politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Flying into trouble – the government’s position on Heathrow?

Cyclefree said:

tlg86 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

The Civil Service is there to impartially support the government of the day, not the other way around. The elected government are the Civil Services masters and we voters are the governments masters. The FDA needs to remember that.

7. A mixture of guile, bossiness and charm is needed. Does Priti have this or is she - possibly - out of her depth, not necessarily because of her personal qualities (or not just these) but because the Home Office is such a wide-ranging department and because it is at the core of so many of the government’s key policies? That is a lot even for an experienced Minister to deal with.

Should a Minister have to be Joan Collins to get the best out of their civil servants? It shouldn't be a battle of wills, the civil servants surely *should* do as they're told to the best of their ability.

The basic principal is that the civil service advises, the ministers decide and the civil service implements the decision. Sometimes I get the feeling the CS see it as a negotiation between them and the government.

How a decision is implemented makes the difference between a Minister’s success or failure. So yes of course a Minister has to learn how to get the best out of their staff. As anyone anywhere in a position of leadership has to.

And effectively that means the relationship with the Permanent Sec is crucial. There's an episode of Yes Minister where Hacker talks directly with a much junior civil servant and Humphrey goes mad. Ministers are here today gone tomorrow so ultimately the civil servants need to run the show.

Andy_JS said:

Dem nom:

Sanders 2
Biden 4
Bloomberg 7

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128161111

Punters considering health risks to various candidates should note carefully what they are betting on. The Betfair market is on who will be nominated at the DNC in July, not who will be on the ballot in November.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

That's a distinction without a difference. The flu very frequently causes secondary diseases which causes death without medical intervention. It sometimes causes death even with medical intervention. Therefore the flu requires [in many cases] medical intervention.

Again it is not the flu which requires medical intervention, otherwise everyone without pneumonia but with flu would require medical treatment but only the pneumonia which requires medical treatment, a key distinction

You are making yourself look like a total idiot.

What out of that is factually wrong? Nothing

Lots. This all started by you claiming "Hospital treatment will have near zero impact on coronavirus recovery" which is absolute garbage since there won't be "near zero" patients who end up in ICU's with illnesses caused by this like pneumonia. That is why people are dieing FFS.

So again hospital treatment will not affect coronavirus recovery, hospital treatment might help a minority of generally elderly coronavirus patients who also get pneumonia but again technically the hospital treatment would be for the pneumonia and not for coronavirus

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Andy_JS said:

Dem nom:

Sanders 2
Biden 4
Bloomberg 7

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128161111

Punters considering health risks to various candidates should note carefully what they are betting on. The Betfair market is on who will be nominated at the DNC in July, not who will be on the ballot in November.

Stacey Adams? 800/1

matt said:

@Cyclefree.

I’m possibly unduly cynical but whatever the failure, the Civil Service, and in particular its senior management, seems to sail on regardless. Minsters fall (and that, FAOD, is right) but the buck ends there. It is hard to see the circumstances where the senior civil servant in a given department resigns. They appear to see themselves as invulnerable to competence issues. The buck always stops somewhere else. Windrush and the CS behaviours is instructive in that regard.

In my professional life, I’ve worked with the civil service. It was, to be charitable, frustrating. I could be more robust.

Well he is out to get Priti Patel, that's for sure.

squareroot2 said:

matt said:

@Cyclefree.

I’m possibly unduly cynical but whatever the failure, the Civil Service, and in particular its senior management, seems to sail on regardless. Minsters fall (and that, FAOD, is right) but the buck ends there. It is hard to see the circumstances where the senior civil servant in a given department resigns. They appear to see themselves as invulnerable to competence issues. The buck always stops somewhere else. Windrush and the CS behaviours is instructive in that regard.

In my professional life, I’ve worked with the civil service. It was, to be charitable, frustrating. I could be more robust.

Well he is out to get Priti Patel, that's for sure.

The Times article suggests he failed his way to the top. No huge loss for the country.

Can I be excused not celebrating the news from Downing St? Even if it were in normal circumstances I would not be interested. It is worth half an inch in the Sunday People tomorrow so that we can move on to more serious issues.

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Laura Kuenssberg.

Pour a glass and stick on the radio on in a bit after a frantic news day

Yes Laura, but voters will be talking about Liverpool getting a beating , not Westminster stuff

Only a minority are that obsessed with football though.
I hope you are enjoying your 76th Birthday!

Thank you and only a minority are interested in Westminster bubble stuff

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Andy_JS said:

Dem nom:

Sanders 2
Biden 4
Bloomberg 7

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128161111

Punters considering health risks to various candidates should note carefully what they are betting on. The Betfair market is on who will be nominated at the DNC in July, not who will be on the ballot in November.

Stacey Adams? 800/1

Stacey Abrams you mean? Someone put her up for VP nominee iirc but she is around 9/2 for that position.

Veep running mate often chosen in the weeks leading up to convention.

nichomar said:

Can I be excused not celebrating the news from Downing St? Even if it were in normal circumstances I would not be interested. It is worth half an inch in the Sunday People tomorrow so that we can move on to more serious issues.

I am afraid it will fill column inches every day to the wedding and beyond

The media just love stories like this

Cyclefree said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Cyclefree said:

Critically, one doesn’t call them incompetent, even if they are, but simply says that there is a difference of style/personality clash etc. If someone is incompetent, that should be dealt with through normal HR processes.

Guile - not war. This is not the battle she should have fought - or, at least, not in this way. The Windrush report, for instance, would have been a much better occasion to make a personnel change.

Well, the latter is a great point. Possibly that is what would have happened, so he's jumped before being pushed.

If so, he would have accepted the financial settlement on offer. Something else is going on.

Indeed it seems to be politically motivated, but he's supposed to be impartial.

Cyclefree said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Cyclefree said:

Critically, one doesn’t call them incompetent, even if they are, but simply says that there is a difference of style/personality clash etc. If someone is incompetent, that should be dealt with through normal HR processes.

Guile - not war. This is not the battle she should have fought - or, at least, not in this way. The Windrush report, for instance, would have been a much better occasion to make a personnel change.

Well, the latter is a great point. Possibly that is what would have happened, so he's jumped before being pushed.

If so, he would have accepted the financial settlement on offer. Something else is going on.

Again, cynically, he’s spent most of a career, indeed a life, with people telling him how important and clever he is. Shock at learning ones real importance can take time to settle. “Servant” suddenly has real, and unexpected, meaning,

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting thought, but soon we can say that every majority-winning Prime Minister in the last quarter of a century has had a child while in Downing Street.

Not out of wedlock though!

Does that matter?

matt said:

@Cyclefree.

I’m possibly unduly cynical but whatever the failure, the Civil Service, and in particular its senior management, seems to sail on regardless. Minsters fall (and that, FAOD, is right) but the buck ends there. It is hard to see the circumstances where the senior civil servant in a given department resigns. They appear to see themselves as invulnerable to competence issues. The buck always stops somewhere else. Windrush and the CS behaviours is instructive in that regard.

In my professional life, I’ve worked with the civil service. It was, to be charitable, frustrating. I could be more robust.

All fair points. I have heard that from others. Some of the people at the FCA, CPS and SFO are absolute shockers. And you know my views on the police.

Three counter-arguments:-

1. Priti was sacked for lying to the PM. That is not a reputation which will engender automatic trust.
2. Her interview when she talked about “counter-terrorism” instead of “terrorism” was a shocker. How hard is it to get that right, for heaven’s sake.
3. She recently misled Parliament - possibly inadvertently, let’s be charitable - about the number of EU nationals who had got settled status.

It’s not necessarily easy working for a boss you don’t feel able to trust and who can’t get the basics right.

I doubt we will ever know the truth.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

That's a distinction without a difference. The flu very frequently causes secondary diseases which causes death without medical intervention. It sometimes causes death even with medical intervention. Therefore the flu requires [in many cases] medical intervention.

Again it is not the flu which requires medical intervention, otherwise everyone without pneumonia but with flu would require medical treatment but only the pneumonia which requires medical treatment, a key distinction

You are making yourself look like a total idiot.

What out of that is factually wrong? Nothing

Lots. This all started by you claiming "Hospital treatment will have near zero impact on coronavirus recovery" which is absolute garbage since there won't be "near zero" patients who end up in ICU's with illnesses caused by this like pneumonia. That is why people are dieing FFS.

So again hospital treatment will not affect coronavirus recovery, hospital treatment might help a minority of generally elderly coronavirus patients who also get pneumonia but again technically the hospital treatment would be for the pneumonia and not for coronavirus

Hospital treatment will affect coronavirus recovery, since pneumonia and other secondary conditions that are caused by coronavirus are part and parcel of coronavirus recovery.

They are not caused by coronavirus, otherwise every coronavirus patient would get pneumonia or another secondary condition rather than a small mainly elderly minority. Hospital treatment is therefore for conditions like pneumonia not coronavirus

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

That's a distinction without a difference. The flu very frequently causes secondary diseases which causes death without medical intervention. It sometimes causes death even with medical intervention. Therefore the flu requires [in many cases] medical intervention.

Again it is not the flu which requires medical intervention, otherwise everyone without pneumonia but with flu would require medical treatment but only the pneumonia which requires medical treatment, a key distinction

You are making yourself look like a total idiot.

What out of that is factually wrong? Nothing

Lots. This all started by you claiming "Hospital treatment will have near zero impact on coronavirus recovery" which is absolute garbage since there won't be "near zero" patients who end up in ICU's with illnesses caused by this like pneumonia. That is why people are dieing FFS.

So again hospital treatment will not affect coronavirus recovery, hospital treatment might help a minority of generally elderly coronavirus patients who also get pneumonia but again technically the hospital treatment would be for the pneumonia and not for coronavirus

Hospital treatment will affect coronavirus recovery, since pneumonia and other secondary conditions that are caused by coronavirus are part and parcel of coronavirus recovery.

They are not caused by coronavirus, otherwise every coronavirus patient would get pneumonia or another secondary condition rather than a small mainly elderly minority. Hospital treatment is therefore for conditions like pneumonia not coronavirus

They are caused by coronavirus, otherwise it'd be pure coincidence and coronavirus wouldn't have any fatalities. 🙄

Just because something doesn't cause death or death-inducing conditions every single time doesn't mean it can't or doesn't cause it for some patients.

It's notable that the Democrats don't have a single candidate aged between 40 and 55 with an active campaign still in the race.

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Cyclefree said:

Critically, one doesn’t call them incompetent, even if they are, but simply says that there is a difference of style/personality clash etc. If someone is incompetent, that should be dealt with through normal HR processes.

Guile - not war. This is not the battle she should have fought - or, at least, not in this way. The Windrush report, for instance, would have been a much better occasion to make a personnel change.

Well, the latter is a great point. Possibly that is what would have happened, so he's jumped before being pushed.

If so, he would have accepted the financial settlement on offer. Something else is going on.

Indeed it seems to be politically motivated, but he's supposed to be impartial.

Not once he’s resigned.

I suspect civil servants know full well that a PM with an 80 seat majority is not going to sacrifice Ministers because civil servants don’t like them.

It is possible his concern is for his staff and how they have been/will be treated. If so, that would speak well of him. Or maybe he’s so furious/fed up that he’s in “sod it” mood.

Andy_JS said:

It's notable that the Democrats don't have a single candidate aged between 40 and 55 with an active campaign still in the race.

But they do have one in the bracket 38-55.

Go Pete.

Casino_Royale said:

Sanders is 12/1 to win South Carolina.

Wondering if that's value..

Nope.

DYOR

Cyclefree said:

matt said:

@Cyclefree.

I’m possibly unduly cynical but whatever the failure, the Civil Service, and in particular its senior management, seems to sail on regardless. Minsters fall (and that, FAOD, is right) but the buck ends there. It is hard to see the circumstances where the senior civil servant in a given department resigns. They appear to see themselves as invulnerable to competence issues. The buck always stops somewhere else. Windrush and the CS behaviours is instructive in that regard.

In my professional life, I’ve worked with the civil service. It was, to be charitable, frustrating. I could be more robust.

All fair points. I have heard that from others. Some of the people at the FCA, CPS and SFO are absolute shockers. And you know my views on the police.

Three counter-arguments:-

1. Priti was sacked for lying to the PM. That is not a reputation which will engender automatic trust.
2. Her interview when she talked about “counter-terrorism” instead of “terrorism” was a shocker. How hard is it to get that right, for heaven’s sake.
3. She recently misled Parliament - possibly inadvertently, let’s be charitable - about the number of EU nationals who had got settled status.

It’s not necessarily easy working for a boss you don’t feel able to trust and who can’t get the basics right.

I doubt we will ever know the truth.

On the final point, I agree. That will not stop the rush to judgement.

Equally, I have no doubt that some senior civil servants (and indeed junior ones) see themselves as the important ones in any given relationship. I also, and this is definitely non-PC, have a sneaking feeling the claims of bullying and underlying competence issues have some direct relationships.

I never expect anything more from people who work with me than I would expect from myself. The problem is that I have high standards. Lack of ability is not a defence.

FAOD, I think that Patel is a shit but it takes two to tango.

Edit: most of the people at the CPS and SFO (including the leadership, present and historic),

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

nichomar said:

Can I be excused not celebrating the news from Downing St? Even if it were in normal circumstances I would not be interested. It is worth half an inch in the Sunday People tomorrow so that we can move on to more serious issues.

I am afraid it will fill column inches every day to the wedding and beyond

The media just love stories like this

Will it be a televised wedding like Harry and Meghan enjoyed and financed by the taxpayer? I love a wedding!

I expect Boris will pay for it himself but also it will be a media event

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1233866804486901760/photo/1

I've said that for years.

If we have farmers they should be able to cope on the global stage without subsidies or tariffs or quotas, like New Zealands.

rottenborough said:

Surgeon General Urges the Public to Stop Buying Face Masks
“Seriously people,” the surgeon general said on Twitter, warning that a run on the masks could risk a shortage harmful to public health professionals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/health/coronavirus-n95-face-masks.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Why don't the public health professionals organise a stockpile for themselves?

Gabs3 said:

There is something ugly going on in Ireland.

https://twitter.com/NewstalkFM/status/1226465421869666304

Look up “Up the Ra” and Waterford.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

nichomar said:

Can I be excused not celebrating the news from Downing St? Even if it were in normal circumstances I would not be interested. It is worth half an inch in the Sunday People tomorrow so that we can move on to more serious issues.

I am afraid it will fill column inches every day to the wedding and beyond

The media just love stories like this

Will it be a televised wedding like Harry and Meghan enjoyed and financed by the taxpayer? I love a wedding!

I expect Boris will pay for it himself but also it will be a media event

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

nichomar said:

Can I be excused not celebrating the news from Downing St? Even if it were in normal circumstances I would not be interested. It is worth half an inch in the Sunday People tomorrow so that we can move on to more serious issues.

I am afraid it will fill column inches every day to the wedding and beyond

The media just love stories like this

Will it be a televised wedding like Harry and Meghan enjoyed and financed by the taxpayer? I love a wedding!

I expect Boris will pay for it himself but also it will be a media event

I don't think Boris likes to pay for stuff other people might help him out with financially. Hello, OK or David Ross might chip in though.

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

1. Suing for unfair dismissal on the basis that you’ve been constructively dismissed i.e. that your employer has behaved in a way which has broken the trust and confidence there has to be in any employment relationship is not for the faint-hearted.
2. All the more so if, as appears to have been the case here, a financial settlement was offered which would certainly have been more than what a tribunal can award him.
3. So why do it? Arrogance? A desire to hurt the Minister? Foolish hubris? Or sufficient evidence of far more bad behaviour than has already come out which will lead to a better settlement offer? Who knows? We may never find out since it will be in the interests of everyone to settle this.
4. It really should not have come to this. What was the Cabinet Secretary doing? If the relationship was not as good as it should have been this should have been sorted long before now.
5. A minister is entitled to have a PS they have confidence in. Equally, they also need to understand that implementation of government policies will depend on the cadre of public servants and that real leadership to get the best out of them is not going to be achieved through fear or abuse. Challenge - yes. High expectations - yes, again. Intolerance of incompetence - yes. But none of these should involve abuse.
6. A Minister also needs to understand that civil servants do need to speak truth to power, that this is an essential part of their job. The skill of a good Minister is being able to distinguish between civil servants saying no for the sake of it and those saying no for good reasons. That often requires some experience in actually running things yourselves and knowing how to recognise inertia, obstructionism and genuine issues, as well as knowing how to pull the right levers to get things done and which battles to fight.
7. A mixture of guile, bossiness and charm is needed. Does Priti have this or is she - possibly - out of her depth, not necessarily because of her personal qualities (or not just these) but because the Home Office is such a wide-ranging department and because it is at the core of so many of the government’s key policies? That is a lot even for an experienced Minister to deal with.

That's an excellent piece. My view is that if a Minister does not have confidence in their PS, they should replace them, and our system needs to make it easy for them to do that.

I do, however, worry that Ms Patel lacks management skills: one doesn't slag off an incompetent underling to the press, one lets them go.

I agree with both of you. Equally why did Shipman say that most of the briefing coming out of the Home Office was anti Patel?

Assuming it wasn’t Patel or her SPADs that leaves only junior ministers (possibly but why this early) or the civil service.

If the civil service the PS should be sacked for that alone

rottenborough said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sanders is 12/1 to win South Carolina.

Wondering if that's value..

Nope.

DYOR

I've got two quid on Steyer at 580 as well.

In the very unlikely event he wins you'll never hear the end of it from me.

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting thought, but soon we can say that every majority-winning Prime Minister in the last quarter of a century has had a child while in Downing Street.

Not out of wedlock though!

Grow up

I am sure that certain 'twin set and pearls' Tory ladies will be far from impressed. It will probably confirm their view of him as a vulgar 'ne'er do well'. Unlikely that Thatcher would have approved.

You do know many children are born to unmarried parents and who are you to judge the parents or the child

Is this conversation better or worse than HYUFD's analysis of Le Pen's election performance?

nichomar said:

Goodnight one and all. Will try to stay calm as should everyone. It’s been a strange place over the last few days with a lot of back biting and petty squabbling. I’m as guilty as everybody else but it would be nice if over the next week or two, as the situation develops we share, what we believe to be,factual news, from the different parts of the world in which we live.this may provide betting and investment opportunities but it will also enable us to be more informed and aware I will leave you with the news that we have 56 cases in Spain,15 in Valencia one hell of an uplift in one day, most of which are imported from travellars.

Good night Nichomar. Good post

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I expect Boris will pay for it himself but also it will be a media event

As an aside, irrespective of the pregnancy, who was the last Prime Minister to get married while in office?

I have no idea to be honest

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I expect Boris will pay for it himself but also it will be a media event

As an aside, irrespective of the pregnancy, who was the last Prime Minister to get married while in office?

Lord Liverpool in 1822.

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting thought, but soon we can say that every majority-winning Prime Minister in the last quarter of a century has had a child while in Downing Street.

Not out of wedlock though!

Grow up

I am sure that certain 'twin set and pearls' Tory ladies will be far from impressed. It will probably confirm their view of him as a vulgar 'ne'er do well'. Unlikely that Thatcher would have approved.

You do know many children are born to unmarried parents and who are you to judge the parents or the child

I am aware of that - but it is not at all relevant to my point.We are all entitled to a view as to how society has changed over time.
You are the Conservative - yet clearly far more comfortable with the collapse in moral standards than I happen to be. On this, Thatcher would have agreed with me.

No she wouldn't, she was fine with children out of wedlock.

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I expect Boris will pay for it himself but also it will be a media event

As an aside, irrespective of the pregnancy, who was the last Prime Minister to get married while in office?

Walpole, perhaps. Unmarried PM have, I think, otherwise been confirmed bachelors aka Heath.

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting thought, but soon we can say that every majority-winning Prime Minister in the last quarter of a century has had a child while in Downing Street.

Not out of wedlock though!

Grow up

I am sure that certain 'twin set and pearls' Tory ladies will be far from impressed. It will probably confirm their view of him as a vulgar 'ne'er do well'. Unlikely that Thatcher would have approved.

You do know many children are born to unmarried parents and who are you to judge the parents or the child

I am aware of that - but it is not at all relevant to my point.We are all entitled to a view as to how society has changed over time.
You are the Conservative - yet clearly far more comfortable with the collapse in moral standards than I happen to be. On this, Thatcher would have agreed with me.

I have a fair and open mind, others are still carrying prejeudices

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting thought, but soon we can say that every majority-winning Prime Minister in the last quarter of a century has had a child while in Downing Street.

Not out of wedlock though!

Grow up

I am sure that certain 'twin set and pearls' Tory ladies will be far from impressed. It will probably confirm their view of him as a vulgar 'ne'er do well'. Unlikely that Thatcher would have approved.

You do know many children are born to unmarried parents and who are you to judge the parents or the child

I am aware of that - but it is not at all relevant to my point.We are all entitled to a view as to how society has changed over time.
You are the Conservative - yet clearly far more comfortable with the collapse in moral standards than I happen to be. On this, Thatcher would have agreed with me.

Thatcher would, I think, have had a moral flexibility. It’s almost as if she was a normal human being,

nichomar said:

Can I be excused not celebrating the news from Downing St? Even if it were in normal circumstances I would not be interested. It is worth half an inch in the Sunday People tomorrow so that we can move on to more serious issues.

That’s uncharitable.

It may not be important but you can at least wish them well

Trump is speaking. Seems very slurry to me.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/live/

justin124 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting thought, but soon we can say that every majority-winning Prime Minister in the last quarter of a century has had a child while in Downing Street.

Not out of wedlock though!

Grow up

I am sure that certain 'twin set and pearls' Tory ladies will be far from impressed. It will probably confirm their view of him as a vulgar 'ne'er do well'. Unlikely that Thatcher would have approved.

You do know many children are born to unmarried parents and who are you to judge the parents or the child

I am aware of that - but it is not at all relevant to my point.We are all entitled to a view as to how society has changed over time.
You are the Conservative - yet clearly far more comfortable with the collapse in moral standards than I happen to be. On this, Thatcher would have agreed with me.

No she wouldn't, she was fine with children out of wedlock.

I am fine with such children too - I criticise the parents . Thatcher made known her disapproval in 1998 when William Hague shared the Leader's suite at the Tory Party Conference with Ffion - to whom he was not then married.

So how do you explain her support for Cecil Parkinson? She promoted him despite knowing he had gotten his mistress pregnant?

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting thought, but soon we can say that every majority-winning Prime Minister in the last quarter of a century has had a child while in Downing Street.

Not out of wedlock though!

I’d assume they will marry before the birth (not that it matters). If they don’t there is a grace period anyway

Philip_Thompson said:

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1233866804486901760/photo/1

I've said that for years.

If we have farmers they should be able to cope on the global stage without subsidies or tariffs or quotas, like New Zealands.

NZ does not have an FTA with US, which will be one reason their agricultural sector has been able to cope.

This proposal sounds like softening us up for an FTA with the US and the destruction of our agricultural sector so that rubbish US food is foisted on us instead.

Some of these advisors seem to know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

If we don't want rubbish US food, we don't have to buy rubbish US food.

If we wish for animal welfare standards in the UK to be protected what is the best approach?

Charles said:

nichomar said:

Can I be excused not celebrating the news from Downing St? Even if it were in normal circumstances I would not be interested. It is worth half an inch in the Sunday People tomorrow so that we can move on to more serious issues.

That’s uncharitable.

It may not be important but you can at least wish them well

No. You can be indifferent. It’s just that you don’t need to say anything.

I didn’t give a shit about the death of Diana. I just turned off the TV and assume that I had nothing in common with 50% of the British population, But I didn’t feel the need to go on about it,

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

That's a distinction without a difference. The flu very frequently causes secondary diseases which causes death without medical intervention. It sometimes causes death even with medical intervention. Therefore the flu requires [in many cases] medical intervention.

Again it is not the flu which requires medical intervention, otherwise everyone without pneumonia but with flu would require medical treatment but only the pneumonia which requires medical treatment, a key distinction

You are making yourself look like a total idiot.

What out of that is factually wrong? Nothing

Lots. This all started by you claiming "Hospital treatment will have near zero impact on coronavirus recovery" which is absolute garbage since there won't be "near zero" patients who end up in ICU's with illnesses caused by this like pneumonia. That is why people are dieing FFS.

So again hospital treatment will not affect coronavirus recovery, hospital treatment might help a minority of generally elderly coronavirus patients who also get pneumonia but again technically the hospital treatment would be for the pneumonia and not for coronavirus

Hospital treatment will affect coronavirus recovery, since pneumonia and other secondary conditions that are caused by coronavirus are part and parcel of coronavirus recovery.

They are not caused by coronavirus, otherwise every coronavirus patient would get pneumonia or another secondary condition rather than a small mainly elderly minority. Hospital treatment is therefore for conditions like pneumonia not coronavirus

Stop digging on this one. A secondary infection is deemed part of the illness for stats perspectives

HYUFD said:

matt said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting thought, but soon we can say that every majority-winning Prime Minister in the last quarter of a century has had a child while in Downing Street.

Not out of wedlock though!

Grow up

I am sure that certain 'twin set and pearls' Tory ladies will be far from impressed. It will probably confirm their view of him as a vulgar 'ne'er do well'. Unlikely that Thatcher would have approved.

You do know many children are born to unmarried parents and who are you to judge the parents or the child

I am aware of that - but it is not at all relevant to my point.We are all entitled to a view as to how society has changed over time.
You are the Conservative - yet clearly far more comfortable with the collapse in moral standards than I happen to be. On this, Thatcher would have agreed with me.

Thatcher would, I think, have had a moral flexibility. It’s almost as if she was a normal human being,

Thatcher herself only ever slept with her husband Dennis, if Charles Moore's biography if anything to go by, so she very much embodied traditional conservative values on social matters

Cecil Parkinson. Peter Morrison.

I was not suggesting that she had a keen interest in dogging.

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

That's a distinction without a difference. The flu very frequently causes secondary diseases which causes death without medical intervention. It sometimes causes death even with medical intervention. Therefore the flu requires [in many cases] medical intervention.

Again it is not the flu which requires medical intervention, otherwise everyone without pneumonia but with flu would require medical treatment but only the pneumonia which requires medical treatment, a key distinction

You are making yourself look like a total idiot.

What out of that is factually wrong? Nothing

Lots. This all started by you claiming "Hospital treatment will have near zero impact on coronavirus recovery" which is absolute garbage since there won't be "near zero" patients who end up in ICU's with illnesses caused by this like pneumonia. That is why people are dieing FFS.

So again hospital treatment will not affect coronavirus recovery, hospital treatment might help a minority of generally elderly coronavirus patients who also get pneumonia but again technically the hospital treatment would be for the pneumonia and not for coronavirus

Hospital treatment will affect coronavirus recovery, since pneumonia and other secondary conditions that are caused by coronavirus are part and parcel of coronavirus recovery.

They are not caused by coronavirus, otherwise every coronavirus patient would get pneumonia or another secondary condition rather than a small mainly elderly minority. Hospital treatment is therefore for conditions like pneumonia not coronavirus

Stop digging on this one. A secondary infection is deemed part of the illness for stats perspectives

HYUFD is a doctor, though.
A spin doctor.