On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
I take it Starmer failed to land a glove, yet again?
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
Frog and Kraut are just someone being offensive arses.
On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
I take it Starmer failed to land a glove, yet again?
Not at all. Although soon to be LD leader Davey drew the most blood!
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I'm happy with Frogs, I'm happy with Kiwis, I'm happy with calling Americans Yankees (and happy to wind up Southern Redneck Americans by calling them that).
It cuts the other way too. I'm happy to be called a Sassenach, a Limey, a Pommie Bastard, or Les Rosbif. My father-in-law refers to me sometimes when he speaks to my wife as "the Sassenach" and I'm OK with that.
If its past the lagershed I'm happy to refer to the Welsh and Kiwis by their other nickname, but since its not past the lagershed and I don't want to offend Mr G I'm not going to do more than hint at that.
I'm not happy with anything (besides tongue-in-cheek things) that are intended to cause genuine offence. Which are mainly those aimed at non-whites. I would never say the P-word or N-word or W-word or similar.
I seem to recall a football match in Istanbul where the (I think, may be maligning) Liverpool supporters, much provoked (IIRC) by the locals, sang that 'They'd rather be a P.... than a Turk'.
But intertestingly, they'd rather not a be Cockney (which also scans).
They have some limits after all.
Slightly odd isn't it. There isn't a Cockney team, as such. West Ham are, or certainly were, too far East, Millwall the wrong side of the River, Arsenal and Spurs North London.
Leyton Orient?
Close but you'd need good ears to catch Bow Bells from Brisbane Road. They were originally Clapton Orient, formed by the Orient Tea Company and located at Millfields adjecent to the River Lea which forms the boundary of Clapton/Hackney and Walthamstow/Leyton. That's more conventionlly regarded as Cockney territory but again probably fails the Bow Bells test, even with the wind in the right direction.
Not hard to beat the mumbling bumbling "world class" bozo
The only shock is how unshocking that news now is. We know the script now;
Starmer will ask some relevant questions. Johnson will generally fail to answer them, point out that Starmer is a lawyer and employ an attempted zinger that usually turns out to be a bit a damp squib.
They've been at this since early May. Forget sessions, how many *questions* has Johnson won? Maybe some by asking if Starmer thinks schools are safe. One question on hospital parking last week. Am I missing any?
Mr. Divvie, you quite accidentally missed off Sassenach.
As is proved here, sassenach is a word that the English like to tittilate themselves by believing Scots are forever using it in reference to their southern neighbours. It's the sort of awareness that also thinks jokes about deep fried mars bars, haggises and Mel Gibson are cutting edge, and that Brigadoon is a documentary.
I can't speak for other Scots but my father-in-law most definitely does use the term. He's from Leith for what its worth.
That's the thing about arguments. You get to make up your own, but not your opponents.
Mr. Dickson, I haven't heard 'jocks' used in real life at all, unless you count the Jocks and the Geordies (maybe versus? it was a long time ago) in The Dandy.
I have an old patient who calls himself "Jock". It is a nickname he has carried from army life.
Ditto my late father, in the Royal Navy - 1940s and 1950s. Much as Clarkes were called Nobby and Millers Dusty. No idea if they still do it automatically today.
Mr. Divvie, you quite accidentally missed off Sassenach.
As is proved here, sassenach is a word that the English like to tittilate themselves by believing Scots are forever using it in reference to their southern neighbours. It's the sort of awareness that also thinks jokes about deep fried mars bars, haggises and Mel Gibson are cutting edge, and that Brigadoon is a documentary.
My dad used to refer to the English as ‘Sassenachs’, in what was clearly meant to be a derogatory manner, but he was born in the 1920s and had a lot of old-fashioned ideas, clearly out of step with the modern world. I haven’t heard anyone else use the word in decades. Young Scots would think you a bit odd if you used it today.
(He was a Lowlander and strong Unionist.)
Actually my dad, a Gaelic speaker, is the last person I consciously remember using it, but I think that was due to 'Sasannach 'being literally the Gaelic word for the English. He was a Hebridean and sometime SNP supporter, but went a bit Thatcher loving and Tartan Tory latterly
Most people don't know much about the way barristers work, so it likely makes little sense. Even if you understand the point, it's a bit of a wishy-washy one, and certainly not something that's worth repeating.
Am I missing something?
The "More briefs than Calvin Klein" has a good ring. Missed the target nevertheless. Firstly, Starmer's job is to ask questions - the clue's in the PMQs title. Secondly, Starmer's rather clever question was "What would the PM say to those that have lost loved ones to the virus, to ensure lessons have been learnt?" This clearly prepared joke and attack on the LOTO comes across as crass and arrogant.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I'm happy with Frogs, I'm happy with Kiwis, I'm happy with calling Americans Yankees (and happy to wind up Southern Redneck Americans by calling them that).
It cuts the other way too. I'm happy to be called a Sassenach, a Limey, a Pommie Bastard, or Les Rosbif. My father-in-law refers to me sometimes when he speaks to my wife as "the Sassenach" and I'm OK with that.
If its past the lagershed I'm happy to refer to the Welsh and Kiwis by their other nickname, but since its not past the lagershed and I don't want to offend Mr G I'm not going to do more than hint at that.
I'm not happy with anything (besides tongue-in-cheek things) that are intended to cause genuine offence. Which are mainly those aimed at non-whites. I would never say the P-word or N-word or W-word or similar.
Understood. All OK. I meant it when I said no big deal. But that "Frog" was very jarring in that post. You were writing it before noon and it was part of a very sober and serious conversation with Topping about tourism and London. And then, all of sudden, there it was - Frog.
But you write a lot of posts, tbf, and you can't be word perfect in every one. Bet you would edit it, though, if you could. Can we just say that?
And as a matter of interest. Kiwi vs Frog - my post to Foxy at 12.28 - do you feel the same as me that there's a difference? That Frog is a little more risque than Kiwi?
No. I see no real difference between Kiwi and Frog and no I wouldn't edit it.
I suppose there's a small technical difference in that the Kiwis refer to themselves as that and its their national bird and on their All Blacks jerseys etc . . . but no as a national nickname I see no difference.
A "small technical" difference because they like to call themselves that and it's their beloved national bird and it's on the shirts of their beloved flagship sports team.
Indeed -
We can move on now if you like. I'm certainly happy to.
I nearly shat my pants on Crib Goch. I'd definitely need spare keks doing that one!
The hardest I have done was the Aonach Eagach in Glencoe and it wasn't like that. What cracked me up, however, was that the rocks were scored with crampon marks from lunatics who had done it in the winter.
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
What is this article actually saying?
Imperial College research showed there were, on average, 13 positive cases for every 10,000 people.
This means the R number was lower than thought at 0.57, the study suggests.
But this does not take into account infections in care homes and hospitals at the time.
Calculated using this information, the national overall reproduction number - or R - was estimated to be between 0.7 and 1 during May.
So, is it saying that the number actually was higher than 0.57 because the study doesn't take into account infections in care homes and hospitals? That's not what the rest of the article- or other reporting on this- seems to imply.
But I'm not clear on exactly how they got these numbers. It looks like they tried to get a representative population and then just used the overall numbers for the population over time to calculate R. But what I'm not sure of:
a) Did the "representative population" take account of key worker status? That's mentioned as a covariate, but isn't shown in Table 2. b) They only contacted a representative population- once they got responses, they didn't try to adjust those to remain representative. So if the contacted population was representative by key worker status, was the population that responded representative too? Were there any other demographic characteristics that ended up being unrepresentative? c) Once you break down population by day of test, were they still representative? If not, was this somehow included in their error range on R?
Thanks for the link - as I noted earlier, I hadn't seen the actual study.
Re (a) it's a large sample so 'representative' should also be fairly representative of key worker status (I doubt key worker status itself was included, but if the sample is nationally representative then it should include, within sampling error, a nationally representative proportion of key workers) Re (b) more of an issue. You can imagine that key worker status would influence likelihood of response, but that can be handled. More of a problem is that people who think they might have it are probably more likely to do the test (so the response may be biased in that way). Re (c) should average out in the sample, unless you believe that there would be systematic variation in day of test by relevant characteristics (the one thing I can think of here is that workers, particularly those still going out to work such as most key workers, may delay doing the test until say the next weekend)
The approach they've taken does rely on a representative sample (at least in as much as it should not be biased in number/timing of positives beyond what can be explained with the collected characteristics) so some uncertainties for sure. Also, as is the problem with many of these studies, a fairly low number of positives, so the precision is limited. Apologies to @MaxPB - this is something I could imagine a government team of data analysts could reasonably take on, mostly it's pretty standard modelling techniques. Some assumptions made and tweaking those assumptions might give different answers.
Offtopic, my mother in law was approached by the REACT study for an anitbody test (the ones detailed here are antigen). She took it and was negative, as expected. Long survey to complete too, which wasn't very well thought out - as she was retired some questions could be answered in different ways, you can imagine two identical people giving inconsistent answers. Consenting for followup studies was also very poor (poorly explained implications, I doubt they'll get many people consenting, which is a shame for them and a missed opportunity).
Mr. Divvie, you quite accidentally missed off Sassenach.
As is proved here, sassenach is a word that the English like to tittilate themselves by believing Scots are forever using it in reference to their southern neighbours. It's the sort of awareness that also thinks jokes about deep fried mars bars, haggises and Mel Gibson are cutting edge, and that Brigadoon is a documentary.
My dad used to refer to the English as ‘Sassenachs’, in what was clearly meant to be a derogatory manner, but he was born in the 1920s and had a lot of old-fashioned ideas, clearly out of step with the modern world. I haven’t heard anyone else use the word in decades. Young Scots would think you a bit odd if you used it today.
(He was a Lowlander and strong Unionist.)
In any case, as you and my fellow Scots on PB know full well, but others may not, Sasunnach [edit@ the primary Gaelic form of the term] simply means Saxon in the context of non-Gaelic speaker, so Scots or English (Or both!) speaker, = Lowlander Scot. I think that has become more widely known in recent years, perhaps explaining the change of usage you mention.
'Southron' is a commoner term - but simply geographically descriptive and quite short.
Exactly it was more commonly used for Lowland Scots than English
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
Frog and Kraut are just someone being offensive arses.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I'm happy with Frogs, I'm happy with Kiwis, I'm happy with calling Americans Yankees (and happy to wind up Southern Redneck Americans by calling them that).
It cuts the other way too. I'm happy to be called a Sassenach, a Limey, a Pommie Bastard, or Les Rosbif. My father-in-law refers to me sometimes when he speaks to my wife as "the Sassenach" and I'm OK with that.
If its past the lagershed I'm happy to refer to the Welsh and Kiwis by their other nickname, but since its not past the lagershed and I don't want to offend Mr G I'm not going to do more than hint at that.
I'm not happy with anything (besides tongue-in-cheek things) that are intended to cause genuine offence. Which are mainly those aimed at non-whites. I would never say the P-word or N-word or W-word or similar.
Understood. All OK. I meant it when I said no big deal. But that "Frog" was very jarring in that post. You were writing it before noon and it was part of a very sober and serious conversation with Topping about tourism and London. And then, all of sudden, there it was - Frog.
But you write a lot of posts, tbf, and you can't be word perfect in every one. Bet you would edit it, though, if you could. Can we just say that?
And as a matter of interest. Kiwi vs Frog - my post to Foxy at 12.28 - do you feel the same as me that there's a difference? That Frog is a little more risque than Kiwi?
No. I see no real difference between Kiwi and Frog and no I wouldn't edit it.
I suppose there's a small technical difference in that the Kiwis refer to themselves as that and its their national bird and on their All Blacks jerseys etc . . . but no as a national nickname I see no difference.
A "small technical" difference because they like to call themselves that and it's their beloved national bird and it's on the shirts of their beloved flagship sports team.
Indeed -
We can move on now if you like. I'm certainly happy to.
Actually I made a rare mistake and must hold my hands up, Foxy was right to pick me up on that. Its the silver fern on their shirts not the Kiwi.
Frogs legs in garlic is a delicious French cuisine, I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't tried it yet.
On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
I take it Starmer failed to land a glove, yet again?
wrong yet again, best Bozo could come up with was a sad joke about Starmer's underpants
That's the thing about arguments. You get to make up your own, but not your opponents.
Mr. Dickson, I haven't heard 'jocks' used in real life at all, unless you count the Jocks and the Geordies (maybe versus? it was a long time ago) in The Dandy.
I have an old patient who calls himself "Jock". It is a nickname he has carried from army life.
Ditto my late father, in the Royal Navy - 1940s and 1950s. Much as Clarkes were called Nobby and Millers Dusty. No idea if they still do it automatically today.
I'm not a big fan of this sort of thing tbh but in the spirit of reportage -
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
Frog and Kraut are just someone being offensive arses.
Bit old-fashioned, aren't they.
Yes , well past their sell by date.
Really? You have a more modern, more fashionable nickname for the French?
I mean for a while I liked the phrase "cheese eating surrender monkeys" from Groundskeeper Willie . . . but that's a bit dated now while Frogs is timeless.
The London comments are interesting. I spent 3 years working in Kings Cross from mid-1999 onwards. First 6 months I lived in a hovel in Kings Cross itself. Could walk to a supermarket (Safeway!) and big department stores, but when your "local" shops are on Oxford Street and you need to navigate the tourists you do it as little as possible.
For the rest of the time I lived on the Edmonton / Enfield border. Edmonton was just a place I caught public transport (hated it otherwise). Enfield a nice enough little town. When I was in the office I might go out in London - I wouldn't haul myself in from Zone 4 otherwise. There must be a LOT of people in outer zones who work in Zone 1 who like me don't normally head into town for the hell of it. I assume that is why its is so dead - no tourists, no workers. Haven't been into the centre of ANY big city since this started so no idea if that is just a London problem or not, but I can understand why people don't want to go there. I didn't.
I used to go to the City quite frequently at weekends. It’s always been a ghost town.
Not any more, well at least pre-lockdown. It's a thriving market space now at weekends. The most striking thing to go to the City at weekends is the colour. Weekdays everyone is in blue, black, grey. At the weekends it is like carnival in comparison.
End of last year I was driving through the City to visit the Tower most weekends. Definitely not much going on there...
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
I think this is too pessimistic. London is not a pure tourist / office economy though agree much of the fluffier stuff is - approximately 3.5 million people live in Inner London. That is approx the population of Berlin. House prices and rentals may shift, but they won't be vanishing in the couple of years it may take to get a vaccine.
Public transport services could correctly be scaled to meet demand; personally I think TFL is still so bloated that it could be slimmed considerably with little loss of service. If there is going to be a significant shift to active travel - cycling has doubled in London but another six-fold increase would still be to well under 20% - then public transport will have a crisis anyway.
Presumably the two theatres that already exist in Luton (capacity approx 1000 and approx 500 aiui) will continue to put on performances.
Theatreland is interesting. If I remember my youth, much of it has been dark for long periods and come back, or run as private clubs when we had censorship last time around.
On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
I take it Starmer failed to land a glove, yet again?
Not at all. Although soon to be LD leader Davey drew the most blood!
Yes, Davey managed to get this commitment. He seems to have a similar technique to Starmer, in steering government policy by exploiting Johnsons willingness to give off the cuff commitments at PMQs. It is a quite effective technique for a tag team.
Gut feel, Kamala Harris is a lay. The VPs job is to enhance the presidential candidate,not upstage them. I wouldn't trust Harris to remember that and I suspect Biden doesn't trust her to remember that either. Also the VP rarely makes any difference to actual result, in which case Biden may as well choose someone he gets on with. They will spend a lot of time in each other's company. Not sure about the Biden/Harris chemistry.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I'm happy with Frogs, I'm happy with Kiwis, I'm happy with calling Americans Yankees (and happy to wind up Southern Redneck Americans by calling them that).
It cuts the other way too. I'm happy to be called a Sassenach, a Limey, a Pommie Bastard, or Les Rosbif. My father-in-law refers to me sometimes when he speaks to my wife as "the Sassenach" and I'm OK with that.
If its past the lagershed I'm happy to refer to the Welsh and Kiwis by their other nickname, but since its not past the lagershed and I don't want to offend Mr G I'm not going to do more than hint at that.
I'm not happy with anything (besides tongue-in-cheek things) that are intended to cause genuine offence. Which are mainly those aimed at non-whites. I would never say the P-word or N-word or W-word or similar.
Understood. All OK. I meant it when I said no big deal. But that "Frog" was very jarring in that post. You were writing it before noon and it was part of a very sober and serious conversation with Topping about tourism and London. And then, all of sudden, there it was - Frog.
But you write a lot of posts, tbf, and you can't be word perfect in every one. Bet you would edit it, though, if you could. Can we just say that?
And as a matter of interest. Kiwi vs Frog - my post to Foxy at 12.28 - do you feel the same as me that there's a difference? That Frog is a little more risque than Kiwi?
No. I see no real difference between Kiwi and Frog and no I wouldn't edit it.
I suppose there's a small technical difference in that the Kiwis refer to themselves as that and its their national bird and on their All Blacks jerseys etc . . . but no as a national nickname I see no difference.
A "small technical" difference because they like to call themselves that and it's their beloved national bird and it's on the shirts of their beloved flagship sports team.
Indeed -
We can move on now if you like. I'm certainly happy to.
Actually I made a rare mistake and must hold my hands up, Foxy was right to pick me up on that. Its the silver fern on their shirts not the Kiwi.
Frogs legs in garlic is a delicious French cuisine, I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't tried it yet.
Best enjoyed outside at the Fer a Cheval in Verbier.
And while I have you - the vaccine - are you still confident on 1st half of next year for a mass UK rollout?
My money is on Harris, but other options (as Mike suggests) are entirely plausible.
As far as a vaccine is concerned, Charles is the expert. I am reasonably optimistic we'll have at least one workable vaccine before the year end, so large scale vaccination in the first half of next year (and localised vaccination programs this year) are a reasonable possibility. I wouldn't bet my life or business on that, though (though in effect, many of us are doing the latter).
Right, thanks. I think Harris too - but I'd be happy with most of the alternatives.
I will check with Charles on the vax then when I next see him.
On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
I take it Starmer failed to land a glove, yet again?
Not at all. Although soon to be LD leader Davey drew the most blood!
Yes, Davey managed to get this commitment. He seems to have a similar technique to Starmer, in steering government policy by exploiting Johnsons willingness to give off the cuff commitments at PMQs. It is a quite effective technique for a tag team.
Johnson promised an inquiry into Islamaphobia - never happened; he still hasn't released the Russia report. I wouldn't hold our breaths on a CV19 inquiry delivering anything, or even taking place, while Johnson is around.
Worse this model is the long term replacement to the Qashqai which is the biggest selling car made in Sunderland.
and without brexit they would still be making it in Japan because the eu axed import tariffs on cars made in Japan.
I'm not arguing otherwise, my point is that I suspect Sunderland is not going to be around in a few years time and Brexit and the Tories will cop the blame...
I don't have a lot of knowledge on the candidates but she seems to have a CV that will attract some Trump voters if patriotism is played up (which it looks like it will with some of the attack ads from disaffected Republicans).
I remember the day she got shot down near Balad AB very well as we (the 'Borrowers' in the British forces) were blown away by the scale and speed of the USAF casevac effort. They had a C-9 in the air from Bahrain and multiple HH-60s securing the site about 5 minutes after the Blackhawk went in. They had her in surgery at LRMC in Germany that night. I don't know she survived because the RPG blast ripped both her legs off.
Mr. Divvie, sorry, I forgot that you knew precisely how often and what terms Englishmen use to deride others from different parts of the UK but that the reverse never ever happens and is indeed fictional.
"The English are mean and nationalist because they use these terms. How dare you suggest Scotsmen ever use derisive terms about the English? Typical Englishman..."
Which part of the world recently had a nationalist on the border hurling abuse at travellers from down the road?
Pretending the English are uniquely derisive or nationalistic is as unwittingly ironic as the name of the Women and Equalities Select Committee.
Uniquely? Certainly not. I would more go with "doggedly".
On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
I take it Starmer failed to land a glove, yet again?
Not at all. Although soon to be LD leader Davey drew the most blood!
Yes, Davey managed to get this commitment. He seems to have a similar technique to Starmer, in steering government policy by exploiting Johnsons willingness to give off the cuff commitments at PMQs. It is a quite effective technique for a tag team.
On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
I take it Starmer failed to land a glove, yet again?
Not at all. Although soon to be LD leader Davey drew the most blood!
Yes, Davey managed to get this commitment. He seems to have a similar technique to Starmer, in steering government policy by exploiting Johnsons willingness to give off the cuff commitments at PMQs. It is a quite effective technique for a tag team.
Is there any doubt at all that there will be one? It's just a question of time.
Indicative of a lack of professionalism in the Government operation, though, that the actual commitment was extracted by the acting Lib Dem leader.
It's absolutely basic for any media operation that YOU are the one seen as making the rain, not THEM. If an inquiry is inevitable, you announce it on your own terms and publicly congratulate yourself on being transparent and forward thinking.
On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
I take it Starmer failed to land a glove, yet again?
Not at all. Although soon to be LD leader Davey drew the most blood!
Yes, Davey managed to get this commitment. He seems to have a similar technique to Starmer, in steering government policy by exploiting Johnsons willingness to give off the cuff commitments at PMQs. It is a quite effective technique for a tag team.
Worse this model is the long term replacement to the Qashqai which is the biggest selling car made in Sunderland.
and without brexit they would still be making it in Japan because the eu axed import tariffs on cars made in Japan.
NB The EU/Japan FTA was agreed after the UK left and without reference to UK interests. I don't know if the UK would have blocked free imports of Japanese cars if was still a member. Presumably it would trade a better relationship with a strategic partner off against protection of local production. The important thing is that would have been able to make a choice in its own interest, and that choice would influence the outcome. With Brexit the UK has lost that influence over things that matter to it.
On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
I take it Starmer failed to land a glove, yet again?
Not at all. Although soon to be LD leader Davey drew the most blood!
Yes, Davey managed to get this commitment. He seems to have a similar technique to Starmer, in steering government policy by exploiting Johnsons willingness to give off the cuff commitments at PMQs. It is a quite effective technique for a tag team.
Johnson promised an inquiry into Islamaphobia - never happened; he still hasn't released the Russia report. I wouldn't hold our breaths on a CV19 inquiry delivering anything, or even taking place, while Johnson is around.
A proper CV inquiry would take years. Maybe decades.
Worse this model is the long term replacement to the Qashqai which is the biggest selling car made in Sunderland.
and without brexit they would still be making it in Japan because the eu axed import tariffs on cars made in Japan.
NB The EU/Japan FTA was agreed after the UK left and without reference to UK interests. I don't know if the UK would have blocked free imports of Japanese cars if was still a member. Presumably it would trade a better relationship with a strategic partner off against protection of local production. The important thing is that would have been able to make a choice in its own interest, and that choice would influence the outcome. With Brexit the UK has lost that influence over things that matter to it.
Didn't negotiations start well before Brexit? As we are always reminded, these things aren't signed in a day.
On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
I take it Starmer failed to land a glove, yet again?
Not at all. Although soon to be LD leader Davey drew the most blood!
Yes, Davey managed to get this commitment. He seems to have a similar technique to Starmer, in steering government policy by exploiting Johnsons willingness to give off the cuff commitments at PMQs. It is a quite effective technique for a tag team.
Prejudice against shorter men is one of the last acceptable ones. Most men of average height and above like it, because it makes them feel better, and most ( though definitely not all ) women tend to find taller men more attractive, so the majority will be quite happy for it to continue unless challenged.
Worse this model is the long term replacement to the Qashqai which is the biggest selling car made in Sunderland.
and without brexit they would still be making it in Japan because the eu axed import tariffs on cars made in Japan.
NB The EU/Japan FTA was agreed after the UK left and without reference to UK interests. I don't know if the UK would have blocked free imports of Japanese cars if was still a member. Presumably it would trade a better relationship with a strategic partner off against protection of local production. The important thing is that would have been able to make a choice in its own interest, and that choice would influence the outcome. With Brexit the UK has lost that influence over things that matter to it.
Didn't negotiations start well before Brexit? As we are always reminded, these things aren't signed in a day.
Negotiations were stalled. The agreement was made after Brexit. Actually the Trump election concentrated minds.
Worse this model is the long term replacement to the Qashqai which is the biggest selling car made in Sunderland.
and without brexit they would still be making it in Japan because the eu axed import tariffs on cars made in Japan.
NB The EU/Japan FTA was agreed after the UK left and without reference to UK interests. I don't know if the UK would have blocked free imports of Japanese cars if was still a member. Presumably it would trade a better relationship with a strategic partner off against protection of local production. The important thing is that would have been able to make a choice in its own interest, and that choice would influence the outcome. With Brexit the UK has lost that influence over things that matter to it.
Didn't negotiations start well before Brexit? As we are always reminded, these things aren't signed in a day.
Typical remainer response, wants to have their cake and eat it...nods
Phew, at last we can dispense with the notion that Goodwin is some kind of nonpartisan academic, humbly beavering away in the mines of objectivity to provide us with information. The battlefields of the culture war are somewhat crowded with whiny right wingers and their hot takes though, he needs a USP.
I'd like to point out that Owen Jones has been through approximately 10,000x as much shit as Bari Weiss, including being physically assaulted, and doesn't think it's "impossible to do his job"
And no one gives him credit for "surviving cancel culture"
"Professor Stephen Holgate FMedSci, a respiratory specialist from University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, who chaired the report, said: “This is not a prediction, but it is a possibility. The modelling suggests that deaths could be higher with a new wave of COVID-19 this winter, but the risk of this happening could be reduced if we take action immediately.”
“With relatively low numbers of COVID-19 cases at the moment, this is a critical window of opportunity to help us prepare for the worst that winter can throw at us.”
An advisory group of 37 experts were rapidly assembled to create the report following a request by the Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor. The report was guided by a patient and carer reference group that provided information and advice on the key issues for those who would be most affected by a bad winter."
It does seem odd for a government to commission a report of "nonsense".
I note the 120 000 second wave deaths has Confidence Intervals of 25 000-250 000, and is only hospital deaths, not community and nursing homes. It is based on an r value sticking at 1.7. The whole point is to forecast what happens without planning to mitigate.
So what are the chances of us not planning to mitigate? Thats why its nonsense, its produced a prediction on something that will never happen. Its like producing a report stating that if you don't look before you cross the road the chances of you dying are higher than if you do look.
On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
I take it Starmer failed to land a glove, yet again?
Not at all. Although soon to be LD leader Davey drew the most blood!
Yes, Davey managed to get this commitment. He seems to have a similar technique to Starmer, in steering government policy by exploiting Johnsons willingness to give off the cuff commitments at PMQs. It is a quite effective technique for a tag team.
Mr. Divvie, you quite accidentally missed off Sassenach.
As is proved here, sassenach is a word that the English like to tittilate themselves by believing Scots are forever using it in reference to their southern neighbours. It's the sort of awareness that also thinks jokes about deep fried mars bars, haggises and Mel Gibson are cutting edge, and that Brigadoon is a documentary.
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
"Professor Stephen Holgate FMedSci, a respiratory specialist from University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, who chaired the report, said: “This is not a prediction, but it is a possibility. The modelling suggests that deaths could be higher with a new wave of COVID-19 this winter, but the risk of this happening could be reduced if we take action immediately.”
“With relatively low numbers of COVID-19 cases at the moment, this is a critical window of opportunity to help us prepare for the worst that winter can throw at us.”
An advisory group of 37 experts were rapidly assembled to create the report following a request by the Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor. The report was guided by a patient and carer reference group that provided information and advice on the key issues for those who would be most affected by a bad winter."
It does seem odd for a government to commission a report of "nonsense".
I note the 120 000 second wave deaths has Confidence Intervals of 25 000-250 000, and is only hospital deaths, not community and nursing homes. It is based on an r value sticking at 1.7. The whole point is to forecast what happens without planning to mitigate.
So what are the chances of us not planning to mitigate? Thats why its nonsense, its produced a prediction on something that will never happen. Its like producing a report stating that if you don't look before you cross the road the chances of you dying are higher than if you do look.
More like - if you step off Tower Bridge in the middle, you are going get very wet.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I'm happy with Frogs, I'm happy with Kiwis, I'm happy with calling Americans Yankees (and happy to wind up Southern Redneck Americans by calling them that).
It cuts the other way too. I'm happy to be called a Sassenach, a Limey, a Pommie Bastard, or Les Rosbif. My father-in-law refers to me sometimes when he speaks to my wife as "the Sassenach" and I'm OK with that.
If its past the lagershed I'm happy to refer to the Welsh and Kiwis by their other nickname, but since its not past the lagershed and I don't want to offend Mr G I'm not going to do more than hint at that.
I'm not happy with anything (besides tongue-in-cheek things) that are intended to cause genuine offence. Which are mainly those aimed at non-whites. I would never say the P-word or N-word or W-word or similar.
Understood. All OK. I meant it when I said no big deal. But that "Frog" was very jarring in that post. You were writing it before noon and it was part of a very sober and serious conversation with Topping about tourism and London. And then, all of sudden, there it was - Frog.
But you write a lot of posts, tbf, and you can't be word perfect in every one. Bet you would edit it, though, if you could. Can we just say that?
And as a matter of interest. Kiwi vs Frog - my post to Foxy at 12.28 - do you feel the same as me that there's a difference? That Frog is a little more risque than Kiwi?
No. I see no real difference between Kiwi and Frog and no I wouldn't edit it.
I suppose there's a small technical difference in that the Kiwis refer to themselves as that and its their national bird and on their All Blacks jerseys etc . . . but no as a national nickname I see no difference.
A "small technical" difference because they like to call themselves that and it's their beloved national bird and it's on the shirts of their beloved flagship sports team.
Indeed -
We can move on now if you like. I'm certainly happy to.
Actually I made a rare mistake and must hold my hands up, Foxy was right to pick me up on that. Its the silver fern on their shirts not the Kiwi.
Frogs legs in garlic is a delicious French cuisine, I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't tried it yet.
Kiwi on the Rugby League shirt. Their nickname too. An understandable mistake as I recall you hail from Warrington?
Famously on here, many of those who clutched their pearls at the phrase Little Englander were perfectly happy to call French people Frogs.
Funny old world.
Not sure what your point is there. 'Frog' is a harmless informal word for any French person. 'Little Englander' is not a word denoting a person's nationality but a word describing specifically a narrow-minded English person, with the emphasis on the narrow-minded. There is no equivalence between them.
Phew, at last we can dispense with the notion that Goodwin is some kind of nonpartisan academic, humbly beavering away in the mines of objectivity to provide us with information. The battlefields of the culture war are somewhat crowded with whiny right wingers and their hot takes though, he needs a USP.
Johnson has a long history of tone-deaf "jokes" that are either at the expense of others or indifferent to their suffering. That part of our soul that most of us devote to our thoughts of others in him is a gaping hole that he fills with his own ego.
Johnson has a long history of tone-deaf "jokes" that are either at the expense of others or indifferent to their suffering. That part of our soul that most of us devote to our thoughts of others in him is a gaping hole that he fills with his own ego.
It's funny when his critics don't get that the 'jokes' aren't aimed at them. They just plough on regardless giving it even more publicity.
I don't have a lot of knowledge on the candidates but she seems to have a CV that will attract some Trump voters if patriotism is played up (which it looks like it will with some of the attack ads from disaffected Republicans).
I remember the day she got shot down near Balad AB very well as we (the 'Borrowers' in the British forces) were blown away by the scale and speed of the USAF casevac effort. They had a C-9 in the air from Bahrain and multiple HH-60s securing the site about 5 minutes after the Blackhawk went in. They had her in surgery at LRMC in Germany that night. I don't know she survived because the RPG blast ripped both her legs off.
Amongst other things Tucker Carlson called her a coward. Mind boggling. Bit like Trump on McCain.
As an aside, it is notable that hardly anyone on here attempts to refute the economic case against Brexit anymore.
Nor can anyone summon the chutzpah to suggest that the German automakers are going to ride to our rescue to enable “the easiest trade deal in history”.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I'm happy with Frogs, I'm happy with Kiwis, I'm happy with calling Americans Yankees (and happy to wind up Southern Redneck Americans by calling them that).
It cuts the other way too. I'm happy to be called a Sassenach, a Limey, a Pommie Bastard, or Les Rosbif. My father-in-law refers to me sometimes when he speaks to my wife as "the Sassenach" and I'm OK with that.
If its past the lagershed I'm happy to refer to the Welsh and Kiwis by their other nickname, but since its not past the lagershed and I don't want to offend Mr G I'm not going to do more than hint at that.
I'm not happy with anything (besides tongue-in-cheek things) that are intended to cause genuine offence. Which are mainly those aimed at non-whites. I would never say the P-word or N-word or W-word or similar.
Understood. All OK. I meant it when I said no big deal. But that "Frog" was very jarring in that post. You were writing it before noon and it was part of a very sober and serious conversation with Topping about tourism and London. And then, all of sudden, there it was - Frog.
But you write a lot of posts, tbf, and you can't be word perfect in every one. Bet you would edit it, though, if you could. Can we just say that?
And as a matter of interest. Kiwi vs Frog - my post to Foxy at 12.28 - do you feel the same as me that there's a difference? That Frog is a little more risque than Kiwi?
No. I see no real difference between Kiwi and Frog and no I wouldn't edit it.
I suppose there's a small technical difference in that the Kiwis refer to themselves as that and its their national bird and on their All Blacks jerseys etc . . . but no as a national nickname I see no difference.
A "small technical" difference because they like to call themselves that and it's their beloved national bird and it's on the shirts of their beloved flagship sports team.
Indeed -
We can move on now if you like. I'm certainly happy to.
Actually I made a rare mistake and must hold my hands up, Foxy was right to pick me up on that. Its the silver fern on their shirts not the Kiwi.
Frogs legs in garlic is a delicious French cuisine, I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't tried it yet.
Kiwi on the Rugby League shirt. Their nickname too. An understandable mistake as I recall you hail from Warrington?
I wonder what name the French Rugby League team go by?
If it's "The Frogs" I will go back and delete all my posts on this thread.
I don't have a lot of knowledge on the candidates but she seems to have a CV that will attract some Trump voters if patriotism is played up (which it looks like it will with some of the attack ads from disaffected Republicans).
I remember the day she got shot down near Balad AB very well as we (the 'Borrowers' in the British forces) were blown away by the scale and speed of the USAF casevac effort. They had a C-9 in the air from Bahrain and multiple HH-60s securing the site about 5 minutes after the Blackhawk went in. They had her in surgery at LRMC in Germany that night. I don't know she survived because the RPG blast ripped both her legs off.
Trump to say he prefers the ones who don't get shot down?
Military record though doesn't seem to bring electoral success in the US Presidency, arguably since Reagan the less distinguished military record has won each time.
Headline - 22 7 days - 16 - quite a bit of backdating Yesterday - 0
Wouldn't it make more sense to use a moving average that corresponds with the centre of the period in question rather than its end, so that the average doesn't trail behind the actual values? Obviously you wouldn't have a value for the last 3 days, but that's a pretty moot point, given that the most recent days are subject to revision in any case.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I'm happy with Frogs, I'm happy with Kiwis, I'm happy with calling Americans Yankees (and happy to wind up Southern Redneck Americans by calling them that).
It cuts the other way too. I'm happy to be called a Sassenach, a Limey, a Pommie Bastard, or Les Rosbif. My father-in-law refers to me sometimes when he speaks to my wife as "the Sassenach" and I'm OK with that.
If its past the lagershed I'm happy to refer to the Welsh and Kiwis by their other nickname, but since its not past the lagershed and I don't want to offend Mr G I'm not going to do more than hint at that.
I'm not happy with anything (besides tongue-in-cheek things) that are intended to cause genuine offence. Which are mainly those aimed at non-whites. I would never say the P-word or N-word or W-word or similar.
Understood. All OK. I meant it when I said no big deal. But that "Frog" was very jarring in that post. You were writing it before noon and it was part of a very sober and serious conversation with Topping about tourism and London. And then, all of sudden, there it was - Frog.
But you write a lot of posts, tbf, and you can't be word perfect in every one. Bet you would edit it, though, if you could. Can we just say that?
And as a matter of interest. Kiwi vs Frog - my post to Foxy at 12.28 - do you feel the same as me that there's a difference? That Frog is a little more risque than Kiwi?
No. I see no real difference between Kiwi and Frog and no I wouldn't edit it.
I suppose there's a small technical difference in that the Kiwis refer to themselves as that and its their national bird and on their All Blacks jerseys etc . . . but no as a national nickname I see no difference.
A "small technical" difference because they like to call themselves that and it's their beloved national bird and it's on the shirts of their beloved flagship sports team.
Indeed -
We can move on now if you like. I'm certainly happy to.
Actually I made a rare mistake and must hold my hands up, Foxy was right to pick me up on that. Its the silver fern on their shirts not the Kiwi.
Frogs legs in garlic is a delicious French cuisine, I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't tried it yet.
Kiwi on the Rugby League shirt. Their nickname too. An understandable mistake as I recall you hail from Warrington?
I wonder what name the French Rugby League team go by?
If it's "The Frogs" I will go back and delete all my posts on this thread.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Tourists don't come to London because of the restaurants. If you ask an American, or a Frog or an Italian who want to come to London why they want to travel the answer is not going to be "for the food".
Tourists come to London for our history. To see the Palaces etc - and there will always be some restaurants in tourist-popular areas even if they're less frequented by commuters.
A Frog?
Unlike you.
Why?
I refer to New Zealanders as Kiwis too. Its more polite than calling them and the Welsh by their other nickname.
Frog does not come across like Kiwi. It's more akin to Kraut for German.
Just surprised to hear it from you. It sounded "off". To me it did anyway.
No biggie - but I'd have a think and then check back with yourself that you're happy with it.
I'm happy with Frogs, I'm happy with Kiwis, I'm happy with calling Americans Yankees (and happy to wind up Southern Redneck Americans by calling them that).
It cuts the other way too. I'm happy to be called a Sassenach, a Limey, a Pommie Bastard, or Les Rosbif. My father-in-law refers to me sometimes when he speaks to my wife as "the Sassenach" and I'm OK with that.
If its past the lagershed I'm happy to refer to the Welsh and Kiwis by their other nickname, but since its not past the lagershed and I don't want to offend Mr G I'm not going to do more than hint at that.
I'm not happy with anything (besides tongue-in-cheek things) that are intended to cause genuine offence. Which are mainly those aimed at non-whites. I would never say the P-word or N-word or W-word or similar.
Understood. All OK. I meant it when I said no big deal. But that "Frog" was very jarring in that post. You were writing it before noon and it was part of a very sober and serious conversation with Topping about tourism and London. And then, all of sudden, there it was - Frog.
But you write a lot of posts, tbf, and you can't be word perfect in every one. Bet you would edit it, though, if you could. Can we just say that?
And as a matter of interest. Kiwi vs Frog - my post to Foxy at 12.28 - do you feel the same as me that there's a difference? That Frog is a little more risque than Kiwi?
No. I see no real difference between Kiwi and Frog and no I wouldn't edit it.
I suppose there's a small technical difference in that the Kiwis refer to themselves as that and its their national bird and on their All Blacks jerseys etc . . . but no as a national nickname I see no difference.
A "small technical" difference because they like to call themselves that and it's their beloved national bird and it's on the shirts of their beloved flagship sports team.
Indeed -
We can move on now if you like. I'm certainly happy to.
Actually I made a rare mistake and must hold my hands up, Foxy was right to pick me up on that. Its the silver fern on their shirts not the Kiwi.
Frogs legs in garlic is a delicious French cuisine, I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't tried it yet.
Kiwi on the Rugby League shirt. Their nickname too. An understandable mistake as I recall you hail from Warrington?
I wonder what name the French Rugby League team go by?
If it's "The Frogs" I will go back and delete all my posts on this thread.
As an aside, it is notable that hardly anyone on here attempts to refute the economic case against Brexit anymore. ...
Yes, the line has changed from 'it will all be great' to 'yes, it will be bad, but not as bad as the worst peacetime economic catastrophe in history', which to be fair is a great leap forward in realism.
Phew, at last we can dispense with the notion that Goodwin is some kind of nonpartisan academic, humbly beavering away in the mines of objectivity to provide us with information. The battlefields of the culture war are somewhat crowded with whiny right wingers and their hot takes though, he needs a USP.
"Professor Stephen Holgate FMedSci, a respiratory specialist from University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, who chaired the report, said: “This is not a prediction, but it is a possibility. The modelling suggests that deaths could be higher with a new wave of COVID-19 this winter, but the risk of this happening could be reduced if we take action immediately.”
“With relatively low numbers of COVID-19 cases at the moment, this is a critical window of opportunity to help us prepare for the worst that winter can throw at us.”
An advisory group of 37 experts were rapidly assembled to create the report following a request by the Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor. The report was guided by a patient and carer reference group that provided information and advice on the key issues for those who would be most affected by a bad winter."
It does seem odd for a government to commission a report of "nonsense".
I note the 120 000 second wave deaths has Confidence Intervals of 25 000-250 000, and is only hospital deaths, not community and nursing homes. It is based on an r value sticking at 1.7. The whole point is to forecast what happens without planning to mitigate.
So what are the chances of us not planning to mitigate? Thats why its nonsense, its produced a prediction on something that will never happen. Its like producing a report stating that if you don't look before you cross the road the chances of you dying are higher than if you do look.
So you haven't read the report. Which is not about 'a prediction', but a detailed survey of the measures which will be required this winter absent a vaccine.
They even go into the need for separating out Covid hospital provision from non-Covid, to prevent the empty wards you've been complaining about regularly.
A Wealth Tax is an exciting prospect. But will a Conservative government really do that? One for the 'believe it when I see it' basket.
Just like my argument on CGT on residential properties it does seem to be a very anti Conservative thing to do, so would be a bold move.
I also think a wealth tax would be difficult to implement.
There is a need to tap into wealth - of which there is oodles - if we are to maintain the sort of public realm we have become used to.
Your CGT on homes makes sense imo but it has next to no chance of happening because of the way we view home ownership here. There's a strong intellectual and moral case for it though.
I'm not really sure about that.
They used to think that mortgage tax relief was untouchable for political reasons. Then it went.
Main dwellings are treated as an investment - used for raising finance, saving for retirement, supporting children etc. As such there is not much reason to keep the unearned gains tax free.
Consider that one George Osborne has just trousered £3.1m of gains for which he has not done an hour's work. Is it really unacceptable that that should only be say £2.5m of unearned gains after tax rather than £3.1m?
I think the strategic clincher is that the £25-30bn of lost tax due to the allowance is overwhelmingly handed to the wealthier people in the wealthier areas of the country.
How will that play in the Red Wall when pointed out, and perhaps combined with a more generous CGT Allowance or reintroduction of indexation?
Personally I would abolish it at a stroke, but perhaps an initial cut followed by death on the vine is an alternative.
On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
I take it Starmer failed to land a glove, yet again?
Not at all. Although soon to be LD leader Davey drew the most blood!
Yes, Davey managed to get this commitment. He seems to have a similar technique to Starmer, in steering government policy by exploiting Johnsons willingness to give off the cuff commitments at PMQs. It is a quite effective technique for a tag team.
Davey started off with his underwhelming tone, and Johnson, like me must have thought, oh here we go again, same old nonsense from Davey. Then almost before Davey had finished, Johnson had conceded an independent enquiry. I am not sure who was most surprised by the reply Davey or Johnson.
Johnson has a long history of tone-deaf "jokes" that are either at the expense of others or indifferent to their suffering. That part of our soul that most of us devote to our thoughts of others in him is a gaping hole that he fills with his own ego.
It's funny when his critics don't get that the 'jokes' aren't aimed at them. They just plough on regardless giving it even more publicity.
That's probably the theory (Though does the zinger zing on its own terms? It's a bit jargony. Do they want to imply that Starmer is well-briefed?). But the main thing is the sequence of question and answer;
Q: What can you say to bereaved families? A: It's terribly sad. BUT NOW LAUGH AT MY PRE-PREPARED ZINGER!
With a majority of 80, it doesn't matter, of course. But the Prime Minister is remarkably terrible at this.
On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
I take it Starmer failed to land a glove, yet again?
Not at all. Although soon to be LD leader Davey drew the most blood!
Yes, Davey managed to get this commitment. He seems to have a similar technique to Starmer, in steering government policy by exploiting Johnsons willingness to give off the cuff commitments at PMQs. It is a quite effective technique for a tag team.
Davey started off with his underwhelming tone, and Johnson, like me must have thought, oh here we go again, same old nonsense from Davey. Then almost before Davey had finished, Johnson had conceded an independent enquiry. I am not sure who was most surprised by the reply Davey or Johnson.
There was bound to be an independent inquiry into corona. It's killed 60,000 people and trashed the economy. The idea that there WOULDN'T be an inquiry is the outlier.
On PMQs, the PM has had a week to think of a jokey put-down to aim at Starmer. If the best he can come up with is "he's got more briefs than Calvin Klein" then I'm not impressed - rather childish and not easy to see what the point of the joke is. Other than that, the PM clearly doesn't do his reading, and pretends to be outraged that one of the jobs of the opposition leader is to oppose. Especially when what he's opposing is the constant, ludicrous and immodest claims to "world-beating" this and that. If I were a Tory, I'd be a bit worried that we have a lightweight PM who shows not a shred of humility or decency.
I take it Starmer failed to land a glove, yet again?
Not at all. Although soon to be LD leader Davey drew the most blood!
Yes, Davey managed to get this commitment. He seems to have a similar technique to Starmer, in steering government policy by exploiting Johnsons willingness to give off the cuff commitments at PMQs. It is a quite effective technique for a tag team.
Davey started off with his underwhelming tone, and Johnson, like me must have thought, oh here we go again, same old nonsense from Davey. Then almost before Davey had finished, Johnson had conceded an independent enquiry. I am not sure who was most surprised by the reply Davey or Johnson.
There was bound to be an independent inquiry into corona. It's killed 60,000 people and trashed the economy. The idea that there WOULDN'T be an inquiry is the outlier.
Yeah. It's quite something to claim it was a concession.
Comments
There is a file at
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/07/COVID-19-daily-announced-deaths-15-July-2020.xlsx
I ran it through my processor.
0 for the 14th - as in no reported deaths in hospital.
Hmmmmm
Just not if you're PM. In a once in a lifetime pandemic.
Starmer will ask some relevant questions.
Johnson will generally fail to answer them, point out that Starmer is a lawyer and employ an attempted zinger that usually turns out to be a bit a damp squib.
They've been at this since early May. Forget sessions, how many *questions* has Johnson won? Maybe some by asking if Starmer thinks schools are safe. One question on hospital parking last week. Am I missing any?
He was a Hebridean and sometime SNP supporter, but went a bit Thatcher loving and Tartan Tory latterly
Indeed -
We can move on now if you like. I'm certainly happy to.
The Ariya which is an electric car will only be made in Japan which means that Nissan are going to recreate their entire electric motor and battery supplier base in Japan.. https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/motoring/nissan-rules-out-producing-new-ariya-ev-at-sunderland-factory/
Worse this model is the long term replacement to the Qashqai which is the biggest selling car made in Sunderland.
Re (a) it's a large sample so 'representative' should also be fairly representative of key worker status (I doubt key worker status itself was included, but if the sample is nationally representative then it should include, within sampling error, a nationally representative proportion of key workers)
Re (b) more of an issue. You can imagine that key worker status would influence likelihood of response, but that can be handled. More of a problem is that people who think they might have it are probably more likely to do the test (so the response may be biased in that way).
Re (c) should average out in the sample, unless you believe that there would be systematic variation in day of test by relevant characteristics (the one thing I can think of here is that workers, particularly those still going out to work such as most key workers, may delay doing the test until say the next weekend)
The approach they've taken does rely on a representative sample (at least in as much as it should not be biased in number/timing of positives beyond what can be explained with the collected characteristics) so some uncertainties for sure. Also, as is the problem with many of these studies, a fairly low number of positives, so the precision is limited. Apologies to @MaxPB - this is something I could imagine a government team of data analysts could reasonably take on, mostly it's pretty standard modelling techniques. Some assumptions made and tweaking those assumptions might give different answers.
Offtopic, my mother in law was approached by the REACT study for an anitbody test (the ones detailed here are antigen). She took it and was negative, as expected. Long survey to complete too, which wasn't very well thought out - as she was retired some questions could be answered in different ways, you can imagine two identical people giving inconsistent answers. Consenting for followup studies was also very poor (poorly explained implications, I doubt they'll get many people consenting, which is a shame for them and a missed opportunity).
Amsterdam
Barcelona
Belgrade
Birmingham
Brisbane
Paris
I wouldn't put Brum at the bottom of the list for attractiveness.
Frogs legs in garlic is a delicious French cuisine, I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't tried it yet.
Chaplins get called "Charlie" sometimes.
I mean for a while I liked the phrase "cheese eating surrender monkeys" from Groundskeeper Willie . . . but that's a bit dated now while Frogs is timeless.
Public transport services could correctly be scaled to meet demand; personally I think TFL is still so bloated that it could be slimmed considerably with little loss of service. If there is going to be a significant shift to active travel - cycling has doubled in London but another six-fold increase would still be to well under 20% - then public transport will have a crisis anyway.
Presumably the two theatres that already exist in Luton (capacity approx 1000 and approx 500 aiui) will continue to put on performances.
Theatreland is interesting. If I remember my youth, much of it has been dark for long periods and come back, or run as private clubs when we had censorship last time around.
https://twitter.com/EdwardJDavey/status/1283364897364094976?s=09
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.29.174888v1
I will check with Charles on the vax then when I next see him.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8525647/Priti-Patel-says-50-000-people-day-coming-UK-abroad.html
Headline - 22
7 days - 16 - quite a bit of backdating
Yesterday - 0
1 in 3000 in the UK have covid
Most people arriving are from countries with lower incidence than here
So 0-17 is the range. Ill go for 5 per day.
It's absolutely basic for any media operation that YOU are the one seen as making the rain, not THEM. If an inquiry is inevitable, you announce it on your own terms and publicly congratulate yourself on being transparent and forward thinking.
https://twitter.com/mlothianmclean/status/1283330330145980416?s=20
Thats why its nonsense, its produced a prediction on something that will never happen.
Its like producing a report stating that if you don't look before you cross the road the chances of you dying are higher than if you do look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeFwaWFTGYU
Funny old world.
An understandable mistake as I recall you hail from Warrington?
This of course is BoZo acknowledging that the public are listening to Starmer...
We Kiwis call ourselves Kiwis.
Personally I find it slightly kitsch, but not at all offensive.
Frogs is clearly derogatory.
Philip Thomson is a very effective troll.
One presumes he is on furlough given the amount of time he spends toxifying the PB threads.
Nor can anyone summon the chutzpah to suggest that the German automakers are going to ride to our rescue to enable “the easiest trade deal in history”.
If it's "The Frogs" I will go back and delete all my posts on this thread.
Military record though doesn't seem to bring electoral success in the US Presidency, arguably since Reagan the less distinguished military record has won each time.
So cocks. Or chickens...
Which is not about 'a prediction', but a detailed survey of the measures which will be required this winter absent a vaccine.
They even go into the need for separating out Covid hospital provision from non-Covid, to prevent the empty wards you've been complaining about regularly.
They used to think that mortgage tax relief was untouchable for political reasons. Then it went.
Main dwellings are treated as an investment - used for raising finance, saving for retirement, supporting children etc. As such there is not much reason to keep the unearned gains tax free.
Consider that one George Osborne has just trousered £3.1m of gains for which he has not done an hour's work. Is it really unacceptable that that should only be say £2.5m of unearned gains after tax rather than £3.1m?
I think the strategic clincher is that the £25-30bn of lost tax due to the allowance is overwhelmingly handed to the wealthier people in the wealthier areas of the country.
How will that play in the Red Wall when pointed out, and perhaps combined with a more generous CGT Allowance or reintroduction of indexation?
Personally I would abolish it at a stroke, but perhaps an initial cut followed by death on the vine is an alternative.
Although I don't find Philip a troll. There is occasionally lead in his pencil.
Q: What can you say to bereaved families?
A: It's terribly sad. BUT NOW LAUGH AT MY PRE-PREPARED ZINGER!
With a majority of 80, it doesn't matter, of course. But the Prime Minister is remarkably terrible at this.