Jump to content

Barbe bleu

Members
  • Content Count

    1,807
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Barbe bleu last won the day on October 26 2020

Barbe bleu had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

402 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Nope! Not sure really what it means, but i would be interested in the answer
  2. I doubt there has ever been a government where no minister at all was in the Lords, even discounting roles only open to members of the lords. I'm pretty sure, for instance, that lord mandelsson had a government role and i am sure baronness scotland was given the nod once. So presumably horse's shouts of constitutional outrages should be directed at every modern prime minister and i am sure that he would be glad to clarify that they are... I'm fairly relaxed about it. The big roles should go to elected politicians but if the best person for a more junior role needs to be appointed then so be it, the higher ups are accountable for the actions of their subordinates afterall
  3. Pretty much where I am to be honest. President of the Royal society of x or 30 years service as Y etc gets you in. It won't eliminate patronage but shifts it away from government and grants independence from it.
  4. Why is it a constitutional scandal of the most despicable kind that the leader of a nation appoints people to government? Isn’t this fairly common practice across democratic nations? The US secretary of state, for instance, is appointed and not elected but you weren't all over the President Biden thread with this concern. Is your concern then more that there is insufficient separation between the legislature and the executive, and have we not already solved that issue by making our upper chamber an advisory body in all but name? I'm all for reform of the Lords, probably to move it more squarely and more successfully into this advisory role
  5. There are several reports that suggest antibody neutralisation rates can be/are reduced as a result of single, key, mutations. Are CD4 and CD8 cells likely to be similarly effected or is their binding mechanism less discriminating and therefore likely to be more 'mutation resistent'?
  6. Should we be reviewing? Yes, but that is true if all measures, all of the time. If we assume that immunity will be fairly constant between weeks 3 and 12 and as 62% is more than half of 92% the policy we have now is the right one in determining roll out within a group. What we should be asking though is should we go to less vulnerable groups before second doses go into the most at risk. This is a much more difficult question and raises issues of effect on spread as much as it does questions about severity of disease.
  7. I suspect that the number of people who want the crown to have anything more than a ceremonial role is vanishingly small and the number who think it now has more than a ceremonial role is smaller still. If we swept the whole edifice away we would need to replace it in some form. Diplomacy still needs to be done, worthy hands need to be (redacted during covid), gongs need to be pinned on and tourists need to be attracted. I am not convinced that anyone else would do the job better so I can't really see the point in changing how we do it. This is, of course, not the same as saying that no economies can or should be made
  8. Not in the sense that we can belong to the family but through the honours system, royal visits etc the is a thread that can link us to the Crown and it is/should be (delete to personal opinion) a thread that can inspire us to be publicly spirited.
  9. The momarchy is there for cohesion, aspiration, diplomacy and tourism. The Supreme Court has assumed the role of guardian of the constitution. Whether it does the job well or not is a matter of personal opinion
  10. I honestly cannot see any benefit in spending trillions of pounds and wasting so much of our precious time (time with family, time learning things, time out having life experiences, time out visiting new places, time out meeting new people) trying to suppress a mutation occurring within our borders if it is going to be imported anyway. Fact is we are a small country that is plugged into the world system. These mutations will arise regardless of what we do and when they arise they will come to us. I wouldnt suggest we try to turn back the tide, i would instead suggest we make sure that we are ready for it when it comes in. That means getting everyone to at least a basic immunity level ASAP, allowing people some freedom from spring into summer, getting the kids back into schools and people universities and building back our businesses.
  11. Blair's organisation suggested it. I am not sure tony himself came up with the idea....
  12. I skimmed this earlier. I have to say that is not how i read it. A failure to disclose the contracts in a timely fashion was held to be unlawful. A second challenge on on basis of a deliberate policy to withhold disclosure was found to be without foundation. I didn't know that there had been any challenge to the contracts themselves. Have i missed something?
  13. Really interesting this next phase. The young, 18-24, have the most prior infection and least vulnerability so much as I agree that at some point we need to focus squarely on spread there is an equally valid argument that says it is the 30-50 category that needs jabs most. Little prior infection, more likely to be in a busy household, and mixing in multiple settings etc. Intereating times
  14. I didn't quite say that this is the route I would take. Too many unknowns and too many vulnerable without even a first jab. That said I think we might be approaching a point where we should begin to question whether or not it is still harmful to have some spread.
×
×
  • Create New...