Glasto politics: Non covid news

[Ozanne]

 

Daily Mail Political Editor going in on Johnson a bit today.

[st dan]

7 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

 

Daily Mail Political Editor going in on Johnson a bit today.

That’s a bit of a strange take - Johnson congratulating them on an engagement when he was Foreign Secretary cannot really be compared to him refusing to comment on a family spat whilst he is Prime Minister. 

Criticise him when due by all means, but don’t really get this one. 

[Ozanne]

Just now, st dan said:

That’s a bit of a strange take - Johnson congratulating them on an engagement when he was Foreign Secretary cannot really be compared to him refusing to comment on a family spat whilst he is Prime Minister. 

Criticise him when due by all means, but don’t really get this one. 

The point was more the Daily Mail Political Editor going for Johnson. Johnson's comments on the matter were also ridiculous. 

[st dan]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

The point was more the Daily Mail Political Editor going for Johnson. Johnson's comments on the matter were also ridiculous. 

I know, that’s what I mean - of all things Johnson has said and done in his time in office, for Groves to go after him for this seems pretty far down the list to me. 

[hodgey123]

24 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

The point was more the Daily Mail Political Editor going for Johnson. Johnson's comments on the matter were also ridiculous. 

I think the Daily Mail are more committed to pummelling Meghan than they are pandering to the government, and that says it all.

[efcfanwirral]

Just gave an undeserved viewing figure to the shitshow on ITV for 10 minutes. Horrible horrible family, can't believe so many of the country love and idolise them 

Good on them exposing what I imagine is just a tiny tiny amount of what they've done over the years. If they're willing to treat family members like that you can only imagine how they've treated people around the world over the centuries. 

Archaic institution for an archaic country - them and the British public deserve each other 

[steviewevie]

38 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

Just gave an undeserved viewing figure to the shitshow on ITV for 10 minutes. Horrible horrible family, can't believe so many of the country love and idolise them 

Good on them exposing what I imagine is just a tiny tiny amount of what they've done over the years. If they're willing to treat family members like that you can only imagine how they've treated people around the world over the centuries. 

Archaic institution for an archaic country - them and the British public deserve each other 

the whole royal family thing in this country is riduclous.

[mattiloy]

1 hour ago, efcfanwirral said:

Just gave an undeserved viewing figure to the shitshow on ITV for 10 minutes. Horrible horrible family, can't believe so many of the country love and idolise them 

Good on them exposing what I imagine is just a tiny tiny amount of what they've done over the years. If they're willing to treat family members like that you can only imagine how they've treated people around the world over the centuries. 

Archaic institution for an archaic country - them and the British public deserve each other 

Largely reaffirmed most people’s long held impression that on a personal level the Queen is alright but that Prince Charles is a gobshite.

Also that the royal Household as much the sick, paranoid vipers as it was it any point in history, built as it is on the shakey foundation of the unofficial consent of the people. Hopefully this saga runs longer and opens a few more eyes to the fact that its a total racket- money for old rope! - and the people will give them the heave ho once and for all!!

Edited March 8, 2021 by mattiloy

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, mattiloy said:

Largely reaffirmed most people’s long held impression that on a personal level the Queen is alright but that Prince Charles is a gobshite.

Also that the royal Household as a sick, paranoid vipers nest is as true today as it was it any point in history, built as it is on the shakey foundation of the unofficial consent of the people. Hopefully this saga runs longer and opens a few more eyes to the fact that its a total racket- money for old rope! - and the people will give them the heave ho once and for all!!

yeah, it's all so weird anyway. This family representing the country, the national anthem being about saving the queen and that's it, and away from all the money and whatever sounds like a bit of a nightmare being part of it. It needs binning, but it won't be.

[mattiloy]

9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

yeah, it's all so weird anyway. This family representing the country, the national anthem being about saving the queen and that's it, and away from all the money and whatever sounds like a bit of a nightmare being part of it. It needs binning, but it won't be.

True enough. Maybe after all that civil warring with Cromwell, and guy fawkes’ plot to blow up james I, and all the malevolent wishes of everyone who wouldn’t mind seeing the royals heads on the guillotine - the thing that will finally do for the monarchy is actually just how shit it is to be it and that the princes and princesses of the future simply won’t be arsed.

[efcfanwirral]

Were the words "drive safe" actually used or is that just Twitter hysteria? I can't work it out. If so that's brilliant 

Edited March 8, 2021 by efcfanwirral

[mattiloy]

7 hours ago, efcfanwirral said:

Were the words "drive safe" actually used or is that just Twitter hysteria? I can't work it out. If so that's brilliant 

Yeah Oprah asked if their kid said owt funny and they said he gets favourite words or phrases that he repeats as nauseum and currently those were ’hydrate’ and ’drive safe’ 

[steviewevie]

SCENES!

(only tweet I could find with decent quality clip)

 

[jparx]

10 hours ago, efcfanwirral said:

Just gave an undeserved viewing figure to the shitshow on ITV for 10 minutes. Horrible horrible family, can't believe so many of the country love and idolise them 

Good on them exposing what I imagine is just a tiny tiny amount of what they've done over the years. If they're willing to treat family members like that you can only imagine how they've treated people around the world over the centuries. 

Archaic institution for an archaic country - them and the British public deserve each other 

Haha I do agree mate.

Just a side note - made me laugh yesterday on the news when they had some “royal biographers”(?) offer counter points to Meghan, and the crux of their argument against bullying and racism claims was “well she’s a bit of a bitch though”. I’m all about her shaking up our archaic institution and exposing this stuff 🤘

[xxialac]

Rhetoric: Hospitals

Reality: Converted Warehouses

Rhetoric: The Nightingale played a critical role

Reality: The London Nightingale 

- 54 covid patients treated in the first wave (others treated fewer)

- 0 covid patients treated in the second wave

- didn't have skilled staff, so was designed to fail

- cost £57m (wasn't the most expensive of them either)

[Mr.Tease]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

SCENES!

(only tweet I could find with decent quality clip)

 

It's the way he'd already gone to the low and invasive step of interviewing her deadbeat dad out of spite, then has the cheek to storm off because he felt Alex got too personal with that innocuous comment!

 

For me this is even worse:

 

WTF?! in the year 2021, how are there still people who don't see the problem with asking someone essentially "what colour will it be?"- Jesus! 

[maelzoid]

The recent exposure of the Queen's consent should have been a national scandal, and yet only one paper really covered it. That goes to show how highly regarded the Royal family still is, even after the Prince Andrew shit. They won't be going anywhere, any time soon.

 

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

It's the way he'd already gone to the low and invasive step of interviewing her deadbeat dad out of spite, then has the cheek to storm off because he felt Alex got too personal with that innocuous comment!

 

For me this is even worse:

 

WTF?! in the year 2021, how are there still people who don't see the problem with asking someone essentially "what colour will it be?"- Jesus! 

just bin Morgan, he can go to one of those new "non-woke" news channels, and replace him and whatshername with Alex Beresford and Meghan.

[Fuzzy Afro]

Lots of talk that Priti Patel is to lose her job at the reshuffling and Michael Gove will be replacing her as the Home Secretary 

[Henrik]

25 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

WTF?! in the year 2021, how are there still people who don't see the problem with asking someone essentially "what colour will it be?"- Jesus! 

We can only truly live in a world free from racism when we can ask that question and it will seem as innocuous as asking what colour someone's hair will be. Race needs to become a complete non issue. Not some taboo to be avoided.

[DeanoL]

 

On 3/7/2021 at 4:54 PM, gizmoman said:

"central banks can essentially create wealth", you clearly don't understand the difference between wealth and currency, they can certainly create as much currency as they like, just like Zimbabwe did.

"We didn't finish paying off the WW2 debt until 2006 and I didn't notice the pound being destroyed?"

In 1947 the average wage was £278 pa it's now £38000 so although the pound hasn't been destroyed entirely it's value has been reduced by over 99%.

Did the economy grow or shrink after WW2? It was a period of growth of course, and as long as the economy is growing you can reduce the debt through inflation, as long as It continues at a steady pace the debt is steadily reduced in real terms, of course the public are actually paying it through the loss of purchasing power. If we are lucky we will have good growth once this crisis is over and so the debt can be again paid down, but it's the younger people who will be paying it. if however we have no growth or a economic contraction we are in serious trouble.

This is correct, but all the money we have spent on furlough and supporting businesses through COVID, and the vaccination programme, are with the set plan of ensuring we do have good growth after the crisis is over - by ensuring when jobs are viable again they are there for people to go back to.

What you're essentially getting at is having economic growth versus recession is far more important than how much we have or haven't borrowed. Which means borrowing to try and ensure that growth is a prudent approach.

50 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Rhetoric: Hospitals

Reality: Converted Warehouses

Rhetoric: The Nightingale played a critical role

Reality: The London Nightingale 

- 54 covid patients treated in the first wave (others treated fewer)

- 0 covid patients treated in the second wave

- didn't have skilled staff, so was designed to fail

- cost £57m (wasn't the most expensive of them either)

Better to have had them and not needed them. I actually see that as a mark of a crisis well handled - that there were visible mitigations in place for things getting worse that were never needed.

Staffing was an issue, but the point of the Nightingales was never to somehow provide the same level of care you'd get in an NHS hospitals. Hell, NHS hospitals haven't been providing the same level of care you usually get in NHS hospitals. They've just been too stretched. Had the Nightingales had to come fully online, as a result of there literally being no spare beds in hospitals, we would have seen another significant downstep in the quality of care across the board as staff were diverted to cover them. But the alternative would be letting people die in hospitals corridors or out on the street. Or straight up refusing NHS service to those less likely to survive.

It's only after a crisis like this that anyone will properly look back and see how close to the edge we really were. We were probably only a few days, maybe a week's delay in new lockdown measures away from the NHS hospital infrastructure being overwhelmed - indeed I'd even argue that we cut it that close to the line in many cases because we had the Nightingale hospitals to fall back on if things got really bad. 

And £57m is a drop in the bucket compared to furlough or test and trace.

[xxialac]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

 

This is correct, but all the money we have spent on furlough and supporting businesses through COVID, and the vaccination programme, are with the set plan of ensuring we do have good growth after the crisis is over - by ensuring when jobs are viable again they are there for people to go back to.

What you're essentially getting at is having economic growth versus recession is far more important than how much we have or haven't borrowed. Which means borrowing to try and ensure that growth is a prudent approach.

Better to have had them and not needed them. I actually see that as a mark of a crisis well handled - that there were visible mitigations in place for things getting worse that were never needed.

Staffing was an issue, but the point of the Nightingales was never to somehow provide the same level of care you'd get in an NHS hospitals. Hell, NHS hospitals haven't been providing the same level of care you usually get in NHS hospitals. They've just been too stretched. Had the Nightingales had to come fully online, as a result of there literally being no spare beds in hospitals, we would have seen another significant downstep in the quality of care across the board as staff were diverted to cover them. But the alternative would be letting people die in hospitals corridors or out on the street. Or straight up refusing NHS service to those less likely to survive.

It's only after a crisis like this that anyone will properly look back and see how close to the edge we really were. We were probably only a few days, maybe a week's delay in new lockdown measures away from the NHS hospital infrastructure being overwhelmed - indeed I'd even argue that we cut it that close to the line in many cases because we had the Nightingale hospitals to fall back on if things got really bad. 

And £57m is a drop in the bucket compared to furlough or test and trace.

It was £57m for one of the Nightingales. Not for all of them. Which treated 54 covid patients. Just over £1m per patient.

But we couldn't fall back on the Nightingale Hospitals.

It never had staff that could provide remotely adequate care. 

All the people providing care were in the hospitals. You can't magic up new carers after the care system has been underfunded for too long. 

It was set up to fail.
 

But great PR, so it served its purpose. And more hospitals 'built' towards the government target...

[DeanoL]

Just now, xxialac said:

It was £57m for one of the Nightingales. Not for all of them. Which treated 54 covid patients. Just over £1m per patient.

But we couldn't fall back on the Nightingale Hospitals.

It never had staff that could provide remotely adequate care. 

All the people providing care were in the hospitals. You can't magic up new carers after the care system has been underfunded for too long. 

It was set up to fail.
 

But great PR, so it served its purpose. And more hospitals 'built' towards the government target...

Okay, let's play it out, what would you have done if literally every bed in hospitals were full, and more people were continuing to get seriously ill with COVID?

[Haan]

47 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

It's the way he'd already gone to the low and invasive step of interviewing her deadbeat dad out of spite, then has the cheek to storm off because he felt Alex got too personal with that innocuous comment!

 

For me this is even worse:

 

WTF?! in the year 2021, how are there still people who don't see the problem with asking someone essentially "what colour will it be?"- Jesus! 

What Alex said in the end about not wanting to call out racism in the past hits hard. In this country it will always be more offensive to accuse someone of racism than it is to actually be racist. 

[Haan]

Like many here I care so little about the Royals but I am glad we are finally discussing the awful British media. Even if very little comes of it it's good that discussions like this are happening on the BBC: