Blah Blah

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can't believe you guys can be so flippant when > people are losing their livelihood. > > Unforgivable. > > But of course none of you are fishermen. > > Jesus wept > > You should be prosecuted Cat, jut stop it. You are bordering on whataboutery trolling. Engage with the points ffs. For the record, some of us DID care when miners were losing their jobs, because you see, as much as you want to deflect from answering the here and now questions about the impacts of something you are so wedded to, with some assumed search for hypocrisy, there is a principle here. A principle that you don't trash the economy for some ideological jingoistic jolly. Moving away from fossil fuels for example has credibility. Sure, there is a debate to be had around the best way to do that, but that debate always includes how to transfer jobs. With Brexit, there wasn't even any acknowledgement of job losses, let alone how to overcome the impacts on livelihoods. So it is no surprise that a die hard like you refuses now, even with the evidence hitting you in the face, to discuss it. Now debate like an adult or give it up.

Blaming the EU for the mess NI is in, is quite frankly, ignorant.

Sadly, the Mayor has no power over welfare policy. Central government decides that. Carers allowance is woefully inadequate for lots of reasons, not least because it saves local authorities the cost of full care packages that cost considerably more to provide. Conservative governments tend to cut welfare spending.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, my real name is Kenny Rogers..... Almost as flippant an answer as Rees Mogg in Parliament when asked about damage to the fishing sector. You were asked about the mess now evolving in NI Cat. Have the decency to answer that at least.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s not about ?being better people?. It?s just > that the choice of remaining meant not messing > with peoples lives and economies on made up > promises. And this is it exactly. You do realise CAT that some people are losing their entire livelihoods for your experimental Brexit project. They can't afford to wait 10 years to see if it was worth it. There are NO good economic outcomes yet as a result of Brexit, not a single one, and that is before we get into the ramifications of the pandemic on top. Even banking, which was 20 percent of our economy, has now moved trillions out of the UK to the EU. All of this was predicted and warned about and dismissed as project fear. Major trade deals take years to negotiate, not in 'an afternoon over a cup of tea', as the charlatans now running government claimed. Again, remainers tried to get that across and were dismissed.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The fact that there is an investigation (in fact 3 now) to try and uncover who initially stumped up the money for the flat refurbishment when he could just tell us is unbelievable. What an absolute waste of time, money and effort. What is he playing at? It makes me think there must be something really shady about it for him to be burning political capital on it and amplifying the story through his silence. > This is mail on the head. Playing for time and costing the taxpayers more money for investigations that inevitably will leave him nowhere to hide. The only question is what happens then? When the game is over and the truth is out, is he going to still claim he never broke the rules? Personally, I am fed up of tw@ts like Boris Johnson and his cronies.

Yes, the meltdown was quite something. Apparently the Commission made their announcement an hour before PMQs. He clearly doesn't want them involved, hence the announcement of window dressing reviews that he will have the option to reject the findings of anyway. The whole thing stinks of another attempt to game the system and take the public for fools. That is all Johnson knows. Behind the messy hair is a ruthless, nasty, dishonest, entitled man. He is vile.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The question of who might replace him (Boris) should really be ?who put him in charge?? > > We might get some where once we face up to that?! Indeed. All populists have enablers. The very idea that Boris is the best the country has is ridiculous. But that is the problem with populism. It does not seek to appeal to the rational. Instead it waffles, deflects and obfuscates, deliberately riling deep seated emotions in the course. The result is always a toxic and corrupt swing to the political extremes. When people care more about a flag than they do about inequality, then you know the country is screwed.

Droid Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He's safe for now (just about) and will continue (with a few more scars ) for a good while yet and > certainly as long as all he has to face is Starmer. Wrong. The electoral Commission are now investigating. It seems very apparent that the rules on party donations were broken and that is a criminal offense. If wrongdoing is found, he could find himself suspended from the House of Commons, and having to face a Police interview under caution. Being PM does not put him above the law, law that is there to ensure government and MPs can not be bought. It really doesn't matter what the common man thinks. This matters a lot. And how stupid of him to do it while PM. It was never going to end well for Boris. It never does for liars who have got away with it for far too long.

Tough one this. Car owner technically within his or her rights, but how is anyone ever going to get any emergency work done if people can't on occasion sort parking space for specialist vehicles? Have you considered hiring a few of these barriers Sue? https://www.hss.com/hire/p/pedestrian-barrier Cheap enough to hire and far harder for a driver to move in order to park. Look more official too ;) You shouldn't have to go to that length of course, but it might be a solution.

Stroke patients have always been treated. Other emergency care did not stop because of the pandemic.

The alarm around a tiny number of adverse reactions is disproportionate, but at the same time, scientists will want to understand why the vaccines impact that small number of people and that will shape guidance for the future. All vaccines are problematic for a small number of people. We don't stop using them for all the other things we vaccinate for as a result. In normal times, the covid vaccines would have gone through all seven stages of trial before being approved, and problems around small numbers of adverse reactions would have been identified, especially in the later stages, where those in vulnerable groups and with underlying conditions are trialed, with children being the final stage. The other thing to say about those trials, is that people undergoing them are constantly monitored, whereas that is not the case in a vaccine rollout, where an individual has to identify for themselves that something is wrong in most cases.

I think there has to be some common sense though. Efficacy of the four vaccines being used is looking very promising against the strains they were designed for. Tweaking those vaccines for new variants should not be a difficult task. So the issue is always going to be one of how fast people can be vaccinated against new variants. As we can see from the fist vaccine rollout though, there is a big difference between countries who can afford to pay for it, and those who can't. Also true is that this is a virus that mutates easily, and that is going to be impossible to stop in a world where it is spreading easily. So those returning from India are going to have to be sensible and quarantine themselves properly. Unless we want a world where all borders remain fully closed, that is going to have to be the way. Track and trace systems that work. Testing that works. And people doing the right thing. I think it is safe to say that we are not going back to the way things were before this pandemic. Businesses that rely on mass gatherings are going to have to change. Health resources are also going to have to change. Vaccines, testing, tracking and constant monitoring for new variants all cost money, lots of it. The impacts are going to be felt for some time to come.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > TheCat Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > The real challenge is one expanding the career > > option of MP beyond the top 10 percent, half > of > > whom are told they are born to it! > > > This is opening up a whole new can of worms....but > here goes.... > > Totally agree. But while being an MP does indeed > pay more than most people will earn. How many > 'ordinary' people would choose/be able to take > time off from their existing jobs to campaign, > then (if they get elected), quit their job and > totally change careers for one (while paying more > than they might make today) which highly likely to > have them tossed out of their job in 5 years (or > less).... > > Sure, maybe the answer is not as simple as 'more > money', but adding incentive to run as an MP > surely is key to attracting a broader range of > people to do so.....?? Being an MP is a job. If people want to pursue that as a career, then yes, just as people do for all sorts of other careers, they will do what they need to do to get there whilst doing another job. Once getting there however, that should be the only job. And if the salary isn't going to be enough for someone, then don't choose it as a job! Simple really.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This prob won't be a popular suggestion....but > what about paying politicians more? ........................................... > Anyway.. Plenty of reasons not to like that > suggestion as well.....just thinking out > loud/outside the box.... No, you are looking at this all wrong. The problem is that power and obscene wealth go hand in hand. It is breaking that connection (driver) that is key. So that really is the question. How do we remove financial incentive from political power? Paying people more does not remove that. There are plenty of suitably intelligent people for whom ?79k a year would be a fortune. Why? Because 90 percent of people never earn even half of that! The real challenge is one expanding the career option of MP beyond the top 10 percent, half of whom are told they are born to it! To be clear....90 percent of people in work do not earn enough to take them into the higher tax bracket. The job of MP isn't offered as a career option to the 93 percent of children who do not enter the public school education system in fact. So this idea that you have to pay already entitled and privileged people more is just bonkers. You are arguing to prop up an existing elitist system.

To be fair, details matter. There are grey areas (shaped by ideological politics) and then there are areas that are clear breaches of what is acceptable. To illustrate - annexation of the Gaza Strip in any measure is not acceptable. Extension of any part of the Israeli border in any form, is not acceptable. So this is where I sit on Israel (as a left leaning centrist). Israel has the right to exist. She also has the right to defend herself from Hamas led terrorism. She does not however, have the right to use any of that to expand the borders given to her, and that is the issue here. Illegal settlements (not my words but those of the UN) that no-one can challenge (because she is backed by a nuclear superpower) have led to an idea that Israel can annex a third of the Gaza Strip. Why? Because when someone pushes at the boundaries of acceptability, and no-one physically objects.......you know how it goes. No-one should be attacking Chick or anyone for having this thread. It is an issue that is clearly important to him/her, and there is a sensible discussion to be had. And to be fair to Chick, you don't have to scroll back too far to find him/her acknowledging I made a fair point when challenging something he/she posted.

The answer is simple. No MP may hold any other paid position apart from that of MP, may hold no shares, business interests or connection to businesses that are recipients of government help and/ or money. That would instantly make the job less attractive to a lot of the entitled charlatans that currently fleece Parliament.

'Celebrity' funerals/ deaths may seem an odd thing, where people show raw emotion for complete strangers. But what underlies that is empathy for a shared experience of grief, that we all will experience at some point in our lives. I would worry more if we had a public that showed no empathy with the Queen and her family. Prince Philip had his controversies and may have been as disliked as much he was liked because of them, but who among us has a parent who is perfect, never says anything stupid or controversial, or holds views we completely agree with? Death is supposed to be the great leveler, the one thing none of us can avoid and therefore the one thing that makes us all equal. There should be a dignity and grace that comes from that, not just in how we deal with grief ourselves, but how we treat others experiencing that same kind of grief. Personally, I found the funeral very moving, because it felt like a dignified family funeral. There aren't a lot of good things to say about the pandemic but maybe this is one of them. The Royal Family for once were able to do something in a more personal and therefore normal way. No pomp, or ostentatious celebrity guest service. Just a quiet, almost private gathering, for someone very important to them all. It seemed very appropriate.

Well, it just gets more and more incestuous as more details leak out. Basically, wealthy people in government protect their own wealth and investments first. It has always been that way and there is no real will to stop it.

Leaving parcels outside is now par for the course. Why? Because delivery drivers have an insane amount of parcels to deliver. All delivery companies employ freelance van owners. If someone is driving a branded van, they are literally renting it from their employer. The last parcel we had delivered was from a driver that had 194 parcels to deliver that day. He was only halfway through when he got to us at 3 in the afternoon. Goodness knows what time his day would finish. That is the cost of cheap postage sadly.

Ultimately though, power resides with government. So the Mayor, like local authorities, is not a law unto itself, especially when it comes to setting and maintaining budgets. Failure to pass a budget is against the law in fact, and invites government to step in, in the way they have in Liverpool (following those corruption allegations). So while there is some sense in a body having overall responsibility for management of key services and infrastructure across a large city or region, the ability to change anything is very limited. The Mayor in reality is just the return of the Greater Metropolitan Authority, hence the body being an elected one. And when looking at the range of candidates this time round, most of the non main party candidates are citing things as policy they have no powers to deliver as Mayor. I suspect Count Binface will do better than all of the smaller candidates in the end, with Khan winning outright from first preference votes.

If there were no Mayor, there would still be a budget for all those things, and local authorities would still be the major player in local taxes after government guidelines. So the Mayor in reality is little else but a bureaucratic figurehead. The in-between guy (or gal) elected to manage the oversight of our metropolitan cities. The power for manoeuvre within that is very narrow.

Just to add as well that in that phase one group of 30 million offered the vaccine, around one and a half million have declined the offer. So this is still enough unprotected people in a vulnerable group to lead to a third hospital surge if the virus starts to spread freely. The hope of course is that as more data emerges, showing definitive proof that the vaccine protects from the virus, that some of these people will finally get the vaccine, but until that happens, we are still in a difficult place.

These are exactly the same scenes that last summer saw after the lockdown was eased. It ended with government bringing in a 10pm curfew. Meanwhile, 44 cases of the SA variant have been traced in Lambeth and Wandsworth and we are still two months away from all phase one being fully vaccinated (with two jabs). This is the lack of consistency. No doubt police will still be enforcing the rule of six in parks and at protests, while doing nothing as revelers gather in towns and cities. Alcohol removes common sense. A person does not need a degree in science to understand that.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The variant clearly upset plans - but it was known about for weeks (months by end of Dec) and > certainly by start of Dec, it was obvious we needed to close....... Johnson's inability to make unpopular decisions > remains unforgivable to me. But polls show I'm in a minority Completely agree. Plenty of expert voices were warning about the December opening up/ Xmas and that a New Year surge would be the result. Many people caught the virus after avoiding it for 10 months because they were told to go back to work in December, where they caught the virus. Others caught the virus from their children who had returned to school and became infected. Having said that, the cautious road map is the result of that naysaying complacency. The real test will come if the R number starts to rise back over one. What will be government response, and how well with the vaccine perform in keeping hospital admissions down? The latter particularly is unknown and if a free moving virus (in a fully open society) suddenly mutates to bypass the vaccine, things could deteriorate very quickly. So that is what science will be looking for. That mutation that undoes everything, and in the meantime, government needs to improve the systems put in place, like track and trace, and keep them resourced for that 'what if' scenario, so that the response can be swift and effective. Things are not going back to the way they were before. We are going to be living with SARS for the foreseeable future and probably beyond.