Ot strikes

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

It doesn't protect others, that was debunked. Not even tested for effects on transmission.

Correct, it was debunked on some of the conspiracy sites

[great_fire]

Correct, it was debunked on some of the conspiracy sites

Even the companies who make the vaccines have admitted it doesn't protect other people, you're two years out of date.

[animallittle3]

I don’t disagree with any of that but to buy back control from a private company would cost millions, maybe billions. Plus as pointed out some of the operating companies are foreign owned so the buy out money would also go abroad.

As for Starmers speech, well no change there, the usual rhetoric

We need a plan - ok what is it Mr S?
We need to invest - ok where are you going to get the money from Mr S?

Add that to the usual:-

The government plan is useless and won’t work ( the standard Labour response to everything)
The usual stuff of the politics of envy
Vote for us then we will tell you what we are going to do

The country had a clear choice between Labour and Conservative at the last election .

There was clear daylight between the two major party's , Corbyn offered change , substantial change with the Tories offering nothing more than things staying the same .

The country rejected Corbyn emphatically and wished for things to remain as they are .

So if Starmer looks like a Tory , sounds like a Tory then that's probably because it gives Labour a chance of winning whilst keeping things as they are but trying to do them better .

The electorate have created this form of the Labour Party and rejected a more socialist approach .

So no most probably things won't change because the electorate doesn't want them to .

[great_fire]

When the policies are global policies, like Net Zero and immigration, all of our mainstream parties have to do what what they're told
Doesn't that show that despite leaving the EU, we still don't have sovereignty?

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

The country had a clear choice between Labour and Conservative at the last election .

There was clear daylight between the two major party's , Corbyn offered change , substantial change with the Tories offering nothing more than things staying the same .

The country rejected Corbyn emphatically and wished for things to remain as they are .

So if Starmer looks like a Tory , sounds like a Tory then that's probably because it gives Labour a chance of winning whilst keeping things as they are but trying to do them better .

The electorate have created this form of the Labour Party and rejected a more socialist approach .

So no most probably things won't change because the electorate doesn't want them to .

I think in the last election many folks voted for the lesser of two evils. Some coped out and wasted a vote on lib dem and other no hopers but in the end most folks vote selfishly and chose the slightly less risky tories

[animallittle3]

I think in the last election many folks voted for the lesser of two evils. Some coped out and wasted a vote on lib dem and other no hopers but in the end most folks vote selfishly and chose the slightly less risky tories

I'm just glad I'm at the age I am with retirement coming in to view Grist .

I wouldn't be 18 years old and starting out in this day and age for a gold pig .

I've survived by hook or crook and managed to do well property wise and a pension .

If the younger ones want to be in the same position as me at 60 years old then they are going to have to fight for it as well as put the hours in at work .

Good Luck to em .

[ragingpup]

Even the companies who make the vaccines have admitted it doesn't protect other people, you're two years out of date.

My understanding is that the initial vaccines (at least up to BA2) cannot stop the chances of a person becoming infected, but it can reduce their chances of becoming infected, and if they are infected, likely to significantly reduce the severity of the symptoms, hospitalisation and death.

Therefore if there is still significant evidence that having the vaccine reduced the chances of becoming effected, albeit not by huge amounts, wouldn't that in turn reduce the amount of infection being passed amongst others you come into contact with? As I understood it, that was still the view being promoted on the NHS website. Are you saying that there is robust evidence that Covid vaccinations have no positive impact at all in either reducing your chances of becoming infected or the severity of the symptoms? If so, please share.

**By the way, I watched Dr John Campbell yesterday who was discussing a large scale study in Cleveland US in which the authors claim demonstrated that the more vaccines people had received, the more likely they were to contract covid, albeit the severity of the disease will still moderated. I've looked at some digests of this and still needs peer review but looks interesting. My overall feelings on balance is that the latest strains of the virus could well outpacing the vaccinations and will read carefully how these reports play out before going for next booster. I like John Campbell's presentations but am not fully convinced that his campaign to follow the evidence is as honest as he proclaims. As we all know, we can all read evidence for both sides and present a case for and against vaccines, but not many seem to try and find a balanced response in my experience with paranoia present on both sides of the debate.

[ragingpup]

I think in the last election many folks voted for the lesser of two evils. Some coped out and wasted a vote on lib dem and other no hopers but in the end most folks vote selfishly and chose the slightly less risky tories

I think that's a fair way of summarising how many people perceived it. But as animal says there was at least daylight between the tories and labour at that point, and he is right that Labour are playing to the electorate, centrist policies, but as New Labour did, doing them slightly better than the tories. But that left more extreme approach is now gone, and you Grist seem glad about that. It certainly split the labour vote very well for the tories.

But how do you view an equivalent emergence on the more extreme fringes of the right of the Reform UK party? Wouldn't you agree that this is also an extreme party that is playing towards a more hardcore fringe (that many on here will most certainly relate to and vote for!) but in reality, as with Corbyn, won't really speak to the mass centre of voters that aren't obsessed with cutting taxes further or dinghies?? And wouldn't the rise of this party, which will most certainly happen if Farage takes it fully on, simply play into Labour hands as it will split the tory vote? Effectively, making exactly the same mistake as we made with Corbyn (yes, me also as I supported him until the last year).

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

I'm just glad I'm at the age I am with retirement coming in to view Grist .

I wouldn't be 18 years old and starting out in this day and age for a gold pig .

I've survived by hook or crook and managed to do well property wise and a pension .

If the younger ones want to be in the same position as me at 60 years old then they are going to have to fight for it as well as put the hours in at work .

Good Luck to em .

Good luck and enjoy retirement when it comes.

When that happens you will vote tory because that's the best choice for anybody retired. Leave the foolish campaigning to the " lambs"

[great_fire]

I don't think you can call Richard Tice "extreme", his main problem is that he's too nice/ dull.
If you look at Reform's policies they're a mix of conservative and liberal policies.