Sources from todays TULO meeting say that Starmer claimed he was trying to find a consensus, but wouldn’t actually address any of the issues. He was instead "bollocked"
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico You know. I've got to be honest. I'm starting to have my doubts as to how accurate that 7,000 hospitalisations per day forecast is going to prove.
...infuriating when news stories focus on worst (v unlikely) scenario and then blame spim when it doesn't happen. Often ignoring that things are still quite bad even if they weren't worse
SPI-M said its R=1.5 and R=1.1 cases encompassed the "likely" envelope - ie covered the central 55-70% most likely scenarios. That means they said there was a 15-22.5% probability the number wld be *higher* than 7k/day.
I've read through the paper repeatedly (did so when it came out and pulled my hair out at the headlines) and I can't see this 15-22.5% probability mentioned.
"Four of these same models have further been used to explore the potential impact of a range of scenarios following changes in transmission. These scenarios assume changes in behaviour result in R values of 1.1, 1.5, or 2.0 on 6th September (In each of these scenarios, R drops over time after 6th September as vaccination and infection reduce the number of people who remain susceptible), and are run for a further eight weeks. These scenarios are shown in Figure 1 (R=1.1 – green; 1.5 – blue; 2.0 – red) for England’s hospital admissions.
SPI-M-O deems the scenario where R = 2.0 (red) to be an extreme trajectory for the epidemic over the next few weeks; it is a possible outcome, but highly unlikely. A scenario of this scale might be more likely were waning immunity to play a greater role (see paragraph 17 above) or if a new variant of concern were to emerge. In contrast, a scenario of R = 1.1 (green) is much more possible through a range of many different situations. This range of R values, however, is not dissimilar to those seen for cases in Scotland in recent weeks.
The two scenarios of R = 1.1 and R = 1.5 attempt to provide an envelope which contains the likely epidemic trajectory over the next couple of months. Even in the R =1.1 scenario, a large number of COVID-19 hospital admissions (up to around 2,000 a day) in England for a potentially protracted period of time is projected. Due to the uncertainties already discussed, it is not possible to project more accurately or further into the future. If combined with other winter pressures or seasonal effects; this could lead to a difficult few months for the health and care sector."
Personally, at the time, I viewed the statement that "a scenario of R = 1.1 (green) is much more possible through a range of many different situations" to be pointing pretty strongly at "look at the green one" Which, at September 21st, had 900-1400 with a central value of 1000 projected.
Describing it as "a 7000 hospitalisations per day forecast" is unworthy of anyone trying to analyse what was actually projected or said. Rhetoric rather than reason.
EDIT: In addition, calling it "A 7,000 hospitalisations per day forecast" when the paper states:
"The projections represent what the trajectory might be if the epidemic continued to follow the trends seen in the latest available data up to 6th September. They are neither forecasts nor predictions and cannot fully reflect recent changes in transmission that have not yet filtered through into surveillance data" ... is just being an arse. (Note that the bolding was actually in the paper itself when released)
I reckon there are still people who have those bog rolls and mega bags of pasta from 18 months ago!
Why do peeps always panic buy pasta? I know it keeps for years, but so does rice. And what exactly are they going to eat with the pasta when it all goes 'The Road'? Rat?
I’ve still got the dried lentils I bought ahead of the first brexit date.
My panic buy food of choice is porridge. I reckon you could live for weeks on a few decent sized bags of porridge oats.
I reckon there are still people who have those bog rolls and mega bags of pasta from 18 months ago!
Why do peeps always panic buy pasta? I know it keeps for years, but so does rice. And what exactly are they going to eat with the pasta when it all goes 'The Road'? Rat?
They've also panic purchased chargrilled aubergine, capers and olives right?
I live next door to a petrol station.I’m hearing quite a lot of tooting horns at the moment.
The only surprise is that Peston didn’t cause this run on the fuel.
Shell/BP announce a few stations may have a supply problem, the press and media jump on it, and hey Preston we have panic buying
There is no shortage of fuel and to be fair the media are trying to row back but they panicked the country in the first place
If we think back to the stupid scenes at start of lockdown MKI, apparently there really wasn't actually that much of an uptick, about 10% increase, which caught the retailers out, but then the media megaphone amplifies the issue.
What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.
What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.
We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...
Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.
Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.
OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.
Clear now?
No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.
I reckon there are still people who have those bog rolls and mega bags of pasta from 18 months ago!
Why do peeps always panic buy pasta? I know it keeps for years, but so does rice. And what exactly are they going to eat with the pasta when it all goes 'The Road'? Rat?
I’ve still got the dried lentils I bought ahead of the first brexit date.
My panic buy food of choice is porridge. I reckon you could live for weeks on a few decent sized bags of porridge oats.
I reckon there are still people who have those bog rolls and mega bags of pasta from 18 months ago!
Why do peeps always panic buy pasta? I know it keeps for years, but so does rice. And what exactly are they going to eat with the pasta when it all goes 'The Road'? Rat?
I’ve still got the dried lentils I bought ahead of the first brexit date.
My panic buy food of choice is porridge. I reckon you could live for weeks on a few decent sized bags of porridge oats.
If you call that living.
Well, I was thinking more of the just surviving side of living rather than the @seanT@leon lunch by the Parthian with two bottles of ouzo type of living.
F**king useless nonentity. Bring on a leadership challenge
Michael Savage @michaelsavage More than one union leader has “gone for” Starmer at a key meeting tonight. Sounds pretty brutal. Row over party rules now clearly threatening to overshadow a conference he himself has talked up as key to his leadership.
And replace him with who exactly?
Quite.
Starmer isn't great as a leader, although he has some really good traits that will help him.
Labour will split sooner or later, and to be fair to the left it really is the moderates that are betraying the cause. However the cause is some daft c19 manifesto written by a layabout.
What Starmer needs to do is get the split done with - off goes Corbyn, off goes McDonald, and then I think it stops. No sensible Labour politician will throw themselves over the cliff. Maybe Abbot, Dawn whatever, Long-Bailey, and Burgeon.
PS. whatever=Butler.
Ken Loach....on Starmer, Jezza and "proper Labour".
Let me guess "proper Labour" are antisemites like him?
careful, I like reading your posts and I don't want you booted
Why would I get booted for asking if the antisemite Ken Loach who was "against the witch-hunt" until he got expelled out of the Labour Party like other antisemites prefers other antisemites like himself? 🤔
Antisemites like Loach have a tendency to stick together.
Because even if you feel ready to defend yourself against defamation claims, the site owners mightn't want to join you in your defence. The burden of proof for getting booted for potentially defamatory comments is necessarily lower than for a defamation claim.
Nah, a jew hater is a jew hater, slice it how you like.
You can quote me on that. I'm not afraid, the site has a single use throwaway email address for me, and a spoofed IP address filtered through a VPN.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico You know. I've got to be honest. I'm starting to have my doubts as to how accurate that 7,000 hospitalisations per day forecast is going to prove.
...infuriating when news stories focus on worst (v unlikely) scenario and then blame spim when it doesn't happen. Often ignoring that things are still quite bad even if they weren't worse
SPI-M said its R=1.5 and R=1.1 cases encompassed the "likely" envelope - ie covered the central 55-70% most likely scenarios. That means they said there was a 15-22.5% probability the number wld be *higher* than 7k/day.
I've read through the paper repeatedly (did so when it came out and pulled my hair out at the headlines) and I can't see this 15-22.5% probability mentioned.
"Four of these same models have further been used to explore the potential impact of a range of scenarios following changes in transmission. These scenarios assume changes in behaviour result in R values of 1.1, 1.5, or 2.0 on 6th September (In each of these scenarios, R drops over time after 6th September as vaccination and infection reduce the number of people who remain susceptible), and are run for a further eight weeks. These scenarios are shown in Figure 1 (R=1.1 – green; 1.5 – blue; 2.0 – red) for England’s hospital admissions.
SPI-M-O deems the scenario where R = 2.0 (red) to be an extreme trajectory for the epidemic over the next few weeks; it is a possible outcome, but highly unlikely. A scenario of this scale might be more likely were waning immunity to play a greater role (see paragraph 17 above) or if a new variant of concern were to emerge. In contrast, a scenario of R = 1.1 (green) is much more possible through a range of many different situations. This range of R values, however, is not dissimilar to those seen for cases in Scotland in recent weeks.
The two scenarios of R = 1.1 and R = 1.5 attempt to provide an envelope which contains the likely epidemic trajectory over the next couple of months. Even in the R =1.1 scenario, a large number of COVID-19 hospital admissions (up to around 2,000 a day) in England for a potentially protracted period of time is projected. Due to the uncertainties already discussed, it is not possible to project more accurately or further into the future. If combined with other winter pressures or seasonal effects; this could lead to a difficult few months for the health and care sector."
Personally, at the time, I viewed the statement that "a scenario of R = 1.1 (green) is much more possible through a range of many different situations" to be pointing pretty strongly at "look at the green one" Which, at September 21st, had 900-1400 with a central value of 1000 projected.
Describing it as "a 7000 hospitalisations per day forecast" is unworthy of anyone trying to analyse what was actually projected or said. Rhetoric rather than reason.
EDIT: In addition, calling it "A 7,000 hospitalisations per day forecast" when the paper states:
"The projections represent what the trajectory might be if the epidemic continued to follow the trends seen in the latest available data up to 6th September. They are neither forecasts nor predictions and cannot fully reflect recent changes in transmission that have not yet filtered through into surveillance data" ... is just being an arse. (Note that the bolding was actually in the paper itself when released)
I reckon there are still people who have those bog rolls and mega bags of pasta from 18 months ago!
Why do peeps always panic buy pasta? I know it keeps for years, but so does rice. And what exactly are they going to eat with the pasta when it all goes 'The Road'? Rat?
I’ve still got the dried lentils I bought ahead of the first brexit date.
My panic buy food of choice is porridge. I reckon you could live for weeks on a few decent sized bags of porridge oats.
If you call that living.
Oh, it's not a bad diet at all. Though I like to vary it with oatcakes (good with home made marmalade).
I reckon there are still people who have those bog rolls and mega bags of pasta from 18 months ago!
Why do peeps always panic buy pasta? I know it keeps for years, but so does rice. And what exactly are they going to eat with the pasta when it all goes 'The Road'? Rat?
I’ve still got the dried lentils I bought ahead of the first brexit date.
My panic buy food of choice is porridge. I reckon you could live for weeks on a few decent sized bags of porridge oats.
If you call that living.
Well, I was thinking more of the just surviving side of living rather than the @seanT@leon lunch by the Parthian with two bottles of ouzo type of living.
McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?
Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.
The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario
Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?
Yeah but BigG has an anecdote repeated at least 3 times involving Asda and a tanker that clearly proves there is no problem
There was no problem, then idiots decided to spark a panic when there was no reason to do so - and Lemmings joined in the panic.
I agree. I suspect there was a little bit of supply issue due to covid etc. I'm sure tanker drivers aren't running off to ferry cabbages around. Perhaps it was the management at the distribution centres overplaying their hands. Sadly it has sparked off a bit of a panic.
I do however think it is fair to say that there is a longer term problem with our supply chain. According to the drivers themselves the problem is not even primarily about money although of course they would like more. It is about conditions. The cry all across Europe is that the drivers are desperate for safe basic facilities where they can park up to sleep, get cleaned up and have a coffee. If the Government really wanted to do something to alleviate this issue in the longer term they could do some infrastructure spending and build some dedicated services for Lorry Drivers which are fit for the 20th century let alone the 21st.
What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.
What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.
We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...
Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.
Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.
OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.
Clear now?
No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.
If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now. There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands. The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?
I reckon there are still people who have those bog rolls and mega bags of pasta from 18 months ago!
Why do peeps always panic buy pasta? I know it keeps for years, but so does rice. And what exactly are they going to eat with the pasta when it all goes 'The Road'? Rat?
I’ve still got the dried lentils I bought ahead of the first brexit date.
My panic buy food of choice is porridge. I reckon you could live for weeks on a few decent sized bags of porridge oats.
If you call that living.
Well, I was thinking more of the just surviving side of living rather than the @seanT@leon lunch by the Parthian with two bottles of ouzo type of living.
I had Vivera Steak tonight - plant based steak. It was ok, a bit like a processed grillsteak you’d get out of the freezer, but a weird thing was they have tiny amounts of fake blood coming out if it. Not much but enough to make me think it a bit odd. If you’ve made the choice to eat fake meat, surely you don’t want reminding of the feeling of blood dripping from it?!
F**king useless nonentity. Bring on a leadership challenge
Michael Savage @michaelsavage More than one union leader has “gone for” Starmer at a key meeting tonight. Sounds pretty brutal. Row over party rules now clearly threatening to overshadow a conference he himself has talked up as key to his leadership.
And replace him with who exactly?
Quite.
Starmer isn't great as a leader, although he has some really good traits that will help him.
Labour will split sooner or later, and to be fair to the left it really is the moderates that are betraying the cause. However the cause is some daft c19 manifesto written by a layabout.
What Starmer needs to do is get the split done with - off goes Corbyn, off goes McDonald, and then I think it stops. No sensible Labour politician will throw themselves over the cliff. Maybe Abbot, Dawn whatever, Long-Bailey, and Burgeon.
PS. whatever=Butler.
Ken Loach....on Starmer, Jezza and "proper Labour".
Let me guess "proper Labour" are antisemites like him?
careful, I like reading your posts and I don't want you booted
Why would I get booted for asking if the antisemite Ken Loach who was "against the witch-hunt" until he got expelled out of the Labour Party like other antisemites prefers other antisemites like himself? 🤔
Antisemites like Loach have a tendency to stick together.
Because even if you feel ready to defend yourself against defamation claims, the site owners mightn't want to join you in your defence. The burden of proof for getting booted for potentially defamatory comments is necessarily lower than for a defamation claim.
Nah, a jew hater is a jew hater, slice it how you like.
You can quote me on that. I'm not afraid, the site has a single use throwaway email address for me, and a spoofed IP address filtered through a VPN.
So you're safe. The site isn't. That was my only point.
I reckon there are still people who have those bog rolls and mega bags of pasta from 18 months ago!
Why do peeps always panic buy pasta? I know it keeps for years, but so does rice. And what exactly are they going to eat with the pasta when it all goes 'The Road'? Rat?
I’ve still got the dried lentils I bought ahead of the first brexit date.
My panic buy food of choice is porridge. I reckon you could live for weeks on a few decent sized bags of porridge oats.
If you call that living.
Well, I was thinking more of the just surviving side of living rather than the @seanT@leon lunch by the Parthian with two bottles of ouzo type of living.
I had Vivera Steak tonight - plant based steak. It was ok, a bit like a processed grillsteak you’d get out of the freezer, but a weird thing was they have tiny amounts of fake blood coming out if it. Not much but enough to make me think it a bit odd. If you’ve made the choice to eat fake meat, surely you don’t want reminding of the feeling of blood dripping from it?!
How odd. We just slung a tin of tofu into the stir fried veg lastd night.
Made up for it with some mature mutton stewed with shallots and carrots tonight. I do wonder how much longer this will be available with the sort of headcases we see on PB urging that we hand back total control by importing even more of our food because it is a good thing that UK farmers go bust.
What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.
What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.
We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...
Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.
Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.
OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.
Clear now?
No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.
If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now. There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands. The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?
This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.
Yeah but BigG has an anecdote repeated at least 3 times involving Asda and a tanker that clearly proves there is no problem
There was no problem, then idiots decided to spark a panic when there was no reason to do so - and Lemmings joined in the panic.
I agree. I suspect there was a little bit of supply issue due to covid etc. I'm sure tanker drivers aren't running off to ferry cabbages around. Perhaps it was the management at the distribution centres overplaying their hands. Sadly it has sparked off a bit of a panic.
I do however think it is fair to say that there is a longer term problem with our supply chain. According to the drivers themselves the problem is not even primarily about money although of course they would like more. It is about conditions. The cry all across Europe is that the drivers are desperate for safe basic facilities where they can park up to sleep, get cleaned up and have a coffee. If the Government really wanted to do something to alleviate this issue in the longer term they could do some infrastructure spending and build some dedicated services for Lorry Drivers which are fit for the 20th century let alone the 21st.
I am surprised it isn't a serious H&S issue already. It's not as if the drivers aren't employees, is it? With IR35 torn up.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico You know. I've got to be honest. I'm starting to have my doubts as to how accurate that 7,000 hospitalisations per day forecast is going to prove.
...infuriating when news stories focus on worst (v unlikely) scenario and then blame spim when it doesn't happen. Often ignoring that things are still quite bad even if they weren't worse
SPI-M said its R=1.5 and R=1.1 cases encompassed the "likely" envelope - ie covered the central 55-70% most likely scenarios. That means they said there was a 15-22.5% probability the number wld be *higher* than 7k/day.
I've read through the paper repeatedly (did so when it came out and pulled my hair out at the headlines) and I can't see this 15-22.5% probability mentioned.
"Four of these same models have further been used to explore the potential impact of a range of scenarios following changes in transmission. These scenarios assume changes in behaviour result in R values of 1.1, 1.5, or 2.0 on 6th September (In each of these scenarios, R drops over time after 6th September as vaccination and infection reduce the number of people who remain susceptible), and are run for a further eight weeks. These scenarios are shown in Figure 1 (R=1.1 – green; 1.5 – blue; 2.0 – red) for England’s hospital admissions.
SPI-M-O deems the scenario where R = 2.0 (red) to be an extreme trajectory for the epidemic over the next few weeks; it is a possible outcome, but highly unlikely. A scenario of this scale might be more likely were waning immunity to play a greater role (see paragraph 17 above) or if a new variant of concern were to emerge. In contrast, a scenario of R = 1.1 (green) is much more possible through a range of many different situations. This range of R values, however, is not dissimilar to those seen for cases in Scotland in recent weeks.
The two scenarios of R = 1.1 and R = 1.5 attempt to provide an envelope which contains the likely epidemic trajectory over the next couple of months. Even in the R =1.1 scenario, a large number of COVID-19 hospital admissions (up to around 2,000 a day) in England for a potentially protracted period of time is projected. Due to the uncertainties already discussed, it is not possible to project more accurately or further into the future. If combined with other winter pressures or seasonal effects; this could lead to a difficult few months for the health and care sector."
Personally, at the time, I viewed the statement that "a scenario of R = 1.1 (green) is much more possible through a range of many different situations" to be pointing pretty strongly at "look at the green one" Which, at September 21st, had 900-1400 with a central value of 1000 projected.
Describing it as "a 7000 hospitalisations per day forecast" is unworthy of anyone trying to analyse what was actually projected or said. Rhetoric rather than reason.
EDIT: In addition, calling it "A 7,000 hospitalisations per day forecast" when the paper states:
"The projections represent what the trajectory might be if the epidemic continued to follow the trends seen in the latest available data up to 6th September. They are neither forecasts nor predictions and cannot fully reflect recent changes in transmission that have not yet filtered through into surveillance data" ... is just being an arse. (Note that the bolding was actually in the paper itself when released)
Blue scenario was r=1.5 and goes to 7000 per day.
Yes, it does. The green scenario was much more possible, though. As it said. And they were explicitly not forecasts but projections of what would happen if the current trends were followed.
What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.
What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.
We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...
Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.
Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.
OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.
Clear now?
No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.
If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now. There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands. The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?
This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.
BP were saying 5 or 6 closed - but 100 out of 1200 without at least one fuel. And that was first thing this morning.
I reckon there are still people who have those bog rolls and mega bags of pasta from 18 months ago!
Why do peeps always panic buy pasta? I know it keeps for years, but so does rice. And what exactly are they going to eat with the pasta when it all goes 'The Road'? Rat?
I’ve still got the dried lentils I bought ahead of the first brexit date.
My panic buy food of choice is porridge. I reckon you could live for weeks on a few decent sized bags of porridge oats.
If you call that living.
Well, I was thinking more of the just surviving side of living rather than the @seanT@leon lunch by the Parthian with two bottles of ouzo type of living.
I was just kidding, I love porridge.
No better way to start the day. Maple syrup on mine. Lightly drizzled.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico You know. I've got to be honest. I'm starting to have my doubts as to how accurate that 7,000 hospitalisations per day forecast is going to prove.
...infuriating when news stories focus on worst (v unlikely) scenario and then blame spim when it doesn't happen. Often ignoring that things are still quite bad even if they weren't worse
SPI-M said its R=1.5 and R=1.1 cases encompassed the "likely" envelope - ie covered the central 55-70% most likely scenarios. That means they said there was a 15-22.5% probability the number wld be *higher* than 7k/day.
I've read through the paper repeatedly (did so when it came out and pulled my hair out at the headlines) and I can't see this 15-22.5% probability mentioned.
"Four of these same models have further been used to explore the potential impact of a range of scenarios following changes in transmission. These scenarios assume changes in behaviour result in R values of 1.1, 1.5, or 2.0 on 6th September (In each of these scenarios, R drops over time after 6th September as vaccination and infection reduce the number of people who remain susceptible), and are run for a further eight weeks. These scenarios are shown in Figure 1 (R=1.1 – green; 1.5 – blue; 2.0 – red) for England’s hospital admissions.
SPI-M-O deems the scenario where R = 2.0 (red) to be an extreme trajectory for the epidemic over the next few weeks; it is a possible outcome, but highly unlikely. A scenario of this scale might be more likely were waning immunity to play a greater role (see paragraph 17 above) or if a new variant of concern were to emerge. In contrast, a scenario of R = 1.1 (green) is much more possible through a range of many different situations. This range of R values, however, is not dissimilar to those seen for cases in Scotland in recent weeks.
The two scenarios of R = 1.1 and R = 1.5 attempt to provide an envelope which contains the likely epidemic trajectory over the next couple of months. Even in the R =1.1 scenario, a large number of COVID-19 hospital admissions (up to around 2,000 a day) in England for a potentially protracted period of time is projected. Due to the uncertainties already discussed, it is not possible to project more accurately or further into the future. If combined with other winter pressures or seasonal effects; this could lead to a difficult few months for the health and care sector."
Personally, at the time, I viewed the statement that "a scenario of R = 1.1 (green) is much more possible through a range of many different situations" to be pointing pretty strongly at "look at the green one" Which, at September 21st, had 900-1400 with a central value of 1000 projected.
Describing it as "a 7000 hospitalisations per day forecast" is unworthy of anyone trying to analyse what was actually projected or said. Rhetoric rather than reason.
EDIT: In addition, calling it "A 7,000 hospitalisations per day forecast" when the paper states:
"The projections represent what the trajectory might be if the epidemic continued to follow the trends seen in the latest available data up to 6th September. They are neither forecasts nor predictions and cannot fully reflect recent changes in transmission that have not yet filtered through into surveillance data" ... is just being an arse. (Note that the bolding was actually in the paper itself when released)
Blue scenario was r=1.5 and goes to 7000 per day.
Yes, it does. The green scenario was much more possible, though. As it said. And they were explicitly not forecasts but projections of what would happen if the current trends were followed.
I understand that, but I really do question the whole nexus of spi-m and the media. They must realise that it will be interpreted that way. You almost suspect they are trying to manipulate people into taking more care.
What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.
What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.
We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...
Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.
Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.
OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.
Clear now?
No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.
If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now. There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands. The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?
This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.
The media combined with bosses with an agenda to push to avoid paying more have created a panic.
What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.
What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.
We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...
Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.
Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.
OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.
Clear now?
No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.
If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now. There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands. The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?
This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.
BP were saying 5 or 6 closed - but 100 out of 1200 without at least one fuel. And that was first thing this morning.
Honestly though, you always encounter some pumps without. That’s happened for years.
What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.
What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.
We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...
Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.
Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.
OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.
Clear now?
No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.
If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now. There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands. The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?
This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.
BP were saying 5 or 6 closed - but 100 out of 1200 without at least one fuel. And that was first thing this morning.
Be interesting to,know what it would be usually. They won’t run at full capacity all the time I’d imagine.
I reckon there are still people who have those bog rolls and mega bags of pasta from 18 months ago!
Why do peeps always panic buy pasta? I know it keeps for years, but so does rice. And what exactly are they going to eat with the pasta when it all goes 'The Road'? Rat?
I’ve still got the dried lentils I bought ahead of the first brexit date.
My panic buy food of choice is porridge. I reckon you could live for weeks on a few decent sized bags of porridge oats.
If you call that living.
Oh, it's not a bad diet at all. Though I like to vary it with oatcakes (good with home made marmalade).
Oh, oatcakes with marmalade. I've never tried that and I love a good oatcake. Thanks.
What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.
What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.
We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...
Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.
Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.
OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.
Clear now?
No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.
If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now. There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands. The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?
This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.
That D-notices stuff was like a shard of fucking gold. "There is no problem, and to prove it we should jump straight to the most draconian response we can." Honestly, I nearly went out to fill up then and there.
What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.
What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.
We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...
Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.
Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.
OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.
Clear now?
No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.
If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now. There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands. The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?
This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.
The media combined with bosses with an agenda to push to avoid paying more have created a panic.
And the PM is folding like a cheap suit.
"WEAK WEAK WEAK"
I said this before. The govt have been stitched up by a media wanting a story to,fill columns and drive clicks and the bosses and haulage companies wanting labour. The govt have been stitched up and fell for it.
McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?
Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.
The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario
Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?
Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me
In 2018, and earlier on in 2019, the Lib Dems always seemed to benefit when there were notable Brexit troubles - perhaps perceived as the default pro-European party.
Labour are tying themselves in knots, and not having a particularly good week - although that may change to some extent next week - I wonder if the Lib Dems could get a similar uplift to two or three years ago ?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico You know. I've got to be honest. I'm starting to have my doubts as to how accurate that 7,000 hospitalisations per day forecast is going to prove.
...infuriating when news stories focus on worst (v unlikely) scenario and then blame spim when it doesn't happen. Often ignoring that things are still quite bad even if they weren't worse
SPI-M said its R=1.5 and R=1.1 cases encompassed the "likely" envelope - ie covered the central 55-70% most likely scenarios. That means they said there was a 15-22.5% probability the number wld be *higher* than 7k/day.
I've read through the paper repeatedly (did so when it came out and pulled my hair out at the headlines) and I can't see this 15-22.5% probability mentioned.
"Four of these same models have further been used to explore the potential impact of a range of scenarios following changes in transmission. These scenarios assume changes in behaviour result in R values of 1.1, 1.5, or 2.0 on 6th September (In each of these scenarios, R drops over time after 6th September as vaccination and infection reduce the number of people who remain susceptible), and are run for a further eight weeks. These scenarios are shown in Figure 1 (R=1.1 – green; 1.5 – blue; 2.0 – red) for England’s hospital admissions.
SPI-M-O deems the scenario where R = 2.0 (red) to be an extreme trajectory for the epidemic over the next few weeks; it is a possible outcome, but highly unlikely. A scenario of this scale might be more likely were waning immunity to play a greater role (see paragraph 17 above) or if a new variant of concern were to emerge. In contrast, a scenario of R = 1.1 (green) is much more possible through a range of many different situations. This range of R values, however, is not dissimilar to those seen for cases in Scotland in recent weeks.
The two scenarios of R = 1.1 and R = 1.5 attempt to provide an envelope which contains the likely epidemic trajectory over the next couple of months. Even in the R =1.1 scenario, a large number of COVID-19 hospital admissions (up to around 2,000 a day) in England for a potentially protracted period of time is projected. Due to the uncertainties already discussed, it is not possible to project more accurately or further into the future. If combined with other winter pressures or seasonal effects; this could lead to a difficult few months for the health and care sector."
Personally, at the time, I viewed the statement that "a scenario of R = 1.1 (green) is much more possible through a range of many different situations" to be pointing pretty strongly at "look at the green one" Which, at September 21st, had 900-1400 with a central value of 1000 projected.
Describing it as "a 7000 hospitalisations per day forecast" is unworthy of anyone trying to analyse what was actually projected or said. Rhetoric rather than reason.
EDIT: In addition, calling it "A 7,000 hospitalisations per day forecast" when the paper states:
"The projections represent what the trajectory might be if the epidemic continued to follow the trends seen in the latest available data up to 6th September. They are neither forecasts nor predictions and cannot fully reflect recent changes in transmission that have not yet filtered through into surveillance data" ... is just being an arse. (Note that the bolding was actually in the paper itself when released)
Blue scenario was r=1.5 and goes to 7000 per day.
Yes, it does. The green scenario was much more possible, though. As it said. And they were explicitly not forecasts but projections of what would happen if the current trends were followed.
And the "current trends" are effectively 2 week out of date
What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.
What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.
We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...
Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.
Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.
OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.
Clear now?
No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.
If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now. There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands. The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?
This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.
That D-notices stuff was like a shard of fucking gold. "There is no problem, and to prove it we should jump straight to the most draconian response we can." Honestly, I nearly went out to fill up then and there.
There is a tenuous link to Covid stats reporting. Every day that the number of new Covid deaths is reported is another that cancer deaths isn’t. Covid is not the biggest cause of death in the U.K. currently. It wouldn’t hurt to tone down the reporting. With respect to fuel, how often have petrol stations been out of (some or all) fuel in the past? Not reported.
What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.
What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.
We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...
Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.
Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.
OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.
Clear now?
No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.
If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now. There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands. The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?
This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.
That D-notices stuff was like a shard of fucking gold. "There is no problem, and to prove it we should jump straight to the most draconian response we can." Honestly, I nearly went out to fill up then and there.
To be fair we also had the gem of an opinion that "paying more isn't a solution we should ban any company from paying more" earlier today too.
What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.
What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.
We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...
Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.
Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.
OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.
Clear now?
No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.
If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now. There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands. The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?
This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.
The media combined with bosses with an agenda to push to avoid paying more have created a panic.
And the PM is folding like a cheap suit.
"WEAK WEAK WEAK"
The Guardian seems to have the most responsible front page confirming Boris decision to grant visas to foreign workers (note not just EU)
In other media the figure of 5,000 is mentioned and to be honest it is the right thing to do, and highlights the new visa quota scheme that we could not have done while in the EU
What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.
What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.
We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...
Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.
Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.
OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.
Clear now?
No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.
If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now. There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands. The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?
This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.
The media combined with bosses with an agenda to push to avoid paying more have created a panic.
And the PM is folding like a cheap suit.
"WEAK WEAK WEAK"
I said this before. The govt have been stitched up by a media wanting a story to,fill columns and drive clicks and the bosses and haulage companies wanting labour. The govt have been stitched up and fell for it.
People using attention-seeking bastardry to get their way? Wherever did they get the idea?
McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?
Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.
The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario
Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?
Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me
F**king useless nonentity. Bring on a leadership challenge
Michael Savage @michaelsavage More than one union leader has “gone for” Starmer at a key meeting tonight. Sounds pretty brutal. Row over party rules now clearly threatening to overshadow a conference he himself has talked up as key to his leadership.
And replace him with who exactly?
Quite.
Starmer isn't great as a leader, although he has some really good traits that will help him.
Labour will split sooner or later, and to be fair to the left it really is the moderates that are betraying the cause. However the cause is some daft c19 manifesto written by a layabout.
What Starmer needs to do is get the split done with - off goes Corbyn, off goes McDonald, and then I think it stops. No sensible Labour politician will throw themselves over the cliff. Maybe Abbot, Dawn whatever, Long-Bailey, and Burgeon.
PS. whatever=Butler.
Ken Loach....on Starmer, Jezza and "proper Labour".
Let me guess "proper Labour" are antisemites like him?
careful, I like reading your posts and I don't want you booted
Why would I get booted for asking if the antisemite Ken Loach who was "against the witch-hunt" until he got expelled out of the Labour Party like other antisemites prefers other antisemites like himself? 🤔
Antisemites like Loach have a tendency to stick together.
Because even if you feel ready to defend yourself against defamation claims, the site owners mightn't want to join you in your defence. The burden of proof for getting booted for potentially defamatory comments is necessarily lower than for a defamation claim.
Nah, a jew hater is a jew hater, slice it how you like.
You can quote me on that. I'm not afraid, the site has a single use throwaway email address for me, and a spoofed IP address filtered through a VPN.
So you're safe. The site isn't. That was my only point.
I was kidding, the site knows exactly who I am. But honestly, if you can't call a known associate of Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite, who can you call what?
@DAILYMIRROR - Soft Left MP who backs KS: “This is an unmitigated disaster. When we’re supposed to be reconnecting with working people, we’re having a punch-up with ourselves. “What I want to know is: is Keir a leader or is he doing the dirty work of the person who wants to be next leader?”
What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.
What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.
We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...
Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.
Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.
OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.
Clear now?
No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.
If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now. There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands. The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?
This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.
BP were saying 5 or 6 closed - but 100 out of 1200 without at least one fuel. And that was first thing this morning.
Be interesting to,know what it would be usually. They won’t run at full capacity all the time I’d imagine.
Mind, it's a bit shitty if your local petrol retailer can't provide unleaded or whatever you need for your wheels.
What beats me is that in about five days the petrol stations will still have petrol and people will still think they did the right thing by panic buying.
What beats me is that in a year's time, 99.999% of the houses in the country will not have burned down, been struck by lightning or otherwise ceased to exist, and the householders will still think they did the right thing by paying for house insurance.
We don’t tend to run out of insurance if we all try and buy at the same time though...
Christ all fucking mighty. You make a point so crashingly obvious you fear you are insulting PB's collective intelligence by making it, and this happens.
Tell you what, we can all stop posting and leave the floor to you. It’s a fecking discussion. Don’t like my posts, ignore them. I won’t care.
OK, let me spell it out. The analogy is: the difference between me filling up my car next Tuesday when I would normally expect to, vs filling it up today when I am driving past a petrol station anyway and the tank is half full, represents a tiny investment in extra effort, which is equivalent to the relatively tiny cost of an insurance premium, and protects me against the relatively tiny possibility that in 5 days time there will still be a fuel shortage. Except the investment is much less and the danger much greater than in the house insurance analogy. A value bet in other words.
Clear now?
No one out there thinks ‘they’ are panicking. They are all being rational, like yourself. You are insuring yourself against the problem you are helping to create. But anyone rushing out before they need is doing exactly that, just as in March 2020.
If you think you need fuel in 2 days and you think you won't be able to get it then, but you can get it now, then you get it now. There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands. The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?
This is an entirely confected run on fuel. I think it was 5 or 6 BP garages out of thousands U.K. wide had an issue yesterday. Suddenly the media has created a panic buying situation. I wouldn’t argue for d notices, as someone did, but there isn’t a shortage of fuel.
The media combined with bosses with an agenda to push to avoid paying more have created a panic.
And the PM is folding like a cheap suit.
"WEAK WEAK WEAK"
I said this before. The govt have been stitched up by a media wanting a story to,fill columns and drive clicks and the bosses and haulage companies wanting labour. The govt have been stitched up and fell for it.
People using attention-seeking bastardry to get their way? Wherever did they get the idea?
This govt has the unique ability to fold late in the day after stating they won’t. As they did on school meals. Of,course the tactic is as old as god but the govt response is usually inept.
John McDonnell MP @johnmcdonnellMP · 11h Reports coming in of several constituency delegates to conference receiving last minute notices from Labour HQ threatening disciplinary action & barring them attending Labour Party conference. It’s opening up the party bureaucracy to accusations of vote fixing. Beyond farce.
McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?
Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.
The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario
Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?
Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me
McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?
Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.
The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario
Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?
Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me
But recently you’ve been saying the Tories will ‘never’ allow another Indy ref. Is this some new exciting meaning of the word ‘never’ that I don’t know about?
In any case since Rayner is being discussed I believe she was a granny at 39, which indicates generation is a somewhat eeeeelastic term.
McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?
Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.
The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario
Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?
Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me
Have you any idea how much that kind of post irritates the fuck out of your potential voters? It would certainly tip me over the edge if I hadn't been tipped already, and I've voted tory in every ge but one since 1979. Just so you know.
F**king useless nonentity. Bring on a leadership challenge
Michael Savage @michaelsavage More than one union leader has “gone for” Starmer at a key meeting tonight. Sounds pretty brutal. Row over party rules now clearly threatening to overshadow a conference he himself has talked up as key to his leadership.
And replace him with who exactly?
Quite.
Starmer isn't great as a leader, although he has some really good traits that will help him.
Labour will split sooner or later, and to be fair to the left it really is the moderates that are betraying the cause. However the cause is some daft c19 manifesto written by a layabout.
What Starmer needs to do is get the split done with - off goes Corbyn, off goes McDonald, and then I think it stops. No sensible Labour politician will throw themselves over the cliff. Maybe Abbot, Dawn whatever, Long-Bailey, and Burgeon.
PS. whatever=Butler.
Ken Loach....on Starmer, Jezza and "proper Labour".
Let me guess "proper Labour" are antisemites like him?
careful, I like reading your posts and I don't want you booted
Why would I get booted for asking if the antisemite Ken Loach who was "against the witch-hunt" until he got expelled out of the Labour Party like other antisemites prefers other antisemites like himself? 🤔
Antisemites like Loach have a tendency to stick together.
Because even if you feel ready to defend yourself against defamation claims, the site owners mightn't want to join you in your defence. The burden of proof for getting booted for potentially defamatory comments is necessarily lower than for a defamation claim.
Nah, a jew hater is a jew hater, slice it how you like.
You can quote me on that. I'm not afraid, the site has a single use throwaway email address for me, and a spoofed IP address filtered through a VPN.
So you're safe. The site isn't. That was my only point.
I was kidding, the site knows exactly who I am. But honestly, if you can't call a known associate of Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite, who can you call what?
It is a matter for the moderators to police the site, not individual posters
F**king useless nonentity. Bring on a leadership challenge
Michael Savage @michaelsavage More than one union leader has “gone for” Starmer at a key meeting tonight. Sounds pretty brutal. Row over party rules now clearly threatening to overshadow a conference he himself has talked up as key to his leadership.
And replace him with who exactly?
Quite.
Starmer isn't great as a leader, although he has some really good traits that will help him.
Labour will split sooner or later, and to be fair to the left it really is the moderates that are betraying the cause. However the cause is some daft c19 manifesto written by a layabout.
What Starmer needs to do is get the split done with - off goes Corbyn, off goes McDonald, and then I think it stops. No sensible Labour politician will throw themselves over the cliff. Maybe Abbot, Dawn whatever, Long-Bailey, and Burgeon.
PS. whatever=Butler.
Ken Loach....on Starmer, Jezza and "proper Labour".
Let me guess "proper Labour" are antisemites like him?
careful, I like reading your posts and I don't want you booted
Why would I get booted for asking if the antisemite Ken Loach who was "against the witch-hunt" until he got expelled out of the Labour Party like other antisemites prefers other antisemites like himself? 🤔
Antisemites like Loach have a tendency to stick together.
Because even if you feel ready to defend yourself against defamation claims, the site owners mightn't want to join you in your defence. The burden of proof for getting booted for potentially defamatory comments is necessarily lower than for a defamation claim.
Nah, a jew hater is a jew hater, slice it how you like.
You can quote me on that. I'm not afraid, the site has a single use throwaway email address for me, and a spoofed IP address filtered through a VPN.
@DAILYMIRROR - Soft Left MP who backs KS: “This is an unmitigated disaster. When we’re supposed to be reconnecting with working people, we’re having a punch-up with ourselves. “What I want to know is: is Keir a leader or is he doing the dirty work of the person who wants to be next leader?”
Did they ask Kinnock that question? History tells us that he was the latter but at the time he was trying to be leader and next PM as well.
I reckon there are still people who have those bog rolls and mega bags of pasta from 18 months ago!
Why do peeps always panic buy pasta? I know it keeps for years, but so does rice. And what exactly are they going to eat with the pasta when it all goes 'The Road'? Rat?
I’ve still got the dried lentils I bought ahead of the first brexit date.
My panic buy food of choice is porridge. I reckon you could live for weeks on a few decent sized bags of porridge oats.
If you call that living.
Well, I was thinking more of the just surviving side of living rather than the @seanT@leon lunch by the Parthian with two bottles of ouzo type of living.
I was just kidding, I love porridge.
No better way to start the day. Maple syrup on mine. Lightly drizzled.
McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?
Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.
The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario
Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?
Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me
Have you any idea how much that kind of post irritates the fuck out of your potential voters? It would certainly tip me over the edge if I hadn't been tipped already, and I've voted tory in every ge but one since 1979. Just so you know.
I could not care less, if we do not refuse indyref2 then there is no point us being in power anyway.
If Labour wants to allow an indyref2 that is up to them. Note too you have not voted Tory in every ge since 1979 either
F**king useless nonentity. Bring on a leadership challenge
Michael Savage @michaelsavage More than one union leader has “gone for” Starmer at a key meeting tonight. Sounds pretty brutal. Row over party rules now clearly threatening to overshadow a conference he himself has talked up as key to his leadership.
And replace him with who exactly?
Quite.
Starmer isn't great as a leader, although he has some really good traits that will help him.
Labour will split sooner or later, and to be fair to the left it really is the moderates that are betraying the cause. However the cause is some daft c19 manifesto written by a layabout.
What Starmer needs to do is get the split done with - off goes Corbyn, off goes McDonald, and then I think it stops. No sensible Labour politician will throw themselves over the cliff. Maybe Abbot, Dawn whatever, Long-Bailey, and Burgeon.
PS. whatever=Butler.
Ken Loach....on Starmer, Jezza and "proper Labour".
Let me guess "proper Labour" are antisemites like him?
careful, I like reading your posts and I don't want you booted
Why would I get booted for asking if the antisemite Ken Loach who was "against the witch-hunt" until he got expelled out of the Labour Party like other antisemites prefers other antisemites like himself? 🤔
Antisemites like Loach have a tendency to stick together.
Because even if you feel ready to defend yourself against defamation claims, the site owners mightn't want to join you in your defence. The burden of proof for getting booted for potentially defamatory comments is necessarily lower than for a defamation claim.
Nah, a jew hater is a jew hater, slice it how you like.
You can quote me on that. I'm not afraid, the site has a single use throwaway email address for me, and a spoofed IP address filtered through a VPN.
So you're safe. The site isn't. That was my only point.
I was kidding, the site knows exactly who I am. But honestly, if you can't call a known associate of Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite, who can you call what?
It is a matter for the moderators to police the site, not individual posters
I'm not doing that. I'm trying to ensure one of the more interesting contributors doesn't get kicked. I would be sad not to read what Philip's got to say.
McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?
Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.
The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario
Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?
Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me
Have you any idea how much that kind of post irritates the fuck out of your potential voters? It would certainly tip me over the edge if I hadn't been tipped already, and I've voted tory in every ge but one since 1979. Just so you know.
McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?
Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.
The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario
Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?
Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me
Have you any idea how much that kind of post irritates the fuck out of your potential voters? It would certainly tip me over the edge if I hadn't been tipped already, and I've voted tory in every ge but one since 1979. Just so you know.
I could not care less, if we do not refuse indyref2 then there is no point us being in power anyway.
If Labour wants to allow an indyref2 that is up to them. Note too you have not voted Tory in every ge since 1979 either
That's another Tory sent to the outer darkness for impurity of the personal juices or whatever.
Rachel Wearmouth @REWearmouth A moderate Labour MP broadly supportive of Starmer: “I am gutted. Some of us didn’t think Keir had the mettle to deliver the changes needed. He needs to step up and deliver or will condemn Labour to more years of opposition.”
Great thats all Labour needs now an intervention from Jezza
Corbyn – Starmer is ignoring country’s needs to attack members and unions
Has he publicly intervened tonight
I did hear McDonnell rattling a few a cages earlier
Either way, being criticised by Jez and John is probably quite handy for the Labour leadership.
I don't think any of this is helping Labour, to be honest. Starmer simply lost about two or three points in the polls to the Greens when he first suspended Corbyn, and now he seems to have lost another two or three. Likewise I don't think Corbyn and McDonnell are helping much themselves, either.
McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?
Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.
The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario
Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?
Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me
Have you any idea how much that kind of post irritates the fuck out of your potential voters? It would certainly tip me over the edge if I hadn't been tipped already, and I've voted tory in every ge but one since 1979. Just so you know.
"your potential voters".
Not many Scots in Epping.
Actually our MP, the great Dame Eleanor Laing, is a Scot born and raised
McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?
Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.
The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario
Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?
Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me
Have you any idea how much that kind of post irritates the fuck out of your potential voters? It would certainly tip me over the edge if I hadn't been tipped already, and I've voted tory in every ge but one since 1979. Just so you know.
I could not care less, if we do not refuse indyref2 then there is no point us being in power anyway.
If Labour wants to allow an indyref2 that is up to them. Note too you have not voted Tory in every ge since 1979 either
That's another Tory sent to the outer darkness for impurity of the personal juices or whatever.
McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?
Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.
The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario
Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?
Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me
Have you any idea how much that kind of post irritates the fuck out of your potential voters? It would certainly tip me over the edge if I hadn't been tipped already, and I've voted tory in every ge but one since 1979. Just so you know.
I have rejected @HYUFD utter nonsense on indyref2 for as long as I can remember
He is an embarrassment, talks about Scotland as an enemy, and yet seems to think he speaks for those of us who value the union, are connected directly with immediate family in Scotland, and know that someday indyref2 may happen , indeed may be beneficial for the union to happen, and I just ask that he is considered as a one off with unbending views
The other day he was lecturing me on politics in Wales when I actually live here, have children and grandchildren here and use Wales NHS and education and have been involved for over 50 years in Welsh politics
Indeed I nearly became the youngest councilor in Wales but had to let that go to become, at the time, the youngest golf club captain in Wales
F**king useless nonentity. Bring on a leadership challenge
Michael Savage @michaelsavage More than one union leader has “gone for” Starmer at a key meeting tonight. Sounds pretty brutal. Row over party rules now clearly threatening to overshadow a conference he himself has talked up as key to his leadership.
And replace him with who exactly?
Quite.
Starmer isn't great as a leader, although he has some really good traits that will help him.
Labour will split sooner or later, and to be fair to the left it really is the moderates that are betraying the cause. However the cause is some daft c19 manifesto written by a layabout.
What Starmer needs to do is get the split done with - off goes Corbyn, off goes McDonald, and then I think it stops. No sensible Labour politician will throw themselves over the cliff. Maybe Abbot, Dawn whatever, Long-Bailey, and Burgeon.
PS. whatever=Butler.
Ken Loach....on Starmer, Jezza and "proper Labour".
Let me guess "proper Labour" are antisemites like him?
careful, I like reading your posts and I don't want you booted
Why would I get booted for asking if the antisemite Ken Loach who was "against the witch-hunt" until he got expelled out of the Labour Party like other antisemites prefers other antisemites like himself? 🤔
Antisemites like Loach have a tendency to stick together.
Because even if you feel ready to defend yourself against defamation claims, the site owners mightn't want to join you in your defence. The burden of proof for getting booted for potentially defamatory comments is necessarily lower than for a defamation claim.
Nah, a jew hater is a jew hater, slice it how you like.
You can quote me on that. I'm not afraid, the site has a single use throwaway email address for me, and a spoofed IP address filtered through a VPN.
So you're safe. The site isn't. That was my only point.
I was kidding, the site knows exactly who I am. But honestly, if you can't call a known associate of Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite, who can you call what?
It is a matter for the moderators to police the site, not individual posters
And considering the moderator was posting and didn't intervene, some people want to call the "moderation" card prematurely in order to shut down the debate.
Saying you can't call Loach an antisemite is like saying you can't call Trump a racist. Or orange. Or bad.
I reckon there are still people who have those bog rolls and mega bags of pasta from 18 months ago!
Why do peeps always panic buy pasta? I know it keeps for years, but so does rice. And what exactly are they going to eat with the pasta when it all goes 'The Road'? Rat?
I’ve still got the dried lentils I bought ahead of the first brexit date.
My panic buy food of choice is porridge. I reckon you could live for weeks on a few decent sized bags of porridge oats.
If you call that living.
Oh, it's not a bad diet at all. Though I like to vary it with oatcakes (good with home made marmalade).
Oh, oatcakes with marmalade. I've never tried that and I love a good oatcake. Thanks.
You can also use oatcakes as mini pizza bases, providing you have some tinned fruit in your emergency food stockpile to use as topping.
(This suggestion brought to you by the person who also suggested using Chorley Cakes as pizza bases.)
McLeish close to picking out that last splinter in his arse from the Scottish Indy fence he's been sitting on for years. Fear not though Yoons, he may yet be tempted back and his indy support would be conditional on the Union being unable to reform itself. Whadda ya think lads, what are the chance sthe the Union will reform itself?
Why on earth should Tories care less what a former Labour FM thinks of the Union? As long as there is a Tory government at Westminster indyref2 will be refused.
The only way there will ever be an indyref2 allowed is if there is a UK Labour government, in which case McLeish would probably back the Union again anyway and Starmer's No + devomax offer in such a scenario
Can you tell me the precise moment you gave up on the 'no second referendum for a generation' guff, and what caused it?
Boris has correctly said no Tory government would allow indyref2 for a genuine generation ie 40 years, if you think we will be in power for 40 years fine with me
Have you any idea how much that kind of post irritates the fuck out of your potential voters? It would certainly tip me over the edge if I hadn't been tipped already, and I've voted tory in every ge but one since 1979. Just so you know.
I have rejected @HYUFD utter nonsense on indyref2 for as long as I can remember
He is an embarrassment, talks about Scotland as an enemy, and yet seems to think he speaks for those of us who value the union, are connected directly with immediate family in Scotland, and know that someday indyref2 may happen , indeed may be beneficial for the union to happen, and I just ask that he is considered as a one off with unbending views
The other day he was lecturing me on politics in Wales when I actually live here, have children and grandchildren here and use Wales NHS and education and have been involved for over 50 years in Welsh politics
Indeed I nearly became the youngest councilor in Wales but had to let that go to become, at the time, the youngest golf club captain in Wales
Wow, so you've been an old fogey for a VERY long time!
EDIT - almost as long as I've been an old fool . . .
Comments
WEAK WEAK WEAK
"Four of these same models have further been used to explore the potential impact of a range of scenarios following changes in transmission. These scenarios assume changes in behaviour result in R values of 1.1, 1.5, or 2.0 on 6th September (In each of these scenarios, R drops over time after 6th September as vaccination and infection reduce the number of people who remain susceptible), and are run for a further eight weeks. These scenarios are shown in Figure 1 (R=1.1 – green; 1.5 – blue; 2.0 – red) for England’s hospital admissions.
SPI-M-O deems the scenario where R = 2.0 (red) to be an extreme trajectory for the epidemic over the next few weeks; it is a possible outcome, but highly unlikely. A scenario of this scale might be more likely were waning immunity to play a greater role (see paragraph 17 above) or if a new variant of concern were to emerge. In contrast, a scenario of R = 1.1 (green) is much more possible through a range of many different situations. This range of R values, however, is not dissimilar to those seen for cases in Scotland in recent weeks.
The two scenarios of R = 1.1 and R = 1.5 attempt to provide an envelope which contains the likely epidemic trajectory over the next couple of months. Even in the R =1.1 scenario, a large number of COVID-19 hospital admissions (up to around 2,000 a day) in England for a potentially protracted period of time is projected. Due to the uncertainties already discussed, it is not possible to project more accurately or further into the future. If combined with other winter pressures or seasonal effects; this could lead to a difficult few months for the health and care sector."
Personally, at the time, I viewed the statement that "a scenario of R = 1.1 (green) is much more possible through a range of many different situations" to be pointing pretty strongly at "look at the green one"
Which, at September 21st, had 900-1400 with a central value of 1000 projected.
Describing it as "a 7000 hospitalisations per day forecast" is unworthy of anyone trying to analyse what was actually projected or said. Rhetoric rather than reason.
EDIT: In addition, calling it "A 7,000 hospitalisations per day forecast" when the paper states:
"The projections represent what the trajectory might be if the epidemic continued to follow the trends seen in the latest available data up to 6th September. They are neither forecasts nor predictions and cannot fully reflect recent changes in transmission that have not yet filtered through into surveillance data"
... is just being an arse.
(Note that the bolding was actually in the paper itself when released)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/golf/58684764
You can quote me on that. I'm not afraid, the site has a single use throwaway email address for me, and a spoofed IP address filtered through a VPN.
Very soon SKS will only ever deliver one Leaders speech at Conference IMO
There is a feedback loop between individual decisions and herd decisions, which everybody intuitively understands.
The strangest thing is those people repeatedly trying to say "there's no problem", thus repeatedly drawing attention to the "problem". What's the likeliest effect that'll have?
Made up for it with some mature mutton stewed with shallots and carrots tonight. I do wonder how much longer this will be available with the sort of headcases we see on PB urging that we hand back total control by importing even more of our food because it is a good thing that UK farmers go bust.
PLP 22% Streeting 11.3% Rayner
Unions 14%/19.3%
CLPs 14%/19.3%
So basically a tie
Under OMOV Easy win Rayner circa 60/40
The green scenario was much more possible, though. As it said.
And they were explicitly not forecasts but projections of what would happen if the current trends were followed.
Boris may well get that decade in No 10 yet
And the PM is folding like a cheap suit.
"WEAK WEAK WEAK"
GB News is just a disaster. I came close to a breakdown: ANDREW NEIL | Daily Mail Online
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10026417/GB-News-just-disaster-came-close-breakdown-ANDREW-NEIL.html
Could ask same about the timing / focus by SKS on factional shit,
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wait-40-years-for-another-scottish-independence-vote-says-boris-johnson-kwb7njq99
In 2018, and earlier on in 2019, the Lib Dems always seemed to benefit when there were notable Brexit troubles - perhaps perceived as the default pro-European party.
Labour are tying themselves in knots, and not having a particularly good week - although that may change to some extent next week - I wonder if the Lib Dems could get a similar uplift to two or three years ago ?
Corbyn – Starmer is ignoring country’s needs to attack members and unions
https://twitter.com/normanjam671/status/1441404871693910018?s=21
In other media the figure of 5,000 is mentioned and to be honest it is the right thing to do, and highlights the new visa quota scheme that we could not have done while in the EU
“What I want to know is: is Keir a leader or is he doing the dirty work of the person who wants to be next leader?”
I did hear McDonnell rattling a few a cages earlier
@johnmcdonnellMP
·
11h
Reports coming in of several constituency delegates to conference receiving last minute notices from Labour HQ threatening disciplinary action & barring them attending Labour Party conference. It’s opening up the party bureaucracy to accusations of vote fixing. Beyond farce.
In any case since Rayner is being discussed I believe she was a granny at 39, which indicates generation is a somewhat eeeeelastic term.
It doesn't matter what Boris does you can guarantee that Scott will attack it and call for the opposite, and HYUFD will back it.
Then if Boris u turns and does what Scott was calling for yesterday, then HYUFD will back it and Scott will attack it.
No consistency in opinions or logic other than that Boris is bad/good respectively.
“I don’t think it should be our focus. It is certainly not my focus. I’m going to conference to talk about the issues I care about."
If Labour wants to allow an indyref2 that is up to them. Note too you have not voted Tory in every ge since 1979 either
Not many Scots in Epping.
Rachel Wearmouth
@REWearmouth
A moderate Labour MP broadly supportive of Starmer: “I am gutted. Some of us didn’t think Keir had the mettle to deliver the changes needed. He needs to step up and deliver or will condemn Labour to more years of opposition.”
Seriously shitty “journalism” from GB news.
He is an embarrassment, talks about Scotland as an enemy, and yet seems to think he speaks for those of us who value the union, are connected directly with immediate family in Scotland, and know that someday indyref2 may happen , indeed may be beneficial for the union to happen, and I just ask that he is considered as a one off with unbending views
The other day he was lecturing me on politics in Wales when I actually live here, have children and grandchildren here and use Wales NHS and education and have been involved for over 50 years in Welsh politics
Indeed I nearly became the youngest councilor in Wales but had to let that go to become, at the time, the youngest golf club captain in Wales
Saying you can't call Loach an antisemite is like saying you can't call Trump a racist. Or orange. Or bad.
The truth is an absolute defence.
(This suggestion brought to you by the person who also suggested using Chorley Cakes as pizza bases.)
EDIT - almost as long as I've been an old fool . . .