New Ipsos MORI polling finds nearly half of Brits having favourable view of Biden – politicalbetting

eek said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Entirely off-topic, but later this morning I have several back to back video meetings. One is an invite to Teams

*shudder*

Why is it that everything Microsoft is as complex and user-unfriendly as possible? I don't to integrate into your sodding hell, just let me connect to this meeting that someone else is hosting so that I can then go back to using platforms that actually work.

Teams is the worst. Our IT department tried to foist it on us in the first lockdown because it's free but they decided that the subscription cost for Zoom was worth it to avoid the bitching.

Yet Zoom is a frigging security nightmare while Teams in my world just works - each to their own I suppose.

I thought that they had improved the security on zoom. For any number of participants feedback is a joy unless everyone is disciplined about the mute button.

They might have done - but the tricks they used to pull to ensure installation are such that on a corporate level I won't allow that software on the network.

If you need to use Zoom I'll lend you an iPad...

People I know who use iPad for Zoom meetings seem to have more problems that people who use PC, Mac or laptop.

Scott_xP said:

kjh said:

Yes this is pathetic. Even it is only for etiquette reasons it is utterly childish if every other country in the world does it. And of course it gets remembered in future negotiations. When an 'i' hasn't been dotted or a 't' crossed and we have made a mistake for something that was obviously intended to be agreed it will come home an bite us.

It should be remembered that people only resort to going back to what the contract says or what was agreed in writing when things go wrong and that is why they are there.

https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1352183611848613888

Sounds good to me if Lionel Barber doesn't like it. He's basically a mouthpiece for Macron. I'm not sure other trade blocs have one in the UK and they can't use the single currency argument as that only applies to some of the nations within the EU.

DavidL said:

Scott_xP said:

kjh said:

Yes this is pathetic. Even it is only for etiquette reasons it is utterly childish if every other country in the world does it. And of course it gets remembered in future negotiations. When an 'i' hasn't been dotted or a 't' crossed and we have made a mistake for something that was obviously intended to be agreed it will come home an bite us.

It should be remembered that people only resort to going back to what the contract says or what was agreed in writing when things go wrong and that is why they are there.

https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1352183611848613888

I agree that this is childish and self defeating. We need to smooth the practicalities of the deal done with the EU and that is going to require a lot of cooperation and goodwill. Its always a bit frustrating when people just won't accept that they have won. We need to move on to a more friendly and mature relationship than we had as members (not a particularly high bar). This is not a step in that direction.

I note with interest the lack of an official British quote on the story, asked to respond the official response quoted is simply a very diplomatic "discussions are still ongoing, it would not be appropriate for us to speculate on the detail of an eventual agreement."

I wonder if there is more to the story (or less to it) than first appears? If the decision had been made to deny diplomatic status then why not say so officially, why say it would be inappropriate to speculate?

Philip_Thompson said:

kjh said:

Scott_xP said:

While the Biden Presidency will be about returning to sanity in most respects, it is "woke" and will do dumb shit like this

https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1352121732723666946

Trans in sport is an impossible problem.

I get frustrated with both sides on the issue of men/women/trans. Just treat people as people. I don't give a toss what you are.

And that works for just about everything, except women's sport.

Except for a few specific sports the physical difference is important and the solution can't be to just treat everyone as equal as otherwise half the population has been removed from competitive sport. Yet that still leaves the trans issue.

I don't know what the answer is.

Treat everyone as equal and with respect. Trans women should be able to understand that they are to be treated in general as women despite being biologically male, but for the purposes of sport biology matters. So they can be recognised as women but in doing so would become ineligible for sport - in the same way someone doping is. Its not doping, but its the same biological effect.

I don't see why that is unreasonable?

Whilst I agree that is the solution it may seem pretty unreasonable if you are trans and this is your way to success and fortune.

In differently abled sports there are strict criteria about who can compete for each event. I think women as a category require the same if there is to be anything like a level playing field.

DavidL said:

Scott_xP said:

kjh said:

Yes this is pathetic. Even it is only for etiquette reasons it is utterly childish if every other country in the world does it. And of course it gets remembered in future negotiations. When an 'i' hasn't been dotted or a 't' crossed and we have made a mistake for something that was obviously intended to be agreed it will come home an bite us.

It should be remembered that people only resort to going back to what the contract says or what was agreed in writing when things go wrong and that is why they are there.

https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1352183611848613888

I agree that this is childish and self defeating. We need to smooth the practicalities of the deal done with the EU and that is going to require a lot of cooperation and goodwill. Its always a bit frustrating when people just won't accept that they have won. We need to move on to a more friendly and mature relationship than we had as members (not a particularly high bar). This is not a step in that direction.

As I said before when talking about what to me is a minor issue regarding room ornaments - we have petulant toddlers in charge of our Government who think everything that goes against them in personal and think retaliating in kind is the best outcome as it looks good in the British newspapers their read.

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Scott_xP said:

kjh said:

Yes this is pathetic. Even it is only for etiquette reasons it is utterly childish if every other country in the world does it. And of course it gets remembered in future negotiations. When an 'i' hasn't been dotted or a 't' crossed and we have made a mistake for something that was obviously intended to be agreed it will come home an bite us.

It should be remembered that people only resort to going back to what the contract says or what was agreed in writing when things go wrong and that is why they are there.

https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1352183611848613888

I agree that this is childish and self defeating. We need to smooth the practicalities of the deal done with the EU and that is going to require a lot of cooperation and goodwill. Its always a bit frustrating when people just won't accept that they have won. We need to move on to a more friendly and mature relationship than we had as members (not a particularly high bar). This is not a step in that direction.

I note with interest the lack of an official British quote on the story, asked to respond the official response quoted is simply a very diplomatic "discussions are still ongoing, it would not be appropriate for us to speculate on the detail of an eventual agreement."

I wonder if there is more to the story (or less to it) than first appears? If the decision had been made to deny diplomatic status then why not say so officially, why say it would be inappropriate to speculate?

Just maybe someone has pointed out how stupid it is. Its a conversation that should never have started.

Sandpit said:

Benpointer said:

rkrkrk said:

MaxPB said:

rkrkrk said:

One key thing to remember is Teams share screen function only shares what you told it to originally.

So if you change your screen - everyone will stay watching what you had displayed before.

Zoom follows you round and shows whatever pop-up notifications you have to everyone.

Zoom does that too, in fact teams copied that feature.

Zoom for me shows pop-ups and shows when I got bored with a longwinded question and started reading pb.cm whilst teams doesn't. As was embarrassingly clear on a recent call. Probably there are settings that give you options.

Rather glad I retired just as the age of voice conference calls gave way to video conference calls. Voice conferencing gave you so much more freedom to get on with other work stuff (or non-work stuff) during long boring calls.

A young lady I was working with yesterday had never seen a boardroom spider phone before, didn’t comprehend that we’d ever do conference calls without video!

Strangely the very first thing that goes into my briefcase (even before the laptop) is the Jabra deskphone. I couldn't live without it but could survive a day or two without the laptop

squareroot2 said:

Sandpit said:

Benpointer said:

rkrkrk said:

MaxPB said:

rkrkrk said:

One key thing to remember is Teams share screen function only shares what you told it to originally.

So if you change your screen - everyone will stay watching what you had displayed before.

Zoom follows you round and shows whatever pop-up notifications you have to everyone.

Zoom does that too, in fact teams copied that feature.

Zoom for me shows pop-ups and shows when I got bored with a longwinded question and started reading pb.cm whilst teams doesn't. As was embarrassingly clear on a recent call. Probably there are settings that give you options.

Rather glad I retired just as the age of voice conference calls gave way to video conference calls. Voice conferencing gave you so much more freedom to get on with other work stuff (or non-work stuff) during long boring calls.

A young lady I was working with yesterday had never seen a boardroom spider phone before, didn’t comprehend that we’d ever do conference calls without video!

I have never even heard of a spider phone...

One of these:

rkrkrk said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

IshmaelZ said:

Omnium said:

Alistair said:

Omnium said:

eek said:

One hell of a statistic

https://twitter.com/mcash/status/1351976370264539136

Not true, but if you like not true things then great.

Fairly easy to see why.

Why?

Well, actually I was just about to post an edit to say that the "If they voted like the majority of their age group" is actually fair enough.

But suppose you vote randomly and the elections have been 50/50 then it's unlikely that as a 33 year old you'd have managed to not be with the winning side. It's even more unlikely that a 66 year old would have managed to avoid disappointment.

So it's clear that the claim is questionable. Now consider correlations - this raises the chance that a voter might have been on the winning side hugely if they've always voted one way and that side has always won. Now we know that voters pretty much vote one way, but we certainly know that one side hasn't always won.

So I suspect you will find a lot of 33 year olds that have never voted for the winning side (my guess would be around 40% - just because the Tories have won every election since 2010), but you'll find it quite hard to find 66 year olds that have always been celebrating on election night - I'd be a seller at 5%.

I think the point is that the cohort overall has been shafted by democracy, not whether any given individual's record exactly matches that of the cohort.

Of course, this is quite selective. The same is not true for 34-42 year olds.

I’m 34 and have voted in five GEs and two UK-wide referendums. My record is:

2005 - Lost
2010 - Won
2011 - Won
2015 - Lost
2016 - Won
2017 - Lost
2019 - Won

Obviously you can argue that I did win in 2015, but it wasn’t just about Europe it was about Osbrown economics.

Personally I don’t think my generation and the next one have been shafted by democracy. We’ve been shafted by Gordon Brown, George Osborne and the Bank of England.

I have voted in 10 General Elections and 2 referendums. In only 3 GE's has the party I voted for won (1997, 2001 and 2010) and neither of the referendums. In my mid fifties, I have only had a government that represents me for a fraction of my life, so yes, I understand how the young feel alienated from politics and how it doesn't represent them.

I'm about the age mentioned. I actually failed to vote in the 2010 election which would have been my only 'win'. That said - be careful what you wish for - the Lib Dem involvement in 2010 certainly didn't meet my expectations.

Otherwise a straight string of losses on referenda and general elections. I've never voted for a winning candidate either except I suppose at European elections. Hopefully it will just make the victory sweeter.

Plus - I get (vicarious?) pleasure from US elections - where the Republican alternative is generally much worse than the Conservative option here. Seeing Obama win in 2008 was great.

I have voted in 11 GE, starting with 1979, and I have never voted for the winner, at National or Local level, sadly. When you support a 3rd Party it's par for the course, unless you're in Scotland obvs. In the lack of a 3rd Party in the US I would support the Dems if I was allowed.

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Scott_xP said:

kjh said:

Yes this is pathetic. Even it is only for etiquette reasons it is utterly childish if every other country in the world does it. And of course it gets remembered in future negotiations. When an 'i' hasn't been dotted or a 't' crossed and we have made a mistake for something that was obviously intended to be agreed it will come home an bite us.

It should be remembered that people only resort to going back to what the contract says or what was agreed in writing when things go wrong and that is why they are there.

https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1352183611848613888

I agree that this is childish and self defeating. We need to smooth the practicalities of the deal done with the EU and that is going to require a lot of cooperation and goodwill. Its always a bit frustrating when people just won't accept that they have won. We need to move on to a more friendly and mature relationship than we had as members (not a particularly high bar). This is not a step in that direction.

I note with interest the lack of an official British quote on the story, asked to respond the official response quoted is simply a very diplomatic "discussions are still ongoing, it would not be appropriate for us to speculate on the detail of an eventual agreement."

I wonder if there is more to the story (or less to it) than first appears? If the decision had been made to deny diplomatic status then why not say so officially, why say it would be inappropriate to speculate?

Just maybe someone has pointed out how stupid it is. Its a conversation that should never have started.

Perhaps. Perhaps its a negotiating ploy?

"Oh you want friendly relations and diplomatic status, let's see if that can be arranged. Oh, while we're talking we've identified these teething issues with the new trade agreement - in this spirit of friendly and diplomatic relations would you care to look into these for us while we look into your status?"

No evidence of that, just speculation.

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kjh said:

Scott_xP said:

While the Biden Presidency will be about returning to sanity in most respects, it is "woke" and will do dumb shit like this

https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1352121732723666946

Trans in sport is an impossible problem.

I get frustrated with both sides on the issue of men/women/trans. Just treat people as people. I don't give a toss what you are.

And that works for just about everything, except women's sport.

Except for a few specific sports the physical difference is important and the solution can't be to just treat everyone as equal as otherwise half the population has been removed from competitive sport. Yet that still leaves the trans issue.

I don't know what the answer is.

Treat everyone as equal and with respect. Trans women should be able to understand that they are to be treated in general as women despite being biologically male, but for the purposes of sport biology matters. So they can be recognised as women but in doing so would become ineligible for sport - in the same way someone doping is. Its not doping, but its the same biological effect.

I don't see why that is unreasonable?

Whilst I agree that is the solution it may seem pretty unreasonable if you are trans and this is your way to success and fortune.

In differently abled sports there are strict criteria about who can compete for each event. I think women as a category require the same if there is to be anything like a level playing field.

So we let trans women compete in the Paralympics?

Why not? I am pretty sure that the optics would not appeal (being trans is not a disability) but it would be an option.

It’s possibly the easiest way to resolve the issue, giving them their own category. As you say, it’s all in the language: “differently-bodied”?

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

MarqueeMark said:

Dura_Ace said:

MarqueeMark said:

eek said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

I see Biden has already committed a hostile act:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/21/winston-churchill-bust-not-display-joe-bidens-oval-office/

I'm sorry but only a complete idiot believes decorations have to sit in the same place all the time. the choice of busts (Martin Luther King Jr, Robert Kennedy, Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt and Cesar Chavez) seems very appropriate for an 21st century American president.

Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez all point to the work that is still required to make America an equal place.

All the apologising and the whataboutism doesn't matter. Churchill is a symbol (*THE* symbol) of the transatlantic alliance.

Moving it out - without explaining why or where, and acknowledging the sheer importance of the man in Anglo-American relations - is going to have political implications.

Wouldn't have been any busts of civil rights leaders if we hadn't put everything on the line to defeat Hitler. Churchill is the ultimate singular embodiment of that. For that reason alone, his bust deserves his place in that company.

Try pursuing a Woke agenda under Nazism. Might have - briefly - discovered slavery wasn't just an historical stain to be cleansed.

80 year old battles.

Well, let's give up on fighting fascism, eh? 80 year old battles.....

No lessons for us today there.

Yes, it's a statue of some foreign guy, long dead. But given the symbolism Americans place on their flag, you'd think they might just make a space for the ultimate political symbol of standing up to The Bad Guys.

On that score Stalin is more deserving of a place on the sideboard than WLSC.

The other side of his Ledger is, er, difficult. You know, when he became The Bad Guy. What is it - 6 million deaths? Nine million?

At least a bust of Churchill doesn't leave behind a blood-stain on the mahogony....

Except that Churchill was cheerfully complicit in all that. "If Hitler invaded hell..."

He didn't say he would become the devil. Stalin did become it.

Not much becoming left to do by 1941.

That was the point of his quote. He was saying he'd make a favourable remark about the devil (Stalin) if he was fighting Hitler.

The moment the war ended though, Churchill recognised that Stalin was going to be our next long-term opponent. He knew what Stalin was, but fight one devil at a time. Would we have defeated Hitler had we not worked with the Russians? Possibly not.

Thanks, I already possess a copy of the Ladybird Book of World History.

Then you shouldn't have made such an ignorant remark as "cheerfully complicit". Fighting Hitler wasn't something done cheerfully, it was something that had to be done.

Northern_Al said:

Fishing said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's quite clear the Democrats have been wholly captured by the Wokeists; this will be the most toe-curlingly Woke and wanky US administration there has ever been.

It will do nothing to solve America's divisions or heal them, except exacerbate them further. The only question is whether the Republicans can capitalise on it in November 2022, or whether their own fratricidal civil war will consume them, giving more space to the nutters in the Dems.

Sad.

I agree. A "diverse" society is generally a divided one. It needs an overwhelming, external enemy to unite, which America doesn't really have at the moment.

Sorry, but that's nonsense isn't it? All modern western societies are pretty diverse - are you saying that they need an 'overwhelming, external enemy to unite'? Who should this enemy be? If anything, those societies that are less diverse (e.g. Russia, Iran etc.) seem to be more accomplished at finding external enemies.

Divided societies are often the result of politicians exploiting grievances and spreading division. Look at the US. The black population has lived there for four hundred years, but the reason the US is still racially divided is that for most of that period they were by law locked out of mainstream society (and even now face less obvious barriers and the bitter legacy of that period). Even marrying across the racial divide was illegal in many states until the 1960s, FFS. Without those centuries of systemic institutional racism the US would probably be a happy united country of various shades of brown people by now.

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

MarqueeMark said:

Dura_Ace said:

MarqueeMark said:

eek said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

I see Biden has already committed a hostile act:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/21/winston-churchill-bust-not-display-joe-bidens-oval-office/

I'm sorry but only a complete idiot believes decorations have to sit in the same place all the time. the choice of busts (Martin Luther King Jr, Robert Kennedy, Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt and Cesar Chavez) seems very appropriate for an 21st century American president.

Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez all point to the work that is still required to make America an equal place.

All the apologising and the whataboutism doesn't matter. Churchill is a symbol (*THE* symbol) of the transatlantic alliance.

Moving it out - without explaining why or where, and acknowledging the sheer importance of the man in Anglo-American relations - is going to have political implications.

Wouldn't have been any busts of civil rights leaders if we hadn't put everything on the line to defeat Hitler. Churchill is the ultimate singular embodiment of that. For that reason alone, his bust deserves his place in that company.

Try pursuing a Woke agenda under Nazism. Might have - briefly - discovered slavery wasn't just an historical stain to be cleansed.

80 year old battles.

Well, let's give up on fighting fascism, eh? 80 year old battles.....

No lessons for us today there.

Yes, it's a statue of some foreign guy, long dead. But given the symbolism Americans place on their flag, you'd think they might just make a space for the ultimate political symbol of standing up to The Bad Guys.

On that score Stalin is more deserving of a place on the sideboard than WLSC.

The other side of his Ledger is, er, difficult. You know, when he became The Bad Guy. What is it - 6 million deaths? Nine million?

At least a bust of Churchill doesn't leave behind a blood-stain on the mahogony....

Except that Churchill was cheerfully complicit in all that. "If Hitler invaded hell..."

He didn't say he would become the devil. Stalin did become it.

Not much becoming left to do by 1941.

That was the point of his quote. He was saying he'd make a favourable remark about the devil (Stalin) if he was fighting Hitler.

The moment the war ended though, Churchill recognised that Stalin was going to be our next long-term opponent. He knew what Stalin was, but fight one devil at a time. Would we have defeated Hitler had we not worked with the Russians? Possibly not.

Thanks, I already possess a copy of the Ladybird Book of World History.

Unread.

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Scott_xP said:

LostPassword said:

President Biden is to Trump as Microsoft Teams is to Skype for Business. Be thankful that you missed out on the latter.

Entirely backwards.

S4B worked. Really well. And Teams just doesn't.

Still better than Webex though

Teams is the god of online meetings. So simple, can't think of a failing OTTOMH.

The issue is that getting Teams to work well, really requires your company to sign up for the whole Microsoft Cloud ‘ecosystem’. If you’re only half in, which is the vast majority of SMEs, it can be a total nightmare.

At my previous SME we were 100% Microsoft. Teams still didn't function - we quickly switched to Zoom. In my current Consulting job I've gone 100% Google so either use Google Meet or Zoom. Have been invited into Webex a couple of times but it crashes a lot so they've ditched that. "Internal" meetings between Bucharest / Medias / Teesside are either Zoom or WhatsApp!

Problem I have with Microsoft is an account. It absolutely hates the "free" account you can sign up for and endlessly tries to log itself into things I don't have and don't use then throws up errors. Errors are "please consult your IT administrator" (me), or refer it to our team.

Or, use Zoom! Or Meet! Which work first time every time. On every platform.

We have a simple policy which employs best of breed usage of these.

We use Whatevertheclientwants.

DavidL said:

eek said:

DavidL said:

Scott_xP said:

kjh said:

Yes this is pathetic. Even it is only for etiquette reasons it is utterly childish if every other country in the world does it. And of course it gets remembered in future negotiations. When an 'i' hasn't been dotted or a 't' crossed and we have made a mistake for something that was obviously intended to be agreed it will come home an bite us.

It should be remembered that people only resort to going back to what the contract says or what was agreed in writing when things go wrong and that is why they are there.

https://twitter.com/BBCJLandale/status/1352183611848613888

I agree that this is childish and self defeating. We need to smooth the practicalities of the deal done with the EU and that is going to require a lot of cooperation and goodwill. Its always a bit frustrating when people just won't accept that they have won. We need to move on to a more friendly and mature relationship than we had as members (not a particularly high bar). This is not a step in that direction.

As I said before when talking about what to me is a minor issue regarding room ornaments - we have petulant toddlers in charge of our Government who think everything that goes against them in personal and think retaliating in kind is the best outcome as it looks good in the British newspapers their read.

I think that is an overstatement and an overgeneralisation. But there are elements to whom that is a fair critique.

Sadly the most obvious person to whom that critique is accurate is our PM...

Nigelb said:

Apparently bustflakes are a thing.

Has Churchill gone again from the White House?

He's in and out of there like nobody's business!

I don't think the EU should have ambassadorial status and I don't think it's petty. For good or ill we did Brexit and we marked ourselves out as a nation state. We live with that and by that. The EU should be no exception.

If you believe in Brexit, which I didn't, then it's consistent and right.

Freggles said:

PB Brains Trust.

Our family haven't gone on holiday since 2019.
We'd like to book somewhere for May half term because £££.
Assuming we are back in tiers by then can we holiday somewhere in the same tier and region? In T3 it was advised against but was it illegal?

Yes it was illegal in tier 3.

But I suspect if we get to tier 3 lots of people will do likewise.

Mysticrose said:

I don't think the EU should have ambassadorial status and I don't think it's petty. For good or ill we did Brexit and we marked ourselves out as a nation state. We live with that and by that. The EU should be no exception.

If you believe in Brexit, which I didn't, then it's consistent and right.

https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1352195106837770240

This is rather good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_eeavqZ8V8&feature=youtu.be

Selebian said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

I see Biden has already committed a hostile act:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/21/winston-churchill-bust-not-display-joe-bidens-oval-office/

I'm sorry but only a complete idiot believes decorations have to sit in the same place all the time. the choice of busts (Martin Luther King Jr, Robert Kennedy, Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt and Cesar Chavez) seems very appropriate for an 21st century American president.

Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez all point to the work that is still required to make America an equal place.

All the apologising and the whataboutism doesn't matter. Churchill is a symbol (*THE* symbol) of the transatlantic alliance.

Moving it out - without explaining why or where, and acknowledging the sheer importance of the man in Anglo-American relations - is going to have political implications.

Wouldn't have been any busts of civil rights leaders if we hadn't put everything on the line to defeat Hitler. Churchill is the ultimate singular embodiment of that. For that reason alone, his bust deserves his place in that company.

Try pursuing a Woke agenda under Nazism. Might have - briefly - discovered slavery wasn't just an historical stain to be cleansed.

That's a bit of a stretch - without Churchill/UK the US would be under Nazi rule?

Does Downing Street hold a bust/portrait of Roosevelt - or Stalin? Serious question - I don't know but I imagine the former is possible but the latter rather unlikely. Without them we very likely would have been under Nazi rule.

Have you not watched the Man in the High Castle?

If the UK fell in 1940, the question then becomes what would Hitler have done about Russia? Without the distraction of a western front, would Hitler have lost in Russia? And if the Third Reich ultimately stretched from Atlantic to Pacific - what would have been Hitler's ambitions after that? And America's capacity to resist it? If the British Empire had been subsumed into a greater Germany and Japan had been up for it, would America have stood alone?

An invason of the US would have been a stretch. But then the question becomes about intercontinental rockets and nuclear weapons. Could Germany have got them first, if there was essentially no ongoing wars to distract them? A demonstration of the power of an atomic bomb dropped on Washington DC?

Thankfully, never got tested out. Largely thanks to a guy whose bust is no longer on prominent display in the White House, that first domino did not fall...

Richard_Tyndall said:

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

Apparently bustflakes are a thing.

Has Churchill gone again from the White House?

He's in and out of there like nobody's business!

It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed...

Andrew Trail of Tears Jackson, for one.

Can anyone of the snowflakes on here that get triggered by statues busts tell me if Boris Johnson has a bust of FDR in Downing Street, if not why not?

Why isn't the PM honouring the special relationship?

The UK has done 43% of the total UK + EU vaccinations to date - next closest is Germany. In terms of jabs/100 the UK is more than double the next nearest (Malta/Denmark) and triple the fastest big country (Spain).

https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/

Meanwhile...

https://twitter.com/pkelso/status/1352199804575735808

Scott_xP said:

Mysticrose said:

I don't think the EU should have ambassadorial status and I don't think it's petty. For good or ill we did Brexit and we marked ourselves out as a nation state. We live with that and by that. The EU should be no exception.

If you believe in Brexit, which I didn't, then it's consistent and right.

https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1352195106837770240

Actually that tweet is wrong. Britain consistently opposed the status of the EEAS as it is known and blocked it having full diplomatic status on organisations such as the UN and OSCE.

Freggles said:

PB Brains Trust.

Our family haven't gone on holiday since 2019.
We'd like to book somewhere for May half term because £££.
Assuming we are back in tiers by then can we holiday somewhere in the same tier and region? In T3 it was advised against but was it illegal?

Can but should. Atm establishments that you might want to go to will either be shut or open to key workers only. That will hopefully have improved by May but you will probably still not have had your jab and neither will those serving you. Personally, I am aiming for a break in October.

Yay, I love judicial reviews, this could be a blockbuster.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1352167319125045249

Richard_Tyndall said:

We had a long record of opposing EU missions having full diplomatic status whilst we were in the EU.

While filling those EU diplomatic posts with UK staff. Which was the point.

Northern_Al said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's quite clear the Democrats have been wholly captured by the Wokeists; this will be the most toe-curlingly Woke and wanky US administration there has ever been.

It will do nothing to solve America's divisions or heal them, except exacerbate them further. The only question is whether the Republicans can capitalise on it in November 2022, or whether their own fratricidal civil war will consume them, giving more space to the nutters in the Dems.

Sad.

I think you've been wholly captured by anti-wokeism. Did you watch yesterday? Lots of humility and decency on show, and a good celebration of modern, diverse USA. Biden will do what he says, and govern for all decent Americans. But yes, he won't pander to the EDL equivalents or neo-fascists of the far right. Because they're not decent.

Like our government, you're obsessed by symbols/statues. But it's not substance. Let me give you an example. While Jenrick puts forward legislation on statues, he does sweet FA to tackle real issues of substance, For example, tens of thousands of people are trapped in buildings with cladding that needs removing; they can't sell, and many face huge bills. Following Grenfell, how much progress has been made in resolving this? Not a lot.

Your priorities are all wrong.

Yes, I watched yesterday. I thought it was an acceptable speech, but not an especially historically memorable one; it just looks like that right now because everyone is so relieved he's not Trump.

Your comparison is an entirely false one. Opposition to "Wokeism" ≠ support for the EDL or neo-fascists, and it's offensive to say it does. I explored the difference on here last night - you should read what I said.

Governments, can and do, enact hundreds of policies across dozens of policy areas all at once, and are both capable of doing so and expected to do it. As it happens, I think the Government should make the relief of leaseholders trapped in flats by poor cladding a high priority and get it fixed with a Government guarantee. However, I also think he should address politically-motivated cultural desecration as well. What people mean by "he's got his priorities all wrong" is "we'd prefer if he didn't address this issue" There's no reason Robert Paden Powell, Redvers Buller, Oliver Cromwell, or Admiral Nelson, should be removed without due democratic process just so councillors can signal their virtue and appease their fanatical base. This was a gap in the law and urgently needed addressing before many more irrevocably came down.

My priorities are not wrong. I also want a united, less divided society. Symbols matter, and rather than negatively tearing things down and dividing people we should be adding to them with new symbols that say things about us today, and celebrate the best of us.

Your blindness to how both sides are aggravating it at present with their language and action is a huge part of the problem.

You'd be well-advised to be more reflective and balanced in your posts on the matter, in future.

Nigelb said:

Brexit dividend...

We send £350m a week to the EU (sic)

Let's give it to Elton John instead.

Coming to a bus near you...

Nigelb said:

.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1352199464711290883

Brexit dividend...

That £350 million a week is going to have to develop a 5 fishes / 2 loaves quality, given all the demands being placed on it.

Sandpit said:

Mary_Batty said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Mary_Batty said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

kle4 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

kle4 said:

And still going strong
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1351942400449650692

And the USA still haven’t had a female head of state, while we have had a queen for more than 50% of its existence.

I'm a monarchist and all, but I don't think we get credit for gender balance when we the public have no say in the matter, unless we actively voted for people who would rule out female monarchs.

Though not too long ago Parliament changed the Law of Succession, so that oldest child of monarch inherits regardless of gender, which over time should increase the female percentage.

Think we in US should get SOME credit for
>> electing woman as Speaker of US House and thus third in line of presidential succession
>> giving majority of popular vote to a woman for President, in 2016
>> giving popular majority AND electing woman as Vice President in 2020

Though I think Biden will run for re-election in 2024, and win, certainly Kamala Harris is a hot prospect, as is Nicky Haley for the Republicans. Just to mention two obvious potential POTUS of the not-so-distant future.

2016: Woman prevented from becoming president by bonkers electoral system
2017: Woman saved from losing premiership by bonkers electoral system

When it comes to giving credit for voting for women (a dubious concept in its own right), I'm not sure recent history shows the UK in as positive light as some might think.

Only one major party in the UK haven’t had at least one female leader in the past decade I think (and that one hasn’t had one yet). Even they have if we count acting leaders.

Yes, all true, but tell me how many people elected those leaders?

Tens of thousands of times more people than elected Kamala Harris to her position as VP nominee.

Really? You think tens of thousands of people voted for Theresa May to become Conservative leader? Or Nicola Sturgeon to become SNP leader? Or Thatcher? Or Foster?
You can have Jo Swinson, that one does apply.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Scott_xP said:

Mysticrose said:

I don't think the EU should have ambassadorial status and I don't think it's petty. For good or ill we did Brexit and we marked ourselves out as a nation state. We live with that and by that. The EU should be no exception.

If you believe in Brexit, which I didn't, then it's consistent and right.

https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1352195106837770240

Actually that tweet is wrong. Britain consistently opposed the status of the EEAS as it is known and blocked it having full diplomatic status on organisations such as the UN and OSCE.

Exactly.

I think it's consistent and right that following Brexit we take this decision. I hope Boris sticks to his guns on it, although I'm doubtful he will.

It's important that we start as we mean to go on. Our dealings as an independent country vaguely attached by land to Europe but with many historic and cultural ties beyond need to be on the correct footing from the outset. We'll deal with nations at an ambassadorial level not self-appointed superstates.

I was a Remainer but the EU's worst trait has been its attempt to shift from economic unity to political unity. Vive la difference!

TheScreamingEagles said:

Yay, I love judicial reviews, this could be a blockbuster.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1352167319125045249

Could Pfizer co-file as a friend of the court ?

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Scott_xP said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Divided societies are often the result of politicians exploiting grievances and spreading division. Look at the US. The black population has lived there for four hundred years, but the reason the US is still racially divided is that for most of that period they were by law locked out of mainstream society (and even now face less obvious barriers and the bitter legacy of that period). Even marrying across the racial divide was illegal in many states until the 1960s, FFS. Without those centuries of systemic institutional racism the US would probably be a happy united country of various shades of brown people by now.

Did you watch Amanda Gorman's performance yesterday?

It was sublime, but I couldn't help thinking what about the Native Americans?

There is no shortage of racial strife, prejudice and hurt in America, but that portion of it is still almost entirely absent.

Yup. The US has a pretty bloody, violent and awful history. The native Americans' suffering has been terrible. Less well documented than that of the African Americans perhaps because they were a nuisance to the white population rather than property. And most of their deaths came from disease. I have read that one of the motivating factors behind the creation of the US was to allow the local white settlers more leeway to steal native land than the Crown was willing to give them.

A relevant read, recommended:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B01LYPZZLS/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's quite clear the Democrats have been wholly captured by the Wokeists; this will be the most toe-curlingly Woke and wanky US administration there has ever been.

It will do nothing to solve America's divisions or heal them, except exacerbate them further. The only question is whether the Republicans can capitalise on it in November 2022, or whether their own fratricidal civil war will consume them, giving more space to the nutters in the Dems.

Sad.

If you've been watching what the alternative to the Wokeists look like-grotesques with bazooka's slung over their shoulders-you might conclude you're pointing your venom in the wrong direction.

Or more disturbingly maybe not.

I am not a supporter of the modern Democratic Party, or the current Trumpite Republican Party.

Just because I think the latter is odious doesn't mean I think the former is automatically virtuous, nor that they're incapable of contributing further to the divisions that helped lead to the rise of Trump in the first place.

Like lots of these discussions, however, any balance is presumed to be taking sides or some secret "masked" support for the other side.

I think it's pathetic, and we if want to descend further into the sewer of a totally split and divided society (or worse) we're going exactly the right way about it.

MarqueeMark said:

Selebian said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

I see Biden has already committed a hostile act:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/21/winston-churchill-bust-not-display-joe-bidens-oval-office/

I'm sorry but only a complete idiot believes decorations have to sit in the same place all the time. the choice of busts (Martin Luther King Jr, Robert Kennedy, Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt and Cesar Chavez) seems very appropriate for an 21st century American president.

Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez all point to the work that is still required to make America an equal place.

All the apologising and the whataboutism doesn't matter. Churchill is a symbol (*THE* symbol) of the transatlantic alliance.

Moving it out - without explaining why or where, and acknowledging the sheer importance of the man in Anglo-American relations - is going to have political implications.

Wouldn't have been any busts of civil rights leaders if we hadn't put everything on the line to defeat Hitler. Churchill is the ultimate singular embodiment of that. For that reason alone, his bust deserves his place in that company.

Try pursuing a Woke agenda under Nazism. Might have - briefly - discovered slavery wasn't just an historical stain to be cleansed.

That's a bit of a stretch - without Churchill/UK the US would be under Nazi rule?

Does Downing Street hold a bust/portrait of Roosevelt - or Stalin? Serious question - I don't know but I imagine the former is possible but the latter rather unlikely. Without them we very likely would have been under Nazi rule.

Have you not watched the Man in the High Castle?

If the UK fell in 1940, the question then becomes what would Hitler have done about Russia? Without the distraction of a western front, would Hitler have lost in Russia? And if the Third Reich ultimately stretched from Atlantic to Pacific - what would have been Hitler's ambitions after that? And America's capacity to resist it? If the British Empire had been subsumed into a greater Germany and Japan had been up for it, would America have stood alone?

An invason of the US would have been a stretch. But then the question becomes about intercontinental rockets and nuclear weapons. Could Germany have got them first, if there was essentially no ongoing wars to distract them? A demonstration of the power of an atomic bomb dropped on Washington DC?

Thankfully, never got tested out. Largely thanks to a guy whose bust is no longer on prominent display in the White House, that first domino did not fall...

So, we agree it's a stretch?

I haven't seen the TV adaptation, but have read the book. In the book FDR is absent and it's a much weaker US when WW2 comes.

But we move away from the point - is it an affront to the UK to remove Churchill (who has come and gone before) and have the bust of an American instead? If it is, then why is it not an affront to the US that we don't have a bust/portrait of FDR in Downing Street? Unless we do, of course?

Cyclefree said:

Nigelb said:

.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1352199464711290883

Brexit dividend...

And it's not just the music industry but all the performing arts - theatre companies are as affected as musicians.

It will be quite some time before the full costs and benefits of the Brexit deal can fully be assessed, but the early signs are pretty dismal.

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1351950664394436610

Mysticrose said:

It's important that we start as we mean to go on. Our dealings as an independent country vaguely attached by land to Europe but with many historic and cultural ties beyond need to be on the correct footing from the outset. We'll deal with nations at an ambassadorial level not self-appointed superstates.

We are the only Country to do this.

Start as we mean to go on, as an International outlier, a denier of reality, obstinate and untrustworthy.

Brexit in a nutshell.

Scott_xP said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

We had a long record of opposing EU missions having full diplomatic status whilst we were in the EU.

While filling those EU diplomatic posts with UK staff. Which was the point.

There was a legal requirement under proportional representation of each nation under EU rules. Don't do original thought, you're better off sticking to copying other people.

Casino_Royale said:

Northern_Al said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's quite clear the Democrats have been wholly captured by the Wokeists; this will be the most toe-curlingly Woke and wanky US administration there has ever been.

It will do nothing to solve America's divisions or heal them, except exacerbate them further. The only question is whether the Republicans can capitalise on it in November 2022, or whether their own fratricidal civil war will consume them, giving more space to the nutters in the Dems.

Sad.

I think you've been wholly captured by anti-wokeism. Did you watch yesterday? Lots of humility and decency on show, and a good celebration of modern, diverse USA. Biden will do what he says, and govern for all decent Americans. But yes, he won't pander to the EDL equivalents or neo-fascists of the far right. Because they're not decent.

Like our government, you're obsessed by symbols/statues. But it's not substance. Let me give you an example. While Jenrick puts forward legislation on statues, he does sweet FA to tackle real issues of substance, For example, tens of thousands of people are trapped in buildings with cladding that needs removing; they can't sell, and many face huge bills. Following Grenfell, how much progress has been made in resolving this? Not a lot.

Your priorities are all wrong.

Yes, I watched yesterday. I thought it was an acceptable speech, but not an especially historically memorable one; it just looks like that right now because everyone is so relieved he's not Trump.

Your comparison is an entirely false one. Opposition to "Wokeism" ≠ support for the EDL or neo-fascists, and it's offensive to say it does. I explored the difference on here last night - you should read what I said.

Governments, can and do, enact hundreds of policies across dozens of policy areas all at once, and are both capable of doing so and expected to do it. As it happens, I think the Government should make the relief of leaseholders trapped in flats by poor cladding a high priority and get it fixed with a Government guarantee. However, I also think he should address politically-motivated cultural desecration as well. What people mean by "he's got his priorities all wrong" is "we'd prefer if he didn't address this issue" There's no reason Robert Paden Powell, Redvers Buller, Oliver Cromwell, or Admiral Nelson, should be removed without due democratic process just so councillors can signal their virtue and appease their fanatical base. This was a gap in the law and urgently needed addressing before many more irrevocably came down.

My priorities are not wrong. I also want a united, less divided society. Symbols matter, and rather than negatively tearing things down and dividing people we should be adding to them with new symbols that say things about us today, and celebrate the best of us.

Your blindness to how both sides are aggravating it at present with their language and action is a huge part of the problem.

You'd be well-advised to be more reflective and balanced in your posts on the matter, in future.

@Casino_Royale wrote a very good post yesterday on woke-ism: the difference between being awake to and dealing with oppression and its consequences vs a somewhat narcissistic insistence on symbolic gesture and telling people what to think unaccompanied by any effective action to help people.