Jump to content

The_godfather

Members
  • Posts

    349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by The_godfather

  1. Yeah, out of everything that the government is doing, the encouragement of people to be vaccinated is probably the one people will associate most with dictator-like behaviour, that sounds about right...
  2. Do you know how the Australian system works? In practice, not in theory. Not in a "they have a points based system, that sounds reasonable" kind of way. I'm genuinely interested to know. People, particularly those who advocate it, seem to cite it as an example of a good system without any evidence of whether it works, is good, bad or indifferent.
  3. What does that prove? Even if he wins, all it demonstrates is that within a narrow, legal intepretation of 'lockdown' vs whatever it is that he is claiming, that he is able to prove something, other than he is against lockdowns. It won't send anything tumbling, given that he will be arguing within German law, not something universal. Lockdowns aren't implemented to satisfy the courts, they are implemented to try and prevent unnecessary sickness and loss of life.
  4. I wouldn't put too much stock in the McKirdy decision - it make much of a difference to be honest - it's just a body in the squad, and only for the last 8 games. There is Bob hope of him being here next season - he isn't the kind of player that Clarke will tolerate. Anyone who doesn't think there is going to be an enormous upheaval in the summer is just not paying attention. * Loads of out of contract players * Underperforming squad * It's the first window to start constructing the new world order under Flitcroft and Clarke * History of Clarke ripping things up * The way he plays (multiple formations, even within games) demands a flexible squad makeup * The state of the COVID/post COVID player & contract market I would expect there to be 7-8 new starters the first day of next season.
  5. GREAT ITS GOING GREAT GOD STOP TALKING ABOUT IT YOUR SO NEGATIVE LA LA VACCINES SOVEREIGNTY.
  6. No Dave, no. Because the EU didn't ban it, you are talking fish b*llocks. They can't - because you can't just decide to ban something that is legally binding in an agreement without repercussions. The government, the negotiators of the deal, didn't include it. Didn't see it as worthwhile, didn't think about it, didn't argue for it, however you want to look at it. It's just the way it is. Business are expendable. People's livelihoods are expendable. At least they are happier and more free though, right?
  7. Yeah Tommy, stop informing yourself, or arming yourself with knowledge. Just stick your head in the sand and you'll feel much better. Remember too that the 8% is a privilege, because now we are GLOBAL BRITAIN, so we can trade with anywhere and don't need to worry about things like tariff-free trade with the EU that helps to keep prices lower.
  8. Jesus H f**ing Christ. "Driver's butties". Dave... The "transition period" (government speak for extension) wasn't a transition period at all. Trading conditions in 2020, after the UK had left the EU, rules and regulations were exactly the same as when the UK was in the EU. What we are in right now is the "transition period", a period of adjustment to new rules which came into place on Jan 1. Every problem that has been highlighted so far is part of that adjustment. It might be perfect in 18 months, but I will guarantee you it won't, because the people in charge couldn't run a bath. Those rules - the details of those rules - i.e. the nitty gritty stuff that businesses need to know, and understand, were finalised on 24 December, and signed off by Parliament on 30 December. 2 days before the UK officially left. 2. Days. Before. Businesses, business groups were calling out to the government for months - not loudly enough - that they needed more certainty about what they needed to do. What forms are required? What skillsets do we need? What new systems, or IT are going to be in place? The response was a combination of crickets, or complaining that these groups weren't being constructive. Saying that business should be ready is like like asking why the new manager doesn't know what his formation is in the 3rd week of October next season. Because he doesn't know which league he's in, or what his budget is, or who his players might be, or who he's playing. Every one of these problems and issues was expected. You should be f**ing furious with the government and the media you read, because they feed you this b*ll*cks about ham sandwiches, instead of explaining why it happened. There is entirely some vindictive behaviour occurring for sure. That's to be expected and it's beside the point really - you still don't get it. You're in the club, you have your rules. You're out of the club, you have to follow different agreed rules. The government have agreed to all of this. Every bit. That is literally the basics. I am by no means an expert.
  9. There's obviously different ways you can play it; and it depends on the other players available to you, right? How attacking are your fullbacks, where does your width come from, do you mainly attack centrally or from wide? The Liverpool front 3 are world class players with great chemistry, so it looks seamless. We can't decide who the main striker is, which side Worrall should play, whether Amoo will play more than 3 games in a row, whether Monty is a winger or fullback. Askey prioritised system over players; to me, I can't understand why he didn't look at a 3-5-2/(or even a 3-4-3) to be honest - you could have had Gibbons/Monty on either side, or even Worrall on the right. The defence could have some extra cover for the lack of pace. Joyce would still be part of a 3, playing to his strengths. In a 3-5-2 you could partner up strikers, or even play Amoo and allow him to drift wide and take up those positions allowing a midfielder to break forward into the box. There were plenty of options to offer flexibility.
  10. No no, you're missing the point Fosse. It was never about fish remember, or money, or economics, or livelihoods, or industries. People didn't vote to leave on that basis. They wanted sovereignty, my god. Sovereignty! To smell the sweet scent of freedom, to feel the old stirring in the loins at the thought of global partners. Good old lion-hearted, union jack striped, common-sensed sovereignty. Huzzah!
  11. But I thought we were winning? That's what this is about, right? Not, "look, why don't you tell me what we've lost?" Do you consider frictionless trade, or freedom of movement, or membership of European bodies like Euratom, or hosting of the HQ of European agencies like the European Medicine Agency or Banking Authority, or access to shared police databases 'incidental' just to name a few off the top of my head? Or do they rank below a 'democratic referendum' that you seem to put so much stock in, despite, not putting any stock in, frankly, anything else.
  12. It's swings and roundabouts IC, didn't you hear? We make 20 million here, we lose 500 million there. We 'save' (save! just think what that actually means) 100 jobs over here, we lose 500 over there. Swings and roundabouts, that's all it is. It's profoundly weird. Global Britain! Opportunities! Buccaneering! Does anyone, and I mean, anyone, actually know what that is supposed to mean? What opportunities exist for, for example, small or medium businesses who do, (or do not) currently import or export goods or services to the EU? How do copy-paste trade deals provide new opportunities? Aren't they the same ones? How do you suddenly start selling something to a market in Guyana, or Swaziland, or Indonesia, that didn't exist to you before? Does Liz Truss know? Businesses can't be sitting there thinking - "F**king fantastic, now I can get into that untapped Costa Rican market".
  13. Not going to say much about the current situation, got other things to think about, other than... Brexit has happened, it is happening and will continue to happen over the coming years. My question is - do you trust the current lot to: * maximise the opportunities that are available out there * make the most of what Britain has to offer * act in the best interests of the country/people in it? My view - you couldn't trust them to tie a pair of shoelaces, without them tying them together, tripping over, setting fire to the house, then blaming the shoelaces, the fire brigade, and claiming that they are about to build a worldbeating house made out of fresh air and as yet invented technology. So Happy New Year 2021 everyone, and good luck.
  14. What works in his favour is that the EU are not hugely concerned about PR - outcome is 90% of it for them. They won't really care if Johnson trumpets it as a major victory for him, when they can pretty easily sell it as one for them internally. I think he will cave, because he always caves. I would be genuinely astonished if he goes for No Deal. His inability to think of anything except himself will surely eclipse all other considerations, and a deal is better for him. What is largely ignored is that No Deal will definitely cause short term chaos, but it shouldn't mean the end of negotiation; on the contrary, efforts should be redoubled. No Deal is not a long term solution. A deal is required. The question would be - how 'strong' does strongman BJ want to look? How long could he continue to blame the EU before he returned to the negotiating table? I imagine the mood in the country will get pretty ugly, pretty quickly which will influence that significantly.
  15. Lockdowns work. There is no argument about it. They save lives, yes. They also prevent the spread of infection, which in turn prevents people who would have got sick from getting sick; those that, even if they would have recovered, might have had long-term health effects. That effect can't yet be calculated, on a human, or indeed an economic scale. I can tell you this because I was locked down for nearly 3 months. And we have been officially COVID free (0 new cases, 0 deaths) for more than 1 month, and things are returning to normal. There may still be some out in the community somewhere, but Lockdowns are unpleasant, they are damaging. The UK should still be in one until January. The single biggest failure is of the government to implement a system of lockdowns properly. To understand, to communicate, to explain, to show leadership. They do none of it, which is why the UK has been lurching from one disaster to the next all year. It's not a coincidence. There is an enormous amount of work to be done to repair the economic and social damage done by lockdowns. But all these people bleating about the very real issues related to insecure work, mental health, social services have been f*cking nowhere on them until it suited their current argument (note - I am not aiming that at you specifically!) And they likely won't say a word about it again, because they have no interest in them. Wait until the debate starts around funding, or a universal basic income. Also RB, just in case you don't realise, this is how your post reads (to me). * Government data support my argument here. * Next - there is glaring holes in government data, when it suits my argument here. * Lots of people have missed hospital appointments (true) that they could have had, because a) people in hospital don't have COVID, but are already there b) people in hospital do have COVID and got it when they were there, even though people there don't have it...
  16. So just to be clear: If we do 70 new trade deals with countries on the same terms as the existing trade deals that we already had with those countries, plus the others for the other 20+ countries that are being ratified now (we're up to nearly 100 trade deals now if you are keeping count), then we will be in a far better place?
  17. I'm a bit confused, but then I don't think I'm the only one. Unless by statues, you are referring to those little rabbits in government that become frozen in the headlights of 'accountability', I'm not sure what in the name of Tom Jones you are talking about, but, without wishing to labour a point, I don't think you do either. If you would like me to explain: * Black Lives Matter is a campaign group * The Labour Party is a political party. * These are different entities. * The 'working class' are not, and have not for a long time, been a homogeneous group of voters. * Keir Starmer is not, and I don't this can be stressed quite enough, 'the likes of Momentum'.
  18. We're all resigned. Until this lot drag as many people under as they can, so they line the pockets of their own. Thought it was pretty restrained.
  19. There is a lot of grandstanding on all sides to be honest right now. It's clear that the government have not got the first idea what they are doing. Worse, they are not driven by anything other than manic ideology. There will be no effective track & trace system. There will continue to be fragmented, poorly thought out policy, appalling communication, being dragged into reactive decisions rather than leading, backsliding, and, after it is all over, blame shifting and scapegoating to ensure that the NHS/scientists/EU/little spacemen from Mars are the ones who dunnit, not me guv. Nobody would say that any of this is easy - it's fiendishly difficult. The fact that they are utterly incompetent is bad enough. It's the fact that they refuse to listen to advice that they don't like, don't learn from either lessons elsewhere, or from their own experience, don't apologize for any mistakes, are incompetent and corrupt in handing out contracts that will save/cost lives. It's unforgiveable. They genuinely could have done 100 times better than they have done regarding their response. They just don't want to. The things to cling onto right now: that at least people could see it coming, even if they ignored it. Systems are more ready than they were previously, treatments and therapeutics are better, vulnerable people should be more shielded, a different demographic of infection might reduce the death rate, we should be closer to a vaccine. It will still be a long, hard winter. I am still terrified for my parents, both of whom are high risk.
  20. Good people on both sides, eh? Firstly, and most importantly, there's no way it is a victory for Trump. Not because Biden bested him in the traditional sense; that's a pointless mechanism through which to measure the outcome - you might as well have a 'debate' with a chimp. But because the only people the debates are relevant to is the undecided middle ground, or really uncertain voters on either side. That might constitute a bigger proportion of voters than people think, but with politics being so polarized, it's difficult to say. (It also doesn't mean he won't win, but in the context That notwithstanding, Trump didn't do anything to appeal to that group of voters. He doesn't offer any kind of policy position himself, that's not new, but his inability to anything other than rant and rave, interrupt, hector, and be generally obnoxious wouldn't have done much to persuade a good chunk of those voters that they should vote for him. If it did, based on that performance, they weren't that undecided in the first place. He may have won a few, but I would imagine he has lost a few more. Biden wasn't great - far from it; he's clearly vastly diminished from what he has been before. But he doesn't necessarily have to do too much - as a moderate (this is one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress, apparently who has remarkably and suddenly been taken over by the 'radical' left), he doesn't need to be much more than a reasonable voice, and a counterpoint to the chaos opposite him to win a good part of those undecideds. There is no point engaging with any of the rest.
  21. Sounds pretty democratic to me Geo, you can't have it both ways? Either you revisit key issues every 4 years to make decisions to see if they are still in the national interest. Or you dogmatically continue down a path from 4 years ago that in the intervening period has been demonstrated to be a $hitshow. Usual, contradictory incoherent nonsense.
×
×
  • Create New...