No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
I must congratulate you. I have never seen such a spectacular (but very unconvincing) ballet performed on the very smallest of pinheads
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 2h No proper Conservative should object to how expensive Sunak's clothes are. He can spend his money how he chooses - that's what a Conservative should think.
Keir Starmer has learned the art of how to win leadership elections then pivot to the country. Only one recent Labour leader has done the same
Indeed he's got the integrity and honesty of Boris Johnson and Tony Blair.
It may work to win an election.
You should vote for him then, you clearly don't value honesty or integrity in politicians
They're politicians. I expect it from them. 🤷♂️
I'm just amused at seeing people who acted all outraged at Boris showing a lack of integrity lapping up and loving Keir doing the same.
Keir Starmer didn't party his way through lockdown
Indeed. Instead he wanted us locked down for longer, calling lifting lockdown reckless etc, while he was prepared to engage in large gatherings of beer and korma. Legal for him but reckless and keep it illegal for the Plebs to do the same thing eh?
A bit like the performative nonsense of Labour not bothering to wear face masks at Party Conference but wearing them at PMQs to make a point.
He was involved in campaigning events like Johnson was, which were deemed perfectly legal. Boris Johnson was fined for having a party where a suitcase of booze was smuggled in.
This is not a good line of ground for you to be going down, you just look silly
He wanted it to be illegal for you and me to visit our family and friends, jeopardising our mental health, while he was legally "campaigning" with large gatherings of beer and korma. He was calling lifting lockdown reckless while engaging in large gatherings personally.
Fuck him. Fucking hypocrite. If gatherings were reckless, he shouldn't have been doing them. If they weren't reckless he should have been calling for lifting lockdown not chastising the government as reckless for lifting it.
You should go tell the police that they have got it wrong. Starmer was not partying with beer and korma. Saying he was is like watching a trial, the guy is cleared of all charges and there you are outside the court saying "well I say he is guilty because I don't like him"
Yeah. It is nonsense. Durham Police did the investigation and are in posession of the facts. SKS broke no law and we should accept the decision of the investigators. Durham Police Force are a good police force. They are not the met.
I know how gutted Philip was when the result came in. But now it is the Police that are the problem because he didn't like the result.
One man has received a FPN for smuggling in cake and booze. One man had a campaigning event and Durham Police cleared him not once but twice.
The prospects of a Sunak win are deterioating sharply. I was surprised that there was not more effort at the weekend just past. It may be that the ODI and GP distracted me excessively but there seems to have been very little effort to reach the electorate in this contest. Maybe it was going on online in social media etc.
Tonight Rishi really has to persuade the electorate that Truss's economic plans are both irresponsible and unlikely to work. The risk is that if he loses he gives Labour its attack lines for the next 2 years. I suspect what he has to say will have far more traction with the electorate as a whole than with Conservative Party Members.
It's why having a membership vote for party leader is utterly insane - as you say the arguments used by candidate A against candidate B are sat waiting to be reused 2 years later....
In fairness it probably works in opposition but in government the Tories could really have done without this.
Yep - if MPs had been left with a choice firstly the election would have been very different. Secondly we would have someone else as PM rather than 6 weeks of Bozo trying to complete his "wish list of things to do as PM"
The "One law for politicians.." dweebs need to have a think about being careful what they wish for. Which would you rather, a law which says Our democratic institutions are special and carry on regardless, and too right candidates and those campaigning for them are privileged as fuck, or a law which says Democratic institutions including campaigning and voting are suspended indefinitely because of the humongous catastrophe engulfing us and us being all in this together, normal service to be resumed at a point to be decided by us? The Poster Currently Known As Bart gives it large about the primacy of democracy in other contexts.
Don't forget boys and girls that we still have to have the full enquiry (public? statutory? parliamentary? I can't remember what had been agreed) into Covid - and lockdown will be a big chunk of it.
Lockdown was awful but it was needed.
Nonsense. There was possibly justification for the initial three weeks - certainly under the media onslaught it would have taken a very special politician to stand up for the right thing. But even at the three week renewal, we knew that it hadn't been necessary, that infections had peaked before lockdown, and therefore that voluntary action had been enough.
Are you somebody else, if you don't mind my asking?
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And before they removed the restrictions, they *introduced* the restrictions.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by: (a) Boris Johnson, or (b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
Boris isn't going to be a candidate for PM at the next election, so he's irrelevant anyway.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Bingo! Exactly the point I was making, well put.
I don’t disagree with that although I suspect from the opposite end of the spectrum (as someone with a very sick mum I was and continue to be careful with COVID). The fact remains though that those exemptions did exist for political campaigns just as they existed for a whole host of activities. Picking on Kier Starmer for following the law just seems odd.
The prospects of a Sunak win are deterioating sharply. I was surprised that there was not more effort at the weekend just past. It may be that the ODI and GP distracted me excessively but there seems to have been very little effort to reach the electorate in this contest. Maybe it was going on online in social media etc.
Tonight Rishi really has to persuade the electorate that Truss's economic plans are both irresponsible and unlikely to work. The risk is that if he loses he gives Labour its attack lines for the next 2 years. I suspect what he has to say will have far more traction with the electorate as a whole than with Conservative Party Members.
It's why having a membership vote for party leader is utterly insane - as you say the arguments used by candidate A against candidate B are sat waiting to be reused 2 years later....
In fairness it probably works in opposition but in government the Tories could really have done without this.
Yep - if MPs had been left with a choice firstly the election would have been very different. Secondly we would have someone else as PM rather than 6 weeks of Bozo trying to complete his "wish list of things to do as PM"
The prospects of a Sunak win are deterioating sharply. I was surprised that there was not more effort at the weekend just past. It may be that the ODI and GP distracted me excessively but there seems to have been very little effort to reach the electorate in this contest. Maybe it was going on online in social media etc.
Tonight Rishi really has to persuade the electorate that Truss's economic plans are both irresponsible and unlikely to work. The risk is that if he loses he gives Labour its attack lines for the next 2 years. I suspect what he has to say will have far more traction with the electorate as a whole than with Conservative Party Members.
It's why having a membership vote for party leader is utterly insane - as you say the arguments used by candidate A against candidate B are sat waiting to be reused 2 years later....
In fairness it probably works in opposition but in government the Tories could really have done without this.
Yep - if MPs had been left with a choice firstly the election would have been very different. Secondly we would have someone else as PM rather than 6 weeks of Bozo trying to complete his "wish list of things to do as PM"
Also if FPTP is a good enough system to select an MP and regional Mayor's it's good enough to pick the leader of the Tory party.
Which means Rishi should have been in No 10 for 10 days now (FPTP) or 4 days (MPs only voting)
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And before they removed the restrictions, they *introduced* the restrictions.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by: (a) Boris Johnson, or (b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
Boris isn't going to be a candidate for PM at the next election, so he's irrelevant anyway.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifter (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
But why are you having a go at Keir and not the Tories then, it seems weird. Boris Johnson put this policy into position voted for it and campaigned. Why is Keir the issue?
Because even though it was many months too late, Boris and the Tories did eventually remove the restrictions when Sir Keir was demanding they be kept in place.
I also haven't seen any evidence of Boris going for a meal with a group of more than six people he didn't live with after a day of campaigning.
The law exempted any volunteer out campaigning in that election. It’s not just politicians it’s any activist. Unless you’re suggesting that absolutely no-one should have been able to eat together indoors in those circumstances then I can’t understand what your point is. It seems to me that you’re real point was that you hated the idea of there being any pandemic related restrictions.
(1) Activists are "them" in the "one rule for us, one rule for them"
(2) My point is that people who wanted restrictions - and who would go on to object to the removal of restrictions months later - shouldn't have been taking advantage of loopholes in the restrictions.
Surely though the Conservative Party wanted restrictions because they brought in restrictions. Which had various exemptions. Which they exploited as much as the Labour team did.
So I struggle to follow your logic - is there any? You are attacking the people who wanted the restrictions and then exploited "loopholes" as being hypocrites. Yet only mention red rosette hypocrites and not the blue rosette hypocrites who actually introduced both the restrictions and the loopholes.
I assume you have a logical reason for this rather obvious screaming hypocrisy?
Oh dear. Have you not been reading my comments? I've made it clear several times.
Boris and the Tories removed the restrictions. Many months too late, but they eventually did.
When they did, Sir Keir and Labour objected to the restrictions being removed.
And before they removed the restrictions, they *introduced* the restrictions.
Laws were written to stop you or I doing things but allowing political activists to do so.
Were those written by: (a) Boris Johnson, or (b) Kier Starmer?
I'll give you a clue. One of them was the Prime Minister, the other one wasn't. You are saying "well Starmer objected to the restrictions being removed. OK, but Johnson *wrote* the restrictions you are so upset about. Complete with the "loopholes" then exploited by one Boris Johnson amongst others.
Boris isn't going to be a candidate for PM at the next election, so he's irrelevant anyway.
Are you just here on a wind up?
Certainly something elaborately contrarian about his posts
We spend ever increasing sums on the NHS, and yet simultaneously end up with front line service provision being starved of funds and in some places for some care largely unavailable.
So it isn't how much money we are spending, its how we are spending it. Yes the population is getting older and that costs more. But we don't spend money on preventative medicine - the national obesity crisis being a prime example of how spending now could save far more in the future.
It's also desperately inefficient. The myriad providers all stacked on top of each other, all with separate management systems and contracts and people who are a cost to make the machine work as opposed to a cost of healthcare. There has to be a way to take an axe to much of this - having GPs running themselves as a CCG buying in healthcare contracts being one example of how to waste money.
It doesn't need more spending, it needs less spending on cakes. Why on earth does eating less and briskly walking more require spending?
Obesity is not caused by gluttony. It's caused by our lifestyles becoming more sedentary. Average calorie consumption is down in the UK. But our physically activity has declined by more.
If we spend money on our built environment differently we can encourage people to walk or cycle more and drive less, and therefore reduce obesity.
Mr. Eagles, if Truss wins, will you be retaining your membership?
Yes, because there’ll be another leadership contest before the election.
So you expect another election after Truss is found out and removed.
And you expect that election will also allow a member's vote.
The Tory party is utterly insane if that's the case.
Yes. Just look at how few Tory MPs have backed her.
Yep: 1. She has minimal and minority support amongst MPs 2. She is bereft of a policy vision or clear ideas 3. She is a dreadful communicator and looks set to appoint cabinet ministers who are worse
It can't end well. The party could have had a clean start but instead opted to put up the dwarf and the cosplayer to engage in a brutally bitter hate war attacking their own government all summer whilst Bonzo squats in Downing Street doing nothing as the various crises burn hotter and hotter.
The "One law for politicians.." dweebs need to have a think about being careful what they wish for. Which would you rather, a law which says Our democratic institutions are special and carry on regardless, and too right candidates and those campaigning for them are privileged as fuck, or a law which says Democratic institutions including campaigning and voting are suspended indefinitely because of the humongous catastrophe engulfing us and us being all in this together, normal service to be resumed at a point to be decided by us? The Poster Currently Known As Bart gives it large about the primacy of democracy in other contexts.
You miss the point entirely. It is either ok for ten people to have a meal together or its not. They could have gone out campaigning then eaten their takeaways back in their hotel room just as easily. The curry added absolutely nothing to the democratic process other than being the most sane thing in the room and for avoidance of doubt I equally blame every single politician that thought they were too important to have rules imposed on them that they insisted the rest of us follow
The two companies will work together on the design of a fusion reactor chamber based on First Light’s unique target and projectile technology. IDOM will provide feedback and expertise on designs for the reactor head, the reactor vessel, and its components.
Designing the reactor is an important step in First Light’s plans to launch a pilot plant in the next decade as part of the firm’s long-term roadmap to deliver commercial fusion by the 2040s. Once finalised, this type of reactor will be the first of its kind.
Having already been working together for the last 12 months, the new agreement will see the firms collaborate over several years.
Dr Nick Hawker, Co-Founder and CEO of First Light Fusion, said: “We are delighted to be collaborating long term with IDOM, which is well-renowned worldwide for its capabilities and expertise in fusion. Bringing together our teams will accelerate our progress, enabling us to deliver a pilot power plant in the next decade.
“The reactor chamber is a critical piece of the jigsaw puzzle for bringing commercial fusion to the market. Designing and developing a commercial fusion power plant is a great challenge, but our approach is all about simplicity, and we believe our projectile technology offers the fastest path to power generation from fusion.”
In April, First Light announced it had achieved fusion for the first time using its unique projectile approach. Having spent less than £45 million, the company have a rate of performance improvement faster than any previous fusion scheme.
Having demonstrated fusion, First Light’s plans for a ‘gain’ demonstrator – whereby the amount of energy generated outstrips that used to spark the reaction – are progressing well. Once this step is achieved, the firm believe the major problem facing nuclear fusion will be an engineering rather than a science one, a major motivation for the partnership with IDOM.
They are currently working towards a pilot plant producing around 150 MW of electricity at a cost below $1 billion in the 2030s. The company’s power plant design involves the target being injected into the reaction chamber, and the projectile launched downwards through the same entrance, so it catches up with and impacts the target at the right moment....
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Keir Starmer has learned the art of how to win leadership elections then pivot to the country. Only one recent Labour leader has done the same
Indeed he's got the integrity and honesty of Boris Johnson and Tony Blair.
It may work to win an election.
You should vote for him then, you clearly don't value honesty or integrity in politicians
They're politicians. I expect it from them. 🤷♂️
I'm just amused at seeing people who acted all outraged at Boris showing a lack of integrity lapping up and loving Keir doing the same.
Keir Starmer didn't party his way through lockdown
Indeed. Instead he wanted us locked down for longer, calling lifting lockdown reckless etc, while he was prepared to engage in large gatherings of beer and korma. Legal for him but reckless and keep it illegal for the Plebs to do the same thing eh?
A bit like the performative nonsense of Labour not bothering to wear face masks at Party Conference but wearing them at PMQs to make a point.
He was involved in campaigning events like Johnson was, which were deemed perfectly legal. Boris Johnson was fined for having a party where a suitcase of booze was smuggled in.
This is not a good line of ground for you to be going down, you just look silly
He wanted it to be illegal for you and me to visit our family and friends, jeopardising our mental health, while he was legally "campaigning" with large gatherings of beer and korma. He was calling lifting lockdown reckless while engaging in large gatherings personally.
Fuck him. Fucking hypocrite. If gatherings were reckless, he shouldn't have been doing them. If they weren't reckless he should have been calling for lifting lockdown not chastising the government as reckless for lifting it.
You should go tell the police that they have got it wrong. Starmer was not partying with beer and korma. Saying he was is like watching a trial, the guy is cleared of all charges and there you are outside the court saying "well I say he is guilty because I don't like him"
Yeah. It is nonsense. Durham Police did the investigation and are in posession of the facts. SKS broke no law and we should accept the decision of the investigators. Durham Police Force are a good police force. They are not the met.
I know how gutted Philip was when the result came in. But now it is the Police that are the problem because he didn't like the result.
One man has received a FPN for smuggling in cake and booze. One man had a campaigning event and Durham Police cleared him not once but twice.
I flagged posts that dead-named me in a way that's uncivil and against the rules.
If you want to disagree with what I say, then disagree with it. Don't use my real life name to troll me.
“dead-named”?!?!!! In this context? We all owe Leon a massive apology if that’s now a thing on a…erm…blog message board.
You can still call Leon by his real name ("Xipe") - he doesn't mind.
So who was ORKA ?
"Barty's" position on this is even more ludicrous than many of his views. He used his real name on here for years, and it is not as though it is a name that is particularly uncommon. In fact, I thought I would look up the number of people with "the name that shall not be named" on LinkedIn and there are literally thousands of them on there, including one bloke who is a cannabis engineer .
On the substance, Limits to Growth was published in 1972 and its point seems to me to be sound, that you can't grow indefinitely in a finite world. Growth growth growth sounds like Global warming Global warming Global warming to me. Seriously I would join the Greens but for a marked disagreement with them on some aspects of wildlife management.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No I'm saying that lockdown should have been lifted instead of Keir saying lifting lockdown was reckless while engaging in campaigning and beer and korma that those he wanted locked down weren't having.
I'm somewhat sceptical that voters know what this means for them. Growth does not necessarily mean higher wages, better public services, although it can. How would Labour grow the economy and what does that mean for people's pockets and services?
On the substance, Limits to Growth was published in 1972 and its point seems to me to be sound, that you can't grow indefinitely in a finite world. Growth growth growth sounds like Global warming Global warming Global warming to me. Seriously I would join the Greens but for a marked disagreement with them on some aspects of wildlife management.
He's emphasising he is the candidate of the union.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No I'm saying that lockdown should have been lifted instead of Keir saying lifting lockdown was reckless while engaging in campaigning and beer and korma that those he wanted locked down weren't having.
But what he did was legal - and Johnson did the same thing.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
I dunno. They are, at least, quite keen on facilitating the taxi-driving communities in Telford and Oldham
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No, I'm saying those who argued for restrictions shouldn't have written exemptions for themselves into them.
But it was the Tories that introduced it
With the full support of Labour and Sir Keir who demanded stricter restrictions for longer and complained when the restrictions were lifted (even though that was months too late).
If Sir Keir had done his job and opposed the government, we wouldn't have had so many disastrous lockdowns for so long.
Alternatively, he could have said "going for a curry is technically legal, but we won't do it because it would make me a raging hypocrite".
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
I dunno. They are, at least, quite keen on facilitating the taxi-driving communities in Telford and Oldham
Mr. Eagles, if Truss wins, will you be retaining your membership?
Yes, because there’ll be another leadership contest before the election.
So you expect another election after Truss is found out and removed.
And you expect that election will also allow a member's vote.
The Tory party is utterly insane if that's the case.
Yes. Just look at how few Tory MPs have backed her.
Who will get the votes together to remove Truss ?
If they do, there's a strong chance Boris can cobble together 120 MPs. He wins very easily from that point.
So the anti-Boris faction won't move against her, and neither will the Boris loyalists.
I think she's secure till the next election.
Boris coming back before the next GE, after two divisive leadership contests, would be the most self-indulgent thing a party has done in Government, surely ever. It would surely end the Conservatives as a force in politics for a decade. As much as I kind of want to see them go there (for the entertainment value, though I feel a weird anxiety knot at the thought of the consequences of them fannying around like that), I don't think even they are mad enough to behave like that in Government.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You really should stop being so dismissive.
British apples - we import far too many when we could be making Coxes Pippins (?) a global mega variety like Pink Lady British pastry - or crumble - made by all-British ingredients grown on CAP-free farms Exported all around the world and I-I-I can see see millions of consumers in new markets being happy to have found a slice of Glorious Great British Apple Pie.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You really should stop being so dismissive.
British apples - we import far too many when we could be making Coxes Pippins (?) a global mega variety like Pink Lady British pastry - or crumble - made by all-British ingredients grown on CAP-free farms Exported all around the world and I-I-I can see see millions of consumers in new markets being happy to have found a slice of Glorious Great British Apple Pie.
That's why we need the freeports.
Silliness.
Who would buy a pie that didn't include good honest British blackberries?
Fecking ridiculous. When we discover he has one in his sitting room or study like all ministers in Johnson's government we will know that flag virtue signalling has reached peak absurdity.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
Distinctively British is more than a bit ho hum.
And why are we not building microprocessor factories so we don't mind so much about Taiwan? Duodecimal if necessary.
So say I want restrictions against drunk driving, it is hypocritical of me to be taking advantage of the loophole in the restrictions which says I can drive when I am sober?
The analogy would be to want the drink drive limit to be reduced to 50, but to be measured above 50, but below the current legal limit of 80.
I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to expect someone who is advocating a change to, "be the change they want to see," as someone may once have said. It's more egregious to break the law that you've created, but I'd still file Starmer's actions under taking the piss.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No I'm saying that lockdown should have been lifted instead of Keir saying lifting lockdown was reckless while engaging in campaigning and beer and korma that those he wanted locked down weren't having.
But what he did was legal - and Johnson did the same thing.
But you and I couldn't. That's my issue, not trying to split hairs between politicians.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You really should stop being so dismissive.
British apples - we import far too many when we could be making Coxes Pippins (?) a global mega variety like Pink Lady British pastry - or crumble - made by all-British ingredients grown on CAP-free farms Exported all around the world and I-I-I can see see millions of consumers in new markets being happy to have found a slice of Glorious Great British Apple Pie.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No I'm saying that lockdown should have been lifted instead of Keir saying lifting lockdown was reckless while engaging in campaigning and beer and korma that those he wanted locked down weren't having.
But what he did was legal - and Johnson did the same thing.
But you and I couldn't. That's my issue, not trying to split hairs between politicians.
So yes you're saying that there shouldn't have been any by-elections or any political activity of any kind.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You really should stop being so dismissive.
British apples - we import far too many when we could be making Coxes Pippins (?) a global mega variety like Pink Lady British pastry - or crumble - made by all-British ingredients grown on CAP-free farms Exported all around the world and I-I-I can see see millions of consumers in new markets being happy to have found a slice of Glorious Great British Apple Pie.
That's why we need the freeports.
Cox is overrated. Also, at their best they are small and wrinkled when what the market wants is large and glossy. Pink Lady is a scam.
Mr. Eagles, if Truss wins, will you be retaining your membership?
Yes, because there’ll be another leadership contest before the election.
So you expect another election after Truss is found out and removed.
And you expect that election will also allow a member's vote.
The Tory party is utterly insane if that's the case.
Yes. Just look at how few Tory MPs have backed her.
Who will get the votes together to remove Truss ?
If they do, there's a strong chance Boris can cobble together 120 MPs. He wins very easily from that point.
So the anti-Boris faction won't move against her, and neither will the Boris loyalists.
I think she's secure till the next election.
Boris coming back before the next GE, after two divisive leadership contests, would be the most self-indulgent thing a party has done in Government, surely ever. It would surely end the Conservatives as a force in politics for a decade. As much as I kind of want to see them go there (for the entertainment value, though I feel a weird anxiety knot at the thought of the consequences of them fannying around like that), I don't think even they are mad enough to behave like that in Government.
Preferred PM amongst 2019 Conservative voters in weekend Deltapoll
On the substance, Limits to Growth was published in 1972 and its point seems to me to be sound, that you can't grow indefinitely in a finite world. Growth growth growth sounds like Global warming Global warming Global warming to me. Seriously I would join the Greens but for a marked disagreement with them on some aspects of wildlife management.
He's emphasising he is the candidate of the union.
We spend ever increasing sums on the NHS, and yet simultaneously end up with front line service provision being starved of funds and in some places for some care largely unavailable.
So it isn't how much money we are spending, its how we are spending it. Yes the population is getting older and that costs more. But we don't spend money on preventative medicine - the national obesity crisis being a prime example of how spending now could save far more in the future.
It's also desperately inefficient. The myriad providers all stacked on top of each other, all with separate management systems and contracts and people who are a cost to make the machine work as opposed to a cost of healthcare. There has to be a way to take an axe to much of this - having GPs running themselves as a CCG buying in healthcare contracts being one example of how to waste money.
It doesn't need more spending, it needs less spending on cakes. Why on earth does eating less and briskly walking more require spending?
Obesity is not caused by gluttony. It's caused by our lifestyles becoming more sedentary. Average calorie consumption is down in the UK. But our physically activity has declined by more.
If we spend money on our built environment differently we can encourage people to walk or cycle more and drive less, and therefore reduce obesity.
Fecking ridiculous. When we discover he has one in his sitting room or study like all ministers in Johnson's government we will know that flag virtue signalling has reached peak absurdity.
We won't know that Starmer is a patriot until we see his Union Flag duvet cover.
We spend ever increasing sums on the NHS, and yet simultaneously end up with front line service provision being starved of funds and in some places for some care largely unavailable.
So it isn't how much money we are spending, its how we are spending it. Yes the population is getting older and that costs more. But we don't spend money on preventative medicine - the national obesity crisis being a prime example of how spending now could save far more in the future.
It's also desperately inefficient. The myriad providers all stacked on top of each other, all with separate management systems and contracts and people who are a cost to make the machine work as opposed to a cost of healthcare. There has to be a way to take an axe to much of this - having GPs running themselves as a CCG buying in healthcare contracts being one example of how to waste money.
It doesn't need more spending, it needs less spending on cakes. Why on earth does eating less and briskly walking more require spending?
Obesity is not caused by gluttony. It's caused by our lifestyles becoming more sedentary. Average calorie consumption is down in the UK. But our physically activity has declined by more.
If we spend money on our built environment differently we can encourage people to walk or cycle more and drive less, and therefore reduce obesity.
I don't think its true that governments cannot help the economy to grow but the effects are more indirect than direct. So a government that provides adequate infrastructure will make the areas affected more attractive; a country with an education system that works for most of the population will definitely improve productivity and output. An economic policy that encourages investment and training can do likewise.
Where I do agree with @kinabalu is that we should be deeply wary of politicians who promise both cake and the eating of cake. We have just tried that and it has not been a success. Most of the examples I have given above would almost certainly not bear fruit until the politician in question has left office. It is certainly not a justification for spending more on policy X right now.
Yes. I don't mean zero positive impact, I mean on the margins cf factors outside their control, and yes it's over the long term and everything serious and new creates losers as well as winners. There's no win/win quick way to grow the economy.
My silver bullet is a high quality egalitarian education system. This would be transformational imo - but it would take a long time, be difficult to achieve, and would be genuinely against the interests of some.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No I'm saying that lockdown should have been lifted instead of Keir saying lifting lockdown was reckless while engaging in campaigning and beer and korma that those he wanted locked down weren't having.
But what he did was legal - and Johnson did the same thing.
But you and I couldn't. That's my issue, not trying to split hairs between politicians.
So yes you're saying that there shouldn't have been any by-elections or any political activity of any kind.
I'm saying if it was safe for him to have that activity it was safe for you and I to have done the same.
I'd have no objection if he'd wanted you and I to have the same liberties he did, but he didn't. He wanted us locked up at home still, forbidden by law from having a meal with friends or family etc but he could do that.
Indeed months after he was doing that he was still saying lifted lockdown for you and I was reckless.
He put his campaigning ahead of your or my mental health and liberty.
Or rather, that one did and the other didn't shows what truly despicable laws they were. Proposed by the government and supported by the Opposition (forgetting their primary role in life).
It was an horrendous period for democracy and of course not just for us but globally.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You really should stop being so dismissive.
British apples - we import far too many when we could be making Coxes Pippins (?) a global mega variety like Pink Lady British pastry - or crumble - made by all-British ingredients grown on CAP-free farms Exported all around the world and I-I-I can see see millions of consumers in new markets being happy to have found a slice of Glorious Great British Apple Pie.
That's why we need the freeports.
Cox is overrated. Also, at their best they are small and wrinkled when what the market wants is large and glossy. Pink Lady is a scam.
Fecking ridiculous. When we discover he has one in his sitting room or study like all ministers in Johnson's government we will know that flag virtue signalling has reached peak absurdity.
We won't know that Starmer is a patriot until we see his Union Flag duvet cover.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
Distinctively British is more than a bit ho hum.
And why are we not building microprocessor factories so we don't mind so much about Taiwan? Duodecimal if necessary.
“Distinctively British” is plain weird
“Like South Korea but in tweed” makes as much sense
And yet, here’s a thing: by incessantly banging on about his patriotism, by standing in front of 3000 floodlit Union Jacks, etc etc, Starmer IS making me warm to him, faintly, inasmuch as I now trust him to stand up for the Union, be nice about our Queen and country, not be a Corbyn style traitor
I guess his focus groups have told him that, post Corbyn, he has to be this blunt and basic. “I’m British, too, and I love Britain too, despite its flaws, let’s make it better”
Not a bad message, for a would-be Labour PM, in the context of Corbyn
Fecking ridiculous. When we discover he has one in his sitting room or study like all ministers in Johnson's government we will know that flag virtue signalling has reached peak absurdity.
We won't know that Starmer is a patriot until we see his Union Flag duvet cover.
I think we need to see Emily Thornberry tweet a picture of a flag on his house
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
I thought that “re-energising communities” was shorthand for letting the soap-dodgers and the BLM types carry on with the rioting and disruption peacefully protesting?
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You really should stop being so dismissive.
British apples - we import far too many when we could be making Coxes Pippins (?) a global mega variety like Pink Lady British pastry - or crumble - made by all-British ingredients grown on CAP-free farms Exported all around the world and I-I-I can see see millions of consumers in new markets being happy to have found a slice of Glorious Great British Apple Pie.
That's why we need the freeports.
Cox is overrated. Also, at their best they are small and wrinkled when what the market wants is large and glossy. Pink Lady is a scam.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
It was your idol Boris Johnson and his partner in crime Jeremy Corbyn who are mainly responsible for "the state of British politics" Our politics are now approaching banana republic absurdity.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No I'm saying that lockdown should have been lifted instead of Keir saying lifting lockdown was reckless while engaging in campaigning and beer and korma that those he wanted locked down weren't having.
But what he did was legal - and Johnson did the same thing.
But you and I couldn't. That's my issue, not trying to split hairs between politicians.
So yes you're saying that there shouldn't have been any by-elections or any political activity of any kind.
I'm saying if it was safe for him to have that activity it was safe for you and I to have done the same.
I'd have no objection if he'd wanted you and I to have the same liberties he did, but he didn't. He wanted us locked up at home still, forbidden by law from having a meal with friends or family etc but he could do that.
Indeed months after he was doing that he was still saying lifted lockdown for you and I was reckless.
He put his campaigning ahead of your or my mental health and liberty.
The problem with all this is that there were stacks of exemptions from day 1. We couldn't shut the entire economy down, so key workers were designated. Was a load of people in a factory a high risk factor of spreading the pox and potentially killing their colleagues? Yes - and for those of us running such factories it was a fucking nightmare.
It was never about x is safe and y is unsafe. It was always about managing risk, and certain activities had to do so because just shutting them down was problematic.
Political campaigning was on the list. Its easy for the people who either hated all restrictions or are pathological about Keir Starmer to retrospectively try and change the rules and the context, but it doesn't change reality. No matter how angry you are that most of us are ignoring your tirades.
Or rather, that one did and the other didn't shows what truly despicable laws they were. Proposed by the government and supported by the Opposition (forgetting their primary role in life).
It was an horrendous period for democracy and of course not just for us but globally.
As I wrote moons ago fuck them all.
Different laws at different times?
I had the lights on without any curtains last night - during WW2 that could have been aiding the enemy...
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You really should stop being so dismissive.
British apples - we import far too many when we could be making Coxes Pippins (?) a global mega variety like Pink Lady British pastry - or crumble - made by all-British ingredients grown on CAP-free farms Exported all around the world and I-I-I can see see millions of consumers in new markets being happy to have found a slice of Glorious Great British Apple Pie.
That's why we need the freeports.
Cox is overrated. Also, at their best they are small and wrinkled when what the market wants is large and glossy. Pink Lady is a scam.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You really should stop being so dismissive.
British apples - we import far too many when we could be making Coxes Pippins (?) a global mega variety like Pink Lady British pastry - or crumble - made by all-British ingredients grown on CAP-free farms Exported all around the world and I-I-I can see see millions of consumers in new markets being happy to have found a slice of Glorious Great British Apple Pie.
That's why we need the freeports.
Cox is overrated. Also, at their best they are small and wrinkled when what the market wants is large and glossy. Pink Lady is a scam.
We're still talking about apples...?
We'd better be, if we don't want suing by Sir Geoffrey.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
Distinctively British is more than a bit ho hum.
And why are we not building microprocessor factories so we don't mind so much about Taiwan? Duodecimal if necessary.
“Distinctively British” is plain weird
“Like South Korea but in tweed” makes as much sense
And yet, here’s a thing: by incessantly banging on about his patriotism, by standing in front of 3000 floodlit Union Jacks, etc etc, Starmer IS making me warm to him, faintly, inasmuch as I now trust him to stand up for the Union, be nice about our Queen and country, not be a Corbyn style traitor
I guess his focus groups have told him that, post Corbyn, he has to be this blunt and basic. “I’m British, too, and I love Britain too, despite its flaws, let’s make it better”
Not a bad message, for a would-be Labour PM, in the context of Corbyn
Tend to agree. Now that the hunting issue is a dead duck anyway I can see myself voting for him. Not that it makes any difference given the safety of the tory seat I live in.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You really should stop being so dismissive.
British apples - we import far too many when we could be making Coxes Pippins (?) a global mega variety like Pink Lady British pastry - or crumble - made by all-British ingredients grown on CAP-free farms Exported all around the world and I-I-I can see see millions of consumers in new markets being happy to have found a slice of Glorious Great British Apple Pie.
That's why we need the freeports.
Cox is overrated. Also, at their best they are small and wrinkled when what the market wants is large and glossy. Pink Lady is a scam.
We're still talking about apples...?
They are trying to a-peel to their *core* vote
Which would, of course, be Granny Smith, amongst other grannies.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You really should stop being so dismissive.
British apples - we import far too many when we could be making Coxes Pippins (?) a global mega variety like Pink Lady British pastry - or crumble - made by all-British ingredients grown on CAP-free farms Exported all around the world and I-I-I can see see millions of consumers in new markets being happy to have found a slice of Glorious Great British Apple Pie.
That's why we need the freeports.
Cox is overrated. Also, at their best they are small and wrinkled when what the market wants is large and glossy. Pink Lady is a scam.
We're still talking about apples...?
They are trying to a-peel to their *core* vote
But they can only manage it by finding a windfall.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
Distinctively British is more than a bit ho hum.
And why are we not building microprocessor factories so we don't mind so much about Taiwan? Duodecimal if necessary.
“Distinctively British” is plain weird
“Like South Korea but in tweed” makes as much sense
And yet, here’s a thing: by incessantly banging on about his patriotism, by standing in front of 3000 floodlit Union Jacks, etc etc, Starmer IS making me warm to him, faintly, inasmuch as I now trust him to stand up for the Union, be nice about our Queen and country, not be a Corbyn style traitor
I guess his focus groups have told him that, post Corbyn, he has to be this blunt and basic. “I’m British, too, and I love Britain too, despite its flaws, let’s make it better”
Not a bad message, for a would-be Labour PM, in the context of Corbyn
As I said yesterday, I find flag-shagging to be baffling. If you want to use it as an emblem of the country and a marketing tool, that's great! We sell so much Chinese-made union jack covered tat to tourists and we could do a lot more. There have been waves of "Cool Britannia" style export bonanzas. Which are also great.
The problem is when the flag-shaggers take over. The flag ceases to be an emblem of identity and trade but instead a token of exclusion and hate and division.
Or rather, that one did and the other didn't shows what truly despicable laws they were. Proposed by the government and supported by the Opposition (forgetting their primary role in life).
It was an horrendous period for democracy and of course not just for us but globally.
As I wrote moons ago fuck them all.
Different laws at different times?
I had the lights on without any curtains last night - during WW2 that could have been aiding the enemy...
Yeah and those laws as now here and by you right this minute are accepted with no question. Seatbelts, you say; lights on in WW2.
The government told us who and how many people we were allowed to have in our homes and you cheer them on because they had fifty pages of legislation explaining it all.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You really should stop being so dismissive.
British apples - we import far too many when we could be making Coxes Pippins (?) a global mega variety like Pink Lady British pastry - or crumble - made by all-British ingredients grown on CAP-free farms Exported all around the world and I-I-I can see see millions of consumers in new markets being happy to have found a slice of Glorious Great British Apple Pie.
That's why we need the freeports.
Cox is overrated. Also, at their best they are small and wrinkled when what the market wants is large and glossy. Pink Lady is a scam.
We're still talking about apples...?
They are trying to a-peel to their *core* vote
But they can only manage it by finding a windfall.
Or else, as Dennis Healey didn't say, "squeeze them until the pips squeak"
We spend ever increasing sums on the NHS, and yet simultaneously end up with front line service provision being starved of funds and in some places for some care largely unavailable.
So it isn't how much money we are spending, its how we are spending it. Yes the population is getting older and that costs more. But we don't spend money on preventative medicine - the national obesity crisis being a prime example of how spending now could save far more in the future.
It's also desperately inefficient. The myriad providers all stacked on top of each other, all with separate management systems and contracts and people who are a cost to make the machine work as opposed to a cost of healthcare. There has to be a way to take an axe to much of this - having GPs running themselves as a CCG buying in healthcare contracts being one example of how to waste money.
It doesn't need more spending, it needs less spending on cakes. Why on earth does eating less and briskly walking more require spending?
Obesity is not caused by gluttony. It's caused by our lifestyles becoming more sedentary. Average calorie consumption is down in the UK. But our physically activity has declined by more.
If we spend money on our built environment differently we can encourage people to walk or cycle more and drive less, and therefore reduce obesity.
In 2020 we had the same number of cycling miles as we did in the 1960s. Amazing what happened to our cities as cars became affordable.
Is that total cycling miles, or cycling miles per person?
Total miles I think? Which makes it even more extraordinary.
On the obesity thing, I'm quite sceptical that a lack of exercise is the reason for our obesity crisis. You need to do an awful lot of running to burn off a fish supper.
Perhaps manual labour (mining etc) meant that people could get away with eating more in the past, rather than recreational exercise? Would explain the average calorie difference.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You really should stop being so dismissive.
British apples - we import far too many when we could be making Coxes Pippins (?) a global mega variety like Pink Lady British pastry - or crumble - made by all-British ingredients grown on CAP-free farms Exported all around the world and I-I-I can see see millions of consumers in new markets being happy to have found a slice of Glorious Great British Apple Pie.
That's why we need the freeports.
You haven't mentioned British apple pie pastry made with English cheese - that is a DISGRACE.
The Boris court action, the two-tier voting system, the seven week process, the rumour mill about personal lives and personal conduct and personal spending. The cavernous gap between the MPs and the members.
This leadership election could go very seriously pear-shaped for the tories.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
Distinctively British is more than a bit ho hum.
And why are we not building microprocessor factories so we don't mind so much about Taiwan? Duodecimal if necessary.
“Distinctively British” is plain weird
“Like South Korea but in tweed” makes as much sense
And yet, here’s a thing: by incessantly banging on about his patriotism, by standing in front of 3000 floodlit Union Jacks, etc etc, Starmer IS making me warm to him, faintly, inasmuch as I now trust him to stand up for the Union, be nice about our Queen and country, not be a Corbyn style traitor
I guess his focus groups have told him that, post Corbyn, he has to be this blunt and basic. “I’m British, too, and I love Britain too, despite its flaws, let’s make it better”
Not a bad message, for a would-be Labour PM, in the context of Corbyn
Tend to agree. Now that the hunting issue is a dead duck anyway I can see myself voting for him. Not that it makes any difference given the safety of the tory seat I live in.
Likewise. Unless the Tories can come up with a radically different proposal I expect Labour to be the next govt and I’m quite reconciled to it. A bit like 1997 (but in more dangerous times)
I’ll never vote for Labour, but if they are basically patriotic, and they tell the SNP to fuck off, and they won’t wreck the economy: let them have a go. The Tories need time on the bench to rethink
Don’t worry guys - the revenge of the Millennials will drag us back into the EU at some point and it will be glorious.
I am not in favour of rejoin (note @Leon ) but if it happens I hope @Leon and I are still alive (he is a few years older than me) and I will laugh and laugh and laugh. It will be even more amusing than watching Boris Johnson defenestrated.
No I said Keir was cleared because what he did was legal, but others doing the same thing was not legal because Keir and other lawmakers were saying legalising it for us was "reckless" - but it was legalised for themselves and they were doing it themselves while denying us our basic liberties.
I didn't gather inside with others in April 2021. I didn't have beer and korma inside with others in April 2021. I would have loved to, but it was illegal for me, and it was illegal because Keir and other politicians voted for it to be illegal for me and he was leading campaigns to keep it illegal for us, saying legalising it was reckless.
But it was legal for them. It wasn't too reckless for him to do it, just for us to do it.
I wanted lockdown lifted, it was screwing with my mental health, but I was kept in lockdown while he was having beer and korma with his colleagues inside while voting for us to stay lockdown and leading calls in Parliament that liftin it for us would be reckless. Legal for him, reckless for us.
We disagree, but never mind. Turning to the "hate-filled" nature of the curry, do you want to explain what you meant?
It seems simple to me
Having 10 people gathered for a curry is either dangerous for covid spread or its not.
If its dangerous and needs to be discouraged it doesn't matter why they are gathered. Surprisingly covid doesnt say "oh they are on a political campaign so will leave them alone".
This I think is the point bart is making. At the same time politicians of all stripes and colours were telling families they couldnt get together because its too dangerous for covid spread they were exempting themselves for reasons
Equally - restaurants were open and 10 people needed to be fed after working all day.
Bart really is clutching at straws
It’s arrant nonsense. Many laws and regulations allow some people to do things and not others. If I have a blue badge I can park on double yellow lines and if I don’t I can’t.
Rules written by politicians specifically to allow politicians to do things that everyone else can't deserve the greatest scrutiny.
So are you saying we should have suspended the by-election?
No I'm saying that lockdown should have been lifted instead of Keir saying lifting lockdown was reckless while engaging in campaigning and beer and korma that those he wanted locked down weren't having.
But what he did was legal - and Johnson did the same thing.
But you and I couldn't. That's my issue, not trying to split hairs between politicians.
So yes you're saying that there shouldn't have been any by-elections or any political activity of any kind.
I'm saying if it was safe for him to have that activity it was safe for you and I to have done the same.
I'd have no objection if he'd wanted you and I to have the same liberties he did, but he didn't. He wanted us locked up at home still, forbidden by law from having a meal with friends or family etc but he could do that.
Indeed months after he was doing that he was still saying lifted lockdown for you and I was reckless.
He put his campaigning ahead of your or my mental health and liberty.
The problem with all this is that there were stacks of exemptions from day 1. We couldn't shut the entire economy down, so key workers were designated. Was a load of people in a factory a high risk factor of spreading the pox and potentially killing their colleagues? Yes - and for those of us running such factories it was a fucking nightmare.
It was never about x is safe and y is unsafe. It was always about managing risk, and certain activities had to do so because just shutting them down was problematic.
Political campaigning was on the list. Its easy for the people who either hated all restrictions or are pathological about Keir Starmer to retrospectively try and change the rules and the context, but it doesn't change reality. No matter how angry you are that most of us are ignoring your tirades.
The government as you say had to go through a difficult exercise which lead to some of the absurdities we saw (X is allowed, Y is not). Because in aggregate that seeming anomaly brought about a decrease in overall activity which was the required aim.
But that persisted far, far beyond what was reasonable or consistent with a liberal democracy.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You really should stop being so dismissive.
British apples - we import far too many when we could be making Coxes Pippins (?) a global mega variety like Pink Lady British pastry - or crumble - made by all-British ingredients grown on CAP-free farms Exported all around the world and I-I-I can see see millions of consumers in new markets being happy to have found a slice of Glorious Great British Apple Pie.
That's why we need the freeports.
Cox is overrated. Also, at their best they are small and wrinkled when what the market wants is large and glossy. Pink Lady is a scam.
You know what you're getting with a pink lady though. Same every time. I'd say they're like not risking the real ale and going with the pint of keg.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
Distinctively British is more than a bit ho hum.
And why are we not building microprocessor factories so we don't mind so much about Taiwan? Duodecimal if necessary.
“Distinctively British” is plain weird
“Like South Korea but in tweed” makes as much sense
And yet, here’s a thing: by incessantly banging on about his patriotism, by standing in front of 3000 floodlit Union Jacks, etc etc, Starmer IS making me warm to him, faintly, inasmuch as I now trust him to stand up for the Union, be nice about our Queen and country, not be a Corbyn style traitor
I guess his focus groups have told him that, post Corbyn, he has to be this blunt and basic. “I’m British, too, and I love Britain too, despite its flaws, let’s make it better”
Not a bad message, for a would-be Labour PM, in the context of Corbyn
Tend to agree. Now that the hunting issue is a dead duck anyway I can see myself voting for him. Not that it makes any difference given the safety of the tory seat I live in.
Not really sure what is wrong with "Distinctively British", unless you are perhaps a Citizen of Nowhere.
We have distinctively French, and distinctively Italian.
I just don't see the problem.
There is perhaps a problem apply it to Sir Starmer, though. He needs to explain and demonstrate.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
Distinctively British is more than a bit ho hum.
And why are we not building microprocessor factories so we don't mind so much about Taiwan? Duodecimal if necessary.
“Distinctively British” is plain weird
“Like South Korea but in tweed” makes as much sense
And yet, here’s a thing: by incessantly banging on about his patriotism, by standing in front of 3000 floodlit Union Jacks, etc etc, Starmer IS making me warm to him, faintly, inasmuch as I now trust him to stand up for the Union, be nice about our Queen and country, not be a Corbyn style traitor
I guess his focus groups have told him that, post Corbyn, he has to be this blunt and basic. “I’m British, too, and I love Britain too, despite its flaws, let’s make it better”
Not a bad message, for a would-be Labour PM, in the context of Corbyn
Tend to agree. Now that the hunting issue is a dead duck anyway I can see myself voting for him. Not that it makes any difference given the safety of the tory seat I live in.
Good on him. Half an hour with Andrew Neil should be considered compulsory for anyone wanting high office. The antidote to the rest of the clickbait media.
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
Distinctively British is more than a bit ho hum.
And why are we not building microprocessor factories so we don't mind so much about Taiwan? Duodecimal if necessary.
“Distinctively British” is plain weird
“Like South Korea but in tweed” makes as much sense
And yet, here’s a thing: by incessantly banging on about his patriotism, by standing in front of 3000 floodlit Union Jacks, etc etc, Starmer IS making me warm to him, faintly, inasmuch as I now trust him to stand up for the Union, be nice about our Queen and country, not be a Corbyn style traitor
I guess his focus groups have told him that, post Corbyn, he has to be this blunt and basic. “I’m British, too, and I love Britain too, despite its flaws, let’s make it better”
Not a bad message, for a would-be Labour PM, in the context of Corbyn
Part 2 of the plan. Announce sensible, credible policies (vanilla with a few chocolate chips), essentially asking the electorate to trust Labour with the shop .
The state of UK politics. This is Starmer’s new economic philosophy
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible - Distinctively British - Partnership with business - Help mothers bake apple pie - Re-energise communities - Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
You needn't have made it too obvious. We all know that Labour aren't interested in re-energising communities.
Distinctively British is more than a bit ho hum.
And why are we not building microprocessor factories so we don't mind so much about Taiwan? Duodecimal if necessary.
“Distinctively British” is plain weird
“Like South Korea but in tweed” makes as much sense
And yet, here’s a thing: by incessantly banging on about his patriotism, by standing in front of 3000 floodlit Union Jacks, etc etc, Starmer IS making me warm to him, faintly, inasmuch as I now trust him to stand up for the Union, be nice about our Queen and country, not be a Corbyn style traitor
I guess his focus groups have told him that, post Corbyn, he has to be this blunt and basic. “I’m British, too, and I love Britain too, despite its flaws, let’s make it better”
Not a bad message, for a would-be Labour PM, in the context of Corbyn
Tend to agree. Now that the hunting issue is a dead duck anyway I can see myself voting for him. Not that it makes any difference given the safety of the tory seat I live in.
It is if you are duck hunting.
I always end up picking up the bill when I do that.
Comments
@andrew_lilico
·
2h
No proper Conservative should object to how expensive Sunak's clothes are. He can spend his money how he chooses - that's what a Conservative should think.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1551475224880848897
If they do, there's a strong chance Boris can cobble together 120 MPs. He wins very easily from that point.
So the anti-Boris faction won't move against her, and neither will the Boris loyalists.
I think she's secure till the next election.
Leadership election again next summer.
Secondly we would have someone else as PM rather than 6 weeks of Bozo trying to complete his "wish list of things to do as PM"
Which means Rishi should have been in No 10 for 10 days now (FPTP) or 4 days (MPs only voting)
Truss is cr*p.
But with Truss, you get some of your money back.
I'd go for the cheaper cr*p any day.
If we spend money on our built environment differently we can encourage people to walk or cycle more and drive less, and therefore reduce obesity.
https://hbkportal.co.uk/index.php/geography/resourcereliance6/
Careful, you might get electrocuted.
1. She has minimal and minority support amongst MPs
2. She is bereft of a policy vision or clear ideas
3. She is a dreadful communicator and looks set to appoint cabinet ministers who are worse
It can't end well. The party could have had a clean start but instead opted to put up the dwarf and the cosplayer to engage in a brutally bitter hate war attacking their own government all summer whilst Bonzo squats in Downing Street doing nothing as the various crises burn hotter and hotter.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-prime-minister-truss-might-surprise-us-all
https://www.businessinnovationmag.co.uk/first-light-fusion-partners-with-idom-on-nuclear-fusion-reactor/
Oxford-based fusion energy specialist First Light Fusion has signed a long-term collaboration agreement with Spanish engineering firm IDOM to develop plans for a vital part of its power plant pilot.
The two companies will work together on the design of a fusion reactor chamber based on First Light’s unique target and projectile technology. IDOM will provide feedback and expertise on designs for the reactor head, the reactor vessel, and its components.
Designing the reactor is an important step in First Light’s plans to launch a pilot plant in the next decade as part of the firm’s long-term roadmap to deliver commercial fusion by the 2040s. Once finalised, this type of reactor will be the first of its kind.
Having already been working together for the last 12 months, the new agreement will see the firms collaborate over several years.
Dr Nick Hawker, Co-Founder and CEO of First Light Fusion, said: “We are delighted to be collaborating long term with IDOM, which is well-renowned worldwide for its capabilities and expertise in fusion. Bringing together our teams will accelerate our progress, enabling us to deliver a pilot power plant in the next decade.
“The reactor chamber is a critical piece of the jigsaw puzzle for bringing commercial fusion to the market. Designing and developing a commercial fusion power plant is a great challenge, but our approach is all about simplicity, and we believe our projectile technology offers the fastest path to power generation from fusion.”
In April, First Light announced it had achieved fusion for the first time using its unique projectile approach. Having spent less than £45 million, the company have a rate of performance improvement faster than any previous fusion scheme.
Having demonstrated fusion, First Light’s plans for a ‘gain’ demonstrator – whereby the amount of energy generated outstrips that used to spark the reaction – are progressing well. Once this step is achieved, the firm believe the major problem facing nuclear fusion will be an engineering rather than a science one, a major motivation for the partnership with IDOM.
They are currently working towards a pilot plant producing around 150 MW of electricity at a cost below $1 billion in the 2030s. The company’s power plant design involves the target being injected into the reaction chamber, and the projectile launched downwards through the same entrance, so it catches up with and impacts the target at the right moment....
“Starmer sets out 5 economic principles of a Labour government
- Financially responsible
- Distinctively British
- Partnership with business
- Help mothers bake apple pie
- Re-energise communities
- Invest to boost productivity”
Only one of those was added by me
On the substance, Limits to Growth was published in 1972 and its point seems to me to be sound, that you can't grow indefinitely in a finite world. Growth growth growth sounds like Global warming Global warming Global warming to me. Seriously I would join the Greens but for a marked disagreement with them on some aspects of wildlife management.
I'm somewhat sceptical that voters know what this means for them. Growth does not necessarily mean higher wages, better public services, although it can. How would Labour grow the economy and what does that mean for people's pockets and services?
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1551516908872155136
How has the economy grown since the GFC?
How have wages?
UNITE, UNISON, Union Jack...
I said that it should have been legal for the rest of us instead of illegal and "reckless".
British apples - we import far too many when we could be making Coxes Pippins (?) a global mega variety like Pink Lady
British pastry - or crumble - made by all-British ingredients grown on CAP-free farms
Exported all around the world and I-I-I can see see millions of consumers in new markets being happy to have found a slice of Glorious Great British Apple Pie.
That's why we need the freeports.
Who would buy a pie that didn't include good honest British blackberries?
https://www.redbubble.com/i/dress/Red-White-and-Blue-UK-Union-Jack-British-Burlap-Flag-by-podartist/22655351.V4WQ8
And why are we not building microprocessor factories so we don't mind so much about Taiwan? Duodecimal if necessary.
I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to expect someone who is advocating a change to, "be the change they want to see," as someone may once have said. It's more egregious to break the law that you've created, but I'd still file Starmer's actions under taking the piss.
Johnson 33%
Truss 26%
Sunak 24%
https://twitter.com/MoS_Politics/status/1550881157511782402?s=20&t=6jOUXFtS_fprVmi9tPyB0g
My silver bullet is a high quality egalitarian education system. This would be transformational imo - but it would take a long time, be difficult to achieve, and would be genuinely against the interests of some.
I'd have no objection if he'd wanted you and I to have the same liberties he did, but he didn't. He wanted us locked up at home still, forbidden by law from having a meal with friends or family etc but he could do that.
Indeed months after he was doing that he was still saying lifted lockdown for you and I was reckless.
He put his campaigning ahead of your or my mental health and liberty.
Or rather, that one did and the other didn't shows what truly despicable laws they were. Proposed by the government and supported by the Opposition (forgetting their primary role in life).
It was an horrendous period for democracy and of course not just for us but globally.
As I wrote moons ago fuck them all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM6owwj7zPk
I am determined to double down on levelling up so that everyone has the opportunity to succeed as part of an aspiration nation.
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1551442369287012354
Reassuring stuff
UK-Germany interconnector funding signed off. Operational 2028.
“Like South Korea but in tweed” makes as much sense
And yet, here’s a thing: by incessantly banging on about his patriotism, by standing in front of 3000 floodlit Union Jacks, etc etc, Starmer IS making me warm to him, faintly, inasmuch as I now trust him to stand up for the Union, be nice about our Queen and country, not be a Corbyn style traitor
I guess his focus groups have told him that, post Corbyn, he has to be this blunt and basic. “I’m British, too, and I love Britain too, despite its flaws, let’s make it better”
Not a bad message, for a would-be Labour PM, in the context of Corbyn
It was never about x is safe and y is unsafe. It was always about managing risk, and certain activities had to do so because just shutting them down was problematic.
Political campaigning was on the list. Its easy for the people who either hated all restrictions or are pathological about Keir Starmer to retrospectively try and change the rules and the context, but it doesn't change reality. No matter how angry you are that most of us are ignoring your tirades.
How's she got drunk at this time of the morning?
I had the lights on without any curtains last night - during WW2 that could have been aiding the enemy...
The problem is when the flag-shaggers take over. The flag ceases to be an emblem of identity and trade but instead a token of exclusion and hate and division.
The government told us who and how many people we were allowed to have in our homes and you cheer them on because they had fifty pages of legislation explaining it all.
On the obesity thing, I'm quite sceptical that a lack of exercise is the reason for our obesity crisis. You need to do an awful lot of running to burn off a fish supper.
Perhaps manual labour (mining etc) meant that people could get away with eating more in the past, rather than recreational exercise? Would explain the average calorie difference.
This leadership election could go very seriously pear-shaped for the tories.
I’ll never vote for Labour, but if they are basically patriotic, and they tell the SNP to fuck off, and they won’t wreck the economy: let them have a go. The Tories need time on the bench to rethink
The one possible fly-in-this-ointment is Wokeness
https://twitter.com/ijrumsey/status/1551520372708839424
But that persisted far, far beyond what was reasonable or consistent with a liberal democracy.
We have distinctively French, and distinctively Italian.
I just don't see the problem.
There is perhaps a problem apply it to Sir Starmer, though. He needs to explain and demonstrate.