politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Biden’s answer to those raising questions about his age – get

nichomar said:

These terrible French sending us all the asylum seekers

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Number_of_first-time_asylum_applicants_(non-EU-27_citizens),_2018_and_2019_(thousands).png

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

It is worth pointing out that on almost every major education issue of the last seven years, and especially in the three years he has chaired the Education Select Committee, Robert Halfon has made an absolutely right call.

I know there have been questions about his judgement in other fields, but his judgement on education has been impeccable.

Here's what he had to say on the substitute assessment system last month.

We are unconvinced that safeguards—such as additional guidance and practical recommendations—put in place by Ofqual will be sufficient to protect against bias and inaccuracy in calculated grades.

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/1834/documents/17976/default/

It's worth noting, in that report, he criticises OFQUAL and quotes the Royal Statistical Society, saying that OFQUAL were concealing key parts of their methodology.

And here's what he's saying today.

'Our select committee report predicted a potential Wild West system which favours the well-heeled and the sharp-elbowed, and doesn’t appear fair.'

In a sense, whatever happens on results day is now secondary, because this process has already failed. Nobody will have confidence in the results because it has become apparent that the process was flawed, chaotic and ill-conceived.

Robert Halfon is a brilliant MP both on the Education Select Committee and in Harlow which he has turned from a marginal Blair won in 1997, 2001 and 2005 to a pretty safe Tory seat no longer even in the top 150 Labour target seats

RochdalePioneers said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

Three in our office today. Nice to see the good folk of Yorkshire showing total disregard for the bollocks coming out of government.

Higher take-up on the other side of the Pennines for some reason. Around 20 of them have gone in.

And just how many jobs will be lost by not returning to the office

Jobs in catering and transport do you mean?

Across the spectrum

You seem to have this back to front

People are not there to support businesses, businesses are there to support people both in terms of services and jobs. If the business isn't where it needs to be then the business should move to people not the other way round. Cafe's etc will still be in the same demand just where they need to be has altered

It is not that simple. If hundreds of people come to work in one office block, that means hundreds of people will want to eat lunch or drink coffee at the same time in the same place. If these same people are working from home, they will be scattered over a much wider area, and many of them will have their own coffee and cheese toastie-making facilities at home, so the critical mass of caffeine-starved customers needed to support Starbucks is never achieved.

Can I refer everyone back to the squeezed middle and cost of living crisis? So many things in this country cost £lots for no apparent reason - and a working culture that essentially heavily taxes people for the basics isn't sustainable. I've thought for a long time that the coffee explosion was unsustainable. People won't be able to afford the daft money the coffee shacks demand for coffee and a snack without taking the money out of another part of the economy. That so many coffee shacks have been surged up in such a short space of time is not a reason to sustain that part of the economy because jobs. What jobs did the people do before working for the 409th local branch of CoffeeShak? And in what businesses did their customers spend their money?

Covid is a massive rapid realignment of the economy. It's already been brutal and its going to get much worse - the imbalance and instability was already there waiting for the black swan event to tip it over the edge. And very quickly we will see rapid change in the next piece of unsustainable lunacy - an army of zero hour workers scuttling around our towns making multiple repeat deliveries in diesel vans. Most of us have done a lot more direct to consumer shopping and we all need to stop.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

CarlottaVance said:

RAF flying up & down at 450’ over the Straits of Dover:



Though since it’s our side, not sure what good it can do. The solution lies in catching and prosecuting the people smugglers in France.

The solution really lies in eliminating the pull factor, and making it clear that whether or not you get here, sadly you won't get in.

As I mentioned previously, our asylum processing centres should be overseas. I would suggest one in India, one in Africa, and one in Asia. These are easier for genuine asylum seekers to get to, and present no draw for non-genuine ones.

A retired rear admiral on Sky this morning said they should be quarantined on one of the many cruise ships available, processed and where applicable allowed into the UK and where not, refused entry and returned to the first country that they arrived from that is safe

That seems ok as a stop gap solution.

Andy_Cooke said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

CarlottaVance said:

RAF flying up & down at 450’ over the Straits of Dover:



Though since it’s our side, not sure what good it can do. The solution lies in catching and prosecuting the people smugglers in France.

The solution really lies in eliminating the pull factor, and making it clear that whether or not you get here, sadly you won't get in.

As I mentioned previously, our asylum processing centres should be overseas. I would suggest one in India, one in Africa, and one in Asia. These are easier for genuine asylum seekers to get to, and present no draw for non-genuine ones.

The Daily Mail doesn't help.
I mean, if you're in the shoes of someone migrating across the continent and you pick up a paper saying "Anyone getting to the UK gets to stay and gets given free money," as per loads of their headlines, where would you head for?

That's daft. These people aren't getting their info from the DM.

Luckyguy1983 said:

nichomar said:

These terrible French sending us all the asylum seekers

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Number_of_first-time_asylum_applicants_(non-EU-27_citizens),_2018_and_2019_(thousands).png

From that graph, we really need to ask Ireland what they're doing (or not doing). Prosperous English-speaking nation that is just as accessible by boat from the continent. Yet their applications in 2018-19 look to be less than 10% of ours.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

CarlottaVance said:

RAF flying up & down at 450’ over the Straits of Dover:



Though since it’s our side, not sure what good it can do. The solution lies in catching and prosecuting the people smugglers in France.

The solution really lies in eliminating the pull factor, and making it clear that whether or not you get here, sadly you won't get in.

As I mentioned previously, our asylum processing centres should be overseas. I would suggest one in India, one in Africa, and one in Asia. These are easier for genuine asylum seekers to get to, and present no draw for non-genuine ones.

A retired rear admiral on Sky this morning said they should be quarantined on one of the many cruise ships available, processed and where applicable allowed into the UK and where not, refused entry and returned to the first country that they arrived from that is safe

Luckyguy1983 said:

nichomar said:

These terrible French sending us all the asylum seekers

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Number_of_first-time_asylum_applicants_(non-EU-27_citizens),_2018_and_2019_(thousands).png

From that graph, we really need to ask Ireland what they're doing (or not doing). Prosperous English-speaking nation that is just as accessible by boat from the continent. Yet their applications in 2018-19 look to be less than 10% of ours.

moonshine said:

Northern_Al said:

For anybody interested, I think this is an interesting and excellent piece on the demise of the USA. Scary, but I found it pretty hard to argue with most of it.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/covid-19-end-of-american-era-wade-davis-1038206/

A glib piece written by someone who I doubt has ventured deeper into China than the buffet breakfast cart of the Shanghai Mandarin Oriental.

moonshine said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

Three in our office today. Nice to see the good folk of Yorkshire showing total disregard for the bollocks coming out of government.

Higher take-up on the other side of the Pennines for some reason. Around 20 of them have gone in.

And just how many jobs will be lost by not returning to the office

Jobs in catering and transport do you mean?

Across the spectrum

You seem to have this back to front

People are not there to support businesses, businesses are there to support people both in terms of services and jobs. If the business isn't where it needs to be then the business should move to people not the other way round. Cafe's etc will still be in the same demand just where they need to be has altered

It is not that simple. If hundreds of people come to work in one office block, that means hundreds of people will want to eat lunch or drink coffee at the same time in the same place. If these same people are working from home, they will be scattered over a much wider area, and many of them will have their own coffee and cheese toastie-making facilities at home, so the critical mass of caffeine-starved customers needed to support Starbucks is never achieved.

Can I refer everyone back to the squeezed middle and cost of living crisis? So many things in this country cost £lots for no apparent reason - and a working culture that essentially heavily taxes people for the basics isn't sustainable. I've thought for a long time that the coffee explosion was unsustainable. People won't be able to afford the daft money the coffee shacks demand for coffee and a snack without taking the money out of another part of the economy. That so many coffee shacks have been surged up in such a short space of time is not a reason to sustain that part of the economy because jobs. What jobs did the people do before working for the 409th local branch of CoffeeShak? And in what businesses did their customers spend their money?

Covid is a massive rapid realignment of the economy. It's already been brutal and its going to get much worse - the imbalance and instability was already there waiting for the black swan event to tip it over the edge. And very quickly we will see rapid change in the next piece of unsustainable lunacy - an army of zero hour workers scuttling around our towns making multiple repeat deliveries in diesel vans. Most of us have done a lot more direct to consumer shopping and we all need to stop.

I would venture that one food van with an efficient route to multiple households does a far more efficient job than the army of people like my parents that seem to drive to the shops three times a day for one item at a time. But I take your point.

Bring on the drones...

https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?ie=UTF8&node=8037720011

Pulpstar said:

Kamala Harris has died of Covid-19

https://tinyurl.com/y4nh85rs

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

nichomar said:

These terrible French sending us all the asylum seekers

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Number_of_first-time_asylum_applicants_(non-EU-27_citizens),_2018_and_2019_(thousands).png

From that graph, we really need to ask Ireland what they're doing (or not doing). Prosperous English-speaking nation that is just as accessible by boat from the continent. Yet their applications in 2018-19 look to be less than 10% of ours.

Their population's under 8% of ours....

Luckyguy1983 said:

Malmesbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

CarlottaVance said:

RAF flying up & down at 450’ over the Straits of Dover:



Though since it’s our side, not sure what good it can do. The solution lies in catching and prosecuting the people smugglers in France.

The solution really lies in eliminating the pull factor, and making it clear that whether or not you get here, sadly you won't get in.

As I mentioned previously, our asylum processing centres should be overseas. I would suggest one in India, one in Africa, and one in Asia. These are easier for genuine asylum seekers to get to, and present no draw for non-genuine ones.

The Daily Mail doesn't help.
I mean, if you're in the shoes of someone migrating across the continent and you pick up a paper saying "Anyone getting to the UK gets to stay and gets given free money," as per loads of their headlines, where would you head for?

A major issue is the mythology spread by people smugglers in the home countries. Plus the grass is greener effect.

So you've *heard* that the UK is the promised land. Free health care - in clean hospitals*, the state gives you money for existing** etc etc

Then you're in France. It's actually a bit shit. Going back is impossible.....

The trick is to ask why some solutions are unacceptable - for example, one was to charge the last registered *boat owner* with multiple counts of reckless endangerment of life etc. An extraditable offence. For context - there is a whole game being played about selling boats to the traffickers. Including having them "stolen" in the LeaveTheKeysInItCoverYourEyesAndCountOneMississippiTwo... style. Then claim the insurance.....

*Yes, but have you been to some of the countries in question.
**Funny how many people don't know that this is actually an uncommon thing around the world.

I had not thought about your solution on boats. It is a sound idea.

I am coming around to the idea that the solution to criminality - all criminality, is zero-tolerance at the grass roots level. There's really no point in months undercover to 'bring down Mr. Big' is there? That just creates a vacuum that someone else fills in seconds. Make it impossible at the grassroots level though, prosecute all pushers, users, thieves, vandals, traffickers, pimps etc., and you make Mr. Big's task an impossible one.

Fysics_Teacher said:

geoffw said:

another_richard said:

CarlottaVance said:

R4 Today 8.10 slot is all about OFQAL and the coming storm. At least OFQAL have published their methodology before they publish their results...

Here's an answer:

Let there be appeals but for every appeal successfully upgraded there has to be someone downgraded in return.

Get a small number of pupils for each school to sit the actual exam. They should be willing volunteers who are chosen by the school. The small number should mean their exams can be held safely. Then a benchmarking exercise can be transparently conducted which isolates a "school effect" and a "prelims/mock exam effect". The result would hold for each candidate that took the exam. Each candidate who did not sit the exam would be given a provisional result combining these effects. The main point of the exercise is to be a filter for university/college entrance. As university and college places will have become more easily available with the absence of large numbers of foreign students this year, the entry conditions would be more lenient across the board and this year's unfortunate cohort less penalised for something outwith their control.

Too late to do it now, and at the time it would have run into the same problem which made getting everyone to do the exam so difficult: the missing couple of months of teaching. Some schools (and even more some parents) would have been able to support their pupils well enough that they were almost as well prepared as a normal year: I was set to spend the time going though past papers for instance. Others would have still had a topic or two to go through and that is much harder when done remotely. It would also have severely affected those with little or no access to remote learning.

This was always going to be a problem with no good solution once the schools were closed. I’m not saying that OFQUAL have done well, as I don’t think they have, but there is no perfect solution. Even @ydoethur ’s solution of looking at work submitted by the schools runs into the problem of standardisation: different schools do mocks at different times (in fact I went to a school that did them in April), homework policies vary hugely (I set a lot of work to be done on line), even past paper work is suspect: was it done under exam conditions or at home “open book”?

In summary: there will be a lot of disappointed students and teachers on Thursday, OFQUAL will have got it wrong, and I’m not sure anyone could have got it right.

Malmesbury said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Malmesbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

CarlottaVance said:

RAF flying up & down at 450’ over the Straits of Dover:



Though since it’s our side, not sure what good it can do. The solution lies in catching and prosecuting the people smugglers in France.

The solution really lies in eliminating the pull factor, and making it clear that whether or not you get here, sadly you won't get in.

As I mentioned previously, our asylum processing centres should be overseas. I would suggest one in India, one in Africa, and one in Asia. These are easier for genuine asylum seekers to get to, and present no draw for non-genuine ones.

The Daily Mail doesn't help.
I mean, if you're in the shoes of someone migrating across the continent and you pick up a paper saying "Anyone getting to the UK gets to stay and gets given free money," as per loads of their headlines, where would you head for?

A major issue is the mythology spread by people smugglers in the home countries. Plus the grass is greener effect.

So you've *heard* that the UK is the promised land. Free health care - in clean hospitals*, the state gives you money for existing** etc etc

Then you're in France. It's actually a bit shit. Going back is impossible.....

The trick is to ask why some solutions are unacceptable - for example, one was to charge the last registered *boat owner* with multiple counts of reckless endangerment of life etc. An extraditable offence. For context - there is a whole game being played about selling boats to the traffickers. Including having them "stolen" in the LeaveTheKeysInItCoverYourEyesAndCountOneMississippiTwo... style. Then claim the insurance.....

*Yes, but have you been to some of the countries in question.
**Funny how many people don't know that this is actually an uncommon thing around the world.

I had not thought about your solution on boats. It is a sound idea.

I am coming around to the idea that the solution to criminality - all criminality, is zero-tolerance at the grass roots level. There's really no point in months undercover to 'bring down Mr. Big' is there? That just creates a vacuum that someone else fills in seconds. Make it impossible at the grassroots level though, prosecute all pushers, users, thieves, vandals, traffickers, pimps etc., and you make Mr. Big's task an impossible one.

That is exactly wrong, I think.

For example, I enjoy the apocalyptic anger my proposal to stamp out criminal employment practises gets -

1) 100k starting fine for the employer.
2) The complainant gets half of any fines.
3) If they are an illegal immigrant (illegally employed) , they co-operate with the investigation and get a conviction - 10 years indefinite leave to remain and clean slate for immigration status.

Shitting on your employees would become as rare as rocking horse poop in 2-3 nanoseconds.

HYUFD said:

Biden is probably the least intellectual Democratic nominee for president since LBJ but stunts like this do show he has more of the common touch than Hillary and the likes of Kerry and Gore had

moonshine said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

Three in our office today. Nice to see the good folk of Yorkshire showing total disregard for the bollocks coming out of government.

Higher take-up on the other side of the Pennines for some reason. Around 20 of them have gone in.

And just how many jobs will be lost by not returning to the office

Jobs in catering and transport do you mean?

Across the spectrum

You seem to have this back to front

People are not there to support businesses, businesses are there to support people both in terms of services and jobs. If the business isn't where it needs to be then the business should move to people not the other way round. Cafe's etc will still be in the same demand just where they need to be has altered

It is not that simple. If hundreds of people come to work in one office block, that means hundreds of people will want to eat lunch or drink coffee at the same time in the same place. If these same people are working from home, they will be scattered over a much wider area, and many of them will have their own coffee and cheese toastie-making facilities at home, so the critical mass of caffeine-starved customers needed to support Starbucks is never achieved.

Can I refer everyone back to the squeezed middle and cost of living crisis? So many things in this country cost £lots for no apparent reason - and a working culture that essentially heavily taxes people for the basics isn't sustainable. I've thought for a long time that the coffee explosion was unsustainable. People won't be able to afford the daft money the coffee shacks demand for coffee and a snack without taking the money out of another part of the economy. That so many coffee shacks have been surged up in such a short space of time is not a reason to sustain that part of the economy because jobs. What jobs did the people do before working for the 409th local branch of CoffeeShak? And in what businesses did their customers spend their money?

Covid is a massive rapid realignment of the economy. It's already been brutal and its going to get much worse - the imbalance and instability was already there waiting for the black swan event to tip it over the edge. And very quickly we will see rapid change in the next piece of unsustainable lunacy - an army of zero hour workers scuttling around our towns making multiple repeat deliveries in diesel vans. Most of us have done a lot more direct to consumer shopping and we all need to stop.

I would venture that one food van with an efficient route to multiple households does a far more efficient job than the army of people like my parents that seem to drive to the shops three times a day for one item at a time. But I take your point.

Bring on the drones...

https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?ie=UTF8&node=8037720011

RochdalePioneers said:

moonshine said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

Three in our office today. Nice to see the good folk of Yorkshire showing total disregard for the bollocks coming out of government.

Higher take-up on the other side of the Pennines for some reason. Around 20 of them have gone in.

And just how many jobs will be lost by not returning to the office

Jobs in catering and transport do you mean?

Across the spectrum

You seem to have this back to front

People are not there to support businesses, businesses are there to support people both in terms of services and jobs. If the business isn't where it needs to be then the business should move to people not the other way round. Cafe's etc will still be in the same demand just where they need to be has altered

It is not that simple. If hundreds of people come to work in one office block, that means hundreds of people will want to eat lunch or drink coffee at the same time in the same place. If these same people are working from home, they will be scattered over a much wider area, and many of them will have their own coffee and cheese toastie-making facilities at home, so the critical mass of caffeine-starved customers needed to support Starbucks is never achieved.

Can I refer everyone back to the squeezed middle and cost of living crisis? So many things in this country cost £lots for no apparent reason - and a working culture that essentially heavily taxes people for the basics isn't sustainable. I've thought for a long time that the coffee explosion was unsustainable. People won't be able to afford the daft money the coffee shacks demand for coffee and a snack without taking the money out of another part of the economy. That so many coffee shacks have been surged up in such a short space of time is not a reason to sustain that part of the economy because jobs. What jobs did the people do before working for the 409th local branch of CoffeeShak? And in what businesses did their customers spend their money?

Covid is a massive rapid realignment of the economy. It's already been brutal and its going to get much worse - the imbalance and instability was already there waiting for the black swan event to tip it over the edge. And very quickly we will see rapid change in the next piece of unsustainable lunacy - an army of zero hour workers scuttling around our towns making multiple repeat deliveries in diesel vans. Most of us have done a lot more direct to consumer shopping and we all need to stop.

I would venture that one food van with an efficient route to multiple households does a far more efficient job than the army of people like my parents that seem to drive to the shops three times a day for one item at a time. But I take your point.

Bring on the drones...

https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?ie=UTF8&node=8037720011

D2C is not only here to stay, its going to expand significantly. What we need is an efficient final mile solution - a local delivery hub where all inbound parcels get delivered (at the end of a spoke from an area hub preferably) and then everything loaded onto the same vehicle much the way the postman delivers stuff sent from a myriad of sources.

RochdalePioneers said:

moonshine said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

Three in our office today. Nice to see the good folk of Yorkshire showing total disregard for the bollocks coming out of government.

Higher take-up on the other side of the Pennines for some reason. Around 20 of them have gone in.

And just how many jobs will be lost by not returning to the office

Jobs in catering and transport do you mean?

Across the spectrum

You seem to have this back to front

People are not there to support businesses, businesses are there to support people both in terms of services and jobs. If the business isn't where it needs to be then the business should move to people not the other way round. Cafe's etc will still be in the same demand just where they need to be has altered

It is not that simple. If hundreds of people come to work in one office block, that means hundreds of people will want to eat lunch or drink coffee at the same time in the same place. If these same people are working from home, they will be scattered over a much wider area, and many of them will have their own coffee and cheese toastie-making facilities at home, so the critical mass of caffeine-starved customers needed to support Starbucks is never achieved.

Can I refer everyone back to the squeezed middle and cost of living crisis? So many things in this country cost £lots for no apparent reason - and a working culture that essentially heavily taxes people for the basics isn't sustainable. I've thought for a long time that the coffee explosion was unsustainable. People won't be able to afford the daft money the coffee shacks demand for coffee and a snack without taking the money out of another part of the economy. That so many coffee shacks have been surged up in such a short space of time is not a reason to sustain that part of the economy because jobs. What jobs did the people do before working for the 409th local branch of CoffeeShak? And in what businesses did their customers spend their money?

Covid is a massive rapid realignment of the economy. It's already been brutal and its going to get much worse - the imbalance and instability was already there waiting for the black swan event to tip it over the edge. And very quickly we will see rapid change in the next piece of unsustainable lunacy - an army of zero hour workers scuttling around our towns making multiple repeat deliveries in diesel vans. Most of us have done a lot more direct to consumer shopping and we all need to stop.

I would venture that one food van with an efficient route to multiple households does a far more efficient job than the army of people like my parents that seem to drive to the shops three times a day for one item at a time. But I take your point.

Bring on the drones...

https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?ie=UTF8&node=8037720011

D2C is not only here to stay, its going to expand significantly. What we need is an efficient final mile solution - a local delivery hub where all inbound parcels get delivered (at the end of a spoke from an area hub preferably) and then everything loaded onto the same vehicle much the way the postman delivers stuff sent from a myriad of sources.

Fysics_Teacher said:

geoffw said:

another_richard said:

CarlottaVance said:

R4 Today 8.10 slot is all about OFQAL and the coming storm. At least OFQAL have published their methodology before they publish their results...

Here's an answer:

Let there be appeals but for every appeal successfully upgraded there has to be someone downgraded in return.

Get a small number of pupils for each school to sit the actual exam. They should be willing volunteers who are chosen by the school. The small number should mean their exams can be held safely. Then a benchmarking exercise can be transparently conducted which isolates a "school effect" and a "prelims/mock exam effect". The result would hold for each candidate that took the exam. Each candidate who did not sit the exam would be given a provisional result combining these effects. The main point of the exercise is to be a filter for university/college entrance. As university and college places will have become more easily available with the absence of large numbers of foreign students this year, the entry conditions would be more lenient across the board and this year's unfortunate cohort less penalised for something outwith their control.

Too late to do it now, and at the time it would have run into the same problem which made getting everyone to do the exam so difficult: the missing couple of months of teaching. Some schools (and even more some parents) would have been able to support their pupils well enough that they were almost as well prepared as a normal year: I was set to spend the time going though past papers for instance. Others would have still had a topic or two to go through and that is much harder when done remotely. It would also have severely affected those with little or no access to remote learning.

This was always going to be a problem with no good solution once the schools were closed. I’m not saying that OFQUAL have done well, as I don’t think they have, but there is no perfect solution. Even @ydoethur ’s solution of looking at work submitted by the schools runs into the problem of standardisation: different schools do mocks at different times (in fact I went to a school that did them in April), homework policies vary hugely (I set a lot of work to be done on line), even past paper work is suspect: was it done under exam conditions or at home “open book”?

In summary: there will be a lot of disappointed students and teachers on Thursday, OFQUAL will have got it wrong, and I’m not sure anyone could have got it right.

RochdalePioneers said:

Gallowgate said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

The people trying to no confidence Starmer in his own constituency are literally batshit insane.

I think it’s time to call bullshit and kick them all out.

What?!

Is this Momentum Camden massing a no confidence motion because as DPP he worked with the police to prosecute working class and BAME people and "supports Zionism without qualification".

You do have to laugh. Whatever happened to respecting the mandate of the elected leader?

Luckyguy1983 said:

Biden on his bike draws attention to his age as a negative. As does his dodgy facelift.

Where's the confidence in his age and experience? In his achievements? He's not facing a younger, green opponent, but he's facing someone very inexperienced politically, which his years of experience contrast favourably with. I would be trying to sell him as a slick operator - a professional. No school like the old school. Instead they seem to be dubiously trying to reclaim lost vigour.

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

moonshine said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

Three in our office today. Nice to see the good folk of Yorkshire showing total disregard for the bollocks coming out of government.

Higher take-up on the other side of the Pennines for some reason. Around 20 of them have gone in.

And just how many jobs will be lost by not returning to the office

Jobs in catering and transport do you mean?

Across the spectrum

You seem to have this back to front

People are not there to support businesses, businesses are there to support people both in terms of services and jobs. If the business isn't where it needs to be then the business should move to people not the other way round. Cafe's etc will still be in the same demand just where they need to be has altered

It is not that simple. If hundreds of people come to work in one office block, that means hundreds of people will want to eat lunch or drink coffee at the same time in the same place. If these same people are working from home, they will be scattered over a much wider area, and many of them will have their own coffee and cheese toastie-making facilities at home, so the critical mass of caffeine-starved customers needed to support Starbucks is never achieved.

Who cares. Those people should spend their money where it gives them the most value, not where the government tells them to.

£1000 a year not spent at Starbucks goes somewhere else. And in turn new jobs will be created out of that opportunity, jobs with much better long term resilience.

At what point did we lose faith in the core features of capitalism and the price setting mechanism? Sure capitalism has market failures that must be addressed but we’re getting to the point where people are seeking to undermine the construct entirely, with a quite appallingly loose understanding of what they’re trying to replace it with.

That £1,000 a year not spent at Starbucks might be spent somewhere else abroad, or on imported goods.

Starbucks grows coffee in the UK?

Fysics_Teacher said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

moonshine said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

Three in our office today. Nice to see the good folk of Yorkshire showing total disregard for the bollocks coming out of government.

Higher take-up on the other side of the Pennines for some reason. Around 20 of them have gone in.

And just how many jobs will be lost by not returning to the office

Jobs in catering and transport do you mean?

Across the spectrum

You seem to have this back to front

People are not there to support businesses, businesses are there to support people both in terms of services and jobs. If the business isn't where it needs to be then the business should move to people not the other way round. Cafe's etc will still be in the same demand just where they need to be has altered

It is not that simple. If hundreds of people come to work in one office block, that means hundreds of people will want to eat lunch or drink coffee at the same time in the same place. If these same people are working from home, they will be scattered over a much wider area, and many of them will have their own coffee and cheese toastie-making facilities at home, so the critical mass of caffeine-starved customers needed to support Starbucks is never achieved.

Who cares. Those people should spend their money where it gives them the most value, not where the government tells them to.

£1000 a year not spent at Starbucks goes somewhere else. And in turn new jobs will be created out of that opportunity, jobs with much better long term resilience.

At what point did we lose faith in the core features of capitalism and the price setting mechanism? Sure capitalism has market failures that must be addressed but we’re getting to the point where people are seeking to undermine the construct entirely, with a quite appallingly loose understanding of what they’re trying to replace it with.

That £1,000 a year not spent at Starbucks might be spent somewhere else abroad, or on imported goods.

Starbucks grows coffee in the UK?

I suspect the cost of the coffee is a very small proportion of the price of a cup. The cost of the licence to use the Starbucks name on the other hand...

Malmesbury said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

moonshine said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

Three in our office today. Nice to see the good folk of Yorkshire showing total disregard for the bollocks coming out of government.

Higher take-up on the other side of the Pennines for some reason. Around 20 of them have gone in.

And just how many jobs will be lost by not returning to the office

Jobs in catering and transport do you mean?

Across the spectrum

You seem to have this back to front

People are not there to support businesses, businesses are there to support people both in terms of services and jobs. If the business isn't where it needs to be then the business should move to people not the other way round. Cafe's etc will still be in the same demand just where they need to be has altered

It is not that simple. If hundreds of people come to work in one office block, that means hundreds of people will want to eat lunch or drink coffee at the same time in the same place. If these same people are working from home, they will be scattered over a much wider area, and many of them will have their own coffee and cheese toastie-making facilities at home, so the critical mass of caffeine-starved customers needed to support Starbucks is never achieved.

Who cares. Those people should spend their money where it gives them the most value, not where the government tells them to.

£1000 a year not spent at Starbucks goes somewhere else. And in turn new jobs will be created out of that opportunity, jobs with much better long term resilience.

At what point did we lose faith in the core features of capitalism and the price setting mechanism? Sure capitalism has market failures that must be addressed but we’re getting to the point where people are seeking to undermine the construct entirely, with a quite appallingly loose understanding of what they’re trying to replace it with.

That £1,000 a year not spent at Starbucks might be spent somewhere else abroad, or on imported goods.

Starbucks grows coffee in the UK?

I suspect the cost of the coffee is a very small proportion of the price of a cup. The cost of the licence to use the Starbucks name on the other hand...

When you buy a cup of coffee in Starbucks, you are paying for the building, the decor, the wifi, the service, the equipment, the employment of the staff, etc etc.

The actual coffee is a perk they throw in.

OldKingCole said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Biden on his bike draws attention to his age as a negative. As does his dodgy facelift.

Where's the confidence in his age and experience? In his achievements? He's not facing a younger, green opponent, but he's facing someone very inexperienced politically, which his years of experience contrast favourably with. I would be trying to sell him as a slick operator - a professional. No school like the old school. Instead they seem to be dubiously trying to reclaim lost vigour.

Having joined this conversation late, due to having spent the time from 8-9.30 at the gym and then having THINGS TO DO, I am horrified at the ageism here. Joe Biden Jr is, at 78 several years younger than myself, and, partly as a result of said gym, I feel as mentally fit as ever.

Fysics_Teacher said:

Malmesbury said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

moonshine said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

Three in our office today. Nice to see the good folk of Yorkshire showing total disregard for the bollocks coming out of government.

Higher take-up on the other side of the Pennines for some reason. Around 20 of them have gone in.

And just how many jobs will be lost by not returning to the office

Jobs in catering and transport do you mean?

Across the spectrum

You seem to have this back to front

People are not there to support businesses, businesses are there to support people both in terms of services and jobs. If the business isn't where it needs to be then the business should move to people not the other way round. Cafe's etc will still be in the same demand just where they need to be has altered

It is not that simple. If hundreds of people come to work in one office block, that means hundreds of people will want to eat lunch or drink coffee at the same time in the same place. If these same people are working from home, they will be scattered over a much wider area, and many of them will have their own coffee and cheese toastie-making facilities at home, so the critical mass of caffeine-starved customers needed to support Starbucks is never achieved.

Who cares. Those people should spend their money where it gives them the most value, not where the government tells them to.

£1000 a year not spent at Starbucks goes somewhere else. And in turn new jobs will be created out of that opportunity, jobs with much better long term resilience.

At what point did we lose faith in the core features of capitalism and the price setting mechanism? Sure capitalism has market failures that must be addressed but we’re getting to the point where people are seeking to undermine the construct entirely, with a quite appallingly loose understanding of what they’re trying to replace it with.

That £1,000 a year not spent at Starbucks might be spent somewhere else abroad, or on imported goods.

Starbucks grows coffee in the UK?

I suspect the cost of the coffee is a very small proportion of the price of a cup. The cost of the licence to use the Starbucks name on the other hand...

When you buy a cup of coffee in Starbucks, you are paying for the building, the decor, the wifi, the service, the equipment, the employment of the staff, etc etc.

The actual coffee is a perk they throw in.

And often all I want is somewhere to sit for an hour or two to read or talk to a friend: the coffee is indeed as you say, a bonus.

Although it is still enough of a bonus that I normally go somewhere with better coffee than Starbucks...

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

RochdalePioneers said:

moonshine said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

Three in our office today. Nice to see the good folk of Yorkshire showing total disregard for the bollocks coming out of government.

Higher take-up on the other side of the Pennines for some reason. Around 20 of them have gone in.

And just how many jobs will be lost by not returning to the office

Jobs in catering and transport do you mean?

Across the spectrum

You seem to have this back to front

People are not there to support businesses, businesses are there to support people both in terms of services and jobs. If the business isn't where it needs to be then the business should move to people not the other way round. Cafe's etc will still be in the same demand just where they need to be has altered

It is not that simple. If hundreds of people come to work in one office block, that means hundreds of people will want to eat lunch or drink coffee at the same time in the same place. If these same people are working from home, they will be scattered over a much wider area, and many of them will have their own coffee and cheese toastie-making facilities at home, so the critical mass of caffeine-starved customers needed to support Starbucks is never achieved.

Can I refer everyone back to the squeezed middle and cost of living crisis? So many things in this country cost £lots for no apparent reason - and a working culture that essentially heavily taxes people for the basics isn't sustainable. I've thought for a long time that the coffee explosion was unsustainable. People won't be able to afford the daft money the coffee shacks demand for coffee and a snack without taking the money out of another part of the economy. That so many coffee shacks have been surged up in such a short space of time is not a reason to sustain that part of the economy because jobs. What jobs did the people do before working for the 409th local branch of CoffeeShak? And in what businesses did their customers spend their money?

Covid is a massive rapid realignment of the economy. It's already been brutal and its going to get much worse - the imbalance and instability was already there waiting for the black swan event to tip it over the edge. And very quickly we will see rapid change in the next piece of unsustainable lunacy - an army of zero hour workers scuttling around our towns making multiple repeat deliveries in diesel vans. Most of us have done a lot more direct to consumer shopping and we all need to stop.

I would venture that one food van with an efficient route to multiple households does a far more efficient job than the army of people like my parents that seem to drive to the shops three times a day for one item at a time. But I take your point.

Bring on the drones...

https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?ie=UTF8&node=8037720011

D2C is not only here to stay, its going to expand significantly. What we need is an efficient final mile solution - a local delivery hub where all inbound parcels get delivered (at the end of a spoke from an area hub preferably) and then everything loaded onto the same vehicle much the way the postman delivers stuff sent from a myriad of sources.

And at some point soon, that will likely be the first real world use for autonomous vehicles. Limiting them to relatively small areas, travelling at low speeds, would massively reduce the complexity of the self-driving problem.
Perhaps Amazon will acquire Waymo at some point ?

Limiting self-driving vans to small areas will make no difference at all, since space for storing maps is not the problem. And in any case, there'd need to be a human on board to take the parcel from van to door.

Otherwise, what was described is what already happens with Amazon and the usual parcel firms (including the Royal Mail). Parcels are sent to local hubs then loaded onto vans for final delivery. Supermarket deliveries are a slightly special case.

IshmaelZ said:

Malmesbury said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Malmesbury said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

moonshine said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

Three in our office today. Nice to see the good folk of Yorkshire showing total disregard for the bollocks coming out of government.

Higher take-up on the other side of the Pennines for some reason. Around 20 of them have gone in.

And just how many jobs will be lost by not returning to the office

Jobs in catering and transport do you mean?

Across the spectrum

You seem to have this back to front

People are not there to support businesses, businesses are there to support people both in terms of services and jobs. If the business isn't where it needs to be then the business should move to people not the other way round. Cafe's etc will still be in the same demand just where they need to be has altered

It is not that simple. If hundreds of people come to work in one office block, that means hundreds of people will want to eat lunch or drink coffee at the same time in the same place. If these same people are working from home, they will be scattered over a much wider area, and many of them will have their own coffee and cheese toastie-making facilities at home, so the critical mass of caffeine-starved customers needed to support Starbucks is never achieved.

Who cares. Those people should spend their money where it gives them the most value, not where the government tells them to.

£1000 a year not spent at Starbucks goes somewhere else. And in turn new jobs will be created out of that opportunity, jobs with much better long term resilience.

At what point did we lose faith in the core features of capitalism and the price setting mechanism? Sure capitalism has market failures that must be addressed but we’re getting to the point where people are seeking to undermine the construct entirely, with a quite appallingly loose understanding of what they’re trying to replace it with.

That £1,000 a year not spent at Starbucks might be spent somewhere else abroad, or on imported goods.

Starbucks grows coffee in the UK?

I suspect the cost of the coffee is a very small proportion of the price of a cup. The cost of the licence to use the Starbucks name on the other hand...

When you buy a cup of coffee in Starbucks, you are paying for the building, the decor, the wifi, the service, the equipment, the employment of the staff, etc etc.

The actual coffee is a perk they throw in.

And often all I want is somewhere to sit for an hour or two to read or talk to a friend: the coffee is indeed as you say, a bonus.

Although it is still enough of a bonus that I normally go somewhere with better coffee than Starbucks...

Yup

It goes back to the Brick Lane cereal place row - the cost is in having the place there at all. The coffee price is a way of paying for it. As opposed to renting a chair and table by the hour. In the style of Edward Lloyd.....

People have apparently wanted to do a Starbucks only themed round juices and smoothies and found it unworkable because fruit juice costs actual money whereas coffee is, comparatively speaking, virtually free.

RochdalePioneers said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

RochdalePioneers said:

moonshine said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

Three in our office today. Nice to see the good folk of Yorkshire showing total disregard for the bollocks coming out of government.

Higher take-up on the other side of the Pennines for some reason. Around 20 of them have gone in.

And just how many jobs will be lost by not returning to the office

Jobs in catering and transport do you mean?

Across the spectrum

You seem to have this back to front

People are not there to support businesses, businesses are there to support people both in terms of services and jobs. If the business isn't where it needs to be then the business should move to people not the other way round. Cafe's etc will still be in the same demand just where they need to be has altered

It is not that simple. If hundreds of people come to work in one office block, that means hundreds of people will want to eat lunch or drink coffee at the same time in the same place. If these same people are working from home, they will be scattered over a much wider area, and many of them will have their own coffee and cheese toastie-making facilities at home, so the critical mass of caffeine-starved customers needed to support Starbucks is never achieved.

Can I refer everyone back to the squeezed middle and cost of living crisis? So many things in this country cost £lots for no apparent reason - and a working culture that essentially heavily taxes people for the basics isn't sustainable. I've thought for a long time that the coffee explosion was unsustainable. People won't be able to afford the daft money the coffee shacks demand for coffee and a snack without taking the money out of another part of the economy. That so many coffee shacks have been surged up in such a short space of time is not a reason to sustain that part of the economy because jobs. What jobs did the people do before working for the 409th local branch of CoffeeShak? And in what businesses did their customers spend their money?

Covid is a massive rapid realignment of the economy. It's already been brutal and its going to get much worse - the imbalance and instability was already there waiting for the black swan event to tip it over the edge. And very quickly we will see rapid change in the next piece of unsustainable lunacy - an army of zero hour workers scuttling around our towns making multiple repeat deliveries in diesel vans. Most of us have done a lot more direct to consumer shopping and we all need to stop.

I would venture that one food van with an efficient route to multiple households does a far more efficient job than the army of people like my parents that seem to drive to the shops three times a day for one item at a time. But I take your point.

Bring on the drones...

https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?ie=UTF8&node=8037720011

D2C is not only here to stay, its going to expand significantly. What we need is an efficient final mile solution - a local delivery hub where all inbound parcels get delivered (at the end of a spoke from an area hub preferably) and then everything loaded onto the same vehicle much the way the postman delivers stuff sent from a myriad of sources.

And at some point soon, that will likely be the first real world use for autonomous vehicles. Limiting them to relatively small areas, travelling at low speeds, would massively reduce the complexity of the self-driving problem.
Perhaps Amazon will acquire Waymo at some point ?

Limiting self-driving vans to small areas will make no difference at all, since space for storing maps is not the problem. And in any case, there'd need to be a human on board to take the parcel from van to door.

Otherwise, what was described is what already happens with Amazon and the usual parcel firms (including the Royal Mail). Parcels are sent to local hubs then loaded onto vans for final delivery. Supermarket deliveries are a slightly special case.

I think you have missed my point - what I described does not already happen. There are a literal army of people in a flotilla of vans. I've had three separate drops in a single day all from different retailers using different couriers. The answer can't be "use Amazon" (who are horrendously expensive to route product through and unresponsive to work with).

Nigelb said:

And at some point soon, that will likely be the first real world use for autonomous vehicles. Limiting them to relatively small areas, travelling at low speeds, would massively reduce the complexity of the self-driving problem.
Perhaps Amazon will acquire Waymo at some point ?

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/bo66ie29/status/1292252753180479488

Why would Canada, Australia and New Zealand want anything to do with the UK?

That's the bit I can't understand.

There's probably more synergy between those nations and the UK on security and foreign policy than there is between the UK and the EU member states.

It's the other way round on economics.

RochdalePioneers said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

RochdalePioneers said:

moonshine said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

Three in our office today. Nice to see the good folk of Yorkshire showing total disregard for the bollocks coming out of government.

Higher take-up on the other side of the Pennines for some reason. Around 20 of them have gone in.

And just how many jobs will be lost by not returning to the office

Jobs in catering and transport do you mean?

Across the spectrum

You seem to have this back to front

People are not there to support businesses, businesses are there to support people both in terms of services and jobs. If the business isn't where it needs to be then the business should move to people not the other way round. Cafe's etc will still be in the same demand just where they need to be has altered

It is not that simple. If hundreds of people come to work in one office block, that means hundreds of people will want to eat lunch or drink coffee at the same time in the same place. If these same people are working from home, they will be scattered over a much wider area, and many of them will have their own coffee and cheese toastie-making facilities at home, so the critical mass of caffeine-starved customers needed to support Starbucks is never achieved.

Can I refer everyone back to the squeezed middle and cost of living crisis? So many things in this country cost £lots for no apparent reason - and a working culture that essentially heavily taxes people for the basics isn't sustainable. I've thought for a long time that the coffee explosion was unsustainable. People won't be able to afford the daft money the coffee shacks demand for coffee and a snack without taking the money out of another part of the economy. That so many coffee shacks have been surged up in such a short space of time is not a reason to sustain that part of the economy because jobs. What jobs did the people do before working for the 409th local branch of CoffeeShak? And in what businesses did their customers spend their money?

Covid is a massive rapid realignment of the economy. It's already been brutal and its going to get much worse - the imbalance and instability was already there waiting for the black swan event to tip it over the edge. And very quickly we will see rapid change in the next piece of unsustainable lunacy - an army of zero hour workers scuttling around our towns making multiple repeat deliveries in diesel vans. Most of us have done a lot more direct to consumer shopping and we all need to stop.

I would venture that one food van with an efficient route to multiple households does a far more efficient job than the army of people like my parents that seem to drive to the shops three times a day for one item at a time. But I take your point.

Bring on the drones...

https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?ie=UTF8&node=8037720011

D2C is not only here to stay, its going to expand significantly. What we need is an efficient final mile solution - a local delivery hub where all inbound parcels get delivered (at the end of a spoke from an area hub preferably) and then everything loaded onto the same vehicle much the way the postman delivers stuff sent from a myriad of sources.

And at some point soon, that will likely be the first real world use for autonomous vehicles. Limiting them to relatively small areas, travelling at low speeds, would massively reduce the complexity of the self-driving problem.
Perhaps Amazon will acquire Waymo at some point ?

Limiting self-driving vans to small areas will make no difference at all, since space for storing maps is not the problem. And in any case, there'd need to be a human on board to take the parcel from van to door.

Otherwise, what was described is what already happens with Amazon and the usual parcel firms (including the Royal Mail). Parcels are sent to local hubs then loaded onto vans for final delivery. Supermarket deliveries are a slightly special case.

I think you have missed my point - what I described does not already happen. There are a literal army of people in a flotilla of vans. I've had three separate drops in a single day all from different retailers using different couriers. The answer can't be "use Amazon" (who are horrendously expensive to route product through and unresponsive to work with).

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/bo66ie29/status/1292252753180479488

Why would Canada, Australia and New Zealand want anything to do with the UK?

That's the bit I can't understand.

Cos we're the UK and the UK is great.

Don't mention that's it's not impossible New Zealand leaves the Commonwealth. Their PM is pro a referendum on removing the Monarchy, as is my understanding.

Removing the monarchy is not the same as leaving the commonwealth

I didn't mean to imply it was. I meant that a leader who is pro removing the Monarchy may well be interested in leaving the Commonwealth as well, it doesn't seem a massive stretch to me.

Which countries in the Commonwealth don't have the Monarchy?

Pagan2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What D2C needs to be sustainable is the equivalent of the postie. Doesn't matter what I order or from where it all gets delivered by the same route. Compete for local contracts if you like but once the contract is awarded ParcelCo delivers literally everything in that area. In an electric van. You only get a bespoke delivery for outsize stuff like a washing machine. Big reduction in the number of vehicles scuttling around, reduction of overlapping waste, make deliver to home actually cover its costs.

The problem with that is who awards the contract. If I find as a customer the delivery company contracted routinely gives me crap service I can currently buy from another online place that uses a different firm. Under your model I am stuck with it.

Logically there are only 3 classes of entity that can award that contract

A) the mail order firms which means realisticly amazon gets to choose
B ) The council which is a recipe for greased palms
C) The customers in the area and I can't see that happening

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Malmesbury said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/bo66ie29/status/1292252753180479488

Why would Canada, Australia and New Zealand want anything to do with the UK?

That's the bit I can't understand.

Cos we're the UK and the UK is great.

Don't mention that's it's not impossible New Zealand leaves the Commonwealth. Their PM is pro a referendum on removing the Monarchy, as is my understanding.

Abolishing the Monarchy and leaving the Commonwealth are 2 different things. The Commonwealth is rather popular among its members.

No no, I get that, my language was clumsy. To me it didn't seem a massive stretch that the leader might also wish to leave the Commonwealth.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/bo66ie29/status/1292252753180479488

Why would Canada, Australia and New Zealand want anything to do with the UK?

That's the bit I can't understand.

Cos we're the UK and the UK is great.

Don't mention that's it's not impossible New Zealand leaves the Commonwealth. Their PM is pro a referendum on removing the Monarchy, as is my understanding.

Removing the monarchy is not the same as leaving the commonwealth

I didn't mean to imply it was. I meant that a leader who is pro removing the Monarchy may well be interested in leaving the Commonwealth as well, it doesn't seem a massive stretch to me.

Which countries in the Commonwealth don't have the Monarchy?

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

eek said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/bo66ie29/status/1292252753180479488

Why would Canada, Australia and New Zealand want anything to do with the UK?

That's the bit I can't understand.

Cos we're the UK and the UK is great.

Don't mention that's it's not impossible New Zealand leaves the Commonwealth. Their PM is pro a referendum on removing the Monarchy, as is my understanding.

Removing the monarchy is not the same as leaving the commonwealth

I didn't mean to imply it was. I meant that a leader who is pro removing the Monarchy may well be interested in leaving the Commonwealth as well, it doesn't seem a massive stretch to me.

Which countries in the Commonwealth don't have the Monarchy?

The Commonwealth has more than 50 members - only 16 of them (including the UK) are "Commonwealth Realms" with Lizzie as Head of State.

Yeah I'm clearly ignorant on such matters, I won't argue any further.