Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Democrats look to be weathering the California Recall Election – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 4 in General
imageDemocrats look to be weathering the California Recall Election – politicalbetting.com

On Tuesday 14 September California votes on whether to replace the Governor, Gavin Newsom. California has a strong ‘recall election’ law, allowing ad hoc challenges to be made against incumbents. Indeed, virtually every Governor for the last few decades has faced serious attempts at a recall election, though none has made it to the number of signatures required to trigger a full ballot since 2003 (the one where Arnold Schwarzenegger won).

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,035
    Having just come from CA and talked to various people in Sacramento and LA I'd agree with this assessment.

    I'd also add the utterly dismal quality of the Republican candidate, whom even some of his supporters have acknowleged is unfit for the post. If the Republicans had had an Arnie waiting, they might be favourites.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,035
    The other thing I've picked up during a couple of months on the West Coast is big disillusionment about Biden, especially but not only over Afghanistan, and especially amongst my moderate friends who were at first glad to see the back of Trump. I don't think the hit from the withdrawal from Kabul is going to be temporary.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    edited September 4
    Good morning everyone. Interesting comments above about disillusionment with Biden and the 'dismal' Republican candidate .
    Looks like the US isn't in a good place at all.

    Slight improvement in the weather here; some sun yesterday and 12degC early this morning. Cloud cover looks a bit thinner, too.

    However, all is not well chez Cole; plumber came to service the boiler yesterday and some work needs to be done. Not very expensive, but enough to be disturbing.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,827
    TheProle’s insurance proposal for social care is along the right lines. Should be compulsory though to prevent moral hazard of people only taking it out when needed. And I suspect the insurance scheme needs to be a state organised one.

    A hypothecated one off wealth tax at age 60, payable in one go or spread over the rest of your life, would do it. Max’s feckless baby boomers would have to pay for their own costs without leaning on the next generation. And Cyclefree’s ungrateful Gen X to Alpha will pay too, when the time comes. Everyone’s a winner.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719
    The talking heads on Sky News this morning were not enthusiastic about 12-15 year olds getting the jab. Why? Because the government is thinking of doing it. The level of partisanship in this country is growing (on both sides).
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,827
    On Grenfell impact on the housing market. Cyclefree’s instincts on this right, perhaps Robert hasn’t seen what chaos it’s caused up close and personal. I’ve heard some very sad stories indeed from young strivers who now have a millstone around their neck with no obvious way out.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    tlg86 said:

    The talking heads on Sky News this morning were not enthusiastic about 12-15 year olds getting the jab. Why? Because the government is thinking of doing it. The level of partisanship in this country is growing (on both sides).

    Quite. This isn't a 'good' government; barely a half-competent one, but opposing an idea simply because of who suggested it is foolish.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    @Anabobazina FPT

    My grandfather’s younger brother was gay so moved to Switzerland after the war because he suffered from several asthma. He had to live somewhere… so split his time between Lutzern and Grindelwald.

    But I have cousins who live in France and Belgium as well as an uncle who spends time in Italy and Greece.

    So we are a fairly cosmopolitan lot despite our deep roots in the UK and Ireland
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?

    Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Good morning, everyone.

    Bit weird. I got logged out upon refreshing, then later magically was logged back in (I didn't log in myself).
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. Walker, is that a permanent departure?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609

    Mr. Walker, is that a permanent departure?

    It is rumoured thus.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. Walker, a great shame if so, Neil's an excellent interviewer and one of few political journalists with a brain in his head.
  • tlg86 said:

    The talking heads on Sky News this morning were not enthusiastic about 12-15 year olds getting the jab. Why? Because the government is thinking of doing it. The level of partisanship in this country is growing (on both sides).

    The decision is to be made by the four nations chief medical officers together, so no part of the UK will be out of sync and it will be hard to attack

  • Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?

    Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.

    Who cares to be honest
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,821
    On topic WH reacted very quickly to these tips.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,478

    tlg86 said:

    The talking heads on Sky News this morning were not enthusiastic about 12-15 year olds getting the jab. Why? Because the government is thinking of doing it. The level of partisanship in this country is growing (on both sides).

    The decision is to be made by the four nations chief medical officers together, so no part of the UK will be out of sync and it will be hard to attack

    Antivaxxers can now point to the JCVI decision.
    And how Adam Finn finds the case for vaccinating 16-17 Yr olds 'very compelling' but doesn't recommend for 12-15 is astonishing.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,524
    edited September 4

    Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?

    Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.

    I used to love This Week, but he got carried away towards the end with his opening monologues. A bit long of himself. It got a bit too silly overall as well.

    GB News won’t suffer any of that nonsense - only hard hitting news and opinion from serious heavyweights

    https://twitter.com/gbnews/status/1433863614419644421?s=21
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    isam said:

    Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?

    Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.

    I used to love This Week, but he got carried away towards the end with his opening monologues. A bit long of himself. It got a bit too silly overall as well.

    GB News won’t suffer any of that nonsense - only hard hitting news and opinion from serious heavyweights

    https://twitter.com/gbnews/status/1433863614419644421?s=21
    Christopher Biggins (rumoured to post on here as Big G) says he voted for Brexit, then says he has “lots of friends with businesses who have suffered badly”.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594
    isam said:

    Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?

    Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.

    I used to love This Week, but he got carried away towards the end with his opening monologues. A bit long of himself. It got a bit too silly overall as well.

    GB News won’t suffer any of that nonsense - only hard hitting news and opinion from serious heavyweights

    https://twitter.com/gbnews/status/1433863614419644421?s=21
    Telegraph reporting Neil will resign next week.

    UK's version of Fox News can begin in earnest. Another baleful moment in our recent history.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,498

    Telegraph reporting Neil will resign next week.

    UK's version of Fox News can begin in earnest. Another baleful moment in our recent history.

    The revolution eats it's Dad...
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    edited September 4

    isam said:

    Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?

    Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.

    I used to love This Week, but he got carried away towards the end with his opening monologues. A bit long of himself. It got a bit too silly overall as well.

    GB News won’t suffer any of that nonsense - only hard hitting news and opinion from serious heavyweights

    https://twitter.com/gbnews/status/1433863614419644421?s=21
    Telegraph reporting Neil will resign next week.

    UK's version of Fox News can begin in earnest. Another baleful moment in our recent history.

    As predicted by several on here (the Fox News bit). But no, others said, diversity is to be welcomed.

    Because polarisation is working so well in America.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,733

    Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?

    Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.

    Who cares to be honest
    I thought you, in particular, were looking for a British version of FoxNews to cut through the mainstream fake, liberal-elite news agenda you claimed Kay Burley peddled.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    The talking heads on Sky News this morning were not enthusiastic about 12-15 year olds getting the jab. Why? Because the government is thinking of doing it. The level of partisanship in this country is growing (on both sides).

    The decision is to be made by the four nations chief medical officers together, so no part of the UK will be out of sync and it will be hard to attack

    Antivaxxers can now point to the JCVI decision.
    And how Adam Finn finds the case for vaccinating 16-17 Yr olds 'very compelling' but doesn't recommend for 12-15 is astonishing.
    On this specific point I can understand it. Children are not small adults from a biology point of view. But 16-17 year olds are much closer. Plus if there is crossing point from not vaccinating to vaccinating based on age, then near that point will be a decision. It’s really clear now that the jcvi have only considered the very narrow health impacts of vaccination vs not vaccination for the 12-15 year olds. They specifically have not looked at what happens in schools if kids are isolating etc. I now expect the programme to go ahead soon, with the jcvi not blocking it, but agnostic.
  • isam said:

    Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?

    Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.

    I used to love This Week, but he got carried away towards the end with his opening monologues. A bit long of himself. It got a bit too silly overall as well.

    GB News won’t suffer any of that nonsense - only hard hitting news and opinion from serious heavyweights

    https://twitter.com/gbnews/status/1433863614419644421?s=21
    Christopher Biggins (rumoured to post on here as Big G) says he voted for Brexit, then says he has “lots of friends with businesses who have suffered badly”.
    You are just ridiculous and question my integrity

    I voted remain and am happy to accept the vote of the referendum

    I watched GB news for 48 hours and have not watched it since and could not care less about Andrew Neil

    Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit
  • TresTres Posts: 595
    moonshine said:

    TheProle’s insurance proposal for social care is along the right lines. Should be compulsory though to prevent moral hazard of people only taking it out when needed. And I suspect the insurance scheme needs to be a state organised one.

    A hypothecated one off wealth tax at age 60, payable in one go or spread over the rest of your life, would do it. Max’s feckless baby boomers would have to pay for their own costs without leaning on the next generation. And Cyclefree’s ungrateful Gen X to Alpha will pay too, when the time comes. Everyone’s a winner.

    boomers are way past 60 now so wouldn't be affected.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,524

    Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?

    Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.

    Who cares to be honest
    I thought you, in particular, were looking for a British version of FoxNews to cut through the mainstream fake, liberal-elite news agenda you claimed Kay Burley peddled.
    GMB’s presenters have been known to be less than impartial too 🤨

    https://youtu.be/-leURXzhKIk
  • Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?

    Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.

    Who cares to be honest
    I thought you, in particular, were looking for a British version of FoxNews to cut through the mainstream fake, liberal-elite news agenda you claimed Kay Burley peddled.
    I have already said several times I do not watch GBnews and now have BBC news in the background

    I would not watch Burley anymore than Andrew Neil

    And I am no longer a member of the conservative party
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 902

    isam said:

    Did we miss the news that Andrew Neil is off from GBTV?

    Seems like he was used by the owners to get an OFCOM license and now that they’re up and running they can pursue the alt-right digital meme generator they always wanted to.

    I used to love This Week, but he got carried away towards the end with his opening monologues. A bit long of himself. It got a bit too silly overall as well.

    GB News won’t suffer any of that nonsense - only hard hitting news and opinion from serious heavyweights

    https://twitter.com/gbnews/status/1433863614419644421?s=21
    Telegraph reporting Neil will resign next week.

    UK's version of Fox News can begin in earnest. Another baleful moment in our recent history.

    If it's any consolation, I doubt that it'll make very much difference in the grand scheme of things. Audiences for dedicated news channels aren't exactly huge, I doubt this one will be any different, and we already have a precedent in this country. Some taxi drivers, conspiracy theorists, former Scottish First Ministers and such like already swear that only Russia Today tells the truth about the world. There just aren't that many of them, that's all.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,524
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    The talking heads on Sky News this morning were not enthusiastic about 12-15 year olds getting the jab. Why? Because the government is thinking of doing it. The level of partisanship in this country is growing (on both sides).

    The decision is to be made by the four nations chief medical officers together, so no part of the UK will be out of sync and it will be hard to attack

    Antivaxxers can now point to the JCVI decision.
    And how Adam Finn finds the case for vaccinating 16-17 Yr olds 'very compelling' but doesn't recommend for 12-15 is astonishing.
    My gf had her first jab yesterday - it seemed to be just not worth the risk of being heavily pregnant and unvaccinated with 30k cases a day, and the over representation of pregnant women in ICU. But apparently her second jab isn’t until late November… does that sound right?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594
    On NI hike:

    "The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"

    (Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)

    Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.


  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554
    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    The talking heads on Sky News this morning were not enthusiastic about 12-15 year olds getting the jab. Why? Because the government is thinking of doing it. The level of partisanship in this country is growing (on both sides).

    The decision is to be made by the four nations chief medical officers together, so no part of the UK will be out of sync and it will be hard to attack

    Antivaxxers can now point to the JCVI decision.
    And how Adam Finn finds the case for vaccinating 16-17 Yr olds 'very compelling' but doesn't recommend for 12-15 is astonishing.
    My gf had her first jab yesterday - it seemed to be just not worth the risk of being heavily pregnant and unvaccinated with 30k cases a day, and the over representation of pregnant women in ICU. But apparently her second jab isn’t until late November… does that sound right?
    Suggests more than 8 weeks, which does sound wrong.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    The talking heads on Sky News this morning were not enthusiastic about 12-15 year olds getting the jab. Why? Because the government is thinking of doing it. The level of partisanship in this country is growing (on both sides).

    The decision is to be made by the four nations chief medical officers together, so no part of the UK will be out of sync and it will be hard to attack

    Antivaxxers can now point to the JCVI decision.
    And how Adam Finn finds the case for vaccinating 16-17 Yr olds 'very compelling' but doesn't recommend for 12-15 is astonishing.
    On this specific point I can understand it. Children are not small adults from a biology point of view. But 16-17 year olds are much closer. Plus if there is crossing point from not vaccinating to vaccinating based on age, then near that point will be a decision. It’s really clear now that the jcvi have only considered the very narrow health impacts of vaccination vs not vaccination for the 12-15 year olds. They specifically have not looked at what happens in schools if kids are isolating etc. I now expect the programme to go ahead soon, with the jcvi not blocking it, but agnostic.
    As I understand it they have said that the balance of risk for the individual child, based on the data they have before them so far , is to not vaccinate. iirc the #s are pretty tiny but seem clear: 2 or 3 per million might die from covid, whereas maybe a ≈ dozen per million would be expected to get the heart inflammation from the vax.

    As Pagel has pointed out they didn't look or at least didn't mention Long Covid.

    The mood music this morning seems to indicate they will be overruled and the vaxxing will start within days.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540

    On NI hike:

    "The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"

    (Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)

    Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.


    When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609

    On NI hike:

    "The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"

    (Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)

    Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.


    PB is often ahead of the news cycle. Or, commentary cycle.

    See Dixie’s note last thread that a decade of austerity (and tax rises) awaits. Lazy commentators are still locked into the idea that this is the biggest spending Tory government ever, which is only true superficially.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609
    IanB2 said:

    On NI hike:

    "The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"

    (Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)

    Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.


    When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?
    That would be never.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    The talking heads on Sky News this morning were not enthusiastic about 12-15 year olds getting the jab. Why? Because the government is thinking of doing it. The level of partisanship in this country is growing (on both sides).

    The decision is to be made by the four nations chief medical officers together, so no part of the UK will be out of sync and it will be hard to attack

    Antivaxxers can now point to the JCVI decision.
    And how Adam Finn finds the case for vaccinating 16-17 Yr olds 'very compelling' but doesn't recommend for 12-15 is astonishing.
    On this specific point I can understand it. Children are not small adults from a biology point of view. But 16-17 year olds are much closer. Plus if there is crossing point from not vaccinating to vaccinating based on age, then near that point will be a decision. It’s really clear now that the jcvi have only considered the very narrow health impacts of vaccination vs not vaccination for the 12-15 year olds. They specifically have not looked at what happens in schools if kids are isolating etc. I now expect the programme to go ahead soon, with the jcvi not blocking it, but agnostic.
    As I understand it they have said that the balance of risk for the individual child, based on the data they have before them so far , is to not vaccinate. iirc the #s are pretty tiny but seem clear: 2 or 3 per million might die from covid, whereas maybe a ≈ dozen per million would be expected to get the heart inflammation from the vax.

    As Pagel has pointed out they didn't look or at least didn't mention Long Covid.

    The mood music this morning seems to indicate they will be overruled and the vaxxing will start within days.
    I think pagel is one who is massively overstating long Covid in children. The study this week suggests it’s actually a lot less than the 1 in 7 I keep seeing from iSAGE. Ultimately this isn’t going to matter as the four CMO’s will give the go ahead shortly.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    The talking heads on Sky News this morning were not enthusiastic about 12-15 year olds getting the jab. Why? Because the government is thinking of doing it. The level of partisanship in this country is growing (on both sides).

    The decision is to be made by the four nations chief medical officers together, so no part of the UK will be out of sync and it will be hard to attack

    Antivaxxers can now point to the JCVI decision.
    And how Adam Finn finds the case for vaccinating 16-17 Yr olds 'very compelling' but doesn't recommend for 12-15 is astonishing.
    My gf had her first jab yesterday - it seemed to be just not worth the risk of being heavily pregnant and unvaccinated with 30k cases a day, and the over representation of pregnant women in ICU. But apparently her second jab isn’t until late November… does that sound right?
    That sounds like she has been given a 12 week interval - which was the original one - as a default but you should be able to rebook for 8 weeks (ie early Nov). Don’t know if it’s different for pregnant women though.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,771
    Tres said:

    moonshine said:

    TheProle’s insurance proposal for social care is along the right lines. Should be compulsory though to prevent moral hazard of people only taking it out when needed. And I suspect the insurance scheme needs to be a state organised one.

    A hypothecated one off wealth tax at age 60, payable in one go or spread over the rest of your life, would do it. Max’s feckless baby boomers would have to pay for their own costs without leaning on the next generation. And Cyclefree’s ungrateful Gen X to Alpha will pay too, when the time comes. Everyone’s a winner.

    boomers are way past 60 now so wouldn't be affected.
    1946-64. Youngest are 56.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 902

    On NI hike:

    "The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"

    (Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)

    Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.

    This is eminently possible, of course. If things carry on as they are then, eventually, local authorities will be able to afford to do nothing other than wipe the backsides of the demented, if they haven't already gone bankrupt trying to keep non-essential fripparies (e.g. libraries, bin collections and child social services) going before that point. But we're still some distance from that point.

    So long as the councils are still there to blame for any deficiencies in elderly arse wiping, the temptation to funnel away all the money to correct deficiencies in hospital care, for which the Government is more likely to be blamed directly, must be huge.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,498
    IanB2 said:

    When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?

    My local surgery waiting room is empty. There are no appointments...
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554
    Scott_xP said:

    IanB2 said:

    When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?

    My local surgery waiting room is empty. There are no appointments...
    Mine too - they only let you in when the gp is ready to see you...
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,609

    Scott_xP said:

    IanB2 said:

    When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?

    My local surgery waiting room is empty. There are no appointments...
    Mine too - they only let you in when the gp is ready to see you...
    My GP service is no longer accessible.
    Slightly less importantly, Royal Mail doesn’t really seem to work anymore either.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    The talking heads on Sky News this morning were not enthusiastic about 12-15 year olds getting the jab. Why? Because the government is thinking of doing it. The level of partisanship in this country is growing (on both sides).

    The decision is to be made by the four nations chief medical officers together, so no part of the UK will be out of sync and it will be hard to attack

    Antivaxxers can now point to the JCVI decision.
    And how Adam Finn finds the case for vaccinating 16-17 Yr olds 'very compelling' but doesn't recommend for 12-15 is astonishing.
    On this specific point I can understand it. Children are not small adults from a biology point of view. But 16-17 year olds are much closer. Plus if there is crossing point from not vaccinating to vaccinating based on age, then near that point will be a decision. It’s really clear now that the jcvi have only considered the very narrow health impacts of vaccination vs not vaccination for the 12-15 year olds. They specifically have not looked at what happens in schools if kids are isolating etc. I now expect the programme to go ahead soon, with the jcvi not blocking it, but agnostic.
    As I understand it they have said that the balance of risk for the individual child, based on the data they have before them so far , is to not vaccinate. iirc the #s are pretty tiny but seem clear: 2 or 3 per million might die from covid, whereas maybe a ≈ dozen per million would be expected to get the heart inflammation from the vax.

    As Pagel has pointed out they didn't look or at least didn't mention Long Covid.

    The mood music this morning seems to indicate they will be overruled and the vaxxing will start within days.
    I think what we will see is parents being given the option but with clear encouragement to get it done. And I think that the majority will. As they should. Whilst the marginal risk/benefit for 12-15 year olds is not as overwhelming as it is for the older cohorts it is still in their favour with a considerable societal upside.
  • pigeon said:

    On NI hike:

    "The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"

    (Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)

    Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.

    This is eminently possible, of course. If things carry on as they are then, eventually, local authorities will be able to afford to do nothing other than wipe the backsides of the demented, if they haven't already gone bankrupt trying to keep non-essential fripparies (e.g. libraries, bin collections and child social services) going before that point. But we're still some distance from that point.

    So long as the councils are still there to blame for any deficiencies in elderly arse wiping, the temptation to funnel away all the money to correct deficiencies in hospital care, for which the Government is more likely to be blamed directly, must be huge.
    I would just gently suggest that the elderly often need intensive personal care through no fault but their own ageing and the way you describe them is maybe a wee bit unnecessary

    Furthermore, seeing ones loved ones falling victim to dementia is one of the most distressing experiences one can go through
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. Pigeon, bin collections are essential.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,524

    Scott_xP said:

    IanB2 said:

    When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?

    My local surgery waiting room is empty. There are no appointments...
    Mine too - they only let you in when the gp is ready to see you...
    My GP service is no longer accessible.
    Slightly less importantly, Royal Mail doesn’t really seem to work anymore either.
    Property prices in Upminster should be even higher than they are. We have been getting GP appts same day, or next at worst, and there are no empty shelves in any of the supermarkets.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594
    IshmaelZ said:

    Tres said:

    moonshine said:

    TheProle’s insurance proposal for social care is along the right lines. Should be compulsory though to prevent moral hazard of people only taking it out when needed. And I suspect the insurance scheme needs to be a state organised one.

    A hypothecated one off wealth tax at age 60, payable in one go or spread over the rest of your life, would do it. Max’s feckless baby boomers would have to pay for their own costs without leaning on the next generation. And Cyclefree’s ungrateful Gen X to Alpha will pay too, when the time comes. Everyone’s a winner.

    boomers are way past 60 now so wouldn't be affected.
    1946-64. Youngest are 56.
    It has always been ridiculous to count those born in early 1960s as boomers imho.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 902
    Scott_xP said:

    IanB2 said:

    When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?

    My local surgery waiting room is empty. There are no appointments...
    One suspects that there are some GPs who found being relieved of a constant conveyor belt of smelly patients trundling through their consulting rooms very welcome, and would rather not go back to the way things were ever again. The same probably goes double for teachers exhausted from dealing with other people's children and the emotional baggage/evil behaviour that some of them bring into school.

    Telemedicine is, in truth, a very positive development - notably for managing chronic conditions, especially in older people, without having to force them to drag themselves to and from surgeries every few weeks - but it'll do more harm than good if used simply as an excuse to follow much of the retail sector, shut up shop and take everything online.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280
    To be honest I have not been paying much attention to the recall petition but my vague understanding is that there was not a Republican candidate but rather a plethora of candidates, none of whom were setting the heather alight and a real risk that someone could win with a somewhat derisory share of the vote if the recall was granted. That always seemed to me to be a compelling reason to vote against recall in the first place.

    It's another idiotic system from a country that specialises in them. Really bad systems that can just about work when there is a central consensus but shown to be useless as the country becomes ever more partisan and incapable of having a useful conversation about what is needed.

    These sorts of divisions are very damaging in politics. We have been victims of it in Scotland on the independence issue for nearly 20 years now and the UK has similar problems with Brexit. Politicians really need to be more aware of the risks, to be moderate and temperate in their language and to find common ground where they can. But they won't.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    Scott_xP said:

    IanB2 said:

    When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?

    My local surgery waiting room is empty. There are no appointments...
    Harsh but fair...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    The talking heads on Sky News this morning were not enthusiastic about 12-15 year olds getting the jab. Why? Because the government is thinking of doing it. The level of partisanship in this country is growing (on both sides).

    The decision is to be made by the four nations chief medical officers together, so no part of the UK will be out of sync and it will be hard to attack

    Antivaxxers can now point to the JCVI decision.
    And how Adam Finn finds the case for vaccinating 16-17 Yr olds 'very compelling' but doesn't recommend for 12-15 is astonishing.
    On this specific point I can understand it. Children are not small adults from a biology point of view. But 16-17 year olds are much closer. Plus if there is crossing point from not vaccinating to vaccinating based on age, then near that point will be a decision. It’s really clear now that the jcvi have only considered the very narrow health impacts of vaccination vs not vaccination for the 12-15 year olds. They specifically have not looked at what happens in schools if kids are isolating etc. I now expect the programme to go ahead soon, with the jcvi not blocking it, but agnostic.
    As I understand it they have said that the balance of risk for the individual child, based on the data they have before them so far , is to not vaccinate. iirc the #s are pretty tiny but seem clear: 2 or 3 per million might die from covid, whereas maybe a ≈ dozen per million would be expected to get the heart inflammation from the vax.

    As Pagel has pointed out they didn't look or at least didn't mention Long Covid.

    The mood music this morning seems to indicate they will be overruled and the vaxxing will start within days.
    I think pagel is one who is massively overstating long Covid in children. The study this week suggests it’s actually a lot less than the 1 in 7 I keep seeing from iSAGE. Ultimately this isn’t going to matter as the four CMO’s will give the go ahead shortly.
    Oh I agree. The numbers iSAGE throw around about humongous numbers of people stricken with long covid aren't backed up as far as I can see.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,980
    edited September 4

    On NI hike:

    "The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"

    (Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)

    Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.


    If we expand social care without immigration, I think wages need to rise by about 20-30% to make it attractive (and fairer on the staff to be honest). Then we need to train those people, provide more facilities and we have an ageing population.

    Regardless of who pays or how, I would be surprised if we can do social care well over the next decade well as a society without paying at least 50% more in real terms than we currently do.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280

    IshmaelZ said:

    Tres said:

    moonshine said:

    TheProle’s insurance proposal for social care is along the right lines. Should be compulsory though to prevent moral hazard of people only taking it out when needed. And I suspect the insurance scheme needs to be a state organised one.

    A hypothecated one off wealth tax at age 60, payable in one go or spread over the rest of your life, would do it. Max’s feckless baby boomers would have to pay for their own costs without leaning on the next generation. And Cyclefree’s ungrateful Gen X to Alpha will pay too, when the time comes. Everyone’s a winner.

    boomers are way past 60 now so wouldn't be affected.
    1946-64. Youngest are 56.
    It has always been ridiculous to count those born in early 1960s as boomers imho.
    Agreed. I was born in 61 and have always thought of the boomers as being 5-10 years older than me.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 902

    Mr. Pigeon, bin collections are essential.

    I was being sarcastic.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. Pigeon, ah, sorry.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,980
    isam said:

    Scott_xP said:

    IanB2 said:

    When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?

    My local surgery waiting room is empty. There are no appointments...
    Mine too - they only let you in when the gp is ready to see you...
    My GP service is no longer accessible.
    Slightly less importantly, Royal Mail doesn’t really seem to work anymore either.
    Property prices in Upminster should be even higher than they are. We have been getting GP appts same day, or next at worst, and there are no empty shelves in any of the supermarkets.
    A quick google suggests the local windmill is the third best thing to do in Upminster. Sounds to me like one of the places that will suffer most from wfh in the long run.

    https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g1635501-d2229341-Reviews-Upminster_Windmill-Upminster_Greater_London_England.html
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280

    On NI hike:

    "The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"

    (Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)

    Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.


    If we expand social care without immigration, I think wages need to rise by about 20-30% to make it attractive (and fairer on the staff to be honest). Then we need to train those people, provide more facilities and we have an ageing population.

    Regardless of who pays or how, I would be surprised if we can do social care well over the next decade well as a society without paying at least 50% more in real terms than we currently do.
    I think that is a serious underestimate. The system has worked really badly on a broken shoestring. To come close to meeting the actual need, let alone address the demographic pressures, we are probably talking multiples of the current spend.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 902

    pigeon said:

    On NI hike:

    "The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"

    (Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)

    Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.

    This is eminently possible, of course. If things carry on as they are then, eventually, local authorities will be able to afford to do nothing other than wipe the backsides of the demented, if they haven't already gone bankrupt trying to keep non-essential fripparies (e.g. libraries, bin collections and child social services) going before that point. But we're still some distance from that point.

    So long as the councils are still there to blame for any deficiencies in elderly arse wiping, the temptation to funnel away all the money to correct deficiencies in hospital care, for which the Government is more likely to be blamed directly, must be huge.
    I would just gently suggest that the elderly often need intensive personal care through no fault but their own ageing and the way you describe them is maybe a wee bit unnecessary

    Furthermore, seeing ones loved ones falling victim to dementia is one of the most distressing experiences one can go through
    I am well aware of that and have personal experience of seeing an older relative disintegrate through Alzheimers. However, this is a frequently rather knockabout political website, not an Age UK dementia support forum. I pick my language according to circumstances.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,733
    IshmaelZ said:

    Tres said:

    moonshine said:

    TheProle’s insurance proposal for social care is along the right lines. Should be compulsory though to prevent moral hazard of people only taking it out when needed. And I suspect the insurance scheme needs to be a state organised one.

    A hypothecated one off wealth tax at age 60, payable in one go or spread over the rest of your life, would do it. Max’s feckless baby boomers would have to pay for their own costs without leaning on the next generation. And Cyclefree’s ungrateful Gen X to Alpha will pay too, when the time comes. Everyone’s a winner.

    boomers are way past 60 now so wouldn't be affected.
    1946-64. Youngest are 56.
    In that case as a tail-end boomer I can tell you it feels like we have had the short end of the stick throughout.

    From high unemployment in the late 1970s and 1980s meaning we took what jobs were available rather than what we wanted, to having the pension rug pulled from under us. This in terms of both quality of schemes available (death of the final salary) and an uplifting of the claimant age for the state pension.

    My late father and his colleagues were taking their substantial employment pensions so they could be on the golf course every morning at 09.00 from the age of 61.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,980
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    The talking heads on Sky News this morning were not enthusiastic about 12-15 year olds getting the jab. Why? Because the government is thinking of doing it. The level of partisanship in this country is growing (on both sides).

    The decision is to be made by the four nations chief medical officers together, so no part of the UK will be out of sync and it will be hard to attack

    Antivaxxers can now point to the JCVI decision.
    And how Adam Finn finds the case for vaccinating 16-17 Yr olds 'very compelling' but doesn't recommend for 12-15 is astonishing.
    On this specific point I can understand it. Children are not small adults from a biology point of view. But 16-17 year olds are much closer. Plus if there is crossing point from not vaccinating to vaccinating based on age, then near that point will be a decision. It’s really clear now that the jcvi have only considered the very narrow health impacts of vaccination vs not vaccination for the 12-15 year olds. They specifically have not looked at what happens in schools if kids are isolating etc. I now expect the programme to go ahead soon, with the jcvi not blocking it, but agnostic.
    As I understand it they have said that the balance of risk for the individual child, based on the data they have before them so far , is to not vaccinate. iirc the #s are pretty tiny but seem clear: 2 or 3 per million might die from covid, whereas maybe a ≈ dozen per million would be expected to get the heart inflammation from the vax.

    As Pagel has pointed out they didn't look or at least didn't mention Long Covid.

    The mood music this morning seems to indicate they will be overruled and the vaxxing will start within days.
    I think what we will see is parents being given the option but with clear encouragement to get it done. And I think that the majority will. As they should. Whilst the marginal risk/benefit for 12-15 year olds is not as overwhelming as it is for the older cohorts it is still in their favour with a considerable societal upside.
    From here, the sensible govt decision is to make it freely available but leave it up to parents to decide rather than recommend either way, beyond re-iterating findings from MHRA and JCVI.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    The talking heads on Sky News this morning were not enthusiastic about 12-15 year olds getting the jab. Why? Because the government is thinking of doing it. The level of partisanship in this country is growing (on both sides).

    The decision is to be made by the four nations chief medical officers together, so no part of the UK will be out of sync and it will be hard to attack

    Antivaxxers can now point to the JCVI decision.
    And how Adam Finn finds the case for vaccinating 16-17 Yr olds 'very compelling' but doesn't recommend for 12-15 is astonishing.
    On this specific point I can understand it. Children are not small adults from a biology point of view. But 16-17 year olds are much closer. Plus if there is crossing point from not vaccinating to vaccinating based on age, then near that point will be a decision. It’s really clear now that the jcvi have only considered the very narrow health impacts of vaccination vs not vaccination for the 12-15 year olds. They specifically have not looked at what happens in schools if kids are isolating etc. I now expect the programme to go ahead soon, with the jcvi not blocking it, but agnostic.
    As I understand it they have said that the balance of risk for the individual child, based on the data they have before them so far , is to not vaccinate. iirc the #s are pretty tiny but seem clear: 2 or 3 per million might die from covid, whereas maybe a ≈ dozen per million would be expected to get the heart inflammation from the vax.

    As Pagel has pointed out they didn't look or at least didn't mention Long Covid.

    The mood music this morning seems to indicate they will be overruled and the vaxxing will start within days.
    I think pagel is one who is massively overstating long Covid in children. The study this week suggests it’s actually a lot less than the 1 in 7 I keep seeing from iSAGE. Ultimately this isn’t going to matter as the four CMO’s will give the go ahead shortly.
    Oh I agree. The numbers iSAGE throw around about humongous numbers of people stricken with long covid aren't backed up as far as I can see.
    Personally I have found the lack of clarity on long Covid very frustrating. I have seen published figures varying from 14% to 0.2% of those infected quoted by apparently reputable sources. The difference that makes to our health system going forward is truly massive.

    When it was thought that majority of those vaccinated would be immune this was an issue. Now that it is apparent that the vast majority of those vaccinated, possibly all, are likely to catch Covid in the medium term it is arguably the largest single issue we face.

    Some of the difference is definitional and it doesn't help that long Covid seems to take so many forms but we really need better information on whether the NHS is going to be dominated by the sequelae of this disease for the next 10 years or not.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,524
    edited September 4

    isam said:

    Scott_xP said:

    IanB2 said:

    When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?

    My local surgery waiting room is empty. There are no appointments...
    Mine too - they only let you in when the gp is ready to see you...
    My GP service is no longer accessible.
    Slightly less importantly, Royal Mail doesn’t really seem to work anymore either.
    Property prices in Upminster should be even higher than they are. We have been getting GP appts same day, or next at worst, and there are no empty shelves in any of the supermarkets.
    A quick google suggests the local windmill is the third best thing to do in Upminster. Sounds to me like one of the places that will suffer most from wfh in the long run.

    https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g1635501-d2229341-Reviews-Upminster_Windmill-Upminster_Greater_London_England.html
    I doubt it. Schools are good. 22 mins on the train to London, which is great even if you don’t work there, 25 the other way to the seaside. Surrounded by countryside. Essex nightlife is famously quite good fun if you’re young free & single…

    That said, I’m moving on Thursday!

    (The third best thing to do is the big dance festival anyway… once a year)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    edited September 4
    F1: may be worth backing Leclerc and Sainz to top, each way, third practice. Ferrari looking racy and with red flags and potential for traffic that may cause problems for Verstappen/Hamilton.

    Edited extra bit: with boost, Sainz is 19 and Leclerc 9.5 at Ladbrokes.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 902

    Mr. Pigeon, ah, sorry.

    's OK. FWIW I frequently fail to pick up these kinds of subtleties in remarks that are made in print rather than in person.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,819
    pigeon said:

    On NI hike:

    "The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"

    (Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)

    Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.

    This is eminently possible, of course. If things carry on as they are then, eventually, local authorities will be able to afford to do nothing other than wipe the backsides of the demented, if they haven't already gone bankrupt trying to keep non-essential fripparies (e.g. libraries, bin collections and child social services) going before that point. But we're still some distance from that point.

    So long as the councils are still there to blame for any deficiencies in elderly arse wiping, the temptation to funnel away all the money to correct deficiencies in hospital care, for which the Government is more likely to be blamed directly, must be huge.
    All those other items are (alongside planning) legally required.

    Up north we know all about this because Austerity took away any spare money for councils with lots of cheap (council tax band A-C) housing.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    The talking heads on Sky News this morning were not enthusiastic about 12-15 year olds getting the jab. Why? Because the government is thinking of doing it. The level of partisanship in this country is growing (on both sides).

    The decision is to be made by the four nations chief medical officers together, so no part of the UK will be out of sync and it will be hard to attack

    Antivaxxers can now point to the JCVI decision.
    And how Adam Finn finds the case for vaccinating 16-17 Yr olds 'very compelling' but doesn't recommend for 12-15 is astonishing.
    On this specific point I can understand it. Children are not small adults from a biology point of view. But 16-17 year olds are much closer. Plus if there is crossing point from not vaccinating to vaccinating based on age, then near that point will be a decision. It’s really clear now that the jcvi have only considered the very narrow health impacts of vaccination vs not vaccination for the 12-15 year olds. They specifically have not looked at what happens in schools if kids are isolating etc. I now expect the programme to go ahead soon, with the jcvi not blocking it, but agnostic.
    As I understand it they have said that the balance of risk for the individual child, based on the data they have before them so far , is to not vaccinate. iirc the #s are pretty tiny but seem clear: 2 or 3 per million might die from covid, whereas maybe a ≈ dozen per million would be expected to get the heart inflammation from the vax.

    As Pagel has pointed out they didn't look or at least didn't mention Long Covid.

    The mood music this morning seems to indicate they will be overruled and the vaxxing will start within days.
    I think pagel is one who is massively overstating long Covid in children. The study this week suggests it’s actually a lot less than the 1 in 7 I keep seeing from iSAGE. Ultimately this isn’t going to matter as the four CMO’s will give the go ahead shortly.
    Oh I agree. The numbers iSAGE throw around about humongous numbers of people stricken with long covid aren't backed up as far as I can see.
    Personally I have found the lack of clarity on long Covid very frustrating. I have seen published figures varying from 14% to 0.2% of those infected quoted by apparently reputable sources. The difference that makes to our health system going forward is truly massive.

    When it was thought that majority of those vaccinated would be immune this was an issue. Now that it is apparent that the vast majority of those vaccinated, possibly all, are likely to catch Covid in the medium term it is arguably the largest single issue we face.

    Some of the difference is definitional and it doesn't help that long Covid seems to take so many forms but we really need better information on whether the NHS is going to be dominated by the sequelae of this disease for the next 10 years or not.
    Excellent post.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,524

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    The talking heads on Sky News this morning were not enthusiastic about 12-15 year olds getting the jab. Why? Because the government is thinking of doing it. The level of partisanship in this country is growing (on both sides).

    The decision is to be made by the four nations chief medical officers together, so no part of the UK will be out of sync and it will be hard to attack

    Antivaxxers can now point to the JCVI decision.
    And how Adam Finn finds the case for vaccinating 16-17 Yr olds 'very compelling' but doesn't recommend for 12-15 is astonishing.
    My gf had her first jab yesterday - it seemed to be just not worth the risk of being heavily pregnant and unvaccinated with 30k cases a day, and the over representation of pregnant women in ICU. But apparently her second jab isn’t until late November… does that sound right?
    November does sound a bit late. But glad your gf decided to get jabbed - I haven't commented before, not wanting to influence. We had a big family debate about my daughter-in-law - 6 months pregnant now. She's had both jabs after much hesitation, and is sure it's the right decision. No side effects, and her and baby thriving. Equally importantly maybe, she just feels so much safer now, and has stopped worrying about her/baby getting Covid - so good psychological effect too.
    A very difficult decision to make, that’s for sure. The midwives and nurses weren’t exactly pushing us towards it early doors - but there have been hundreds of thousands of babies born whose mothers were jabbed by now, and no scare stories that I’ve found, and plenty of horrors from the unvaccinated

    Glad to hear of your DiL… hope it’s the same for us!
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 902
    DavidL said:

    On NI hike:

    "The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"

    (Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)

    Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.


    If we expand social care without immigration, I think wages need to rise by about 20-30% to make it attractive (and fairer on the staff to be honest). Then we need to train those people, provide more facilities and we have an ageing population.

    Regardless of who pays or how, I would be surprised if we can do social care well over the next decade well as a society without paying at least 50% more in real terms than we currently do.
    I think that is a serious underestimate. The system has worked really badly on a broken shoestring. To come close to meeting the actual need, let alone address the demographic pressures, we are probably talking multiples of the current spend.
    That's going to cost the youngsters an absolute fortune when somebody is finally forced to do something about it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Tres said:

    moonshine said:

    TheProle’s insurance proposal for social care is along the right lines. Should be compulsory though to prevent moral hazard of people only taking it out when needed. And I suspect the insurance scheme needs to be a state organised one.

    A hypothecated one off wealth tax at age 60, payable in one go or spread over the rest of your life, would do it. Max’s feckless baby boomers would have to pay for their own costs without leaning on the next generation. And Cyclefree’s ungrateful Gen X to Alpha will pay too, when the time comes. Everyone’s a winner.

    boomers are way past 60 now so wouldn't be affected.
    1946-64. Youngest are 56.
    It has always been ridiculous to count those born in early 1960s as boomers imho.
    Agreed. I was born in 61 and have always thought of the boomers as being 5-10 years older than me.
    I was born in autumn 1964, as a tail end of the Boomers. Mrs Foxy is a year younger, so Gen X, but really quite an artificial divide. I think I am a better fit sociologically for Gen X.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    Shame the recall may not happen, it'd be an exciting time. Though that every givrtnkr for decades faces efforts to recall them (though few get to a recall vote) does suggest it is far too easy to try it.

    On GB news Neil may have a giant ego and be long in the tooth but he brought some credibility and was prominent. Going so soon looks bad.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,914



    Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit

    Come on over to the Greens. 🌻
  • isam said:

    Scott_xP said:

    IanB2 said:

    When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?

    My local surgery waiting room is empty. There are no appointments...
    Mine too - they only let you in when the gp is ready to see you...
    My GP service is no longer accessible.
    Slightly less importantly, Royal Mail doesn’t really seem to work anymore either.
    Property prices in Upminster should be even higher than they are. We have been getting GP appts same day, or next at worst, and there are no empty shelves in any of the supermarkets.
    A quick google suggests the local windmill is the third best thing to do in Upminster. Sounds to me like one of the places that will suffer most from wfh in the long run.

    https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g1635501-d2229341-Reviews-Upminster_Windmill-Upminster_Greater_London_England.html
    Outer suburban London is pleasant enough if you like that sort of thing. There is a risk of some London fringe places falling between multiple stools; too far out from London to really enjoy the fun, too close to London to get the positive vibes of space and remoteness, too diffuse and insufficient people to generate a life of their own. Just outside the M25 (the sort of places that were developed in the 21st century) might be more at risk than inter-War places just inside.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,769
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Tres said:

    moonshine said:

    TheProle’s insurance proposal for social care is along the right lines. Should be compulsory though to prevent moral hazard of people only taking it out when needed. And I suspect the insurance scheme needs to be a state organised one.

    A hypothecated one off wealth tax at age 60, payable in one go or spread over the rest of your life, would do it. Max’s feckless baby boomers would have to pay for their own costs without leaning on the next generation. And Cyclefree’s ungrateful Gen X to Alpha will pay too, when the time comes. Everyone’s a winner.

    boomers are way past 60 now so wouldn't be affected.
    1946-64. Youngest are 56.
    It has always been ridiculous to count those born in early 1960s as boomers imho.
    Agreed. I was born in 61 and have always thought of the boomers as being 5-10 years older than me.
    I was born in autumn 1964, as a tail end of the Boomers. Mrs Foxy is a year younger, so Gen X, but really quite an artificial divide. I think I am a better fit sociologically for Gen X.
    The borders between these generations are dubious because the generations themselves are highly dubious.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    Dura_Ace said:



    Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit

    Come on over to the Greens. 🌻
    BigG always has PC if the Greens are too chlorophyll-laden.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963
    edited September 4

    F1: may be worth backing Leclerc and Sainz to top, each way, third practice. Ferrari looking racy and with red flags and potential for traffic that may cause problems for Verstappen/Hamilton.

    Edited extra bit: with boost, Sainz is 19 and Leclerc 9.5 at Ladbrokes.

    Verstappen has just been called to the stewards, for allegedly overtaking when a red flag was shown yesterday. There’s clear video evidence of it, and the standard penalty for such an offence is a five place grid drop.

    The stewards will need an armed escort out of Zandvoort if they do penalise him though, so I suspect they’re trying to find a way out of it.

    In other F1 news, Kimi Raikkonnen is being replaced by Robert Kubica for the remainder of the weekend, the veteran Finn having failed a Covid test.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,819
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Scott_xP said:

    IanB2 said:

    When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?

    My local surgery waiting room is empty. There are no appointments...
    Mine too - they only let you in when the gp is ready to see you...
    My GP service is no longer accessible.
    Slightly less importantly, Royal Mail doesn’t really seem to work anymore either.
    Property prices in Upminster should be even higher than they are. We have been getting GP appts same day, or next at worst, and there are no empty shelves in any of the supermarkets.
    A quick google suggests the local windmill is the third best thing to do in Upminster. Sounds to me like one of the places that will suffer most from wfh in the long run.

    https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g1635501-d2229341-Reviews-Upminster_Windmill-Upminster_Greater_London_England.html
    I doubt it. Schools are good. 22 mins on the train to London, which is great even if you don’t work there, 25 the other way to the seaside. Surrounded by countryside. Essex nightlife is famously quite good fun if you’re young free & single…

    That said, I’m moving on Thursday!

    (The third best thing to do is the big dance festival anyway… once a year)
    To where? How can you improve on an area where a windmill is just the third best attraction.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit

    Come on over to the Greens. 🌻
    BigG always has PC if the Greens are too chlorophyll-laden.
    I once had PC recommended as the closest party to my views on one of those political compass style sites, which was a bit of a surprise. As I couldn't vote for them even if I wanted to I never looked into it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    eek said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Scott_xP said:

    IanB2 said:

    When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?

    My local surgery waiting room is empty. There are no appointments...
    Mine too - they only let you in when the gp is ready to see you...
    My GP service is no longer accessible.
    Slightly less importantly, Royal Mail doesn’t really seem to work anymore either.
    Property prices in Upminster should be even higher than they are. We have been getting GP appts same day, or next at worst, and there are no empty shelves in any of the supermarkets.
    A quick google suggests the local windmill is the third best thing to do in Upminster. Sounds to me like one of the places that will suffer most from wfh in the long run.

    https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g1635501-d2229341-Reviews-Upminster_Windmill-Upminster_Greater_London_England.html
    I doubt it. Schools are good. 22 mins on the train to London, which is great even if you don’t work there, 25 the other way to the seaside. Surrounded by countryside. Essex nightlife is famously quite good fun if you’re young free & single…

    That said, I’m moving on Thursday!

    (The third best thing to do is the big dance festival anyway… once a year)
    To where? How can you improve on an area where a windmill is just the third best attraction.

    A town with windmills sails to the top.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,372
    edited September 4
    The excellent long article in the NS on 10 big reasons for 20 years of Labour decline can be helpfully distilled in chronological order for those without time to read it:

    1) 2001 GE turnout
    2) Iraq
    3) 2004 Romanians etc FOM
    4) 2007 No GE
    5) 2008 Crash
    6) 2010 Clegg turns Tory
    7) 2010 The wrong brother
    8) 2015 SNP
    9) 2017 etc Corbyn delusion
    10) 2016 (and continuing ad infinitum) Brexit


    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/09/labour-s-lost-future-inside-story-20-year-collapse




  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,875

    On NI hike:

    "The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"

    (Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)

    Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.


    So both unfair and ineffective.

    And just kicks the can down the road.

    Typical of this government.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. Sandpit, cheers for the Raikkonen news.

    Shame about Verstappen, given his bad luck elsewhere (this being his own fault, though).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Tres said:

    moonshine said:

    TheProle’s insurance proposal for social care is along the right lines. Should be compulsory though to prevent moral hazard of people only taking it out when needed. And I suspect the insurance scheme needs to be a state organised one.

    A hypothecated one off wealth tax at age 60, payable in one go or spread over the rest of your life, would do it. Max’s feckless baby boomers would have to pay for their own costs without leaning on the next generation. And Cyclefree’s ungrateful Gen X to Alpha will pay too, when the time comes. Everyone’s a winner.

    boomers are way past 60 now so wouldn't be affected.
    1946-64. Youngest are 56.
    It has always been ridiculous to count those born in early 1960s as boomers imho.
    Agreed. I was born in 61 and have always thought of the boomers as being 5-10 years older than me.
    I was born in autumn 1964, as a tail end of the Boomers. Mrs Foxy is a year younger, so Gen X, but really quite an artificial divide. I think I am a better fit sociologically for Gen X.
    The borders between these generations are dubious because the generations themselves are highly dubious.
    I've always found siblings impact perception of which broad generation people are in. I'm just about in what is considered the millennial range, but my eldest sibling was born 13 years earlier, so I tend to think of people 10+ years older as part of my generation whilst those 10 years younger are irritating millennials.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,980

    isam said:

    Scott_xP said:

    IanB2 said:

    When do we get the empty waiting rooms and luxurious surroundings featured in that vote leave video, we should be asking?

    My local surgery waiting room is empty. There are no appointments...
    Mine too - they only let you in when the gp is ready to see you...
    My GP service is no longer accessible.
    Slightly less importantly, Royal Mail doesn’t really seem to work anymore either.
    Property prices in Upminster should be even higher than they are. We have been getting GP appts same day, or next at worst, and there are no empty shelves in any of the supermarkets.
    A quick google suggests the local windmill is the third best thing to do in Upminster. Sounds to me like one of the places that will suffer most from wfh in the long run.

    https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g1635501-d2229341-Reviews-Upminster_Windmill-Upminster_Greater_London_England.html
    Outer suburban London is pleasant enough if you like that sort of thing. There is a risk of some London fringe places falling between multiple stools; too far out from London to really enjoy the fun, too close to London to get the positive vibes of space and remoteness, too diffuse and insufficient people to generate a life of their own. Just outside the M25 (the sort of places that were developed in the 21st century) might be more at risk than inter-War places just inside.
    Not sure it is about the side of M25. In that part of the world Brentwood (outside) is imo nicer and has more to do than Upminster, Romford or Hornchurch (all inside) but has a worse commute into town. Without daily commuting I fail to see how the ratio of Brentwood prices vs the others doesn't move in Brentwood's direction.

    What is harder to predict is the ratio of prices to the surrounding smaller villages or indeed to zone 1/2 London.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    edited September 4
    F1: footage of the Verstappen/red flag moment. May be no action, we'll see.

    https://twitter.com/MrMattKnights/status/1434065923384791041

    Edited extra bit: and I'm still being continually logged in and out.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759

    Mr. Sandpit, cheers for the Raikkonen news.

    Shame about Verstappen, given his bad luck elsewhere (this being his own fault, though).

    Hamilton is a lucky racer on the whole. It may tip the balance in a tight year.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    edited September 4
    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit

    Come on over to the Greens. 🌻
    BigG always has PC if the Greens are too chlorophyll-laden.
    I once had PC recommended as the closest party to my views on one of those political compass style sites, which was a bit of a surprise. As I couldn't vote for them even if I wanted to I never looked into it.
    Doesn't surprise me, given that the LDs are now [edit] mildly authoritarian right wingers and it depends which Labour pol you listen to - PC, SDLP and SNP are about the only really middle of the road/slightly left of centre parties.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,605
    algarkirk said:

    The excellent long article in the NS on 10 big reasons for 20 years of Labour decline can be helpfully distilled in chronological order for those without time to read it:

    1) 2001 GE turnout
    2) Iraq
    3) 2004 Romanians etc FOM
    4) 2007 No GE
    5) 2008 Crash
    6) 2010 Clegg turns Tory
    7) 2010 The wrong brother
    8) 2015 SNP
    9) 2017 etc Corbyn delusion
    10) 2016 (and continuing ad infinitum) Brexit


    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/09/labour-s-lost-future-inside-story-20-year-collapse




    7) was the point I left the party, and 2019 the first GE in which I didn’t even vote Labour.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    edited September 4
    Morning all.

    A good one so far. The Water Bill turns out to be a 10% rebate for the mechanical water supply problems a few weeks ago.
    https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/severn-trent-water-nottingham-supply-5668707

    In other news, the Politico (!) has exposed the EU announcement that "We reached 70% by the end of August" as being based on numerical inexactitudes, according to the stats of their own vaccine tracking agency. Never mind - only short by 10 million or so.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/has-the-eu-really-vaccinated-70-percent-of-adults-against-coronavirus/

    "End of August" being redefined Real Soon Now.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. kle4, he’s had buckets of luck this year, with Verstappen’s Azerbaijan DNF, 1 point from two races due to Mercedes crashes, and Hamilton was saved from zero points when he put the car into the gravel at one race but the Bottas-Russell crash brought out a very helpful safety car (and maybe red flag). Minus misfortune, Verstappen would be about 50 points ahead.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    Cyclefree said:

    On NI hike:

    "The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"

    (Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)

    Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.


    So both unfair and ineffective.

    And just kicks the can down the road.

    Typical of this government.
    What is the difference between this government and a chocolate furnace?

    One is something that doesn’t really exist in practice, is completely useless and sensible people use in sarcastic moments as an example of a joke.

    The other is made of chocolate.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,992
    edited September 4
    Dura_Ace said:

    Carnyx said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit

    Come on over to the Greens. 🌻
    BigG always has PC if the Greens are too chlorophyll-laden.
    I was being serious. Big G is the sort of fundamentally decent pragmatist which is occasionally in short supply among the ranks of hunt sabbers, XR tensegrity architects, druids, mad scientists, women of a certain age with plenty of cats, naturists, homebrew solar panel experts and detectorists with which the party is abundantly blessed.
    You make a good point. The Greens have always suffered from an image problem, as they fail to attract "normal", middle-of-the-road folk like Big G. One of my brothers, a "normal" chap, always votes Green. When I suggest he joins the party, he says, most eloquently, "what, join that bunch of nutters?".
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,769
    Generations based on dates make little sense to be. Arguably you could construct something on when you had your formative experiences and how that ties into technology and cultural change.

    Before TV
    Before the Beatles
    Before home computers
    Before Star Wars
    Before the internet
    Before Google
    Before mobile phones
    Before social media.

    But that is nothing compared to differences between people who grew up in a loving home and those that were farmed out to an institution.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859
    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    The talking heads on Sky News this morning were not enthusiastic about 12-15 year olds getting the jab. Why? Because the government is thinking of doing it. The level of partisanship in this country is growing (on both sides).

    The decision is to be made by the four nations chief medical officers together, so no part of the UK will be out of sync and it will be hard to attack

    Antivaxxers can now point to the JCVI decision.
    And how Adam Finn finds the case for vaccinating 16-17 Yr olds 'very compelling' but doesn't recommend for 12-15 is astonishing.
    My gf had her first jab yesterday - it seemed to be just not worth the risk of being heavily pregnant and unvaccinated with 30k cases a day, and the over representation of pregnant women in ICU. But apparently her second jab isn’t until late November… does that sound right?
    Yes, but she can speak to her GP to move it up to a 3 week gap for Pfizer or 4 weeks for Moderna. Given that she's pregnant they're unlikely to refuse.
  • eek said:

    pigeon said:

    On NI hike:

    "The money is expected to be split between the NHS and social care, with a suggestion that it will go first towards clearing backlogs and then increasingly into care. But what guarantee is there that it won’t all be swallowed up by a health service that can never have enough funding?"

    (Camilla Tominey - Telegraph)

    Which is exactly what I said on here yesterday morning.

    This is eminently possible, of course. If things carry on as they are then, eventually, local authorities will be able to afford to do nothing other than wipe the backsides of the demented, if they haven't already gone bankrupt trying to keep non-essential fripparies (e.g. libraries, bin collections and child social services) going before that point. But we're still some distance from that point.

    So long as the councils are still there to blame for any deficiencies in elderly arse wiping, the temptation to funnel away all the money to correct deficiencies in hospital care, for which the Government is more likely to be blamed directly, must be huge.
    All those other items are (alongside planning) legally required.

    Up north we know all about this because Austerity took away any spare money for councils with lots of cheap (council tax band A-C) housing.
    That's part of the problem, but there's also the council tax capping introduced by the Coalition.

    Even before that, things were tight. I've a relative who was a senior councillor about 20 years ago; even then, there was very little spending on anything discretionary. Now councils have cut pretty much everything they can- bus contracts, branch libraries, everything that isn't explicitly required by law- to try to keep social care bumping along in some form.

    Because we don't like paying enough tax. And when shysters come along and say we don't need to pay, we've endorsed them rather than saying "chinny reckon".
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,914
    edited September 4
    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    Furthermore , my membership of the conservative party has now lapsed and I am a free political spirit

    Come on over to the Greens. 🌻
    Are you the founding member of the Petrolheads division of the Green Party?
    I've never bought a new car out of the showroom (despite owning 120+ cars) and most of them are almost always in bits and I go everywhere by bike in all weathers so my Green credentials are intact.

    Having said that I did roll race an RS6 (I hate those fucking things) in my 997 turbo last week after I put the new turbos in it. I got out of it at the top of 4th (so 140mph+) and I had only gapped it by and length and a half. They must be very aerodynamically efficient and have fuck all downforce.

This discussion has been closed.