
Of those by far the most remarkable to me as a layman remains the Novavax vaccine developed by computer modelling of the virus without even bothering to work on the virus itself. The implications of this sort of capability in devising new medicines are just mind blowing both in terms of speed of development and cost. We absolutely need to keep this going but I have no doubt that that sort of tech is going to change all pharma for ever. It is ground breaking. I confidently predict that within the next 30 years more lives will be saved by this than have been lost to Covid.
How many people have received a NovaVax vaccine…. 😂
I do not expect a further lockdown unless the virus escapes the vaccines
Life seems to be back to near normal and of course the booster jabs are on their way
On the French strop has any EU country come out in support of them
I have heard it said that in any security crisis the US would be their first call for help
It is unfortunate that France has fallen out with AUKUS but ultimately this is not about France or Europe, but the defence of the Trans Pacific and just as EU countries would if under threat, Australia has turned to the US
The submarines are some decade or two off service. The more immediate effect is more US forces based in Australia. This is quite an interesting piece from Australia on what it all means:
"Hugh White : what SM has done this week. He has tied Australia to a deal that undermines our sovereign capabilities,overspends on hardware we can barely be confident of operating,& drags us closer to front line of a war we may have no interest in fighting."
I did wonder if the US or even the UK may allocate a nuclear sub to Australia to smooth the process of integration
It's not like borrowing a Ford Focus to nip to Aldi. Insurmountable (for the US) security concerns aside; how would they command, crew and maintain it?
If they want boats before 2035 the only option is to buy the two Astutes under construction at Barrow. The tories, who never saw a defence cut they didn't like, would love this but it might not be politically sustainable in Australia - I don't know.
One reason the French deal became unaffordable and delayed was the insistence that at least 60% of the cost was to be spent in Australia, to keep their submarine yards viable in terms of expertise and economically.
That 60% started out at 90%. The French admitted it would be more like 60%.
It’s ironic and tragic that in a move designed to counter growing Chinese power we have divided the democracies on the security council and thereby weakened us relative to the Chinese.
It’s a shame that they didn’t find a route in the Pacific that kept us united. Why couldn’t the Aussies have both types of submarines?
Well, the Attack class order was for 12 submarines. Australia are having enough trouble keeping their existing six Collins-class subs crewed. Reducing the Attack-class order would have had hefty penalties. Then you have the problem of maintaining two very different types of sub, with very different kit and equipment.
Also, NG and France's behaviour throughout this has not been that good IMO. It's not all Australia's fault.
Then you finally get the issue that the Attack-class didn't really meet their needs in the first place.
It’s harmful bullshit if that’s what you mean by “useful”.
Western democracies have fundamental values - freedom of speech, of assembly, of religion - that our forefathers fought and bled to secure. We must stick up for those values and not kowtow to an authoritarian dictatorship for a couple of brass farthings
Hmmm. You must be very upset when HMG pursues brass farthings all over the Middle East.
The fundamental British dedication to hypocrisy trumps all values.
Hypocricy and passive aggression are the two fields where Britain is still truly world class.
Another example of rhetoric missing reality. Much fanfare last week with the news London offices were apparently now full again with people returning to work at desks in vast numbers amidst signs London was back to normal and all this usual positive propaganda.
The truth, in terms of passenger transport numbers, is very different. On the tube, passenger numbers reached 54% of pre-Covid on Thursday 9th. The numbers travelling have been pretty static since mid-August. There's been no mass return at least on the Underground.
The numbers are improving at the weekend - up to 70% of pre-Covid numbers so obviously there are those who re getting out and about for leisure (presumably) and that's my anecdotal evidence as well. Yet there's been no attempt to re-balance the service by putting more trains on at the weekend and taking off some of the very quiet off-peak weekday services (I forgot, they can't, condition of the Government bailout etc).
Indeed, when a rail company like South-West Railways tries to argue reduced passenger numbers don't justify maintaining current levels of service, they get pilloried with local Conservative County Councillors and Liberal Democrat District Councillors all lining up to be the passengers' friend and champion:
The Treasury is driving this - as the Government looks to turn off the financial lifeline to train companies which led to empty trains running up and down the rails day after day, the train companies are trying to figure out what a 40% reduction in peak traffic means longer term for their operating model and viability. Inevitably, it means fewer trains across the network and some stations will see a reduced train service.
Yes. The "Covid is over, everyone back to work plebs" rhetoric sharply contrasts with the rapid work to reduce rail services long term into cities. On topic there won't be another lockdown even if the NHS does fall over this winter as many warn it may. Even if the government tried to impose one people would ignore it- unless there was a catastrophic new variant that rendered the vaccines useless.
What is very clear from usage patterns is that punters are much happier travelling for leisure than they are work. Indeed reductions in foreign holidays plus a change of working patterns seems to have turbocharged domestic leisure activities.
The DfT publish on a weekly basis estimates of the daily use of transport compared with pre covid times.
The latest numbers for the week commencing 6th September suggest that cars are approximately at 95% (but upto 110% over the weekend), but light and heavy goods vehicles are at 108%.
National Rail is only at 63%, whilst the Tube is at 53% and London Busses at 70%. Tubes are up to about 65% over the weekend, whilst rail declines to 58%.
From a personal perspective, I had a trip into London this week for the first time in around 18 months. A normal peak commuter train which would normally be crushed loaded pre covid had around 50% of seats empty. Ok this was Friday, but it indicates the scale of the problem for train companies and hence the Goverment as the DfT have full economic control.
More anecdata concerning the disintegration of the NHS:
People with cancer forced to go private
In January this year, Steve Deeman in Nottinghamshire was looking at an eight-week delay to have the lesion on his forehead diagnosed. “It was suspicious looking and grew quite rapidly over the next few weeks,” said the 69-year-old retired teacher.
He was referred to a local hospital dermatology department in early March and was given a consultation appointment for May. “I decided I couldn’t wait that long and sought private medical care a few days later,” he said.
Deeman saw a specialist dermatologist who diagnosed the lesion as cancerous and it was removed the next day. His treatment so far has cost about £1,500 but further follow-ups have been recommended which could bring the total to £2,000. “I was fortunate in that I was able to afford treatment but there are a lot of people who wouldn’t be able to.”
When Fabien needed to have a decayed tooth removed in May, his dentist told him that he would have to wait up to three years to have it done on the NHS. In disbelief, the 27-year-old from Edinburgh rang 50 dental practices but without any luck. He had no choice but to go private. Having lost his job during the pandemic, he was on universal credit and had to borrow the £600 from his family.
If you've the means and knowhow to trade in shares then private healthcare groups are probably a good bet. As the latter piece goes on to say, quoting the director of a health think tank,
“There is a big risk that unless government provides adequate funding for the NHS, more and more people will be forced to pay privately, which in turn will undermine middle-class support for a tax-funded NHS.
“It’s not likely that we will end up with a US-style insurance system. But a two-tier system, where the NHS is a residual service for those without the means to pay is a possibility – ultimately these are political choices.”
Certainly there is likely to be a boom in the sector, both from the self pay private market and in terms of outsourcing of NHS work, which is a major source of income to private hospitals. That said the performance of Spire shares hasn't been great recently.
It is curious although the Spire price has been more influenced by take over speculation than anything else. What I find strange is that the private medical sector is not absolutely booming with significant new capital being raised and deployed. It is going to take a decade for the NHS to recover from the backlog now in place and many, many more are going to go private. If you are in pain from a hip or knee and being told to wait 2 or more years for a replacement it is an absolute no brainer if you can afford it. If you are working it even makes economic sense.
The free at the point of delivery service in the NHS has always kept this sector quite small in this country but it just seems inevitable that there is going to be a large expansion. I would expect some of the American players to invest.
The NHS has, of course, been an established fact of life for such a very long time that it simply doesn't occur to a lot of people who might benefit from going private to do so. Private hospitals are either not thought of at all, or bring to mind images of cosmetic vanity procedures and/or being something very exclusive for royalty and rich celebrities.
It takes time for such a mindset to change, but if comfortably off middle-aged and retired folk with reasonably deep pockets find themselves having to wait years for necessary surgery, then change it surely will.
There will be a lot more companies looking at private insurance for staff too, if we see waiting lists for routine treatment keeping people off work for weeks.
It’s ironic and tragic that in a move designed to counter growing Chinese power we have divided the democracies on the security council and thereby weakened us relative to the Chinese.
It’s a shame that they didn’t find a route in the Pacific that kept us united. Why couldn’t the Aussies have both types of submarines?
Well, the Attack class order was for 12 submarines. Australia are having enough trouble keeping their existing six Collins-class subs crewed. Reducing the Attack-class order would have had hefty penalties. Then you have the problem of maintaining two very different types of sub, with very different kit and equipment.
Also, NG and France's behaviour throughout this has not been that good IMO. It's not all Australia's fault.
Then you finally get the issue that the Attack-class didn't really meet their needs in the first place.
It’s harmful bullshit if that’s what you mean by “useful”.
Western democracies have fundamental values - freedom of speech, of assembly, of religion - that our forefathers fought and bled to secure. We must stick up for those values and not kowtow to an authoritarian dictatorship for a couple of brass farthings
What happens to those values of freedom of speech, of assembly and of religion when the representatives of our country get on the blower to Riyadh?
I once heard the PM described as “the man [sic] you hire to do the things that you don’t want to think about but know that they need to be done”. I’ve never been able to track it down again though!
In a perfect world we wouldn’t do deals with Saudi. But they are not an existential threat to us in the way that China could be. Sometimes your enemy’s enemy is your friend (in this case to counterpoint Iran) for geopolitical reasons. Regardless of how distasteful they may be.
And when they overstep even those weak limits - as with that guy in the Saudi embassy in Turkey - then they need to be slapped down
Covid has shown up quite how sparse our weapons against disease are. The vaccines were later then we needed, even fat a brilliantly accelerated development. Therapeutic developments have been very disappointing.
I would like to see a Manhattan Project on therapeutics. The world needs to throw billions into development of drugs and strategies that will help keep people out of hospital from even 'normal' illnesses such as flu.
An issue is that vaccines have been seen to work and, in a couple of cases, vastly profitable. The sector will throw lots of money into vaccines. But vaccines are inevitable delayed; they need to be developed for each individual illness. Therapeutic drugs and techniques can help with many different illnesses that attack in similar ways.
Whilst I agree that your analysis was correct in 2019, where we in the west at least had grown very complacent (the east were better prepared, hence their better early responses to this) I think that we have had our Manhattan project already. We know vastly more about viruses, epidemiology and what works than we ever have. We have had the incredible response of big Pharma in producing a series of successful vaccines in incredibly short time.
Of those by far the most remarkable to me as a layman remains the Novavax vaccine developed by computer modelling of the virus without even bothering to work on the virus itself. The implications of this sort of capability in devising new medicines are just mind blowing both in terms of speed of development and cost. We absolutely need to keep this going but I have no doubt that that sort of tech is going to change all pharma for ever. It is ground breaking. I confidently predict that within the next 30 years more lives will be saved by this than have been lost to Covid.
Two difficulties with JosiasJessop's view:
Can it happen? It hasn't really happened with malaria yet, and that really is number one in the world for effects.
Secondly, the difficulty with all effective treatments is that the better you are at it the longer people live to have multiple. chronic, painful, expensive problems. We have overcome the idea that the NHS would steadily reduce the need for medical services and realise that the more successfully you spend money to keep people alive the more you have to spend to keep them alive even longer.
Our society right now models this exactly, with the additional absurdity that because there are so many old ill people to look after young people can't afford to have children at even replacement levels anywhere in the western world.
Yes, the flaw in the plan is that no one gets out of here alive. Truly effective treatments against something like dementia, for example, would save huge sums in the short term and unending grief but people will die of something else and it won't necessarily be cheap.
Not necessarily. Most modern medicine is about adding life to years rather than years to life, with quality of life and Disability Adjusted Life-years considered very important.
Longevity is not infinitely expandable, so the population age pyramid tends to become columnar rather than pyramid shaped.
There is potential for raising longevity further, but more important is to improve independence in old age. This is one way to square Social Care costs. Healthy elderly folk don't need SC and indeed often contribute economically.
It's not worked that way to date and we are still talking of an average of 27-30% of all medical costs in the last year of life. Unless that changes the problems for the NHS will continue to accrue as society suffers demographic aging.
More anecdata concerning the disintegration of the NHS:
People with cancer forced to go private
In January this year, Steve Deeman in Nottinghamshire was looking at an eight-week delay to have the lesion on his forehead diagnosed. “It was suspicious looking and grew quite rapidly over the next few weeks,” said the 69-year-old retired teacher.
He was referred to a local hospital dermatology department in early March and was given a consultation appointment for May. “I decided I couldn’t wait that long and sought private medical care a few days later,” he said.
Deeman saw a specialist dermatologist who diagnosed the lesion as cancerous and it was removed the next day. His treatment so far has cost about £1,500 but further follow-ups have been recommended which could bring the total to £2,000. “I was fortunate in that I was able to afford treatment but there are a lot of people who wouldn’t be able to.”
When Fabien needed to have a decayed tooth removed in May, his dentist told him that he would have to wait up to three years to have it done on the NHS. In disbelief, the 27-year-old from Edinburgh rang 50 dental practices but without any luck. He had no choice but to go private. Having lost his job during the pandemic, he was on universal credit and had to borrow the £600 from his family.
If you've the means and knowhow to trade in shares then private healthcare groups are probably a good bet. As the latter piece goes on to say, quoting the director of a health think tank,
“There is a big risk that unless government provides adequate funding for the NHS, more and more people will be forced to pay privately, which in turn will undermine middle-class support for a tax-funded NHS.
“It’s not likely that we will end up with a US-style insurance system. But a two-tier system, where the NHS is a residual service for those without the means to pay is a possibility – ultimately these are political choices.”
Certainly there is likely to be a boom in the sector, both from the self pay private market and in terms of outsourcing of NHS work, which is a major source of income to private hospitals. That said the performance of Spire shares hasn't been great recently.
It is curious although the Spire price has been more influenced by take over speculation than anything else. What I find strange is that the private medical sector is not absolutely booming with significant new capital being raised and deployed. It is going to take a decade for the NHS to recover from the backlog now in place and many, many more are going to go private. If you are in pain from a hip or knee and being told to wait 2 or more years for a replacement it is an absolute no brainer if you can afford it. If you are working it even makes economic sense.
The free at the point of delivery service in the NHS has always kept this sector quite small in this country but it just seems inevitable that there is going to be a large expansion. I would expect some of the American players to invest.
The NHS has, of course, been an established fact of life for such a very long time that it simply doesn't occur to a lot of people who might benefit from going private to do so. Private hospitals are either not thought of at all, or bring to mind images of cosmetic vanity procedures and/or being something very exclusive for royalty and rich celebrities.
It takes time for such a mindset to change, but if comfortably off middle-aged and retired folk with reasonably deep pockets find themselves having to wait years for necessary surgery, then change it surely will.
There will be a lot more companies looking at private insurance for staff too, if we see waiting lists for routine treatment keeping people off work for weeks.
There would be a certain irony if just when we are increasing the wrong tax to provide more money to the NHS among much angry commentary the pressure was relieved by an explosion in the funding for private healthcare paid for employers themselves on top.
I see, in news completely unrelated to AUSAUK or whatever the fuck its called, Argentina are getting JF-17s from China via Pakistan. Johnson might get his 𝔽𝕒𝕝𝕜𝕝𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕄𝕠𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥 yet.
Yes, very funny. Ditto your earlier contribution re: Australia.
Your alternative idea being, presumably, that China's neighbours should all accept that they are hopelessly outmatched, that any kind of military establishment is therefore a pointless waste of money, and they should therefore simply roll over?
Abolishing the defence budget would, after all, leave vast amounts of money to spend on the dissemination of Xi Jinping Thought and to create statues and other monuments to His everlasting glory.
I don't think that China is a military threat to anywhere other than Taiwan, which remains unfinished business as far as Xi is concerned. I don't think that anyone but America, Korea or Japan could defend Taiwan.
China's expansion outside its historic borders is economic rather than military, particularly in Africa and other primary producers. If we want to counter that influence then it needs to be an economic and political response rather than a military one.
We need to cut our dependence on Chinese capital and exports, and expand our development and investments in Africa. I don't think that we can do that while running such a massive current account deficit with them, and as @rcs1000 has demonstrated, the way to do that is to up our savings rate. I would also favour a carbon import tax, which would equalise or reverse the financial advantage that China gets from cheap coal power (though this would also hit the USA, Australia and other High CO2 producing countries).
And the Philippines and Japan and Vietnam. They want to control all of the entry points into the South China Sea
More anecdata concerning the disintegration of the NHS:
People with cancer forced to go private
In January this year, Steve Deeman in Nottinghamshire was looking at an eight-week delay to have the lesion on his forehead diagnosed. “It was suspicious looking and grew quite rapidly over the next few weeks,” said the 69-year-old retired teacher.
He was referred to a local hospital dermatology department in early March and was given a consultation appointment for May. “I decided I couldn’t wait that long and sought private medical care a few days later,” he said.
Deeman saw a specialist dermatologist who diagnosed the lesion as cancerous and it was removed the next day. His treatment so far has cost about £1,500 but further follow-ups have been recommended which could bring the total to £2,000. “I was fortunate in that I was able to afford treatment but there are a lot of people who wouldn’t be able to.”
When Fabien needed to have a decayed tooth removed in May, his dentist told him that he would have to wait up to three years to have it done on the NHS. In disbelief, the 27-year-old from Edinburgh rang 50 dental practices but without any luck. He had no choice but to go private. Having lost his job during the pandemic, he was on universal credit and had to borrow the £600 from his family.
If you've the means and knowhow to trade in shares then private healthcare groups are probably a good bet. As the latter piece goes on to say, quoting the director of a health think tank,
“There is a big risk that unless government provides adequate funding for the NHS, more and more people will be forced to pay privately, which in turn will undermine middle-class support for a tax-funded NHS.
“It’s not likely that we will end up with a US-style insurance system. But a two-tier system, where the NHS is a residual service for those without the means to pay is a possibility – ultimately these are political choices.”
Certainly there is likely to be a boom in the sector, both from the self pay private market and in terms of outsourcing of NHS work, which is a major source of income to private hospitals. That said the performance of Spire shares hasn't been great recently.
It is curious although the Spire price has been more influenced by take over speculation than anything else. What I find strange is that the private medical sector is not absolutely booming with significant new capital being raised and deployed. It is going to take a decade for the NHS to recover from the backlog now in place and many, many more are going to go private. If you are in pain from a hip or knee and being told to wait 2 or more years for a replacement it is an absolute no brainer if you can afford it. If you are working it even makes economic sense.
The free at the point of delivery service in the NHS has always kept this sector quite small in this country but it just seems inevitable that there is going to be a large expansion. I would expect some of the American players to invest.
The NHS has, of course, been an established fact of life for such a very long time that it simply doesn't occur to a lot of people who might benefit from going private to do so. Private hospitals are either not thought of at all, or bring to mind images of cosmetic vanity procedures and/or being something very exclusive for royalty and rich celebrities.
It takes time for such a mindset to change, but if comfortably off middle-aged and retired folk with reasonably deep pockets find themselves having to wait years for necessary surgery, then change it surely will.
There will be a lot more companies looking at private insurance for staff too, if we see waiting lists for routine treatment keeping people off work for weeks.
Problem is everybody fishing in the same pool of surgeons. Shorter waits for paying punters means even longer waits for Our Beloved NHS.
It’s ironic and tragic that in a move designed to counter growing Chinese power we have divided the democracies on the security council and thereby weakened us relative to the Chinese.
It’s a shame that they didn’t find a route in the Pacific that kept us united. Why couldn’t the Aussies have both types of submarines?
Well, the Attack class order was for 12 submarines. Australia are having enough trouble keeping their existing six Collins-class subs crewed. Reducing the Attack-class order would have had hefty penalties. Then you have the problem of maintaining two very different types of sub, with very different kit and equipment.
Also, NG and France's behaviour throughout this has not been that good IMO. It's not all Australia's fault.
Then you finally get the issue that the Attack-class didn't really meet their needs in the first place.
It’s harmful bullshit if that’s what you mean by “useful”.
Western democracies have fundamental values - freedom of speech, of assembly, of religion - that our forefathers fought and bled to secure. We must stick up for those values and not kowtow to an authoritarian dictatorship for a couple of brass farthings
There is a whole squadron of RAF aircraft that have the Qatari flag on them in pursuit of brass riyals.
Soon to be joined by a second squadron. Imagine how dickhurt you'd be if that were an EU flag.
I once heard the PM described as “the man [sic] you hire to do the things that you don’t want to think about but know that they need to be done”. I’ve never been able to track it down again though!
In a perfect world we wouldn’t do deals with Saudi. But they are not an existential threat to us in the way that China could be. Sometimes your enemy’s enemy is your friend (in this case to counterpoint Iran) for geopolitical reasons. Regardless of how distasteful they may be.
And when they overstep even those weak limits - as with that guy in the Saudi embassy in Turkey - then they need to be slapped down
In that case I’m glad we can dispense with cant about ‘fundamental’ values.
I think there is genuine worry by those who support the EU just how much this is going to damage not only France's reputation but the wider implications for the EU itself on security and defence
I have not heard a response to the crisis from any EU member, but if the EU was under threat it would be the US they would turn to, not their own non existent defence force
This is the biggest crisis the EU has faced and trying to blame AUKUS will not cut it
That's just nonsense. Conflating the EU and NATO is a cheap jibe which doesn't cut it any more.
Those members of the EU not in NATO (Ireland) and those members of NATO not in the EU (Iceland, Turkey) might see it differently.
I assume nothing about AUKUS changes the US commitment to the defence of western Europe from any aggression in the name of collective defence and security. Washington is still prepared to go to war to defend Riga, Vilnius and even Paris and to call this "the biggest crisis the EU has faced" is absurd hyperbole.
Certainly, compared with the Eurozone crisis of 2008-10, AUKUS is insignificant.
In defence terms it is and is anyone confident that NATO is relevant
The EU is not a military body and never has been. The embryonic WEU and the Franco-German corps were attempts to try to make a pan-European defence force but NATO is and has been a hugely successful alliance.
Is it "relevant"? The Conservatives, the Daily Mail and others keep banging on about the "threat" from Putin, Someone on here yesterday claimed the Russian Army was ready to sweep across Europe and could conquer the whole European landmass up to and including the Channel.
Not convinced and a couple of aircraft flying over the North Sea and a rusty old battleship sailing up the Channel don't exactly give me sleepless nights.
In any case, Putin isn't stupid enough to risk armageddon by trying to annex Estonia so for now NATO remains the primary guarantor of British defence. What AUKUS has done, arguably, is to raise tensions and create a new front line in the Pacific. Is an attempted Chinese invasion of Taiwan analogous to a Russian push into Estonia - it would seem so?
It's not even a solid policy of containment - it's a half-guarantee to a couple of places but, as I argued earlier, if you are serious about containing China (which we aren't), what about guarantees to India, Russia, Vietnam and Afghanistan (all of whom border China as does North Korea of course)?
It's analogous to the Ukraine - we aren't going to rush to Kiev's defence if Putin decides to move in. They aren't in NATO so we're not obliged.
I agree that Putin is not a threat nor do I think is China at present
However, it is clear Australia and the Trans-Pacific do see it as such and AUKUS is the nucleus of a wider cooperation agreement between all those countries in the area to deter China from any consideration of military involvement
Furthermore, there is a trade element in this as CPTPP expands to include the UK and the US, who are reopening talks cancelled by Trump, creating a consumer competitor for Chinese goods
I think it was @Foxy who said we should reduce our purchase of Chinese goods and he is correct on that
Covid has shown up quite how sparse our weapons against disease are. The vaccines were later then we needed, even fat a brilliantly accelerated development. Therapeutic developments have been very disappointing.
I would like to see a Manhattan Project on therapeutics. The world needs to throw billions into development of drugs and strategies that will help keep people out of hospital from even 'normal' illnesses such as flu.
An issue is that vaccines have been seen to work and, in a couple of cases, vastly profitable. The sector will throw lots of money into vaccines. But vaccines are inevitable delayed; they need to be developed for each individual illness. Therapeutic drugs and techniques can help with many different illnesses that attack in similar ways.
Whilst I agree that your analysis was correct in 2019, where we in the west at least had grown very complacent (the east were better prepared, hence their better early responses to this) I think that we have had our Manhattan project already. We know vastly more about viruses, epidemiology and what works than we ever have. We have had the incredible response of big Pharma in producing a series of successful vaccines in incredibly short time.
Of those by far the most remarkable to me as a layman remains the Novavax vaccine developed by computer modelling of the virus without even bothering to work on the virus itself. The implications of this sort of capability in devising new medicines are just mind blowing both in terms of speed of development and cost. We absolutely need to keep this going but I have no doubt that that sort of tech is going to change all pharma for ever. It is ground breaking. I confidently predict that within the next 30 years more lives will be saved by this than have been lost to Covid.
Two difficulties with JosiasJessop's view:
Can it happen? It hasn't really happened with malaria yet, and that really is number one in the world for effects.
Secondly, the difficulty with all effective treatments is that the better you are at it the longer people live to have multiple. chronic, painful, expensive problems. We have overcome the idea that the NHS would steadily reduce the need for medical services and realise that the more successfully you spend money to keep people alive the more you have to spend to keep them alive even longer.
Our society right now models this exactly, with the additional absurdity that because there are so many old ill people to look after young people can't afford to have children at even replacement levels anywhere in the western world.
Yes, the flaw in the plan is that no one gets out of here alive. Truly effective treatments against something like dementia, for example, would save huge sums in the short term and unending grief but people will die of something else and it won't necessarily be cheap.
Not necessarily. Most modern medicine is about adding life to years rather than years to life, with quality of life and Disability Adjusted Life-years considered very important.
Longevity is not infinitely expandable, so the population age pyramid tends to become columnar rather than pyramid shaped.
There is potential for raising longevity further, but more important is to improve independence in old age. This is one way to square Social Care costs. Healthy elderly folk don't need SC and indeed often contribute economically.
It's not worked that way to date and we are still talking of an average of 27-30% of all medical costs in the last year of life. Unless that changes the problems for the NHS will continue to accrue as society suffers demographic aging.
In the last few years of life there's quite an overlap between Health and Social Care. It might be paid for as Health, but it could easily be classed as Social. My favourite example, which I've quoted here before, is a debate at which I was present, over the costs of a peripatetic Elderly Persons Chiropody service. It was argued, I thought persuasively, that if elderly people could be kept mobile they'd be able to take exercise and be overall healthier. They might even not fall catastrophically as often as now. Unfortunately, IMHO, the decision came down to short term funding and the service was withdrawn.
Another example of rhetoric missing reality. Much fanfare last week with the news London offices were apparently now full again with people returning to work at desks in vast numbers amidst signs London was back to normal and all this usual positive propaganda.
The truth, in terms of passenger transport numbers, is very different. On the tube, passenger numbers reached 54% of pre-Covid on Thursday 9th. The numbers travelling have been pretty static since mid-August. There's been no mass return at least on the Underground.
The numbers are improving at the weekend - up to 70% of pre-Covid numbers so obviously there are those who re getting out and about for leisure (presumably) and that's my anecdotal evidence as well. Yet there's been no attempt to re-balance the service by putting more trains on at the weekend and taking off some of the very quiet off-peak weekday services (I forgot, they can't, condition of the Government bailout etc).
Indeed, when a rail company like South-West Railways tries to argue reduced passenger numbers don't justify maintaining current levels of service, they get pilloried with local Conservative County Councillors and Liberal Democrat District Councillors all lining up to be the passengers' friend and champion:
The Treasury is driving this - as the Government looks to turn off the financial lifeline to train companies which led to empty trains running up and down the rails day after day, the train companies are trying to figure out what a 40% reduction in peak traffic means longer term for their operating model and viability. Inevitably, it means fewer trains across the network and some stations will see a reduced train service.
Yes. The "Covid is over, everyone back to work plebs" rhetoric sharply contrasts with the rapid work to reduce rail services long term into cities. On topic there won't be another lockdown even if the NHS does fall over this winter as many warn it may. Even if the government tried to impose one people would ignore it- unless there was a catastrophic new variant that rendered the vaccines useless.
What is very clear from usage patterns is that punters are much happier travelling for leisure than they are work. Indeed reductions in foreign holidays plus a change of working patterns seems to have turbocharged domestic leisure activities.
It's not the plebs that need to get back to work, they have been working throughout, it is the elite and comfortably off.
I once heard the PM described as “the man [sic] you hire to do the things that you don’t want to think about but know that they need to be done”. I’ve never been able to track it down again though!
In a perfect world we wouldn’t do deals with Saudi. But they are not an existential threat to us in the way that China could be. Sometimes your enemy’s enemy is your friend (in this case to counterpoint Iran) for geopolitical reasons. Regardless of how distasteful they may be.
And when they overstep even those weak limits - as with that guy in the Saudi embassy in Turkey - then they need to be slapped down
In that case I’m glad we can dispense with cant about ‘fundamental’ values.
Everyone - government, organisation and individual - talks about fundamental values (or just values). There's always a point where we waive them, but some do it sooner and more blatantly than others is all.
It’s ironic and tragic that in a move designed to counter growing Chinese power we have divided the democracies on the security council and thereby weakened us relative to the Chinese.
It’s a shame that they didn’t find a route in the Pacific that kept us united. Why couldn’t the Aussies have both types of submarines?
Well, the Attack class order was for 12 submarines. Australia are having enough trouble keeping their existing six Collins-class subs crewed. Reducing the Attack-class order would have had hefty penalties. Then you have the problem of maintaining two very different types of sub, with very different kit and equipment.
Also, NG and France's behaviour throughout this has not been that good IMO. It's not all Australia's fault.
Then you finally get the issue that the Attack-class didn't really meet their needs in the first place.
It’s harmful bullshit if that’s what you mean by “useful”.
Western democracies have fundamental values - freedom of speech, of assembly, of religion - that our forefathers fought and bled to secure. We must stick up for those values and not kowtow to an authoritarian dictatorship for a couple of brass farthings
There is a whole squadron of RAF aircraft that have the Qatari flag on them in pursuit of brass riyals.
Soon to be joined by a second squadron. Imagine how dickhurt you'd be if that were an EU flag.
Covid has shown up quite how sparse our weapons against disease are. The vaccines were later then we needed, even fat a brilliantly accelerated development. Therapeutic developments have been very disappointing.
I would like to see a Manhattan Project on therapeutics. The world needs to throw billions into development of drugs and strategies that will help keep people out of hospital from even 'normal' illnesses such as flu.
An issue is that vaccines have been seen to work and, in a couple of cases, vastly profitable. The sector will throw lots of money into vaccines. But vaccines are inevitable delayed; they need to be developed for each individual illness. Therapeutic drugs and techniques can help with many different illnesses that attack in similar ways.
Whilst I agree that your analysis was correct in 2019, where we in the west at least had grown very complacent (the east were better prepared, hence their better early responses to this) I think that we have had our Manhattan project already. We know vastly more about viruses, epidemiology and what works than we ever have. We have had the incredible response of big Pharma in producing a series of successful vaccines in incredibly short time.
Of those by far the most remarkable to me as a layman remains the Novavax vaccine developed by computer modelling of the virus without even bothering to work on the virus itself. The implications of this sort of capability in devising new medicines are just mind blowing both in terms of speed of development and cost. We absolutely need to keep this going but I have no doubt that that sort of tech is going to change all pharma for ever. It is ground breaking. I confidently predict that within the next 30 years more lives will be saved by this than have been lost to Covid.
Two difficulties with JosiasJessop's view:
Can it happen? It hasn't really happened with malaria yet, and that really is number one in the world for effects.
Secondly, the difficulty with all effective treatments is that the better you are at it the longer people live to have multiple. chronic, painful, expensive problems. We have overcome the idea that the NHS would steadily reduce the need for medical services and realise that the more successfully you spend money to keep people alive the more you have to spend to keep them alive even longer.
Our society right now models this exactly, with the additional absurdity that because there are so many old ill people to look after young people can't afford to have children at even replacement levels anywhere in the western world.
Yes, the flaw in the plan is that no one gets out of here alive. Truly effective treatments against something like dementia, for example, would save huge sums in the short term and unending grief but people will die of something else and it won't necessarily be cheap.
Not necessarily. Most modern medicine is about adding life to years rather than years to life, with quality of life and Disability Adjusted Life-years considered very important.
Longevity is not infinitely expandable, so the population age pyramid tends to become columnar rather than pyramid shaped.
There is potential for raising longevity further, but more important is to improve independence in old age. This is one way to square Social Care costs. Healthy elderly folk don't need SC and indeed often contribute economically.
I heartily agree with all these thoughts but as to outcomes I shall wait and see. What I see now is both families and state systems overwhelmed by care for the elderly. But after all Foxy's good outcomes there are still too few young people in proportion to older ones, where nowhere in the west has births at replacement levels.
It’s ironic and tragic that in a move designed to counter growing Chinese power we have divided the democracies on the security council and thereby weakened us relative to the Chinese.
It’s a shame that they didn’t find a route in the Pacific that kept us united. Why couldn’t the Aussies have both types of submarines?
Well, the Attack class order was for 12 submarines. Australia are having enough trouble keeping their existing six Collins-class subs crewed. Reducing the Attack-class order would have had hefty penalties. Then you have the problem of maintaining two very different types of sub, with very different kit and equipment.
Also, NG and France's behaviour throughout this has not been that good IMO. It's not all Australia's fault.
Then you finally get the issue that the Attack-class didn't really meet their needs in the first place.
It’s harmful bullshit if that’s what you mean by “useful”.
Western democracies have fundamental values - freedom of speech, of assembly, of religion - that our forefathers fought and bled to secure. We must stick up for those values and not kowtow to an authoritarian dictatorship for a couple of brass farthings
What happens to those values of freedom of speech, of assembly and of religion when the representatives of our country get on the blower to Riyadh?
I once heard the PM described as “the man [sic] you hire to do the things that you don’t want to think about but know that they need to be done”. I’ve never been able to track it down again though!
In a perfect world we wouldn’t do deals with Saudi. But they are not an existential threat to us in the way that China could be. Sometimes your enemy’s enemy is your friend (in this case to counterpoint Iran) for geopolitical reasons. Regardless of how distasteful they may be.
And when they overstep even those weak limits - as with that guy in the Saudi embassy in Turkey - then they need to be slapped down
I'm not against the sort of realpolitik that you describe when it's *necessary*, though if so I should prefer it not to be accompanied about self-righteous outrage about our perceived opponents.
That said, I think "necessary" should be defined as being faced with existential threats. Assisting the Saudis to bomb Yemen back to medieval times and the edge of famine is not necessary and we shouldn't have been doing it. Similarly, I think we *should* condemn the treatment of Uighurs and the represion of women. The default should be freedom to express our views. Only if we face a sort of Stalin vs Hitler choice should we side with the lesser evil.
By the way, I don't dislike Johnson. But he is absolutely the last person I'd call if there was something unpleasant that needed someone to get on with doing quickly. That's not his style at all. But if I wanted a fraught situation calmed with some affable bluster and a few meaningless gestures. Then yes, absolutely.
More anecdata concerning the disintegration of the NHS:
People with cancer forced to go private
In January this year, Steve Deeman in Nottinghamshire was looking at an eight-week delay to have the lesion on his forehead diagnosed. “It was suspicious looking and grew quite rapidly over the next few weeks,” said the 69-year-old retired teacher.
He was referred to a local hospital dermatology department in early March and was given a consultation appointment for May. “I decided I couldn’t wait that long and sought private medical care a few days later,” he said.
Deeman saw a specialist dermatologist who diagnosed the lesion as cancerous and it was removed the next day. His treatment so far has cost about £1,500 but further follow-ups have been recommended which could bring the total to £2,000. “I was fortunate in that I was able to afford treatment but there are a lot of people who wouldn’t be able to.”
When Fabien needed to have a decayed tooth removed in May, his dentist told him that he would have to wait up to three years to have it done on the NHS. In disbelief, the 27-year-old from Edinburgh rang 50 dental practices but without any luck. He had no choice but to go private. Having lost his job during the pandemic, he was on universal credit and had to borrow the £600 from his family.
If you've the means and knowhow to trade in shares then private healthcare groups are probably a good bet. As the latter piece goes on to say, quoting the director of a health think tank,
“There is a big risk that unless government provides adequate funding for the NHS, more and more people will be forced to pay privately, which in turn will undermine middle-class support for a tax-funded NHS.
“It’s not likely that we will end up with a US-style insurance system. But a two-tier system, where the NHS is a residual service for those without the means to pay is a possibility – ultimately these are political choices.”
Certainly there is likely to be a boom in the sector, both from the self pay private market and in terms of outsourcing of NHS work, which is a major source of income to private hospitals. That said the performance of Spire shares hasn't been great recently.
It is curious although the Spire price has been more influenced by take over speculation than anything else. What I find strange is that the private medical sector is not absolutely booming with significant new capital being raised and deployed. It is going to take a decade for the NHS to recover from the backlog now in place and many, many more are going to go private. If you are in pain from a hip or knee and being told to wait 2 or more years for a replacement it is an absolute no brainer if you can afford it. If you are working it even makes economic sense.
The free at the point of delivery service in the NHS has always kept this sector quite small in this country but it just seems inevitable that there is going to be a large expansion. I would expect some of the American players to invest.
The NHS has, of course, been an established fact of life for such a very long time that it simply doesn't occur to a lot of people who might benefit from going private to do so. Private hospitals are either not thought of at all, or bring to mind images of cosmetic vanity procedures and/or being something very exclusive for royalty and rich celebrities.
It takes time for such a mindset to change, but if comfortably off middle-aged and retired folk with reasonably deep pockets find themselves having to wait years for necessary surgery, then change it surely will.
There will be a lot more companies looking at private insurance for staff too, if we see waiting lists for routine treatment keeping people off work for weeks.
Problem is everybody fishing in the same pool of surgeons. Shorter waits for paying punters means even longer waits for Our Beloved NHS.
Yes and no. We can import more surgeons if required, and we can make better use of facilities. Even if we can keep a few older surgeons from retiring for a couple of years, that helps.
But yes, if a doctor can earn £500 a day from the NHS, or £1,000 a day from BUPA, they’re probably going to gravitate towards the private option over time - which, if the NHS isn’t careful, will lead to further increased waiting times.
I once heard the PM described as “the man [sic] you hire to do the things that you don’t want to think about but know that they need to be done”. I’ve never been able to track it down again though!
In a perfect world we wouldn’t do deals with Saudi. But they are not an existential threat to us in the way that China could be. Sometimes your enemy’s enemy is your friend (in this case to counterpoint Iran) for geopolitical reasons. Regardless of how distasteful they may be.
And when they overstep even those weak limits - as with that guy in the Saudi embassy in Turkey - then they need to be slapped down
In that case I’m glad we can dispense with cant about ‘fundamental’ values.
Everyone - government, organisation and individual - talks about fundamental values (or just values). There's always a point where we waive them, but some do it sooner and more blatantly than others is all.
This morning Charles seems to have waived them in a couple of posts which seems..quick.
Another example of rhetoric missing reality. Much fanfare last week with the news London offices were apparently now full again with people returning to work at desks in vast numbers amidst signs London was back to normal and all this usual positive propaganda.
The truth, in terms of passenger transport numbers, is very different. On the tube, passenger numbers reached 54% of pre-Covid on Thursday 9th. The numbers travelling have been pretty static since mid-August. There's been no mass return at least on the Underground.
The numbers are improving at the weekend - up to 70% of pre-Covid numbers so obviously there are those who re getting out and about for leisure (presumably) and that's my anecdotal evidence as well. Yet there's been no attempt to re-balance the service by putting more trains on at the weekend and taking off some of the very quiet off-peak weekday services (I forgot, they can't, condition of the Government bailout etc).
Indeed, when a rail company like South-West Railways tries to argue reduced passenger numbers don't justify maintaining current levels of service, they get pilloried with local Conservative County Councillors and Liberal Democrat District Councillors all lining up to be the passengers' friend and champion:
The Treasury is driving this - as the Government looks to turn off the financial lifeline to train companies which led to empty trains running up and down the rails day after day, the train companies are trying to figure out what a 40% reduction in peak traffic means longer term for their operating model and viability. Inevitably, it means fewer trains across the network and some stations will see a reduced train service.
Yes. The "Covid is over, everyone back to work plebs" rhetoric sharply contrasts with the rapid work to reduce rail services long term into cities. On topic there won't be another lockdown even if the NHS does fall over this winter as many warn it may. Even if the government tried to impose one people would ignore it- unless there was a catastrophic new variant that rendered the vaccines useless.
What is very clear from usage patterns is that punters are much happier travelling for leisure than they are work. Indeed reductions in foreign holidays plus a change of working patterns seems to have turbocharged domestic leisure activities.
The DfT publish on a weekly basis estimates of the daily use of transport compared with pre covid times.
The latest numbers for the week commencing 6th September suggest that cars are approximately at 95% (but upto 110% over the weekend), but light and heavy goods vehicles are at 108%.
National Rail is only at 63%, whilst the Tube is at 53% and London Busses at 70%. Tubes are up to about 65% over the weekend, whilst rail declines to 58%.
From a personal perspective, I had a trip into London this week for the first time in around 18 months. A normal peak commuter train which would normally be crushed loaded pre covid had around 50% of seats empty. Ok this was Friday, but it indicates the scale of the problem for train companies and hence the Goverment as the DfT have full economic control.
This is where rhetoric will once again splat against the wall of reality. It is clear that work practices and thus travel patterns have changed. The status quo ante is gone. So the network needs to be geared more around leisure than commuting. The problem is that the DfT continue to micromanage to death the network and now have complete control.
Based on the idiocy of the government I won't be surprised to see them continue to order the network to allow for commuting that doesn't exist any more in an increasingly forlorn attempt to force companies and employees into office working so they can pay exorbitant ticket prices and buy twatty coffee from tax dodgers. We need a refocus away from mad intense commuter frequency and crap to no service outside that.
The latest numbers for the week commencing 6th September suggest that cars are approximately at 95% (but upto 110% over the weekend), but light and heavy goods vehicles are at 108%.
National Rail is only at 63%, whilst the Tube is at 53% and London Busses at 70%. Tubes are up to about 65% over the weekend, whilst rail declines to 58%.
From a personal perspective, I had a trip into London this week for the first time in around 18 months. A normal peak commuter train which would normally be crushed loaded pre covid had around 50% of seats empty. Ok this was Friday, but it indicates the scale of the problem for train companies and hence the Goverment as the DfT have full economic control.
Facts instead of just anecdotes? You must be new here... Thanks!
I once heard the PM described as “the man [sic] you hire to do the things that you don’t want to think about but know that they need to be done”. I’ve never been able to track it down again though!
In a perfect world we wouldn’t do deals with Saudi. But they are not an existential threat to us in the way that China could be. Sometimes your enemy’s enemy is your friend (in this case to counterpoint Iran) for geopolitical reasons. Regardless of how distasteful they may be.
And when they overstep even those weak limits - as with that guy in the Saudi embassy in Turkey - then they need to be slapped down
In that case I’m glad we can dispense with cant about ‘fundamental’ values.
Everyone - government, organisation and individual - talks about fundamental values (or just values). There's always a point where we waive them, but some do it sooner and more blatantly than others is all.
This morning Charles seems to have waived them in a couple of posts which seems..quick.
Another example of rhetoric missing reality. Much fanfare last week with the news London offices were apparently now full again with people returning to work at desks in vast numbers amidst signs London was back to normal and all this usual positive propaganda.
The truth, in terms of passenger transport numbers, is very different. On the tube, passenger numbers reached 54% of pre-Covid on Thursday 9th. The numbers travelling have been pretty static since mid-August. There's been no mass return at least on the Underground.
The numbers are improving at the weekend - up to 70% of pre-Covid numbers so obviously there are those who re getting out and about for leisure (presumably) and that's my anecdotal evidence as well. Yet there's been no attempt to re-balance the service by putting more trains on at the weekend and taking off some of the very quiet off-peak weekday services (I forgot, they can't, condition of the Government bailout etc).
Indeed, when a rail company like South-West Railways tries to argue reduced passenger numbers don't justify maintaining current levels of service, they get pilloried with local Conservative County Councillors and Liberal Democrat District Councillors all lining up to be the passengers' friend and champion:
The Treasury is driving this - as the Government looks to turn off the financial lifeline to train companies which led to empty trains running up and down the rails day after day, the train companies are trying to figure out what a 40% reduction in peak traffic means longer term for their operating model and viability. Inevitably, it means fewer trains across the network and some stations will see a reduced train service.
Morning. This has been raised elsewhere this week.
The sharp decline in rail pax transport due to national lock-downs & everyone working from home seems to have gone unnoticed. Does anyone know the economic consequences for the railways? they will have lost a lot of income. Quote Tweet
Largest decrease in the number of #rail #passengers in Q1 2021 compared with Q1 2020: 🇮🇪 Ireland (-85%) 🇬🇷 Greece (-66%) 🇸🇰 Slovakia (-60%) 🇳🇱 the Netherlands (-59%) 🇩🇰 Denmark (-53%) 🚄 Lowest: 🇸🇮 Slovenia (-11%)
Another example of rhetoric missing reality. Much fanfare last week with the news London offices were apparently now full again with people returning to work at desks in vast numbers amidst signs London was back to normal and all this usual positive propaganda.
The truth, in terms of passenger transport numbers, is very different. On the tube, passenger numbers reached 54% of pre-Covid on Thursday 9th. The numbers travelling have been pretty static since mid-August. There's been no mass return at least on the Underground.
The numbers are improving at the weekend - up to 70% of pre-Covid numbers so obviously there are those who re getting out and about for leisure (presumably) and that's my anecdotal evidence as well. Yet there's been no attempt to re-balance the service by putting more trains on at the weekend and taking off some of the very quiet off-peak weekday services (I forgot, they can't, condition of the Government bailout etc).
Indeed, when a rail company like South-West Railways tries to argue reduced passenger numbers don't justify maintaining current levels of service, they get pilloried with local Conservative County Councillors and Liberal Democrat District Councillors all lining up to be the passengers' friend and champion:
The Treasury is driving this - as the Government looks to turn off the financial lifeline to train companies which led to empty trains running up and down the rails day after day, the train companies are trying to figure out what a 40% reduction in peak traffic means longer term for their operating model and viability. Inevitably, it means fewer trains across the network and some stations will see a reduced train service.
Yes. The "Covid is over, everyone back to work plebs" rhetoric sharply contrasts with the rapid work to reduce rail services long term into cities. On topic there won't be another lockdown even if the NHS does fall over this winter as many warn it may. Even if the government tried to impose one people would ignore it- unless there was a catastrophic new variant that rendered the vaccines useless.
What is very clear from usage patterns is that punters are much happier travelling for leisure than they are work. Indeed reductions in foreign holidays plus a change of working patterns seems to have turbocharged domestic leisure activities.
The DfT publish on a weekly basis estimates of the daily use of transport compared with pre covid times.
The latest numbers for the week commencing 6th September suggest that cars are approximately at 95% (but upto 110% over the weekend), but light and heavy goods vehicles are at 108%.
National Rail is only at 63%, whilst the Tube is at 53% and London Busses at 70%. Tubes are up to about 65% over the weekend, whilst rail declines to 58%.
From a personal perspective, I had a trip into London this week for the first time in around 18 months. A normal peak commuter train which would normally be crushed loaded pre covid had around 50% of seats empty. Ok this was Friday, but it indicates the scale of the problem for train companies and hence the Goverment as the DfT have full economic control.
An interesting list, thanks.
I would be interested to know if anyone’s burrowed into the data. That 63%, for example - how much of the lost third is commuter travel? Does it affect longer distance services? What about freight loads?
Yes, very funny. Ditto your earlier contribution re: Australia.
Your alternative idea being, presumably, that China's neighbours should all accept that they are hopelessly outmatched, that any kind of military establishment is therefore a pointless waste of money, and they should therefore simply roll over?
Abolishing the defence budget would, after all, leave vast amounts of money to spend on the dissemination of Xi Jinping Thought and to create statues and other monuments to His everlasting glory.
I don't think that China is a military threat to anywhere other than Taiwan, which remains unfinished business as far as Xi is concerned. I don't think that anyone but America, Korea or Japan could defend Taiwan.
China's expansion outside its historic borders is economic rather than military, particularly in Africa and other primary producers. If we want to counter that influence then it needs to be an economic and political response rather than a military one.
We need to cut our dependence on Chinese capital and exports, and expand our development and investments in Africa. I don't think that we can do that while running such a massive current account deficit with them, and as @rcs1000 has demonstrated, the way to do that is to up our savings rate. I would also favour a carbon import tax, which would equalise or reverse the financial advantage that China gets from cheap coal power (though this would also hit the USA, Australia and other High CO2 producing countries).
None of these are as economically important as Taiwan but China currently claims territory already claimed by The Philippines, Vietnam, Japan and India. They're gradually ratcheting up pressure in all of them as far as I can tell. I think they'd take any of these by military force if they could do it unopposed.
Another example of rhetoric missing reality. Much fanfare last week with the news London offices were apparently now full again with people returning to work at desks in vast numbers amidst signs London was back to normal and all this usual positive propaganda.
The truth, in terms of passenger transport numbers, is very different. On the tube, passenger numbers reached 54% of pre-Covid on Thursday 9th. The numbers travelling have been pretty static since mid-August. There's been no mass return at least on the Underground.
The numbers are improving at the weekend - up to 70% of pre-Covid numbers so obviously there are those who re getting out and about for leisure (presumably) and that's my anecdotal evidence as well. Yet there's been no attempt to re-balance the service by putting more trains on at the weekend and taking off some of the very quiet off-peak weekday services (I forgot, they can't, condition of the Government bailout etc).
Indeed, when a rail company like South-West Railways tries to argue reduced passenger numbers don't justify maintaining current levels of service, they get pilloried with local Conservative County Councillors and Liberal Democrat District Councillors all lining up to be the passengers' friend and champion:
The Treasury is driving this - as the Government looks to turn off the financial lifeline to train companies which led to empty trains running up and down the rails day after day, the train companies are trying to figure out what a 40% reduction in peak traffic means longer term for their operating model and viability. Inevitably, it means fewer trains across the network and some stations will see a reduced train service.
Yes. The "Covid is over, everyone back to work plebs" rhetoric sharply contrasts with the rapid work to reduce rail services long term into cities. On topic there won't be another lockdown even if the NHS does fall over this winter as many warn it may. Even if the government tried to impose one people would ignore it- unless there was a catastrophic new variant that rendered the vaccines useless.
What is very clear from usage patterns is that punters are much happier travelling for leisure than they are work. Indeed reductions in foreign holidays plus a change of working patterns seems to have turbocharged domestic leisure activities.
The DfT publish on a weekly basis estimates of the daily use of transport compared with pre covid times.
The latest numbers for the week commencing 6th September suggest that cars are approximately at 95% (but upto 110% over the weekend), but light and heavy goods vehicles are at 108%.
National Rail is only at 63%, whilst the Tube is at 53% and London Busses at 70%. Tubes are up to about 65% over the weekend, whilst rail declines to 58%.
From a personal perspective, I had a trip into London this week for the first time in around 18 months. A normal peak commuter train which would normally be crushed loaded pre covid had around 50% of seats empty. Ok this was Friday, but it indicates the scale of the problem for train companies and hence the Goverment as the DfT have full economic control.
This is where rhetoric will once again splat against the wall of reality. It is clear that work practices and thus travel patterns have changed. The status quo ante is gone. So the network needs to be geared more around leisure than commuting. The problem is that the DfT continue to micromanage to death the network and now have complete control.
Based on the idiocy of the government I won't be surprised to see them continue to order the network to allow for commuting that doesn't exist any more in an increasingly forlorn attempt to force companies and employees into office working so they can pay exorbitant ticket prices and buy twatty coffee from tax dodgers. We need a refocus away from mad intense commuter frequency and crap to no service outside that.
...and the Labour party will enthusiastically support the retention of a full commuting service because rail unions...
Met some people in City Thursday night. Not far from my office, though haven't been back there yet. The main casualties of WFH have been the smaller, more independent places.
The pubs seem to be doing well - down on what a Thursday used to be like, but actually surprising.
Another example of rhetoric missing reality. Much fanfare last week with the news London offices were apparently now full again with people returning to work at desks in vast numbers amidst signs London was back to normal and all this usual positive propaganda.
The truth, in terms of passenger transport numbers, is very different. On the tube, passenger numbers reached 54% of pre-Covid on Thursday 9th. The numbers travelling have been pretty static since mid-August. There's been no mass return at least on the Underground.
The numbers are improving at the weekend - up to 70% of pre-Covid numbers so obviously there are those who re getting out and about for leisure (presumably) and that's my anecdotal evidence as well. Yet there's been no attempt to re-balance the service by putting more trains on at the weekend and taking off some of the very quiet off-peak weekday services (I forgot, they can't, condition of the Government bailout etc).
Indeed, when a rail company like South-West Railways tries to argue reduced passenger numbers don't justify maintaining current levels of service, they get pilloried with local Conservative County Councillors and Liberal Democrat District Councillors all lining up to be the passengers' friend and champion:
The Treasury is driving this - as the Government looks to turn off the financial lifeline to train companies which led to empty trains running up and down the rails day after day, the train companies are trying to figure out what a 40% reduction in peak traffic means longer term for their operating model and viability. Inevitably, it means fewer trains across the network and some stations will see a reduced train service.
Yes. The "Covid is over, everyone back to work plebs" rhetoric sharply contrasts with the rapid work to reduce rail services long term into cities. On topic there won't be another lockdown even if the NHS does fall over this winter as many warn it may. Even if the government tried to impose one people would ignore it- unless there was a catastrophic new variant that rendered the vaccines useless.
What is very clear from usage patterns is that punters are much happier travelling for leisure than they are work. Indeed reductions in foreign holidays plus a change of working patterns seems to have turbocharged domestic leisure activities.
The DfT publish on a weekly basis estimates of the daily use of transport compared with pre covid times.
The latest numbers for the week commencing 6th September suggest that cars are approximately at 95% (but upto 110% over the weekend), but light and heavy goods vehicles are at 108%.
National Rail is only at 63%, whilst the Tube is at 53% and London Busses at 70%. Tubes are up to about 65% over the weekend, whilst rail declines to 58%.
From a personal perspective, I had a trip into London this week for the first time in around 18 months. A normal peak commuter train which would normally be crushed loaded pre covid had around 50% of seats empty. Ok this was Friday, but it indicates the scale of the problem for train companies and hence the Goverment as the DfT have full economic control.
An interesting list, thanks.
I would be interested to know if anyone’s burrowed into the data. That 63%, for example - how much of the lost third is commuter travel? Does it affect longer distance services? What about freight loads?
Another example of rhetoric missing reality. Much fanfare last week with the news London offices were apparently now full again with people returning to work at desks in vast numbers amidst signs London was back to normal and all this usual positive propaganda.
The truth, in terms of passenger transport numbers, is very different. On the tube, passenger numbers reached 54% of pre-Covid on Thursday 9th. The numbers travelling have been pretty static since mid-August. There's been no mass return at least on the Underground.
The numbers are improving at the weekend - up to 70% of pre-Covid numbers so obviously there are those who re getting out and about for leisure (presumably) and that's my anecdotal evidence as well. Yet there's been no attempt to re-balance the service by putting more trains on at the weekend and taking off some of the very quiet off-peak weekday services (I forgot, they can't, condition of the Government bailout etc).
Indeed, when a rail company like South-West Railways tries to argue reduced passenger numbers don't justify maintaining current levels of service, they get pilloried with local Conservative County Councillors and Liberal Democrat District Councillors all lining up to be the passengers' friend and champion:
The Treasury is driving this - as the Government looks to turn off the financial lifeline to train companies which led to empty trains running up and down the rails day after day, the train companies are trying to figure out what a 40% reduction in peak traffic means longer term for their operating model and viability. Inevitably, it means fewer trains across the network and some stations will see a reduced train service.
Yes. The "Covid is over, everyone back to work plebs" rhetoric sharply contrasts with the rapid work to reduce rail services long term into cities. On topic there won't be another lockdown even if the NHS does fall over this winter as many warn it may. Even if the government tried to impose one people would ignore it- unless there was a catastrophic new variant that rendered the vaccines useless.
What is very clear from usage patterns is that punters are much happier travelling for leisure than they are work. Indeed reductions in foreign holidays plus a change of working patterns seems to have turbocharged domestic leisure activities.
The DfT publish on a weekly basis estimates of the daily use of transport compared with pre covid times.
The latest numbers for the week commencing 6th September suggest that cars are approximately at 95% (but upto 110% over the weekend), but light and heavy goods vehicles are at 108%.
National Rail is only at 63%, whilst the Tube is at 53% and London Busses at 70%. Tubes are up to about 65% over the weekend, whilst rail declines to 58%.
From a personal perspective, I had a trip into London this week for the first time in around 18 months. A normal peak commuter train which would normally be crushed loaded pre covid had around 50% of seats empty. Ok this was Friday, but it indicates the scale of the problem for train companies and hence the Goverment as the DfT have full economic control.
This is where rhetoric will once again splat against the wall of reality. It is clear that work practices and thus travel patterns have changed. The status quo ante is gone. So the network needs to be geared more around leisure than commuting. The problem is that the DfT continue to micromanage to death the network and now have complete control.
Based on the idiocy of the government I won't be surprised to see them continue to order the network to allow for commuting that doesn't exist any more in an increasingly forlorn attempt to force companies and employees into office working so they can pay exorbitant ticket prices and buy twatty coffee from tax dodgers. We need a refocus away from mad intense commuter frequency and crap to no service outside that.
Exhibit A: the rotten service we're offered from our suburban station. Full roster of half-empty commuter services operating during the week. Saturday: at least half the scheduled trains habitually cancelled (so those that are left are completely jam packed solid.) And that's on the weekends when they haven't actually shut parts of the line and laid on the hated replacement buses, because they decided that now would be a good time to dig up the tracks. As is the case today.
Market conditions have been completely transformed yet the service is still configured as if we were living in 2019. Go figure.
More anecdata concerning the disintegration of the NHS:
People with cancer forced to go private
In January this year, Steve Deeman in Nottinghamshire was looking at an eight-week delay to have the lesion on his forehead diagnosed. “It was suspicious looking and grew quite rapidly over the next few weeks,” said the 69-year-old retired teacher.
He was referred to a local hospital dermatology department in early March and was given a consultation appointment for May. “I decided I couldn’t wait that long and sought private medical care a few days later,” he said.
Deeman saw a specialist dermatologist who diagnosed the lesion as cancerous and it was removed the next day. His treatment so far has cost about £1,500 but further follow-ups have been recommended which could bring the total to £2,000. “I was fortunate in that I was able to afford treatment but there are a lot of people who wouldn’t be able to.”
When Fabien needed to have a decayed tooth removed in May, his dentist told him that he would have to wait up to three years to have it done on the NHS. In disbelief, the 27-year-old from Edinburgh rang 50 dental practices but without any luck. He had no choice but to go private. Having lost his job during the pandemic, he was on universal credit and had to borrow the £600 from his family.
If you've the means and knowhow to trade in shares then private healthcare groups are probably a good bet. As the latter piece goes on to say, quoting the director of a health think tank,
“There is a big risk that unless government provides adequate funding for the NHS, more and more people will be forced to pay privately, which in turn will undermine middle-class support for a tax-funded NHS.
“It’s not likely that we will end up with a US-style insurance system. But a two-tier system, where the NHS is a residual service for those without the means to pay is a possibility – ultimately these are political choices.”
Certainly there is likely to be a boom in the sector, both from the self pay private market and in terms of outsourcing of NHS work, which is a major source of income to private hospitals. That said the performance of Spire shares hasn't been great recently.
It is curious although the Spire price has been more influenced by take over speculation than anything else. What I find strange is that the private medical sector is not absolutely booming with significant new capital being raised and deployed. It is going to take a decade for the NHS to recover from the backlog now in place and many, many more are going to go private. If you are in pain from a hip or knee and being told to wait 2 or more years for a replacement it is an absolute no brainer if you can afford it. If you are working it even makes economic sense.
The free at the point of delivery service in the NHS has always kept this sector quite small in this country but it just seems inevitable that there is going to be a large expansion. I would expect some of the American players to invest.
The NHS has, of course, been an established fact of life for such a very long time that it simply doesn't occur to a lot of people who might benefit from going private to do so. Private hospitals are either not thought of at all, or bring to mind images of cosmetic vanity procedures and/or being something very exclusive for royalty and rich celebrities.
It takes time for such a mindset to change, but if comfortably off middle-aged and retired folk with reasonably deep pockets find themselves having to wait years for necessary surgery, then change it surely will.
There will be a lot more companies looking at private insurance for staff too, if we see waiting lists for routine treatment keeping people off work for weeks.
Problem is everybody fishing in the same pool of surgeons. Shorter waits for paying punters means even longer waits for Our Beloved NHS.
Which is why postgraduate surgical training needs to be the core of any NHS recovery plan*. Many surgical trainees have hardly operated in the last 18 months due to staff redeployment.
It’s ironic and tragic that in a move designed to counter growing Chinese power we have divided the democracies on the security council and thereby weakened us relative to the Chinese.
It’s a shame that they didn’t find a route in the Pacific that kept us united. Why couldn’t the Aussies have both types of submarines?
Well, the Attack class order was for 12 submarines. Australia are having enough trouble keeping their existing six Collins-class subs crewed. Reducing the Attack-class order would have had hefty penalties. Then you have the problem of maintaining two very different types of sub, with very different kit and equipment.
Also, NG and France's behaviour throughout this has not been that good IMO. It's not all Australia's fault.
Then you finally get the issue that the Attack-class didn't really meet their needs in the first place.
It’s harmful bullshit if that’s what you mean by “useful”.
Western democracies have fundamental values - freedom of speech, of assembly, of religion - that our forefathers fought and bled to secure. We must stick up for those values and not kowtow to an authoritarian dictatorship for a couple of brass farthings
What happens to those values of freedom of speech, of assembly and of religion when the representatives of our country get on the blower to Riyadh?
I once heard the PM described as “the man [sic] you hire to do the things that you don’t want to think about but know that they need to be done”. I’ve never been able to track it down again though!
In a perfect world we wouldn’t do deals with Saudi. But they are not an existential threat to us in the way that China could be. Sometimes your enemy’s enemy is your friend (in this case to counterpoint Iran) for geopolitical reasons. Regardless of how distasteful they may be.
And when they overstep even those weak limits - as with that guy in the Saudi embassy in Turkey - then they need to be slapped down
I'm not against the sort of realpolitik that you describe when it's *necessary*, though if so I should prefer it not to be accompanied about self-righteous outrage about our perceived opponents. .
I suppose the question is where is the line between being self righteous about them and avoiding false equivalence with them, where there is still a distinction.
I once heard the PM described as “the man [sic] you hire to do the things that you don’t want to think about but know that they need to be done”. I’ve never been able to track it down again though!
In a perfect world we wouldn’t do deals with Saudi. But they are not an existential threat to us in the way that China could be. Sometimes your enemy’s enemy is your friend (in this case to counterpoint Iran) for geopolitical reasons. Regardless of how distasteful they may be.
And when they overstep even those weak limits - as with that guy in the Saudi embassy in Turkey - then they need to be slapped down
In that case I’m glad we can dispense with cant about ‘fundamental’ values.
Everyone - government, organisation and individual - talks about fundamental values (or just values). There's always a point where we waive them, but some do it sooner and more blatantly than others is all.
This morning Charles seems to have waived them in a couple of posts which seems..quick.
I think that Saudi promotion of Salafist fanaticism in Mosques across the world is a far bigger threat than China. Yet we sell them high tech arms.
Another example of rhetoric missing reality. Much fanfare last week with the news London offices were apparently now full again with people returning to work at desks in vast numbers amidst signs London was back to normal and all this usual positive propaganda.
The truth, in terms of passenger transport numbers, is very different. On the tube, passenger numbers reached 54% of pre-Covid on Thursday 9th. The numbers travelling have been pretty static since mid-August. There's been no mass return at least on the Underground.
The numbers are improving at the weekend - up to 70% of pre-Covid numbers so obviously there are those who re getting out and about for leisure (presumably) and that's my anecdotal evidence as well. Yet there's been no attempt to re-balance the service by putting more trains on at the weekend and taking off some of the very quiet off-peak weekday services (I forgot, they can't, condition of the Government bailout etc).
Indeed, when a rail company like South-West Railways tries to argue reduced passenger numbers don't justify maintaining current levels of service, they get pilloried with local Conservative County Councillors and Liberal Democrat District Councillors all lining up to be the passengers' friend and champion:
The Treasury is driving this - as the Government looks to turn off the financial lifeline to train companies which led to empty trains running up and down the rails day after day, the train companies are trying to figure out what a 40% reduction in peak traffic means longer term for their operating model and viability. Inevitably, it means fewer trains across the network and some stations will see a reduced train service.
Yes. The "Covid is over, everyone back to work plebs" rhetoric sharply contrasts with the rapid work to reduce rail services long term into cities. On topic there won't be another lockdown even if the NHS does fall over this winter as many warn it may. Even if the government tried to impose one people would ignore it- unless there was a catastrophic new variant that rendered the vaccines useless.
What is very clear from usage patterns is that punters are much happier travelling for leisure than they are work. Indeed reductions in foreign holidays plus a change of working patterns seems to have turbocharged domestic leisure activities.
It's not the plebs that need to get back to work, they have been working throughout, it is the elite and comfortably off.
French position on AUKUS may be the first sign of post-Brexit politics spilling over into the Indo-Pacific. Quad members have done well to steer clear of fraught cross-channel relations by investing in partnerships w/ UK & France. But France unlikely to find much Quad support now
I think there is genuine worry by those who support the EU just how much this is going to damage not only France's reputation but the wider implications for the EU itself on security and defence
I have not heard a response to the crisis from any EU member, but if the EU was under threat it would be the US they would turn to, not their own non existent defence force
This is the biggest crisis the EU has faced and trying to blame AUKUS will not cut it
That's just nonsense. Conflating the EU and NATO is a cheap jibe which doesn't cut it any more.
Those members of the EU not in NATO (Ireland) and those members of NATO not in the EU (Iceland, Turkey) might see it differently.
I assume nothing about AUKUS changes the US commitment to the defence of western Europe from any aggression in the name of collective defence and security. Washington is still prepared to go to war to defend Riga, Vilnius and even Paris and to call this "the biggest crisis the EU has faced" is absurd hyperbole.
Certainly, compared with the Eurozone crisis of 2008-10, AUKUS is insignificant.
In defence terms it is and is anyone confident that NATO is relevant
The EU is not a military body and never has been. The embryonic WEU and the Franco-German corps were attempts to try to make a pan-European defence force but NATO is and has been a hugely successful alliance.
Is it "relevant"? The Conservatives, the Daily Mail and others keep banging on about the "threat" from Putin, Someone on here yesterday claimed the Russian Army was ready to sweep across Europe and could conquer the whole European landmass up to and including the Channel.
Not convinced and a couple of aircraft flying over the North Sea and a rusty old battleship sailing up the Channel don't exactly give me sleepless nights.
In any case, Putin isn't stupid enough to risk armageddon by trying to annex Estonia so for now NATO remains the primary guarantor of British defence. What AUKUS has done, arguably, is to raise tensions and create a new front line in the Pacific. Is an attempted Chinese invasion of Taiwan analogous to a Russian push into Estonia - it would seem so?
It's not even a solid policy of containment - it's a half-guarantee to a couple of places but, as I argued earlier, if you are serious about containing China (which we aren't), what about guarantees to India, Russia, Vietnam and Afghanistan (all of whom border China as does North Korea of course)?
It's analogous to the Ukraine - we aren't going to rush to Kiev's defence if Putin decides to move in. They aren't in NATO so we're not obliged.
I agree that Putin is not a threat nor do I think is China at present
However, it is clear Australia and the Trans-Pacific do see it as such and AUKUS is the nucleus of a wider cooperation agreement between all those countries in the area to deter China from any consideration of military involvement
Furthermore, there is a trade element in this as CPTPP expands to include the UK and the US, who are reopening talks cancelled by Trump, creating a consumer competitor for Chinese goods
I think it was @Foxy who said we should reduce our purchase of Chinese goods and he is correct on that
I would say that the reason that Putin is not a threat to the Baltic states and Eastern Europe (minus Ukraine) is that he is convinced that the Americans (and others) via NATO would fight.
This is another emerging split - the er... Russia Accommodating types in the EU are upset that the Americans are involved and see the whole thing as a problem between Russia and states that don't accept the reality of the situation.
Dr. Foxy, New Zealand is isolated and has been far chummier with the Communists than they might wish to be.
As for Australia, the rising threat of China is something that must be accounted for. Sure, you can feed a crocodile, but appeasement does not work. Australia must be able to defend itself.
New Zealand is and has been a non-nuclear state for three decades - that's why ANZUS was suspended as NZ didn't want American nuclear submarines in its waters which is, I think, the main reason Auckland has been excluded from the AUKUS discussions.
NZ, like Australia, has significant trading links with China worth a lot to the NZ economy. Tourism from the mainland was growing strongly pre-pandemic as well.
In any case, are we seriously arguing China is a significant military threat to Australia and New Zealand? It may be more significant if, for instance, China did a deal with Fiji and established a military base at Suva or Nadi or some other island.
China shares a border with many other countries - Russia, India, Afghanistan and Vietnam to name but four. Are we offering them any kind of guarantee or support against Chinese military expansionism? I doubt it but again that's missing the point - China is achieving economically what the PLA couldn't do militarily. It effectively controls parts of Africa - Chinese funded infrastructure may be about getting access to resources but the local Governments aren't going to say no to improved road and rail links and the economic benefits they bring.
How has the West responded to China's economic imperialism (that's what it is)? Answer it hasn't. The thinking and the rhetoric remains trapped in the Cold War - a couple of nuclear submarines versus providing jobs and a better standard of living for thousands of impoverished people. I think we know what works.
My understanding is that it doesn’t really provide jobs for the locals - they fly in Chinese workers who live in a separate compound and build. (Based on an article I read about Tuvalu).
The “gift” is also structured as a loan - it’s all about intergovernmental power and influence
I think there is genuine worry by those who support the EU just how much this is going to damage not only France's reputation but the wider implications for the EU itself on security and defence
I have not heard a response to the crisis from any EU member, but if the EU was under threat it would be the US they would turn to, not their own non existent defence force
This is the biggest crisis the EU has faced and trying to blame AUKUS will not cut it
That's just nonsense. Conflating the EU and NATO is a cheap jibe which doesn't cut it any more.
Those members of the EU not in NATO (Ireland) and those members of NATO not in the EU (Iceland, Turkey) might see it differently.
I assume nothing about AUKUS changes the US commitment to the defence of western Europe from any aggression in the name of collective defence and security. Washington is still prepared to go to war to defend Riga, Vilnius and even Paris and to call this "the biggest crisis the EU has faced" is absurd hyperbole.
Certainly, compared with the Eurozone crisis of 2008-10, AUKUS is insignificant.
In defence terms it is and is anyone confident that NATO is relevant
The EU is not a military body and never has been. The embryonic WEU and the Franco-German corps were attempts to try to make a pan-European defence force but NATO is and has been a hugely successful alliance.
Is it "relevant"? The Conservatives, the Daily Mail and others keep banging on about the "threat" from Putin, Someone on here yesterday claimed the Russian Army was ready to sweep across Europe and could conquer the whole European landmass up to and including the Channel.
Not convinced and a couple of aircraft flying over the North Sea and a rusty old battleship sailing up the Channel don't exactly give me sleepless nights.
In any case, Putin isn't stupid enough to risk armageddon by trying to annex Estonia so for now NATO remains the primary guarantor of British defence. What AUKUS has done, arguably, is to raise tensions and create a new front line in the Pacific. Is an attempted Chinese invasion of Taiwan analogous to a Russian push into Estonia - it would seem so?
It's not even a solid policy of containment - it's a half-guarantee to a couple of places but, as I argued earlier, if you are serious about containing China (which we aren't), what about guarantees to India, Russia, Vietnam and Afghanistan (all of whom border China as does North Korea of course)?
It's analogous to the Ukraine - we aren't going to rush to Kiev's defence if Putin decides to move in. They aren't in NATO so we're not obliged.
I agree that Putin is not a threat nor do I think is China at present
However, it is clear Australia and the Trans-Pacific do see it as such and AUKUS is the nucleus of a wider cooperation agreement between all those countries in the area to deter China from any consideration of military involvement
Furthermore, there is a trade element in this as CPTPP expands to include the UK and the US, who are reopening talks cancelled by Trump, creating a consumer competitor for Chinese goods
I think it was @Foxy who said we should reduce our purchase of Chinese goods and he is correct on that
I would say that the reason that Putin is not a threat to the Baltic states and Eastern Europe (minus Ukraine) is that he is convinced that the Americans (and others) via NATO would fight.
This is another emerging split - the er... Russia Accommodating types in the EU are upset that the Americans are involved and see the whole thing as a problem between Russia and states that don't accept the reality of the situation.
Some at least EU members would be in a nasty pickle without Russian gas and oil.
More anecdata concerning the disintegration of the NHS:
People with cancer forced to go private
In January this year, Steve Deeman in Nottinghamshire was looking at an eight-week delay to have the lesion on his forehead diagnosed. “It was suspicious looking and grew quite rapidly over the next few weeks,” said the 69-year-old retired teacher.
He was referred to a local hospital dermatology department in early March and was given a consultation appointment for May. “I decided I couldn’t wait that long and sought private medical care a few days later,” he said.
Deeman saw a specialist dermatologist who diagnosed the lesion as cancerous and it was removed the next day. His treatment so far has cost about £1,500 but further follow-ups have been recommended which could bring the total to £2,000. “I was fortunate in that I was able to afford treatment but there are a lot of people who wouldn’t be able to.”
When Fabien needed to have a decayed tooth removed in May, his dentist told him that he would have to wait up to three years to have it done on the NHS. In disbelief, the 27-year-old from Edinburgh rang 50 dental practices but without any luck. He had no choice but to go private. Having lost his job during the pandemic, he was on universal credit and had to borrow the £600 from his family.
If you've the means and knowhow to trade in shares then private healthcare groups are probably a good bet. As the latter piece goes on to say, quoting the director of a health think tank,
“There is a big risk that unless government provides adequate funding for the NHS, more and more people will be forced to pay privately, which in turn will undermine middle-class support for a tax-funded NHS.
“It’s not likely that we will end up with a US-style insurance system. But a two-tier system, where the NHS is a residual service for those without the means to pay is a possibility – ultimately these are political choices.”
Certainly there is likely to be a boom in the sector, both from the self pay private market and in terms of outsourcing of NHS work, which is a major source of income to private hospitals. That said the performance of Spire shares hasn't been great recently.
It is curious although the Spire price has been more influenced by take over speculation than anything else. What I find strange is that the private medical sector is not absolutely booming with significant new capital being raised and deployed. It is going to take a decade for the NHS to recover from the backlog now in place and many, many more are going to go private. If you are in pain from a hip or knee and being told to wait 2 or more years for a replacement it is an absolute no brainer if you can afford it. If you are working it even makes economic sense.
The free at the point of delivery service in the NHS has always kept this sector quite small in this country but it just seems inevitable that there is going to be a large expansion. I would expect some of the American players to invest.
The NHS has, of course, been an established fact of life for such a very long time that it simply doesn't occur to a lot of people who might benefit from going private to do so. Private hospitals are either not thought of at all, or bring to mind images of cosmetic vanity procedures and/or being something very exclusive for royalty and rich celebrities.
It takes time for such a mindset to change, but if comfortably off middle-aged and retired folk with reasonably deep pockets find themselves having to wait years for necessary surgery, then change it surely will.
There will be a lot more companies looking at private insurance for staff too, if we see waiting lists for routine treatment keeping people off work for weeks.
Problem is everybody fishing in the same pool of surgeons. Shorter waits for paying punters means even longer waits for Our Beloved NHS.
Which is why postgraduate surgical training needs to be the core of any NHS recovery plan*. Many surgical trainees have hardly operated in the last 18 months due to staff redeployment.
*it won't be...
Do surgeons, as happens with airline pilots, need to do minimum numbers of operations over time, to remain ‘current’ and work unsupervised?
A lot of airlines are struggling now, as they try and bring more planes back into service, that the pilots they furloughed need to have their licences re-validated.
Comments
This is not about France but Australia and its defence requirements for the whole Trans-Pacific
AUKUS has been welcomed by Starmer and Blackford, and throughout the Trans-Pacific and I understand some EU countries
These are not cheap headlines and there is an irony that the French are not slow in wanting to embarrass the UK if the opportunity arises
As an aside, I think they're (slightly) opening things up socially, but clamping down on political control, so it's a mixed bag.
With China there are multiple potential flashpoints, from Taiwan to the disputed islands that are currently Japanese.
It's almost as if most of these arguments are less about the rights and wrongs of any given situation, and more to do with the enemy of my enemy being my friend. Fancy that.
It did make me smile
The free at the point of delivery service in the NHS has always kept this sector quite small in this country but it just seems inevitable that there is going to be a large expansion. I would expect some of the American players to invest.
Another example of rhetoric missing reality. Much fanfare last week with the news London offices were apparently now full again with people returning to work at desks in vast numbers amidst signs London was back to normal and all this usual positive propaganda.
The truth, in terms of passenger transport numbers, is very different. On the tube, passenger numbers reached 54% of pre-Covid on Thursday 9th. The numbers travelling have been pretty static since mid-August. There's been no mass return at least on the Underground.
The numbers are improving at the weekend - up to 70% of pre-Covid numbers so obviously there are those who re getting out and about for leisure (presumably) and that's my anecdotal evidence as well. Yet there's been no attempt to re-balance the service by putting more trains on at the weekend and taking off some of the very quiet off-peak weekday services (I forgot, they can't, condition of the Government bailout etc).
Indeed, when a rail company like South-West Railways tries to argue reduced passenger numbers don't justify maintaining current levels of service, they get pilloried with local Conservative County Councillors and Liberal Democrat District Councillors all lining up to be the passengers' friend and champion:
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/south-western-rail-surrey-councillors-21591675
The Treasury is driving this - as the Government looks to turn off the financial lifeline to train companies which led to empty trains running up and down the rails day after day, the train companies are trying to figure out what a 40% reduction in peak traffic means longer term for their operating model and viability. Inevitably, it means fewer trains across the network and some stations will see a reduced train service.
China's expansion outside its historic borders is economic rather than military, particularly in Africa and other primary producers. If we want to counter that influence then it needs to be an economic and political response rather than a military one.
We need to cut our dependence on Chinese capital and exports, and expand our development and investments in Africa. I don't think that we can do that while running such a massive current account deficit with them, and as @rcs1000 has demonstrated, the way to do that is to up our savings rate. I would also favour a carbon import tax, which would equalise or reverse the financial advantage that China gets from cheap coal power (though this would also hit the USA, Australia and other High CO2 producing countries).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_Caliphate
I have not heard a response to the crisis from any EU member, but if the EU was under threat it would be the US they would turn to, not their own non existent defence force
This is the biggest crisis the EU has faced and trying to blame AUKUS will not cut it
Can it happen? It hasn't really happened with malaria yet, and that really is number one in the world for effects.
Secondly, the difficulty with all effective treatments is that the better you are at it the longer people live to have multiple. chronic, painful, expensive problems. We have overcome the idea that the NHS would steadily reduce the need for medical services and realise that the more successfully you spend money to keep people alive the more you have to spend to keep them alive even longer.
Our society right now models this exactly, with the additional absurdity that because there are so many old ill people to look after young people can't afford to have children at even replacement levels anywhere in the western world.
Back in the real world as those of us more sceptical in nature expected Biden is more worried about the threats of real wars and China than sausage wars.
The legacy of Carbis Bay seems to be that in reality Biden and Boris were working with ScoMo to get AUKUS set up. Oh and Boris has continued to unilaterally determine the sausage rules and nobody, let alone Biden, is saying otherwise.
Err. That is to say, we raised sheep and cattle and ate them as mutton and beef.
NZ, like Australia, has significant trading links with China worth a lot to the NZ economy. Tourism from the mainland was growing strongly pre-pandemic as well.
In any case, are we seriously arguing China is a significant military threat to Australia and New Zealand? It may be more significant if, for instance, China did a deal with Fiji and established a military base at Suva or Nadi or some other island.
China shares a border with many other countries - Russia, India, Afghanistan and Vietnam to name but four. Are we offering them any kind of guarantee or support against Chinese military expansionism? I doubt it but again that's missing the point - China is achieving economically what the PLA couldn't do militarily. It effectively controls parts of Africa - Chinese funded infrastructure may be about getting access to resources but the local Governments aren't going to say no to improved road and rail links and the economic benefits they bring.
How has the West responded to China's economic imperialism (that's what it is)? Answer it hasn't. The thinking and the rhetoric remains trapped in the Cold War - a couple of nuclear submarines versus providing jobs and a better standard of living for thousands of impoverished people. I think we know what works.
What is very clear from usage patterns is that punters are much happier travelling for leisure than they are work. Indeed reductions in foreign holidays plus a change of working patterns seems to have turbocharged domestic leisure activities.
https://twitter.com/GerardAraud/status/1439130156942172161?s=20
I must say that while I recognise our historic ties with Australia, I still remain to be convinced that we should be prepared to get involved in wars, or rumours of wars, 12,000 miles/20,00 km away, given that we withdrew from East of Suez in the early 70's and only returned on the coattails of the US 30 years later.
Being angry and annoyed would be understandable (presumably - people seem to go back and forth on it being meaningless, and if it is the anger makes no sense), but they've chosen to respond the way they have not been required to respond that way. Just as we might lament the EUs negotiating toughness but we still chose how to respond and if that was wrong their actions dont excuse us.
Unless the negative consequences were inevitable - and the more tempered criticisms show that is not so - it cannot be pinned on the initial act.
It takes time for such a mindset to change, but if comfortably off middle-aged and retired folk with reasonably deep pockets find themselves having to wait years for necessary surgery, then change it surely will.
Those members of the EU not in NATO (Ireland) and those members of NATO not in the EU (Iceland, Turkey) might see it differently.
I assume nothing about AUKUS changes the US commitment to the defence of western Europe from any aggression in the name of collective defence and security. Washington is still prepared to go to war to defend Riga, Vilnius and even Paris and to call this "the biggest crisis the EU has faced" is absurd hyperbole.
Certainly, compared with the Eurozone crisis of 2008-10, AUKUS is insignificant.
But sheep get everywhere. Last line of defence against the Chinese, we turn the sheep on them, and they will do unto Xi as they did unto Jeremy Clarkson.
Though in my head youd be a Waitrose man.
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-its-french-sub-deal/
I agree that, in terms of military attacks 'only' Taiwan seems to be on the table right now. But then, China recently cut the legs from under Tencent (costing it $60bn in market value overnight) so drastic changes in direction are entirely possible. If property problems worsen and domestic woes are on the up, military adventures are a common go-to for leaders wanting to bolster their popularity.
The mountain sheep are sweeter,
But the valley sheep are fatter;
We therefore deemed it meeter
To carry off the latter.
We made an expedition;
We met a host, and quelled it;
We forced a strong position,
And killed the men who held it.
On Dyfed's richest valley,
Where herds of kine were browsing,
We made a mighty sally,
To furnish our carousing.
Fierce warriors rushed to meet us;
We met them, and o'erthrew them:
They struggled hard to beat us;
But we conquered them, and slew them.
As we drove our prize at leisure,
The king marched forth to catch us:
His rage surpassed all measure,
But his people could not match us.
He fled to his hall-pillars;
And, ere our force we led off,
Some sacked his house and cellars,
While others cut his head off.
We there, in strife bewild'ring,
Spilt blood enough to swim in:
We orphaned many children,
And widowed many women.
The eagles and the ravens
We glutted with our foemen;
The heroes and the cravens,
The spearmen and the bowmen.
We brought away from battle,
And much their land bemoaned them,
Two thousand head of cattle,
And the head of him who owned them:
Ednyfed, king of Dyfed,
His head was borne before us;
His wine and beasts supplied our feasts,
And his overthrow, our chorus.
The War-song of Dinas Vawr
BY THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK
This year it's just been about people being able to get out and about at the weekends. The stupidity is rail operators still see the weekend as the time to carry out engineering works.
Transport providers need to embrace the new reality - more services at the weekend, engineering works carried out during the off-peak daytime or perhaps using Monday and Friday, the two quietest days of the work week) rather than at the weekends.
It is part of the cultural rebalancing that will be the one of the legacies of the virus.
If your employee has an accident do you pay for instant access to physiotherapy to get him or her back on their feet soonest or wait? Some insurance companies are now paying for claimants to get such help on the basis that it reduces their wage claim losses but the same logic applies to employers.
Most people do not use private care on a one off basis but the number who get the benefit of it through polices offered by their employers will increase and having access to such rights will make an employer more attractive.
Difficult to do that to cattle so better to be out of kicking distance.
Longevity is not infinitely expandable, so the population age pyramid tends to become columnar rather than pyramid shaped.
There is potential for raising longevity further, but more important is to improve independence in old age. This is one way to square Social Care costs. Healthy elderly folk don't need SC and indeed often contribute economically.
But the mindset is harmful
Is it "relevant"? The Conservatives, the Daily Mail and others keep banging on about the "threat" from Putin, Someone on here yesterday claimed the Russian Army was ready to sweep across Europe and could conquer the whole European landmass up to and including the Channel.
Not convinced and a couple of aircraft flying over the North Sea and a rusty old battleship sailing up the Channel don't exactly give me sleepless nights.
In any case, Putin isn't stupid enough to risk armageddon by trying to annex Estonia so for now NATO remains the primary guarantor of British defence. What AUKUS has done, arguably, is to raise tensions and create a new front line in the Pacific. Is an attempted Chinese invasion of Taiwan analogous to a Russian push into Estonia - it would seem so?
It's not even a solid policy of containment - it's a half-guarantee to a couple of places but, as I argued earlier, if you are serious about containing China (which we aren't), what about guarantees to India, Russia, Vietnam and Afghanistan (all of whom border China as does North Korea of course)?
It's analogous to the Ukraine - we aren't going to rush to Kiev's defence if Putin decides to move in. They aren't in NATO so we're not obliged.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic
The latest numbers for the week commencing 6th September suggest that cars are approximately at 95% (but upto 110% over the weekend), but light and heavy goods vehicles are at 108%.
National Rail is only at 63%, whilst the Tube is at 53% and London Busses at 70%. Tubes are up to about 65% over the weekend, whilst rail declines to 58%.
From a personal perspective, I had a trip into London this week for the first time in around 18 months. A normal peak commuter train which would normally be crushed loaded pre covid had around 50% of seats empty. Ok this was Friday, but it indicates the scale of the problem for train companies and hence the Goverment as the DfT have full economic control.
In other news, the Pope remain Catholic!
I once heard the PM described as “the man [sic] you hire to do the things that you don’t want to think about but know that they need to be done”. I’ve never been able to track it down again though!
In a perfect world we wouldn’t do deals with Saudi. But they are not an existential threat to us in the way that China could be. Sometimes your enemy’s enemy is your friend (in this case to counterpoint Iran) for geopolitical reasons. Regardless of how distasteful they may be.
And when they overstep even those weak limits - as with that guy in the Saudi embassy in Turkey - then they need to be slapped down
Soon to be joined by a second squadron. Imagine how dickhurt you'd be if that were an EU flag.
However, it is clear Australia and the Trans-Pacific do see it as such and AUKUS is the nucleus of a wider cooperation agreement between all those countries in the area to deter China from any consideration of military involvement
Furthermore, there is a trade element in this as CPTPP expands to include the UK and the US, who are reopening talks cancelled by Trump, creating a consumer competitor for Chinese goods
I think it was @Foxy who said we should reduce our purchase of Chinese goods and he is correct on that
My favourite example, which I've quoted here before, is a debate at which I was present, over the costs of a peripatetic Elderly Persons Chiropody service. It was argued, I thought persuasively, that if elderly people could be kept mobile they'd be able to take exercise and be overall healthier. They might even not fall catastrophically as often as now.
Unfortunately, IMHO, the decision came down to short term funding and the service was withdrawn.
That said, I think "necessary" should be defined as being faced with existential threats. Assisting the Saudis to bomb Yemen back to medieval times and the edge of famine is not necessary and we shouldn't have been doing it. Similarly, I think we *should* condemn the treatment of Uighurs and the represion of women. The default should be freedom to express our views. Only if we face a sort of Stalin vs Hitler choice should we side with the lesser evil.
By the way, I don't dislike Johnson. But he is absolutely the last person I'd call if there was something unpleasant that needed someone to get on with doing quickly. That's not his style at all. But if I wanted a fraught situation calmed with some affable bluster and a few meaningless gestures. Then yes, absolutely.
But yes, if a doctor can earn £500 a day from the NHS, or £1,000 a day from BUPA, they’re probably going to gravitate towards the private option over time - which, if the NHS isn’t careful, will lead to further increased waiting times.
Based on the idiocy of the government I won't be surprised to see them continue to order the network to allow for commuting that doesn't exist any more in an increasingly forlorn attempt to force companies and employees into office working so they can pay exorbitant ticket prices and buy twatty coffee from tax dodgers. We need a refocus away from mad intense commuter frequency and crap to no service outside that.
https://twitter.com/HDyrhauge/status/1438455673868759044
The sharp decline in rail pax transport due to national lock-downs & everyone working from home seems to have gone unnoticed.
Does anyone know the economic consequences for the railways? they will have lost a lot of income.
Quote Tweet
Largest decrease in the number of #rail #passengers in Q1 2021 compared with Q1 2020:
🇮🇪 Ireland (-85%)
🇬🇷 Greece (-66%)
🇸🇰 Slovakia (-60%)
🇳🇱 the Netherlands (-59%)
🇩🇰 Denmark (-53%)
🚄 Lowest:
🇸🇮 Slovenia (-11%)
I would be interested to know if anyone’s burrowed into the data. That 63%, for example - how much of the lost third is commuter travel? Does it affect longer distance services? What about freight loads?
Met some people in City Thursday night. Not far from my office, though haven't been back there yet. The main casualties of WFH have been the smaller, more independent places.
The pubs seem to be doing well - down on what a Thursday used to be like, but actually surprising.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58574180
It has buttons that allow you to filter out the whites or the men.
We use ticket data as the proxy (same as DfT), but you can use season tickets as a sort of proxy for commuting.
2021-22 Q1 (Apr to June) is out on 7 October.
Market conditions have been completely transformed yet the service is still configured as if we were living in 2019. Go figure.
The danger of fetishising foreign lands - Other nations don't need our hot takes
https://unherd.com/2021/09/why-brits-shouldnt-judge-foreign-countries/
*it won't be...
French position on AUKUS may be the first sign of post-Brexit politics spilling over into the Indo-Pacific. Quad members have done well to steer clear of fraught cross-channel relations by investing in partnerships w/ UK & France. But France unlikely to find much Quad support now
https://twitter.com/HerveLemahieu/status/1439098482128613380?s=20
This is another emerging split - the er... Russia Accommodating types in the EU are upset that the Americans are involved and see the whole thing as a problem between Russia and states that don't accept the reality of the situation.
The “gift” is also structured as a loan - it’s all about intergovernmental power and influence
A lot of airlines are struggling now, as they try and bring more planes back into service, that the pilots they furloughed need to have their licences re-validated.