David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Didn't you know we are gonna sign Theo Walcott
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (90 Viewers)
- Thread starter BackRoomRummermill
- Start date
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
ROS Laddd! What a playerAt the start of the month I set myself a target of pulling 10 women in one week. Glad to report that I’ve already smashed it, just sent 20 emails to various women so I’ve pulled double the target amount
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
He's a Boris Laddd!ROS Laddd! What a player
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
Another political football that will be kicked around and no doubt it'll be save face vs points scoring on Marr this weekend.
I have a major gripe that they've fudged the figures to get the result. To be fair, 80K odd is a lot better than the 20K they were getting a few weeks ago, and they should have pushed that. If they'd said we didn't quite make the target we set, but we'll aim to get there asap, most reasonable people would probably accept that. 100,000 tests is a big logistical task at the end of the day.
I have a major gripe that they've fudged the figures to get the result. To be fair, 80K odd is a lot better than the 20K they were getting a few weeks ago, and they should have pushed that. If they'd said we didn't quite make the target we set, but we'll aim to get there asap, most reasonable people would probably accept that. 100,000 tests is a big logistical task at the end of the day.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
That's the madness of it, if they didn't give a stupid target they could say they increased testing a lot
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I agree, though I think the numbers thing is an intentional tactic. Make a claim that’s as ambiguous as possible to cause news stories and fact checks galore and people have a vague sense that you did a thing with a big number and some people disagree about the exact number but there’s definitely a big number and you did it.
It’s worked every time: £350m to the NHS, 50,000 nurses and 40 hospitals, now 100,000 tests.
Media and opposition need to wise up to it.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
So if a small percentage of people with a lot of wealth get 10% growth and everyone else gets negative 2% growth, but overall this would result in 3% economic growth, have we all got richer?
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I was amazed at the massive jump over the past few days and wondered how they managed that in so short a space of time, and also why on earth it took so long.
Then it seems like always they've spun the figures and they've just sent loads of tests out and counting them in the figures.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Think people are aware of it but what do you do? If you point out the number is wrong you get the situation we're currently in where as you say people think there's a big number and you did it. If it's not challenged you end up with the same result, there's a big number and you did it.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Be interesting to see how they maintain the 100K a day figure as it wasn't promised as a one off, it was meet that target and maintain it.
Since yesterday morning the site for booking tests has shown no home testing kits available and there's people on social media saying they've booked to visit testing sites and when they've arrived there's other people waiting for tests but no staff, other people saying they can't book anything local and are being sent to testing centres hours away.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Think they're going to start counting hits to the website as completed tests!
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
That is an issue of economic inequality which is a different thing
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
You said no economic growth resulted in everyone getting poorer, thereby implying economic growth resulted in everyone getting richer. I've showed that isn't necessarily the case.
You can have a situation where you could have an overall economic retraction but most people becoming richer because they'd have more spending power because of who the retraction happens to.
It is an issue of equality but the statement that no economic growth will result in everyone getting poorer is not necessarily true.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Bet they won’t be looking at the carnage in Palestine though.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Yawn
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Says a lot about you that.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Actually it says a lot about you and your selective views on oppression
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Care to elaborate?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Not really other than to say if the 1947 UN action had allocated treaties in reverse and the occupations had then occurred I don’t think guys be that bothered - and we all know Mr Livingston and his love child Mr Corbyn most certainly would not have been calling Hamas their buddies then
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Taking that to one aside Christ knows the situation in Gaza and the violation of international law in the West Bank is very well known-though Mr Netanyahu threatened New Zealand into trying to back down from declaring it so. Though your 'side' has been using anti-Semitism to shut down criticism of Israel for years
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Deflection and whataboutery - always the same
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Your entire argument is based on whataboutery. Clearly you’re happy at turning a blind eye to an apartheid state.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So is yours and if Jews were on the receiving end your outrage would be very diluted because as we know racism is only defined by the left
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Yes because if the economy does not grow the population still does and thus there are more people for the same amount of wealth.
You can not have an economic retraction and have most people rich as pet capita the wealth of the nation will.be smaller.
This is GCSE level stuff
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Anyone seen dom
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Jews are on the receiving end of it... maybe you need to be clear that you are on the side of the ‘right kind of Jews’
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Thinking he’s crying because they didn’t call the baby Dominic.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Shame I did it to degree level then
Where does it say a population HAS to grow? Again, obsession with growth. Well known fact that population growth is the root cause of pretty much every single problem facing the world and reaches far far deeper than monetarily. So the issue shouldn't be focused on
economic growth for a growing population (which invariably ends up in the hands of the already wealthy and so the disparity makes society as a whole a worse place, or put another way 'poorer') it should focus on maintaining population levels (or in our case over time reducing them a bit to manageable levels).
The best times for improved pay/conditions/rights for the majority come right after massive population decrease like plague and wars because those that are left have a better bargaining position and are more valuable to the economy.
Take a disease. If it remains in your system at a low level so it doesn't overwhelm it it can stay alive in you indefinitely. It stays alive, you stay alive - everybody happy. If it goes mad and tries to grow exponentially it will end up killing you and thus itself unless it can spread to even further areas but eventually it's going to run out of hosts and die out anyway.
I'll break it down into easier numbers for you.
Say 10 people constitute a economy. 1 of them over the period in question loses £10k. The other nine gain £1k.
90% of the population have gained wealth yet the overall economy shrank by £1k. If that 1 person was also much richer than the rest already and could comparatively afford to lose that £10k it also improves the others wealth comparatively speaking as it is likely to increase their relative purchasing power and lead to a better more even society. You might even say it would enrich society
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Reed-Mogg seems very anti Semitic having called Jewish members of his own party the illuminati. How many Tory MP’s are currently under investigation for anti Semitism?
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
You did it to degree level? I doubt it but I did at Warwick.Shame I did it to degree level then
Where does it say a population HAS to grow? Again, obsession with growth. Well known fact that population growth is the root cause of pretty much every single problem facing the world and reaches far far deeper than monetarily. So the issue shouldn't be focused on
economic growth for a growing population (which invariably ends up in the hands of the already wealthy and so the disparity makes society as a whole a worse place, or put another way 'poorer') it should focus on maintaining population levels (or in our case over time reducing them a bit to manageable levels).
The best times for improved pay/conditions/rights for the majority come right after massive population decrease like plague and wars because those that are left have a better bargaining position and are more valuable to the economy.
Take a disease. If it remains in your system at a low level so it doesn't overwhelm it it can stay alive in you indefinitely. It stays alive, you stay alive - everybody happy. If it goes mad and tries to grow exponentially it will end up killing you and thus itself unless it can spread to even further areas but eventually it's going to run out of hosts and die out anyway.
I'll break it down into easier numbers for you.
Say 10 people constitute a economy. 1 of them over the period in question loses £10k. The other nine gain £1k.
90% of the population have gained wealth yet the overall economy shrank by £1k. If that 1 person was also much richer than the rest already and could comparatively afford to lose that £10k it also improves the others wealth comparatively speaking as it is likely to increase their relative purchasing power and lead to a better more even society. You might even say it would enrich society
I'll make it really simple for you as you seem to not grasp the basics of population growth and per capita calculations.
There are 5 people in a group and between them they have 2 apples each meaning they have 10 apples. 5 more people join but do not bring any new new apples. This means 10 people now have to share 10 apples between them meaning they now only have 1 apple each.
The population will continue to grow even without immigration as birth rates are larger than death rates. So you need keep making the wealth in a country larger.
So basically you need to keep growing the economy and making it larger. To make it fairer you need to look at the distribution of the countries wealth.
This is without taking into account inflation that will make the economy worth less in real terms each year.
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
SeaSeeEffCee
Well-Known Member
Grendel and the right in general don’t give a shit about anti-semitism. They just use it as a device to attack the ‘lefties’.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Then 6 people vote for the Conservatives and 1 person has 9 apples, everyone else has to share 1 between them. :joyful:
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Guess what, not all Jews are supportive of Israel’s actions and the country’s treat of Palestinians.
How anyone can claim a country’s actions are reflective of the belief of millions of people is actually quite strange.