LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Quite. The farmers and fishers are/were a bastion of Tory/Brexit voting in Scotland - soon it'll only be the elderly retirees who own their own bungalows. I do now wonder if there will be a LD revival in areas such as the Borders wich are currently Tory-ish.
On Russia (and China, for that matter), the international community still hasn't played all of the soft power cards. If Russia invades Ukraine, I'd expect (okay, hope) that Russia would be expelled from FIFA, UEFA, the IOC and any other sporting bodies.
I'd have done it after Salisbury, but I guess you need to hold back some stuff.
Still an awful long way from Mrs May’s 8.8%, in an actual election.
Mrs May's result was a very unique set of circumstances. That was a polling record which would be impossible to beat even with permanent lockdown and Boris killing the Queen on live TV.
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarch is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
That's also very odd theology - it wasn't the C of E and Henry VIII that saved humanity from Original Sin. It was redemption by the self-sacrifice of God's son which did it.
That is more offering the pathway of Christianity rather than Judaism as the salvation from sin. Hence leading to the formation of the Christian Church through his disciples, with St Peter given authority by Christ to become the first Pope of the Catholic Church. That then evolved into the monarch of England becoming the first head of the Church of England at the Reformation replacing the Pope as head of the English church but based on the same Christian principles Christ set out
Mark 12: 17 is a higher authority than Henry Tudor:
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarch is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
Good stuff Aitch. I would add though, to remind everyone, it wasn’t Satan’s design they ate from tree of knowledge, it was God’s Design.
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.
So you and the Liberals still want to retain tariffs with Australia and also prevent British farmers from having more access to the Australian Market.
You want free trade with the EU but tariffs and protectionism with the rest of the world.
UK government has purchased 1.75 million additional courses of Merck's Molnupiravir (Lagevrio) pill and 2.5 million additional courses of PF-07321332/ritonavir (Paxlovid) from Pfizer.
Lagevrio has been approved by MHRA, Paxlovid still awaiting approval
I think Russia is going to become a very difficult place to govern in the next few years, especially if Putin tries something in Ukraine.
A pincer movement of declining population and the loss of hydrocarbons revenue as the world pivots towards net zero is pretty hard to resist. Add in another expensive frozen conflict and the coffers will empty fast while everyone’s standard of living shrinks.
I expect Putin will keep going until death or infirmity, but he’s no spring chicken so sooner or later there is going to be the après Putin deluge.
Meanwhile Ukraine is equally or more up the creek economically.
Laurence Smith's 'world in 2050' prognosis was the complete opposite; he points to the huge untapped resources Russia has under Siberia and the progressive advantage living in northern climes will have under climate change, plus some other geo-political factors I can't remember, to paint a positive picture. Here's the summary from Amazon:
The New North is a book that turns the world literally upside down. Analysing four key 'megatrends' - population growth and migration, natural resource demand, climate change and globalisation - UCLA professor Larry Smith projects a world that by mid-century will have shifted its political and economic axes radically to the north. The beneficiaries of this new order, based on a bonanza of oil, natural gas, minerals and plentiful water will be the Arctic regions of Russia, Alaska and Canada, and Scandinavia. Meanwhile countries closer to the equator will face water shortages, aging populations, crowded megacities and coastal flooding. Smith draws on geography, economics, history, earth and climate science, but what makes his arguments so compelling is that he has spent many months exploring the region, talking to people in once-inaccessible Arctic towns, noting their economies, politics and stories.
I suspect it will be the Chinese who make most use of that. They’re geographically closer to a lot of it.
The bonanza of oil and natural gas isn’t going to be such a bonanza in a net zero world though.
I’m not convinced generally either, given we see the opposite patterns at the moment in North America with migration and economic growth in the South.
I think Simon Reeve covered the Chinese and Siberia well during his series on Russia. Basically for your typical Russian Siberia is too far away while for China it's a source of raw materials very close to home.
The really worrying thing for the Tories right now is that even if you give them all the Reform vote numbers they are still way off where they were at the last GE. The one thing that is probably keeping them from full-blown panic is the large numbers of Don't Knows among their 2019 vote. That offers some hope of a way back.
On Russia (and China, for that matter), the international community still hasn't played all of the soft power cards. If Russia invades Ukraine, I'd expect (okay, hope) that Russia would be expelled from FIFA, UEFA, the IOC and any other sporting bodies.
I'd have done it after Salisbury, but I guess you need to hold back some stuff.
They’re already pretty much expelled from competing in sporting competitions as Russia.
Expelling them from SWIFT is the big one, as was done to Iran.
In our "best Prime Minister" question, 34% think Keir Starmer would make the best PM (+1 from our last survey on 14-15 December 2021), compared to 22% who think the incumbent Boris Johnson is the better PM (-1). Two in five people (39%) were not sure either way.
Boris is done. No way he makes it to 2024 on those numbers.
What might yet save him is the personal ambitions of Sunak and Truss, plus any determination of the ERG to install their man into No 10.
Different people trying to topple BoJo from different directions might have the paradoxical effect of supporting him in place. c.f. Major in 1992-7; only the hardcore Euronutters really tried to topple him. The mainstream right of the time held back, for fear of him being replaced by Heseltine.
It's not quite the same dynamic now, but it could happen. And if it does, we'll all stroke our chins and say "of course it had to be this way."
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarchy is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
That really is claiming divine right to rule both of the English monarchy and the C of E. Just saying.
Divine right to be head of the C of E and constitutional monarch of the UK yes but ruling with Parliament, not trying to be an absolute monarch like Charles 1st was before the civil war
So, basically, if Ms Truss became PM and tried to abolish the monarchy, you'd accuse her of heresy as well as treason?
Yes but Liz Truss confirmed to Nick Robinson earlier this month she now supports our constitutional monarchy as a key part of British democracy anyway
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarch is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.
So you and the Liberals still want to retain tariffs with Australia and also prevent British farmers from having more access to the Australian Market.
You want free trade with the EU but tariffs and protectionism with the rest of the world.
What will / can our farmers sell to the Australian Market that isn't already available there at prices we cannot compete with? The issue is that even the Department for the Environment / Foreign Office cannot think of any items (beyond Whiskey) where exports could be increased.
And please don't read what my personal viewpoint is given that I'm not talking about myself I'm talking about the viewpoint of other people.
I guess I have to once again point out that your reading comprehension skills are scarily poor.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
James Melville @JamesMelville · 21m The only sage I will pay attention to this Christmas is the one I'll shove up the bum of a turkey before I put it in the oven.
On Russia (and China, for that matter), the international community still hasn't played all of the soft power cards. If Russia invades Ukraine, I'd expect (okay, hope) that Russia would be expelled from FIFA, UEFA, the IOC and any other sporting bodies.
I'd have done it after Salisbury, but I guess you need to hold back some stuff.
They’re already pretty much expelled from competing in sporting competitions as Russia.
Expelling them from SWIFT is the big one, as was done to Iran.
They're still in the football world cup. And their clubs compete in UEFA competitions.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarch is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarchy is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
That really is claiming divine right to rule both of the English monarchy and the C of E. Just saying.
Divine right to be head of the C of E and constitutional monarch of the UK yes but ruling with Parliament, not trying to be an absolute monarch like Charles 1st was before the civil war
So, basically, if Ms Truss became PM and tried to abolish the monarchy, you'd accuse her of heresy as well as treason?
Yes but Liz Truss confirmed to Nick Robinson earlier this month she now supports our constitutional monarchy as a key part of British democracy anyway
Thanks for confirming you'd condemn Ms Truss or ineed any republican PM as a heretic.
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
Oh I see zero problem with it - it is just something that other parties will use to ensure that former Tory rural voters possibly change their vote at the next election.
And it's a very simply story.
Less money than Gove promised you back in 2019 and 2016. Australian and New Zealand imports at prices you could never compete with. And the Tories still want a deal with the US.
Agriculture may be 0.6% of GDP, I suspect it's a lot more than 0.6% of votes in rural constituencies.
James Melville @JamesMelville · 21m The only sage I will pay attention to this Christmas is the one I'll shove up the bum of a turkey before I put it in the oven.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
We do it for fags and booze where there is proven harm. Not being vaccinated is a proven harm.
Where do you draw the line though? Just Covid vacc? Just the initial Covid vacc or regular boosters? Forever or just til the crisis passes? What happens if we get another pandemic and the data on vaccines is far less clearcut? (higher risk and/or lower benefit - but still, on average A GOOD THING for society).
Also would be concerned that any move towards compulsion would undermine the widespread positivity and lack of suspicion about vaccines in general in this country. We have been extremely lucky to have reached such levels on the back of little or no coercive actions. This is not something to be sacrificed lightly. Look at the damage that was done when doubts started coming in about MMR and people started getting TOLD (however justifiably) that they couldn’t seek out separate vaccinations.
On Russia (and China, for that matter), the international community still hasn't played all of the soft power cards. If Russia invades Ukraine, I'd expect (okay, hope) that Russia would be expelled from FIFA, UEFA, the IOC and any other sporting bodies.
I'd have done it after Salisbury, but I guess you need to hold back some stuff.
They’re already pretty much expelled from competing in sporting competitions as Russia.
Expelling them from SWIFT is the big one, as was done to Iran.
They're still in the football world cup. And their clubs compete in UEFA competitions.
Yeah, just noticed that. Are FIFA not under WADA then?
In our "best Prime Minister" question, 34% think Keir Starmer would make the best PM (+1 from our last survey on 14-15 December 2021), compared to 22% who think the incumbent Boris Johnson is the better PM (-1). Two in five people (39%) were not sure either way.
Boris is done. No way he makes it to 2024 on those numbers.
What might yet save him is the personal ambitions of Sunak and Truss, plus any determination of the ERG to install their man into No 10.
Different people trying to topple BoJo from different directions might have the paradoxical effect of supporting him in place. c.f. Major in 1992-7; only the hardcore Euronutters really tried to topple him. The mainstream right of the time held back, for fear of him being replaced by Heseltine.
It's not quite the same dynamic no. He successful w, but it could happen. And if it does, we'll all stroke our chins and say "of course it had to be this way."
Major had Heseltine and Clarke as rivals on the left and Portillo and Redwood and Howard as rivals on the right. He successfully played them off against each other and survived until the general election.
Boris has Javid who on some measures is to his left, Sunak presenting himself as a latter day Portillo, Truss to his economic right and Raab and Patel also to his right as his main rivals he needs to play off against each other
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarch is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
Good stuff Aitch. I would add though, to remind everyone, it wasn’t Satan’s design they ate from tree of knowledge, it was God’s Design.
God created them and told them not to eat from it but they listened to Satan's serpent and did so anyway and sin came into the world
On Russia (and China, for that matter), the international community still hasn't played all of the soft power cards. If Russia invades Ukraine, I'd expect (okay, hope) that Russia would be expelled from FIFA, UEFA, the IOC and any other sporting bodies.
I'd have done it after Salisbury, but I guess you need to hold back some stuff.
They’re already pretty much expelled from competing in sporting competitions as Russia.
Expelling them from SWIFT is the big one, as was done to Iran.
They're still in the football world cup. And their clubs compete in UEFA competitions.
Yeah, just noticed that. Are FIFA not under WADA then?
From wiki:
On 9 December 2019, the World Anti-Doping Agency handed Russia a four-year ban from all major sporting events, after RUSADA was found non-compliant for handing over manipulating lab data to investigators. However, the Russia national team could still enter qualification, as the ban only applies to the final tournament to decide the world champions. If Russia qualified, Russian footballers could still potentially compete at the tournament, pending a decision from FIFA. However, a team representing Russia, which uses the Russian flag and anthem, cannot participate under the WADA decision. The decision was appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and on 17 December 2020, Russian teams were banned from competing at world championships organized or sanctioned by a WADA signatory until 16 December 2022.
If they qualify - and they have a kind draw - it will be hilarious to hear the commentators trying not to call them Russia.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarch is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
So God changes His mind?
I don't see that as a bad thing, but it does sit oddly with the omniscience. An alternative, I guess, is that the Church got it wrong with Edward VIII or are getting it wrong now (e.g. Charles) if you accept the Church represents the imperfect interpretation of God's will.
(As I think you know, I'm a classical agnostic - sitting closer to atheist, I guess, on modern definitions - but I am intrigued by theology and the logic and argument of it. So I'm not trying to take the piss, but I'm interested in how believers reconcile these things - I've had interesting discussions with religious friends/family and I respect their views)
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
There are two issues here - neither of them decisive but worth considering.
1. It has been UK policy for many years NOT to seek self-sufficiency in food, because many types of food ar eproduced more efficiently elsewhere, so selling them financial products and buying their wheat makes sense. Nonetheless, gradually moving to the point where we hardly feed ourselves at all makes people uneasy - what of some global supply chain disruption (such as a war or a bigger pandemic)?
2. There is broad support for higher animal welfare and environmental standards in the food that we eat. If we switch to imports with lower standards, AND fail to indicate the difference clearly in labels, we are effectively exporting the problem and surrendering responsibility, in exactly the same way as we exported our carbon emissions to China when we pulled back from consumer manufacturing. Ineffective non-mandatory labelling on means of production breaks the free market model, since the consumer is unable to make an informed choice (merely indicating the country of origin doesn't tell you very much).
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Lesley Riddoch is not even a member of the SNP, let alone a spokesperson.
I am not sure Johnson's popularity is linked to what he says about Christmas. Isn't it more about the fact that his very profound limitations and general disdain for the electorate have finally been exposed for all to see?
The good news for the Tories is that it does all seem to be about Johnson rather than them generally. That means they should get a very strong bounce once he is gone. However, they need to get the timing of that right as beyond Sunak - who is himself exceptionally limited - there do not seem to be any even remotely credible candidates to replace him.
Long-term, though, Johnson has done exceptional damage to his party and to the country. The Parliamentary party is packed full of populist nationalist culture warriors with a very strong aversion to geopolitical and trade realities, the rule of law, liberty and democracy. That will not end well for either the Tories or, more importantly, for all of us.
Agreed except I'm not sure about a replacement turning it around. In the spirit of the season I think it's a case of "Jingle bells, Boris smells, Rishi does as well." Why would an apolitical floater vote Tory next time regardless of who the leader is? The reasons are few and so too, therefore, could be the number who do. My lay of Lab majority at 6 is not, right now, my favourite bet.
The plates are still moving, let alone settling. And we can see the cost of living disaster that's set to hit though 2022 and probably 2023.
But I don't think we've had a poll yet pointing to a Labour majority of 1. As long as Scotland votes SNP, the England/Wales position needs to be similar to Blair-Major or Blair-Hague for a Labour overall majority.
Things are bad for the Conservatives (how bad do they have to be now before a typical Swingback doesn't save them?) but not that bad.
They’re still within swingback territory. Quite comfortably.
The record swingback from midterm blues was about 20% wasn’t it?
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarchy is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
That really is claiming divine right to rule both of the English monarchy and the C of E. Just saying.
We chopped the head off a King who tried to claim divine right to rule and chucked out his son, James VII/II in the Glorious Revolution when he did not want to obey the then constitutional arrangement. The point about Monarchy is that it is constitutional and conditional, not absolute. If you try to claim some spurious divinity for it, then it should be abolished immediately.
It is constitutional but also interlinked with our established church. A key principle of Toryism is to preserve both regardless of the views of non Tories such as yourself
In our "best Prime Minister" question, 34% think Keir Starmer would make the best PM (+1 from our last survey on 14-15 December 2021), compared to 22% who think the incumbent Boris Johnson is the better PM (-1). Two in five people (39%) were not sure either way.
Boris is done. No way he makes it to 2024 on those numbers.
What might yet save him is the personal ambitions of Sunak and Truss, plus any determination of the ERG to install their man into No 10.
Different people trying to topple BoJo from different directions might have the paradoxical effect of supporting him in place. c.f. Major in 1992-7; only the hardcore Euronutters really tried to topple him. The mainstream right of the time held back, for fear of him being replaced by Heseltine.
It's not quite the same dynamic now, but it could happen. And if it does, we'll all stroke our chins and say "of course it had to be this way."
I wonder TBH. I think Sunak could possibly do enough to keep the Tories in power but could still end up narrowly losing the Tories majority like in 2017 so I don't know how things will play out.
James Melville @JamesMelville · 21m The only sage I will pay attention to this Christmas is the one I'll shove up the bum of a turkey before I put it in the oven.
SNP 6% in a GB poll!! Jeepers! That is exceedingly rare.
Rounding and small numbers, of course, but that is interesting (though we have had 4% lately as well, with ?other pollsters). Wonder when the next Scotland only poll is coming?
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarch is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
That's also very odd theology - it wasn't the C of E and Henry VIII that saved humanity from Original Sin. It was redemption by the self-sacrifice of God's son which did it.
That is more offering the pathway of Christianity rather than Judaism as the salvation from sin. Hence leading to the formation of the Christian Church through his disciples, with St Peter given authority by Christ to become the first Pope of the Catholic Church. That then evolved into the monarch of England becoming the first head of the Church of England at the Reformation replacing the Pope as head of the English church but based on the same Christian principles Christ set out
Mark 12: 17 is a higher authority than Henry Tudor:
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
Merely Christ not pursuing a theocracy in terms of the state, Christ still set up the Christian Church himself via Peter as first Pope
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
Oh I see zero problem with it - it is just something that other parties will use to ensure that former Tory rural voters possibly change their vote at the next election.
And it's a very simply story.
Less money than Gove promised you back in 2019 and 2016. Australian and New Zealand imports at prices you could never compete with. And the Tories still want a deal with the US.
Agriculture may be 0.6% of GDP, I suspect it's a lot more than 0.6% of votes in rural constituencies.
And mining was worth votes in mining constituencies. Standing up and liberalising the sector was still the right thing to do despite that, just as it is here.
Besides countries like NZ that have liberalised their agricultural sectors and cut away tariffs have tended to do well, not struggle.
How is anyone who supports a free market and supported standing up to the NUM, but wants protectionism for agriculture anything other than a hypocrite?
And do you have so little respect for our agricultural sector that you think they can't survive without protectionism?
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
We do it for fags and booze where there is proven harm. Not being vaccinated is a proven harm.
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Quite. The farmers and fishers are/were a bastion of Tory/Brexit voting in Scotland - soon it'll only be the elderly retirees who own their own bungalows. I do now wonder if there will be a LD revival in areas such as the Borders wich are currently Tory-ish.
Tactical unwind is going to be a huge feature of the next UK GE in Scotland, as SLDs and SLabbers stream home in repulsion at the Tories.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarch is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
How does this anointing happen? I mean as far as I can see it is decided by people eg in the example @Selebian gave, also with the change in lineage with women now equal to men. I know to be monarchy you have to be descended from whoever it is, but again that is just a man made rule. Or do you mean it is decided by whoever and God then automatically anoints them in which case under some weird change in rules either you or I could be king. Is that right? Could we elect a king if we changed the rules accordingly or a dictator appoint themselves king?
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarch is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
So God changes His mind?
I don't see that as a bad thing, but it does sit oddly with the omniscience. An alternative, I guess, is that the Church got it wrong with Edward VIII or are getting it wrong now (e.g. Charles) if you accept the Church represents the imperfect interpretation of God's will.
(As I think you know, I'm a classical agnostic - sitting closer to atheist, I guess, on modern definitions - but I am intrigued by theology and the logic and argument of it. So I'm not trying to take the piss, but I'm interested in how believers reconcile these things - I've had interesting discussions with religious friends/family and I respect their views)
God's authority in the Church of England goes with the monarch of the day, the office not the individual who happens to hold that office. Only when in office are they Supreme Governor of the Church of England as sovereign
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarchy is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
That really is claiming divine right to rule both of the English monarchy and the C of E. Just saying.
Divine right to be head of the C of E and constitutional monarch of the UK yes but ruling with Parliament, not trying to be an absolute monarch like Charles 1st was before the civil war
So, basically, if Ms Truss became PM and tried to abolish the monarchy, you'd accuse her of heresy as well as treason?
Yes but Liz Truss confirmed to Nick Robinson earlier this month she now supports our constitutional monarchy as a key part of British democracy anyway
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarch is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
Good stuff Aitch. I would add though, to remind everyone, it wasn’t Satan’s design they ate from tree of knowledge, it was God’s Design.
God created them and told them not to eat from it but they listened to Satan's serpent and did so anyway and sin came into the world
Though there is the idea of a Felix Culpa- without the Apple Fiasco, there would have been no need or way for Christ to do his thing, and that has left us in a better place. Expressed in the Exultet in the Easter Litugies;
"O happy fault that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer."
(That was Thought from the Day from the Rev J.C. Flannel-in-Romford. Now back to the news.)
The only slim chance the government have of regaining any credibility is to have no further lockdowns, and to gain credit for that as a vaccine success. Even then, they're on thin ice.
It was good to see last night in America Joe Biden tackled Omicron in a very Presidential way: recommending booster jabs and the unvaccinated to get jabbed; activating FEMA to boost supply for hospitals, ambulances and vaccination centres; and telling people to be calm and that this is not March of last year. Not a hint of talking about restrictions or lockdowns or any other madness.
The scientists, Civil Service, media and politicians here have become addicted to restrictions, to demand-side measures to manage the NHS. That's not their job, or their right. Post-vaccinations the politicians, scientists etc need to firmly be told that their job is to manage the supply side of the NHS. If that means taxing [preferably antivaxxers] and spending then that's their responsibility, lockdowns and restrictions are not. They need to rule out completely further restrictions.
If Whitty and Vallance or Gove or anyone else can't get on board with that, then they should resign or be fired.
Why the name change PT?
Don't want to have my real life name used.
Lol, as if posting 24/7 on here isn’t your real life.
Amazing thing about Putin is how he’s managed to do so much with so little
Russia’s economy is somewhat bigger than Spain’s and definitely smaller than Italy’s. Yes it is huge geographically but so is Canada, and Oz, and they are about the same size economically with a fraction of the population.
How has Putin done this? With a mixture of bluff, aggression, presidential charisma and geopolitical wishful thinking which is surely unsustainable
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
We do it for fags and booze where there is proven harm. Not being vaccinated is a proven harm.
Where do you draw the line though? Just Covid vacc? Just the initial Covid vacc or regular boosters? Forever or just til the crisis passes? What happens if we get another pandemic and the data on vaccines is far less clearcut? (higher risk and/or lower benefit - but still, on average A GOOD THING for society).
Also would be concerned that any move towards compulsion would undermine the widespread positivity and lack of suspicion about vaccines in general in this country. We have been extremely lucky to have reached such levels on the back of little or no coercive actions. This is not something to be sacrificed lightly. Look at the damage that was done when doubts started coming in about MMR and people started getting TOLD (however justifiably) that they couldn’t seek out separate vaccinations.
I couldn't agree more with this. The same principles apply to vaccine passports, mandatory isolation etc. Where do we draw the line, and when? Isn't it easier just to get on with things as they've always been done?
Which is why I oppose all regulations, now.
Guidance is fine - but the only way we will 'cope' with this present situation is to live with it.
LSE academic Paul Dolan: “It’s 21 months into this pandemic, and we’re still not doing anything to feed into the decision-making process anything that models any consequences other than virus transmission. That is an absolutely broken policy process. The second thing is that all of the incentives are in the system for Sage to overestimate the impact..."
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarch is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
How does this anointing happen? I mean as far as I can see it is decided by people eg in the example @Selebian gave, also with the change in lineage with women now equal to men. I know to be monarchy you have to be descended from whoever it is, but again that is just a man made rule. Or do you mean it is decided by whoever and God then automatically anoints them in which case under some weird change in rules either you or I could be king. Is that right? Could we elect a king if we changed the rules accordingly or a dictator appoint themselves king?
It happens via the coronation oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by definition therefore it comes from God not from election by the people.
The people get a say when they elect governments and PMs to administer government on the monarch's behalf and a dictator who would have no need of cabinet government or Parliament would also not be part of constitutional monarchy either.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarch is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
Good stuff Aitch. I would add though, to remind everyone, it wasn’t Satan’s design they ate from tree of knowledge, it was God’s Design.
God created them and told them not to eat from it but they listened to Satan's serpent and did so anyway and sin came into the world
Though there is the idea of a Felix Culpa- without the Apple Fiasco, there would have been no need or way for Christ to do his thing, and that has left us in a better place. Expressed in the Exultet in the Easter Litugies;
"O happy fault that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer."
(That was Thought from the Day from the Rev J.C. Flannel-in-Romford. Now back to the news.)
We sang a carol at our concert called Adam lay ybounden which I think was on that theme, although to be honest half of it was in Latin and the rest in some kind of weird medieval-speak so it could have been a shopping list for all I know.
SNP 6% in a GB poll!! Jeepers! That is exceedingly rare.
Given Scotland is 8% of the UK population that implies 75% support, so must be some rounding in there.
The good news for Labour in FPTP world is that this means its 36% vote share and 6% lead is largely in England and Wales.
Of course that may be overly concentrated in London (13% of the UK population) but they can’t really get any more inefficient in London seats than they already are.
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
Oh I see zero problem with it - it is just something that other parties will use to ensure that former Tory rural voters possibly change their vote at the next election.
And it's a very simply story.
Less money than Gove promised you back in 2019 and 2016. Australian and New Zealand imports at prices you could never compete with. And the Tories still want a deal with the US.
Agriculture may be 0.6% of GDP, I suspect it's a lot more than 0.6% of votes in rural constituencies.
And mining was worth votes in mining constituencies. Standing up and liberalising the sector was still the right thing to do despite that, just as it is here.
Besides countries like NZ that have liberalised their agricultural sectors and cut away tariffs have tended to do well, not struggle.
How is anyone who supports a free market and supported standing up to the NUM, but wants protectionism for agriculture anything other than a hypocrite?
And do you have so little respect for our agricultural sector that you think they can't survive without protectionism?
We can't eat financial services Philip.
But when the next 'black swan' appears. And again all our mitigating infrastructure has been shafted as 'it didn't make financial sense at the time'. I hope to god that the politicians involved in destroying any redundancy the country has have to experience it with the rest of us.
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
Oh I see zero problem with it - it is just something that other parties will use to ensure that former Tory rural voters possibly change their vote at the next election.
And it's a very simply story.
Less money than Gove promised you back in 2019 and 2016. Australian and New Zealand imports at prices you could never compete with. And the Tories still want a deal with the US.
Agriculture may be 0.6% of GDP, I suspect it's a lot more than 0.6% of votes in rural constituencies.
And mining was worth votes in mining constituencies. Standing up and liberalising the sector was still the right thing to do despite that, just as it is here.
Besides countries like NZ that have liberalised their agricultural sectors and cut away tariffs have tended to do well, not struggle.
How is anyone who supports a free market and supported standing up to the NUM, but wants protectionism for agriculture anything other than a hypocrite?
And do you have so little respect for our agricultural sector that you think they can't survive without protectionism?
Again - where have I put any personal opinion in my posts today regarding rural votes?
All I've said is that here are facts and stories that on opposition party will use to attract rural votes away from their traditional home.
LSE academic Paul Dolan: “It’s 21 months into this pandemic, and we’re still not doing anything to feed into the decision-making process anything that models any consequences other than virus transmission. That is an absolutely broken policy process. The second thing is that all of the incentives are in the system for Sage to overestimate the impact..."
Telegraph
SAGE is a Scientific Advice Group. The Government isn't short of advisors on other subjects. Ultimately the decision making has to be political, balancing various interests and priorities. If the government is not getting economic advice then that is no one's fault but their own.
LSE academic Paul Dolan: “It’s 21 months into this pandemic, and we’re still not doing anything to feed into the decision-making process anything that models any consequences other than virus transmission. That is an absolutely broken policy process. The second thing is that all of the incentives are in the system for Sage to overestimate the impact..."
Telegraph
SAGE is a Scientific Advice Group. The Government isn't short of advisors on other subjects. Ultimately the decision making has to be political, balancing various interests and priorities. If the government is not getting economic advice then that is no one's fault but their own.
We've seen them disagree with SAGE before though. So although the analysis is correct, i.e. SAGE does not advise on the consequences to the economy, the Government does think of the economy. At least sometimes.
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
LSE academic Paul Dolan: “It’s 21 months into this pandemic, and we’re still not doing anything to feed into the decision-making process anything that models any consequences other than virus transmission. That is an absolutely broken policy process. The second thing is that all of the incentives are in the system for Sage to overestimate the impact..."
Telegraph
SAGE is a Scientific Advice Group. The Government isn't short of advisors on other subjects. Ultimately the decision making has to be political, balancing various interests and priorities. If the government is not getting economic advice then that is no one's fault but their own.
I hear that the government has a secret advisory group known by the codename The Treasury. They're an unaccountable lot who run models which are always wrong, but they have a huge influence on policy.
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
James Melville @JamesMelville · 21m The only sage I will pay attention to this Christmas is the one I'll shove up the bum of a turkey before I put it in the oven.
Hope it’s not an imaginary turkey from his imaginary butcher.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
We do it for fags and booze where there is proven harm. Not being vaccinated is a proven harm.
It’s a higher risk of harm not a proven harm
You could say the same about booze and fags. Look at the "My dad smoked 40 a day and lived to 90" examples that get wheeled out whenever curbs on tobacco usage or sale are proposed
I have a 1/333,000 chance of dying from COVID. I'll take those odds!
Exactly the same for me.....
I'm much more at risk, it seems. 1 in 142,000. Though this appears to increase significantly to a 1 in 4900 chance of dying if I catch it. But I'd have thought the chances of me catching it again at some point were pretty certain...?
The only slim chance the government have of regaining any credibility is to have no further lockdowns, and to gain credit for that as a vaccine success. Even then, they're on thin ice.
It was good to see last night in America Joe Biden tackled Omicron in a very Presidential way: recommending booster jabs and the unvaccinated to get jabbed; activating FEMA to boost supply for hospitals, ambulances and vaccination centres; and telling people to be calm and that this is not March of last year. Not a hint of talking about restrictions or lockdowns or any other madness.
The scientists, Civil Service, media and politicians here have become addicted to restrictions, to demand-side measures to manage the NHS. That's not their job, or their right. Post-vaccinations the politicians, scientists etc need to firmly be told that their job is to manage the supply side of the NHS. If that means taxing [preferably antivaxxers] and spending then that's their responsibility, lockdowns and restrictions are not. They need to rule out completely further restrictions.
If Whitty and Vallance or Gove or anyone else can't get on board with that, then they should resign or be fired.
Why the name change PT?
Don't want to have my real life name used.
Lol, as if posting 24/7 on here isn’t your real life.
Bit late now isn’t it? But yes, no issue with being anonymous, he says posting as @turbotubbs...
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Lesley Riddoch is not even a member of the SNP, let alone a spokesperson.
The Unionist belief that the EssEnnPee is lurking in every corner of society waiting to grasp their (metaphorical mostly) bollocks is pretty much a recognised psychological condition.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarch is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
When he ceased to be monarch yes and his brother was anointed instead as confirmed at his coronation.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
How does this anointing happen? I mean as far as I can see it is decided by people eg in the example @Selebian gave, also with the change in lineage with women now equal to men. I know to be monarchy you have to be descended from whoever it is, but again that is just a man made rule. Or do you mean it is decided by whoever and God then automatically anoints them in which case under some weird change in rules either you or I could be king. Is that right? Could we elect a king if we changed the rules accordingly or a dictator appoint themselves king?
It happens via the coronation oath administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, by definition therefore it comes from God not from election by the people.
The people get a say when they elect governments and PMs to administer government on the monarch's behalf and a dictator who would have no need of cabinet government or Parliament would also not be part of constitutional monarchy either.
Thanks @HYUFD . Like @Selebian I am interested in these replies. I remember you gave a rather interesting one (in that it wasn't one that I had heard before and squared the circle) re Adam and Eve and Evolution a few weeks ago when I asked.
I have another one for you. I did ask you this a few weeks ago when there was a discussion on abortion. You didn't reply but my post (as often happens) was at the end of a thread. I meant to ask again, but didn't get around to it.
My question is not to get into the rights and wrongs of abortion (an endless argument) but to understand your Christian view on what to me is a specific problem.
I assume your view is that life starts at conception. Although not a view I agree with it is one I can respect and it is the only one with a definite date for life which is handy. However it does cause a problem in other areas (I witnessed Melanie Philips being turned into a gibbering idiot over this one as she had conflicting views):
What is your view on contraceptives that prevent a fertilised egg bonding with the womb. Life has started and cells have started to split?
What is your view on man fertilising eggs and experimenting on the growing embryo in the Lab?
What is your view on IVF where spare fertilised eggs are destroyed?
What about deterrence though? Shouldn't we be putting the fear of god into Vlad by telling him if he lays a finger on Ukraine he'll get a Trident up his jacksy?
Yeah, let's have a nuclear war over fucking Ukraine.
Indeed.
Personally, I would point out to the East Politics types in Germany, that while we will go along with their sell-Ukraine-down-the-river policies, if they start compromising the Baltics to placate Russia..... Well, we will seek our own guarantees* from Putin.
*Cash for whatever he wants to invade. How much for Berlin?
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarch is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
What's your view on Edward VIII? Anointed by God and then un-anointed? Or as anointed head of the Church of England, should the Church have followed his will and changed its view on remarriage after divorce?
In a bid to win PB's Pedant of the Day Award:
Edward VIII was never anointed. Anointing takes place as part of the coronation, and he didn't have one.
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
What about deterrence though? Shouldn't we be putting the fear of god into Vlad by telling him if he lays a finger on Ukraine he'll get a Trident up his jacksy?
Yeah, let's have a nuclear war over fucking Ukraine.
Indeed.
Personally, I would point out to the East Politics types in Germany, that while we will go along with their sell-Ukraine-down-the-river policies, if they start compromising the Baltics to placate Russia..... Well, we will seek our own guarantees* from Putin.
*Cash for whatever he wants to invade. How much for Berlin?
If there's a war in Ukraine, it will be fought by separatists that just happen to have the same equipment as the Russian Army, against Ukrainians that can do a decent Birmingham accent.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarch is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
That's also very odd theology - it wasn't the C of E and Henry VIII that saved humanity from Original Sin. It was redemption by the self-sacrifice of God's son which did it.
That is more offering the pathway of Christianity rather than Judaism as the salvation from sin. Hence leading to the formation of the Christian Church through his disciples, with St Peter given authority by Christ to become the first Pope of the Catholic Church. That then evolved into the monarch of England becoming the first head of the Church of England at the Reformation replacing the Pope as head of the English church but based on the same Christian principles Christ set out
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
I'm desperately hoping this is what it appears to be - Philip under a new name.
The alternative, 2 separate Philips, is a prospect not easily contemplated.
It is - he gave his reasons earlier in the thread.
Yep, saw that. He no longer wishes to post under his birth name of "Philip Thompson" and has thus transitioned for PB purposes to "Bartholomew Roberts".
I will respect this in accordance with my principles. He is from this point "Bartholomew" to me. Perhaps when we've had a few tumbles and established an awkward intimacy I will risk a "Barty".
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
I'm desperately hoping this is what it appears to be - Philip under a new name.
The alternative, 2 separate Philips, is a prospect not easily contemplated.
It is - he gave his reasons earlier in the thread.
Yep, saw that. He no longer wishes to post under his birth name of xxx and has thus transitioned for PB purposes to "Bartholomew Roberts".
I will respect this in accordance with my principles. He is from this point "Bartholomew" to me. Perhaps when we've had a few tumbles and established an awkward intimacy I will risk a "Barty".
Why the deadnaming? He has always been Bartholomew.
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
What about deterrence though? Shouldn't we be putting the fear of god into Vlad by telling him if he lays a finger on Ukraine he'll get a Trident up his jacksy?
Yeah, let's have a nuclear war over fucking Ukraine.
Indeed.
Personally, I would point out to the East Politics types in Germany, that while we will go along with their sell-Ukraine-down-the-river policies, if they start compromising the Baltics to placate Russia..... Well, we will seek our own guarantees* from Putin.
*Cash for whatever he wants to invade. How much for Berlin?
If there's a war in Ukraine, it will be fought by separatists that just happen to have the same equipment as the Russian Army, against Ukrainians that can do a decent Birmingham accent.
Absolutely.
And if some Germans want to block any kind of intervention/sanctions against Russia (as this did the last time) cool.
Just we should be making our own deal.
"Vlad, £4 billion in small bills, per month. Payable in advance. For that you get a free hand in Europe, plus our veto in the Security Council of anything against Russia."
LDs come out against the UK trade deal with Australia and pitch a more protectionist message as they look for farmers' votes after the North Shropshire by election
It's a bad deal for farmers and one that can be 100% pinned on the Tory Party.
Expect a lot of similar items to be announced because there will be a lot of ammo available at the next election.
Not necessarily if farmers also expand their exports to Australia and removal of tariffs will be phased in anyway.
A complete change from 100 years ago though when it was the Liberals who were pure free traders and the Tories who often supported tariffs and protectionism.
For the LDs it seems free trade only applies with the EU
Are you utterly clueless.
Mrs Eek was chatting to a large landowner yesterday - their plan is to gut the farming and close farms as leases come to an end. Remaining farms will expand a bit and a lot of land will be left to rewild - because the new grant schemes make anything else utterly impossible.
And that's before Australia with it's even larger farmers way more efficient farms get started exporting to the UK.
One of the easiest votes for any opposition to win is going to be agricultural / rural voters and like a lot of things there is only one direction for the next few years as the reality hits home.
Remember you are sat in London Suburbia. Mrs Eek is driving round a national park talking to people farming for a living.
I'm failing to see the problem.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
I'm desperately hoping this is what it appears to be - Philip under a new name.
The alternative, 2 separate Philips, is a prospect not easily contemplated.
It is - he gave his reasons earlier in the thread.
Yep, saw that. He no longer wishes to post under his birth name of "Philip Thompson" and has thus transitioned for PB purposes to "Bartholomew Roberts".
I will respect this in accordance with my principles. He is from this point "Bartholomew" to me. Perhaps when we've had a few tumbles and established an awkward intimacy I will risk a "Barty".
Very woke of him, but sits ill with the assorted atrocities and all the other piracy.
Oh and I'm jabbed up but am extremely uncomfortable with all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Let's say 5m people don't want to have a vaccine. They are a perfectly legitimate constituency and over time should be accommodated. If that means increase the NHS to do so then do be it.
Oh but seatbelts.
Except a vaccination is a different proposition. If you really don't like seatbelts for example you can still get from London to Leeds and take your part in society. And if you don't wear a seatbelt and have a smash I've heard of no one saying you shouldn't be treated in hospital.
We just accept that some people do what some people do.
Let’s increase the NHS budget by a few million, sufficient to get a few field hospitals up and running on military land, where anyone sick and unvaccinated can be treated away from everyone else.
Paid for by a tax on the unvaccinated, just as smokers have to pay a tax.
Problem solved.
It is the principle I don't like. Make vaccination a legal requirement. But don't discriminate against someone choosing to do something (inject something into their bodies) that is not a legal requirement.
If you accept the principle of "polluter pays" then you would need a sliding scale.
Anti-vax tax: £100. Mountaineering tax: 25p.
You can make an argument that mountaineering helps the NHS by keeping fit.
But, tbh, my hillwalking friends and family have cost the NHS, Coastguard and volunteer Mountain Rescue teams thousands upon thousands with our various mishaps.
There is a pocket of the SNP (Lesley Riddoch, I think) who want to introduce permits for walking in the Cairngorms. I would riot.
Indeed. Either you let people behave within the law or you change the law.
Anti-vaxxers and mountaineers both exacerbate the NHS capacity problem. The NHS is there to support our society.
How much of a drain are mountaineers?
If they're an excessive one, then yes a tax may be suitable. If its a negligible one, then there's no need and besides perhaps the VAT on mountaineering equipment already covers it.
Anything that is a significant externality as opposed to incidental it is reasonable to tax.
We have established what you are, madam, now we are just haggling over price.
It is the principle. You are advocating charging for using the NHS but who gets to draw the line over who should pay and who shouldn't.
This is one of those rhetorical questions which just don't work. You say "where do you draw the line?" I am meant to say oh yeah I see your point, it's more difficult than I thought. In fact I say, immediately under anti vaxxers. Next?
Compare
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Meant to be a conundrum, but the short answer is that the smart money is probably not on Eve.
The point is that gentlemen and commoners are all descended from Adam, so the idea of class snobbery is, or ought to be, ridiculous.
The great cry of 1381. Still should apply today. Hence no more royal family...
The monarchy is head of the Church of England on earth anointed by God.
Plus of course it was Adam eating from the Tree of Knowledge which led humanity into sin requiring laws and institutional religion going forward to control humanity's impulses
That really is claiming divine right to rule both of the English monarchy and the C of E. Just saying.
Divine right to be head of the C of E and constitutional monarch of the UK yes but ruling with Parliament, not trying to be an absolute monarch like Charles 1st was before the civil war
So, basically, if Ms Truss became PM and tried to abolish the monarchy, you'd accuse her of heresy as well as treason?
Yes but Liz Truss confirmed to Nick Robinson earlier this month she now supports our constitutional monarchy as a key part of British democracy anyway
Are you so forgiving with other politicians whose views change?
Comments
I'd have done it after Salisbury, but I guess you need to hold back some stuff.
Agriculture provides 0.6% of GDP. It should sink or swim on its own merits, not be pandered to like Scargill trying to hold the rest of the country to ransom.
If you believe that British agriculture is of good quality then you should have every faith that it will swim and do even better going forwards. That can only be a good thing.
If you think its going to sink instead, then so be it. That's the free market working as intended and the land will still be available if anyone more efficient and productive wishes to use it instead.
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
You want free trade with the EU but tariffs and protectionism with the rest of the world.
Expelling them from SWIFT is the big one, as was done to Iran.
Different people trying to topple BoJo from different directions might have the paradoxical effect of supporting him in place. c.f. Major in 1992-7; only the hardcore Euronutters really tried to topple him. The mainstream right of the time held back, for fear of him being replaced by Heseltine.
It's not quite the same dynamic now, but it could happen. And if it does, we'll all stroke our chins and say "of course it had to be this way."
And please don't read what my personal viewpoint is given that I'm not talking about myself I'm talking about the viewpoint of other people.
I guess I have to once again point out that your reading comprehension skills are scarily poor.
Let’s have the election now!
@JamesMelville
·
21m
The only sage I will pay attention to this Christmas is the one I'll shove up the bum of a turkey before I put it in the oven.
Divorcees can now remarry within the Church of England, see also Prince Charles, though that is up to each vicar's conscience whether to perform such a ceremony
And it's a very simply story.
Less money than Gove promised you back in 2019 and 2016.
Australian and New Zealand imports at prices you could never compete with.
And the Tories still want a deal with the US.
Agriculture may be 0.6% of GDP, I suspect it's a lot more than 0.6% of votes in rural constituencies.
Also would be concerned that any move towards compulsion would undermine the widespread positivity and lack of suspicion about vaccines in general in this country. We have been extremely lucky to have reached such levels on the back of little or no coercive actions. This is not something to be sacrificed lightly. Look at the damage that was done when doubts started coming in about MMR and people started getting TOLD (however justifiably) that they couldn’t seek out separate vaccinations.
Boris has Javid who on some measures is to his left, Sunak presenting himself as a latter day Portillo, Truss to his economic right and Raab and Patel also to his right as his main rivals he needs to play off against each other
LAB: 41% (-)
CON: 34% (+1)
LDEM: 9% (+2)
GRN: 4% (-2)
via
@focaldataHQ
, 20 - 21 Dec
Chgs. w/ 09 Dec
It’s over
On 9 December 2019, the World Anti-Doping Agency handed Russia a four-year ban from all major sporting events, after RUSADA was found non-compliant for handing over manipulating lab data to investigators. However, the Russia national team could still enter qualification, as the ban only applies to the final tournament to decide the world champions. If Russia qualified, Russian footballers could still potentially compete at the tournament, pending a decision from FIFA. However, a team representing Russia, which uses the Russian flag and anthem, cannot participate under the WADA decision. The decision was appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and on 17 December 2020, Russian teams were banned from competing at world championships organized or sanctioned by a WADA signatory until 16 December 2022.
If they qualify - and they have a kind draw - it will be hilarious to hear the commentators trying not to call them Russia.
I don't see that as a bad thing, but it does sit oddly with the omniscience. An alternative, I guess, is that the Church got it wrong with Edward VIII or are getting it wrong now (e.g. Charles) if you accept the Church represents the imperfect interpretation of God's will.
(As I think you know, I'm a classical agnostic - sitting closer to atheist, I guess, on modern definitions - but I am intrigued by theology and the logic and argument of it. So I'm not trying to take the piss, but I'm interested in how believers reconcile these things - I've had interesting discussions with religious friends/family and I respect their views)
1. It has been UK policy for many years NOT to seek self-sufficiency in food, because many types of food ar eproduced more efficiently elsewhere, so selling them financial products and buying their wheat makes sense. Nonetheless, gradually moving to the point where we hardly feed ourselves at all makes people uneasy - what of some global supply chain disruption (such as a war or a bigger pandemic)?
2. There is broad support for higher animal welfare and environmental standards in the food that we eat. If we switch to imports with lower standards, AND fail to indicate the difference clearly in labels, we are effectively exporting the problem and surrendering responsibility, in exactly the same way as we exported our carbon emissions to China when we pulled back from consumer manufacturing. Ineffective non-mandatory labelling on means of production breaks the free market model, since the consumer is unable to make an informed choice (merely indicating the country of origin doesn't tell you very much).
The record swingback from midterm blues was about 20% wasn’t it?
possibly do enough to keep the Tories in power but could still end up narrowly losing the Tories majority like in 2017 so I don't know how things will play out.
Besides countries like NZ that have liberalised their agricultural sectors and cut away tariffs have tended to do well, not struggle.
How is anyone who supports a free market and supported standing up to the NUM, but wants protectionism for agriculture anything other than a hypocrite?
And do you have so little respect for our agricultural sector that you think they can't survive without protectionism?
The SNP need the Tories to be largest party in a hung parliament and for Starmer to need SNP confidence and supply to become PM to get indyref2
I don't know any anti-vaxxers personally (at least, I don't think I do!), but a friend of mine's girlfriend is one because she is a vegan.
"O happy fault that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer."
(That was Thought from the Day from the Rev J.C. Flannel-in-Romford. Now back to the news.)
I have a 1/333,000 chance of dying from COVID. I'll take those odds!
Which is why I oppose all regulations, now.
Guidance is fine - but the only way we will 'cope' with this present situation is to live with it.
Telegraph
The people get a say when they elect governments and PMs to administer government on the monarch's behalf and a dictator who would have no need of cabinet government or Parliament would also not be part of constitutional monarchy either.
The good news for Labour in FPTP world is that this means its 36% vote share and 6% lead is largely in England and Wales.
Of course that may be overly concentrated in London (13% of the UK population) but they can’t really get any more inefficient in London seats than they already are.
But when the next 'black swan' appears. And again all our mitigating infrastructure has been shafted as 'it didn't make financial sense at the time'. I hope to god that the politicians involved in destroying any redundancy the country has have to experience it with the rest of us.
A world wide food shortage is not impossible.
All I've said is that here are facts and stories that on opposition party will use to attract rural votes away from their traditional home.
The alternative, 2 separate Philips, is a prospect not easily contemplated.
https://twitter.com/jamesmelville/status/1422874948272537601?s=21
Though this appears to increase significantly to a 1 in 4900 chance of dying if I catch it.
But I'd have thought the chances of me catching it again at some point were pretty certain...?
I have another one for you. I did ask you this a few weeks ago when there was a discussion on abortion. You didn't reply but my post (as often happens) was at the end of a thread. I meant to ask again, but didn't get around to it.
My question is not to get into the rights and wrongs of abortion (an endless argument) but to understand your Christian view on what to me is a specific problem.
I assume your view is that life starts at conception. Although not a view I agree with it is one I can respect and it is the only one with a definite date for life which is handy. However it does cause a problem in other areas (I witnessed Melanie Philips being turned into a gibbering idiot over this one as she had conflicting views):
What is your view on contraceptives that prevent a fertilised egg bonding with the womb. Life has started and cells have started to split?
What is your view on man fertilising eggs and experimenting on the growing embryo in the Lab?
What is your view on IVF where spare fertilised eggs are destroyed?
Personally, I would point out to the East Politics types in Germany, that while we will go along with their sell-Ukraine-down-the-river policies, if they start compromising the Baltics to placate Russia..... Well, we will seek our own guarantees* from Putin.
*Cash for whatever he wants to invade. How much for Berlin?
Edward VIII was never anointed. Anointing takes place as part of the coronation, and he didn't have one.
https://twitter.com/kieranchodgson/status/1473330946225147910?s=21
I will respect this in accordance with my principles. He is from this point "Bartholomew" to me. Perhaps when we've had a few tumbles and established an awkward intimacy I will risk a "Barty".
And, as a Buddhist, I know a fair few.
And if some Germans want to block any kind of intervention/sanctions against Russia (as this did the last time) cool.
Just we should be making our own deal.
"Vlad, £4 billion in small bills, per month. Payable in advance. For that you get a free hand in Europe, plus our veto in the Security Council of anything against Russia."
Odds will be a lot better now I think?
It is my understanding that a number of that group are judged to be medically unfit to receive the vaccine.