Jump to content

BigFish

Members
  • Content Count

    4,394
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by BigFish

  1. No @Jools the UK decided to leave the EU and negotiated a Withdrawal Treaty to enable this to happen. This was rushed through Parliament and voted through by the Conservative government. The EU have paid no part in complicating this. The sum will not be offset by the erroneous figure you give for the UK membership contribution because that amount has already been allocated several times over, not least in the £250 million per week that will be required to fill in the new UK red tape. There will be no billions saved by leaving the ECHR because the UK is not leaving the ECHR, this has nothing to do with the EU. The EU is giving the UK the chance to save itself from the economic impact of their choice so it cannot be held responsible. Particularly if we run off the end of talks straight to WTO terms. You will be pleased no doubt, and in a ironic way so will I because this will remove you few remaining excuses for the failure of Brexit
  2. The EU are in no hurry, they have the UK where they want them and can run down the clock. Word is that the UK have accepted there will be a level playing field and the only question is how this is enforced.
  3. Looks like the UK negotiators have blinked on the level playing field a Gove is spinning it
  4. Success would be if track and trace demonstrably reduced community transmission measured in part through the R rate, enabled the country to get operational and enabled targeted action to deal with outbreaks quickly when they occured. It has failed on all three counts.
  5. We will sell all of the players for whom we get an acceptable bid, that is the way of the world these days. The players, agents, other clubs all know this and so should you. It is not right or sensible to say to any of them "Ok we had a acceptable bid, club x is offering a long contract that doubles/trebles your salary for playing at a higher level but we've turned it down because x, y or z have already left". Added to that I expect that "an acceptable bid" is lower than the figures posted on this board.
  6. Johnson/Cummings haven't got a grip on what is happening in England yet.......that would be the place to start.
  7. Good Post. If true, it could be a once in a career opportunity to play at the highest level. The days when minutes played in the Chumps was a way to build a career (if not contracted to a top level club minding your career) are long gone. It is romantic fantasy.
  8. Thing is @Highland Canary desparately, achingly wants a firesale so he can come on here and tell everyone he was right. @king canary is probably right in that £15-£20 million is the sweet spot for a deal for a squad player in a Champions League team. If it included a season long loan for Brewster as well mosr fans would bite their hands off.
  9. 25 is not young for a footballer these days
  10. Amongst all the heritage acts can't understand why they arn't more popular. Will go to Cambridge next year to see them, last time out saw them at the Waterfront where they did the singles in chronological order.......not sure that worked really. Although India as an encore did
  11. Clearly it is Brexiteers @Rock The Boat, @PurpleCanary may have started this thread but the intention was to get the discussion off the Brexit thread. Looks like he is on they way out, is this the end for this particular groupthink?
  12. One think I have never understood is why the Brexiteers have this fetish about Trump. He was never going to do the UK any favours. Rather he expected the UK to jump at his command. Hardly taking back control.
  13. Probably explained by the dodgy player analysis some show on here. A lack of football knowledge magnified by social media and the wisdom of crowds. Outcome is some players get horribly overrated and others get slated when neither is warranted. Fact is he is a good pro for top end Champs or lower Prem. But he is 30, on Premiership wages and Woles reportedly want £5 million for him. Better to spend the money on a player who will have resale value in 3/4 years rather than sink this cost.
  14. McCluskey is a useful fool for the Starmer team. Articles like this are just noise, but useful noise, in that they give the appearance of Starmer standing up to the Unions. Even though, in fact, the Corbynista left have kargely been sidelined in Starmer's first hundred days. Just look at RLB, she went from being Corbyn's successor in waiting to being sacked by Starmer. And there was nothing the Corbynistas could do but suck it up.
  15. All true @Barbe bleu, but the point is that as a stretch target it diminishes community transmission significantly even if it doesn't eradicate the virus totally. ONS estimates that the current regime is resulting in c4k infections per day so obviously isn't working in England but Scotland is doing nicely with a firmer approach. Oh, and the current English approach has torched the economy in any case.
  16. Modern teams are built on repeatable habits. If you indulge in A, you break the habit of retaining possession. Farke and Webber are trying to build a modern team.
  17. The thing is we don't know and we don't know because of the lack of transparency in the governments decision making. The only way to enable regional economies to survive in the absence of a vaccine is to adopt a zero Covid approach. It is the best use of resources, and Sunak promised he would do whatever it takes.
  18. I'm confused, my Bexiteer friends assured me that the EU was breaking up, that the example sety by Brexit would eagerly be followed. How come satisfaction with the EU in Ireland is now 92%. Don't they know how much better global Britain will be. Or is this because Boris has gifted them Northern Ireland?
  19. Can't claim it is my plan, more than a number of specialists think this way. Such as Devi Sridhar...... The northern lockdown represents government failure. There is a better way
  20. Bottom line is the economy can only recover when we beat the virus.
  21. Being asymptomatic isn't an issue when adopting a zero covid approach, the approach targets an entire population and then tests everyone in that population, whether they demonstrate symptoms or not. The repeat later catches those infected but whose bodies are yet to respond. Agree with you that testing alone is not a complete strategy. However restrictions on gatherings is part of what is additionally required. There needs to restrictions on movement, isoation and shielding as well. This remains an England problem, but there are vast swathes of the country that could be made Covid free but only if protected from incoming infection from outside, and particularly those hot spots we are debating. Any workable strategy would set the objectives, set a reasonable time scale and then set the actions needed to put this place. Johnson/Cummings hasn't done this, in part because of the influence of the revolutionary communists at the heart of the Brexit/Tory/RCP nexus of current thinking. That is why in these areas you can't gather at home, but you can do down the pub. Go figure.
  22. Btw the way it was you who asked what made us think this was sprung on local government leaders. I just provided you a link to the local leaders saying this was the case. Lockdown didn't come into it, so you would seem to be guilty of your own accusation e.g. "attribute opinions that have not been expressed", well not by me anyway. While the government continue to make this political, it remains appropriate to criticise the politics.
  23. The key is that Johnson's "whack a mole" strategy has very little about controlling the spread of a potentially lethal desease. It is all about getting the economy moving & minimising the political impact. Only a zero-Covid strategy is going provide control and that requires heavy, proactive and localised testing. In these areas the government should test everyone immediately and again in 5 days time. Shielding the vulnerable and isolating the infected.
  24. Maybe it is because that is what Andy Burnham and the Northern Council leaders tell us. You may think that anouncing policy changes for the next day that involve legal sanction in a tweet at 9.15 pm is the sign of a functioning democracy, most would differ. The council leaders want to do the right thing but this is difficult with an incompentent and ideological government. The leaders of Greater Manchester’s 10 local authorities and the region’s mayor Andy Burnham have condemned the government’s communication of the change as causing “confusion and distress for our residents”. In a press conference, Burnham said he first heard about the proposed measures when he was called by Matt Hancock shortly before 5pm when the health and social care secretary was due to have a meeting with England’s chief medical officer, Chris Whitty. The meeting was delayed slightly at Burnham’s request, the mayor said, so that he could feed in information from local health officials. While Burnham said he supported the extra measures, he was concerned that they were first announced by Hancock on Twitter at 9.16pm without any additional detail. He also said the rules announced were slightly different to those briefed by Hancock on the phone earlier in the evening. Hancock had earlier suggested that the new measures would a larger part of the north of England, Burnham said, and would not restrict visits to people’s gardens. He added: The picture did change and did cause us some surprise but obviously it’s for the government to make those decisions. Sir Richard Leese, the leader of Manchester city council, added: I think it’s fairly clear that what was announced in guidance is not what we were expecting on the basis of conversations last night. And it’s also equally clear that we’re not clear about what the guidance is precisely. Leese said he agreed that the government needed to act quickly but that it was important to be “on exactly the same page” as government ministers and officials and that they were now hoping to have “real engagement” about refining the guidance. The 10 local authority leaders have asked for urgent clarification was needed on several areas: • How many people are allowed together in an outdoor space in the affected area? Is it 30, as is the rule in the rest of England, or is it only six? • Hospitality businesses need clarity on their ability to continue to operate if they have outdoor areas, they said. • The leaders also asked for the government to confirm that shielding arrangements would be extended for clinically vulnerable people in the areas affected where the new rules apply. • They said they are not convinced that banning people from meeting in private gardens is a “proportionate measure” and call on the government to provide further evidence or amend the regulations.
×
×
  • Create New...