Is Keir Starmer Really Going To Arrest...
News2 mins ago
Uk National Debt Over £2 Trillion
More than 100% of GDP.
When Labour left office in 2010 the National Debt was less than £1 Trillion, so the Tories have managed to double it. Will the electorate ever forgive the Conservatives again for trouncing the economy?
https:/
When Labour left office in 2010 the National Debt was less than £1 Trillion, so the Tories have managed to double it. Will the electorate ever forgive the Conservatives again for trouncing the economy?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I didn't realise that posting details from the paper Naomi is talking about that directly refutes the point she's making is "bullying".
Or, if I've misunderstood the point Naomi is making, I equally don't understand why it's so unreasonable to ask for a clarification. There may or may not have been other issues with Ferguson's model (and other predictions out there), in part because the nature of modelling means that it's bound to fail to capture reality; but simply pointing to the highest figure for a death toll simply won't cut it, because at this point that's irrelevant for the two key reasons I've mentioned.
The other frustrating point is that the implication of "going round the houses" and "ducking and diving" is that arguments against that point were in a sense made in bad faith -- to obscure, rather than to clarify. I am bored of having to refute such implications. If I misunderstood your point, Naomi, I apologise, but I won't apologise for trying to address it in good faith. All I ask is that you respond in kind.
All of this is by the by, though. Whether or not the science the Government was presented with was "wrong", the wider point of Naomi's post, as I understood it, was that the Government was faced with two equally horrific options, and had to choose one. On that broad point, at least, I don't think that any of her so-called "bullies" would disagree. Even if you were to take issue with the timing, the extent, etc, the fundamental choice was horrific.
Or, if I've misunderstood the point Naomi is making, I equally don't understand why it's so unreasonable to ask for a clarification. There may or may not have been other issues with Ferguson's model (and other predictions out there), in part because the nature of modelling means that it's bound to fail to capture reality; but simply pointing to the highest figure for a death toll simply won't cut it, because at this point that's irrelevant for the two key reasons I've mentioned.
The other frustrating point is that the implication of "going round the houses" and "ducking and diving" is that arguments against that point were in a sense made in bad faith -- to obscure, rather than to clarify. I am bored of having to refute such implications. If I misunderstood your point, Naomi, I apologise, but I won't apologise for trying to address it in good faith. All I ask is that you respond in kind.
All of this is by the by, though. Whether or not the science the Government was presented with was "wrong", the wider point of Naomi's post, as I understood it, was that the Government was faced with two equally horrific options, and had to choose one. On that broad point, at least, I don't think that any of her so-called "bullies" would disagree. Even if you were to take issue with the timing, the extent, etc, the fundamental choice was horrific.
Jim, // the paper Naomi is talking about//
I haven’t mentioned a ‘paper’.
//the nature of modelling means that it's bound to fail to capture reality//
Godlike in its nature. Lauded if right, excused if wrong.
//I am bored of having to refute such implications.//
Your ‘boredom’ is the product of your own failings.
I haven’t mentioned a ‘paper’.
//the nature of modelling means that it's bound to fail to capture reality//
Godlike in its nature. Lauded if right, excused if wrong.
//I am bored of having to refute such implications.//
Your ‘boredom’ is the product of your own failings.
Sorry, I've not read any of the replies but I'm not at all surprised at the National Debt Figure. This Prime Minister doesn't care about this country as long as he can still be the PM. The office of PM is all he cares about and he is determined to hold on to it no matter how mnuch harm he does to this country.
-- answer removed --
I’m curious how those who complain about austerity and want money splashed around on everything think that can be achieved without money being spent - and if necessary borrowed. I suppose we could always go down the road of the last Labour government - you know, selling off the family silver - well gold actually - rifling the working man’s pension pot - hitting the poorest with higher taxes - all that sort of thing - but that doesn’t seem the best plan to me. Any other ideas?
