My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.
Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.
If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.
I've been keeping out of this recently, as it's so toxic and views will sadly not be changed.
I will jut say this:
I have known a fair few trans people. Two in particular were friends: one pre-transition, one post-transition. I see comments made about trans people on here, especially about how they're somehow a 'danger', and then think of those friends, and the bullying and sh*t they suffered just because they were, in some way, different.
I don't know about others, but I have certainly changed my views over recent years on this as an issue. As indeed I did over gay marriage, and clearly a lot of other people did too.
I am not sure where it all ends up, but some critical appraisal of gender norms, and how society polices those norms is not unwelcome.
Marriage is an entirely human construct. Gender isn't.
What is interesting about the debate is the focus on when a woman is a woman. The much more important question is when is a man a man?
My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. If they don't have them, then they can identify as they like.
"My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. "
I find that view quite bizarre, unscientific and illogical.
The male reproductive system goes deeper than a cock and balls and vice versa. And of course there is the difference in chromosomes. Telling someone who has changed gender that it doesn't count unless that which is visible is re-fashioned surgically may well encourage that gruesome operation on healthy tissue which they may otherwise have chose not to undergo.
Yes, it's true that no matter how much surgery a man has, they will always have some male characteristics. But I reckon if someone gets rid of those bits, that shows they are serious. Ultimately, it means they cannot commit rape.
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
I think you go a bit far - we have some enormous challenges ahead, but we always do. The NHS has had winter crisis for as long as I can remember. There will never be enough money, time, medics to do all that could be done. I'd suggest you look elsewhere. We are not uniquely struggling. Things will improve. My guess is the fuel 'crisis' will be over by the weekend.
They don't seem to be struggling quite as much as we are. In terms of loss of life expectancy, Covid has hit the UK harder than many countries, and nowhere else has has people queuing for petrol. European supermarket shelves aren't as empty as ours, either. Pasta, chopped tomatoes and kidney beans almost all gone on my last shoping trip.
BREXIT has really put us in a bad place.
Brexit is an unserious project lead by unserious people, which is the big issue we have right now. They start out by claiming shortages are a feature, not a bug, of Brexit, because they drive up wages. Then they deny that shortages actually exist, because no-one wants to do without important stuff. Or, if they can't deny it, they claim everyone else also had shortages. Finally they blame everyone else for the consequences of their own decisions; companies, the media, Remainers, the EU.
As I have said before time for the lib dems to come out publicly and say they will join the single market and a accept freedom of movement
That would be honest rather than continually bemoaning abour Brexit
You do not like it, so say what you do want openly and honestly to the public
We have done that already:
"The basic thrust of the party’s position is therefore clear: to demonstrate how the version of Brexit that the government has chosen is disastrous for the UK in every respect, and to call for a different relationship in the immediate term – for example, membership of the Single Market"
Which is quite transparent in that it is seen as a way to convince the UK to Rejoin in the longer term. It was decided at conference that Rejoin would not be in the LD manifesto in the next GE, but rather small steps.
I think that rather open and honest, don't you?
I have not heard of it (I doubt only a few diehards have read that) and even then it is rather vague
Lib dems need to spell it out and define how they want to address their perceived issues with Brexir
If you are arguing that the LDs should get more media time to promote our policies, then I agree.
There is no vagueness in the policy. It is to move closer to the EU, in small steps including joining the Single Market, with the long term objective of convincing the UK public to Rejoin the EU, but the steps depend on what is politically acceptable to both EU and UK publics at any time.
I note that Barnier said on Newsnight last night that the door was open to Rejoin the EU.
"They demand nationalising energy as Starmer says no, they promote a £10 minimum wage only for Starmer to be photographed at a demonstration demanding £15, Starmer comes down against Rosie Duffield on the trans issue, and amazingly by 70%/30% reject AUKUS"....
AUKUS should be rejected - hatched in secrecy with a fairly hard right Australian government, a deal that is unsupported by Asia's friendly nations, its potentially in breach of the NPT (as is the UK increase in nuclear warheads) and has maanged to sour relations with one of our closest partners in Europe... there's nothing to celebrate about AUKUS unless you own shares in a few defence companies or work in a specific shipyard...
Taiwan, India and Japan have all backed AUKUS and South Korea is neutral.
Perhaps by "Asia's friendly nations" you meant North Korea, which is indeed opposed?
I see that SKS is being unexcoriated by his far left for not keeping a promise on a "£15 per hour" minimum wage.
Where was this promise?
And does setting a minimum wage at about 40% (rough number) of Median Wage work?
You know, if it is ever going to work it would be now when the labour market is incredibly tight and the supply of labour is more restricted than it was. Employers would need to focus on getting more out of their more expensive staff, even if it involved training them.
I think that you need to be very careful with policies such as the NMW so as not to overdo it and cause unnecessary unemployment but you should also take advantage of situations such as we have right now. Doing so will transfer more of the burden of financing the low paid from in work benefits to where it belongs, on those that employ them. It is an opportunity to reduce inequality and reduce government spending. I am not sure about £15 but an increase substantially beyond inflation and well over £10 makes sense.
Thankfully the market is doing a good job at the moment, of lifting many people above the minimum wage without needing any government intervention.
True, But I read on here that labour shortages are a bad thing. Or something.
Labour shortages are very obviously a bad thing. If they can be resolved through raising salaries then all well and good. If they can't, then we are in a whole heap of trouble.
The whole retake control thing with brexit should see targeted migration based on need. So if it is not resolved by raising salaries we have the means to allow people access to our labour markets.
Or that is what we are told.
It was what we were told. And yet where we have not just need but a full-blown crisis the government refuses to allow targeted migration. Or even work visas (5k is a drop in the ocean).
Why is that? Surely a "points-based migration scheme" wasn't code for "stop migrants"?
I didn’t think it was but it beggars belief when we have skills gaps or shortages little is being done to fill them gaps.
The view is that this is a temporary blip not a long term structural issue
The view is, I think, that once the training system has caught up with the backlog, the problem will go away. For HGV drivers, that is.
I further think, that the view is that getting temporary drivers from abroad will be problematic (because of shortages elsewhere) and that on every previous occasion, industry has chosen to avoid training and investment when cheap labour is available.
That's my guesstimate of the government thinking on this.
My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.
Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.
If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.
I've been keeping out of this recently, as it's so toxic and views will sadly not be changed.
I will jut say this:
I have known a fair few trans people. Two in particular were friends: one pre-transition, one post-transition. I see comments made about trans people on here, especially about how they're somehow a 'danger', and then think of those friends, and the bullying and sh*t they suffered just because they were, in some way, different.
I don't know about others, but I have certainly changed my views over recent years on this as an issue. As indeed I did over gay marriage, and clearly a lot of other people did too.
I am not sure where it all ends up, but some critical appraisal of gender norms, and how society polices those norms is not unwelcome.
Marriage is an entirely human construct. Gender isn't.
What is interesting about the debate is the focus on when a woman is a woman. The much more important question is when is a man a man?
My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. If they don't have them, then they can identify as they like.
"My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. "
I find that view quite bizarre, unscientific and illogical.
The male reproductive system goes deeper than a cock and balls and vice versa. And of course there is the difference in chromosomes. Telling someone who has changed gender that it doesn't count unless that which is visible is re-fashioned surgically may well encourage that gruesome operation on healthy tissue which they may otherwise have chose not to undergo.
Yes, it's true that no matter how much surgery a man has, they will always have some male characteristics. But I reckon if someone gets rid of those bits, that shows they are serious. Ultimately, it means they cannot commit rape.
Good grief. Sorry I can't untangle that. Sounds like the surgery is a form of punishment.
Unionist leaders Sir Jeffrey Donaldson of the DUP, Doug Beattie of the UUP and Jim McAllister of Traditional Unionist Voice come together to sign a joint declaration rejecting the Northern Ireland Protocol https://twitter.com/duponline/status/1442746174373613573?s=20
Talking about the Labour Party, I'm confused. In the resplendently perfect 2019 manifesto, it was His will that the minimum wage be £10 an hour. So how come a few years later Andy McWazzock quits in protest that its not £15 an hour and gets a cheering ovation from the Trotbune fringe meeting?
Its almost as if the purpose in his flounce was only to try and damage the Labour Party.
Numeracy has never been vital to the left.
What is far more important is the unproductive get paid far more than they are worth.
The thing I don't understand and can't wrap my head around is what people who say someone with a penis is a woman mean by the term "woman"? If you abolish all definitions of what a woman is, then how can other people say they are a woman, what are they saying they are in the first place?
People who are male who wish to become female and so transition - then that I understand. In which case they want to lose the penis and gain a cervix surely - so yes still someone with a penis is not a woman, which is why they're transitioning.
But if someone doesn't wish to transition, then what does it even mean to be a woman?
I just don't understand that, no matter how hard I try, so if someone could explain that, I'd appreciate it.
Gender reassignment surgery is a very long wait, even after a long wait for psychological assessment. Indeed people cannot usually go on the waiting list until they have taken hormones and lived as the new gender for a couple of years. There is the practical issue of how to live as the new gender while having the old genitalia in the meantime. Are people not supposed to go to public places during those years?
If gender surgery was to be a pre-condition of acceptance as the new gender (which I think is the majority opinion in the UK), then access to both gender dysphoria clinics and gender surgery needs to be greatly increased. Given scarce resources in terms of expertise, operating time, and finance, I cannot see that happening.
I'm glad that it is not happening. I'm appalled that NHS funds is being used for this purpose - counselling and psychiatry yes but that is all. I think the public places (e.g. loos) issue is a tad exaggerated to be honest. I man who now identifies and looks like a woman using a female loo - who would know or care whether or not she had dangly bits? Does anyone look at others in the public loos anyway - I don't! Do people who think that such a person will pounce on women in a public loo?
I've mentioned the policing issue of this before: who the heck is going to check? Are women going to call the police over a woman who is a little 'male-looking' in the loos?
(A policewoman turns up) "Excuse me, ma'am. We've had a call that you've used a female toilet." "Yes, I'm a woman." (Shows her driving licence) "I'm sorry, ma'am, but I'm going to need to check." "But this is my daughter here!" "Men have daughters, too." "Why do you think I'm male?" "I don't, ma'am. It's just that another lady said you might be. She said you're a little flat-chested." (the woman sobs) "I've had cancer and a double mastectomy!" "A complaint has been made, and we still need to check." "So how can I prove it?" "I'm afraid you're going to have to have a full physical exam and DNA test. If you'll just accompany me down to the station..."
According to court documents, the Bay Area woman accused of starting the Fawn Fire in Shasta County last week was boiling bear urine so she could drink it when she allegedly set off the destructive blaze. https://twitter.com/KPIXtv/status/1442684030097444864
I remember a classic when a woman in San Diego was caught by the police for driving along a "two person minimum" bridge alone. She appealed against the fine because she was pregnant. She won that, but lost when the police came after her for "more than one person in the drivers seat"....
My two-year is very fluid. She identifies as a dinosaur, cat, fox, train and a car - all inside the space of a few minutes.
Can we please stop belittling gender fluidity on this site? The gammon dismissal of a serious issue with complexity and nuance is pretty revolting and off-putting. It demeans this place as a forum of polite and gentle intellectual debate.
If I say it's offensive you'll accuse me of being woke but yes it is offensive.
I've been keeping out of this recently, as it's so toxic and views will sadly not be changed.
I will jut say this:
I have known a fair few trans people. Two in particular were friends: one pre-transition, one post-transition. I see comments made about trans people on here, especially about how they're somehow a 'danger', and then think of those friends, and the bullying and sh*t they suffered just because they were, in some way, different.
I don't know about others, but I have certainly changed my views over recent years on this as an issue. As indeed I did over gay marriage, and clearly a lot of other people did too.
I am not sure where it all ends up, but some critical appraisal of gender norms, and how society polices those norms is not unwelcome.
Marriage is an entirely human construct. Gender isn't.
What is interesting about the debate is the focus on when a woman is a woman. The much more important question is when is a man a man?
My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. If they don't have them, then they can identify as they like.
"My view is that as long as a person has the male sex organs, they are a man. "
I find that view quite bizarre, unscientific and illogical.
The male reproductive system goes deeper than a cock and balls and vice versa. And of course there is the difference in chromosomes. Telling someone who has changed gender that it doesn't count unless that which is visible is re-fashioned surgically may well encourage that gruesome operation on healthy tissue which they may otherwise have chose not to undergo.
Yes, it's true that no matter how much surgery a man has, they will always have some male characteristics. But I reckon if someone gets rid of those bits, that shows they are serious. Ultimately, it means they cannot commit rape.
Good grief. Sorry I can't untangle that. Sounds like the surgery is a form of punishment.
From a political/state pov, we need a definition of a man, unless you think gender should be abolished (no women's prisons etc.).
Look, if men want to dress up as women, that's their business. But from the state's pov, they should be treated as men.
"A nest of singing birds" New ‘conspiracy’ allegations which Alex Salmond is preparing to publish in a new book will have a ‘volcanic effect’ on the SNP, according to Jim Sillars.
Perhaps Salmond will have greater success in bookshops rather than at the ballot box?
Get the popcorn ready.
Really? You like the idea of a self confessed predator trying to destroy-out of bitterness- one of the most impressive politicians the UK has produced in the last decade?
Bloke on the radio saying he is a driver - can do his HGV conversion course, takes a week.
First available slot: Jan 2022.
I have been told by friends and family who are trying to do a car test that slots before June 2022 are rare as rocking horse poop.
Apparently a non trivial number of people who have done their theory test are going to have it time out on them - because of COVID and now this backlog.
not surprising when you look at the profile of who is getting more COVID and who less -
On the hospital stats - apologies, I know I should know this - do the figures reflect just those who are being treated for Covid or do the figures include those who are being treated for other things but have a positive test for Covid?
Both, but they aren't far off the same.
The ICU cases parallel the movements and are nearly entirely severe covid pneumonitis.
The drop in inpatients matches my own Trust figures. Whether admissions bump up to reflect the last 2 weeks rise in cases is yet to be seen.
The fire isn't out on the pandemic, and it is more than just some a little bit of smouldering.
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
According to court documents, the Bay Area woman accused of starting the Fawn Fire in Shasta County last week was boiling bear urine so she could drink it when she allegedly set off the destructive blaze. https://twitter.com/KPIXtv/status/1442684030097444864
I remember a classic when a woman in San Diego was caught by the police for driving along a "two person minimum" bridge alone. She appealed against the fine because she was pregnant. She won that, but lost when the police came after her for "more than one person in the drivers seat"....
not surprising when you look at the profile of who is getting more COVID and who less -
On the hospital stats - apologies, I know I should know this - do the figures reflect just those who are being treated for Covid or do the figures include those who are being treated for other things but have a positive test for Covid?
"A nest of singing birds" New ‘conspiracy’ allegations which Alex Salmond is preparing to publish in a new book will have a ‘volcanic effect’ on the SNP, according to Jim Sillars.
Perhaps Salmond will have greater success in bookshops rather than at the ballot box?
Get the popcorn ready.
Really? You like the idea of a self confessed predator trying to destroy-out of bitterness- one of the most impressive politicians the UK has produced in the last decade?
Her impressiveness is mostly in trying (and so far failing) to destroy the UK.
Her record in many aspects of government is pretty mediocre.
How about we don't go round the same trans "debate" again.
Perhaps esteemed posters shouldn't bait with the likes of “my daughter wants to transition to a butterfly hurr durr durr”
I've always been very clear with all my children that whatever identity they choose for themselves, I will love them unconditionally and support their choice in whatever way I can. Unless they become Tories. Then they're dead to me.
What if they transition to Tories or self-identify as such? Will you still regard them are “really” being Labour?
I do worry about them being groomed online. Gateway sites like PB.com that could lead to them going down the Con Home rabbit hole, and before you know it they're sending you links to Guido. And then there's the whole issue of compassion-blockers. It's a tricky issue for sure.
Bloke on the radio saying he is a driver - can do his HGV conversion course, takes a week.
First available slot: Jan 2022.
I have been told by friends and family who are trying to do a car test that slots before June 2022 are rare as rocking horse poop.
Apparently a non trivial number of people who have done their theory test are going to have it time out on them - because of COVID and now this backlog.
My niece had to wait a year for her practical test. Thankfully she passed a few months ago, just in time for uni.
not surprising when you look at the profile of who is getting more COVID and who less -
On the hospital stats - apologies, I know I should know this - do the figures reflect just those who are being treated for Covid or do the figures include those who are being treated for other things but have a positive test for Covid?
Both, but they aren't far off the same.
The ICU cases parallel the movements and are nearly entirely severe covid pneumonitis.
The drop in inpatients matches my own Trust figures. Whether admissions bump up to reflect the last 2 weeks rise in cases is yet to be seen.
The fire isn't out on the pandemic, and it is more than just some a little bit of smouldering.
Do you think the fire will ever be "out"? I thought this was a disease we need to learn to "live with" so a little bit of smouldering could be what we have forever now couldn't it?
According to court documents, the Bay Area woman accused of starting the Fawn Fire in Shasta County last week was boiling bear urine so she could drink it when she allegedly set off the destructive blaze. https://twitter.com/KPIXtv/status/1442684030097444864
I remember a classic when a woman in San Diego was caught by the police for driving along a "two person minimum" bridge alone. She appealed against the fine because she was pregnant. She won that, but lost when the police came after her for "more than one person in the drivers seat"....
So how does one extract urine from a bear?
Taking the piss from a bear? Sounds daring...
Bit like the story of using bears to test the escape capsule on the B58 bomber....
So, you strap a bear in the pod, fly it at Mach 2, eject it, then find the capsule and unstrap the bear and give it a medical exam.
Can't help suspecting that there was a considerable silence when that plan was presented...
That and that the people who strap bears into escape pods (and unstrap them) are probably not people to trifle with.
not surprising when you look at the profile of who is getting more COVID and who less -
On the hospital stats - apologies, I know I should know this - do the figures reflect just those who are being treated for Covid or do the figures include those who are being treated for other things but have a positive test for Covid?
Both, but they aren't far off the same.
The ICU cases parallel the movements and are nearly entirely severe covid pneumonitis.
The drop in inpatients matches my own Trust figures. Whether admissions bump up to reflect the last 2 weeks rise in cases is yet to be seen.
The fire isn't out on the pandemic, and it is more than just some a little bit of smouldering.
Thanks but I can't help being a bit puzzled.
There must surely be loads of people in for operations for things such as cancers, hip replacements etc etc which require overnight hospitalisation, perhaps for many days, and are positive for Covid but with no or only non-serious Covid symptoms? I think I must be misunderstanding something. If such people are included in the Covid hospitalisation figures then this is inaccurate and wrong.
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
I think you go a bit far - we have some enormous challenges ahead, but we always do. The NHS has had winter crisis for as long as I can remember. There will never be enough money, time, medics to do all that could be done. I'd suggest you look elsewhere. We are not uniquely struggling. Things will improve. My guess is the fuel 'crisis' will be over by the weekend.
They don't seem to be struggling quite as much as we are. In terms of loss of life expectancy, Covid has hit the UK harder than many countries, and nowhere else has has people queuing for petrol. European supermarket shelves aren't as empty as ours, either. Pasta, chopped tomatoes and kidney beans almost all gone on my last shoping trip.
BREXIT has really put us in a bad place.
Brexit is an unserious project lead by unserious people, which is the big issue we have right now. They start out by claiming shortages are a feature, not a bug, of Brexit, because they drive up wages. Then they deny that shortages actually exist, because no-one wants to do without important stuff. Or, if they can't deny it, they claim everyone else also had shortages. Finally they blame everyone else for the consequences of their own decisions; companies, the media, Remainers, the EU.
As I have said before time for the lib dems to come out publicly and say they will join the single market and a accept freedom of movement
That would be honest rather than continually bemoaning abour Brexit
You do not like it, so say what you do want openly and honestly to the public
We have done that already:
"The basic thrust of the party’s position is therefore clear: to demonstrate how the version of Brexit that the government has chosen is disastrous for the UK in every respect, and to call for a different relationship in the immediate term – for example, membership of the Single Market"
Which is quite transparent in that it is seen as a way to convince the UK to Rejoin in the longer term. It was decided at conference that Rejoin would not be in the LD manifesto in the next GE, but rather small steps.
I think that rather open and honest, don't you?
I have not heard of it (I doubt only a few diehards have read that) and even then it is rather vague
Lib dems need to spell it out and define how they want to address their perceived issues with Brexir
If you are arguing that the LDs should get more media time to promote our policies, then I agree.
There is no vagueness in the policy. It is to move closer to the EU, in small steps including joining the Single Market, with the long term objective of convincing the UK public to Rejoin the EU, but the steps depend on what is politically acceptable to both EU and UK publics at any time.
I note that Barnier said on Newsnight last night that the door was open to Rejoin the EU.
Then make it policy
The problem for those opposing Brexit is that as we plot a new course outside the EU including expanding trade agreements, not least the CPTPP, then re-joining becomes very much more difficult and unlikely
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Andy Burnham has been the most impressive Labour politician of the past year IMHO.
Do you do this yourself as self-appointed and unthinking Boris Johnson Fanboy In Chief, or does Conservative Central Office feed you this stuff?
Just a pastime.
Lay off the insults, they’re unimaginative and unfunny
Are you referring to my "insults" or your politically juvenile posts?
Your attempts at winding me up. They fall on deaf ears and make you look foolish
I have no intention of winding you up, or anyone else, I just find those who put any politician (particularly one such as Johnson) on a pedestal worthy of a little polite but gentle mockery.
According to court documents, the Bay Area woman accused of starting the Fawn Fire in Shasta County last week was boiling bear urine so she could drink it when she allegedly set off the destructive blaze. https://twitter.com/KPIXtv/status/1442684030097444864
I remember a classic when a woman in San Diego was caught by the police for driving along a "two person minimum" bridge alone. She appealed against the fine because she was pregnant. She won that, but lost when the police came after her for "more than one person in the drivers seat"....
So how does one extract urine from a bear?
First attract your bear. You'll need some bear urine.
According to court documents, the Bay Area woman accused of starting the Fawn Fire in Shasta County last week was boiling bear urine so she could drink it when she allegedly set off the destructive blaze. https://twitter.com/KPIXtv/status/1442684030097444864
I remember a classic when a woman in San Diego was caught by the police for driving along a "two person minimum" bridge alone. She appealed against the fine because she was pregnant. She won that, but lost when the police came after her for "more than one person in the drivers seat"....
not surprising when you look at the profile of who is getting more COVID and who less -
On the hospital stats - apologies, I know I should know this - do the figures reflect just those who are being treated for Covid or do the figures include those who are being treated for other things but have a positive test for Covid?
Both, but they aren't far off the same.
The ICU cases parallel the movements and are nearly entirely severe covid pneumonitis.
The drop in inpatients matches my own Trust figures. Whether admissions bump up to reflect the last 2 weeks rise in cases is yet to be seen.
The fire isn't out on the pandemic, and it is more than just some a little bit of smouldering.
Thanks but I can't help being a bit puzzled.
There must surely be loads of people in for operations for things such as cancers, hip replacements etc etc which require overnight hospitalisation, perhaps for many days, and are positive for Covid but with no or only non-serious Covid symptoms? I think I must be misunderstanding something. If such people are included in the Covid hospitalisation figures then this is inaccurate and wrong.
Why? if you have other, hospitalising, conditions, having COVID is often a *more severe* problem. And all the COVID precautions need to be taken in treating them etc, So including them in the statistics is just telling the truth.
On the admissions, the good news is that the big rise is in the unvaccinated groups - children, mainly. Who are unlikely to need a hospital.
We have been seeing a hospitalisation rate of about 40-50 per day, in England, for 0-17 for a while
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Trouble is that once you're out, you're out.
What both sides are missing at the moment is the Wise Old Owl who has been around forever and seen everything before. There to serve with no hint of personal ambition, because frankly they're past it. Think Ken Clarke in the Cameron coalition government. Donald Dewar did something similar for Blair, and Maggie famously had her Willie.
If Labour are lucky, Starmer might stick around long enough to take that role in 15 years time- it would probably be a better fit than party leader. But right now, he's leader because nobody else is obviously better, which is the problem.
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Yes I agree. Hilary Benn too.
I like Benn, Cooper and Reeves but think they would all face similar problems to Starmer. Burnham ticks a lot of their boxes, and would probably use them in senior roles, but has the Northern influence which a Labour leader needs after being too London-centric. Rayner or Phillips add x-factor volatility that just could work so have a higher upside, but would probably be worse than Starmer.
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
I think you go a bit far - we have some enormous challenges ahead, but we always do. The NHS has had winter crisis for as long as I can remember. There will never be enough money, time, medics to do all that could be done. I'd suggest you look elsewhere. We are not uniquely struggling. Things will improve. My guess is the fuel 'crisis' will be over by the weekend.
They don't seem to be struggling quite as much as we are. In terms of loss of life expectancy, Covid has hit the UK harder than many countries, and nowhere else has has people queuing for petrol. European supermarket shelves aren't as empty as ours, either. Pasta, chopped tomatoes and kidney beans almost all gone on my last shoping trip.
BREXIT has really put us in a bad place.
Brexit is an unserious project lead by unserious people, which is the big issue we have right now. They start out by claiming shortages are a feature, not a bug, of Brexit, because they drive up wages. Then they deny that shortages actually exist, because no-one wants to do without important stuff. Or, if they can't deny it, they claim everyone else also had shortages. Finally they blame everyone else for the consequences of their own decisions; companies, the media, Remainers, the EU.
As I have said before time for the lib dems to come out publicly and say they will join the single market and a accept freedom of movement
That would be honest rather than continually bemoaning abour Brexit
You do not like it, so say what you do want openly and honestly to the public
We have done that already:
"The basic thrust of the party’s position is therefore clear: to demonstrate how the version of Brexit that the government has chosen is disastrous for the UK in every respect, and to call for a different relationship in the immediate term – for example, membership of the Single Market"
Which is quite transparent in that it is seen as a way to convince the UK to Rejoin in the longer term. It was decided at conference that Rejoin would not be in the LD manifesto in the next GE, but rather small steps.
I think that rather open and honest, don't you?
I have not heard of it (I doubt only a few diehards have read that) and even then it is rather vague
Lib dems need to spell it out and define how they want to address their perceived issues with Brexir
If you are arguing that the LDs should get more media time to promote our policies, then I agree.
There is no vagueness in the policy. It is to move closer to the EU, in small steps including joining the Single Market, with the long term objective of convincing the UK public to Rejoin the EU, but the steps depend on what is politically acceptable to both EU and UK publics at any time.
I note that Barnier said on Newsnight last night that the door was open to Rejoin the EU.
Then make it policy
The problem for those opposing Brexit is that as we plot a new course outside the EU including expanding trade agreements, not least the CPTPP, then re-joining becomes very much more difficult and unlikely
The problem for those who still oppose Brexit is much of the arguments used against Brexit would now be valid against Rejoining, ironically.
A lot of arguments against Brexit were really arguments for inertia. There will always be disruption for any large change and sticking with the status quo avoids that.
In the future as we inevitably diverge further and further away from Europe then inertia and disruption are a reason to stay out, not to rejoin.
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Andy Burnham has been the most impressive Labour politician of the past year IMHO.
But he’s not even an MP.
He has gained a little gravitas, but still too much in the lightweightery department for me. Yvette Cooper is someone that could appeal to wavering Tories who don't like to be referred to as "scum". The rest just look, at best, like a bunch of lecturers from the local technical college. Actually that is unfair to hard working lecturers.
Reeves is certainly bright, but I must say from a political point of view I don't agree with the thread header. The appeal of managerialism for the left is very much exhausted since the financial crisis, and Cooper would face the same problems. Starmer may be able to square the circle if keeps both wings of the party on board, and also manages the party more carefully than he has up to now.
I don't like to diss a decent man, but he is either innumerate or he hasn't bothered to find out what the average (arithmetic mean) wage is.
He's well and truly fallen into a trap of his own making. I'll admit I don't know the exact minimum wage figure. The problem is that £15 does not pass the sniff test to me - in other words, it seems suspiciously high, enough to sound warning bells.
In the past there was the "price of a loaf of bread" test. The "minimum wage rate" test seems something most senior politicians should pass. But I bet many, on all sides, would fail.
not surprising when you look at the profile of who is getting more COVID and who less -
On the hospital stats - apologies, I know I should know this - do the figures reflect just those who are being treated for Covid or do the figures include those who are being treated for other things but have a positive test for Covid?
Both, but they aren't far off the same.
The ICU cases parallel the movements and are nearly entirely severe covid pneumonitis.
The drop in inpatients matches my own Trust figures. Whether admissions bump up to reflect the last 2 weeks rise in cases is yet to be seen.
The fire isn't out on the pandemic, and it is more than just some a little bit of smouldering.
Thanks but I can't help being a bit puzzled.
There must surely be loads of people in for operations for things such as cancers, hip replacements etc etc which require overnight hospitalisation, perhaps for many days, and are positive for Covid but with no or only non-serious Covid symptoms? I think I must be misunderstanding something. If such people are included in the Covid hospitalisation figures then this is inaccurate and wrong.
Why? if you have other, hospitalising, conditions, having COVID is often a *more severe* problem. And all the COVID precautions need to be taken in treating them etc, So including them in the statistics is just telling the truth.
On the admissions, the good news is that the big rise is in the unvaccinated groups - children, mainly. Who are unlikely to need a hospital.
We have been seeing a hospitalisation rate of about 40-50 per day, in England, for 0-17 for a while
No - you misunderstand me - I agree that where Covid is the *more severe* problem. then it should be included. I'm asking about instances where Covid isn't the more severe problem (or indeed isn't severe or maybe not relevant at all).
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
I think you go a bit far - we have some enormous challenges ahead, but we always do. The NHS has had winter crisis for as long as I can remember. There will never be enough money, time, medics to do all that could be done. I'd suggest you look elsewhere. We are not uniquely struggling. Things will improve. My guess is the fuel 'crisis' will be over by the weekend.
They don't seem to be struggling quite as much as we are. In terms of loss of life expectancy, Covid has hit the UK harder than many countries, and nowhere else has has people queuing for petrol. European supermarket shelves aren't as empty as ours, either. Pasta, chopped tomatoes and kidney beans almost all gone on my last shoping trip.
BREXIT has really put us in a bad place.
Brexit is an unserious project lead by unserious people, which is the big issue we have right now. They start out by claiming shortages are a feature, not a bug, of Brexit, because they drive up wages. Then they deny that shortages actually exist, because no-one wants to do without important stuff. Or, if they can't deny it, they claim everyone else also had shortages. Finally they blame everyone else for the consequences of their own decisions; companies, the media, Remainers, the EU.
As I have said before time for the lib dems to come out publicly and say they will join the single market and a accept freedom of movement
That would be honest rather than continually bemoaning abour Brexit
You do not like it, so say what you do want openly and honestly to the public
We have done that already:
"The basic thrust of the party’s position is therefore clear: to demonstrate how the version of Brexit that the government has chosen is disastrous for the UK in every respect, and to call for a different relationship in the immediate term – for example, membership of the Single Market"
Which is quite transparent in that it is seen as a way to convince the UK to Rejoin in the longer term. It was decided at conference that Rejoin would not be in the LD manifesto in the next GE, but rather small steps.
I think that rather open and honest, don't you?
I have not heard of it (I doubt only a few diehards have read that) and even then it is rather vague
Lib dems need to spell it out and define how they want to address their perceived issues with Brexir
If you are arguing that the LDs should get more media time to promote our policies, then I agree.
There is no vagueness in the policy. It is to move closer to the EU, in small steps including joining the Single Market, with the long term objective of convincing the UK public to Rejoin the EU, but the steps depend on what is politically acceptable to both EU and UK publics at any time.
I note that Barnier said on Newsnight last night that the door was open to Rejoin the EU.
Then make it policy
The problem for those opposing Brexit is that as we plot a new course outside the EU including expanding trade agreements, not least the CPTPP, then re-joining becomes very much more difficult and unlikely
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Andy Burnham has been the most impressive Labour politician of the past year IMHO.
But he’s not even an MP.
He has gained a little gravitas, but still too much in the lightweightery department for me. Yvette Cooper is someone that could appeal to wavering Tories who don't like to be referred to as "scum". The rest just look, at best, like a bunch of lecturers from the local technical college. Actually that is unfair to hard working lecturers.
Is that the same Yvette Cooper whose great contribution to British politics was HIPs?
Cooper looks good with rose tinted glasses. She's just another failed politician from the past.
The thing I don't understand and can't wrap my head around is what people who say someone with a penis is a woman mean by the term "woman"? If you abolish all definitions of what a woman is, then how can other people say they are a woman, what are they saying they are in the first place?
People who are male who wish to become female and so transition - then that I understand. In which case they want to lose the penis and gain a cervix surely - so yes still someone with a penis is not a woman, which is why they're transitioning.
But if someone doesn't wish to transition, then what does it even mean to be a woman?
I just don't understand that, no matter how hard I try, so if someone could explain that, I'd appreciate it.
Gender reassignment surgery is a very long wait, even after a long wait for psychological assessment. Indeed people cannot usually go on the waiting list until they have taken hormones and lived as the new gender for a couple of years. There is the practical issue of how to live as the new gender while having the old genitalia in the meantime. Are people not supposed to go to public places during those years?
If gender surgery was to be a pre-condition of acceptance as the new gender (which I think is the majority opinion in the UK), then access to both gender dysphoria clinics and gender surgery needs to be greatly increased. Given scarce resources in terms of expertise, operating time, and finance, I cannot see that happening.
I'm glad that it is not happening. I'm appalled that NHS funds is being used for this purpose - counselling and psychiatry yes but that is all. I think the public places (e.g. loos) issue is a tad exaggerated to be honest. I man who now identifies and looks like a woman using a female loo - who would know or care whether or not she had dangly bits? Does anyone look at others in the public loos anyway - I don't! Do people who think that such a person will pounce on women in a public loo?
Well, the demands on the NHS are endless. I think most people would think that certain things should be the main priorities in terms of NHS funding, for instance life threatening treatable conditions, maternity care, etc.
With regard to the public toilet issue. If someone has the physical appearance of a woman and identifies as such, then surely they should be able to use the womens toilet? Otherwise they would have to use the mens toilets, which would be very humiliating for the person involved. Consequently, I just don't think it is right to deny them access to the female toilets.
On the broader issue, the reality on the ground that I see is that society is becoming accepting of trans people and has broadly accepted the idea of gender being socially constructed, with biological differences being less significant. It follows from this that gender specific spaces will need to adapt to take account of the rights of trans people. I must admit that I have found it difficult to get my head around this, but I think this may be something to do with getting old!
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
I think you go a bit far - we have some enormous challenges ahead, but we always do. The NHS has had winter crisis for as long as I can remember. There will never be enough money, time, medics to do all that could be done. I'd suggest you look elsewhere. We are not uniquely struggling. Things will improve. My guess is the fuel 'crisis' will be over by the weekend.
They don't seem to be struggling quite as much as we are. In terms of loss of life expectancy, Covid has hit the UK harder than many countries, and nowhere else has has people queuing for petrol. European supermarket shelves aren't as empty as ours, either. Pasta, chopped tomatoes and kidney beans almost all gone on my last shoping trip.
BREXIT has really put us in a bad place.
Brexit is an unserious project lead by unserious people, which is the big issue we have right now. They start out by claiming shortages are a feature, not a bug, of Brexit, because they drive up wages. Then they deny that shortages actually exist, because no-one wants to do without important stuff. Or, if they can't deny it, they claim everyone else also had shortages. Finally they blame everyone else for the consequences of their own decisions; companies, the media, Remainers, the EU.
As I have said before time for the lib dems to come out publicly and say they will join the single market and a accept freedom of movement
That would be honest rather than continually bemoaning abour Brexit
You do not like it, so say what you do want openly and honestly to the public
We have done that already:
"The basic thrust of the party’s position is therefore clear: to demonstrate how the version of Brexit that the government has chosen is disastrous for the UK in every respect, and to call for a different relationship in the immediate term – for example, membership of the Single Market"
Which is quite transparent in that it is seen as a way to convince the UK to Rejoin in the longer term. It was decided at conference that Rejoin would not be in the LD manifesto in the next GE, but rather small steps.
I think that rather open and honest, don't you?
I have not heard of it (I doubt only a few diehards have read that) and even then it is rather vague
Lib dems need to spell it out and define how they want to address their perceived issues with Brexir
If you are arguing that the LDs should get more media time to promote our policies, then I agree.
There is no vagueness in the policy. It is to move closer to the EU, in small steps including joining the Single Market, with the long term objective of convincing the UK public to Rejoin the EU, but the steps depend on what is politically acceptable to both EU and UK publics at any time.
I note that Barnier said on Newsnight last night that the door was open to Rejoin the EU.
Then make it policy
The problem for those opposing Brexit is that as we plot a new course outside the EU including expanding trade agreements, not least the CPTPP, then re-joining becomes very much more difficult and unlikely
The argument about membership is now over, probably for one or two generations. The real argument is about the aftermath of the decision, and whether Johnson's government has implemented it well. From where I am looking he has (predictably) made a balls up of it. Meanwhile Brexit supporters do not help the situation because they are in denial about the effects of their pointless decision.
On topic: I agree that Rachel Reeves is one of the best of the Shadow Cabinet, and certainly miles better as Shadow Chancellor than the absolutely dire Anneliese Dodds (what on earth was Starmer thinking when he made that appointment???). Her proposals at the Conference showed some small signs that, at last, there is some thinking going on in Labour on policy. But they were still very muddled, and her interview on Today yesterday was fairly poor. Still, she has something to build on, and at least comes over as sensible and capable of understanding the brief. Leadership material? Maybe, but not in any compelling way.
Labour could do with getting their messaging straight, though. They got themselves into a completely unnecessary muddle yesterday on whether they might increase Income Tax, with Starmer having to step in to correct his Shadow Chancellor. These are the sort of unforced errors they shouldn't be making. Luckily for them, probably hardly anyone noticed.
I don't like to diss a decent man, but he is either innumerate or he hasn't bothered to find out what the average (arithmetic mean) wage is.
He's well and truly fallen into a trap of his own making. I'll admit I don't know the exact minimum wage figure. The problem is that £15 does not pass the sniff test to me - in other words, it seems suspiciously high, enough to sound warning bells.
In the past there was the "price of a loaf of bread" test. The "minimum wage rate" test seems something most senior politicians should pass. But I bet many, on all sides, would fail.
Maybe the *Median* hourly wage got into the debate? Which is over £15 an hour -
At which point we can have a nice long discussion on median, mode and average. And the wage rate curve, where lots earn quite little, but the average is distorted.....
not surprising when you look at the profile of who is getting more COVID and who less -
On the hospital stats - apologies, I know I should know this - do the figures reflect just those who are being treated for Covid or do the figures include those who are being treated for other things but have a positive test for Covid?
Both, but they aren't far off the same.
The ICU cases parallel the movements and are nearly entirely severe covid pneumonitis.
The drop in inpatients matches my own Trust figures. Whether admissions bump up to reflect the last 2 weeks rise in cases is yet to be seen.
The fire isn't out on the pandemic, and it is more than just some a little bit of smouldering.
Thanks but I can't help being a bit puzzled.
There must surely be loads of people in for operations for things such as cancers, hip replacements etc etc which require overnight hospitalisation, perhaps for many days, and are positive for Covid but with no or only non-serious Covid symptoms? I think I must be misunderstanding something. If such people are included in the Covid hospitalisation figures then this is inaccurate and wrong.
Why? if you have other, hospitalising, conditions, having COVID is often a *more severe* problem. And all the COVID precautions need to be taken in treating them etc, So including them in the statistics is just telling the truth.
On the admissions, the good news is that the big rise is in the unvaccinated groups - children, mainly. Who are unlikely to need a hospital.
We have been seeing a hospitalisation rate of about 40-50 per day, in England, for 0-17 for a while
No - you misunderstand me - I agree that where Covid is the *more severe* problem. then it should be included. I'm asking about instances where Covid isn't the more severe problem (or indeed isn't severe or maybe not relevant at all).
How do you judge "less severe" or "not relevant" ?
Reeves is certainly bright, but I must say from a political point of view I don't agree with the thread header. The appeal of managerialism for the left is very much exhausted since the financial crisis, and Cooper would face the same problems. Starmer may be able to square the circle if keeps both wings of the party on board, and also manages the party more carefully than he has up to now.
Labour's target audience, if they want to win an election and form a government, should not be the left, but workers, by which I mean anyone earning a living, not just the working class. Workers will give credit for professionalism and see the contrast with the government.
It does require a mindshift within the party but what could be more going back to the heart of Labour than supporting workers.
not surprising when you look at the profile of who is getting more COVID and who less -
On the hospital stats - apologies, I know I should know this - do the figures reflect just those who are being treated for Covid or do the figures include those who are being treated for other things but have a positive test for Covid?
Both, but they aren't far off the same.
The ICU cases parallel the movements and are nearly entirely severe covid pneumonitis.
The drop in inpatients matches my own Trust figures. Whether admissions bump up to reflect the last 2 weeks rise in cases is yet to be seen.
The fire isn't out on the pandemic, and it is more than just some a little bit of smouldering.
Thanks but I can't help being a bit puzzled.
There must surely be loads of people in for operations for things such as cancers, hip replacements etc etc which require overnight hospitalisation, perhaps for many days, and are positive for Covid but with no or only non-serious Covid symptoms? I think I must be misunderstanding something. If such people are included in the Covid hospitalisation figures then this is inaccurate and wrong.
Yes, there are some, indeed still a fair number hospital acquired. Someone coming in for an elective hip though would just get sent home. Asymptomatic covid increases the death rate from elective surgery forty times. If you have covid then a GA is seriously to be avoided.
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Andy Burnham has been the most impressive Labour politician of the past year IMHO.
But he’s not even an MP.
He has gained a little gravitas, but still too much in the lightweightery department for me. Yvette Cooper is someone that could appeal to wavering Tories who don't like to be referred to as "scum". The rest just look, at best, like a bunch of lecturers from the local technical college. Actually that is unfair to hard working lecturers.
Is that the same Yvette Cooper whose great contribution to British politics was HIPs?
Cooper looks good with rose tinted glasses. She's just another failed politician from the past.
I am not a Labour Party supporter, but I have enough political nous to know that she is less failed than the numpties that are on the front benches of both major parties. She has gravitas and would be a great foil to the clownish oaf that you used to show blind loyalty to.
I was out and about this morning and the traffic was quite busy and especially so on the A55
They must be getting fuel somewhere
It would not surprise me if deliveries of fuel set a new monthly record this month.
The current record is 2,223 thousand tonnes of DERV distributed in November 2018. The provisional figure for June 2021 is 2,100.
We could be having a mass panic about a lack of fuel supplies when they are at a record high. Will be interesting to see when the figures are published.
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Andy Burnham has been the most impressive Labour politician of the past year IMHO.
But he’s not even an MP.
He has gained a little gravitas, but still too much in the lightweightery department for me. Yvette Cooper is someone that could appeal to wavering Tories who don't like to be referred to as "scum". The rest just look, at best, like a bunch of lecturers from the local technical college. Actually that is unfair to hard working lecturers.
Nick Thomas Symonds, the Shadow Home Secretary, is the most capable in the shadow cabinet. 1st class degree from Oxford and a former commercial and chancery barrister and academic. He is also Welsh so able to appeal beyond North London. If Labour wanted a real heavyweight they could go with him, however not sure if he has a great deal of charisma
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Andy Burnham has been the most impressive Labour politician of the past year IMHO.
But he’s not even an MP.
He has gained a little gravitas, but still too much in the lightweightery department for me. Yvette Cooper is someone that could appeal to wavering Tories who don't like to be referred to as "scum". The rest just look, at best, like a bunch of lecturers from the local technical college. Actually that is unfair to hard working lecturers.
Nick Thomas Symonds, the Shadow Home Secretary, is the most capable in the shadow cabinet. 1st class degree from Oxford and a former commercial and chancery barrister and academic. He is also Welsh so able to appeal beyond North London. If Labour wanted a real heavyweight they could go with him, however not sure if he has a great deal of charisma
He makes Starmer appear charismatic! Vanished without trace in one of the top 4 shadow jobs. Atl least Abbott got noticed.
Reeves is certainly bright, but I must say from a political point of view I don't agree with the thread header. The appeal of managerialism for the left is very much exhausted since the financial crisis, and Cooper would face the same problems. Starmer may be able to square the circle if keeps both wings of the party on board, and also manages the party more carefully than he has up to now.
Labour's target audience, if they want to win an election and form a government, should not be the left, but workers, by which I mean anyone earning a living, not just the working class. Workers will give credit for professionalism and see the contrast with the government.
It does require a mindshift within the party but what could be more going back to the heart of Labour than supporting workers.
Although you wouldn't know it from here, most of the Labour Conference has been about exactly that: how to improve the lot of working people across the spectrum. Unlike on PB, marginal issues such as trans rights have barely been mentioned.
How about we don't go round the same trans "debate" again.
Perhaps esteemed posters shouldn't bait with the likes of “my daughter wants to transition to a butterfly hurr durr durr”
I've always been very clear with all my children that whatever identity they choose for themselves, I will love them unconditionally and support their choice in whatever way I can. Unless they become Tories. Then they're dead to me.
What if they transition to Tories or self-identify as such? Will you still regard them are “really” being Labour?
What if they vote Tory, but chose to self identify as LibDems?
Just because of some physical thing, like a mark on a ballot paper, will you take away their right to self identify? etc etc
Pollyfillia at the Grauniad once wanted to "take over" the Libertarian brand. On the basis that it was a cool name and she thought that it should belong to proper people - who believed in things such as mandatory ID cards.
I’d be worried about their mental health… need to get a teleconsult in pronto
Do you do this yourself as self-appointed and unthinking Boris Johnson Fanboy In Chief, or does Conservative Central Office feed you this stuff?
Just a pastime.
Lay off the insults, they’re unimaginative and unfunny
Are you referring to my "insults" or your politically juvenile posts?
Your attempts at winding me up. They fall on deaf ears and make you look foolish
I have no intention of winding you up, or anyone else, I just find those who put any politician (particularly one such as Johnson) on a pedestal worthy of a little polite but gentle mockery.
I don't even really like him that much, I used to absolutely hate him. But looking at the ratings, etc I think its a great bet that he leads the Conservatives to another majority,and a lot of that is based on the poor ratings and leadership of Sir Keir. Getting involved in a dispute over £15ph pay with someone, whilst using in his leadership bid a campaign for £15ph for fast food workers, is worth pointing out - I didn't even mention Boris!
According to court documents, the Bay Area woman accused of starting the Fawn Fire in Shasta County last week was boiling bear urine so she could drink it when she allegedly set off the destructive blaze. https://twitter.com/KPIXtv/status/1442684030097444864
I remember a classic when a woman in San Diego was caught by the police for driving along a "two person minimum" bridge alone. She appealed against the fine because she was pregnant. She won that, but lost when the police came after her for "more than one person in the drivers seat"....
How old were you when you first fell in love with Boris Johnson?
Why is everyone so sensitive about Starmer's position on the £15 minimum wage?
Because for Labour the minimum wage is a core idea and he does not appear to understand its implications. The minimum he wants is slightly above the average wage!
Reeves is certainly bright, but I must say from a political point of view I don't agree with the thread header. The appeal of managerialism for the left is very much exhausted since the financial crisis, and Cooper would face the same problems. Starmer may be able to square the circle if keeps both wings of the party on board, and also manages the party more carefully than he has up to now.
Labour's target audience, if they want to win an election and form a government, should not be the left, but workers, by which I mean anyone earning a living, not just the working class. Workers will give credit for professionalism and see the contrast with the government.
It does require a mindshift within the party but what could be more going back to the heart of Labour than supporting workers.
Although you wouldn't know it from here, most of the Labour Conference has been about exactly that: how to improve the lot of working people across the spectrum. Unlike on PB, marginal issues such as trans rights have barely been mentioned.
Yes, what Mandleson brought was not so much policies, as a strong control of the media narrative. Social Media makes that much harder* but there is a competence deficiency in the Labour media machine.
*makes it much harder too for the government to spin its "crisis, what crisis?" line.
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Yes I agree. Hilary Benn too.
I like Benn, Cooper and Reeves but think they would all face similar problems to Starmer. Burnham ticks a lot of their boxes, and would probably use them in senior roles, but has the Northern influence which a Labour leader needs after being too London-centric. Rayner or Phillips add x-factor volatility that just could work so have a higher upside, but would probably be worse than Starmer.
The reality is that Labour needs to find a leader and a team that will persuade enough Tory voters to stay at home, vote LD or vote Labour if it is serious about gaining power. Rayner as leader is one of the few factors I could think of at the moment to persuade me to go a out and vote Tory again , and I am sure I am not an isolated case. People such as Rayner and Corbyn are recruiting sergeants for the Tories.
I see that SKS is being unexcoriated by his far left for not keeping a promise on a "£15 per hour" minimum wage.
Where was this promise?
And does setting a minimum wage at about 40% (rough number) of Median Wage work?
You know, if it is ever going to work it would be now when the labour market is incredibly tight and the supply of labour is more restricted than it was. Employers would need to focus on getting more out of their more expensive staff, even if it involved training them.
I think that you need to be very careful with policies such as the NMW so as not to overdo it and cause unnecessary unemployment but you should also take advantage of situations such as we have right now. Doing so will transfer more of the burden of financing the low paid from in work benefits to where it belongs, on those that employ them. It is an opportunity to reduce inequality and reduce government spending. I am not sure about £15 but an increase substantially beyond inflation and well over £10 makes sense.
Thankfully the market is doing a good job at the moment, of lifting many people above the minimum wage without needing any government intervention.
True, But I read on here that labour shortages are a bad thing. Or something.
Labour shortages are very obviously a bad thing. If they can be resolved through raising salaries then all well and good. If they can't, then we are in a whole heap of trouble.
The whole retake control thing with brexit should see targeted migration based on need. So if it is not resolved by raising salaries we have the means to allow people access to our labour markets.
Or that is what we are told.
It was what we were told. And yet where we have not just need but a full-blown crisis the government refuses to allow targeted migration. Or even work visas (5k is a drop in the ocean).
Why is that? Surely a "points-based migration scheme" wasn't code for "stop migrants"?
I didn’t think it was but it beggars belief when we have skills gaps or shortages little is being done to fill them gaps.
The view is that this is a temporary blip not a long term structural issue
The view is, I think, that once the training system has caught up with the backlog, the problem will go away. For HGV drivers, that is.
I further think, that the view is that getting temporary drivers from abroad will be problematic (because of shortages elsewhere) and that on every previous occasion, industry has chosen to avoid training and investment when cheap labour is available.
That's my guesstimate of the government thinking on this.
According to court documents, the Bay Area woman accused of starting the Fawn Fire in Shasta County last week was boiling bear urine so she could drink it when she allegedly set off the destructive blaze. https://twitter.com/KPIXtv/status/1442684030097444864
I remember a classic when a woman in San Diego was caught by the police for driving along a "two person minimum" bridge alone. She appealed against the fine because she was pregnant. She won that, but lost when the police came after her for "more than one person in the drivers seat"....
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Andy Burnham has been the most impressive Labour politician of the past year IMHO.
But he’s not even an MP.
He has gained a little gravitas, but still too much in the lightweightery department for me. Yvette Cooper is someone that could appeal to wavering Tories who don't like to be referred to as "scum". The rest just look, at best, like a bunch of lecturers from the local technical college. Actually that is unfair to hard working lecturers.
Is that the same Yvette Cooper whose great contribution to British politics was HIPs?
Cooper looks good with rose tinted glasses. She's just another failed politician from the past.
I am not a Labour Party supporter, but I have enough political nous to know that she is less failed than the numpties that are on the front benches of both major parties. She has gravitas and would be a great foil to the clownish oaf that you used to show blind loyalty to.
I never showed blind loyalty to Boris.
I had a position on Europe (that we should elect our lawmakers) that led me to agree with Boris post Brexit, apart from when he backed the third meaningful vote. At that point I disagreed with him.
People you disagree with are quite capable of making up their own mind without it being loyalty based.
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Andy Burnham has been the most impressive Labour politician of the past year IMHO.
But he’s not even an MP.
He has gained a little gravitas, but still too much in the lightweightery department for me. Yvette Cooper is someone that could appeal to wavering Tories who don't like to be referred to as "scum". The rest just look, at best, like a bunch of lecturers from the local technical college. Actually that is unfair to hard working lecturers.
Nick Thomas Symonds, the Shadow Home Secretary, is the most capable in the shadow cabinet. 1st class degree from Oxford and a former commercial and chancery barrister and academic. He is also Welsh so able to appeal beyond North London. If Labour wanted a real heavyweight they could go with him, however not sure if he has a great deal of charisma
He makes Starmer appear charismatic! Vanished without trace in one of the top 4 shadow jobs. Atl least Abbott got noticed.
He has got on with the job, Abbott got noticed because she was hopeless at it.
Reeves is certainly bright, but I must say from a political point of view I don't agree with the thread header. The appeal of managerialism for the left is very much exhausted since the financial crisis, and Cooper would face the same problems. Starmer may be able to square the circle if keeps both wings of the party on board, and also manages the party more carefully than he has up to now.
Labour's target audience, if they want to win an election and form a government, should not be the left, but workers, by which I mean anyone earning a living, not just the working class. Workers will give credit for professionalism and see the contrast with the government.
It does require a mindshift within the party but what could be more going back to the heart of Labour than supporting workers.
Although you wouldn't know it from here, most of the Labour Conference has been about exactly that: how to improve the lot of working people across the spectrum. Unlike on PB, marginal issues such as trans rights have barely been mentioned.
If that is the case Labour should be looking for a new comms director asap.
I don't like to diss a decent man, but he is either innumerate or he hasn't bothered to find out what the average (arithmetic mean) wage is.
He's well and truly fallen into a trap of his own making. I'll admit I don't know the exact minimum wage figure. The problem is that £15 does not pass the sniff test to me - in other words, it seems suspiciously high, enough to sound warning bells.
In the past there was the "price of a loaf of bread" test. The "minimum wage rate" test seems something most senior politicians should pass. But I bet many, on all sides, would fail.
Maybe the *Median* hourly wage got into the debate? Which is over £15 an hour -
At which point we can have a nice long discussion on median, mode and average. And the wage rate curve, where lots earn quite little, but the average is distorted.....
On the last point, I thought HYUFD and kjh had already done that. Several times. To the extent, I believe, that kjh ended up leaving* the country
*temporarily
(also, pedantically, they're all averages, as is the mean)
I posted before the fun/horrifying fact that the average (modal) age of death up until the early 1960s in this country was 0. Which is good example of mode, mean and median being quite different.
If Starmer doesn't want a £15 p/h minimum wage, why on earth was he out with a protest for McDonald's to pay £15 p/h ?
Have you tried the sausage muffins? I don't mean the sausage egg muffins, just the pure sausage muffins. The people making those deserve more than the minimum wage.
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Andy Burnham has been the most impressive Labour politician of the past year IMHO.
But he’s not even an MP.
He has gained a little gravitas, but still too much in the lightweightery department for me. Yvette Cooper is someone that could appeal to wavering Tories who don't like to be referred to as "scum". The rest just look, at best, like a bunch of lecturers from the local technical college. Actually that is unfair to hard working lecturers.
Nick Thomas Symonds, the Shadow Home Secretary, is the most capable in the shadow cabinet. 1st class degree from Oxford and a former commercial and chancery barrister and academic. He is also Welsh so able to appeal beyond North London. If Labour wanted a real heavyweight they could go with him, however not sure if he has a great deal of charisma
Would being Welsh be a plus or minus in the red wall or midlands?
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Yes I agree. Hilary Benn too.
I like Benn, Cooper and Reeves but think they would all face similar problems to Starmer. Burnham ticks a lot of their boxes, and would probably use them in senior roles, but has the Northern influence which a Labour leader needs after being too London-centric. Rayner or Phillips add x-factor volatility that just could work so have a higher upside, but would probably be worse than Starmer.
The reality is that Labour needs to find a leader and a team that will persuade enough Tory voters to stay at home, vote LD or vote Labour if it is serious about gaining power. Rayner as leader is one of the few factors I could think of at the moment to persuade me to go a out and vote Tory again , and I am sure I am not an isolated case. People such as Rayner and Corbyn are recruiting sergeants for the Tories.
As a Tory the only Labour leader I would fear is Burnham but he is not even an MP at present.
Starmer is an improvement on Corbyn but no great vote winner either.
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Andy Burnham has been the most impressive Labour politician of the past year IMHO.
But he’s not even an MP.
He has gained a little gravitas, but still too much in the lightweightery department for me. Yvette Cooper is someone that could appeal to wavering Tories who don't like to be referred to as "scum". The rest just look, at best, like a bunch of lecturers from the local technical college. Actually that is unfair to hard working lecturers.
Nick Thomas Symonds, the Shadow Home Secretary, is the most capable in the shadow cabinet. 1st class degree from Oxford and a former commercial and chancery barrister and academic. He is also Welsh so able to appeal beyond North London. If Labour wanted a real heavyweight they could go with him, however not sure if he has a great deal of charisma
Would being Welsh be a plus or minus in the red wall or midlands?
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Andy Burnham has been the most impressive Labour politician of the past year IMHO.
But he’s not even an MP.
He has gained a little gravitas, but still too much in the lightweightery department for me. Yvette Cooper is someone that could appeal to wavering Tories who don't like to be referred to as "scum". The rest just look, at best, like a bunch of lecturers from the local technical college. Actually that is unfair to hard working lecturers.
Is that the same Yvette Cooper whose great contribution to British politics was HIPs?
Cooper looks good with rose tinted glasses. She's just another failed politician from the past.
I am not a Labour Party supporter, but I have enough political nous to know that she is less failed than the numpties that are on the front benches of both major parties. She has gravitas and would be a great foil to the clownish oaf that you used to show blind loyalty to.
I never showed blind loyalty to Boris.
I had a position on Europe (that we should elect our lawmakers) that led me to agree with Boris post Brexit, apart from when he backed the third meaningful vote. At that point I disagreed with him.
People you disagree with are quite capable of making up their own mind without it being loyalty based.
You were cringingly, obsequiously loyal up until a few weeks ago. If you had been able to swear a feudal oath of fealty with head bowed, you would have been sharp elbowing your way to the front of the queue and prostrating yourself at his highly polished brogues and breathlessly asking "how can I best serve My Liege?" .
If Starmer doesn't want a £15 p/h minimum wage, why on earth was he out with a protest for McDonald's to pay £15 p/h ?
Have you tried the sausage muffins? I don't mean the sausage egg muffins, just the pure sausage muffins. The people making those deserve more than the minimum wage.
Next question for Starmer - "Why should I, as a care assistant be worth less than a McDonald's worker"
I am probably in a small minority here but as a genuine non party affiliate - though admittedly from right of centre - I can't believe that Labour would be so stupid as to get rid of Starmer.
The polls at the moment reflect issues almost completely unrelated to the parties or their leaders. We are in a crisis management situation where, in spite of what the the media and PB regulars (including me) might think, the Government is not yet identified with catastrophic failings regarding the epidemic and its many and varied consequences. I think that will come and I doubt Johnson will survive - I hope he doesn't survive anyway. When that happens I think Starmer will be regarded as a steady and safe pair of hands and I think he is by far the best chance Labour have of winning power - if not a majority then at least the keys to Number 10.
We are 2-3 years out from the next election and there is a massive amount of fallout coming from the way in which Johnson and his Government have behaved since December 2019. I think he is toast and I think Starmer might be the one to benefit.
Of course it is possible that those opposed to him in the Labour Party realise this and want to make sure that when Johnson falls it is someone more ideologically sound who is there to benefit.
pretty hardcore... they are simply going to fire the unvaccinated...
Good idea, they're putting their patients at risk for no good reason (including the unvaccinated patients, who whatever you think of their decision not to be vaccinated shouldn't be put in unnecessary danger when they go to hospital) and they're probably mostly also nuts in other ways.
If Starmer doesn't want a £15 p/h minimum wage, why on earth was he out with a protest for McDonald's to pay £15 p/h ?
Have you tried the sausage muffins? I don't mean the sausage egg muffins, just the pure sausage muffins. The people making those deserve more than the minimum wage.
Next question for Starmer - "Why should I, as a care assistant be worth less than a McDonald's worker"
I'm not sure what's worse: The point you make or the fact that Starmer was happy to go to an event that was having a pop at a specific employer (and not even one with questionable behaviour).
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Andy Burnham has been the most impressive Labour politician of the past year IMHO.
But he’s not even an MP.
He has gained a little gravitas, but still too much in the lightweightery department for me. Yvette Cooper is someone that could appeal to wavering Tories who don't like to be referred to as "scum". The rest just look, at best, like a bunch of lecturers from the local technical college. Actually that is unfair to hard working lecturers.
Is that the same Yvette Cooper whose great contribution to British politics was HIPs?
Cooper looks good with rose tinted glasses. She's just another failed politician from the past.
I am not a Labour Party supporter, but I have enough political nous to know that she is less failed than the numpties that are on the front benches of both major parties. She has gravitas and would be a great foil to the clownish oaf that you used to show blind loyalty to.
I never showed blind loyalty to Boris.
I had a position on Europe (that we should elect our lawmakers) that led me to agree with Boris post Brexit, apart from when he backed the third meaningful vote. At that point I disagreed with him.
People you disagree with are quite capable of making up their own mind without it being loyalty based.
You were cringingly, obsequiously loyal up until a few weeks ago. If you had been able to swear a feudal oath of fealty with head bowed, you would have been sharp elbowing your way to the front of the queue and prostrating yourself at his highly polished brogues and breathlessly asking "how can I best serve My Liege?" .
Come on! Johnson is a slob. No way would he wear highly polished brogues.
Comments
There is no vagueness in the policy. It is to move closer to the EU, in small steps including joining the Single Market, with the long term objective of convincing the UK public to Rejoin the EU, but the steps depend on what is politically acceptable to both EU and UK publics at any time.
I note that Barnier said on Newsnight last night that the door was open to Rejoin the EU.
https://twitter.com/toryfibs/status/1442561275515613190?s=21
I think that Indonesia could be a mayor beneficiary of an environment where China can't be so bullying, if that is achieved in due course.
I further think, that the view is that getting temporary drivers from abroad will be problematic (because of shortages elsewhere) and that on every previous occasion, industry has chosen to avoid training and investment when cheap labour is available.
That's my guesstimate of the government thinking on this.
First available slot: Jan 2022.
https://twitter.com/duponline/status/1442746174373613573?s=20
*runs and hides*
(A policewoman turns up)
"Excuse me, ma'am. We've had a call that you've used a female toilet."
"Yes, I'm a woman."
(Shows her driving licence)
"I'm sorry, ma'am, but I'm going to need to check."
"But this is my daughter here!"
"Men have daughters, too."
"Why do you think I'm male?"
"I don't, ma'am. It's just that another lady said you might be. She said you're a little flat-chested."
(the woman sobs)
"I've had cancer and a double mastectomy!"
"A complaint has been made, and we still need to check."
"So how can I prove it?"
"I'm afraid you're going to have to have a full physical exam and DNA test. If you'll just accompany me down to the station..."
Look, if men want to dress up as women, that's their business. But from the state's pov, they should be treated as men.
Apparently a non trivial number of people who have done their theory test are going to have it time out on them - because of COVID and now this backlog.
The ICU cases parallel the movements and are nearly entirely severe covid pneumonitis.
The drop in inpatients matches my own Trust figures. Whether admissions bump up to reflect the last 2 weeks rise in cases is yet to be seen.
The fire isn't out on the pandemic, and it is more than just some a little bit of smouldering.
Her record in many aspects of government is pretty mediocre.
They must be getting fuel somewhere
Lay off the insults, they’re unimaginative and unfunny
So, you strap a bear in the pod, fly it at Mach 2, eject it, then find the capsule and unstrap the bear and give it a medical exam.
Can't help suspecting that there was a considerable silence when that plan was presented...
That and that the people who strap bears into escape pods (and unstrap them) are probably not people to trifle with.
There must surely be loads of people in for operations for things such as cancers, hip replacements etc etc which require overnight hospitalisation, perhaps for many days, and are positive for Covid but with no or only non-serious Covid symptoms? I think I must be misunderstanding something. If such people are included in the Covid hospitalisation figures then this is inaccurate and wrong.
The problem for those opposing Brexit is that as we plot a new course outside the EU including expanding trade agreements, not least the CPTPP, then re-joining becomes very much more difficult and unlikely
But he’s not even an MP.
On the admissions, the good news is that the big rise is in the unvaccinated groups - children, mainly. Who are unlikely to need a hospital.
We have been seeing a hospitalisation rate of about 40-50 per day, in England, for 0-17 for a while
What both sides are missing at the moment is the Wise Old Owl who has been around forever and seen everything before. There to serve with no hint of personal ambition, because frankly they're past it. Think Ken Clarke in the Cameron coalition government. Donald Dewar did something similar for Blair, and Maggie famously had her Willie.
If Labour are lucky, Starmer might stick around long enough to take that role in 15 years time- it would probably be a better fit than party leader. But right now, he's leader because nobody else is obviously better, which is the problem.
A lot of arguments against Brexit were really arguments for inertia. There will always be disruption for any large change and sticking with the status quo avoids that.
In the future as we inevitably diverge further and further away from Europe then inertia and disruption are a reason to stay out, not to rejoin.
In the past there was the "price of a loaf of bread" test. The "minimum wage rate" test seems something most senior politicians should pass. But I bet many, on all sides, would fail.
Cooper looks good with rose tinted glasses. She's just another failed politician from the past.
With regard to the public toilet issue. If someone has the physical appearance of a woman and identifies as such, then surely they should be able to use the womens toilet? Otherwise they would have to use the mens toilets, which would be very humiliating for the person involved. Consequently, I just don't think it is right to deny them access to the female toilets.
On the broader issue, the reality on the ground that I see is that society is becoming accepting of trans people and has broadly accepted the idea of gender being socially constructed, with biological differences being less significant. It follows from this that gender specific spaces will need to adapt to take account of the rights of trans people. I must admit that I have found it difficult to get my head around this, but I think this may be something to do with getting old!
Labour could do with getting their messaging straight, though. They got themselves into a completely unnecessary muddle yesterday on whether they might increase Income Tax, with Starmer having to step in to correct his Shadow Chancellor. These are the sort of unforced errors they shouldn't be making. Luckily for them, probably hardly anyone noticed.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/280687/full-time-hourly-wage-uk/
At which point we can have a nice long discussion on median, mode and average. And the wage rate curve, where lots earn quite little, but the average is distorted.....
It does require a mindshift within the party but what could be more going back to the heart of Labour than supporting workers.
The current record is 2,223 thousand tonnes of DERV distributed in November 2018. The provisional figure for June 2021 is 2,100.
We could be having a mass panic about a lack of fuel supplies when they are at a record high. Will be interesting to see when the figures are published.
*makes it much harder too for the government to spin its "crisis, what crisis?" line.
I had a position on Europe (that we should elect our lawmakers) that led me to agree with Boris post Brexit, apart from when he backed the third meaningful vote. At that point I disagreed with him.
People you disagree with are quite capable of making up their own mind without it being loyalty based.
Hugh Abbott : He actually said this is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing.
Malcolm Tucker : "SHOULD" be doing. "Should" does not mean "yes".
Worst possible choice
*temporarily
(also, pedantically, they're all averages, as is the mean)
I posted before the fun/horrifying fact that the average (modal) age of death up until the early 1960s in this country was 0. Which is good example of mode, mean and median being quite different.
https://www.theice.com/products/910/UK-Natural-Gas-Futures/data?marketId=5188708
Starmer is an improvement on Corbyn but no great vote winner either.
Rayner would guarantee Boris' re election
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/ny-prepared-for-tens-of-thousands-of-unvaccinated-health-workers-to-lose-jobs/
pretty hardcore... they are simply going to fire the unvaccinated...
The polls at the moment reflect issues almost completely unrelated to the parties or their leaders. We are in a crisis management situation where, in spite of what the the media and PB regulars (including me) might think, the Government is not yet identified with catastrophic failings regarding the epidemic and its many and varied consequences. I think that will come and I doubt Johnson will survive - I hope he doesn't survive anyway. When that happens I think Starmer will be regarded as a steady and safe pair of hands and I think he is by far the best chance Labour have of winning power - if not a majority then at least the keys to Number 10.
We are 2-3 years out from the next election and there is a massive amount of fallout coming from the way in which Johnson and his Government have behaved since December 2019. I think he is toast and I think Starmer might be the one to benefit.
Of course it is possible that those opposed to him in the Labour Party realise this and want to make sure that when Johnson falls it is someone more ideologically sound who is there to benefit.