The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
Do you really believe that if Labour was in power rather than trying to be heard they would be spending less? I don't. The question of whether anyone should be spending less in the current crisis (and, no mistake, that's exactly what it is) is not straightforward. The key, for all the flack he got for it, is what is a viable job?
In the next 5 years is working in a bar/nightclub that earns all its profits after midnight likely to be "viable"? Are football and sports clubs dependent upon gate money likely to be viable? Are airlines, exhibition centres, large shopping centres? It's seriously tricky. So much of our economy is dependent on other economic activity to generate business. There are massive systemic risks here. I am conventionally a bit of a fiscal hawk but the general thrust of government policy seems right to me, whatever quibbles there are about some of the details.
I do think, however, that we are running out of road. If things have not picked up substantially by March we will likely have reached the limits of what the government can do and it will be devil take the hindmost with any restrictions that impact on economic activity being lifted. We simply cannot go on like this.
The seismic political shift of a move like that cannot be underestimated. For decades politicians have told voters that only money constrains what the state can do for you. An admission there are limits would be massive.
I'd ask why pubs don't have a 'must order drinks & food rule', but these places would clearly just insist a packet of peanuts is chucked in with each round.
I'd ask why pubs don't have a 'must order drinks & food rule', but these places would clearly just insist a packet of peanuts is chucked in with each round.
You could say order of "cooked / hot food" is required, but then we might get into Pasty Tax territory again about what legally is hot food.
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
Do you really believe that if Labour was in power rather than trying to be heard they would be spending less? I don't. The question of whether anyone should be spending less in the current crisis (and, no mistake, that's exactly what it is) is not straightforward. The key, for all the flack he got for it, is what is a viable job?
In the next 5 years is working in a bar/nightclub that earns all its profits after midnight likely to be "viable"? Are football and sports clubs dependent upon gate money likely to be viable? Are airlines, exhibition centres, large shopping centres? It's seriously tricky. So much of our economy is dependent on other economic activity to generate business. There are massive systemic risks here. I am conventionally a bit of a fiscal hawk but the general thrust of government policy seems right to me, whatever quibbles there are about some of the details.
I do think, however, that we are running out of road. If things have not picked up substantially by March we will likely have reached the limits of what the government can do and it will be devil take the hindmost with any restrictions that impact on economic activity being lifted. We simply cannot go on like this.
The seismic political shift of a move like that cannot be underestimated. For decades politicians have told voters that only money constrains what the state can do for you. An admission there are limits would be massive.
I see the seismic shift in the other direction to be honest. For years the Tories complained that Labour's ambitions, however worthy, were unaffordable and ruinous. What is affordable, given the current needs, is eye opening and may make such arguments unstateable in the future (even if they are more likely to be true because of the horrendous national debts).
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
At the moment the most fiscally conservative party leader is Ed Davey and Starmer is more of a fiscal conservative than Corbyn or even Ed Miliband was while Boris is much more of a big spender than Cameron was, that also reflects the fact the Conservative vote under Boris is more working class than it was under Cameron and the Labour vote is more middle class under Starmer than it was under Brown and Ed Miliband
Thank you for pointing out the obvious and completely missing the point, as always.
tbf he is mimicking what he hears from politicians when interviewed:
"If you'll excuse me, that isn't the question you should have asked me; the question you should have asked me is this....and here's the answer..."
Edit: because don't forget (to his great credit, I believe), @HYUFD has aspirations to become a politician.
Are you sure? The internet never forgets, after all.
I think you'll find, again to his credit, that @HYUFD has been scrupulously polite, on topic, and thoughtful and has refrained from the personal abuse that typifies so many posters, myself not excluded.
At his next selection meeting there will be no posts to show he is not enthusiastically loyal to whichever Cons leader happens to be in No.10.
Fair enough. I'd still wager there is enough uncaring, callous, party political self interested and plain fruitcake nutty stuff in his stream to disqualify him. All that stuff about the poor and broth, for a start.
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
Do you really believe that if Labour was in power rather than trying to be heard they would be spending less? I don't. The question of whether anyone should be spending less in the current crisis (and, no mistake, that's exactly what it is) is not straightforward. The key, for all the flack he got for it, is what is a viable job?
In the next 5 years is working in a bar/nightclub that earns all its profits after midnight likely to be "viable"? Are football and sports clubs dependent upon gate money likely to be viable? Are airlines, exhibition centres, large shopping centres? It's seriously tricky. So much of our economy is dependent on other economic activity to generate business. There are massive systemic risks here. I am conventionally a bit of a fiscal hawk but the general thrust of government policy seems right to me, whatever quibbles there are about some of the details.
I do think, however, that we are running out of road. If things have not picked up substantially by March we will likely have reached the limits of what the government can do and it will be devil take the hindmost with any restrictions that impact on economic activity being lifted. We simply cannot go on like this.
Regrettably. I saw a comment about the latest measures slowing unemployment rises not preventing it, and all I could think was surely we don't believe a government has the power to simply prevent unemployment during major economic hits?
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
Do you really believe that if Labour was in power rather than trying to be heard they would be spending less? I don't. The question of whether anyone should be spending less in the current crisis (and, no mistake, that's exactly what it is) is not straightforward. The key, for all the flack he got for it, is what is a viable job?
In the next 5 years is working in a bar/nightclub that earns all its profits after midnight likely to be "viable"? Are football and sports clubs dependent upon gate money likely to be viable? Are airlines, exhibition centres, large shopping centres? It's seriously tricky. So much of our economy is dependent on other economic activity to generate business. There are massive systemic risks here. I am conventionally a bit of a fiscal hawk but the general thrust of government policy seems right to me, whatever quibbles there are about some of the details.
I do think, however, that we are running out of road. If things have not picked up substantially by March we will likely have reached the limits of what the government can do and it will be devil take the hindmost with any restrictions that impact on economic activity being lifted. We simply cannot go on like this.
The seismic political shift of a move like that cannot be underestimated. For decades politicians have told voters that only money constrains what the state can do for you. An admission there are limits would be massive.
This is the debate that @Philip_Thompson and I have had frequently. My view is that *for whatever reason* once you let the fiscally irresponsible genie out of the bottle you can't get it back in.
Oh but it's a life or death matter, Covid, isn't it? Well yes, but so is the Health Service and homelessness and general poverty and...and...
Cons can't stand up in parliament and say to Labour that they will overspend because that ship has sailed.
I'd ask why pubs don't have a 'must order drinks & food rule', but these places would clearly just insist a packet of peanuts is chucked in with each round.
You could say order of "cooked / hot food" is required, but then we might get into Pasty Tax territory again about what legally is hot food.
Unfortunately 'Use a bit of common sense' when it comes to the virus is impossible to put precisely into law.
How do you know if you're talking to someone from Huddersfield? They'll tell you within 5 minutes that it's the "biggest town in England".
I don't know if its actually true or not but I once heard that an unusual claim to fame for Warrington is that we're the biggest town in Europe without a professional football club. Of course very much a Rugby League town so everyone is mad about the Wolves instead, plus sandwiched on the M62 right inbetween Liverpool and Manchester so not exactly a shortage of nearby football clubs for people to support but still . . .
Wakefield would be a serious challenger. St Helens too.
Are you just naming every Rugby League town? 🤣
I believe Warrington has got more population than the two of them combined.
Does it really. Wakefield gives the impression, to a casual visitor, of being bigger. Maybe because it was the capital of West Riding. St Helens is not fit for any purpose.
Fantastic opportunity to start a conversation with some Tory voters who are becoming increasingly disillusioned by their government's authoritarian direction?
The 'bird of freedom' and all that.
Yes, the freedom to catch and spread dangerous diseases for no good reason has always been the cornerstone of their political philosophy.
I even believe Isaiah Berlin was going to include it in his famous essay as the third concept of liberty, until he gave it a millisecond's thought and decided against it.
Well, it doesn't have to as strong as that. Simply being one of those groups leading for a proper parliamentary debate of covid lockdown laws would at least show that the bird is not a dead parrot.
A 'proper parliamentary debate' after which you'd like them and as many other MPs as possible to vote all the laws down? Is that the idea?
Bloody hell, you think parliamentary debates are proper if and only if they conclude with a vote for the government?
Another card-carrying Tufty Club member who thinks he's a conservative.
It's blatantly obvious that removing all the restrictions is the goal behind the anodyne demand for 'proper debate', given how it's being pushed by fans of lockdownsceptics.
Are you still pushing the same nonsense you were a few days ago about false positives being the real explanation for the rising cases and hospitalizations, or have you given up on that?
You didn't understand that argument then and you don't understand it now, you tagged on to a couple of people who did (and who also understood that all I did was correctly clarify what Bayes' Theorem says). If you think false positives imply rising hospitalizations you understood it even less than I thought you did.
Moving on to political theory, you seem to genuinely believe that parliament should be prevented from voting on things in case it disagrees with the government. There really is no way back from that.
Nice try to wriggle out of how completely wrong you (and the illustrious Retired Bloke) were. I most certainly don't think that false positives imply rising hospitalizations - the fact that rising hospitalizations have immediately followed the rise in cases demonstrates how stupid it is to write off the latter as false positives.
Still, at least you've given up on pushing it, so that's something.
I have worked out your problem with the "Don't have a debate in parliament, it's just a pretext for a vote" thing, and it is this hilarious: you have half-remembered a similar argument about elitist MPs attempting to overturn therwilloftherpeople with parliamentary votes in the Brexit context, and simply failed to understand that it does not apply now we are back to business as usual and have not established therwilloftherpeople by having a referendum about covid restrictions. But you have elided this into, how dare elitist MPs attempt to overturn therwillofborisjohnson, because the distinction escapes you.
I think Aristotle said that the job of the intelligence is to see the differences between things. I am sure you can oblige by copypasting the original.
My goodness, just accept that you were 100% wrong in falling for the wishful thinking that the rising case numbers were mere statistical artefacts. It's embarrassing, but there's no need to torture your brain with comical attempts at mind reading to try to obscure it.
The 'debate' in Parliament is being pushed by numpties subject to the same wishful thinking that we can just jettison all the public health measures and the problem will go away on its own. The funny thing is that most of those libertarian MPs are the Brexiteers whose irrationality you would decry in any other circumstance, but since it now chimes with what you want, you're suddenly on board with them all the way.
No, that doesn't work, because this is all on the record. Go back and to link to the posts you are talking about. You are, as a matter of fact, completely wrong about my views. I think this is now a question of strict regulations vs mass graves, and I am against mass graves.
What you are saying is exactly equivalent to saying Don't have an election in 2024, it will just let a lot of numpties in who want to ruin the country. This is a point where process is about 1m times more important than substance. It is entirely characteristic of Tufty Club thinking not to be able to recognise that.
We have finally found agreement in our opposition to mass graves. Alleluia!
By all means let them have a vote. All it will do is put Parliament's disunity on display in a fairly counterproductive fashion, but apparently process must triumph over substance, so let's have it.
I'd ask why pubs don't have a 'must order drinks & food rule', but these places would clearly just insist a packet of peanuts is chucked in with each round.
You could say order of "cooked / hot food" is required, but then we might get into Pasty Tax territory again about what legally is hot food.
Actually there's already a principle with licensing about what is and is not a meal, when it comes to dealing with under 18s.
A 16 or 17 year old can legally be served beer, wine or cider (no spirits or alcopops) if they are sat in a restaurant eating a "substantial meal" and with an adult. A sandwich or peanuts would not count as a substantial meal.
That's more for restaurants than nightclubs though.
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
At the moment the most fiscally conservative party leader is Ed Davey and Starmer is more of a fiscal conservative than Corbyn or even Ed Miliband was while Boris is much more of a big spender than Cameron was, that also reflects the fact the Conservative vote under Boris is more working class than it was under Cameron and the Labour vote is more middle class under Starmer than it was under Brown and Ed Miliband
Thank you for pointing out the obvious and completely missing the point, as always.
tbf he is mimicking what he hears from politicians when interviewed:
"If you'll excuse me, that isn't the question you should have asked me; the question you should have asked me is this....and here's the answer..."
Edit: because don't forget (to his great credit, I believe), @HYUFD has aspirations to become a politician.
Are you sure? The internet never forgets, after all.
I think you'll find, again to his credit, that @HYUFD has been scrupulously polite, on topic, and thoughtful and has refrained from the personal abuse that typifies so many posters, myself not excluded.
At his next selection meeting there will be no posts to show he is not enthusiastically loyal to whichever Cons leader happens to be in No.10.
Fair enough. I'd still wager there is enough uncaring, callous, party political self interested and plain fruitcake nutty stuff in his stream to disqualify him. All that stuff about the poor and broth, for a start.
There was nothing inaccurate about stating most people who get Covid will recover, that remains the case today and of course Tory and rightwing voters are less supportive of an extremely restrictive lockdown anyway.
I don't think I have said anything about the poor the average Tory voter would disagree with either
Absolutely the right policy to back scrapping, well done Keir.
Well done on losing the most reliable voting bloc in the country!
People said Sir Keir was too expensive a Tory sleeper agent, but I always knew it would pay off in the end...
What is the point of voting for your precious Tory party if you totally fuck the country?
What criteria, apart from "I always have done" do you employ before deciding on a Party to support?
1. Is the party going to tax me more or less than the alternatives? 2. Is the party in favour of or opposed to cultural wokery? 3. Does the party have a realistic chance of winning?
If an alternative to the Conservatives ever arises that is lower-tax, lower-woke, and a serious challenger for power, they will be a strong contender for my vote.
I don't expect to see one any time soon though.
Fair enough, that's why you're a Tory and probably always will be. Here's my alternative decision tree in direct response to yours:
1. Is the party going to provide world-class public services, financed by a system of progressive taxation where all pay their fair share? 2. Is the party in favour of encouraging tolerance, respect and fairness for all, and promoting genuine equality of opportunity? 3. When the party wins, does it govern in the interest of everybody, and not just its own voters?
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
Do you really believe that if Labour was in power rather than trying to be heard they would be spending less? I don't. The question of whether anyone should be spending less in the current crisis (and, no mistake, that's exactly what it is) is not straightforward. The key, for all the flack he got for it, is what is a viable job?
In the next 5 years is working in a bar/nightclub that earns all its profits after midnight likely to be "viable"? Are football and sports clubs dependent upon gate money likely to be viable? Are airlines, exhibition centres, large shopping centres? It's seriously tricky. So much of our economy is dependent on other economic activity to generate business. There are massive systemic risks here. I am conventionally a bit of a fiscal hawk but the general thrust of government policy seems right to me, whatever quibbles there are about some of the details.
I do think, however, that we are running out of road. If things have not picked up substantially by March we will likely have reached the limits of what the government can do and it will be devil take the hindmost with any restrictions that impact on economic activity being lifted. We simply cannot go on like this.
The seismic political shift of a move like that cannot be underestimated. For decades politicians have told voters that only money constrains what the state can do for you. An admission there are limits would be massive.
I see the seismic shift in the other direction to be honest. For years the Tories complained that Labour's ambitions, however worthy, were unaffordable and ruinous. What is affordable, given the current needs, is eye opening and may make such arguments unstateable in the future (even if they are more likely to be true because of the horrendous national debts).
We'll see I guess but for me the covid episode has shown voters that its perfectly possible for the state to spend a massive amount of their money to little effect. Indeed, to make things worse.
It hasn't boosted faith in big government, rather the opposite. Maybe labour, sensibly, are picking up on that.
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
At the moment the most fiscally conservative party leader is Ed Davey and Starmer is more of a fiscal conservative than Corbyn or even Ed Miliband was while Boris is much more of a big spender than Cameron was, that also reflects the fact the Conservative vote under Boris is more working class than it was under Cameron and the Labour vote is more middle class under Starmer than it was under Brown and Ed Miliband
Thank you for pointing out the obvious and completely missing the point, as always.
tbf he is mimicking what he hears from politicians when interviewed:
"If you'll excuse me, that isn't the question you should have asked me; the question you should have asked me is this....and here's the answer..."
Edit: because don't forget (to his great credit, I believe), @HYUFD has aspirations to become a politician.
Are you sure? The internet never forgets, after all.
I think you'll find, again to his credit, that @HYUFD has been scrupulously polite, on topic, and thoughtful and has refrained from the personal abuse that typifies so many posters, myself not excluded.
At his next selection meeting there will be no posts to show he is not enthusiastically loyal to whichever Cons leader happens to be in No.10.
Being impressively on message is a bonus to parties even though it frustrates everyone else and can be a bit rude - Iain Dale makes the point in his latest book that its one reason the party likes Patel so much.
The one thing Farage could do I think is let Starmer in - might be for the best if Boris is still leading the Tories though ! Reckon Sunak wins Farage or no Farage.
More Leavers would likely leave the Tories for Farage if Sunak rather than Boris was Tory leader, however would Sunak win back enough Remainers from Labour and the LDs to make up for that is the question?
You do realise that by the time that becomes relevant we will be out of the EU with either a deal or no deal and Farage will be long distant bad memory
We are already out of the EU but our future relationship with it is still to be determined.
If we go to No Deal WTO terms Brexit with the EU as is now likely and that goes well then Boris will be safe and likely win the next election anyway.
If not however then just changing the face at the top will not make a difference, Sunak will have to shift to an EEA style deal with the EU to win back Remainers and soft Brexiteers the Tories will have lost to Labour and the LDs but at the risk of losing hardcore Leavers back to Farage and the Brexit Party
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
At the moment the most fiscally conservative party leader is Ed Davey and Starmer is more of a fiscal conservative than Corbyn or even Ed Miliband was while Boris is much more of a big spender than Cameron was, that also reflects the fact the Conservative vote under Boris is more working class than it was under Cameron and the Labour vote is more middle class under Starmer than it was under Brown and Ed Miliband
Thank you for pointing out the obvious and completely missing the point, as always.
tbf he is mimicking what he hears from politicians when interviewed:
"If you'll excuse me, that isn't the question you should have asked me; the question you should have asked me is this....and here's the answer..."
Edit: because don't forget (to his great credit, I believe), @HYUFD has aspirations to become a politician.
Are you sure? The internet never forgets, after all.
I think you'll find, again to his credit, that @HYUFD has been scrupulously polite, on topic, and thoughtful and has refrained from the personal abuse that typifies so many posters, myself not excluded.
At his next selection meeting there will be no posts to show he is not enthusiastically loyal to whichever Cons leader happens to be in No.10.
Fair enough. I'd still wager there is enough uncaring, callous, party political self interested and plain fruitcake nutty stuff in his stream to disqualify him. All that stuff about the poor and broth, for a start.
Barking madness does not disqualify you from politics (look at the HoC and the Cabinet), but being rude....
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
At the moment the most fiscally conservative party leader is Ed Davey and Starmer is more of a fiscal conservative than Corbyn or even Ed Miliband was while Boris is much more of a big spender than Cameron was, that also reflects the fact the Conservative vote under Boris is more working class than it was under Cameron and the Labour vote is more middle class under Starmer than it was under Brown and Ed Miliband
Thank you for pointing out the obvious and completely missing the point, as always.
tbf he is mimicking what he hears from politicians when interviewed:
"If you'll excuse me, that isn't the question you should have asked me; the question you should have asked me is this....and here's the answer..."
Edit: because don't forget (to his great credit, I believe), @HYUFD has aspirations to become a politician.
Are you sure? The internet never forgets, after all.
I think you'll find, again to his credit, that @HYUFD has been scrupulously polite, on topic, and thoughtful and has refrained from the personal abuse that typifies so many posters, myself not excluded.
At his next selection meeting there will be no posts to show he is not enthusiastically loyal to whichever Cons leader happens to be in No.10.
Fair enough. I'd still wager there is enough uncaring, callous, party political self interested and plain fruitcake nutty stuff in his stream to disqualify him. All that stuff about the poor and broth, for a start.
He also responds courteously to abuse, but I do feel his realpolitik is sometimes a bit too real to be said out loud - governments govern solely to please and add to their core support, and so on.
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
At the moment the most fiscally conservative party leader is Ed Davey and Starmer is more of a fiscal conservative than Corbyn or even Ed Miliband was while Boris is much more of a big spender than Cameron was, that also reflects the fact the Conservative vote under Boris is more working class than it was under Cameron and the Labour vote is more middle class under Starmer than it was under Brown and Ed Miliband
Thank you for pointing out the obvious and completely missing the point, as always.
tbf he is mimicking what he hears from politicians when interviewed:
"If you'll excuse me, that isn't the question you should have asked me; the question you should have asked me is this....and here's the answer..."
Edit: because don't forget (to his great credit, I believe), @HYUFD has aspirations to become a politician.
Are you sure? The internet never forgets, after all.
I think you'll find, again to his credit, that @HYUFD has been scrupulously polite, on topic, and thoughtful and has refrained from the personal abuse that typifies so many posters, myself not excluded.
At his next selection meeting there will be no posts to show he is not enthusiastically loyal to whichever Cons leader happens to be in No.10.
Fair enough. I'd still wager there is enough uncaring, callous, party political self interested and plain fruitcake nutty stuff in his stream to disqualify him. All that stuff about the poor and broth, for a start.
He also responds courteously to abuse, but I do feel his realpolitik is sometimes a bit too real to be said out loud - governments govern solely to please and add to their core support, and so on.
I also said in the belief their policies benefit all however they do not have to be supported by all
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
Do you really believe that if Labour was in power rather than trying to be heard they would be spending less? I don't. The question of whether anyone should be spending less in the current crisis (and, no mistake, that's exactly what it is) is not straightforward. The key, for all the flack he got for it, is what is a viable job?
In the next 5 years is working in a bar/nightclub that earns all its profits after midnight likely to be "viable"? Are football and sports clubs dependent upon gate money likely to be viable? Are airlines, exhibition centres, large shopping centres? It's seriously tricky. So much of our economy is dependent on other economic activity to generate business. There are massive systemic risks here. I am conventionally a bit of a fiscal hawk but the general thrust of government policy seems right to me, whatever quibbles there are about some of the details.
I do think, however, that we are running out of road. If things have not picked up substantially by March we will likely have reached the limits of what the government can do and it will be devil take the hindmost with any restrictions that impact on economic activity being lifted. We simply cannot go on like this.
The seismic political shift of a move like that cannot be underestimated. For decades politicians have told voters that only money constrains what the state can do for you. An admission there are limits would be massive.
This is the debate that @Philip_Thompson and I have had frequently. My view is that *for whatever reason* once you let the fiscally irresponsible genie out of the bottle you can't get it back in.
Oh but it's a life or death matter, Covid, isn't it? Well yes, but so is the Health Service and homelessness and general poverty and...and...
Cons can't stand up in parliament and say to Labour that they will overspend because that ship has sailed.
I think the case remains strong that in more normal times you don't apply emergency level measures, like Trump using emergency funds for his wall, but certainly it would be a tougher sell.
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
At the moment the most fiscally conservative party leader is Ed Davey and Starmer is more of a fiscal conservative than Corbyn or even Ed Miliband was while Boris is much more of a big spender than Cameron was, that also reflects the fact the Conservative vote under Boris is more working class than it was under Cameron and the Labour vote is more middle class under Starmer than it was under Brown and Ed Miliband
Thank you for pointing out the obvious and completely missing the point, as always.
tbf he is mimicking what he hears from politicians when interviewed:
"If you'll excuse me, that isn't the question you should have asked me; the question you should have asked me is this....and here's the answer..."
Edit: because don't forget (to his great credit, I believe), @HYUFD has aspirations to become a politician.
Are you sure? The internet never forgets, after all.
I think you'll find, again to his credit, that @HYUFD has been scrupulously polite, on topic, and thoughtful and has refrained from the personal abuse that typifies so many posters, myself not excluded.
At his next selection meeting there will be no posts to show he is not enthusiastically loyal to whichever Cons leader happens to be in No.10.
Fair enough. I'd still wager there is enough uncaring, callous, party political self interested and plain fruitcake nutty stuff in his stream to disqualify him. All that stuff about the poor and broth, for a start.
He also responds courteously to abuse, but I do feel his realpolitik is sometimes a bit too real to be said out loud - governments govern solely to please and add to their core support, and so on.
I also said in the belief their policies benefit all however they do not have to be supported by all
One in 500 people in homes in England had Covid-19 in the week of 19 September, according to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics.
This is up from one in 900 reported last week (nearly doubled) and equates to 103,600 people.
The ONS estimates that there were 9,600 new infections per day in the same week, up 60% on the 6,000 cases per day reported in the previous week.
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
Do you really believe that if Labour was in power rather than trying to be heard they would be spending less? I don't. The question of whether anyone should be spending less in the current crisis (and, no mistake, that's exactly what it is) is not straightforward. The key, for all the flack he got for it, is what is a viable job?
In the next 5 years is working in a bar/nightclub that earns all its profits after midnight likely to be "viable"? Are football and sports clubs dependent upon gate money likely to be viable? Are airlines, exhibition centres, large shopping centres? It's seriously tricky. So much of our economy is dependent on other economic activity to generate business. There are massive systemic risks here. I am conventionally a bit of a fiscal hawk but the general thrust of government policy seems right to me, whatever quibbles there are about some of the details.
I do think, however, that we are running out of road. If things have not picked up substantially by March we will likely have reached the limits of what the government can do and it will be devil take the hindmost with any restrictions that impact on economic activity being lifted. We simply cannot go on like this.
The seismic political shift of a move like that cannot be underestimated. For decades politicians have told voters that only money constrains what the state can do for you. An admission there are limits would be massive.
This is the debate that @Philip_Thompson and I have had frequently. My view is that *for whatever reason* once you let the fiscally irresponsible genie out of the bottle you can't get it back in.
Oh but it's a life or death matter, Covid, isn't it? Well yes, but so is the Health Service and homelessness and general poverty and...and...
Cons can't stand up in parliament and say to Labour that they will overspend because that ship has sailed.
Indeed. Homelessness being a key example. We can't afford it. Well we did, over a weekend almost, when we thought they were going to infect everyone. We don't want to afford it is a different argument entirely.
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
Do you really believe that if Labour was in power rather than trying to be heard they would be spending less? I don't. The question of whether anyone should be spending less in the current crisis (and, no mistake, that's exactly what it is) is not straightforward. The key, for all the flack he got for it, is what is a viable job?
In the next 5 years is working in a bar/nightclub that earns all its profits after midnight likely to be "viable"? Are football and sports clubs dependent upon gate money likely to be viable? Are airlines, exhibition centres, large shopping centres? It's seriously tricky. So much of our economy is dependent on other economic activity to generate business. There are massive systemic risks here. I am conventionally a bit of a fiscal hawk but the general thrust of government policy seems right to me, whatever quibbles there are about some of the details.
I do think, however, that we are running out of road. If things have not picked up substantially by March we will likely have reached the limits of what the government can do and it will be devil take the hindmost with any restrictions that impact on economic activity being lifted. We simply cannot go on like this.
The seismic political shift of a move like that cannot be underestimated. For decades politicians have told voters that only money constrains what the state can do for you. An admission there are limits would be massive.
This is the debate that @Philip_Thompson and I have had frequently. My view is that *for whatever reason* once you let the fiscally irresponsible genie out of the bottle you can't get it back in.
Oh but it's a life or death matter, Covid, isn't it? Well yes, but so is the Health Service and homelessness and general poverty and...and...
Cons can't stand up in parliament and say to Labour that they will overspend because that ship has sailed.
Its been pointed out on here, however, that it would have taken a politician of immense fortitude to stand up to the media firestorm of March and April. Saying 'there's only so much we can afford' when hundreds were dying every day would have...well...Im not even sure the blessed St Margaret (PBUH) would have done it.
Here we go again....surely the morons still have cupboards of dried pasta left from March?
Tesco, the UK's biggest supermarket, is to stop customers from bulk ordering flour, pasta, toilet rolls and anti-bacterial wipes to prevent a repeat of shortages earlier this year.
Fantastic opportunity to start a conversation with some Tory voters who are becoming increasingly disillusioned by their government's authoritarian direction?
The 'bird of freedom' and all that.
Yes, the freedom to catch and spread dangerous diseases for no good reason has always been the cornerstone of their political philosophy.
I even believe Isaiah Berlin was going to include it in his famous essay as the third concept of liberty, until he gave it a millisecond's thought and decided against it.
Well, it doesn't have to as strong as that. Simply being one of those groups leading for a proper parliamentary debate of covid lockdown laws would at least show that the bird is not a dead parrot.
A 'proper parliamentary debate' after which you'd like them and as many other MPs as possible to vote all the laws down? Is that the idea?
Bloody hell, you think parliamentary debates are proper if and only if they conclude with a vote for the government?
Another card-carrying Tufty Club member who thinks he's a conservative.
It's blatantly obvious that removing all the restrictions is the goal behind the anodyne demand for 'proper debate', given how it's being pushed by fans of lockdownsceptics.
Are you still pushing the same nonsense you were a few days ago about false positives being the real explanation for the rising cases and hospitalizations, or have you given up on that?
You didn't understand that argument then and you don't understand it now, you tagged on to a couple of people who did (and who also understood that all I did was correctly clarify what Bayes' Theorem says). If you think false positives imply rising hospitalizations you understood it even less than I thought you did.
Moving on to political theory, you seem to genuinely believe that parliament should be prevented from voting on things in case it disagrees with the government. There really is no way back from that.
Nice try to wriggle out of how completely wrong you (and the illustrious Retired Bloke) were. I most certainly don't think that false positives imply rising hospitalizations - the fact that rising hospitalizations have immediately followed the rise in cases demonstrates how stupid it is to write off the latter as false positives.
Still, at least you've given up on pushing it, so that's something.
I have worked out your problem with the "Don't have a debate in parliament, it's just a pretext for a vote" thing, and it is this hilarious: you have half-remembered a similar argument about elitist MPs attempting to overturn therwilloftherpeople with parliamentary votes in the Brexit context, and simply failed to understand that it does not apply now we are back to business as usual and have not established therwilloftherpeople by having a referendum about covid restrictions. But you have elided this into, how dare elitist MPs attempt to overturn therwillofborisjohnson, because the distinction escapes you.
I think Aristotle said that the job of the intelligence is to see the differences between things. I am sure you can oblige by copypasting the original.
My goodness, just accept that you were 100% wrong in falling for the wishful thinking that the rising case numbers were mere statistical artefacts. It's embarrassing, but there's no need to torture your brain with comical attempts at mind reading to try to obscure it.
The 'debate' in Parliament is being pushed by numpties subject to the same wishful thinking that we can just jettison all the public health measures and the problem will go away on its own. The funny thing is that most of those libertarian MPs are the Brexiteers whose irrationality you would decry in any other circumstance, but since it now chimes with what you want, you're suddenly on board with them all the way.
No, that doesn't work, because this is all on the record. Go back and to link to the posts you are talking about. You are, as a matter of fact, completely wrong about my views. I think this is now a question of strict regulations vs mass graves, and I am against mass graves.
What you are saying is exactly equivalent to saying Don't have an election in 2024, it will just let a lot of numpties in who want to ruin the country. This is a point where process is about 1m times more important than substance. It is entirely characteristic of Tufty Club thinking not to be able to recognise that.
We have finally found agreement in our opposition to mass graves. Alleluia!
By all means let them have a vote. All it will do is put Parliament's disunity on display in a fairly counterproductive fashion, but apparently process must triumph over substance, so let's have it.
Erm... I'm probably missing something, but doesn't the argument "putting Parliament's disunity on display is counterproductive" lead to a fairly dark place?
After all, in a democracy, shouldn't we discuss things a bit?
In that Emerson poll 17 % of respondents are believers in QANON.
America is fucked.
Any bets on the first PB QAnon apologist to break cover?
it would have to be carefully to be convincing. No sudden admissions, but a slow drio from 'I don't say I agree with them but x is a problem' to 'I am a qanon backer'.
I forget who but someone did decry the vicious mockery toward the conspiracy theorists even though the theory being mocked was that Clinton is a murderous child rapist.
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
It is an extraordinary turnaround. Losing credibility over the nations finances to Labour is what made 1997 possible.
Yes, Boris is putting the Tory party out of power for two cycles with these policies. Working age people are all looking at Labour and realising they are the responsible party.
I love how people who criticised every lockdown measure as not going far enough are now turning into fiscal hawks when the bill for those measures comes in.
Honestly what did you expect?
Hate to say I told you so, but...
I said many times that when the economy is mullered after the lockdown measures, it will be those criticising Boris for not locking down hard enough who will be criticisng him for the economy being mullered. And so it has come to pass
I'm not particularly concerned about the money being spent, as there's a strong argument that money spent keeping businesses alive will prevent an even greater catastrophe later, however...
There's a clear case that if we'd locked down earlier/harder there would have been much less impact on the economy, with:
A significantly lower peak. Less pressure for the NHS to shut all other services down. Less pressure on the NHS to decant untested patients into care homes. A more manageable peak means that not everyone is in crisis mode, leaving more time/space to prepare for easing lockdown/getting schools prepared/getting test & trace working. Leaving lockdown with much lower/ more manageable numbers.
I doubt any govt would have got things totally right, and my opinion of Boris is pretty low, but I am genuinely surprised at just how short term and reactive everything seems to be.
How do you know if you're talking to someone from Huddersfield? They'll tell you within 5 minutes that it's the "biggest town in England".
I don't know if its actually true or not but I once heard that an unusual claim to fame for Warrington is that we're the biggest town in Europe without a professional football club. Of course very much a Rugby League town so everyone is mad about the Wolves instead, plus sandwiched on the M62 right inbetween Liverpool and Manchester so not exactly a shortage of nearby football clubs for people to support but still . . .
Wakefield would be a serious challenger. St Helens too.
Are you just naming every Rugby League town? 🤣
I believe Warrington has got more population than the two of them combined.
Does it really. Wakefield gives the impression, to a casual visitor, of being bigger. Maybe because it was the capital of West Riding. St Helens is not fit for any purpose.
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
London has been added to England's Covid-19 watchlist, a group representing the capital's councils says.
A statement from London Councils says: "It is a stark reminder that now is the time for all Londoners to pull together and take action to keep themselves, their families and their communities safe, and to ensure that London's economy is protected."
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
At the moment the most fiscally conservative party leader is Ed Davey and Starmer is more of a fiscal conservative than Corbyn or even Ed Miliband was while Boris is much more of a big spender than Cameron was, that also reflects the fact the Conservative vote under Boris is more working class than it was under Cameron and the Labour vote is more middle class under Starmer than it was under Brown and Ed Miliband
Thank you for pointing out the obvious and completely missing the point, as always.
tbf he is mimicking what he hears from politicians when interviewed:
"If you'll excuse me, that isn't the question you should have asked me; the question you should have asked me is this....and here's the answer..."
Edit: because don't forget (to his great credit, I believe), @HYUFD has aspirations to become a politician.
Are you sure? The internet never forgets, after all.
I think you'll find, again to his credit, that @HYUFD has been scrupulously polite, on topic, and thoughtful and has refrained from the personal abuse that typifies so many posters, myself not excluded.
At his next selection meeting there will be no posts to show he is not enthusiastically loyal to whichever Cons leader happens to be in No.10.
Yes I think HYUFD says an awful lot of nonsense but he's always polite in his posts and I enjoy reading them and shouting at the screen.
He's been far better than me especially at not being abusive.
Fantastic opportunity to start a conversation with some Tory voters who are becoming increasingly disillusioned by their government's authoritarian direction?
The 'bird of freedom' and all that.
Yes, the freedom to catch and spread dangerous diseases for no good reason has always been the cornerstone of their political philosophy.
I even believe Isaiah Berlin was going to include it in his famous essay as the third concept of liberty, until he gave it a millisecond's thought and decided against it.
Well, it doesn't have to as strong as that. Simply being one of those groups leading for a proper parliamentary debate of covid lockdown laws would at least show that the bird is not a dead parrot.
A 'proper parliamentary debate' after which you'd like them and as many other MPs as possible to vote all the laws down? Is that the idea?
Bloody hell, you think parliamentary debates are proper if and only if they conclude with a vote for the government?
Another card-carrying Tufty Club member who thinks he's a conservative.
It's blatantly obvious that removing all the restrictions is the goal behind the anodyne demand for 'proper debate', given how it's being pushed by fans of lockdownsceptics.
Are you still pushing the same nonsense you were a few days ago about false positives being the real explanation for the rising cases and hospitalizations, or have you given up on that?
You didn't understand that argument then and you don't understand it now, you tagged on to a couple of people who did (and who also understood that all I did was correctly clarify what Bayes' Theorem says). If you think false positives imply rising hospitalizations you understood it even less than I thought you did.
Moving on to political theory, you seem to genuinely believe that parliament should be prevented from voting on things in case it disagrees with the government. There really is no way back from that.
Nice try to wriggle out of how completely wrong you (and the illustrious Retired Bloke) were. I most certainly don't think that false positives imply rising hospitalizations - the fact that rising hospitalizations have immediately followed the rise in cases demonstrates how stupid it is to write off the latter as false positives.
Still, at least you've given up on pushing it, so that's something.
I have worked out your problem with the "Don't have a debate in parliament, it's just a pretext for a vote" thing, and it is this hilarious: you have half-remembered a similar argument about elitist MPs attempting to overturn therwilloftherpeople with parliamentary votes in the Brexit context, and simply failed to understand that it does not apply now we are back to business as usual and have not established therwilloftherpeople by having a referendum about covid restrictions. But you have elided this into, how dare elitist MPs attempt to overturn therwillofborisjohnson, because the distinction escapes you.
I think Aristotle said that the job of the intelligence is to see the differences between things. I am sure you can oblige by copypasting the original.
My goodness, just accept that you were 100% wrong in falling for the wishful thinking that the rising case numbers were mere statistical artefacts. It's embarrassing, but there's no need to torture your brain with comical attempts at mind reading to try to obscure it.
The 'debate' in Parliament is being pushed by numpties subject to the same wishful thinking that we can just jettison all the public health measures and the problem will go away on its own. The funny thing is that most of those libertarian MPs are the Brexiteers whose irrationality you would decry in any other circumstance, but since it now chimes with what you want, you're suddenly on board with them all the way.
No, that doesn't work, because this is all on the record. Go back and to link to the posts you are talking about. You are, as a matter of fact, completely wrong about my views. I think this is now a question of strict regulations vs mass graves, and I am against mass graves.
What you are saying is exactly equivalent to saying Don't have an election in 2024, it will just let a lot of numpties in who want to ruin the country. This is a point where process is about 1m times more important than substance. It is entirely characteristic of Tufty Club thinking not to be able to recognise that.
We have finally found agreement in our opposition to mass graves. Alleluia!
By all means let them have a vote. All it will do is put Parliament's disunity on display in a fairly counterproductive fashion, but apparently process must triumph over substance, so let's have it.
Yes it would be super counter-productive. If only everyone in Parliament agreed with everything the government wanted then it would be far more productive.
The one thing Farage could do I think is let Starmer in - might be for the best if Boris is still leading the Tories though ! Reckon Sunak wins Farage or no Farage.
More Leavers would likely leave the Tories for Farage if Sunak rather than Boris was Tory leader, however would Sunak win back enough Remainers from Labour and the LDs to make up for that is the question?
You're obsessed with "leavers". Most "leavers" are just getting on with their lives and are not obsessed with Brexit still. Just like most "remainers".
It's just the frothers on both sides who are still obsessed.
68% of Leavers are now voting Tory, just 19% of Leavers are voting Labour.
By contrast 54% of Remainers are now voting Labour and just 19% of Remainers are voting Tory.
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
At the moment the most fiscally conservative party leader is Ed Davey and Starmer is more of a fiscal conservative than Corbyn or even Ed Miliband was while Boris is much more of a big spender than Cameron was, that also reflects the fact the Conservative vote under Boris is more working class than it was under Cameron and the Labour vote is more middle class under Starmer than it was under Brown and Ed Miliband
Thank you for pointing out the obvious and completely missing the point, as always.
tbf he is mimicking what he hears from politicians when interviewed:
"If you'll excuse me, that isn't the question you should have asked me; the question you should have asked me is this....and here's the answer..."
Edit: because don't forget (to his great credit, I believe), @HYUFD has aspirations to become a politician.
Are you sure? The internet never forgets, after all.
I think you'll find, again to his credit, that @HYUFD has been scrupulously polite, on topic, and thoughtful and has refrained from the personal abuse that typifies so many posters, myself not excluded.
At his next selection meeting there will be no posts to show he is not enthusiastically loyal to whichever Cons leader happens to be in No.10.
Yes, but he still voted Remain, so doesn't that automatically rule him out?
The one thing Farage could do I think is let Starmer in - might be for the best if Boris is still leading the Tories though ! Reckon Sunak wins Farage or no Farage.
More Leavers would likely leave the Tories for Farage if Sunak rather than Boris was Tory leader, however would Sunak win back enough Remainers from Labour and the LDs to make up for that is the question?
You're obsessed with "leavers". Most "leavers" are just getting on with their lives and are not obsessed with Brexit still. Just like most "remainers".
It's just the frothers on both sides who are still obsessed.
68% of Leavers are now voting Tory, just 19% of Leavers are voting Labour.
By contrast 54% of Remainers are now voting Labour and just 19% of Remainers are voting Tory.
The one thing Farage could do I think is let Starmer in - might be for the best if Boris is still leading the Tories though ! Reckon Sunak wins Farage or no Farage.
More Leavers would likely leave the Tories for Farage if Sunak rather than Boris was Tory leader, however would Sunak win back enough Remainers from Labour and the LDs to make up for that is the question?
You're obsessed with "leavers". Most "leavers" are just getting on with their lives and are not obsessed with Brexit still. Just like most "remainers".
It's just the frothers on both sides who are still obsessed.
68% of Leavers are now voting Tory, just 19% of Leavers are voting Labour.
By contrast 54% of Remainers are now voting Labour and just 19% of Remainers are voting Tory.
London has been added to England's Covid-19 watchlist, a group representing the capital's councils says.
A statement from London Councils says: "It is a stark reminder that now is the time for all Londoners to pull together and take action to keep themselves, their families and their communities safe, and to ensure that London's economy is protected."
Do we have a figure for London’s per 100,000 infection rate?
Absolutely the right policy to back scrapping, well done Keir.
Well done on losing the most reliable voting bloc in the country!
People said Sir Keir was too expensive a Tory sleeper agent, but I always knew it would pay off in the end...
What is the point of voting for your precious Tory party if you totally fuck the country?
What criteria, apart from "I always have done" do you employ before deciding on a Party to support?
I completely agree, though I don't accept the Tories aren't being fiscally responsible considering we are in the middle of the greatest economic crisis of the past 300 years.
There was a fascinating chart on Sky last night showing the proportion of GDP as fiscal stimulus that each country has done related to COVID since the outbreak began. At the top of the list somewhat surprisingly was Japan at 18% of GDP, Germany was at 12% of GDP, USA about 10% from memory and much lower down was the UK at 6% of GDP.
Yes it is a lot of money, but in the grand scheme of things there is still a great deal of fiscal responsibility being shown. When even the notoriously hawkish Germans are providing twice the stimulus we have I think its a bit off to say we've simply got the spending taps onto maximum and that's it.
Those sky numbers are wrong, we've done around 12% of GDP in stimulus compared to the pre-COVID economy.
So they were out by a factor of 100% on the stimulus? That's quite shoddy reporting.
Though I don't see how that can be true. The UK's deficit to date for the past six months is about 12% of pre-COVID GDP but since we weren't running a balanced budget I don't see how that can all be stimulus.
Our deficit was about 1.4% of GDP trailing 12 months heading into the crisis, but the deficit itself isn't as important as the additional spending which is what we need to look at, that our tax receipts have held up better than expected is good but the additional spending is worth around 12% of GDP at the moment and expected to rise to around 20% of GDP by the end of the year.
The one thing Farage could do I think is let Starmer in - might be for the best if Boris is still leading the Tories though ! Reckon Sunak wins Farage or no Farage.
More Leavers would likely leave the Tories for Farage if Sunak rather than Boris was Tory leader, however would Sunak win back enough Remainers from Labour and the LDs to make up for that is the question?
You're obsessed with "leavers". Most "leavers" are just getting on with their lives and are not obsessed with Brexit still. Just like most "remainers".
It's just the frothers on both sides who are still obsessed.
68% of Leavers are now voting Tory, just 19% of Leavers are voting Labour.
By contrast 54% of Remainers are now voting Labour and just 19% of Remainers are voting Tory.
London has been added to England's Covid-19 watchlist, a group representing the capital's councils says.
A statement from London Councils says: "It is a stark reminder that now is the time for all Londoners to pull together and take action to keep themselves, their families and their communities safe, and to ensure that London's economy is protected."
Do we have a figure for London’s per 100,000 infection rate?
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
At the moment the most fiscally conservative party leader is Ed Davey and Starmer is more of a fiscal conservative than Corbyn or even Ed Miliband was while Boris is much more of a big spender than Cameron was, that also reflects the fact the Conservative vote under Boris is more working class than it was under Cameron and the Labour vote is more middle class under Starmer than it was under Brown and Ed Miliband
Thank you for pointing out the obvious and completely missing the point, as always.
tbf he is mimicking what he hears from politicians when interviewed:
"If you'll excuse me, that isn't the question you should have asked me; the question you should have asked me is this....and here's the answer..."
Edit: because don't forget (to his great credit, I believe), @HYUFD has aspirations to become a politician.
Are you sure? The internet never forgets, after all.
I think you'll find, again to his credit, that @HYUFD has been scrupulously polite, on topic, and thoughtful and has refrained from the personal abuse that typifies so many posters, myself not excluded.
At his next selection meeting there will be no posts to show he is not enthusiastically loyal to whichever Cons leader happens to be in No.10.
Being impressively on message is a bonus to parties even though it frustrates everyone else and can be a bit rude - Iain Dale makes the point in his latest book that its one reason the party likes Patel so much.
Four people have been hurt, two of them seriously, in a knife attack in Paris near the former offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, officials say.
London has been added to England's Covid-19 watchlist, a group representing the capital's councils says.
A statement from London Councils says: "It is a stark reminder that now is the time for all Londoners to pull together and take action to keep themselves, their families and their communities safe, and to ensure that London's economy is protected."
Do we have a figure for London’s per 100,000 infection rate?
The one thing Farage could do I think is let Starmer in - might be for the best if Boris is still leading the Tories though ! Reckon Sunak wins Farage or no Farage.
More Leavers would likely leave the Tories for Farage if Sunak rather than Boris was Tory leader, however would Sunak win back enough Remainers from Labour and the LDs to make up for that is the question?
You're obsessed with "leavers". Most "leavers" are just getting on with their lives and are not obsessed with Brexit still. Just like most "remainers".
It's just the frothers on both sides who are still obsessed.
68% of Leavers are now voting Tory, just 19% of Leavers are voting Labour.
By contrast 54% of Remainers are now voting Labour and just 19% of Remainers are voting Tory.
On the train with someone in a 'Boris Johnson is incompetent' face mask. Sadly it looks like they just wrote it on their mask themselves - I'm surprised not to have seen more manufactured political masks.
Heres hoping I come across a socialist worker magazine like one of the last times I took a long train.
London has been added to England's Covid-19 watchlist, a group representing the capital's councils says.
A statement from London Councils says: "It is a stark reminder that now is the time for all Londoners to pull together and take action to keep themselves, their families and their communities safe, and to ensure that London's economy is protected."
Do we have a figure for London’s per 100,000 infection rate?
London - absolute numbers
Thanks, IANAE but locking down London on those figures, in my mind, would be stupid in the extreme, maybe better (or any) enforcement of existing regulations would be more effective
Four people have been hurt, two of them seriously, in a knife attack in Paris near the former offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, officials say.
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
At the moment the most fiscally conservative party leader is Ed Davey and Starmer is more of a fiscal conservative than Corbyn or even Ed Miliband was while Boris is much more of a big spender than Cameron was, that also reflects the fact the Conservative vote under Boris is more working class than it was under Cameron and the Labour vote is more middle class under Starmer than it was under Brown and Ed Miliband
Thank you for pointing out the obvious and completely missing the point, as always.
tbf he is mimicking what he hears from politicians when interviewed:
"If you'll excuse me, that isn't the question you should have asked me; the question you should have asked me is this....and here's the answer..."
Edit: because don't forget (to his great credit, I believe), @HYUFD has aspirations to become a politician.
Are you sure? The internet never forgets, after all.
I think you'll find, again to his credit, that @HYUFD has been scrupulously polite, on topic, and thoughtful and has refrained from the personal abuse that typifies so many posters, myself not excluded.
At his next selection meeting there will be no posts to show he is not enthusiastically loyal to whichever Cons leader happens to be in No.10.
Yes, but he still voted Remain, so doesn't that automatically rule him out?
Well yes but I think must be a "don't ask, don't tell" situation at his Branch
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
Do you really believe that if Labour was in power rather than trying to be heard they would be spending less? I don't. The question of whether anyone should be spending less in the current crisis (and, no mistake, that's exactly what it is) is not straightforward. The key, for all the flack he got for it, is what is a viable job?
In the next 5 years is working in a bar/nightclub that earns all its profits after midnight likely to be "viable"? Are football and sports clubs dependent upon gate money likely to be viable? Are airlines, exhibition centres, large shopping centres? It's seriously tricky. So much of our economy is dependent on other economic activity to generate business. There are massive systemic risks here. I am conventionally a bit of a fiscal hawk but the general thrust of government policy seems right to me, whatever quibbles there are about some of the details.
I do think, however, that we are running out of road. If things have not picked up substantially by March we will likely have reached the limits of what the government can do and it will be devil take the hindmost with any restrictions that impact on economic activity being lifted. We simply cannot go on like this.
I don't think they would, but the facts are plain to see, Starmer is proposing to suspend or scrap the triple lock and Boris is clinging onto it because it's popular with the Tory base. It's a measure that is going to cost the country tens of billions over the next decade, especially with 2-4% real terms rises for the next couple of years built in. The responsible thing to do is scrap it for at least 3 years and then decide what to do afterwards.
This is a major on going area of additional spending, it takes money out of the hands of the productive working age population and hands it to the unproductive older population who are wealthier on average. It's a policy that goes against everything the party is supposed to stand for in rewarding hard work and prudence. Boris is absolutely failing the test and Starmer is passing it. The Tory party is completely trashing a very hard won reputation for fiscal responsibility, not because of additional emergency virus spending, but because the PM won't face up to the consequences of it.
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
It is an extraordinary turnaround. Losing credibility over the nations finances to Labour is what made 1997 possible.
Yes, Boris is putting the Tory party out of power for two cycles with these policies. Working age people are all looking at Labour and realising they are the responsible party.
I love how people who criticised every lockdown measure as not going far enough are now turning into fiscal hawks when the bill for those measures comes in.
Honestly what did you expect?
Hate to say I told you so, but...
I said many times that when the economy is mullered after the lockdown measures, it will be those criticising Boris for not locking down hard enough who will be criticisng him for the economy being mullered. And so it has come to pass
Sean is up already?
Although it isn't illogical to think far too little was done to contain early on, and and at the same time think the benefit of some of the later lockdown measures is outweighed by the cost.
Taiwan seems like the model of a country which didn't squander the advantage of being an island.
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
At the moment the most fiscally conservative party leader is Ed Davey and Starmer is more of a fiscal conservative than Corbyn or even Ed Miliband was while Boris is much more of a big spender than Cameron was, that also reflects the fact the Conservative vote under Boris is more working class than it was under Cameron and the Labour vote is more middle class under Starmer than it was under Brown and Ed Miliband
Thank you for pointing out the obvious and completely missing the point, as always.
tbf he is mimicking what he hears from politicians when interviewed:
"If you'll excuse me, that isn't the question you should have asked me; the question you should have asked me is this....and here's the answer..."
Edit: because don't forget (to his great credit, I believe), @HYUFD has aspirations to become a politician.
Are you sure? The internet never forgets, after all.
I think you'll find, again to his credit, that @HYUFD has been scrupulously polite, on topic, and thoughtful and has refrained from the personal abuse that typifies so many posters, myself not excluded.
At his next selection meeting there will be no posts to show he is not enthusiastically loyal to whichever Cons leader happens to be in No.10.
Yes, but he still voted Remain, so doesn't that automatically rule him out?
Well yes but I think must be a "don't ask, don't tell" situation at his Branch
We even have a few Tory councillors who voted Remain in Epping Forest, even here over a third of voters voted Remain even if the clear majority of the party are Leavers and of course we all backed getting Brexit done to respect the referendum result
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
London has been added to England's Covid-19 watchlist, a group representing the capital's councils says.
A statement from London Councils says: "It is a stark reminder that now is the time for all Londoners to pull together and take action to keep themselves, their families and their communities safe, and to ensure that London's economy is protected."
Do we have a figure for London’s per 100,000 infection rate?
London has been added to England's Covid-19 watchlist, a group representing the capital's councils says.
A statement from London Councils says: "It is a stark reminder that now is the time for all Londoners to pull together and take action to keep themselves, their families and their communities safe, and to ensure that London's economy is protected."
Do we have a figure for London’s per 100,000 infection rate?
Its is totally unfathomable that 6 months into this crisis, that a robust airport screening procedure isn't in place in every major Western country. £12bn spent on testing in the UK and still airport arrivals aren't screened, no enforcement, etc.
The one thing Farage could do I think is let Starmer in - might be for the best if Boris is still leading the Tories though ! Reckon Sunak wins Farage or no Farage.
More Leavers would likely leave the Tories for Farage if Sunak rather than Boris was Tory leader, however would Sunak win back enough Remainers from Labour and the LDs to make up for that is the question?
You're obsessed with "leavers". Most "leavers" are just getting on with their lives and are not obsessed with Brexit still. Just like most "remainers".
It's just the frothers on both sides who are still obsessed.
68% of Leavers are now voting Tory, just 19% of Leavers are voting Labour.
By contrast 54% of Remainers are now voting Labour and just 19% of Remainers are voting Tory.
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
Do you really believe that if Labour was in power rather than trying to be heard they would be spending less? I don't. The question of whether anyone should be spending less in the current crisis (and, no mistake, that's exactly what it is) is not straightforward. The key, for all the flack he got for it, is what is a viable job?
In the next 5 years is working in a bar/nightclub that earns all its profits after midnight likely to be "viable"? Are football and sports clubs dependent upon gate money likely to be viable? Are airlines, exhibition centres, large shopping centres? It's seriously tricky. So much of our economy is dependent on other economic activity to generate business. There are massive systemic risks here. I am conventionally a bit of a fiscal hawk but the general thrust of government policy seems right to me, whatever quibbles there are about some of the details.
I do think, however, that we are running out of road. If things have not picked up substantially by March we will likely have reached the limits of what the government can do and it will be devil take the hindmost with any restrictions that impact on economic activity being lifted. We simply cannot go on like this.
I don't think they would, but the facts are plain to see, Starmer is proposing to suspend or scrap the triple lock and Boris is clinging onto it because it's popular with the Tory base. It's a measure that is going to cost the country tens of billions over the next decade, especially with 2-4% real terms rises for the next couple of years built in. The responsible thing to do is scrap it for at least 3 years and then decide what to do afterwards.
This is a major on going area of additional spending, it takes money out of the hands of the productive working age population and hands it to the unproductive older population who are wealthier on average. It's a policy that goes against everything the party is supposed to stand for in rewarding hard work and prudence. Boris is absolutely failing the test and Starmer is passing it. The Tory party is completely trashing a very hard won reputation for fiscal responsibility, not because of additional emergency virus spending, but because the PM won't face up to the consequences of it.
Does it have to be all or nothing? Can't just the 2.5% go or be put on hold?
Its is totally unfathomable that 6 months into this crisis, that a robust airport screening procedure isn't in place in every major Western country. £12bn spent on testing in the UK and still airport arrivals aren't screened, no enforcement, etc.
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
Do you really believe that if Labour was in power rather than trying to be heard they would be spending less? I don't. The question of whether anyone should be spending less in the current crisis (and, no mistake, that's exactly what it is) is not straightforward. The key, for all the flack he got for it, is what is a viable job?
In the next 5 years is working in a bar/nightclub that earns all its profits after midnight likely to be "viable"? Are football and sports clubs dependent upon gate money likely to be viable? Are airlines, exhibition centres, large shopping centres? It's seriously tricky. So much of our economy is dependent on other economic activity to generate business. There are massive systemic risks here. I am conventionally a bit of a fiscal hawk but the general thrust of government policy seems right to me, whatever quibbles there are about some of the details.
I do think, however, that we are running out of road. If things have not picked up substantially by March we will likely have reached the limits of what the government can do and it will be devil take the hindmost with any restrictions that impact on economic activity being lifted. We simply cannot go on like this.
The seismic political shift of a move like that cannot be underestimated. For decades politicians have told voters that only money constrains what the state can do for you. An admission there are limits would be massive.
I see the seismic shift in the other direction to be honest. For years the Tories complained that Labour's ambitions, however worthy, were unaffordable and ruinous. What is affordable, given the current needs, is eye opening and may make such arguments unstateable in the future (even if they are more likely to be true because of the horrendous national debts).
What has changed is the negative real interest rates the government can borrow at. Given that, it is crazy NOT to run deficits, if there are urgent spending or tax reduction needs. The financial markets are paying the government to take their money (which the government largely printed in the first place).
All the arguments for fiscal conservatism assume positive real interest rates. But there is no sign of those whatsoever.
Personally, I would shovel the money at the young and enterprising rather than the old and comfortable, but that's my crazy preference.
Its is totally unfathomable that 6 months into this crisis, that a robust airport screening procedure isn't in place in every major Western country. £12bn spent on testing in the UK and still airport arrivals aren't screened, no enforcement, etc.
That is because the space needed to queue people up at airport arrival has already been allocated to queue lorries departing at Dover because of Brexit
The fact that Labour are on the side of fiscal sanity and the Tories aren't should be a huge wake up call to every single Tory in the land. All of the chortling about votes at a time when the nation is set to borrow £300bn in a single year is bullshit and shows how far the party has descended into partisan politics rather than looking out for the good of the nation.
At this point in time the Tory party led by Boris is a danger to the nation's future and Labour led by Starmer isn't. Let that sink in for every would patriot who votes Tory.
Do you really believe that if Labour was in power rather than trying to be heard they would be spending less? I don't. The question of whether anyone should be spending less in the current crisis (and, no mistake, that's exactly what it is) is not straightforward. The key, for all the flack he got for it, is what is a viable job?
In the next 5 years is working in a bar/nightclub that earns all its profits after midnight likely to be "viable"? Are football and sports clubs dependent upon gate money likely to be viable? Are airlines, exhibition centres, large shopping centres? It's seriously tricky. So much of our economy is dependent on other economic activity to generate business. There are massive systemic risks here. I am conventionally a bit of a fiscal hawk but the general thrust of government policy seems right to me, whatever quibbles there are about some of the details.
I do think, however, that we are running out of road. If things have not picked up substantially by March we will likely have reached the limits of what the government can do and it will be devil take the hindmost with any restrictions that impact on economic activity being lifted. We simply cannot go on like this.
I don't think they would, but the facts are plain to see, Starmer is proposing to suspend or scrap the triple lock and Boris is clinging onto it because it's popular with the Tory base. It's a measure that is going to cost the country tens of billions over the next decade, especially with 2-4% real terms rises for the next couple of years built in. The responsible thing to do is scrap it for at least 3 years and then decide what to do afterwards.
This is a major on going area of additional spending, it takes money out of the hands of the productive working age population and hands it to the unproductive older population who are wealthier on average. It's a policy that goes against everything the party is supposed to stand for in rewarding hard work and prudence. Boris is absolutely failing the test and Starmer is passing it. The Tory party is completely trashing a very hard won reputation for fiscal responsibility, not because of additional emergency virus spending, but because the PM won't face up to the consequences of it.
Does it have to be all or nothing? Can't just the 2.5% go or be put on hold?
It needs to go, it's completely unaffordable. It has been since it was introduced.
The Tories assumed Labour would stick on the hard left and the Tories could clean up from the centre left, centre and the right.
They did not bank on Keir playing a master-stroke and re-creating New Labour
But still not as good as Ed Miliband was doing at this stage
The 2010-2015 polls were proved to be wrong, so I am not sure we can compare directly.
Keir's approval ratings far exceed Ed's which was always the marker of what was actually going on.
Ed's exceeded David Cameron's , I wouldn't agree that was a good marker of what was going on
If recent (and 2010-2015 is recent) polls are so demonstrably wrong, why place such faith in the current ones?
Because they've been right since 2015.
No they haven't, why would you say that?!
They predicted a Remain win, and Leave won, then they predicted a humongous majority for Theresa May, and she ended up with NOM.
Polls predicted a Leave win. Polls predicted a Hung Parliament. Polls predicted a Johnson win.
No they didn't, no they didn't and yes they did.
I am talking about the worthless, pre campaign polls ie the ones we have now.
Even in 2015 all the late polls pointed to either a Con minority govt or an outright majority. I said so at the time and didnt back my own judgement because everyone on here said NOM was nailed on at 1/10
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
I've never seen TG, only a few clips from it.
Tom Cruise is almost certainly too short to get posted to the F-14. The foot to knee measurement requirements were quite tight. If your lower legs were too short you couldn't get full rudder pedal movement, if they were too long you'd be ejecting from the jet without them if good times went bad.
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
It's interesting how such films are viewed by different audiences.
From the moment I watched Topgun, in the context of the film Maverick is a crazy dangerous fool. Who may or may not become just dangerous in a different way at the end of the film.
Bit like A Few Good Men. The idea that some people might sympathise with the Colonel never occurred to me. He is a wack job egoist, who tolerates useless sycophants who screw up dealing with a sick kid, gives illegal orders and then tries to dump it on everyone else - including his only real friend.
The Tories assumed Labour would stick on the hard left and the Tories could clean up from the centre left, centre and the right.
They did not bank on Keir playing a master-stroke and re-creating New Labour
But still not as good as Ed Miliband was doing at this stage
The 2010-2015 polls were proved to be wrong, so I am not sure we can compare directly.
Keir's approval ratings far exceed Ed's which was always the marker of what was actually going on.
Ed's exceeded David Cameron's , I wouldn't agree that was a good marker of what was going on
If recent (and 2010-2015 is recent) polls are so demonstrably wrong, why place such faith in the current ones?
Because they've been right since 2015.
No they haven't, why would you say that?!
They predicted a Remain win, and Leave won, then they predicted a humongous majority for Theresa May, and she ended up with NOM.
Polls predicted a Leave win. Polls predicted a Hung Parliament. Polls predicted a Johnson win.
No they didn't, no they didn't and yes they did.
Yes they did. Yes they did. Yes they did.
I am talking about the worthless, pre campaign polls ie the ones we have now.
Even in 2015 all the late polls pointed to either a Con minority govt or an outright majority. I said so at the time and didnt back my own judgement because everyone on here said NOM was nailed on at 1/10
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
I've never seen TG, only a few clips from it.
Tom Cruise is almost certainly too short to get posted to the F-14. The foot to knee measurement requirements were quite tight. If your lower legs were too short you couldn't get full rudder pedal movement, if they were too long you'd be ejecting from the jet without them if good times went bad.
On the other hand, the need for speed does seem a tagline you might appreciate ?
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
I've never seen TG, only a few clips from it.
We used to watch it literally every day in NI. It is the longest karaoke track ever.
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
It's interesting how such films are viewed by different audiences.
From the moment I watched Topgun, in the context of the film Maverick is a crazy dangerous fool. Who may or may not become just dangerous in a different way at the end of the film.
Bit like A Few Good Men. The idea that some people might sympathise with the Colonel never occurred to me. He is a wack job egoist, who tolerates useless sycophants who screw up dealing with a sick kid, gives illegal orders and then tries to dump it on everyone else - including his only real friend.
It's a(nother) thing that Dom goes on about without appearing to understand.
One of his mantras is supposedly John Boyd's ‘People, ideas, machines — in that order.’ But the people he chooses, whether the weirdoes and misfits or Johnson and Gove, are the sort you would never put in an army. Not one you wanted to win, anyway.
Even if they're brilliant, the trust issues more than negate that. (Be honest. Would anyone who knows him trust Boris with their money or their wife?)
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
I've never seen TG, only a few clips from it.
Tom Cruise is almost certainly too short to get posted to the F-14. The foot to knee measurement requirements were quite tight. If your lower legs were too short you couldn't get full rudder pedal movement, if they were too long you'd be ejecting from the jet without them if good times went bad.
Film directors like short men - all to do with the scope this allows for camera angles and the like. I'd be curious to know the percentage of Hollywood leading men who have been below average height over the years.
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
I've never seen TG, only a few clips from it.
Tom Cruise is almost certainly too short to get posted to the F-14. The foot to knee measurement requirements were quite tight. If your lower legs were too short you couldn't get full rudder pedal movement, if they were too long you'd be ejecting from the jet without them if good times went bad.
Film directors like short men - all to do with the scope this allows for camera angles and the like. I'd be curious to know the percentage of Hollywood leading men who have been below average height over the years.
So if Sunak doesn't make it to PM, perhaps he could head to Hollywood?
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
Its is totally unfathomable that 6 months into this crisis, that a robust airport screening procedure isn't in place in every major Western country. £12bn spent on testing in the UK and still airport arrivals aren't screened, no enforcement, etc.
The power of the airline industry in government is just astonishing. The DoT is a wholly owned subsidiary of the industry.
I think his general point is more or less accurate and it is applied to greater or lesser degrees in other parts of the military. We chopped some very good stick and rudder pilots when I was instructing on the Hawk for "trust" issues.
It's interesting.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
I've never seen TG, only a few clips from it.
Tom Cruise is almost certainly too short to get posted to the F-14. The foot to knee measurement requirements were quite tight. If your lower legs were too short you couldn't get full rudder pedal movement, if they were too long you'd be ejecting from the jet without them if good times went bad.
Film directors like short men - all to do with the scope this allows for camera angles and the like. I'd be curious to know the percentage of Hollywood leading men who have been below average height over the years.
Alan Ladd supposedly had to stand on a box, or his leading lady stand in a ditch, for close up scenes.
Comments
Oh but it's a life or death matter, Covid, isn't it? Well yes, but so is the Health Service and homelessness and general poverty and...and...
Cons can't stand up in parliament and say to Labour that they will overspend because that ship has sailed.
St Helens is not fit for any purpose.
By all means let them have a vote. All it will do is put Parliament's disunity on display in a fairly counterproductive fashion, but apparently process must triumph over substance, so let's have it.
A 16 or 17 year old can legally be served beer, wine or cider (no spirits or alcopops) if they are sat in a restaurant eating a "substantial meal" and with an adult. A sandwich or peanuts would not count as a substantial meal.
That's more for restaurants than nightclubs though.
I don't think I have said anything about the poor the average Tory voter would disagree with either
1. Is the party going to provide world-class public services, financed by a system of progressive taxation where all pay their fair share?
2. Is the party in favour of encouraging tolerance, respect and fairness for all, and promoting genuine equality of opportunity?
3. When the party wins, does it govern in the interest of everybody, and not just its own voters?
It hasn't boosted faith in big government, rather the opposite. Maybe labour, sensibly, are picking up on that.
If we go to No Deal WTO terms Brexit with the EU as is now likely and that goes well then Boris will be safe and likely win the next election anyway.
If not however then just changing the face at the top will not make a difference, Sunak will have to shift to an EEA style deal with the EU to win back Remainers and soft Brexiteers the Tories will have lost to Labour and the LDs but at the risk of losing hardcore Leavers back to Farage and the Brexit Party
This is up from one in 900 reported last week (nearly doubled) and equates to 103,600 people.
The ONS estimates that there were 9,600 new infections per day in the same week, up 60% on the 6,000 cases per day reported in the previous week.
We don't want to afford it is a different argument entirely.
Tesco, the UK's biggest supermarket, is to stop customers from bulk ordering flour, pasta, toilet rolls and anti-bacterial wipes to prevent a repeat of shortages earlier this year.
After all, in a democracy, shouldn't we discuss things a bit?
I forget who but someone did decry the vicious mockery toward the conspiracy theorists even though the theory being mocked was that Clinton is a murderous child rapist.
There's a clear case that if we'd locked down earlier/harder there would have been much less impact on the economy, with:
A significantly lower peak.
Less pressure for the NHS to shut all other services down.
Less pressure on the NHS to decant untested patients into care homes.
A more manageable peak means that not everyone is in crisis mode, leaving more time/space to prepare for easing lockdown/getting schools prepared/getting test & trace working.
Leaving lockdown with much lower/ more manageable numbers.
I doubt any govt would have got things totally right, and my opinion of Boris is pretty low, but I am genuinely surprised at just how short term and reactive everything seems to be.
A statement from London Councils says: "It is a stark reminder that now is the time for all Londoners to pull together and take action to keep themselves, their families and their communities safe, and to ensure that London's economy is protected."
He's been far better than me especially at not being abusive.
By contrast 54% of Remainers are now voting Labour and just 19% of Remainers are voting Tory.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/0jur4htqeh/YouGov Times VI 17 Sep 2020.pdf
Brexit continues to define our voting patterns and likely will continue to do so for at least the next decade
ONS calculated infections per day (England) -
Derived from the above and PHE data on cases - % of cases being found by Pillar 1 & 2 testing -
Heres hoping I come across a socialist worker magazine like one of the last times I took a long train.
This is a major on going area of additional spending, it takes money out of the hands of the productive working age population and hands it to the unproductive older population who are wealthier on average. It's a policy that goes against everything the party is supposed to stand for in rewarding hard work and prudence. Boris is absolutely failing the test and Starmer is passing it. The Tory party is completely trashing a very hard won reputation for fiscal responsibility, not because of additional emergency virus spending, but because the PM won't face up to the consequences of it.
https://twitter.com/zachbraff/status/1309161916472852480
Taiwan seems like the model of a country which didn't squander the advantage of being an island.
In Top Gun we're kind of pumped to sympathise with Maverick and not Iceman. But, although Iceman is arrogant, Maverick is actually the high performer who has the trust problem.
Iceman is basically right about him, as he realises later in the film.
Starmer has now shifted to ensuring that it is done while retaining a close relationship with Europe which is a more winnable platform next time
https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1309440614413500416
All the arguments for fiscal conservatism assume positive real interest rates. But there is no sign of those whatsoever.
Personally, I would shovel the money at the young and enterprising rather than the old and comfortable, but that's my crazy preference.
They predicted a Remain win, and Leave won, then they predicted a humongous majority for Theresa May, and she ended up with NOM.
I am talking about the worthless, pre campaign polls ie the ones we have now.
Even in 2015 all the late polls pointed to either a Con minority govt or an outright majority. I said so at the time and didnt back my own judgement because everyone on here said NOM was nailed on at 1/10
Tom Cruise is almost certainly too short to get posted to the F-14. The foot to knee measurement requirements were quite tight. If your lower legs were too short you couldn't get full rudder pedal movement, if they were too long you'd be ejecting from the jet without them if good times went bad.
From the moment I watched Topgun, in the context of the film Maverick is a crazy dangerous fool. Who may or may not become just dangerous in a different way at the end of the film.
Bit like A Few Good Men. The idea that some people might sympathise with the Colonel never occurred to me. He is a wack job egoist, who tolerates useless sycophants who screw up dealing with a sick kid, gives illegal orders and then tries to dump it on everyone else - including his only real friend.
Even in 2015 all the late polls pointed to either a Con minority govt or an outright majority. I said so at the time and didnt back my own judgement because everyone on here said NOM was nailed on at 1/10
We only found out later they'd been filtered due to assumptions about turnout and behaviour.
Outcry as Spanish councillor uses face mask to fake speech
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/25/milli-vanilli-moment-valencias-voice-behind-mask-not-what-it-seems
Valencia councillor criticised after it emerges speech made in perfect English was dubbed
One of his mantras is supposedly John Boyd's ‘People, ideas, machines — in that order.’ But the people he chooses, whether the weirdoes and misfits or Johnson and Gove, are the sort you would never put in an army. Not one you wanted to win, anyway.
Even if they're brilliant, the trust issues more than negate that. (Be honest. Would anyone who knows him trust Boris with their money or their wife?)