politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How are the Dominoes going to fall?

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How are the Dominoes going to fall?

Rishi Sunak’s radical and immense pledges to try to secure a viable post-Covid-19 economy by directly subsidising the great majority of the cost of temporarily redundant staff with the aim of keeping them from unemployment and keeping the businesses from bankruptcy was extraordinary.

Read the full story here

Stark_Dawning

Cheered me up no end. Thanks!

HYUFD

Indeed, last time there was a similar global health crisis with Spanish flu a century ago we got the Roaring Twenties but then the rise of Fascism and Communism in the Thirties so measures have to be taken carefully.

Of course the Great Plague of the 1660s did coincide with the more colourful period of the Restoration though on the other side

logical_song

Is a National Government really a possibility - and would it be a good thing?

Beibheirli_C

FPT:

Casino_Royale said:

Beibheirli_C said:

williamglenn said:

Do you think the root cause could be a form of British nationalism that denies English nationhood? Before the recent fetishisation of "the UK", we knew very well what England was.

Surely the English have been running the show since well before the Act of Union? The UK Parliament has always been composed of 3/4 English seats and the rest of the country gets maybe up to 25%.

So any wounds are likely self-inflicted...

How do you explain the Gordon Brown adminstration then?

Scottish MPs occupied several key offices of state and ministries.

That does not alter the fact that the bulk of MPs were English as was a large number of his cabinet.

Stark_Dawning

logical_song said:

Is a National Government really a possibility - and would it be a good thing?

No way would Boris go for that. It would have the political effect of handing back Labour the Red Wall.

FrancisUrquhart

I see the public are acting like total inconsiderate bell-ends at supermarkets again. Just how much bloody food do you need?

A couple of weeks ago I literally did a bigger than normal supermarket shop and a CostCo trip and yes I have run out of a couple of things like apples, but still have more than enough food for a good couple of months if I am not too picky.

e.g A few bags of porridge last for bloody ever. Mix in some slightly different fillers with syrup or cinnamon etc and you basically have breakfast sorted for months to come.

FrancisUrquhart

logical_song said:

Is a National Government really a possibility - and would it be a good thing?

I am sure we all want the likes Richard Burgon and Dawn Butler having influence over the government strategy....

fox327

As long as the number of new cases daily is increasing it is hard to see major decisions being taken, as the path of the epidemic will remain uncertain. When we know how many people will be infected in the current wave, probably by May, that will be the time for decisions.

This virus has caused a wave of panic. Politicians especially are afraid of change. Of course this level of spending is unsustainable for any length of time. The fact that the government is planning anyway this suggests that they expect the epidemic to be resolved quite soon.

If the epidemic cannot be contained it will peak and then remain out of control, but with a declining number of cases. At this stage the time will have come to plan a return to normality, although there may be a further wait to carry out these plans.

FrancisUrquhart

I see South Korea's numbers are creeping up again.

RobD

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

DAlexander

I have to admit I'm still in a state of shock at the government plans to pay some people 80% of their wage for jobs that have essentially ceased to exist, quite likely permanently.

Other people who lost their job on February 28th, rather than March 1st will get nothing and self-employed not much more.

I can't help but feel that giving everyone a basic income would have been a fairer way if money had to be handed out like this.

RobD

DAlexander said:

I have to admit I'm still in a state of shock at the government plans to pay some people 80% of their wage for jobs that have essentially ceased to exist, quite likely permanently.

Other people who lost their job on February 28th, rather than March 1st will get nothing and self-employed not much more.

I can't help but feel that giving everyone a basic income would have been a fairer way if money had to be handed out like this.

There had to be a cut off point on some date. I think March 1st is fair enough, given that was well before all this started.

FrancisUrquhart

DAlexander said:

I have to admit I'm still in a state of shock at the government plans to pay some people 80% of their wage for jobs that have essentially ceased to exist, quite likely permanently.

Other people who lost their job on February 28th, rather than March 1st will get nothing and self-employed not much more.

I can't help but feel that giving everyone a basic income would have been a fairer way if money had to be handed out like this.

You can't win. If they did UBI, say £1000 a month, you would have loads of people on £30-40k a year claiming they now can't exist, can't make the mortgage payments etc, because they budget on the basis of £3k a month rather than £1k.

FrancisUrquhart

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

Link?

If they really are, I would say go f##k yourself. The worst they can do is eventually try and levy a fine.

DAlexander

FrancisUrquhart said:

DAlexander said:

I have to admit I'm still in a state of shock at the government plans to pay some people 80% of their wage for jobs that have essentially ceased to exist, quite likely permanently.

Other people who lost their job on February 28th, rather than March 1st will get nothing and self-employed not much more.

I can't help but feel that giving everyone a basic income would have been a fairer way if money had to be handed out like this.

You can't win. If they did UBI, say £1000 a month, you would have loads of people on £30-40k a year claiming they now can't exist, can't make the mortgage payments etc, because they budget on the basis of £3k a month rather than £1k.

I don't see how giving £2000 to one person and £0 to another in the same financial situation is a fairer scheme than giving both £1000 each.

FrancisUrquhart

DAlexander said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DAlexander said:

I have to admit I'm still in a state of shock at the government plans to pay some people 80% of their wage for jobs that have essentially ceased to exist, quite likely permanently.

Other people who lost their job on February 28th, rather than March 1st will get nothing and self-employed not much more.

I can't help but feel that giving everyone a basic income would have been a fairer way if money had to be handed out like this.

You can't win. If they did UBI, say £1000 a month, you would have loads of people on £30-40k a year claiming they now can't exist, can't make the mortgage payments etc, because they budget on the basis of £3k a month rather than £1k.

I don't see how giving £2000 to one person and £0 to another in the same financial situation is a fairer scheme than giving both £1000 each.

You aren't giving £0 to others. There is the whole benefit system from which you can draw money. Yes there will be unfortunate edge cases, but there is no right answer to this problem.

For the vast majority in low / middle income, they will continue to receive a level of income upon which they have set their life up around.

RobD

FrancisUrquhart said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

Link?

It was discussed at the tail end of the last thread.

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1241300115094147072

RobD

DAlexander said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DAlexander said:

I have to admit I'm still in a state of shock at the government plans to pay some people 80% of their wage for jobs that have essentially ceased to exist, quite likely permanently.

Other people who lost their job on February 28th, rather than March 1st will get nothing and self-employed not much more.

I can't help but feel that giving everyone a basic income would have been a fairer way if money had to be handed out like this.

You can't win. If they did UBI, say £1000 a month, you would have loads of people on £30-40k a year claiming they now can't exist, can't make the mortgage payments etc, because they budget on the basis of £3k a month rather than £1k.

I don't see how giving £2000 to one person and £0 to another in the same financial situation is a fairer scheme than giving both £1000 each.

Because this intervention is to deal with the reaction to the government's advice to stay at home. It's not related to someone getting the sack three months ago for some other random reason.

felix

Spain: Cases almost 25000 - up 25%: Deaths 1300 - up 33%: 25% more in ICU!

Not good. The week to come could be worse.

isam

https://twitter.com/clarkemicah/status/1241329155276517376?s=21

DAlexander

RobD said:

DAlexander said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DAlexander said:

I have to admit I'm still in a state of shock at the government plans to pay some people 80% of their wage for jobs that have essentially ceased to exist, quite likely permanently.

Other people who lost their job on February 28th, rather than March 1st will get nothing and self-employed not much more.

I can't help but feel that giving everyone a basic income would have been a fairer way if money had to be handed out like this.

You can't win. If they did UBI, say £1000 a month, you would have loads of people on £30-40k a year claiming they now can't exist, can't make the mortgage payments etc, because they budget on the basis of £3k a month rather than £1k.

I don't see how giving £2000 to one person and £0 to another in the same financial situation is a fairer scheme than giving both £1000 each.

Because this intervention is to deal with the reaction to the government's advice to stay at home. It's not related to someone getting the sack three months ago for some other random reason.

Why would there be a different motivation to stay home if you lost your job on 28th Feb rather than 1st March?

How will the scheme encourage a self employed worker to stay at home?

FrancisUrquhart

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

Link?

It was discussed at the tail end of the last thread.

twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1241300115094147072

Tell them to go do one. These aren't normal times. But is it true or a journalist getting overexcited? Like lots of things countries have done aren't inline with normal EU operating procedures.

kinabalu

Can't say I enjoyed the Header but I do agree with it. If you offered me a deep recession, a debt crisis and no growth for the next 10 years - but no hyper inflation and no breakdown of society - I would take it.

Link below is about weaknesses in the government's response -

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/10-days-that-changed-britains-coronavirus-approach

Yorkcity

FrancisUrquhart said:

logical_song said:

Is a National Government really a possibility - and would it be a good thing?

I am sure we all want the likes Richard Burgon and Dawn Butler having influence over the government strategy....

Sir Kier Starmer and Lisa Nandy would be an asset to a national unity government imo.
Even BJ hero Churchil had a better government with prominent Labour cabinet members.

RobD

DAlexander said:

RobD said:

DAlexander said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DAlexander said:

I have to admit I'm still in a state of shock at the government plans to pay some people 80% of their wage for jobs that have essentially ceased to exist, quite likely permanently.

Other people who lost their job on February 28th, rather than March 1st will get nothing and self-employed not much more.

I can't help but feel that giving everyone a basic income would have been a fairer way if money had to be handed out like this.

You can't win. If they did UBI, say £1000 a month, you would have loads of people on £30-40k a year claiming they now can't exist, can't make the mortgage payments etc, because they budget on the basis of £3k a month rather than £1k.

I don't see how giving £2000 to one person and £0 to another in the same financial situation is a fairer scheme than giving both £1000 each.

Because this intervention is to deal with the reaction to the government's advice to stay at home. It's not related to someone getting the sack three months ago for some other random reason.

Why would there be a different motivation to stay home if you lost your job on 28th Feb rather than 1st March?

How will the scheme encourage a self employed worker to stay at home?

The scheme is to compensate people who would otherwise lose their jobs because of the government's advice. I am not sure how someone who lost their job a long time a go can claim it was caused by that advice.

Help for the self employed is definitely an area that needs improvement.

felix

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

williamglenn

Beibheirli_C said:

FPT:

Casino_Royale said:

Beibheirli_C said:

williamglenn said:

Do you think the root cause could be a form of British nationalism that denies English nationhood? Before the recent fetishisation of "the UK", we knew very well what England was.

Surely the English have been running the show since well before the Act of Union? The UK Parliament has always been composed of 3/4 English seats and the rest of the country gets maybe up to 25%.

So any wounds are likely self-inflicted...

How do you explain the Gordon Brown adminstration then?

Scottish MPs occupied several key offices of state and ministries.

That does not alter the fact that the bulk of MPs were English as was a large number of his cabinet.

I don't think there's a single factor behind how our national identity got mangled, but the way unionists have demonised Englishness and used British nationalism as a way to dilute it is definitely in the mix.

RobD

FrancisUrquhart said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

Link?

It was discussed at the tail end of the last thread.

twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1241300115094147072

Tell them to go do one. These aren't normal times. But is it true or a journalist getting overexcited? Like lots of things countries have done aren't inline with normal EU operating procedures.

Fake news, from the times?

FrancisUrquhart

Yorkcity said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

logical_song said:

Is a National Government really a possibility - and would it be a good thing?

I am sure we all want the likes Richard Burgon and Dawn Butler having influence over the government strategy....

Sir Kier Starmer and Lisa Nandy would be an asset to a national unity government imo.
Even BJ hero Churchil had a better government with prominent Labour cabinet members.

Nandy has gone right down in my estimate during the leadership race.

In all honesty, we don't really have the lots of the likes of say a Steve Webb sitting on the opposition benches, somebody with really expert knowledge.

williamglenn

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

kinabalu

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

No. That will be fake news.

TheWhiteRabbit

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

Link?

It was discussed at the tail end of the last thread.

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1241300115094147072

Lol. Just do it. See you in the ECJ!

felix

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

Link?

It was discussed at the tail end of the last thread.

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1241300115094147072

Just seen this and I cannot see that they'd be silly enough to try and enforce this anywhere in the current climate. They'd be signing their own death warrant.

RobD

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

Is there a source saying it is untrue?

Cyclefree

CYCLEFREE’s GARDENING CORNER

In response to @MattW’s question re pruning of forsythia.

1. Get some sharp clean secateurs so the cut is a clean one. You don’t want to be tearing at the twigs or branches.

2. No problem with pruning now - or you could wait until it’s finished flowering. The advantage of pruning now is that the stems with flowers you cut off can be put in the house to brighten it. The forsythia will still flower next year. It’s a tough old plant.

3. Lop off all the long extra stems that are sticking out. Then gradually cut down to the height and width you want. Aim to make it a rounded shape - a bit like a rounded arch - so that it looks pleasing to you and so as you pass it there aren’t bits sticking into you or catching. There is no magic to this - just step back every few minutes just to look at it form different angles.

4. The key to this is to remember that all plants will grow up to the light so if you leave the they will just reach for the sky. If untouched this ends up leaving you with lots of flowers at the top and bare branches at the bottom. So by cutting at the top and cutting the shoots heading skywards you force the plant to send out side shoots which will flower and it will look rounder and squatter and fatter so you get a burst of really bright yellow sunshine just where you want it.

5. Cut just above a flower or bud - a nice neat cut and sloping downwards. This minimises the possibility of any infection. Cut right down to the base any stems which look empty or straggly.

Plants are fine with pruning. It generally makes them stronger. Forsythia is as tough as old boots.

Gallowgate

FrancisUrquhart said:

Yorkcity said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

logical_song said:

Is a National Government really a possibility - and would it be a good thing?

I am sure we all want the likes Richard Burgon and Dawn Butler having influence over the government strategy....

Sir Kier Starmer and Lisa Nandy would be an asset to a national unity government imo.
Even BJ hero Churchil had a better government with prominent Labour cabinet members.

Nandy has gone right down in my estimate during the leadership race.

In all honesty, we don't really have the lots of the likes of say a Steve Webb sitting on the opposition benches, somebody with really expert knowledge.

I went to see Nandy speak about a month ago in a small intimate venue and she was very impressive. She really got why Labour lost, and she was not willing to “play to the room” just to get cheap applause. I haven’t seen much of the TV content, but she was honestly very impressive.

geoffw

From previous thread, but feels relevant to this one too, re entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

geoffw said:

DavidL said:

I am not sure that entropy has yet pushed its way onto our list of problems.

Oh, I am sure that it has. What is the effect of this pandemic if not the obliteration of order in our world? It is like a thorough shuffle of a sorted pack of cards. Or like a wave washing over a sandcastle leaving a disarray of grains of sand. As people have said, tomorrow's world will not be the status quo ante. Much energy (enthalpy) will be spent to restore the myriad of damaged structures (human, social and commercial) to a semblance of the earlier order. Increasing entropy is an irresistible force of nature, just appearing in the guise of a virus epidemic.

kinabalu

RobD said:

Is there a source saying it is untrue?

Yes - a brain cell.

RobD

Direct aid limits are raised to 800,000 EUR, which is consistent with the Times story.

https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-international/eu-eases-rules-more-on-government-handouts-for-virus-tax-relief

isam

Amidst the chaos, the No1 fantasy in PBers wet dreams remains a Government of National Unity - reassuring

RobD

I've only just noticed your avatar, @williamglenn ... very good!

kinabalu

geoffw said:

Oh, I am sure that it has. What is the effect of this pandemic if not the obliteration of order in our world? It is like a thorough shuffle of a sorted pack of cards. Or like a wave washing over a sandcastle leaving a disarray of grains of sand. As people have said, tomorrow's world will not be the status quo ante. Much energy (enthalpy) will be spent to restore the myriad of damaged structures (human, social and commercial) to a semblance of the earlier order. Increasing entropy is an irresistible force of nature, just appearing in the guise of a virus epidemic.

I like that. Did you write it?

kinabalu

RobD said:

I've only just noticed your avatar, @williamglenn ... very good!

LOL. Tis too.

SandyRentool

Gallowgate said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Yorkcity said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

logical_song said:

Is a National Government really a possibility - and would it be a good thing?

I am sure we all want the likes Richard Burgon and Dawn Butler having influence over the government strategy....

Sir Kier Starmer and Lisa Nandy would be an asset to a national unity government imo.
Even BJ hero Churchil had a better government with prominent Labour cabinet members.

Nandy has gone right down in my estimate during the leadership race.

In all honesty, we don't really have the lots of the likes of say a Steve Webb sitting on the opposition benches, somebody with really expert knowledge.

I went to see Nandy speak about a month ago in a small intimate venue and she was very impressive. She really got why Labour lost, and she was not willing to “play to the room” just to get cheap applause. I haven’t seen much of the TV content, but she was honestly very impressive.

She is excellent except when she ties herself in knots over trans issues. Piers Morgan made her look stupid, which was her own fault for not having the same straight talking approach as she does on other issues.

She ought to get Shadow Home Secretary to work side by side with Starmer.

kinabalu

Cyclefree said:

CYCLEFREE’s GARDENING CORNER

In response to @MattW’s question re pruning of forsythia.

1. Get some sharp clean secateurs so the cut is a clean one. You don’t want to be tearing at the twigs or branches.

2. No problem with pruning now - or you could wait until it’s finished flowering. The advantage of pruning now is that the stems with flowers you cut off can be put in the house to brighten it. The forsythia will still flower next year. It’s a tough old plant.

3. Lop off all the long extra stems that are sticking out. Then gradually cut down to the height and width you want. Aim to make it a rounded shape - a bit like a rounded arch - so that it looks pleasing to you and so as you pass it there aren’t bits sticking into you or catching. There is no magic to this - just step back every few minutes just to look at it form different angles.

4. The key to this is to remember that all plants will grow up to the light so if you leave the they will just reach for the sky. If untouched this ends up leaving you with lots of flowers at the top and bare branches at the bottom. So by cutting at the top and cutting the shoots heading skywards you force the plant to send out side shoots which will flower and it will look rounder and squatter and fatter so you get a burst of really bright yellow sunshine just where you want it.

5. Cut just above a flower or bud - a nice neat cut and sloping downwards. This minimises the possibility of any infection. Cut right down to the base any stems which look empty or straggly.

Plants are fine with pruning. It generally makes them stronger. Forsythia is as tough as old boots.

Monty's back on Friday evenings.

Theuniondivvie

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

It's nice that PBers who have spent the last week virtually calling the press traitors and at best lying idiots, have now got over that.

noneoftheabove

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

Is there a source saying it is untrue?

Repeated FPT: Is this EU story actually true or fake news?

Sounds like the Danish scheme was approved in 24 hrs despite also being against the rules. If this is just a journalist realising its against some rules that can be waived its fake news and pathetic journalism trying to sow division at a time like this.

I dont have access to the Times so not sure if the EU are genuinely trying to stop the aid or someone is just quoting existing rules which are already being waived in the exceptional circumstances?

nichomar

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It’s bad journalism used to wind up the anti EU sentiment, has anyobpne seen any such notice from the EU. Apart from the fact that they would get clearance in 24 hours if they wanted it or they could use the emergency clause to do what they want.

felix

Gallowgate said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Yorkcity said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

logical_song said:

Is a National Government really a possibility - and would it be a good thing?

I am sure we all want the likes Richard Burgon and Dawn Butler having influence over the government strategy....

Sir Kier Starmer and Lisa Nandy would be an asset to a national unity government imo.
Even BJ hero Churchil had a better government with prominent Labour cabinet members.

Nandy has gone right down in my estimate during the leadership race.

In all honesty, we don't really have the lots of the likes of say a Steve Webb sitting on the opposition benches, somebody with really expert knowledge.

I went to see Nandy speak about a month ago in a small intimate venue and she was very impressive. She really got why Labour lost, and she was not willing to “play to the room” just to get cheap applause. I haven’t seen much of the TV content, but she was honestly very impressive.

I'd have agreed but she was very poor on the gender issue - not a problem unique to any party - the LDs are worse but in Labour it's causing ridiculous rifts and of course will leave the bulk of the population wondering WTF!

Gallowgate

Well I’ve reached a crisis point. I’ve run out of people to swipe left or right on, on Tinder.

nunu2

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

Boris needs to the the E.U to do one.

MarqueeMark

felix said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

Link?

It was discussed at the tail end of the last thread.

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1241300115094147072

Just seen this and I cannot see that they'd be silly enough to try and enforce this anywhere in the current climate. They'd be signing their own death warrant.

Entirely likely then.

The EU has probably come out of this pandemic the worst, second only to Trump.

EDIT: OK, they are MAYBE third to the Iranian Ayatollahs....

RobD

noneoftheabove said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

Is there a source saying it is untrue?

Repeated FPT: Is this EU story actually true or fake news?

Sounds like the Danish scheme was approved in 24 hrs despite also being against the rules. If this is just a journalist realising its against some rules that can be waived its fake news and pathetic journalism trying to sow division at a time like this.

I dont have access to the Times so not sure if the EU are genuinely trying to stop the aid or someone is just quoting existing rules which are already being waived in the exceptional circumstances?

The story from Bloomberg suggests the rules were only just changed to the limit described in the Times article.

MarqueeMark

isam said:

Amidst the chaos, the No1 fantasy in PBers wet dreams remains a Government of National Unity - reassuring

A certain cohort, which overlaps almost entirely with Remainers?

Gallowgate

I really enjoyed this tweet.
https://twitter.com/toaster_pastry/status/1241206661114499074?s=21

RobD

Gallowgate said:

I really enjoyed this tweet.
https://twitter.com/toaster_pastry/status/1241206661114499074?s=21

Sometimes we all want to say that.

geoffw

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

Oh, I am sure that it has. What is the effect of this pandemic if not the obliteration of order in our world? It is like a thorough shuffle of a sorted pack of cards. Or like a wave washing over a sandcastle leaving a disarray of grains of sand. As people have said, tomorrow's world will not be the status quo ante. Much energy (enthalpy) will be spent to restore the myriad of damaged structures (human, social and commercial) to a semblance of the earlier order. Increasing entropy is an irresistible force of nature, just appearing in the guise of a virus epidemic.

I like that. Did you write it?
Who else?
(edit: the quotes are buggered up, apologies)

MarqueeMark

Gallowgate said:

Well I’ve reached a crisis point. I’ve run out of people to swipe left or right on, on Tinder.

In these difficult times, there's always Grindr....

Big_G_NorthWales

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

If it is true it will blow the pro eu camp out of the water

Outrageous and unlike me to say this but 'they can get stuffed'

RobD

MarqueeMark said:

Gallowgate said:

Well I’ve reached a crisis point. I’ve run out of people to swipe left or right on, on Tinder.

In these difficult times, there's always Grindr....

I'm not sure these apps are appropriate in our new social-distancing world.

FrancisUrquhart

Gallowgate said:

Well I’ve reached a crisis point. I’ve run out of people to swipe left or right on, on Tinder.

I know little to nothing about the Tinder machine, but can't you pay to extend your range?

MarqueeMark

Cyclefree said:

CYCLEFREE’s GARDENING CORNER

In response to @MattW’s question re pruning of forsythia.

1. Get some sharp clean secateurs so the cut is a clean one. You don’t want to be tearing at the twigs or branches.

2. No problem with pruning now - or you could wait until it’s finished flowering. The advantage of pruning now is that the stems with flowers you cut off can be put in the house to brighten it. The forsythia will still flower next year. It’s a tough old plant.

3. Lop off all the long extra stems that are sticking out. Then gradually cut down to the height and width you want. Aim to make it a rounded shape - a bit like a rounded arch - so that it looks pleasing to you and so as you pass it there aren’t bits sticking into you or catching. There is no magic to this - just step back every few minutes just to look at it form different angles.

4. The key to this is to remember that all plants will grow up to the light so if you leave the they will just reach for the sky. If untouched this ends up leaving you with lots of flowers at the top and bare branches at the bottom. So by cutting at the top and cutting the shoots heading skywards you force the plant to send out side shoots which will flower and it will look rounder and squatter and fatter so you get a burst of really bright yellow sunshine just where you want it.

5. Cut just above a flower or bud - a nice neat cut and sloping downwards. This minimises the possibility of any infection. Cut right down to the base any stems which look empty or straggly.

Plants are fine with pruning. It generally makes them stronger. Forsythia is as tough as old boots.

Next week: wisteria?

Big_G_NorthWales

kinabalu said:

RobD said:

Is there a source saying it is untrue?

Yes - a brain cell.

That is not an answer. Please provide link to denial

brokenwheel

RobD said:

MarqueeMark said:

Gallowgate said:

Well I’ve reached a crisis point. I’ve run out of people to swipe left or right on, on Tinder.

In these difficult times, there's always Grindr....

I'm not sure these apps are appropriate in our new social-distancing world.

Does it count as close contact if you don't even know their name?

Sean_F

Cyclefree said:

CYCLEFREE’s GARDENING CORNER

In response to @MattW’s question re pruning of forsythia.

1. Get some sharp clean secateurs so the cut is a clean one. You don’t want to be tearing at the twigs or branches.

2. No problem with pruning now - or you could wait until it’s finished flowering. The advantage of pruning now is that the stems with flowers you cut off can be put in the house to brighten it. The forsythia will still flower next year. It’s a tough old plant.

3. Lop off all the long extra stems that are sticking out. Then gradually cut down to the height and width you want. Aim to make it a rounded shape - a bit like a rounded arch - so that it looks pleasing to you and so as you pass it there aren’t bits sticking into you or catching. There is no magic to this - just step back every few minutes just to look at it form different angles.

4. The key to this is to remember that all plants will grow up to the light so if you leave the they will just reach for the sky. If untouched this ends up leaving you with lots of flowers at the top and bare branches at the bottom. So by cutting at the top and cutting the shoots heading skywards you force the plant to send out side shoots which will flower and it will look rounder and squatter and fatter so you get a burst of really bright yellow sunshine just where you want it.

5. Cut just above a flower or bud - a nice neat cut and sloping downwards. This minimises the possibility of any infection. Cut right down to the base any stems which look empty or straggly.

Plants are fine with pruning. It generally makes them stronger. Forsythia is as tough as old boots.

How is your daughter coping?

geoffw

MarqueeMark said:

Cyclefree said:

CYCLEFREE’s GARDENING CORNER

In response to @MattW’s question re pruning of forsythia.

1. Get some sharp clean secateurs so the cut is a clean one. You don’t want to be tearing at the twigs or branches.

2. No problem with pruning now - or you could wait until it’s finished flowering. The advantage of pruning now is that the stems with flowers you cut off can be put in the house to brighten it. The forsythia will still flower next year. It’s a tough old plant.

3. Lop off all the long extra stems that are sticking out. Then gradually cut down to the height and width you want. Aim to make it a rounded shape - a bit like a rounded arch - so that it looks pleasing to you and so as you pass it there aren’t bits sticking into you or catching. There is no magic to this - just step back every few minutes just to look at it form different angles.

4. The key to this is to remember that all plants will grow up to the light so if you leave the they will just reach for the sky. If untouched this ends up leaving you with lots of flowers at the top and bare branches at the bottom. So by cutting at the top and cutting the shoots heading skywards you force the plant to send out side shoots which will flower and it will look rounder and squatter and fatter so you get a burst of really bright yellow sunshine just where you want it.

5. Cut just above a flower or bud - a nice neat cut and sloping downwards. This minimises the possibility of any infection. Cut right down to the base any stems which look empty or straggly.

Plants are fine with pruning. It generally makes them stronger. Forsythia is as tough as old boots.

Next week: wisteria?

An improvement on hysteria.

Monkeys

This whole thing could have second waves, and other countries getting their peaks later, and countries will want to limit movement for long after until it becomes part of the psyche. This morning I'm wondering which will be the first party to come up with a "progressive" low-immigration policy. People won't be moving about for a long time after this. You could come up with a Greta Thunberg argument or something that a smaller, more local world is more environmentally friendly.

NickPalmer

Thanks to Davoid for adding to the general merriment . But seriously, we do need to be thinking about these things.

Isn't another possibility that Chinese production of most things (including tinned food) recovers (IF they have overcome the virus) and people short of domestic goods to buy swirch to buying Chinese exports on a scale not yet seen? As a result, the renminbi shoots up, the Chinese population accelerates to first world standards, and the rest of the world gets poorer - but not necessarily dramatically so.

This "Chinese economy to the rescue" scenario may sound unliukely, but it's actually pretty much what's happened with consumer goods already - they would be far more expensive except that we've all switched to buying cheaper Asian-made exports.

Stark_Dawning

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

Entirely predictable I'm afraid. The Brexit evangelists are nothing if not exhibitionists. They'll feel that the virus crisis has stolen their limelight and are desperate to be centre of attention again.

RobD

Stark_Dawning said:

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

Entirely predictable I'm afraid. The Brexit evangelists are nothing if not exhibitionists. They'll feel that the virus crisis has stolen their limelight and are desperate to be centre of attention again.

Would be glad to see an actual denial.

eristdoof

One thing that has been discussed here, but so far I have seen no data for, is the number of tests being carried out in Germany. I have no Idea why the Robert Koch Institute is not publishing this. I find it hard to believe that only positive test results are being sent to them.

I heard this morning on a radio program the figure 100 000 test in the last week. I doubt this is an exact figure but if it is halfway accurate then this is much higher than in the UK, roughly three times as many. This corroberates a bit of the idea that the German testing is picking up more positives in young/middle aged adults than in other countries, leading to a much lower death rate.

Another interesting thing is that the Johns Hopkins positive case numbers are starting to diverge from the RKI numbers. THis was even the second news item in the DLF radio news this morning, without really explaining why. It would seem strange if private organisations test results were being published somewhere without the RKI being informed.

FrancisUrquhart

NickPalmer said:

Thanks to Davoid for adding to the general merriment . But seriously, we do need to be thinking about these things.

Isn't another possibility that Chinese production of most things (including tinned food) recovers (IF they have overcome the virus) and people short of domestic goods to buy swirch to buying Chinese exports on a scale not yet seen? As a result, the renminbi shoots up, the Chinese population accelerates to first world standards, and the rest of the world gets poorer - but not necessarily dramatically so.

This "Chinese economy to the rescue" scenario may sound unliukely, but it's actually pretty much what's happened with consumer goods already - they would be far more expensive except that we've all switched to buying cheaper Asian-made exports.

People worried about chlorinated chicken are going to buy food from a country that incredibly low food hygiene standards, regularly has large scale food scandals due to counterfeit and tampering, such as the contaminated milk powder and where the lack of even the most minimal animal welfare standards more than likely was the source for this outbreak in the first place.

Well its a theory.

Its one thing to think well I will buy this cheaper desk fan, what's the worst that could happen, it doesn't work as well as the 100x as expensive Dyson, but food....

Pulpstar

RobD said:

MarqueeMark said:

Gallowgate said:

Well I’ve reached a crisis point. I’ve run out of people to swipe left or right on, on Tinder.

In these difficult times, there's always Grindr....

I'm not sure these apps are appropriate in our new social-distancing world.

Everyone has the ability to live broadcast these days...

Stark_Dawning

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

Entirely predictable I'm afraid. The Brexit evangelists are nothing if not exhibitionists. They'll feel that the virus crisis has stolen their limelight and are desperate to be centre of attention again.

Would be glad to see an actual denial.

Even if the story was utterly baseless, a denial would still be spun as 'EU in humiliating U-turn amid Brit fury over lethal red tape' (or whatever). I wouldn't bother if I were them.

RobD

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

Thanks to Davoid for adding to the general merriment . But seriously, we do need to be thinking about these things.

Isn't another possibility that Chinese production of most things (including tinned food) recovers (IF they have overcome the virus) and people short of domestic goods to buy swirch to buying Chinese exports on a scale not yet seen? As a result, the renminbi shoots up, the Chinese population accelerates to first world standards, and the rest of the world gets poorer - but not necessarily dramatically so.

This "Chinese economy to the rescue" scenario may sound unliukely, but it's actually pretty much what's happened with consumer goods already - they would be far more expensive except that we've all switched to buying cheaper Asian-made exports.

People worried about chlorinated chicken are going to buy food from a country that incredibly low food hygiene standards, regularly has large scale food scandals due to counterfeit and tampering, such as the contaminated milk powder and where the lack of even the most minimal animal welfare standards more than likely was the source for this outbreak in the first place.

Well its a theory.

If there had been chlorinated pangolin, none of this would have happened. Just sayin'

Big_G_NorthWales

Stark_Dawning said:

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

Entirely predictable I'm afraid. The Brexit evangelists are nothing if not exhibitionists. They'll feel that the virus crisis has stolen their limelight and are desperate to be centre of attention again.

Then provide a link to denial of the story

If true it a devastating own goal and will see any support for the EU collapse

RobD

Stark_Dawning said:

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

Entirely predictable I'm afraid. The Brexit evangelists are nothing if not exhibitionists. They'll feel that the virus crisis has stolen their limelight and are desperate to be centre of attention again.

Would be glad to see an actual denial.

Even if the story was utterly baseless, a denial would still be spun as 'EU in humiliating U-turn amid Brit fury over lethal red tape' (or whatever). I wouldn't bother if I were them.

No, it would be a sensible move by the EU. But from what I can see, the state aid limit was only just raised to the figure described in the Times article.

another_richard

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

Thanks to Davoid for adding to the general merriment . But seriously, we do need to be thinking about these things.

Isn't another possibility that Chinese production of most things (including tinned food) recovers (IF they have overcome the virus) and people short of domestic goods to buy swirch to buying Chinese exports on a scale not yet seen? As a result, the renminbi shoots up, the Chinese population accelerates to first world standards, and the rest of the world gets poorer - but not necessarily dramatically so.

This "Chinese economy to the rescue" scenario may sound unliukely, but it's actually pretty much what's happened with consumer goods already - they would be far more expensive except that we've all switched to buying cheaper Asian-made exports.

People worried about chlorinated chicken are going to buy food from a country that incredibly low food hygiene standards, regularly has large scale food scandals due to counterfeit and tampering, such as the contaminated milk powder and where the lack of even the most minimal animal welfare standards more than likely was the source for this outbreak in the first place.

Well its a theory.

Its one thing to think well I will buy this cheaper desk fan, what's the worst that could happen, it doesn't work as well as the 100x as expensive Dyson, but food....

The people who were loudest in opposing chlorinated chicken will be silent about Chinese food of dubious standard.

Big_G_NorthWales

Stark_Dawning said:

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

Entirely predictable I'm afraid. The Brexit evangelists are nothing if not exhibitionists. They'll feel that the virus crisis has stolen their limelight and are desperate to be centre of attention again.

Would be glad to see an actual denial.

Even if the story was utterly baseless, a denial would still be spun as 'EU in humiliating U-turn amid Brit fury over lethal red tape' (or whatever). I wouldn't bother if I were them.

Then the damage is done

Stark_Dawning

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

Entirely predictable I'm afraid. The Brexit evangelists are nothing if not exhibitionists. They'll feel that the virus crisis has stolen their limelight and are desperate to be centre of attention again.

Then provide a link to denial of the story

If true it a devastating own goal and will see any support for the EU collapse

Dear oh dear.

FrancisUrquhart

eristdoof said:

One thing that has been discussed here, but so far I have seen no data for, is the number of tests being carried out in Germany. I have no Idea why the Robert Koch Institute is not publishing this. I find it hard to believe that only positive test results are being sent to them.

I heard this morning on a radio program the figure 100 000 test in the last week. I doubt this is an exact figure but if it is halfway accurate then this is much higher than in the UK, roughly three times as many. This corroberates a bit of the idea that the German testing is picking up more positives in young/middle aged adults than in other countries, leading to a much lower death rate.

Another interesting thing is that the Johns Hopkins positive case numbers are starting to diverge from the RKI numbers. THis was even the second news item in the DLF radio news this morning, without really explaining why. It would seem strange if private organisations test results were being published somewhere without the RKI being informed.

It is very strange that the Germans aren't releasing the testing numbers. Perhaps they don't think it is important for the public to know the number of exact number of negatives, rather more important to simply reassure the public that significant testing is being conducted.

At the end of the day, over the past 3 weeks on here we have taken the UK figures and really over analyzed each day, and it doesn't really help the situation.

williamglenn

Monkeys said:

This whole thing could have second waves, and other countries getting their peaks later, and countries will want to limit movement for long after until it becomes part of the psyche. This morning I'm wondering which will be the first party to come up with a "progressive" low-immigration policy. People won't be moving about for a long time after this. You could come up with a Greta Thunberg argument or something that a smaller, more local world is more environmentally friendly.

If restricting the movement of people is the aim, focusing on reducing tourism and business travel would have more relevance.

another_richard

NickPalmer said:

Thanks to Davoid for adding to the general merriment . But seriously, we do need to be thinking about these things.

Isn't another possibility that Chinese production of most things (including tinned food) recovers (IF they have overcome the virus) and people short of domestic goods to buy swirch to buying Chinese exports on a scale not yet seen? As a result, the renminbi shoots up, the Chinese population accelerates to first world standards, and the rest of the world gets poorer - but not necessarily dramatically so.

This "Chinese economy to the rescue" scenario may sound unliukely, but it's actually pretty much what's happened with consumer goods already - they would be far more expensive except that we've all switched to buying cheaper Asian-made exports.

An alternative possibility is that countries default on debt owned by China.

How much of the US national debt is owned by China as an example.

Big_G_NorthWales

Stark_Dawning said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

Entirely predictable I'm afraid. The Brexit evangelists are nothing if not exhibitionists. They'll feel that the virus crisis has stolen their limelight and are desperate to be centre of attention again.

Then provide a link to denial of the story

If true it a devastating own goal and will see any support for the EU collapse

Dear oh dear.

Please provide the denial then the issue is dealt with

TheWhiteRabbit

Is helping every actor in the market really market distorting? Is this a state aid issue?

RobD

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

Entirely predictable I'm afraid. The Brexit evangelists are nothing if not exhibitionists. They'll feel that the virus crisis has stolen their limelight and are desperate to be centre of attention again.

Then provide a link to denial of the story

If true it a devastating own goal and will see any support for the EU collapse

Dear oh dear.

Please provide the denial then the issue is dealt with

I'll let you in on a little secret, Big_G.... I don't think there is one. That's why he's just mouthing off about Brexiteers instead.

Gallowgate

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

Thanks to Davoid for adding to the general merriment . But seriously, we do need to be thinking about these things.

Isn't another possibility that Chinese production of most things (including tinned food) recovers (IF they have overcome the virus) and people short of domestic goods to buy swirch to buying Chinese exports on a scale not yet seen? As a result, the renminbi shoots up, the Chinese population accelerates to first world standards, and the rest of the world gets poorer - but not necessarily dramatically so.

This "Chinese economy to the rescue" scenario may sound unliukely, but it's actually pretty much what's happened with consumer goods already - they would be far more expensive except that we've all switched to buying cheaper Asian-made exports.

People worried about chlorinated chicken are going to buy food from a country that incredibly low food hygiene standards, regularly has large scale food scandals due to counterfeit and tampering, such as the contaminated milk powder and where the lack of even the most minimal animal welfare standards more than likely was the source for this outbreak in the first place.

Well its a theory.

If there had been chlorinated pangolin, none of this would have happened. Just sayin'

This is very funny. Also very true.

williamglenn

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

Entirely predictable I'm afraid. The Brexit evangelists are nothing if not exhibitionists. They'll feel that the virus crisis has stolen their limelight and are desperate to be centre of attention again.

Then provide a link to denial of the story

If true it a devastating own goal and will see any support for the EU collapse

Dear oh dear.

Please provide the denial then the issue is dealt with

The story doesn't make sense in its own terms because it says that "selective tax advantages" will be allowed.

felix

nichomar said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It’s bad journalism used to wind up the anti EU sentiment, has anyobpne seen any such notice from the EU. Apart from the fact that they would get clearance in 24 hours if they wanted it or they could use the emergency clause to do what they want.

Andalucia case numbers up 15% - mildly encouraging against 25% in Spain overall

FrancisUrquhart

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Is helping every actor in the market really market distorting? Is this a state aid issue?

I first read that as actor, as in movie star....and thought well it does seem like every one of them has coronavirus, so probably do need income support!

Big_G_NorthWales

RobD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

Entirely predictable I'm afraid. The Brexit evangelists are nothing if not exhibitionists. They'll feel that the virus crisis has stolen their limelight and are desperate to be centre of attention again.

Then provide a link to denial of the story

If true it a devastating own goal and will see any support for the EU collapse

Dear oh dear.

Please provide the denial then the issue is dealt with

I'll let you in on a little secret, Big_G.... I don't think there is one. That's why he's just mouthing off about Brexiteers instead.

And this is the problem with the EU

It is so easy to believe the story and in the absence of a denial it must be assumed this is their position, and devastating for their remaining support in the UK

tlg86

An excellent thread header. My dad thinks the first scenario is more likely, I think the latter scenario is more likely. Hopefully the government can thread the needle.

Big_G_NorthWales

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

Entirely predictable I'm afraid. The Brexit evangelists are nothing if not exhibitionists. They'll feel that the virus crisis has stolen their limelight and are desperate to be centre of attention again.

Then provide a link to denial of the story

If true it a devastating own goal and will see any support for the EU collapse

Dear oh dear.

Please provide the denial then the issue is dealt with

The story doesn't make sense in its own terms because it says that "selective tax advantages" will be allowed.

In that case provide the denial

another_richard

Monkeys said:

This whole thing could have second waves, and other countries getting their peaks later, and countries will want to limit movement for long after until it becomes part of the psyche. This morning I'm wondering which will be the first party to come up with a "progressive" low-immigration policy. People won't be moving about for a long time after this. You could come up with a Greta Thunberg argument or something that a smaller, more local world is more environmentally friendly.

I speculated about such a political platform a year or two back.

It would link trade and overseas aid policies to countries which had appropriate levels of environmental and human rights standards.

International travel and tourism would receive higher taxation.

Globalised finance and big business would be more heavily regulated and a 'localism' agenda encouraged.

Stark_Dawning

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RobD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

Entirely predictable I'm afraid. The Brexit evangelists are nothing if not exhibitionists. They'll feel that the virus crisis has stolen their limelight and are desperate to be centre of attention again.

Then provide a link to denial of the story

If true it a devastating own goal and will see any support for the EU collapse

Dear oh dear.

Please provide the denial then the issue is dealt with

I'll let you in on a little secret, Big_G.... I don't think there is one. That's why he's just mouthing off about Brexiteers instead.

And this is the problem with the EU

It is so easy to believe the story and in the absence of a denial it must be assumed this is their position, and devastating for their remaining support in the UK

If the EU had to deny every dubious claim about them promulgated by the British media they'd need a press department the size of the Chinese army.

FrancisUrquhart

Stark_Dawning said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RobD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

Entirely predictable I'm afraid. The Brexit evangelists are nothing if not exhibitionists. They'll feel that the virus crisis has stolen their limelight and are desperate to be centre of attention again.

Then provide a link to denial of the story

If true it a devastating own goal and will see any support for the EU collapse

Dear oh dear.

Please provide the denial then the issue is dealt with

I'll let you in on a little secret, Big_G.... I don't think there is one. That's why he's just mouthing off about Brexiteers instead.

And this is the problem with the EU

It is so easy to believe the story and in the absence of a denial it must be assumed this is their position, and devastating for their remaining support in the UK

If the EU had to deny every dubious claim about them promulgated by the British media they'd need a press department the size of the Chinese army.

Well they do have one of those....

IanB2

MarqueeMark said:

Cyclefree said:

CYCLEFREE’s GARDENING CORNER

In response to @MattW’s question re pruning of forsythia.

1. Get some sharp clean secateurs so the cut is a clean one. You don’t want to be tearing at the twigs or branches.

2. No problem with pruning now - or you could wait until it’s finished flowering. The advantage of pruning now is that the stems with flowers you cut off can be put in the house to brighten it. The forsythia will still flower next year. It’s a tough old plant.

3. Lop off all the long extra stems that are sticking out. Then gradually cut down to the height and width you want. Aim to make it a rounded shape - a bit like a rounded arch - so that it looks pleasing to you and so as you pass it there aren’t bits sticking into you or catching. There is no magic to this - just step back every few minutes just to look at it form different angles.

4. The key to this is to remember that all plants will grow up to the light so if you leave the they will just reach for the sky. If untouched this ends up leaving you with lots of flowers at the top and bare branches at the bottom. So by cutting at the top and cutting the shoots heading skywards you force the plant to send out side shoots which will flower and it will look rounder and squatter and fatter so you get a burst of really bright yellow sunshine just where you want it.

5. Cut just above a flower or bud - a nice neat cut and sloping downwards. This minimises the possibility of any infection. Cut right down to the base any stems which look empty or straggly.

Plants are fine with pruning. It generally makes them stronger. Forsythia is as tough as old boots.

Next week: wisteria?

Wisteria is easy... In August cut the stems back to five buds each, leaving any you intend to form new branches. Train as required. In January trim the same stems back to three buds. Otherwise leave well alone.

Monkeys

williamglenn said:

Monkeys said:

This whole thing could have second waves, and other countries getting their peaks later, and countries will want to limit movement for long after until it becomes part of the psyche. This morning I'm wondering which will be the first party to come up with a "progressive" low-immigration policy. People won't be moving about for a long time after this. You could come up with a Greta Thunberg argument or something that a smaller, more local world is more environmentally friendly.

If restricting the movement of people is the aim, focusing on reducing tourism and business travel would have more relevance.

And travel to visit family. But also, this is what pandemics do - they make people more anti-immigration. People are going to get used to controlling borders. One thing that's amusing me about all this is that people that were previously remainers have often been very vocal about shutting the country down and restricting movement, and going WHY haven't we closed all the schools and shut down all the flights YESTERDAY? This will impact our minds long-term I think. It's not about aims, it's about outcomes.

Pagan2

MarqueeMark said:

Gallowgate said:

Well I’ve reached a crisis point. I’ve run out of people to swipe left or right on, on Tinder.

In these difficult times, there's always Grindr....

or Bristlr

Stark_Dawning

FrancisUrquhart said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RobD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

williamglenn said:

felix said:

RobD said:

Are the EU really banning part of the Chancellors rescue package?

Interesting move.

What is this?

It seems to be a nonsense story briefed to the Times in order to stir up some anti-EU feeling.

Entirely predictable I'm afraid. The Brexit evangelists are nothing if not exhibitionists. They'll feel that the virus crisis has stolen their limelight and are desperate to be centre of attention again.

Then provide a link to denial of the story

If true it a devastating own goal and will see any support for the EU collapse

Dear oh dear.

Please provide the denial then the issue is dealt with

I'll let you in on a little secret, Big_G.... I don't think there is one. That's why he's just mouthing off about Brexiteers instead.

And this is the problem with the EU

It is so easy to believe the story and in the absence of a denial it must be assumed this is their position, and devastating for their remaining support in the UK

If the EU had to deny every dubious claim about them promulgated by the British media they'd need a press department the size of the Chinese army.

Well they do have one of those....

And it still doesn't work.