Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
Yes; his mother was killed by the press in his eyes.
That's the press. Not the Royal Family.
Is Meghan the Wallace Simpson de nos jours?
Mrs Simpson II.
They ought to trade in their Sussex title for that of Windsor. Very sad, of course, on a personal level.
My sense is that masking has been one of the more marginal interventions in the whole COVID affair, neither the catastrophe of @NerysHughes imagination not the cure all of the do-more brigade who I still hear calling for outdoor masking. Why?
The whole horses for courses nature of masks was lost in the usual woeful standard of the debate we had. So,
- A supermarket: staff moving around, lots of space, little dwell time in any one piece of air or any one person's miasma. Masks probably overkill. - A bus or train commute: a good sweep of the minute hand in close to medium proximity of particular individuals. Masks very useful in slowing the build up of the liquid elements of breath. Ideal use case for masks. - A small shop: If a 'spend time choosing' type shop (or, say, a hairdresser) longer dwell in a smaller space, masks useful for customer to staff spread, but if the staff are already infected their miasma probably builds up beyond what a mask can deal with and ventilation and rotation (e.g. making sure staff go out of the room regularly), will probably be the more important interventions. So, for any individual interaction, there may be an asymmetric risk. There are a whole raft of workplace and home settings, not just small ones, where the likely considerations are similar, from factories, schools and offices, to seeing relatives, for which rotating, ventilating, meeting away from a location one of you has already breathed a while in, and distancing will do most of the hard work. And the overfocus on masks has likely meant too little emphasis on all those other things.
When was the last time the government even mentioned the app?
The apps hardly get mentioned at all now. At one point the status of the app was almost a national scandal, now it's almost ignored. Of all the stuff that has been hyped-up as a silver bullet for COVID-19 the Bluetooth LE proximity tracing apps must be amongst the worst in terms of bang per buck. To improve contact tracing we should have been recruting more people to go door to door, with pen and paper in hand, as is done in countries with a lot more experience than the UK.
When was the last time the government even mentioned the app?
The apps hardly get mentioned at all now. At one point the status of the app was almost a national scandal, now it's almost ignored. Of all the stuff that has been hyped-up as a silver bullet for COVID-19 the Bluetooth LE proximity tracing apps must be amongst the worst in terms of bang per buck. To improve contact tracing we should have been recruting more people to go door to door, with pen and paper in hand, as is done in countries with a lot more experience than the UK.
Some of us said from the start it wouldn't work in the West.....
Uk is about 13% of UK+EU population, isn't it? So still ahead on rate per person (though the component data bounce around massively), though not massively so.
Shame we can't build some trains in Yorkshire that are used to replace the antediluvian trains we have rattling around (and frequently stopped due to general decrepitude) on Yorkshire's railways.
The pacers have gone - what's left that's in need of replacement - last train I went on was one of the new Transpennine Express ones which was rather nice.
The Sprinters aren't exactly great. I think they've all been banished from London?
Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
Yes; his mother was killed by the press in his eyes.
That's the press. Not the Royal Family.
Is Meghan the Wallace Simpson de nos jours?
Wallis was a total bitch but she had way more style than Meghan.
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
Budgets are largely theatre and often bear limited resemblance to what actually happens in practice. Yesterday will make little difference to the Tories prospects in 2024.
I do wonder just what the next election will be fought on. Labour seem to have dropped their radicalism and the Cons having done the one thing they were elected to do - Brexit - have become rather pointless. We hear much about the War on Woke but this is an essentially trivial matter and surely cannot bear the weight of being placed front and centre. The pandemic dwarfs everything right now but soon it will be over apart from the economic response and there's no great gap between the parties on that. Neither are going to prioritize repairing the public finances. So we could be looking at one of those "narcissism of small differences" elections where the driving force of the parties is purely to win power rather than what they plan to do with it. Who does this favour? Probably Labour but I really don't know. I do know it's less than inspiring.
If uninspiring politics will save us from damaging egotistical incompetent twats like Johnson, Corbyn and Rees-Mogg, (to name but a few) then I am all in favour of being uninspired.
There is that. Bland is not the worst thing in the world. But I like some ideological bite. For me, on election night, there should be a large section of the public feeling genuinely excited about the prospect of winning and just as genuinely nauseous at the thought of the other side winning. I just prefer that climate. I also think corruption and grift and the shallow obsession with ego and personalities is more likely when politics becomes more about being than doing.
I tend to agree with you, but didn't you feel 'genuinely excited' in 1997 when Blair won, despite his victory not containing much ideological bite? I certainly did: it was such a relief after waiting since 1979. Like you, I'd like Labour to be more radical, but any prospect of victory under a reasonably redistributive manifesto would suffice - better than more Tory years.
Oh gosh yes. 97 was cosmic. Naked in garden with brandy bottle type reaction. In fact strike that "type". It's why I can never properly join in the Blair hate. He gave me that. And tbf I would be pretty stoked to beat this manifestation of the Cons who I view very dimly indeed with their shallow Leavey nationalism and culture war nonsense. But if Labour do back right away from radicalism - and maybe they won't, maybe they just know there's no audience until the pandemic is over - but if they do, my excitement at winning will be mainly of that negative "up yours delors" variety. As I recall 97, there was the Portillo moment, yes, all of that, but there was also a real belief in Blair, Brown, New Labour.
Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
Harry is an unhappy and troubled young man. His friends and family helped him for many years. Unfortunately Meghan came on the scene and used his troubles for her own ends.
William isn’t the brightest, but he loves his brother and tried to warn him. And we all know how that particular movie plays out!
Quite frankly that someone supposedly "civilised" could say something so misogynistic is terrible in this day and age.
If anyone spoke like that about my wife there'd be hell to pay. I suspect every man here would react the same if his wife was under constant attack. Yet you find it appropriate to protect the "firm" or something. Terrible.
I hope nobody speaks about your wife in the way you speak about his.
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
Starmer can't have said that can he
From Hansard:
"For the Chancellor, levelling up seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few free ports, and re-announcing funding. That is not levelling up; it is giving up."
Shame we can't build some trains in Yorkshire that are used to replace the antediluvian trains we have rattling around (and frequently stopped due to general decrepitude) on Yorkshire's railways.
The pacers have gone - what's left that's in need of replacement - last train I went on was one of the new Transpennine Express ones which was rather nice.
The Sprinters aren't exactly great. I think they've all been banished from London?
Must be nearly a decade since the Class 172s replaced the Class 150s on the GOBLIN route. But it was electrified within the last couple of years, so now they use Class 721s.
Earlier in the pandemic, I remember some of us on here saying the otherwise-perplexing differences in death rates - eg rich elderly Japan doing well, likewise poor young Vietnam - might largely be down to obesity. Japan and Vietnam are two of the thinnest countries in the world, few have died. America, probably the fattest, has the biggest death toll of all. Britain is almost as fat, and here we are.
“About 2.2 million of the 2.5 million deaths from Covid were in countries with high levels of overweight people, says the report from the World Obesity Federation. Countries such as the UK, US and Italy, where more than 50% of adults are overweight, have the biggest proportions of deaths linked to coronavirus”
This might, incidentally, partly explain the elevated death rates in some BAME communities, which have an even worse weight problem
This should also put to bed, forever, the idea you can be fat and still healthy. We all need to eat fish and salad
You were not on this board "Earlier in the pandemic". You joined in December. Unless you have another identity...
I did. Earlier on I self-identified as a fit healthy man. Now, I fear, like so many, after months of lockdown, I am a bit of a fattie
But it is coming off. I hope
Conversely it's the one thing I score on. I eat and drink too much. I smoke. I'm sedentary. I'm knocking on. I have a tense neurotic personality. But I'm slim. Bit of a clothes horse in fact. Wouldn't look out of place on the catwalk.
Me too (this one has a certain Glasgow vibe if you're familiar with Billy Connolly's ouevre).
That's not a Glaswegian vibe it is a universal vibe of when you go to the cinema and refuse to pay cinema prices for snacks and sneak in your own.
Germany to implement our 12 week gap between doses as well. Wonder how the people will react after months of being told how risky the British strategy is by politicians. Honestly, they should have copied our roll out strategy from day 1.
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
Starmer can't have said that can he
I've found the source - it's Darlington's MP - an idiot of the highest order who I must remember to give a set of NI export papers to fill in to.
The full quote I believe:
“For the Chancellor, levelling up seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and reannouncing funding. That isn’t levelling up, it’s giving up.”
Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
Harry is an unhappy and troubled young man. His friends and family helped him for many years. Unfortunately Meghan came on the scene and used his troubles for her own ends.
William isn’t the brightest, but he loves his brother and tried to warn him. And we all know how that particular movie plays out!
I agree with that, but I don't think it helps that Harry, according to a friend of mine who was at Eton with him, is quite exceptionally dim.
Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
Harry is an unhappy and troubled young man. His friends and family helped him for many years. Unfortunately Meghan came on the scene and used his troubles for her own ends.
William isn’t the brightest, but he loves his brother and tried to warn him. And we all know how that particular movie plays out!
I agree with that, but I don't think it helps that Harry, according to a friend of mine who was at Eton with him, is quite exceptionally dim.
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
Starmer can't have said that can he
I've found the source - it's Darlington's MP - an idiot of the highest order who I must remember to give a set of NI export papers to fill in to.
The full quote I believe:
“For the Chancellor, levelling up seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and reannouncing funding. That isn’t levelling up, it’s giving up.”
I haven't checked Hansard.
So as I said it's not an actual quote - it misses out the important bits of "few freeports and reannouncing funding" both of which are valid points for the second sentence.
Germany to implement our 12 week gap between doses as well. Wonder how the people will react after months of being told how risky the British strategy is by politicians. Honestly, they should have copied our roll out strategy from day 1.
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
It is a highly selective quoting, only the gullible fall for it.
The full quote is
"Moving parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn't levelling up, that is giving up."
The full quote isn't much better.
In the wider context it is.
The Chancellor’s one nominally long-term policy was his references to “levelling up.”
But what does this actually look like? It’s not the transformative shift in power, wealth and resources we need to rebalance our economy.
It’s not the bold, long-term plan we need to upskill our economy, to tackle educational attainment or to raise life-expectancy.
It certainly isn’t a plan to focus government’s resources on preventative services and early years. For the Chancellor “levelling up” seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn’t levelling up: it’s giving up.
And instead of putting blind faith in freeports, the Chancellor would be better served making sure the Government’s Brexit deal actually works for Britain’s manufacturers, who now face more red-tape when they were promised less.
For our financial services – still waiting for the Chancellor to make good on his promises.
For the small businesses and fishing communities whose goods and produce are now left unsold in warehouses. And for our artists and performers who just want to be able to tour.
As I recall: 1) The reason to not push masks was more that we were worried there would be insufficient supply for clinical staff if everybody started wearing one, than because we thought they didn't help; 2) The main benefit of masks is they reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus to someone else, and there is still limited evidence that they reduce the likelihood of the mask wearer catching the virus from someone else.
No. You’re wrong. Go back and google, they genuinely thought masks were worse than useless because they hasn’t grasped THAT basic fact - as mentioned below - that you wear a mask to protect others
And of course they protect you, as well, if you have a proper FFP2 or above
Jenny Harries, one of the top boffins, actually said THIS:
‘Wearing a face mask to protect from the coronavirus could actually increase the risk of becoming infected, England’s deputy chief medical officer has warned.‘
The stupid twats hadn’t looked at Asia and wondered why they were all wearing masks? These are supposedly top scientists. They made a fundamental howling error which cost many lives. They should be sacked and driven from public life
Oh, calm down. This is what Jenny Harries actually said:
What tends to happen is people will have one mask. They won't wear it all the time, they will take it off when they get home, they will put it down on a surface they haven't cleaned.
This is pretty accurate, in my view, and she didn't even mention the legions of chin-mask wearers. To the best of my knowledge, there is no hard evidence on the effectiveness of wearing masks improperly. It's likely that it's still a net positive, but I don't think we can safely say it's a huge one.
Jonathan Van Tam. April 4 2020. Ramming home the anti-mask message
He actually claims to have a “professor friend in Hong Kong, who agrees that masks are useless”. That would be Hong Kong, where they all wear masks?
Coronavirus: 'We do not recommend face masks for general wearing'
He didn’t grasp the fact that masks protect others, he didn’t understand asymptomatic transmission. He should go.
As he points out, people wearing masks in South East Asia is nothing new, and there's not much evidence it was ever effective at stopping disease. Prior to this pandemic, my understanding was it was an air quality thing, and the masks were there to stop air pollution rather than viruses.
Clearly it was a bad call, but I think saying he "didn’t understand asymptomatic transmission" is nonsense - what's your source for that? It's a completely separate issue from masks. Anyway, calling for his head over what was at the time a reasonable judgment call seems a bit off, to say the least.
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
Starmer can't have said that can he
I've found the source - it's Darlington's MP - an idiot of the highest order who I must remember to give a set of NI export papers to fill in to.
The full quote I believe:
“For the Chancellor, levelling up seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and reannouncing funding. That isn’t levelling up, it’s giving up.”
I haven't checked Hansard.
So as I said it's not an actual quote - it misses out the important bits of "few freeports and reannouncing funding" both of which are valid points for the second sentence.
Yes that's in the ... Of the image.
So yes he's viewing moving parts to Darlington as part of the quote. Entirely legitimate quotation.
Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
Harry is an unhappy and troubled young man. His friends and family helped him for many years. Unfortunately Meghan came on the scene and used his troubles for her own ends.
William isn’t the brightest, but he loves his brother and tried to warn him. And we all know how that particular movie plays out!
I agree with that, but I don't think it helps that Harry, according to a friend of mine who was at Eton with him, is quite exceptionally dim.
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
It is a highly selective quoting, only the gullible fall for it.
The full quote is
"Moving parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn't levelling up, that is giving up."
The full quote isn't much better.
In the wider context it is.
The Chancellor’s one nominally long-term policy was his references to “levelling up.”
But what does this actually look like? It’s not the transformative shift in power, wealth and resources we need to rebalance our economy.
It’s not the bold, long-term plan we need to upskill our economy, to tackle educational attainment or to raise life-expectancy.
It certainly isn’t a plan to focus government’s resources on preventative services and early years. For the Chancellor “levelling up” seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn’t levelling up: it’s giving up.
And instead of putting blind faith in freeports, the Chancellor would be better served making sure the Government’s Brexit deal actually works for Britain’s manufacturers, who now face more red-tape when they were promised less.
For our financial services – still waiting for the Chancellor to make good on his promises.
For the small businesses and fishing communities whose goods and produce are now left unsold in warehouses. And for our artists and performers who just want to be able to tour.
Ooh, goody. Does this mean we're going to have a moratorium on taking tiny snippets of what a politician has said without the context?
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
Starmer can't have said that can he
I've found the source - it's Darlington's MP - an idiot of the highest order who I must remember to give a set of NI export papers to fill in to.
The full quote I believe:
“For the Chancellor, levelling up seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and reannouncing funding. That isn’t levelling up, it’s giving up.”
I haven't checked Hansard.
So as I said it's not an actual quote - it misses out the important bits of "few freeports and reannouncing funding" both of which are valid points for the second sentence.
Yes. It is like a film review on a poster or a book review on some pulp fiction. Technically accurate, but misleading.
Both parties do this - taking quotes out of context - and it doesn't help anyone. The misquoting of Boris saying "On the chin", for example...
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
It is a highly selective quoting, only the gullible fall for it.
The full quote is
"Moving parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn't levelling up, that is giving up."
The full quote isn't much better.
In the wider context it is.
The Chancellor’s one nominally long-term policy was his references to “levelling up.”
But what does this actually look like? It’s not the transformative shift in power, wealth and resources we need to rebalance our economy.
It’s not the bold, long-term plan we need to upskill our economy, to tackle educational attainment or to raise life-expectancy.
It certainly isn’t a plan to focus government’s resources on preventative services and early years. For the Chancellor “levelling up” seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn’t levelling up: it’s giving up.
And instead of putting blind faith in freeports, the Chancellor would be better served making sure the Government’s Brexit deal actually works for Britain’s manufacturers, who now face more red-tape when they were promised less.
For our financial services – still waiting for the Chancellor to make good on his promises.
For the small businesses and fishing communities whose goods and produce are now left unsold in warehouses. And for our artists and performers who just want to be able to tour.
Ooh, goody. Does this mean we're going to have a moratorium on taking tiny snippets of what a politician has said without the context?
I live in Hope, well I live in Dore which is ten miles from Hope.
Is your bet next Tory Leader or Next PM? I have £55 on Truss at 100/1 for Next PM.
(I`m not saying that is likely - just that it was value at those odds.)
Its a waste of money. Liz Truss is a conservative, and as such has very little chance of leading the tories now or in the future.
If its conservatism you want, you will have to look elsewhere.
For what it`s worth I still think Johnson is in it for the long haul.
So I`m looking at the younger cohort. I took a bit of the 100 available on Truss and have 250/1 Sunak for next PM (which I am now laying off to some extent). I also have cash on Tugendhat and my wild card is Kemi Badenoch (at big odds again, 130/1) who I think is superb.
There is still some 3.3 available with BF to lay Sunak for next Tory leader.
I say this half in jest but also with some seriousness that, for those backing Sunak, it's worth bearing in mind that he is only 5'5" and always looks dwarfed when he stands next to almost all male counterparts (and some female ones). There are enough studies out there to show that height - at least for a man - seems to have some effect on how a leader is perceived. I suspect it might be more of an issue within the internal Conservative electorate for the leadership.
Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
Harry is an unhappy and troubled young man. His friends and family helped him for many years. Unfortunately Meghan came on the scene and used his troubles for her own ends.
William isn’t the brightest, but he loves his brother and tried to warn him. And we all know how that particular movie plays out!
I agree with that, but I don't think it helps that Harry, according to a friend of mine who was at Eton with him, is quite exceptionally dim.
Is your bet next Tory Leader or Next PM? I have £55 on Truss at 100/1 for Next PM.
(I`m not saying that is likely - just that it was value at those odds.)
Its a waste of money. Liz Truss is a conservative, and as such has very little chance of leading the tories now or in the future.
If its conservatism you want, you will have to look elsewhere.
For what it`s worth I still think Johnson is in it for the long haul.
So I`m looking at the younger cohort. I took a bit of the 100 available on Truss and have 250/1 Sunak for next PM (which I am now laying off to some extent). I also have cash on Tugendhat and my wild card is Kemi Badenoch (at big odds again, 130/1) who I think is superb.
Germany’s vaccine commission has now recommended the AstraZeneca/Oxford Covid-19 vaccine for people over the age of 65.
“The vaccine commission now recommends the AstraZeneca vaccine for people over 65 as well. This is good news for older people who are waiting for a jab,” said the health minister, Jens Spahn.
Germany had previously said it lacked sufficient data to approve the vaccine for older people, but has changed its position following recent studies. “The new data also shows that the vaccine is even more effective when the first and second jabs are administered 12 weeks apart,” said Spahn.
There is still some 3.3 available with BF to lay Sunak for next Tory leader.
I say this half in jest but also with some seriousness that, for those backing Sunak, it's worth bearing in mind that he is only 5'5" and always looks dwarfed when he stands next to almost all male counterparts (and some female ones). There are enough studies out there to show that height - at least for a man - seems to have some effect on how a leader is perceived. I suspect it might be more of an issue within the internal Conservative electorate for the leadership.
David Steel pocket-sized next to David Owen sort of thing?
As I recall: 1) The reason to not push masks was more that we were worried there would be insufficient supply for clinical staff if everybody started wearing one, than because we thought they didn't help; 2) The main benefit of masks is they reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus to someone else, and there is still limited evidence that they reduce the likelihood of the mask wearer catching the virus from someone else.
No. You’re wrong. Go back and google, they genuinely thought masks were worse than useless because they hasn’t grasped THAT basic fact - as mentioned below - that you wear a mask to protect others
And of course they protect you, as well, if you have a proper FFP2 or above
Jenny Harries, one of the top boffins, actually said THIS:
‘Wearing a face mask to protect from the coronavirus could actually increase the risk of becoming infected, England’s deputy chief medical officer has warned.‘
The stupid twats hadn’t looked at Asia and wondered why they were all wearing masks? These are supposedly top scientists. They made a fundamental howling error which cost many lives. They should be sacked and driven from public life
Oh, calm down. This is what Jenny Harries actually said:
What tends to happen is people will have one mask. They won't wear it all the time, they will take it off when they get home, they will put it down on a surface they haven't cleaned.
This is pretty accurate, in my view, and she didn't even mention the legions of chin-mask wearers. To the best of my knowledge, there is no hard evidence on the effectiveness of wearing masks improperly. It's likely that it's still a net positive, but I don't think we can safely say it's a huge one.
Jonathan Van Tam. April 4 2020. Ramming home the anti-mask message
He actually claims to have a “professor friend in Hong Kong, who agrees that masks are useless”. That would be Hong Kong, where they all wear masks?
Coronavirus: 'We do not recommend face masks for general wearing'
He didn’t grasp the fact that masks protect others, he didn’t understand asymptomatic transmission. He should go.
As he points out, people wearing masks in South East Asia is nothing new, and there's not much evidence it was ever effective at stopping disease. Prior to this pandemic, my understanding was it was an air quality thing, and the masks were there to stop air pollution rather than viruses.
Clearly it was a bad call, but I think saying he "didn’t understand asymptomatic transmission" is nonsense - what's your source for that? It's a completely separate issue from masks. Anyway, calling for his head over what was at the time a reasonable judgment call seems a bit off, to say the least.
He said masks are actively harmful for healthy people, not realising you can appear perfectly healthy, but still spread Covid.
It wasn't just a bad call, it was one of the worst calls in the history of public health. His only defence is that lots of other countries did the same. USA, Canada, France. But we were one of the SLOWEST to do our inevitable 180 handbrake turn
Does it matter? Well, yes it does. The UK, because of its fearsome outbreak, now faces a dire economic situation. Much worse than, say, Germany - or many others. Because we had to lockdown so hard in the end, because we fucked up things like masking. Because of people like Van Tam
Politicians must be held to account for this disaster. But that doesn't excuse the scientists. It is their exact job to get these things right. I knew by March 1 2020 that masks were vital, and oh-so-easy, by doing a bit of reading. I realised that they work because they protect OTHERS. I'm a humble flint knapper, these are so-called experts
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
It is a highly selective quoting, only the gullible fall for it.
The full quote is
"Moving parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn't levelling up, that is giving up."
The full quote isn't much better.
In the wider context it is.
The Chancellor’s one nominally long-term policy was his references to “levelling up.”
But what does this actually look like? It’s not the transformative shift in power, wealth and resources we need to rebalance our economy.
It’s not the bold, long-term plan we need to upskill our economy, to tackle educational attainment or to raise life-expectancy.
It certainly isn’t a plan to focus government’s resources on preventative services and early years. For the Chancellor “levelling up” seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn’t levelling up: it’s giving up.
And instead of putting blind faith in freeports, the Chancellor would be better served making sure the Government’s Brexit deal actually works for Britain’s manufacturers, who now face more red-tape when they were promised less.
For our financial services – still waiting for the Chancellor to make good on his promises.
For the small businesses and fishing communities whose goods and produce are now left unsold in warehouses. And for our artists and performers who just want to be able to tour.
Ooh, goody. Does this mean we're going to have a moratorium on taking tiny snippets of what a politician has said without the context?
I live in Hope, well I live in Dore which is ten miles from Hope.
Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
Harry is an unhappy and troubled young man. His friends and family helped him for many years. Unfortunately Meghan came on the scene and used his troubles for her own ends.
William isn’t the brightest, but he loves his brother and tried to warn him. And we all know how that particular movie plays out!
I agree with that, but I don't think it helps that Harry, according to a friend of mine who was at Eton with him, is quite exceptionally dim.
I'm not sure that's news.
Maybe not, but I always find it useful to have impressions confirmed by people who knew the person concerned, and aren't obviously trying to be sensationalist or controversial to sell papers or anything.
More than four in 10 over-80s in England may have met with someone outside of their support bubble within three weeks of receiving the first jab of the Covid vaccine, an official [ONS] survey suggests.
As I recall: 1) The reason to not push masks was more that we were worried there would be insufficient supply for clinical staff if everybody started wearing one, than because we thought they didn't help; 2) The main benefit of masks is they reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus to someone else, and there is still limited evidence that they reduce the likelihood of the mask wearer catching the virus from someone else.
No. You’re wrong. Go back and google, they genuinely thought masks were worse than useless because they hasn’t grasped THAT basic fact - as mentioned below - that you wear a mask to protect others
And of course they protect you, as well, if you have a proper FFP2 or above
Jenny Harries, one of the top boffins, actually said THIS:
‘Wearing a face mask to protect from the coronavirus could actually increase the risk of becoming infected, England’s deputy chief medical officer has warned.‘
The stupid twats hadn’t looked at Asia and wondered why they were all wearing masks? These are supposedly top scientists. They made a fundamental howling error which cost many lives. They should be sacked and driven from public life
Oh, calm down. This is what Jenny Harries actually said:
What tends to happen is people will have one mask. They won't wear it all the time, they will take it off when they get home, they will put it down on a surface they haven't cleaned.
This is pretty accurate, in my view, and she didn't even mention the legions of chin-mask wearers. To the best of my knowledge, there is no hard evidence on the effectiveness of wearing masks improperly. It's likely that it's still a net positive, but I don't think we can safely say it's a huge one.
Jonathan Van Tam. April 4 2020. Ramming home the anti-mask message
He actually claims to have a “professor friend in Hong Kong, who agrees that masks are useless”. That would be Hong Kong, where they all wear masks?
Coronavirus: 'We do not recommend face masks for general wearing'
He didn’t grasp the fact that masks protect others, he didn’t understand asymptomatic transmission. He should go.
As he points out, people wearing masks in South East Asia is nothing new, and there's not much evidence it was ever effective at stopping disease. Prior to this pandemic, my understanding was it was an air quality thing, and the masks were there to stop air pollution rather than viruses.
Clearly it was a bad call, but I think saying he "didn’t understand asymptomatic transmission" is nonsense - what's your source for that? It's a completely separate issue from masks. Anyway, calling for his head over what was at the time a reasonable judgment call seems a bit off, to say the least.
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
It is a highly selective quoting, only the gullible fall for it.
The full quote is
"Moving parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn't levelling up, that is giving up."
The full quote isn't much better.
In the wider context it is.
The Chancellor’s one nominally long-term policy was his references to “levelling up.”
But what does this actually look like? It’s not the transformative shift in power, wealth and resources we need to rebalance our economy.
It’s not the bold, long-term plan we need to upskill our economy, to tackle educational attainment or to raise life-expectancy.
It certainly isn’t a plan to focus government’s resources on preventative services and early years. For the Chancellor “levelling up” seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn’t levelling up: it’s giving up.
And instead of putting blind faith in freeports, the Chancellor would be better served making sure the Government’s Brexit deal actually works for Britain’s manufacturers, who now face more red-tape when they were promised less.
For our financial services – still waiting for the Chancellor to make good on his promises.
For the small businesses and fishing communities whose goods and produce are now left unsold in warehouses. And for our artists and performers who just want to be able to tour.
Ooh, goody. Does this mean we're going to have a moratorium on taking tiny snippets of what a politician has said without the context?
I live in Hope, well I live in Dore which is ten miles from Hope.
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
It is a highly selective quoting, only the gullible fall for it.
The full quote is
"Moving parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn't levelling up, that is giving up."
The full quote isn't much better.
In the wider context it is.
The Chancellor’s one nominally long-term policy was his references to “levelling up.”
But what does this actually look like? It’s not the transformative shift in power, wealth and resources we need to rebalance our economy.
It’s not the bold, long-term plan we need to upskill our economy, to tackle educational attainment or to raise life-expectancy.
It certainly isn’t a plan to focus government’s resources on preventative services and early years. For the Chancellor “levelling up” seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn’t levelling up: it’s giving up.
And instead of putting blind faith in freeports, the Chancellor would be better served making sure the Government’s Brexit deal actually works for Britain’s manufacturers, who now face more red-tape when they were promised less.
For our financial services – still waiting for the Chancellor to make good on his promises.
For the small businesses and fishing communities whose goods and produce are now left unsold in warehouses. And for our artists and performers who just want to be able to tour.
Ooh, goody. Does this mean we're going to have a moratorium on taking tiny snippets of what a politician has said without the context?
I live in Hope, well I live in Dore which is ten miles from Hope.
There is still some 3.3 available with BF to lay Sunak for next Tory leader.
I say this half in jest but also with some seriousness that, for those backing Sunak, it's worth bearing in mind that he is only 5'5" and always looks dwarfed when he stands next to almost all male counterparts (and some female ones). There are enough studies out there to show that height - at least for a man - seems to have some effect on how a leader is perceived. I suspect it might be more of an issue within the internal Conservative electorate for the leadership.
David Steel pocket-sized next to David Owen sort of thing?
As one example. Steel always said that was probably that sketch was absolutely toxic for him.
Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
Harry is an unhappy and troubled young man. His friends and family helped him for many years. Unfortunately Meghan came on the scene and used his troubles for her own ends.
William isn’t the brightest, but he loves his brother and tried to warn him. And we all know how that particular movie plays out!
I agree with that, but I don't think it helps that Harry, according to a friend of mine who was at Eton with him, is quite exceptionally dim.
I'm not sure that's news.
Harry's had a miserable life.
His mother died at the hands of the media before he was a teenager, there were many allegations that his grandfather ordered the assassination of his mother.
The divorce and adultery of his parents were played out in public, all of that has to have an impact on you.
It explains his drug use, racist language, and his love of parties which have all hinted at an unhappy life.
He tried to follow tradition, a European prince going to the middle east to kill muslims, and the media ruined that as well.
Is your bet next Tory Leader or Next PM? I have £55 on Truss at 100/1 for Next PM.
(I`m not saying that is likely - just that it was value at those odds.)
Its a waste of money. Liz Truss is a conservative, and as such has very little chance of leading the tories now or in the future.
If its conservatism you want, you will have to look elsewhere.
Truss was formerly a liberal and could in another world be the LibDems (were they to get their act together, i.e. actually forward liberalism).
I know you are cross about the amount of debt, as am I, but I don`t think that makes Sunak/Johnson not conservatives to be honest - think what the LP would have done if they were managing this. If you think the CP have turned the piss stream up to 10 the LP would have managed 11.
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
Starmer can't have said that can he
I've found the source - it's Darlington's MP - an idiot of the highest order who I must remember to give a set of NI export papers to fill in to.
The full quote I believe:
“For the Chancellor, levelling up seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and reannouncing funding. That isn’t levelling up, it’s giving up.”
I haven't checked Hansard.
So as I said it's not an actual quote - it misses out the important bits of "few freeports and reannouncing funding" both of which are valid points for the second sentence.
Yes. It is like a film review on a poster or a book review on some pulp fiction. Technically accurate, but misleading.
Both parties do this - taking quotes out of context - and it doesn't help anyone. The misquoting of Boris saying "On the chin", for example...
Of course the difference is that Johnson was saying that 'some were saying take it on the chin' but he disagrees with that, with the snip at 'take it on the chin' to make it look like he was agreeing rather than disagreeing with that sentiment.
Starmer said that amongst other things sending jobs to Darlington was "giving up". That was snipped to say that . . . amongst other things sending jobs to Darlington was "giving up". He didn't disagree with what was quoted, its not misrepresented at all.
Theory: Covid has rendered Brexit pointless, indeed self harming.
I voted to Leave (and it was a close call: I decided on the day) because I really did think we would move to a lower tax, more deregulated economy. Not Singapore-on-Thames, that was always a pipe-dream, but definitely something more nimble.
We are not getting that, because Covid. Instead, we are getting a high tax, low growth economy, essentially a European economy, but without the benefits of the European Single Market, Customs Union or Freedom of Movement. We will be a kind of particularly isolated France, minus the sunshine and vasty fields.
Meanwhile we have destabilised Northern Ireland, fuelled Scottish indy (maybe even Welsh indy), we have divided the nation bitterly and we face a decade of austerity. The future will be dominated by bitter quarrels with Brussels, from which we gain very little.
It is most unfortunate. Brexit could have worked. It might still work in 10-20 years. But in the short-medium term, Covid has turned Brexit into a nightmare. The worst case scenario
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
It is a highly selective quoting, only the gullible fall for it.
The full quote is
"Moving parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn't levelling up, that is giving up."
The full quote isn't much better.
In the wider context it is.
The Chancellor’s one nominally long-term policy was his references to “levelling up.”
But what does this actually look like? It’s not the transformative shift in power, wealth and resources we need to rebalance our economy.
It’s not the bold, long-term plan we need to upskill our economy, to tackle educational attainment or to raise life-expectancy.
It certainly isn’t a plan to focus government’s resources on preventative services and early years. For the Chancellor “levelling up” seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn’t levelling up: it’s giving up.
And instead of putting blind faith in freeports, the Chancellor would be better served making sure the Government’s Brexit deal actually works for Britain’s manufacturers, who now face more red-tape when they were promised less.
For our financial services – still waiting for the Chancellor to make good on his promises.
For the small businesses and fishing communities whose goods and produce are now left unsold in warehouses. And for our artists and performers who just want to be able to tour.
Ooh, goody. Does this mean we're going to have a moratorium on taking tiny snippets of what a politician has said without the context?
I live in Hope, well I live in Dore which is ten miles from Hope.
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
It is a highly selective quoting, only the gullible fall for it.
The full quote is
"Moving parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn't levelling up, that is giving up."
Nonetheless it's certainly cheering up the Johnsonian Conservatives.
Metropolitan elite liberal disses Darlo! He sees the working man and sneers at their clothes, their habits, their simple love of country. He wrinkles up his nose and curls his lip as they pass by. He makes a face and rolls his eyes. He ... that's enough of the tory story crap (Ed).
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
Starmer can't have said that can he
I've found the source - it's Darlington's MP - an idiot of the highest order who I must remember to give a set of NI export papers to fill in to.
The full quote I believe:
“For the Chancellor, levelling up seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and reannouncing funding. That isn’t levelling up, it’s giving up.”
I haven't checked Hansard.
So as I said it's not an actual quote - it misses out the important bits of "few freeports and reannouncing funding" both of which are valid points for the second sentence.
Yes. It is like a film review on a poster or a book review on some pulp fiction. Technically accurate, but misleading.
Both parties do this - taking quotes out of context - and it doesn't help anyone. The misquoting of Boris saying "On the chin", for example...
Of course the difference is that Johnson was saying that 'some were saying take it on the chin' but he disagrees with that, with the snip at 'take it on the chin' to make it look like he was agreeing rather than disagreeing with that sentiment.
Starmer said that amongst other things sending jobs to Darlington was "giving up". That was snipped to say that . . . amongst other things sending jobs to Darlington was "giving up". He didn't disagree with what was quoted, its not misrepresented at all.
To be fair to Starmer (and I'm definitely not a fan), I think he was implying that moving the treasury wasn't delivering much, not that it was necessarily a bad idea.
As I recall: 1) The reason to not push masks was more that we were worried there would be insufficient supply for clinical staff if everybody started wearing one, than because we thought they didn't help; 2) The main benefit of masks is they reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus to someone else, and there is still limited evidence that they reduce the likelihood of the mask wearer catching the virus from someone else.
No. You’re wrong. Go back and google, they genuinely thought masks were worse than useless because they hasn’t grasped THAT basic fact - as mentioned below - that you wear a mask to protect others
And of course they protect you, as well, if you have a proper FFP2 or above
Jenny Harries, one of the top boffins, actually said THIS:
‘Wearing a face mask to protect from the coronavirus could actually increase the risk of becoming infected, England’s deputy chief medical officer has warned.‘
The stupid twats hadn’t looked at Asia and wondered why they were all wearing masks? These are supposedly top scientists. They made a fundamental howling error which cost many lives. They should be sacked and driven from public life
Oh, calm down. This is what Jenny Harries actually said:
What tends to happen is people will have one mask. They won't wear it all the time, they will take it off when they get home, they will put it down on a surface they haven't cleaned.
This is pretty accurate, in my view, and she didn't even mention the legions of chin-mask wearers. To the best of my knowledge, there is no hard evidence on the effectiveness of wearing masks improperly. It's likely that it's still a net positive, but I don't think we can safely say it's a huge one.
Jonathan Van Tam. April 4 2020. Ramming home the anti-mask message
He actually claims to have a “professor friend in Hong Kong, who agrees that masks are useless”. That would be Hong Kong, where they all wear masks?
Coronavirus: 'We do not recommend face masks for general wearing'
He didn’t grasp the fact that masks protect others, he didn’t understand asymptomatic transmission. He should go.
As he points out, people wearing masks in South East Asia is nothing new, and there's not much evidence it was ever effective at stopping disease. Prior to this pandemic, my understanding was it was an air quality thing, and the masks were there to stop air pollution rather than viruses.
Clearly it was a bad call, but I think saying he "didn’t understand asymptomatic transmission" is nonsense - what's your source for that? It's a completely separate issue from masks. Anyway, calling for his head over what was at the time a reasonable judgment call seems a bit off, to say the least.
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
Starmer can't have said that can he
I've found the source - it's Darlington's MP - an idiot of the highest order who I must remember to give a set of NI export papers to fill in to.
The full quote I believe:
“For the Chancellor, levelling up seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and reannouncing funding. That isn’t levelling up, it’s giving up.”
I haven't checked Hansard.
So as I said it's not an actual quote - it misses out the important bits of "few freeports and reannouncing funding" both of which are valid points for the second sentence.
Yes. It is like a film review on a poster or a book review on some pulp fiction. Technically accurate, but misleading.
Both parties do this - taking quotes out of context - and it doesn't help anyone. The misquoting of Boris saying "On the chin", for example...
Of course the difference is that Johnson was saying that 'some were saying take it on the chin' but he disagrees with that, with the snip at 'take it on the chin' to make it look like he was agreeing rather than disagreeing with that sentiment.
Starmer said that amongst other things sending jobs to Darlington was "giving up". That was snipped to say that . . . amongst other things sending jobs to Darlington was "giving up". He didn't disagree with what was quoted, its not misrepresented at all.
To be fair to Starmer (and I'm definitely not a fan), I think he was implying that moving the treasury wasn't delivering much, not that it was necessarily a bad idea.
Well it will be interesting if Darlington agrees with that sentiment or not. If Darlington are pleased to see this, then this entirely fair quotation of what he said will play badly. If Darlington agree with that sentiment then this quote will play just fine.
Theory: Covid has rendered Brexit pointless, indeed self harming.
I voted to Leave (and it was a close call: I decided on the day) because I really did think we would move to a lower tax, more deregulated economy. Not Singapore-on-Thames, that was always a pipe-dream, but definitely something more nimble.
We are not getting that, because Covid. Instead, we are getting a high tax, low growth economy, essentially a European economy, but without the benefits of the European Single Market, Customs Union or Freedom of Movement. We will be a kind of particularly isolated France, minus the sunshine and vasty fields.
Meanwhile we have destabilised Northern Ireland, fuelled Scottish indy (maybe even Welsh indy), we have divided the nation bitterly and we face a decade of austerity. The future will be dominated by bitter quarrels with Brussels, from which we gain very little.
It is most unfortunate. Brexit could have worked. It might still work in 10-20 years. But in the short-medium term, Covid has turned Brexit into a nightmare. The worst case scenario
As Alanis Morrisette said, isn't it byronic don't you think ?
Germany’s vaccine commission has now recommended the AstraZeneca/Oxford Covid-19 vaccine for people over the age of 65.
“The vaccine commission now recommends the AstraZeneca vaccine for people over 65 as well. This is good news for older people who are waiting for a jab,” said the health minister, Jens Spahn.
Germany had previously said it lacked sufficient data to approve the vaccine for older people, but has changed its position following recent studies. “The new data also shows that the vaccine is even more effective when the first and second jabs are administered 12 weeks apart,” said Spahn.
There seems to be a 2 month old echo in the room......
Nicola Sturgeon's caution is going to cost Scotland.
Glasgow and Dublin are at growing risk of being cut from the list of hosts for this summer's European Championship.
With fewer than 100 days until the delayed Euros, Uefa wants each of the countries staging matches to submit their plans - including for the return of fans - by a deadline of 7 April.
Organisers say they still hope to stage matches at the 12 venues as planned.
But the Scottish and Irish governments are yet to provide assurances whether fans will be allowed back by June.
And Uefa is understood to be increasingly concerned they may have to strip Glasgow and Dublin of their matches.
Both Hampden Park and the Aviva Stadium are due to stage four games.
According to one source with knowledge of tournament planning, the position on fans in Dublin and Glasgow is currently "very bad", with the respective governments "taking a much tighter approach to Covid than other cities".
On Wednesday, Scotland's Health Secretary Jeane Freeman said that being part of the Euros was "a really big deal" for her country.
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
It is a highly selective quoting, only the gullible fall for it.
The full quote is
"Moving parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn't levelling up, that is giving up."
The full quote isn't much better.
In the wider context it is.
The Chancellor’s one nominally long-term policy was his references to “levelling up.”
But what does this actually look like? It’s not the transformative shift in power, wealth and resources we need to rebalance our economy.
It’s not the bold, long-term plan we need to upskill our economy, to tackle educational attainment or to raise life-expectancy.
It certainly isn’t a plan to focus government’s resources on preventative services and early years. For the Chancellor “levelling up” seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn’t levelling up: it’s giving up.
And instead of putting blind faith in freeports, the Chancellor would be better served making sure the Government’s Brexit deal actually works for Britain’s manufacturers, who now face more red-tape when they were promised less.
For our financial services – still waiting for the Chancellor to make good on his promises.
For the small businesses and fishing communities whose goods and produce are now left unsold in warehouses. And for our artists and performers who just want to be able to tour.
Ooh, goody. Does this mean we're going to have a moratorium on taking tiny snippets of what a politician has said without the context?
I live in Hope, well I live in Dore which is ten miles from Hope.
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
Starmer can't have said that can he
I've found the source - it's Darlington's MP - an idiot of the highest order who I must remember to give a set of NI export papers to fill in to.
The full quote I believe:
“For the Chancellor, levelling up seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and reannouncing funding. That isn’t levelling up, it’s giving up.”
I haven't checked Hansard.
So as I said it's not an actual quote - it misses out the important bits of "few freeports and reannouncing funding" both of which are valid points for the second sentence.
Yes. It is like a film review on a poster or a book review on some pulp fiction. Technically accurate, but misleading.
Both parties do this - taking quotes out of context - and it doesn't help anyone. The misquoting of Boris saying "On the chin", for example...
Of course the difference is that Johnson was saying that 'some were saying take it on the chin' but he disagrees with that, with the snip at 'take it on the chin' to make it look like he was agreeing rather than disagreeing with that sentiment.
Starmer said that amongst other things sending jobs to Darlington was "giving up". That was snipped to say that . . . amongst other things sending jobs to Darlington was "giving up". He didn't disagree with what was quoted, its not misrepresented at all.
To be fair to Starmer (and I'm definitely not a fan), I think he was implying that moving the treasury wasn't delivering much, not that it was necessarily a bad idea.
That's 10s of millions for the local economy, though.
Verdict on the budget and EFO - We're all fucked, the numbers don't make any sense and the chancellor has hidden a lot of the pain with a CT rise that will literally never yield what he thinks it will because if it does then domestic companies all turn into takeover targets for multinationals who will offshore the profits and avoid the new rate of tax.
I fear that this is all going to come apart at the seams very badly in the run up to the election and Starmer might just become PM by default because of job losses due to business investment dropping off a cliff.
Budgets are largely theatre and often bear limited resemblance to what actually happens in practice. Yesterday will make little difference to the Tories prospects in 2024.
I do wonder just what the next election will be fought on. Labour seem to have dropped their radicalism and the Cons having done the one thing they were elected to do - Brexit - have become rather pointless. We hear much about the War on Woke but this is an essentially trivial matter and surely cannot bear the weight of being placed front and centre. The pandemic dwarfs everything right now but soon it will be over apart from the economic response and there's no great gap between the parties on that. Neither are going to prioritize repairing the public finances. So we could be looking at one of those "narcissism of small differences" elections where the driving force of the parties is purely to win power rather than what they plan to do with it. Who does this favour? Probably Labour but I really don't know. I do know it's less than inspiring.
If uninspiring politics will save us from damaging egotistical incompetent twats like Johnson, Corbyn and Rees-Mogg, (to name but a few) then I am all in favour of being uninspired.
There is that. Bland is not the worst thing in the world. But I like some ideological bite. For me, on election night, there should be a large section of the public feeling genuinely excited about the prospect of winning and just as genuinely nauseous at the thought of the other side winning. I just prefer that climate. I also think corruption and grift and the shallow obsession with ego and personalities is more likely when politics becomes more about being than doing.
I tend to agree with you, but didn't you feel 'genuinely excited' in 1997 when Blair won, despite his victory not containing much ideological bite? I certainly did: it was such a relief after waiting since 1979. Like you, I'd like Labour to be more radical, but any prospect of victory under a reasonably redistributive manifesto would suffice - better than more Tory years.
Oh gosh yes. 97 was cosmic. Naked in garden with brandy bottle type reaction. In fact strike that "type". It's why I can never properly join in the Blair hate. He gave me that...
Did Harry have any "problem" with the Royal Family before Meghan came along?
Because, from looking at how he carried out his duties as a Commonwealth ambassador, and for the armed forces, and the fun he had with the Queen (and her too) making that video for the Invictus Games with Obama it sure didn't look like it. He was also very close to his brother - very close.
I'm sure he was personally lonely and unhappy, and aching for the right partner that understood him, but things seemed to change only after about 18 months after they hooked up.
Harry is an unhappy and troubled young man. His friends and family helped him for many years. Unfortunately Meghan came on the scene and used his troubles for her own ends.
William isn’t the brightest, but he loves his brother and tried to warn him. And we all know how that particular movie plays out!
Quite frankly that someone supposedly "civilised" could say something so misogynistic is terrible in this day and age.
If anyone spoke like that about my wife there'd be hell to pay. I suspect every man here would react the same if his wife was under constant attack. Yet you find it appropriate to protect the "firm" or something. Terrible.
I hope nobody speaks about your wife in the way you speak about his.
Don't worry.
Either Charles knows nothing in which case you can ignore what he says, or he is acquainted with them and has shown himself a knave by voicing his opinions.
There is still some 3.3 available with BF to lay Sunak for next Tory leader.
I say this half in jest but also with some seriousness that, for those backing Sunak, it's worth bearing in mind that he is only 5'5" and always looks dwarfed when he stands next to almost all male counterparts (and some female ones). There are enough studies out there to show that height - at least for a man - seems to have some effect on how a leader is perceived. I suspect it might be more of an issue within the internal Conservative electorate for the leadership.
Yes, good point. We've come a fair way in ditching the old prejudices about who can be PM - e.g. the last but one was not an Old Etonian - but is the country ready for a midget?
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
It is a highly selective quoting, only the gullible fall for it.
The full quote is
"Moving parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn't levelling up, that is giving up."
The full quote isn't much better.
In the wider context it is.
The Chancellor’s one nominally long-term policy was his references to “levelling up.”
But what does this actually look like? It’s not the transformative shift in power, wealth and resources we need to rebalance our economy.
It’s not the bold, long-term plan we need to upskill our economy, to tackle educational attainment or to raise life-expectancy.
It certainly isn’t a plan to focus government’s resources on preventative services and early years. For the Chancellor “levelling up” seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn’t levelling up: it’s giving up.
And instead of putting blind faith in freeports, the Chancellor would be better served making sure the Government’s Brexit deal actually works for Britain’s manufacturers, who now face more red-tape when they were promised less.
For our financial services – still waiting for the Chancellor to make good on his promises.
For the small businesses and fishing communities whose goods and produce are now left unsold in warehouses. And for our artists and performers who just want to be able to tour.
Ooh, goody. Does this mean we're going to have a moratorium on taking tiny snippets of what a politician has said without the context?
I live in Hope, well I live in Dore which is ten miles from Hope.
There is still some 3.3 available with BF to lay Sunak for next Tory leader.
I say this half in jest but also with some seriousness that, for those backing Sunak, it's worth bearing in mind that he is only 5'5" and always looks dwarfed when he stands next to almost all male counterparts (and some female ones). There are enough studies out there to show that height - at least for a man - seems to have some effect on how a leader is perceived. I suspect it might be more of an issue within the internal Conservative electorate for the leadership.
Yes, good point. We've come a fair way in ditching the old prejudices about who can be PM - e.g. the last but one was not an Old Etonian - but is the country ready for a midget?
Fantastic advert on the radio just now. Telling cow and sheep farmers that brilliant new trade deals will help them export their products around the world. Yes - lets ignore the catastrofuck that has been imposed on their existing EU market, and instead shine a light on the no new deals signed that bring about no changes from the old deals.
And we're paying for this! Farmers know that its bollox which means that its not aimed at them. We are spending £lots advertising something that isn't true so that people who don't know or care about reality can be impressed about how brilliantly Brexit has been for cow and sheep farmers.
You live in Scotland now, so get used to it. This is the capital of constant political advertising disguised as public information campaigns. It's almost half the advertising I see on YouTube at times.
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
Starmer can't have said that can he
I've found the source - it's Darlington's MP - an idiot of the highest order who I must remember to give a set of NI export papers to fill in to.
The full quote I believe:
“For the Chancellor, levelling up seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and reannouncing funding. That isn’t levelling up, it’s giving up.”
I haven't checked Hansard.
So as I said it's not an actual quote - it misses out the important bits of "few freeports and reannouncing funding" both of which are valid points for the second sentence.
Yes. It is like a film review on a poster or a book review on some pulp fiction. Technically accurate, but misleading.
Both parties do this - taking quotes out of context - and it doesn't help anyone. The misquoting of Boris saying "On the chin", for example...
Of course the difference is that Johnson was saying that 'some were saying take it on the chin' but he disagrees with that, with the snip at 'take it on the chin' to make it look like he was agreeing rather than disagreeing with that sentiment.
Starmer said that amongst other things sending jobs to Darlington was "giving up". That was snipped to say that . . . amongst other things sending jobs to Darlington was "giving up". He didn't disagree with what was quoted, its not misrepresented at all.
To be fair to Starmer (and I'm definitely not a fan), I think he was implying that moving the treasury wasn't delivering much, not that it was necessarily a bad idea.
That's 10s of millions for the local economy, though.
Not to mention that if you have the top mandarins being forced to even pass through the place, they will be making sure that a lot of spending accidentally happens there.
The Darlington branch of the Royal Opera House - where would that go?
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
Starmer can't have said that can he
I've found the source - it's Darlington's MP - an idiot of the highest order who I must remember to give a set of NI export papers to fill in to.
The full quote I believe:
“For the Chancellor, levelling up seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and reannouncing funding. That isn’t levelling up, it’s giving up.”
I haven't checked Hansard.
So as I said it's not an actual quote - it misses out the important bits of "few freeports and reannouncing funding" both of which are valid points for the second sentence.
Yes. It is like a film review on a poster or a book review on some pulp fiction. Technically accurate, but misleading.
Both parties do this - taking quotes out of context - and it doesn't help anyone. The misquoting of Boris saying "On the chin", for example...
Of course the difference is that Johnson was saying that 'some were saying take it on the chin' but he disagrees with that, with the snip at 'take it on the chin' to make it look like he was agreeing rather than disagreeing with that sentiment.
Starmer said that amongst other things sending jobs to Darlington was "giving up". That was snipped to say that . . . amongst other things sending jobs to Darlington was "giving up". He didn't disagree with what was quoted, its not misrepresented at all.
To be fair to Starmer (and I'm definitely not a fan), I think he was implying that moving the treasury wasn't delivering much, not that it was necessarily a bad idea.
That's 10s of millions for the local economy, though.
I agree - I think it is a good idea.
If you don't happen to live in Darlington, though, it might not cut through.
Nice to know Starmer's views on Darlington - does he post on here as Roger?
Is that real? That looks like a faked-up image of the sort of thing right wingers like me assume Keir thinks.
Starmer can't have said that can he
I've found the source - it's Darlington's MP - an idiot of the highest order who I must remember to give a set of NI export papers to fill in to.
The full quote I believe:
“For the Chancellor, levelling up seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and reannouncing funding. That isn’t levelling up, it’s giving up.”
I haven't checked Hansard.
So as I said it's not an actual quote - it misses out the important bits of "few freeports and reannouncing funding" both of which are valid points for the second sentence.
Yes. It is like a film review on a poster or a book review on some pulp fiction. Technically accurate, but misleading.
Both parties do this - taking quotes out of context - and it doesn't help anyone. The misquoting of Boris saying "On the chin", for example...
Of course the difference is that Johnson was saying that 'some were saying take it on the chin' but he disagrees with that, with the snip at 'take it on the chin' to make it look like he was agreeing rather than disagreeing with that sentiment.
Starmer said that amongst other things sending jobs to Darlington was "giving up". That was snipped to say that . . . amongst other things sending jobs to Darlington was "giving up". He didn't disagree with what was quoted, its not misrepresented at all.
To be fair to Starmer (and I'm definitely not a fan), I think he was implying that moving the treasury wasn't delivering much, not that it was necessarily a bad idea.
That's 10s of millions for the local economy, though.
Comments
They ought to trade in their Sussex title for that of Windsor. Very sad, of course, on a personal level.
The whole horses for courses nature of masks was lost in the usual woeful standard of the debate we had. So,
- A supermarket: staff moving around, lots of space, little dwell time in any one piece of air or any one person's miasma. Masks probably overkill.
- A bus or train commute: a good sweep of the minute hand in close to medium proximity of particular individuals. Masks very useful in slowing the build up of the liquid elements of breath. Ideal use case for masks.
- A small shop: If a 'spend time choosing' type shop (or, say, a hairdresser) longer dwell in a smaller space, masks useful for customer to staff spread, but if the staff are already infected their miasma probably builds up beyond what a mask can deal with and ventilation and rotation (e.g. making sure staff go out of the room regularly), will probably be the more important interventions. So, for any individual interaction, there may be an asymmetric risk. There are a whole raft of workplace and home settings, not just small ones, where the likely considerations are similar, from factories, schools and offices, to seeing relatives, for which rotating, ventilating, meeting away from a location one of you has already breathed a while in, and distancing will do most of the hard work. And the overfocus on masks has likely meant too little emphasis on all those other things.
I'm sure John Bull and Londonreconnections will have an article with the truth behind it in the near future.
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/upgrading-the-piccadilly/
Odds Stake Profit
Liz Truss
28.13
£15.00
£407.00
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1367459255700307969
If anyone spoke like that about my wife there'd be hell to pay. I suspect every man here would react the same if his wife was under constant attack. Yet you find it appropriate to protect the "firm" or something. Terrible.
I hope nobody speaks about your wife in the way you speak about his.
"For the Chancellor, levelling up seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few free ports, and re-announcing funding. That is not levelling up; it is giving up."
https://labour.org.uk/press/keir-starmer-responds-to-the-budget/
Wow. 😲
“For the Chancellor, levelling up seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and reannouncing funding. That isn’t levelling up, it’s giving up.”
I haven't checked Hansard.
The full quote is
"Moving parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding. That isn't levelling up, that is giving up."
(I`m not saying that is likely - just that it was value at those odds.)
The Chancellor’s one nominally long-term policy was his references to “levelling up.”
But what does this actually look like? It’s not the transformative shift in power, wealth and resources we need to rebalance our economy.
It’s not the bold, long-term plan we need to upskill our economy, to tackle educational attainment or to raise life-expectancy.
It certainly isn’t a plan to focus government’s resources on preventative services and early years. For the Chancellor “levelling up” seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few freeports and re-announcing funding.
That isn’t levelling up: it’s giving up.
And instead of putting blind faith in freeports, the Chancellor would be better served making sure the Government’s Brexit deal actually works for Britain’s manufacturers, who now face more red-tape when they were promised less.
For our financial services – still waiting for the Chancellor to make good on his promises.
For the small businesses and fishing communities whose goods and produce are now left unsold in warehouses. And for our artists and performers who just want to be able to tour.
If its conservatism you want, you will have to look elsewhere.
Clearly it was a bad call, but I think saying he "didn’t understand asymptomatic transmission" is nonsense - what's your source for that? It's a completely separate issue from masks. Anyway, calling for his head over what was at the time a reasonable judgment call seems a bit off, to say the least.
And you still haven't addressed my point about the potential lack of supply. See here, for example:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52363378
So yes he's viewing moving parts to Darlington as part of the quote. Entirely legitimate quotation.
I mean I find the hot takes from the IFS etc interesting but the Institute of Underwear makers and the like.
Both parties do this - taking quotes out of context - and it doesn't help anyone. The misquoting of Boris saying "On the chin", for example...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hope,_Derbyshire
So I`m looking at the younger cohort. I took a bit of the 100 available on Truss and have 250/1 Sunak for next PM (which I am now laying off to some extent). I also have cash on Tugendhat and my wild card is Kemi Badenoch (at big odds again, 130/1) who I think is superb.
She's very impressive.
“The vaccine commission now recommends the AstraZeneca vaccine for people over 65 as well. This is good news for older people who are waiting for a jab,” said the health minister, Jens Spahn.
Germany had previously said it lacked sufficient data to approve the vaccine for older people, but has changed its position following recent studies. “The new data also shows that the vaccine is even more effective when the first and second jabs are administered 12 weeks apart,” said Spahn.
It wasn't just a bad call, it was one of the worst calls in the history of public health. His only defence is that lots of other countries did the same. USA, Canada, France. But we were one of the SLOWEST to do our inevitable 180 handbrake turn
Does it matter? Well, yes it does. The UK, because of its fearsome outbreak, now faces a dire economic situation. Much worse than, say, Germany - or many others. Because we had to lockdown so hard in the end, because we fucked up things like masking. Because of people like Van Tam
Politicians must be held to account for this disaster. But that doesn't excuse the scientists. It is their exact job to get these things right. I knew by March 1 2020 that masks were vital, and oh-so-easy, by doing a bit of reading. I realised that they work because they protect OTHERS. I'm a humble flint knapper, these are so-called experts
Sack them
What's it worth?
Oh you mean the deal and not the fair value of my bet
Not sure, good news for Scotch whisky producers.
https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1367187418340851724
Thinking about other people - it’ll never catch on...
His mother died at the hands of the media before he was a teenager, there were many allegations that his grandfather ordered the assassination of his mother.
The divorce and adultery of his parents were played out in public, all of that has to have an impact on you.
It explains his drug use, racist language, and his love of parties which have all hinted at an unhappy life.
He tried to follow tradition, a European prince going to the middle east to kill muslims, and the media ruined that as well.
No wonder he despises the media.
I know you are cross about the amount of debt, as am I, but I don`t think that makes Sunak/Johnson not conservatives to be honest - think what the LP would have done if they were managing this. If you think the CP have turned the piss stream up to 10 the LP would have managed 11.
Starmer said that amongst other things sending jobs to Darlington was "giving up". That was snipped to say that . . . amongst other things sending jobs to Darlington was "giving up". He didn't disagree with what was quoted, its not misrepresented at all.
I voted to Leave (and it was a close call: I decided on the day) because I really did think we would move to a lower tax, more deregulated economy. Not Singapore-on-Thames, that was always a pipe-dream, but definitely something more nimble.
We are not getting that, because Covid. Instead, we are getting a high tax, low growth economy, essentially a European economy, but without the benefits of the European Single Market, Customs Union or Freedom of Movement. We will be a kind of particularly isolated France, minus the sunshine and vasty fields.
Meanwhile we have destabilised Northern Ireland, fuelled Scottish indy (maybe even Welsh indy), we have divided the nation bitterly and we face a decade of austerity. The future will be dominated by bitter quarrels with Brussels, from which we gain very little.
It is most unfortunate. Brexit could have worked. It might still work in 10-20 years. But in the short-medium term, Covid has turned Brexit into a nightmare. The worst case scenario
But I would choose Styal over Hope, but Dore over Styal.
Clearly Mr Van Tam has never been east of Suez, despite having a "good professor friend in Hong Kong who tells me insane untruths"
Glasgow and Dublin are at growing risk of being cut from the list of hosts for this summer's European Championship.
With fewer than 100 days until the delayed Euros, Uefa wants each of the countries staging matches to submit their plans - including for the return of fans - by a deadline of 7 April.
Organisers say they still hope to stage matches at the 12 venues as planned.
But the Scottish and Irish governments are yet to provide assurances whether fans will be allowed back by June.
And Uefa is understood to be increasingly concerned they may have to strip Glasgow and Dublin of their matches.
Both Hampden Park and the Aviva Stadium are due to stage four games.
According to one source with knowledge of tournament planning, the position on fans in Dublin and Glasgow is currently "very bad", with the respective governments "taking a much tighter approach to Covid than other cities".
On Wednesday, Scotland's Health Secretary Jeane Freeman said that being part of the Euros was "a really big deal" for her country.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56250120
I would choose both Dore and Hope over Styal. I like hills.
Either Charles knows nothing in which case you can ignore what he says, or he is acquainted with them and has shown himself a knave by voicing his opinions.
The Darlington branch of the Royal Opera House - where would that go?
If you don't happen to live in Darlington, though, it might not cut through.