Options
Johnson drops to net minus 48% with YouGov – politicalbetting.com
Johnson drops to net minus 48% with YouGov – politicalbetting.com
I’ve always argued that leader ratings are a better guide to how things stand than voting intention polls. The chart from YouGov shows the trend in Johnson’s Well/Badly ratings since he was elected leader and became PM in July 2019.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1472992707501080581?s=20
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1472997747271872517?s=20
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1473000258980438021?s=20
Boris is a *
Is a *
Boris is a *
Personally, at the point that the law is beyond absurd, it is absurd to follow the law 'just because'.
It turns out that this governing malarkey is damned difficult: even with a large majority you can collapse into utter shambles. Who could have predicted that a mendacious charlatan who has betrayed everyone he has had dealings with, and so commands zero personal loyalty, who can't be bothered to engage with the detail, and who has promised contradictory unicorns to every audience he's spoken to, can't hack it?
Edit: Of course, ideally you need to do the war/airlift competently, which could be a problem. Losing it would probably not be a vote winner...
It's also why I wouldn't be surprised if the true covid numbers were running 10x higher than the official tests suggest.
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Islands_Electricity_Grid
Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?
"What is you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry!
Well, the Progressive Parties won 52.20% of the popular vote, the Right-wing Reactionaries won only 46.83%, and others and independents won 0.97%.
"Show your workings".
OK:
Labour 32.08
LDs 11.55
SNP 3.88
Greens (all UK sections) 2.70
SF 0.57
PC 0.48
APNI 0.42
SDLP 0.37
Yorks 0.09 (yes, they are down as centre-left)
TIGs 0.03
PBP 0.02
Northeast 0.01(yes, they are down as centre-left)
Mebyon Kernow 0.01
TOTAL 52.20%
Conservative 43.63
Brexit 2.01
DUP 0.76
UUP 0.29
UKIP 0.07
Aontu 0.03 (Republicans, but socially conservative)
CPA 0.02
EDP 0.01
Libertarian 0.01
TOTAL 46.83%
OTHERS 0.97%
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
(None of the existing interconnectors seem to go that near the CIs, which makes sense, I guess - not the shortest crossing point - although there is a planned one via Alderney, which could pesumably be linked to the ohte islands too and give a choice between French and UK leccy)
Strange as it may seem and for all his faults, I would suggest that the departure of Cummings that marked the turning point. Whilst he was the cause of some of Johnson's problems it also looks clear to me that his presence had moderated some of Johnson's more outlandish behaviour and he generally had a good political radar, able to spot trouble and divert it. Since he left Johnson's PR operation has fallen apart utterly and he seems incapable of making a single correct decision. Cummings may turn out to have been his necessary evil.
Afghanistan didn't go well but everything was driven by Biden without input from anywhere else. Apart from the dogs rescue, most PMs couldn't have done much differently.
But Paterson exposed the extent to which he put himself and his friends above the rules, how he couldn't really read the public mood, and how when he was in trouble, his first instinct was to cut and run and leave others dangling. The loss of respect he suffered from that episode, among both MPs and public, was the tipping point.
I have the same thing over Christmas. Niece will be 7 days in. I have said that if everyone is happy then of course she should join us (if not then we will postpone "Christmas" to when she has done the ten days).
I'm with @kinabalu, ditzy a view as it is, that Boris will be here for the next conference.
Looked again having looked last Wednesday. It was the w/e 5/12 I was quoting which was around 1700.
Excess deaths for w/e 11/12 (I was a week out) remains around the 1800 mark from a 1000 baseline.
https://www.samrc.ac.za/sites/default/files/files/2021-12-15/weekly11Dec2021.pdf
The doubt has been an absolute bugger for the decision makers faced with massive case numbers, a highly uncertain impact multiplier, but just hints that it's going to be OK.
Yes, up to date with SA, I think it's going to be OK at still credible worst case.
I note Italy made the exact same no new curbs yet decision last night as we did.
If so who's the other PM to have been divorced (after Eden)?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/12/21/ftse-100-markets-live-news-pound-share-price-latest/
“Gas prices have surged to a fresh record high after Russia halted flows to Europe via a key pipeline.
“The amount of gas entering Germany’s Mallnow compressor station, where the Yamal-Europe pipeline terminates, dropped to zero early on Tuesday and Russian gas began flowing east towards Poland.
“The drop in supplies will force European countries to keep withdrawing supplies from their already depleted stockpiles.
“This is being compounded by freezing temperatures across the continent, which are driving up demand and inflating prices.
“Benchmark European prices jumped as much as 11pc, while the UK equivalent rose 10pc, with both hitting new all-time highs.”
This is going to be a massive story over the winter, as energy bills and petrol prices continue to go up.
In this incarnation, it's an anti-Conservative alliance as it was in 1992 and 1997 but in 2010 it was an anti-Labour alliance. The cynic might term it the "it's our turn to put our snouts in the trough" alliance.
Maybe but it's never going to happen - formally at any rate.
It may well happen informally as in 1997 and 2010 when electors worked out for themselves which was the best way to give the governing party a real kicking.
He conned his way into the job through sheer opportunism, throwing friends under the bus and lying, lying and lying again.
Comeuppance. It's sweet to watch.
(Assuming providers don’t keep going bust in the meantime).
TimT Posts: 4,808
8:04AM
Philip_Thompson said:
» show previous quotes
But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
He got the first job done and that was the first point where he faced a crossroads. Could he adapt to now governing post-Brexit Britain and maintain that popular support? The answer is no. Covid came along and masked (no pun intended) his failures for a little while (people gave him a bit of a pass for the initial failures in covid response, unprecedented situation, etc etc). But now he’s been found out. He did the job he was elected to do, got Brexit over the line, but he can’t govern the country. Levelling up has floundered. Optimism is gone, replaced by green waffle (worthy ambition but not really what people expected) and covid doom.
Boris was perhaps always going to be found lacking eventually. He’s not an administrator or a leader. He’s a blunt force object and morally questionable individual who served his purpose and has shown he’s not adapted and is not up to the job of post-Brexit leadership. Perhaps to use a Churchill analogy to reference his political hero: he won us the war but we didn’t want him to govern us in the peace that followed thereafter.
Inflation will be higher
Your pay packet is 1% lower
pay rises will be low because of the other 1% tax increase
And your gas electric bill will be 40% minimum higher.
It's going to be blood bath for whoever is in power.
Now, whilst governing isn't THAT easy - the balance is essentially getting it right between the treasury and the NHS, whilst we're in a pandemic the Gov't gets a very large amount of leeway to do as it sees fit. All Boris needed to do was follow the letter and spirit of his own rules and he'd be ahead in the polls not near Corbyn's ratings.
Sunak's ratings are fine, Boris' are not.
See my point yesterday - the pay being offered isn't high enough to get decent people round here (Darlington) let alone in central London.
This is the first time I recall the line being used.
Boris handled the early big calls largely right for the first two years but he seems broken by events now.
He's scared of every shadow, jumping at cases rather than hospitalisations and unsure and not at all sure footed anymore. He needs to be replaced now, even if he was good in the past.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
£6k will be a decent chunk of change for most pubs, hopefully it helps out Miss @Cyclefree Jr.
Grants rather than loans too.
Matthew Goodwin is not impartial
The cash awards will vary according to the size of the business with those with a rateable value of more than £51,000 eligible for the full £6,000, those between £15,000 and £51,000 being offered £4,000 and smaller operations getting £2,666.
And btw I want to make this point. Very common – ever more so as time passes – to try and explain Johnson’s success as ‘Cos Corbyn”.
This is valid but it’s far from the whole story. It may be over now – let’s hope so – but this bloke has been genuinely popular with the public.
Remember why he got the Tory leadership? He got it because polls told the selectorate that with him at the helm (although ‘lol’ at him helming anything) the Tory Party would do great in an election. Anybody else, forget it. This is why they picked him. Nothing to do with Brexit purity. Could have had plenty of others with more of that. They picked him because he was POPULAR.
He now stands revealed as what it’s always been obvious to many (inc most Tory MPs) that he is – utterly unfit for any sort of high political office. That’s good but it’s such a bummer that it happened in the first place.
And for this, to paraphrase Jacko, blame it on the Corbyn, blame it on the Brexit, blame it on the Tories, but don’t forget the public.
Well if we can afford another lockdown, lets have one...?
To take no action is in itself an action sometimes. To preclude that information is not being honest.
Furthermore given the damage of restrictions, taking action which damages lives and livelihoods when it isn't required should be a "Never Event" on your risk matrix too. For the modellers to withhold that information is them deciding what actions should be taken, which is what has frequently been accused. They should provide the full information and let the politicians decide what action to take.
Tough new restrictions + huge new financial support
Begin tomorrow 23/12
Expected Intensive Care peak mid-January
I'm assuming my supplier must have hedged pretty well as the current wholesale spot prices are about 4x what I'll paying, and they've not gone under yet.
I'm not poor, but I don't have £2-3k pa extra of spare disposable income to chuck at the heating bill next winter, nor I suspect can many other people afford the proportionate increase (bigger or older homes are going to be far harder hit).
As for the poor fools on electric heating, the mind boggles are to what they are meant to do.
The government are between a rock and a hard place on this - they've closed all the coal fire power stations, refused to build any nuclear and refused to allow fracking, which has meant that the only option to keep the lights on is imported gas. They've managed to end up meddling in the market via the price cap - thus ensuring everyone blames them for all the bad outcomes - whilst setting up a situation in which all the outcomes are bad.
The secondary economic hit is going to be pretty spectacular too, as tons of discretionary spending suddenly disappears and becomes spending on imports of gas.
I can't really see a way of for them now either, other than crossing their fingers and praying that American frackers bail them out by going mad and exporting vast amounts of LNG.
That is what you do if you are in a planning situation. When you are in an emergency response situation, things are different.
Different risk management approaches are required for different circumstances. Two key parameters that are involved in deciding which methods to use are:
(1) quality of data (which in this case leads us to the adaptive risk management methods appropriate to the zone of ignorance)
(2) the time available to make the decision. In most oil exploration decisions, you have time. In managing a fast moving situation, like Sully Sullenberger deciding where to try to land his plane or the government trying to decide day to day what to do against the pandemic, you won't always have time. The shorter the time available before catastrophic consequence, the less you have the luxury of considering all the options and evaluating for the best. You focus on what you can do that can positively impact outcomes.
Commercial pilots have a very useful decision-making model on which decision-making model to apply in various situations, depending on issues such as time available, seriousness of consequence, level of knowledge, presence of existing rules, other options available, and whether a completely new approach needs to be developed.
There is no one-size fits all.
Come on conservative mps, put him in the top job
What #JoeManchin, who represents a population smaller than Brooklyn, has done to the rest of America, who wants to move forward, not backward, like his state, is horrible. He sold us out. He wants us all to be just like his state, West Virginia. Poor, illiterate and strung out.
https://twitter.com/BetteMidler/status/1472955243935711236?s=20
For example: if the scenario/policy is "no action", the model estimates cases, hospitalisations, deaths etc for a range of possible values of viral transmission, severity, immune escape etc. This includes, for example, the possibility that Omicron is both more and less severe than Delta. All outcomes are considered, on a probability weighted basis to reflect how likely they are. The output is then summarised as a range of possible outcomes, eg max deaths will be somewhere from 600-6k per day, depending on what the actual state of the real world is.
The model is then re-run for different policy decisions, eg partial or total lockdown. Similar output is obtained.
It is not meaningful to run "scenarios" in which severe outcomes are excluded, for the exact reason you stated - "you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated". The idea that they are excluded is based on an extremely unfortunate -but predictable - misunderstanding between a journalist and a modeller, on Twitter. This is a good example of why Twitter is the wrong platform to have these debates, because misunderstandings like this are so easy.
The issue that should be being raised is primarily that the SAGE modellers have biased their best estimates for the parameters too high, by excluding data sources that indicate optimism. They have attempted to counter this by including lots of secondary uncertainty, to reflect that they don't really know which sources are credible and which aren't. Unfortunately, this is irrelevant, because attention from certain parts of the media, and policymakers, has focused entirely on the upper end of the ranges of model output produced, without proper context that it isn't likely at all to happen.
In short, there are undoubtedly legitimate criticisms to be made of the modelling, and more transparency would help identify what those should be, and help better target the models to be more practically useful. However, many of the principle criticisms being repeated on here are wrong, and based on misunderstanding how the model works.
Sweden certainly seems to be doing a lot better than Norway, whereas the opposite was true last year.
My gut feeling is that prior infection is really not helping much. We know several people that have had Covid19 twice.
None of us, to our knowledge, have had it.