WOW. The owner of a popular inn in Old Orchard Beach, Maine, told CNN that “easily” 90% of their business has disappeared as Canadian tourists cancel their vacations in the U.S. following Trump’s relentless attacks on their country.
Who is going to want to go on holiday to the US - and risk ending up in an El Salvadorean prison after no due process?
In view of my forthcoming visit, I would like to get on my Social Media record that Trump is the greatest deal maker in human history, and obviously the best President of all time.
Power to his elbow and his talented sidekick, who in no way is the real President.
We don’t need no education. Wise words.
Are you a self-doxed Fox?
With the number of "Chump"s and worse on my twitter account, I would not stand a chance.
So it would be a burner phone, and plausible deniability.
I was thinking more of borrowing @williamglenn T shirt for the immigration line.
I am sure that will ensure a swift entry, with no stay in an El Salvadorean Gulag at all.
I prefer this little known bible story. I think it comes shortly after the moneychangers story.
Not sure Jesus would appreciate that kerning. Lawd!
It would seem the non charging of Sturgeon has passed without a whimper. I find it troubling that such matters nearly all seem to end without any elected official being charged
Perhaps the fact she did nothing wrong played a part?
She signed the accounts. The police thought there was enough evidence to warrant a report to those making charging decisions. She has not been cleared because that only happens if you are tried and acquitted.
What has happened is that those making the charging decisions have determined that there is insufficient evidence to justify any charges on the basis of the applicable tests. She remains innocent.
Worth noting that after Salmond was acquitted Sturgeon sought to imply he was "really" guilty and a wrong' un. If some now do that to her it would be karma.
But she is an innocent person.
Just checking, do you have some statements from Sturgeon implying that Salmond was ‘really’ guilty and a wrong’(sic) un?
Well there’s this, which I said at the time was unwise to say.
The motives of those women were now being “maligned [and] have been accused of being liars and conspiracists”, [Sturgeon] said.
“The behaviour complained of was found by a jury not to constitute criminal conduct and Alex Salmond is innocent of criminality, but that doesn’t mean the behaviour complained of didn’t happen and I think it’s important that we don’t lose sight of that.”
I guess that’s interpretation of Salmond’s (mostly admitted) behaviour rather than its criminality. Perhaps unwise but understandable in the face of the avalanche of misogyny and conspiracy theories that followed.
President Trump appears to agree to the US joining the British Commonwealth, saying it "sounds good to me"
He's following the divide and conquer principle: what can I throw the Brits to separate them from the Europeans?
And if it was a "one off", where we then found ourselves in the US's "good books", with all the benefits that accrue from that, then great.
The problem is that once you have established a reputation for completely shafting your allies (see Canada), then why should Britain join the US? It'd only be a matter of time before we too were shafted because we'd upset King Donald.
Would Canada be shafted if it joined the US?
Oh William, are you trolling or have you really gone stark raving bonkers?
have you not read any of the other posts of this utter shit?
In response to @Luckyguy1983's comments, I've actually read Kemi Badenoch's speech from earlier in the week.
My response, fairly predictably, is to ask what she thought was going on between 2010 and 2024? It's almost as thought she is determined to airbrush fourteen years of history and government and have a cheap pop at both Ed Miliband and Ed Davey.
Yes, you can vertainly argue energy policy generally needs more thought but for the Conservatives to come to the table now and start doing rhe thinking is a damning indictment of the waste of the years in office. What did they do? What did Kemi Badenoch, as Cabinet Minister, do about any of this?
What she proposes is reasonable enough - I'm sure Coutinho will come up with something though for all the picking apart of other proposals, as for what a future Conservative Government might do, platitudes. The debate seems to start from where it always has - the future of the environment versus economic growth and prosperity in the present?
That's not the place to start in my view - claiming people won't accept lower living standards (and more taxes now) for environmental protection in the future is disingenuous in extremis. Conservative might not - I suspect many others would.
Instead of claiming it would be economically ruinous to move to Net Zero by 2050, why nost start from the premise of whether it would be environmentally disastrous not to move to Net Zero by 2050? There's an element of leading by example, as I've said, and the internal politics of Russia, China, America and India may well be more open to technological advances which can reduce environmental degradation and resulting climate impacts.
The polling afaik indicates that people strongly support Net Zero, but strongly disapprove of any punitive measures to get there, and rightly so in my opinion.
There are a few points that spring to mind in response to what you've said.
It is an article of faith with Net Zero supporters that there is an early adopter advantage to forcibly decarbonising our energy grid - growing valuable new industries and 'well-paid green jobs'. This is a lie. It is actually the green industries of coal burning China that are taking off - its solar panel industry and its electric car industry to name but two. These industries in the UK are dying, at least partly due to the cost of industrial energy. In the 90s I swear I remember us actually being a fairly big manufacturer of solar panels. So what there actually seems to be is a 'late-adopter' advantage - countries that put their economic prosperity first are surging forward in green technologies (at our expense) and will then be able to afford to pick and choose the best ones.
Nobody wants to 'follow our example' - the only example we're setting is how to fuck up our economy, and the only response we're provoking in other countries is relief that they have not foolishly followed the same path.
I can answer your question about whether it would be environmentally ruinous not to move toward Net Zero by 2050 - No. It will make bugger all difference, as we account for 1 percent of global emmissions. It is also likely that net worldwide carbon would increase as a result of the UK meeting the 2050 target, as economic activity leaves our shores and moves to countries with more carbon intensive industries.
In response, and thanks for the response, by the way.
You could argue, I suppose, we were in the forefront of the technology of the Industrial Revolution but other countries adapted what we did and did it better and cheaper and I accept it's the same with green technology.
I believe the cost of photovoltaic cells plummeted because of some technological advance which simply allowed them to be made cheaper.
Your argument seems, to paraphrase it, is nothing we do will make any difference so we might as well do nothing, "enjoy prosperity" (I think there are many other factors beside Net Zero why our economy is struggling and not all of them began on July 5th 2024 - I think the Conservative Party has a lot to answer for but the mea culpa offered by Badenoch was insipid at best) by drilling, fracking, going nuclear etc, etc.
Fiddling while the planet burns (so to speak) is a recognition of failure, not a policy, and as the impact of environmental degradation and climate change become ever clearer, it won't be a question of arguing we didn't do anything because we only had 1% of emissions it'll be arguing why we didn't do anything.
That being said, if Badenoch, Coutinho and their group can come up with genuinely new thinking on these matters and some inventive policy ideas which both drive growth and protect the environment, I'll be the first to welcome them.
WOW. The owner of a popular inn in Old Orchard Beach, Maine, told CNN that “easily” 90% of their business has disappeared as Canadian tourists cancel their vacations in the U.S. following Trump’s relentless attacks on their country.
Who is going to want to go on holiday to the US - and risk ending up in an El Salvadorean prison after no due process?
In view of my forthcoming visit, I would like to get on my Social Media record that Trump is the greatest deal maker in human history, and obviously the best President of all time.
Power to his elbow and his talented sidekick, who in no way is the real President.
We don’t need no education. Wise words.
Are you a self-doxed Fox?
With the number of "Chump"s and worse on my twitter account, I would not stand a chance.
So it would be a burner phone, and plausible deniability.
I was thinking more of borrowing @williamglenn T shirt for the immigration line.
I am sure that will ensure a swift entry, with no stay in an El Salvadorean Gulag at all.
I prefer this little known bible story. I think it comes shortly after the moneychangers story.
Even without the unintentional narrative, its amazing that those three words individually are what some people are expecting and wanting to see.
In response to @Luckyguy1983's comments, I've actually read Kemi Badenoch's speech from earlier in the week.
My response, fairly predictably, is to ask what she thought was going on between 2010 and 2024? It's almost as thought she is determined to airbrush fourteen years of history and government and have a cheap pop at both Ed Miliband and Ed Davey.
Yes, you can vertainly argue energy policy generally needs more thought but for the Conservatives to come to the table now and start doing rhe thinking is a damning indictment of the waste of the years in office. What did they do? What did Kemi Badenoch, as Cabinet Minister, do about any of this?
What she proposes is reasonable enough - I'm sure Coutinho will come up with something though for all the picking apart of other proposals, as for what a future Conservative Government might do, platitudes. The debate seems to start from where it always has - the future of the environment versus economic growth and prosperity in the present?
That's not the place to start in my view - claiming people won't accept lower living standards (and more taxes now) for environmental protection in the future is disingenuous in extremis. Conservative might not - I suspect many others would.
Instead of claiming it would be economically ruinous to move to Net Zero by 2050, why nost start from the premise of whether it would be environmentally disastrous not to move to Net Zero by 2050? There's an element of leading by example, as I've said, and the internal politics of Russia, China, America and India may well be more open to technological advances which can reduce environmental degradation and resulting climate impacts.
The polling afaik indicates that people strongly support Net Zero, but strongly disapprove of any punitive measures to get there, and rightly so in my opinion.
There are a few points that spring to mind in response to what you've said.
It is an article of faith with Net Zero supporters that there is an early adopter advantage to forcibly decarbonising our energy grid - growing valuable new industries and 'well-paid green jobs'. This is a lie. It is actually the green industries of coal burning China that are taking off - its solar panel industry and its electric car industry to name but two. These industries in the UK are dying, at least partly due to the cost of industrial energy. In the 90s I swear I remember us actually being a fairly big manufacturer of solar panels. So what there actually seems to be is a 'late-adopter' advantage - countries that put their economic prosperity first are surging forward in green technologies (at our expense) and will then be able to afford to pick and choose the best ones.
Nobody wants to 'follow our example' - the only example we're setting is how to fuck up our economy, and the only response we're provoking in other countries is relief that they have not foolishly followed the same path.
I can answer your question about whether it would be environmentally ruinous not to move toward Net Zero by 2050 - No. It will make bugger all difference, as we account for 1 percent of global emmissions. It is also likely that net worldwide carbon would increase as a result of the UK meeting the 2050 target, as economic activity leaves our shores and moves to countries with more carbon intensive industries.
I think you're roughly at stage 4 of my climate change denier trajectory. What's interesting is that people are arranged all over this - some people are still stuck at 1) , for example.
1) Climate change isn't real. 2) Climate change is happening, but it's not caused by humans. 3) Climate change is our fault, but it's not worth doing anything about it because the Chinese won't 4) The Chinese have done so much on climate change they are destroying our domestic car and solar panel industries. We should put tariffs on them. 5) We are generating so much clean energy we're paying wind farms to turn themselves off! Bastards! 6) We didn't need any of these woke Net Zero targets in the first place - the renewable transition was going to happen anyway. Meddling lefties. 7) Why are we exporting so much of our energy to France? British Energy for British Pensioners!
Parents of the child who died of measles have joined RFK-founded Children's Health Defense. Anti-vaccine groups excel at swooping in for tragedy, offering parents a cause.
“Don’t do the shots,” her mother said, measles is “not as bad as they’re making it out to be.”
In response to @Luckyguy1983's comments, I've actually read Kemi Badenoch's speech from earlier in the week.
My response, fairly predictably, is to ask what she thought was going on between 2010 and 2024? It's almost as thought she is determined to airbrush fourteen years of history and government and have a cheap pop at both Ed Miliband and Ed Davey.
Yes, you can vertainly argue energy policy generally needs more thought but for the Conservatives to come to the table now and start doing rhe thinking is a damning indictment of the waste of the years in office. What did they do? What did Kemi Badenoch, as Cabinet Minister, do about any of this?
What she proposes is reasonable enough - I'm sure Coutinho will come up with something though for all the picking apart of other proposals, as for what a future Conservative Government might do, platitudes. The debate seems to start from where it always has - the future of the environment versus economic growth and prosperity in the present?
That's not the place to start in my view - claiming people won't accept lower living standards (and more taxes now) for environmental protection in the future is disingenuous in extremis. Conservative might not - I suspect many others would.
Instead of claiming it would be economically ruinous to move to Net Zero by 2050, why nost start from the premise of whether it would be environmentally disastrous not to move to Net Zero by 2050? There's an element of leading by example, as I've said, and the internal politics of Russia, China, America and India may well be more open to technological advances which can reduce environmental degradation and resulting climate impacts.
The polling afaik indicates that people strongly support Net Zero, but strongly disapprove of any punitive measures to get there, and rightly so in my opinion.
There are a few points that spring to mind in response to what you've said.
It is an article of faith with Net Zero supporters that there is an early adopter advantage to forcibly decarbonising our energy grid - growing valuable new industries and 'well-paid green jobs'. This is a lie. It is actually the green industries of coal burning China that are taking off - its solar panel industry and its electric car industry to name but two. These industries in the UK are dying, at least partly due to the cost of industrial energy. In the 90s I swear I remember us actually being a fairly big manufacturer of solar panels. So what there actually seems to be is a 'late-adopter' advantage - countries that put their economic prosperity first are surging forward in green technologies (at our expense) and will then be able to afford to pick and choose the best ones.
Nobody wants to 'follow our example' - the only example we're setting is how to fuck up our economy, and the only response we're provoking in other countries is relief that they have not foolishly followed the same path.
I can answer your question about whether it would be environmentally ruinous not to move toward Net Zero by 2050 - No. It will make bugger all difference, as we account for 1 percent of global emmissions. It is also likely that net worldwide carbon would increase as a result of the UK meeting the 2050 target, as economic activity leaves our shores and moves to countries with more carbon intensive industries.
I think you're roughly at stage 4 of my climate change denier trajectory. What's interesting is that people are arranged all over this - some people are still stuck at 1) , for example.
1) Climate change isn't real. 2) Climate change is happening, but it's not caused by humans. 3) Climate change is our fault, but it's not worth doing anything about it because the Chinese won't 4) The Chinese have done so much on climate change they are destroying our domestic car and solar panel industries. We should put tariffs on them. 5) We are generating so much clean energy we're paying wind farms to turn themselves off! Bastards! 6) We didn't need any of these woke Net Zero targets in the first place - the renewable transition was going to happen anyway. Meddling lefties. 7) Why are we exporting so much of our energy to France? British Energy for British Pensioners!
Very funny but we are doing (5) at the same time as importing energy from France as it occurs at different times.
Parents of the child who died of measles have joined RFK-founded Children's Health Defense. Anti-vaccine groups excel at swooping in for tragedy, offering parents a cause.
“Don’t do the shots,” her mother said, measles is “not as bad as they’re making it out to be.”
Parents of the child who died of measles have joined RFK-founded Children's Health Defense. Anti-vaccine groups excel at swooping in for tragedy, offering parents a cause.
“Don’t do the shots,” her mother said, measles is “not as bad as they’re making it out to be.”
Just so tragic. I think you'd have to go into denial to cope with it. I know a couple where the wife went down an internet rabbit hole on natural birth and in the end insisted on a home birth in a very remote area despite having lots of risk factors. She had to sign a disclaimer saying she understood the risks, they didn't make it to hospital in time and the baby died. Must be such a hard thing to live with.
In response to @Luckyguy1983's comments, I've actually read Kemi Badenoch's speech from earlier in the week.
My response, fairly predictably, is to ask what she thought was going on between 2010 and 2024? It's almost as thought she is determined to airbrush fourteen years of history and government and have a cheap pop at both Ed Miliband and Ed Davey.
Yes, you can vertainly argue energy policy generally needs more thought but for the Conservatives to come to the table now and start doing rhe thinking is a damning indictment of the waste of the years in office. What did they do? What did Kemi Badenoch, as Cabinet Minister, do about any of this?
What she proposes is reasonable enough - I'm sure Coutinho will come up with something though for all the picking apart of other proposals, as for what a future Conservative Government might do, platitudes. The debate seems to start from where it always has - the future of the environment versus economic growth and prosperity in the present?
That's not the place to start in my view - claiming people won't accept lower living standards (and more taxes now) for environmental protection in the future is disingenuous in extremis. Conservative might not - I suspect many others would.
Instead of claiming it would be economically ruinous to move to Net Zero by 2050, why nost start from the premise of whether it would be environmentally disastrous not to move to Net Zero by 2050? There's an element of leading by example, as I've said, and the internal politics of Russia, China, America and India may well be more open to technological advances which can reduce environmental degradation and resulting climate impacts.
The polling afaik indicates that people strongly support Net Zero, but strongly disapprove of any punitive measures to get there, and rightly so in my opinion.
There are a few points that spring to mind in response to what you've said.
It is an article of faith with Net Zero supporters that there is an early adopter advantage to forcibly decarbonising our energy grid - growing valuable new industries and 'well-paid green jobs'. This is a lie. It is actually the green industries of coal burning China that are taking off - its solar panel industry and its electric car industry to name but two. These industries in the UK are dying, at least partly due to the cost of industrial energy. In the 90s I swear I remember us actually being a fairly big manufacturer of solar panels. So what there actually seems to be is a 'late-adopter' advantage - countries that put their economic prosperity first are surging forward in green technologies (at our expense) and will then be able to afford to pick and choose the best ones.
Nobody wants to 'follow our example' - the only example we're setting is how to fuck up our economy, and the only response we're provoking in other countries is relief that they have not foolishly followed the same path.
I can answer your question about whether it would be environmentally ruinous not to move toward Net Zero by 2050 - No. It will make bugger all difference, as we account for 1 percent of global emmissions. It is also likely that net worldwide carbon would increase as a result of the UK meeting the 2050 target, as economic activity leaves our shores and moves to countries with more carbon intensive industries.
In response, and thanks for the response, by the way.
You could argue, I suppose, we were in the forefront of the technology of the Industrial Revolution but other countries adapted what we did and did it better and cheaper and I accept it's the same with green technology.
I believe the cost of photovoltaic cells plummeted because of some technological advance which simply allowed them to be made cheaper.
Your argument seems, to paraphrase it, is nothing we do will make any difference so we might as well do nothing, "enjoy prosperity" (I think there are many other factors beside Net Zero why our economy is struggling and not all of them began on July 5th 2024 - I think the Conservative Party has a lot to answer for but the mea culpa offered by Badenoch was insipid at best) by drilling, fracking, going nuclear etc, etc.
Fiddling while the planet burns (so to speak) is a recognition of failure, not a policy, and as the impact of environmental degradation and climate change become ever clearer, it won't be a question of arguing we didn't do anything because we only had 1% of emissions it'll be arguing why we didn't do anything.
That being said, if Badenoch, Coutinho and their group can come up with genuinely new thinking on these matters and some inventive policy ideas which both drive growth and protect the environment, I'll be the first to welcome them.
I think we can find common ground in that we both agree it's time someone did some serious thinking about energy and Net zero in the UK. In the absence of David Milliband doing any, and with Reform's energy policy launch proving a damp squib, God speed Kemi and Claire doing some work on it.
Parents of the child who died of measles have joined RFK-founded Children's Health Defense. Anti-vaccine groups excel at swooping in for tragedy, offering parents a cause.
“Don’t do the shots,” her mother said, measles is “not as bad as they’re making it out to be.”
"This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. "
In response to @Luckyguy1983's comments, I've actually read Kemi Badenoch's speech from earlier in the week.
My response, fairly predictably, is to ask what she thought was going on between 2010 and 2024? It's almost as thought she is determined to airbrush fourteen years of history and government and have a cheap pop at both Ed Miliband and Ed Davey.
Yes, you can vertainly argue energy policy generally needs more thought but for the Conservatives to come to the table now and start doing rhe thinking is a damning indictment of the waste of the years in office. What did they do? What did Kemi Badenoch, as Cabinet Minister, do about any of this?
What she proposes is reasonable enough - I'm sure Coutinho will come up with something though for all the picking apart of other proposals, as for what a future Conservative Government might do, platitudes. The debate seems to start from where it always has - the future of the environment versus economic growth and prosperity in the present?
That's not the place to start in my view - claiming people won't accept lower living standards (and more taxes now) for environmental protection in the future is disingenuous in extremis. Conservative might not - I suspect many others would.
Instead of claiming it would be economically ruinous to move to Net Zero by 2050, why nost start from the premise of whether it would be environmentally disastrous not to move to Net Zero by 2050? There's an element of leading by example, as I've said, and the internal politics of Russia, China, America and India may well be more open to technological advances which can reduce environmental degradation and resulting climate impacts.
The polling afaik indicates that people strongly support Net Zero, but strongly disapprove of any punitive measures to get there, and rightly so in my opinion.
There are a few points that spring to mind in response to what you've said.
It is an article of faith with Net Zero supporters that there is an early adopter advantage to forcibly decarbonising our energy grid - growing valuable new industries and 'well-paid green jobs'. This is a lie. It is actually the green industries of coal burning China that are taking off - its solar panel industry and its electric car industry to name but two. These industries in the UK are dying, at least partly due to the cost of industrial energy. In the 90s I swear I remember us actually being a fairly big manufacturer of solar panels. So what there actually seems to be is a 'late-adopter' advantage - countries that put their economic prosperity first are surging forward in green technologies (at our expense) and will then be able to afford to pick and choose the best ones.
Nobody wants to 'follow our example' - the only example we're setting is how to fuck up our economy, and the only response we're provoking in other countries is relief that they have not foolishly followed the same path.
I can answer your question about whether it would be environmentally ruinous not to move toward Net Zero by 2050 - No. It will make bugger all difference, as we account for 1 percent of global emmissions. It is also likely that net worldwide carbon would increase as a result of the UK meeting the 2050 target, as economic activity leaves our shores and moves to countries with more carbon intensive industries.
I think you're roughly at stage 4 of my climate change denier trajectory. What's interesting is that people are arranged all over this - some people are still stuck at 1) , for example.
1) Climate change isn't real. 2) Climate change is happening, but it's not caused by humans. 3) Climate change is our fault, but it's not worth doing anything about it because the Chinese won't 4) The Chinese have done so much on climate change they are destroying our domestic car and solar panel industries. We should put tariffs on them. 5) We are generating so much clean energy we're paying wind farms to turn themselves off! Bastards! 6) We didn't need any of these woke Net Zero targets in the first place - the renewable transition was going to happen anyway. Meddling lefties. 7) Why are we exporting so much of our energy to France? British Energy for British Pensioners!
Really? I think you've just written a pile of abject bollocks and put some numbers beside it to give it the appearance of a hilariously satirical intervention.
You joke, but I think any prospect of Reform taking over from the Tories as the right wing opposition is over, in this parliament at least.
Conservatives are surely at their nadir. Everyone remembers the last government and they’re not going to be ready to give them much of a hearing anytime soon. But they are still on a par with Reform in polls, even at this low point. And with much better FPTP credentials. They have won way more council byelections than Reform since the election. I doubt they will sink further now.
For Farage to have a realistic chance of breakthrough I think it would require: consistent poll leads over Con at the 1.5:1 ratio or better, consistent poll leads over Labour, and a very strong showing in the upcoming locals.
In response to @Luckyguy1983's comments, I've actually read Kemi Badenoch's speech from earlier in the week.
My response, fairly predictably, is to ask what she thought was going on between 2010 and 2024? It's almost as thought she is determined to airbrush fourteen years of history and government and have a cheap pop at both Ed Miliband and Ed Davey.
Yes, you can vertainly argue energy policy generally needs more thought but for the Conservatives to come to the table now and start doing rhe thinking is a damning indictment of the waste of the years in office. What did they do? What did Kemi Badenoch, as Cabinet Minister, do about any of this?
What she proposes is reasonable enough - I'm sure Coutinho will come up with something though for all the picking apart of other proposals, as for what a future Conservative Government might do, platitudes. The debate seems to start from where it always has - the future of the environment versus economic growth and prosperity in the present?
That's not the place to start in my view - claiming people won't accept lower living standards (and more taxes now) for environmental protection in the future is disingenuous in extremis. Conservative might not - I suspect many others would.
Instead of claiming it would be economically ruinous to move to Net Zero by 2050, why nost start from the premise of whether it would be environmentally disastrous not to move to Net Zero by 2050? There's an element of leading by example, as I've said, and the internal politics of Russia, China, America and India may well be more open to technological advances which can reduce environmental degradation and resulting climate impacts.
The polling afaik indicates that people strongly support Net Zero, but strongly disapprove of any punitive measures to get there, and rightly so in my opinion.
There are a few points that spring to mind in response to what you've said.
It is an article of faith with Net Zero supporters that there is an early adopter advantage to forcibly decarbonising our energy grid - growing valuable new industries and 'well-paid green jobs'. This is a lie. It is actually the green industries of coal burning China that are taking off - its solar panel industry and its electric car industry to name but two. These industries in the UK are dying, at least partly due to the cost of industrial energy. In the 90s I swear I remember us actually being a fairly big manufacturer of solar panels. So what there actually seems to be is a 'late-adopter' advantage - countries that put their economic prosperity first are surging forward in green technologies (at our expense) and will then be able to afford to pick and choose the best ones.
Nobody wants to 'follow our example' - the only example we're setting is how to fuck up our economy, and the only response we're provoking in other countries is relief that they have not foolishly followed the same path.
I can answer your question about whether it would be environmentally ruinous not to move toward Net Zero by 2050 - No. It will make bugger all difference, as we account for 1 percent of global emmissions. It is also likely that net worldwide carbon would increase as a result of the UK meeting the 2050 target, as economic activity leaves our shores and moves to countries with more carbon intensive industries.
In response, and thanks for the response, by the way.
You could argue, I suppose, we were in the forefront of the technology of the Industrial Revolution but other countries adapted what we did and did it better and cheaper and I accept it's the same with green technology.
I believe the cost of photovoltaic cells plummeted because of some technological advance which simply allowed them to be made cheaper.
Your argument seems, to paraphrase it, is nothing we do will make any difference so we might as well do nothing, "enjoy prosperity" (I think there are many other factors beside Net Zero why our economy is struggling and not all of them began on July 5th 2024 - I think the Conservative Party has a lot to answer for but the mea culpa offered by Badenoch was insipid at best) by drilling, fracking, going nuclear etc, etc.
Fiddling while the planet burns (so to speak) is a recognition of failure, not a policy, and as the impact of environmental degradation and climate change become ever clearer, it won't be a question of arguing we didn't do anything because we only had 1% of emissions it'll be arguing why we didn't do anything.
That being said, if Badenoch, Coutinho and their group can come up with genuinely new thinking on these matters and some inventive policy ideas which both drive growth and protect the environment, I'll be the first to welcome them.
I think we can find common ground in that we both agree it's time someone did some serious thinking about energy and Net zero in the UK. In the absence of David Milliband doing any, and with Reform's energy policy launch proving a damp squib, God speed Kemi and Claire doing some work on it.
You joke, but I think any prospect of Reform taking over from the Tories as the right wing opposition is over, in this parliament at least.
Conservatives are surely at their nadir. Everyone remembers the last government and they’re not going to be ready to give them much of a hearing anytime soon. But they are still on a par with Reform in polls, even at this low point. And with much better FPTP credentials. They have won way more council byelections than Reform since the election. I doubt they will sink further now.
For Farage to have a realistic chance of breakthrough I think it would require: consistent poll leads over Con at the 1.5:1 ratio or better, consistent poll leads over Labour, and a very strong showing in the upcoming locals.
Keep an eye on Bobby and Sue. As things stand, they fancy their chances better in the Conservatives than in Reform. That's pretty indicative.
In response to @Luckyguy1983's comments, I've actually read Kemi Badenoch's speech from earlier in the week.
My response, fairly predictably, is to ask what she thought was going on between 2010 and 2024? It's almost as thought she is determined to airbrush fourteen years of history and government and have a cheap pop at both Ed Miliband and Ed Davey.
Yes, you can vertainly argue energy policy generally needs more thought but for the Conservatives to come to the table now and start doing rhe thinking is a damning indictment of the waste of the years in office. What did they do? What did Kemi Badenoch, as Cabinet Minister, do about any of this?
What she proposes is reasonable enough - I'm sure Coutinho will come up with something though for all the picking apart of other proposals, as for what a future Conservative Government might do, platitudes. The debate seems to start from where it always has - the future of the environment versus economic growth and prosperity in the present?
That's not the place to start in my view - claiming people won't accept lower living standards (and more taxes now) for environmental protection in the future is disingenuous in extremis. Conservative might not - I suspect many others would.
Instead of claiming it would be economically ruinous to move to Net Zero by 2050, why nost start from the premise of whether it would be environmentally disastrous not to move to Net Zero by 2050? There's an element of leading by example, as I've said, and the internal politics of Russia, China, America and India may well be more open to technological advances which can reduce environmental degradation and resulting climate impacts.
The polling afaik indicates that people strongly support Net Zero, but strongly disapprove of any punitive measures to get there, and rightly so in my opinion.
There are a few points that spring to mind in response to what you've said.
It is an article of faith with Net Zero supporters that there is an early adopter advantage to forcibly decarbonising our energy grid - growing valuable new industries and 'well-paid green jobs'. This is a lie. It is actually the green industries of coal burning China that are taking off - its solar panel industry and its electric car industry to name but two. These industries in the UK are dying, at least partly due to the cost of industrial energy. In the 90s I swear I remember us actually being a fairly big manufacturer of solar panels. So what there actually seems to be is a 'late-adopter' advantage - countries that put their economic prosperity first are surging forward in green technologies (at our expense) and will then be able to afford to pick and choose the best ones.
Nobody wants to 'follow our example' - the only example we're setting is how to fuck up our economy, and the only response we're provoking in other countries is relief that they have not foolishly followed the same path.
I can answer your question about whether it would be environmentally ruinous not to move toward Net Zero by 2050 - No. It will make bugger all difference, as we account for 1 percent of global emmissions. It is also likely that net worldwide carbon would increase as a result of the UK meeting the 2050 target, as economic activity leaves our shores and moves to countries with more carbon intensive industries.
In response, and thanks for the response, by the way.
You could argue, I suppose, we were in the forefront of the technology of the Industrial Revolution but other countries adapted what we did and did it better and cheaper and I accept it's the same with green technology.
I believe the cost of photovoltaic cells plummeted because of some technological advance which simply allowed them to be made cheaper.
Your argument seems, to paraphrase it, is nothing we do will make any difference so we might as well do nothing, "enjoy prosperity" (I think there are many other factors beside Net Zero why our economy is struggling and not all of them began on July 5th 2024 - I think the Conservative Party has a lot to answer for but the mea culpa offered by Badenoch was insipid at best) by drilling, fracking, going nuclear etc, etc.
Fiddling while the planet burns (so to speak) is a recognition of failure, not a policy, and as the impact of environmental degradation and climate change become ever clearer, it won't be a question of arguing we didn't do anything because we only had 1% of emissions it'll be arguing why we didn't do anything.
That being said, if Badenoch, Coutinho and their group can come up with genuinely new thinking on these matters and some inventive policy ideas which both drive growth and protect the environment, I'll be the first to welcome them.
I think we can find common ground in that we both agree it's time someone did some serious thinking about energy and Net zero in the UK. In the absence of David Milliband doing any, and with Reform's energy policy launch proving a damp squib, God speed Kemi and Claire doing some work on it.
I had a thought I'd seen it alleged the Reform energy thing may have been intentionally sabotaged due to internal squabbling, this was before the recent handbags went public. I can see a Lowe story about it at the time, though I don't think it fits as an intentional factional fight.
Tough. Ombudsmans aren't infallible or capable of considering things in context.
The heads of five of Britain's biggest unions today call on Keir Starmer to U-turn on his WASPI snub on the anniversary of a bombshell report...The leaders of Unison, GMB, the Communication Workers Union, Transport Salaried Staffs' Association and the Fire Brigades Union, said the decision will make many question the point of an Ombudsman.
You joke, but I think any prospect of Reform taking over from the Tories as the right wing opposition is over, in this parliament at least.
Conservatives are surely at their nadir. Everyone remembers the last government and they’re not going to be ready to give them much of a hearing anytime soon. But they are still on a par with Reform in polls, even at this low point. And with much better FPTP credentials. They have won way more council byelections than Reform since the election. I doubt they will sink further now.
For Farage to have a realistic chance of breakthrough I think it would require: consistent poll leads over Con at the 1.5:1 ratio or better, consistent poll leads over Labour, and a very strong showing in the upcoming locals.
That's a startlingly confident assertion based on a 1-point swing and diverse local by-elections. I think the outlook in 4 years' time is genuinely hard to predict.
You joke, but I think any prospect of Reform taking over from the Tories as the right wing opposition is over, in this parliament at least.
Conservatives are surely at their nadir. Everyone remembers the last government and they’re not going to be ready to give them much of a hearing anytime soon. But they are still on a par with Reform in polls, even at this low point. And with much better FPTP credentials. They have won way more council byelections than Reform since the election. I doubt they will sink further now.
For Farage to have a realistic chance of breakthrough I think it would require: consistent poll leads over Con at the 1.5:1 ratio or better, consistent poll leads over Labour, and a very strong showing in the upcoming locals.
Keep an eye on Bobby and Sue. As things stand, they fancy their chances better in the Conservatives than in Reform. That's pretty indicative.
Why wouldn't they? Both fancy being leader and there is less than a nano-speck of a chance of them being leader of Reform whilst Farage is around. Better to see what happens in the Conservatives.
Parents of the child who died of measles have joined RFK-founded Children's Health Defense. Anti-vaccine groups excel at swooping in for tragedy, offering parents a cause.
“Don’t do the shots,” her mother said, measles is “not as bad as they’re making it out to be.”
"This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. "
Christmas Carol
As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race, I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place. Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn: But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind, So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace, Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place, But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch, They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch; They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings; So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace. They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life (Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife) Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew, And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four– And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man There are only four things certain since Social Progress began. That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Parents of the child who died of measles have joined RFK-founded Children's Health Defense. Anti-vaccine groups excel at swooping in for tragedy, offering parents a cause.
“Don’t do the shots,” her mother said, measles is “not as bad as they’re making it out to be.”
Tabasco is hot sauce for people who don't like hot sauce.
No, I’ve corrected you on this before
1. The habanero and jalapeño varieties are seriously superior to the classic vinegar-and-heat trad Tabasco. It is that of which you speak
2. Only Tabasco does the bottles tiny enough you can sneak them out in restaurants with UTTERLY DREADFUL FOOD* and not cause a stir
*approximately 94% of eateries in Latin America
But why is the food bad? Is home cooking there bad? Or just restaurants? Don't poor places sometimes have good food because they have time on their hands? Surely they have no problem with quality of ingredients? Is carribean food shite too?
I wrote a whole long essay in the Gazette about the peculiar awfulness of Latin American food - which certainly cannot be ascribed to lack of money or produce
I’ve just come from Myanmar - GDP per capita $1800, enduring a civil war, power cuts every day - magnificent varied cuisine. Now I’m in Uruguay - GDP per capita $18,000 - ten times richer - stable and prosperous by local standards - dreary ugly nasty food. Badly cooked and zero sense of spicing and flavouring
My piece should be out soon
As for the Caribbean it is fairly bad and the more Spanish it is the worse it gets. Cuba OMFG
What do you expect? The Europeans wiped out the indigenous people who presumably knew how to make good food from local produce. And created plantation economies where food was designed to deliver maximum calories at minimum cost, while the European elites ate a kind of second rate transplanted European diet. New world societies are built on slavery and genocide, that's not a great recipe for culinary excellence.
Or it’s just an old man losing his taste buds?
You could have a point. I now prefer sex with a side order of kink, got used to the heightened sensation. Sex with kink versus vanilla sex is like flying good business over economy. A jaded luxury palate?
However, out in Asia - from Japan to Korea, Vietnam to Cambodia to China to Myanmar - I have no problem with the food at all. Require no secret bottles of Tabasco habanero. I love that food and need no personal touches. Because it is genuinely great food
So, no, I don’t think it’s my aged jaded ennui. I’ve just travelled everywhere and eaten everything and done everyone and I know crap food when I eat it
I'll offer @Leon some support here. I've been in Brazil for nearly 2 weeks - my first visit to Latin America - and I'm a little disappointed with the food too. It is very plain, a bit like my Mum's cooking in the 70s. No spices, almost no herbs. This is especially true at dinner in the evening.
What I would say is that the best food seems to be the buffets the locals eat at lunchtime- the meat is plain but there is a wide range of good and interesting vegetable and salad dishes. Paid for by weight and usually about £5 for a plateful.
The only truly good food I have had here was at a French restaurant.
Where will the last holdout of liberal democracy be? When the whole world has gone mad-max techno-feudal.
Iceland? New Zealand? Uruguay?
Denmark. They are serious about protecting their way of life.
While you continually cheerlead for Trump & co who seek to destroy western democracy.
On a serious note - Switzerland. Their system seems to excel at giving people control over the things they care about and making the politicians answerable to the electorate.
Jeff Zeleny @jeffzeleny President Trump downplayed his involvement in invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants, saying for the first time he hadn’t signed the proclamation, even as he stood by it. “I don’t know when it was signed because I didn’t sign it,” he said Friday night. “Other people handled it, but Marco Rubio has done a great job and he wanted them out and we go along with that.” Trump did sign it, as you can see here, unless it was an auto pen?
Where will the last holdout of liberal democracy be? When the whole world has gone mad-max techno-feudal.
Iceland? New Zealand? Uruguay?
Denmark. They are serious about protecting their way of life.
While you continually cheerlead for Trump & co who seek to destroy western democracy.
On a serious note - Switzerland. Their system seems to excel at giving people control over the things they care about and making the politicians answerable to the electorate.
The fascinating question is why direct democracy works in Switzerland, but doesn't in California.
"If Russia was behind Heathrow fire, is that an act of war? An act of Kremlin sabotage, if proven, would be a profound challenge to the Western world’s security architecture
Jeff Zeleny @jeffzeleny President Trump downplayed his involvement in invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants, saying for the first time he hadn’t signed the proclamation, even as he stood by it. “I don’t know when it was signed because I didn’t sign it,” he said Friday night. “Other people handled it, but Marco Rubio has done a great job and he wanted them out and we go along with that.” Trump did sign it, as you can see here, unless it was an auto pen?
President Trump appears to agree to the US joining the British Commonwealth, saying it "sounds good to me"
He's following the divide and conquer principle: what can I throw the Brits to separate them from the Europeans?
And if it was a "one off", where we then found ourselves in the US's "good books", with all the benefits that accrue from that, then great.
The problem is that once you have established a reputation for completely shafting your allies (see Canada), then why should Britain join the US? It'd only be a matter of time before we too were shafted because we'd upset King Donald.
Would Canada be shafted if it joined the US?
Oh William, are you trolling or have you really gone stark raving bonkers?
have you not read any of the other posts of this utter shit?
He used to be my favourite pro-EU, Eurofederalist poster.
Parents of the child who died of measles have joined RFK-founded Children's Health Defense. Anti-vaccine groups excel at swooping in for tragedy, offering parents a cause.
“Don’t do the shots,” her mother said, measles is “not as bad as they’re making it out to be.”
“Also, the measles are good for the body,” the girl’s father said, adding through an interpreter of Low German that measles boosts the immune system and wards against cancer — an untrue supposition often offered by anti-vaccine groups and repeated recently by Kennedy.
Without evidence, influencers at Children’s Health Defense and beyond have reframed the tragedy of the girl’s death as proof — of the efficacy of unproven cures like vitamin A, of maltreatment by a hospital and even of a plot to undermine Kennedy at the Department of Health and Human Services.
I have a friend who was always against vaccines, and decided not to vaccinate her daughter. Who then caught measles, was pretty ill, and suffered permanent damage to her hearing. My friend does regret not vaccinating her daughter. But you can't argue with the will of God.
From the article:
Out of every 1,000 cases, about 200 children require hospitalization, 50 develop pneumonia, one experiences brain swelling that can result in disability, and one to three will die.
Elsewhere I have read 10% need hospitalisation, but either way if no children got vaccinated against measles it would mean a hell of a lot of children needing hospital treatment - and not getting it because I don't think we'd have the capacity.
Comments
Probably the last liberal democracy will be somewhere sane like Costa Rica.
They have but against Albania they should be miles ahead
Not a contest
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgw0w7147vo
You could argue, I suppose, we were in the forefront of the technology of the Industrial Revolution but other countries adapted what we did and did it better and cheaper and I accept it's the same with green technology.
I believe the cost of photovoltaic cells plummeted because of some technological advance which simply allowed them to be made cheaper.
Your argument seems, to paraphrase it, is nothing we do will make any difference so we might as well do nothing, "enjoy prosperity" (I think there are many other factors beside Net Zero why our economy is struggling and not all of them began on July 5th 2024 - I think the Conservative Party has a lot to answer for but the mea culpa offered by Badenoch was insipid at best) by drilling, fracking, going nuclear etc, etc.
Fiddling while the planet burns (so to speak) is a recognition of failure, not a policy, and as the impact of environmental degradation and climate change become ever clearer, it won't be a question of arguing we didn't do anything because we only had 1% of emissions it'll be arguing why we didn't do anything.
That being said, if Badenoch, Coutinho and their group can come up with genuinely new thinking on these matters and some inventive policy ideas which both drive growth and protect the environment, I'll be the first to welcome them.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-assessing-domestic-launch-options-for-defence-satellites/
LAB: 27% (=)
CON: 23% (+1)
RefUK: 23% (-1)
LD: 14% (=)
Green 7% (=)
SNP: 2% (=)
Via @techneuk, 19-20 Mar.
Changes w/ 12-13 Mar.
1) Climate change isn't real.
2) Climate change is happening, but it's not caused by humans.
3) Climate change is our fault, but it's not worth doing anything about it because the Chinese won't
4) The Chinese have done so much on climate change they are destroying our domestic car and solar panel industries. We should put tariffs on them.
5) We are generating so much clean energy we're paying wind farms to turn themselves off! Bastards!
6) We didn't need any of these woke Net Zero targets in the first place - the renewable transition was going to happen anyway. Meddling lefties.
7) Why are we exporting so much of our energy to France? British Energy for British Pensioners!
“Don’t do the shots,” her mother said, measles is “not as bad as they’re making it out to be.”
https://bsky.app/profile/brandyzadrozny.bsky.social/post/3lkstaw5nwc27
Not as bad, as 4/5 of her children survived.
I know a couple where the wife went down an internet rabbit hole on natural birth and in the end insisted on a home birth in a very remote area despite having lots of risk factors. She had to sign a disclaimer saying she understood the risks, they didn't make it to hospital in time and the baby died. Must be such a hard thing to live with.
and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy,
for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the
writing be erased. "
Christmas Carol
Conservatives are surely at their nadir. Everyone remembers the last government and they’re not going to be ready to give them much of a hearing anytime soon. But they are still on a par with Reform in polls, even at this low point. And with much better FPTP credentials. They have won way more council byelections than Reform since the election. I doubt they will sink further now.
For Farage to have a realistic chance of breakthrough I think it would require: consistent poll leads over Con at the 1.5:1 ratio or better, consistent poll leads over Labour, and a very strong showing in the upcoming locals.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14394573/Awkward-Reform-green-energy-Rupert-Lowe-solar.html
The heads of five of Britain's biggest unions today call on Keir Starmer to U-turn on his WASPI snub on the anniversary of a bombshell report...The leaders of Unison, GMB, the Communication Workers Union, Transport Salaried Staffs' Association and the Fire Brigades Union, said the decision will make many question the point of an Ombudsman.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-waspi-blow-as-unions-make-huge-demand-on-anniversary-of-bombshell-report/ar-AA1BlzS7?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=3a057a1eddf34223e53b678f4c8f5312&ei=3
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew,
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four–
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Spent stages would drop on France...
What I would say is that the best food seems to be the buffets the locals eat at lunchtime- the meat is plain but there is a wide range of good and interesting vegetable and salad dishes. Paid for by weight and usually about £5 for a plateful.
The only truly good food I have had here was at a French restaurant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWmkcjfLXnQ
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1903215026682380513
@jeffzeleny
President Trump downplayed his involvement in invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants, saying for the first time he hadn’t signed the proclamation, even as he stood by it. “I don’t know when it was signed because I didn’t sign it,” he said Friday night. “Other people handled it, but Marco Rubio has done a great job and he wanted them out and we go along with that.” Trump did sign it, as you can see here, unless it was an auto pen?
https://x.com/jeffzeleny/status/1903228392763162802
"Spending is the fraud"
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1902895491043524639
All government spending is fraud. These people are insane.
An act of Kremlin sabotage, if proven, would be a profound challenge to the Western world’s security architecture
Memphis Barker"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/21/if-russia-was-behind-heathrow-fire-is-that-an-act-of-war/
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/anti-vaccine-influencers-weaponized-measles-death-texas-rcna196900
“Also, the measles are good for the body,” the girl’s father said, adding through an interpreter of Low German that measles boosts the immune system and wards against cancer — an untrue supposition often offered by anti-vaccine groups and repeated recently by Kennedy.
Without evidence, influencers at Children’s Health Defense and beyond have reframed the tragedy of the girl’s death as proof — of the efficacy of unproven cures like vitamin A, of maltreatment by a hospital and even of a plot to undermine Kennedy at the Department of Health and Human Services.
I have a friend who was always against vaccines, and decided not to vaccinate her daughter. Who then caught measles, was pretty ill, and suffered permanent damage to her hearing. My friend does regret not vaccinating her daughter. But you can't argue with the will of God.
From the article:
Out of every 1,000 cases, about 200 children require hospitalization, 50 develop pneumonia, one experiences brain swelling that can result in disability, and one to three will die.
Elsewhere I have read 10% need hospitalisation, but either way if no children got vaccinated against measles it would mean a hell of a lot of children needing hospital treatment - and not getting it because I don't think we'd have the capacity.
NEW THREAD