Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see
I mean, it's all bad, but they should ban it nationally. In the absence of that, the Dems shouldn't unilaterally disarm, they should at least counter-gerrymander back to parity.
I agree all gerrymandering is wrong, whether R or D.
However, if you look at this cycle, the most aggressive gerrymandering has come from the Democrats. Illinois is probably the worst example (so far).
Hang on?
Doesn't 538 reckon the Dems have to be 4-5 points ahead to get a 50/50 chance of winning the House? That means they could get close to 10% more votes than the Republicans, and still lose.
That doesn't suggest the current system favours them.
I’ll answer the several posts in one (and, yes, the quote system is fucked up)
1. To reiterate, I think gerrymandering by either side is wrong. We will never get a Boundary Commission style outcome in the US because of the states rights issue but In an ideal world, both parties would work towards a solution;
2. That won’t happen because there is a distrust on both sides. Republicans feel - with some justification - that so-called “independent” commissions are giving the advantage to the Democrats because there is so much soft money being pumped in by organisations such as Mark Zuckerberg’s organisation (look it up as to where their money went in Nov 2020 to encourage GOTV operations) that Democrats naturally have an advantage. The CA “independent” commission is a classic example;
3. That leads on to my third point re Nate Silver’s calcs. I haven’t run the numbers but (a) Nate Silver is inherently pro-liberal and (b) more importantly, his calculations don’t pass the smell test. Take CA for example. It is the biggest state in the House. Under the proposed new boundaries, Republicans will have c. 17% of seats on c 33% share of the vote. NY state is likely to see a similar skew and again that has a large caucus. Conversely, many Republican states can’t skew so much because their populations are so much smaller - the only two even approaching either CA or NY would be TX and FL, and they have far fewer seats. I would question Silver’s numbers
Is it those two in particular that skew things because of their vast size? I mean I know there are several Republican states with few or even one Rep (Montana, Wyoming, Alaska) but equally there are some Dem ones as well (Vermont and Delaware spring to mind).
Well if you’re looking it from that POV, you also have to consider the far larger under/over representation in the Senate.. The US electoral system is fncked up in more ways than one.
The Senate system is logical, though. The problem is that disparity in State size. I can see the point of Alaska and Hawaii, of course, but what is the point of, and reason for, two Dakotas. for example.
Logical in terms of the settlement a couple of centuries back between a far smaller number of states, whose size disparity was considerably less. But now an undemocratic nonsense which makes the HoL look defensible in comparison.
Indeed; since, with example of the two I quoted.... and Alaska doesn't have all natural boundaries ......, perhaps once a state gets being a certain population it should divide itself, rather like an amoeba! Most of the 'internal' boundaries are artificial, IIRC. Rather like the Sykes-Picot line, or the Punjabi boundary between India and Pakistan!
The admissions clause allows Congress to admit new states in that manner (subject to the approval of the state(s) in question), but it’s hard to see how such a system as you propose could be set up in a non partisan manner. Another electoral arms race might well be the result.
And the lawyers are still arguing (in an academic way) if the pre-arrangement to split Texas up is still valid...
Good video. The notion of Keir Starmer being PM remains as fanciful and fictional as the idea of the British PM publicly berating the US President while stood next to him at a Press Conference, or that series of male fantasies being "romantic".
Though its worth noting that Hugh Grant's PM was being led by his penis not criticism of Iraq which was relevant when the movie was made and that perhaps does seem more believable right now.
There are a few reasons why things didn’t work out as progressive pessimists had feared. One is that — contrary to partisan stereotypes — Democratic trifectas have arguably mustered more ruthless party discipline in redistricting than Republicans have. Illinois, Oregon, and New York have all pursued aggressive partisan gerrymanders that have subordinated the job security of some incumbents to maximizing the overall number of Democratic-leaning seats. By contrast, Texas Republicans took the opposite approach, opting to fortify their incumbents’ hold on power, at the cost of leaving 13 Democratic-leaning seats on the map. Meanwhile, many red states have no room to improve on existing gerrymanders.
Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see
Gerrymandering is wrong.
The problem is that it is unreasonable to expect unilateral disarmament. Gerrymandering should be banned, but unless it is banned nationwide, Dems only stopping Gerrymandering in blue states effectively hands the GOP the House.
The idea that the Democrats have been reluctantly dragged into this because they are the “good” party and fighting against “evil” is absolutely laughable. The Democrats are as bad as the Republicans.
----
(Sigh, blockquotes are fucked up somewhere.)
Democrats invented gerrymandering.
But America has two choices: either they need to work in a birpartisan way to eliminate gerrymandering or democracy falls further into disrepair.
And if democracy falls in America, we all lose. People who trade short term political goals against the longer term health of the system are fools, and they stand to lose everything.
The problem is that they believe they will gain and the next guy will lose everything
And they may well be right
Well, the original gerrymander in the US was the 3/5ths....
That time of year when we look back at some of the shit BJ has written over many years. Tbf that's really a 365 pursuit.
Hoping Topping and IshmaelZ can shed some light on the 'semi-sexual relation with the horse' thing.
My understanding is that for the female of the species (humans not horses) there can be some degree of semi-sexual experience but you would have to ask them (again, the humans not the horses).
What do people think the odds are of further Covid restrictions in England? I would say 6-4 against.
In Wales, Drakeford's technocratic and statist mentality means he'll take any excuse to control things. In Scotland, Sturgeon will always do something different from England just to show she can, and try to cause further divergence along the route to her ultimate goal of independence. Northern Ireland, the situation is more difficult and complex anyway.
But in England, we have a Prime Minister whose career is at an end, a large and restless group on the Tory backbenches who will oppose further restrictions on principle even if they are needed, and a Cabinet that is obviously divided on the issue.
It is slightly disturbing to reflect that at no point in that post have I felt the need to discuss epidemiology in considering whether more restrictions are likely...
The government are definitely more sceptical, following the clearly wrong doom-laden predictions coming from the official scientists the other week.
Unless there’s clear evidence of an imminent health system collapse, getting the cabinet and Parliament to agree to any more restrictions is going to be very difficult. Rising case numbers alone, isn’t going to cut it.
Well, the original gerrymander in the US was the 3/5ths....
These days, the whole US is a peculiar institution...
True dat.
The real problem is that the country is fairly evenly divided. The politicians have handed power to the judicial branch, which strangely has resulted in the politicisation of the judiciary. And made things worse....
"Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions" as JA Froude observed - if people don't believe that the deal they get under the current constitution is the one they want, they will break it. Rather than sitting in awe.
That time of year when we look back at some of the shit BJ has written over many years. Tbf that's really a 365 pursuit.
Hoping Topping and IshmaelZ can shed some light on the 'semi-sexual relation with the horse' thing.
My understanding is that for the female of the species (humans not horses) there can be some degree of semi-sexual experience but you would have to ask them (again, the humans not the horses).
EXCL: Significant life events such as weddings and funerals are set to be exempted from new Covid restrictions this time if the government decides it needs to impose tougher measures
Good news. Some of the worst stories not involving death of the whole pandemic, have been from people forced to cancel weddings and unable to attend funerals.
I hadn't appreciated until recently how much stress the "what stupid covid rules will be in force on the date" causes. I've a vested interest, I'm getting married next May (and we're doing it primarily because we want to be married to each other, so we'll go ahead come what may, even if it's literally just the two of us, a minister and two witnesses), but planning everything round various different levels of restriction is just nightmarish - and we're having a small do by modern standards - 120ish people in the little mission hall my fiancée attended until she left home, and a hog roast afterwards in a hired church hall.
What the poor people who want to invite hundreds to a fancy do in a big hotel costing thousands and thousands* are going through I've no idea...
Whilst the extent of waning against severe disease (i.e. that requiring hospitalisation) is less than that against mild disease, even small reductions in protection can result in significant rises in hospitalisations and deaths, particularly in high-risk groups.
The researchers also find that this reduction in neutralising antibodies could impact vaccine efficacy against severe disease. In a worst-case scenario where the decay rate after a booster dose is the same as that observed after the first 2 doses, the study predicts that vaccine efficacy against severe disease (hospitalisation) may drop from 96.5% (95% CrI 96.1%–96.8%) against Delta to 80.1% (76.3%–83.02) against Omicron by 60 days after the primary vaccine course followed by a booster of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine if antibodies decay at the same rate following the booster as observed following the primary vaccine course. If this rate of decay is half that rate, the drop is estimated to be from 97.6% (95% CrI 97.4%-97.9%) against Delta to 85.9% (95% CrI 83.1%-88.3%) against Omicron. However, this could be further moderated by the increased longevity of T cell-mediated immunity.
The researchers say that whilst these numbers are currently associated with a high degree of uncertainty, they indicate that Omicron-variant specific vaccines and/or further boosters are likely to be needed to restore protection.
Any reduction in effectiveness of the vaccines is going to put a lot of people in hospital - and that is what the data indicates. It's possible T-cell immunity will make a difference but there is no evidence at this stage that is the case - and to do health on the basis of a hunch seems like a very bad idea.
We need to ensure immunity remains high, get the unvaccinated vaccinated ASAP and urgently work out how we maintain immunity. Otherwise the hospitals are going to become overwhelmed over the next few months similarly to Delta.
Action and plans are needed now.
Your quote even mentions T-cells...
I even said that in the post, please read.
It's possible T-cells will make the difference but there is not sufficient evidence to say so. So to claim this is a reason not to ensure immunity remains high otherwise is to ignore the actual evidence that exists.
If and when T-cell evidence comes along, we can discuss it then.
My position is that we need to wait on the real world evidence of hospitalisation etc before we impose restrictions on society. Those restrictions are not cost free. You might be right, @Chris might be right. But I think it is prudent to wait just a bit longer to what is really happening. I get that that seems risky, but in reality we have a bit of a test site running. London. It’s ahead of the curve. If it goes to shit, then we can act.
You're totally missing the point. I am not calling for a lockdown, I am not calling for more restrictions.
I am specifically referring to the risk of these things if immunity continues to wane, which is what all the studies say is the concern. We need to plan for that now, otherwise a lot of people are going to end up in hospital and we really will need a lockdown.
And my point is that the studies you refer to are about nABs, not the whole protection offered by vaccination. We may need more boosters, or omicron may infect all of us and proved long lasting protection via infection. Your assumption is that ‘waning’ is a huge problem, whereas I suspect it isn’t.
And yet that is what the studies actually say is the concern. Your rebuttal isn't based on any actual research
What's the big deal CHB?
If immunity wanes (and it probably will) then we do another booster campaign.
We managed to do this booster campaign, with a new variant, in middle of winter, when the NHS is most stretched.
The next booster campaign will be most probably in the Spring or Autumn so not much need for any of us to worry about it yet. The people who's job it is should be planning it, ordering the doses etc but as that's already happened for the three campaigns to date I don't see any reason it won't be for the fourth or fifth.
The timing for lifting current restrictions upto and including isolation is far more important presently than how future boosters will be dealt with.
The big deal is that if we go with you attitude of "just catch it, life is normal" we're going to be in a whole heap of trouble as immunity begins to wane. We need to get the programme for the boosters going soon, not sit on our hands as we did with round three.
We will be in big trouble in a month or two and needing a lockdown, if we do not make preparations now.
I say this with all respect but I think you need to take a deep breath and calm down.
Immunity waning would take place over a period of six months or so. The second doses were six+ months ago before the boosters began and immunity levels will be higher post-boosters than they were after the second jabs.
So why are you panicking over waning immunity and talking about big trouble "in a month or two and needing a lockdown". Just what preparations are you thinking we need to make "now" to prevent big trouble in a month's time?
You're acting as if immunity from the boosters will vanish almost overnight, rather than waning over a six+ month period.
A fourth jab campaign will be in either the Spring or the Autumn most likely. Its not going to be in the next month.
EXCL: Significant life events such as weddings and funerals are set to be exempted from new Covid restrictions this time if the government decides it needs to impose tougher measures
Good news. Some of the worst stories not involving death of the whole pandemic, have been from people forced to cancel weddings and unable to attend funerals.
I hadn't appreciated until recently how much stress the "what stupid covid rules will be in force on the date" causes. I've a vested interest, I'm getting married next May (and we're doing it primarily because we want to be married to each other, so we'll go ahead come what may, even if it's literally just the two of us, a minister and two witnesses), but planning everything round various different levels of restriction is just nightmarish - and we're having a small do by modern standards - 120ish people in the little mission hall my fiancée attended until she left home, and a hog roast afterwards in a hired church hall.
What the poor people who want to invite hundreds to a fancy do in a big hotel costing thousands and thousands* are going through I've no idea...
*I reckon we'll end up spending £1500-2000 all in
Congratulations. I would suggest that the ushers and bridesmaids (or someone) take on enough of the organisation stuff on the actual day, that you can actually enjoy it - it is very easy to turn it into a party that you barely attend!
The survey asking if the Government is good at keeping to the Nolan Principles (spelled out to informants) is classic - TLDR - "no".
Lots of fun tables there, including margins of error for every seat. As usual there are a number where local knowledge may suggest otherwise, but the overall pattern that the Red Wall is collapsing is clear.
Yes but, of course, Democrat gerrymandering is absolutely fine so nothing to see
I mean, it's all bad, but they should ban it nationally. In the absence of that, the Dems shouldn't unilaterally disarm, they should at least counter-gerrymander back to parity.
I agree all gerrymandering is wrong, whether R or D.
However, if you look at this cycle, the most aggressive gerrymandering has come from the Democrats. Illinois is probably the worst example (so far).
Hang on?
Doesn't 538 reckon the Dems have to be 4-5 points ahead to get a 50/50 chance of winning the House? That means they could get close to 10% more votes than the Republicans, and still lose.
That doesn't suggest the current system favours them.
I’ll answer the several posts in one (and, yes, the quote system is fucked up)
1. To reiterate, I think gerrymandering by either side is wrong. We will never get a Boundary Commission style outcome in the US because of the states rights issue but In an ideal world, both parties would work towards a solution;
2. That won’t happen because there is a distrust on both sides. Republicans feel - with some justification - that so-called “independent” commissions are giving the advantage to the Democrats because there is so much soft money being pumped in by organisations such as Mark Zuckerberg’s organisation (look it up as to where their money went in Nov 2020 to encourage GOTV operations) that Democrats naturally have an advantage. The CA “independent” commission is a classic example;
3. That leads on to my third point re Nate Silver’s calcs. I haven’t run the numbers but (a) Nate Silver is inherently pro-liberal and (b) more importantly, his calculations don’t pass the smell test. Take CA for example. It is the biggest state in the House. Under the proposed new boundaries, Republicans will have c. 17% of seats on c 33% share of the vote. NY state is likely to see a similar skew and again that has a large caucus. Conversely, many Republican states can’t skew so much because their populations are so much smaller - the only two even approaching either CA or NY would be TX and FL, and they have far fewer seats. I would question Silver’s numbers
Is it those two in particular that skew things because of their vast size? I mean I know there are several Republican states with few or even one Rep (Montana, Wyoming, Alaska) but equally there are some Dem ones as well (Vermont and Delaware spring to mind).
Well if you’re looking it from that POV, you also have to consider the far larger under/over representation in the Senate.. The US electoral system is fncked up in more ways than one.
The Senate system is logical, though. The problem is that disparity in State size. I can see the point of Alaska and Hawaii, of course, but what is the point of, and reason for, two Dakotas. for example.
Logical in terms of the settlement a couple of centuries back between a far smaller number of states, whose size disparity was considerably less. But now an undemocratic nonsense which makes the HoL look defensible in comparison.
Indeed; since, with example of the two I quoted.... and Alaska doesn't have all natural boundaries ......, perhaps once a state gets being a certain population it should divide itself, rather like an amoeba! Most of the 'internal' boundaries are artificial, IIRC. Rather like the Sykes-Picot line, or the Punjabi boundary between India and Pakistan!
The admissions clause allows Congress to admit new states in that manner (subject to the approval of the state(s) in question), but it’s hard to see how such a system as you propose could be set up in a non partisan manner. Another electoral arms race might well be the result.
And the lawyers are still arguing (in an academic way) if the pre-arrangement to split Texas up is still valid...
It is not. Though now the state has severely restricted teaching about its founding in schools, understanding if it’s history is likely to decline further.
EXCL: Significant life events such as weddings and funerals are set to be exempted from new Covid restrictions this time if the government decides it needs to impose tougher measures
Good news. Some of the worst stories not involving death of the whole pandemic, have been from people forced to cancel weddings and unable to attend funerals.
I hadn't appreciated until recently how much stress the "what stupid covid rules will be in force on the date" causes. I've a vested interest, I'm getting married next May (and we're doing it primarily because we want to be married to each other, so we'll go ahead come what may, even if it's literally just the two of us, a minister and two witnesses), but planning everything round various different levels of restriction is just nightmarish - and we're having a small do by modern standards - 120ish people in the little mission hall my fiancée attended until she left home, and a hog roast afterwards in a hired church hall.
What the poor people who want to invite hundreds to a fancy do in a big hotel costing thousands and thousands* are going through I've no idea...
*I reckon we'll end up spending £1500-2000 all in
Congratulations on the engagement, and hope everything goes well for you on the day, whenever that may be! Sensible to make it a low-key event, as others have said a huge wedding can easily become an event you spend the day managing and don’t get to enjoy.
Yes, the worst horror stories have been around the larger weddings, where a lot of service providers (photogographer, florist, caterer) had been paid up front and would offer only credit notes, where venues refused to cancel because they were not ordered shut (but did have mask mandates, social distancing reducing capacity etc), where venues cancelled but could only offer rebooking dates in 2024, that sort of thing.
However, the key sentence in the article is this one:
"All the large UK supermarket chains, led by Asda, Sainsbury’s and Waitrose, have already started installing electric car chargers to try to lure shoppers – who can top up on energy while they shop."
The supermarkets see providing electric car chargers as something they have to do to remain competitive against their peers, and they're doing this before any regulations were introduced. So the regulations aren't required. This is a good news story.
I am shocked that a stupid target probably won't be met
Why was it stupid? The announcement resulted in a surge of people getting their booster shots.
That's nothing to do with the target though is it. It's just bad politics.
If the booster programme doesn't work, its free ammo for the opposition, if it does work, no one will be grateful because that's politics.
The booster programme has worked.
Every adult in the country has been offered their booster, the target has been hit and spare slots are available. If anyone hasn't taken up the offer, that's their responsibility nobody else's.
We quite rightly don't live in a country that compels injections on people who don't want it. Let them die or tax them more instead.
EXCL: Significant life events such as weddings and funerals are set to be exempted from new Covid restrictions this time if the government decides it needs to impose tougher measures
Good news. Some of the worst stories not involving death of the whole pandemic, have been from people forced to cancel weddings and unable to attend funerals.
Decidedly easier to rearrange the former than the latter.
I am shocked that a stupid target probably won't be met
Why was it stupid? The announcement resulted in a surge of people getting their booster shots.
That's nothing to do with the target though is it. It's just bad politics.
If the booster programme doesn't work, its free ammo for the opposition, if it does work, no one will be grateful because that's politics.
The booster programme has worked.
Every adult in the country has been offered their booster, the target has been hit and spare slots are available. If anyone hasn't taken up the offer, that's their responsibility nobody else's.
We quite rightly don't live in a country that compels injections on people who don't want it. Let them die or tax them more instead.
Yeah, but that's not what I meant. What I meant was whether more restrictions could be avoided.
And I deliberately didn't comment on whether they had or not.
EXCL: Significant life events such as weddings and funerals are set to be exempted from new Covid restrictions this time if the government decides it needs to impose tougher measures
Blame Keir Starmer for challenging Boris with the image of Her Majesty isolated at Prince Philip's funeral while Downing Street partied. Bloody Labour.
EXCL: Significant life events such as weddings and funerals are set to be exempted from new Covid restrictions this time if the government decides it needs to impose tougher measures
Good news. Some of the worst stories not involving death of the whole pandemic, have been from people forced to cancel weddings and unable to attend funerals.
Decidedly easier to rearrange the former than the latter.
Well, the original gerrymander in the US was the 3/5ths....
These days, the whole US is a peculiar institution...
True dat.
The real problem is that the country is fairly evenly divided. The politicians have handed power to the judicial branch, which strangely has resulted in the politicisation of the judiciary. And made things worse....
"Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions" as JA Froude observed - if people don't believe that the deal they get under the current constitution is the one they want, they will break it. Rather than sitting in awe.
Since the Constitution is not possible to amend in such a sharply divided polity, that would be a revolutionary act.
That time of year when we look back at some of the shit BJ has written over many years. Tbf that's really a 365 pursuit.
Hoping Topping and IshmaelZ can shed some light on the 'semi-sexual relation with the horse' thing.
My understanding is that for the female of the species (humans not horses) there can be some degree of semi-sexual experience but you would have to ask them (again, the humans not the horses).
DfE quietly confirming that their 'sign up retired teachers' website has had only 25,000 hits and only a few hundred ('few' not quantified) have actually signed up.
There are 24,413 schools in England - even if every hit was an individual and led to an application that's just one each.
Which even if they could get through the checks, which they can't, isn't going to go very far.
I am shocked that a stupid target probably won't be met
Why was it stupid? The announcement resulted in a surge of people getting their booster shots.
It was sold as a target, however you try to spin it.
Although in reality everyone knew it was the booster to short term boost Johnson's ratings. The deeper the trouble Johnson found himself in, the harder the vaccinations were pushed. So if some genuine benefit was derived as a result, great.
Would be almost exactly 2010 in reverse, only Starmer as Cameron and Boris as Brown. A hung parliament but Labour comfortably most seats.
Labour and the LDs combined would have a majority if SF did not take their seats and could ignore the SNP
That would be a good Government.
No government with a bare majority hostage to the whim of every nutty backbencher is likely to be a good government.
Exhibits A, B, and C - May, Major and Callaghan.
Fair point but I believe Labour/LD would be a lot better than the current shower. Probably as good as 2010-2015 from the competence perspective
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
Edit - your second sentence, no way. That government had a majority of 76. That in itself makes an enormous difference to the competence of the government.
Fesshole Roll of paper @fesshole I'm an aide to a government minister, and I can tell you that it's far, far worse than reported. He doesn't even have the most basic grasp of details, everything has to be spoon fed, and it's not some clever front. I should really resign, but I have no skills and huge debts.
EXCL: Significant life events such as weddings and funerals are set to be exempted from new Covid restrictions this time if the government decides it needs to impose tougher measures
Good news. Some of the worst stories not involving death of the whole pandemic, have been from people forced to cancel weddings and unable to attend funerals.
I hadn't appreciated until recently how much stress the "what stupid covid rules will be in force on the date" causes. I've a vested interest, I'm getting married next May (and we're doing it primarily because we want to be married to each other, so we'll go ahead come what may, even if it's literally just the two of us, a minister and two witnesses), but planning everything round various different levels of restriction is just nightmarish - and we're having a small do by modern standards - 120ish people in the little mission hall my fiancée attended until she left home, and a hog roast afterwards in a hired church hall.
What the poor people who want to invite hundreds to a fancy do in a big hotel costing thousands and thousands* are going through I've no idea...
*I reckon we'll end up spending £1500-2000 all in
£12 a person sounds a bit low: are you charging these 120 teetotallers for the hog roast or has your accountant slipped a decimal point somewhere along the line? ETA and congratulations!
Well, the original gerrymander in the US was the 3/5ths....
These days, the whole US is a peculiar institution...
True dat.
The real problem is that the country is fairly evenly divided. The politicians have handed power to the judicial branch, which strangely has resulted in the politicisation of the judiciary. And made things worse....
"Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions" as JA Froude observed - if people don't believe that the deal they get under the current constitution is the one they want, they will break it. Rather than sitting in awe.
Since the Constitution is not possible to amend in such a sharply divided polity, that would be a revolutionary act.
JA Froude made the comment in his "Caesar: A Sketch"* - when presented with the Senatorial oligarchy** using the Roman constitution as the justification for their power***, the Head Count and lower Plebians turned to men who overthrew the constitution.
*28 chapters.... **The Roman Senate was never elected in any way. Its was quite literally and carefully composed of the landed rich. ***And use of political murder as their ultimate resort.
120 people is a small wedding? Christ. Not in my experience.
You must move in different circles to me. By the time my fiancée and I have invited the various family relatives who "must" be invited, we're north of 50 people... So we get to invite about 30 people each we actually want to be there...I wouldn't say that's huge.
Obviously people can and do have smaller events (particularly in my experience if they're getting remarried), but compared to the last half a dozen weddings I've been to, it's pretty low key.
Would be almost exactly 2010 in reverse, only Starmer as Cameron and Boris as Brown. A hung parliament but Labour comfortably most seats.
Labour and the LDs combined would have a majority if SF did not take their seats and could ignore the SNP
That would be a good Government.
No government with a bare majority hostage to the whim of every nutty backbencher is likely to be a good government.
Exhibits A, B, and C - May, Major and Callaghan.
Fair point but I believe Labour/LD would be a lot better than the current shower. Probably as good as 2010-2015 from the competence perspective
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
Edit - your second sentence, no way. That government had a majority of 76. That in itself makes an enormous difference to the competence of the government.
Well we will have to see. If they get the Tories out and back to normality that will be good for us all
I am shocked that a stupid target probably won't be met
Why was it stupid? The announcement resulted in a surge of people getting their booster shots.
That's nothing to do with the target though is it. It's just bad politics.
If the booster programme doesn't work, its free ammo for the opposition, if it does work, no one will be grateful because that's politics.
The booster programme has worked.
Every adult in the country has been offered their booster, the target has been hit and spare slots are available. If anyone hasn't taken up the offer, that's their responsibility nobody else's.
We quite rightly don't live in a country that compels injections on people who don't want it. Let them die or tax them more instead.
That is a very good point. If there are spare slots then, aside from any local constraints, people can't claim that they didn't get a chance to be boosted this side of New Year.
Would be almost exactly 2010 in reverse, only Starmer as Cameron and Boris as Brown. A hung parliament but Labour comfortably most seats.
Labour and the LDs combined would have a majority if SF did not take their seats and could ignore the SNP
That would be a good Government.
No government with a bare majority hostage to the whim of every nutty backbencher is likely to be a good government.
Exhibits A, B, and C - May, Major and Callaghan.
Fair point but I believe Labour/LD would be a lot better than the current shower. Probably as good as 2010-2015 from the competence perspective
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
Edit - your second sentence, no way. That government had a majority of 76. That in itself makes an enormous difference to the competence of the government.
So...you are saying a Government with a mandated majority of 80 seats, a whopping 80 seats no less, would be absolutely, awesomely competent. Err...
I am shocked that a stupid target probably won't be met
Why was it stupid? The announcement resulted in a surge of people getting their booster shots.
It was sold as a target, however you try to spin it.
Although in reality everyone knew it was the booster to short term boost Johnson's ratings. The deeper the trouble Johnson found himself in, the harder the vaccinations were pushed. So if some genuine benefit was derived as a result, great.
The target has been met surely?
The target was to offer a vaccination to everyone. Everyone has been offered a vaccination. If anyone hasn't had theirs yet, when there's millions of appointments available unfilled, is their own damned fault.
Gerrymandering is one of the many reasons why attempts to export American democracy to other parts of the world doesn't work too well.
TBF the Americans do know how to make proper constitutions for other countries, it's only their own that's shitty and even that shittiness is in pursuit of some legitimate design goals.
Since it was us that introduced PR into Germany (and Northern Ireland), we can say the same.
Apart from the constructive vote of no confidence (which the FTPA kind of halfway tries to emulate here since an official VONC is the only way of bringing down a government) I'm a big fan of the German federal system and would see it replicated here as the Parliamentary side is based on the UK. I'd have the ability to dissolve regional parliaments via VONCs or confidence issues though.
It won't be popular on this board but I'd give the current English regions each a Parliament and a First Minister and devolve most powers to them like Scotland, while the federal government in London would do whatever is reserved to it such as foreign affairs, national transport, the NHS, culture and defence.
Huh? National transport, the NHS and culture are all devolved to Scotland. Are you therefore proposing that these Scottish institutions be abolished? Or that the new English regional parliaments each have their own NHS, national transport bodies and cultural institutions?
This is the problem with much guff you read about English devolution. It’s not just half thought-out, it’s not even a tenth thought-out.
Not only do they not understand the first thing about Scotland, they are thick on England as well.
Would be almost exactly 2010 in reverse, only Starmer as Cameron and Boris as Brown. A hung parliament but Labour comfortably most seats.
Labour and the LDs combined would have a majority if SF did not take their seats and could ignore the SNP
That would be a good Government.
No government with a bare majority hostage to the whim of every nutty backbencher is likely to be a good government.
Exhibits A, B, and C - May, Major and Callaghan.
Fair point but I believe Labour/LD would be a lot better than the current shower. Probably as good as 2010-2015 from the competence perspective
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
Edit - your second sentence, no way. That government had a majority of 76. That in itself makes an enormous difference to the competence of the government.
So...you are saying a Government with a mandated majority of 80 seats, a whopping 80 seats no less, would be absolutely, awesomely competent. Err...
No. After all, even apart from this lot, look at Blair 2001-2005 or Thatcher 1987-90.
What I am saying is that a government in coalition with no majority at all would inevitably be paralysed and unstable. Which means it would struggle to be competent.
EXCL: Significant life events such as weddings and funerals are set to be exempted from new Covid restrictions this time if the government decides it needs to impose tougher measures
Good news. Some of the worst stories not involving death of the whole pandemic, have been from people forced to cancel weddings and unable to attend funerals.
I hadn't appreciated until recently how much stress the "what stupid covid rules will be in force on the date" causes. I've a vested interest, I'm getting married next May (and we're doing it primarily because we want to be married to each other, so we'll go ahead come what may, even if it's literally just the two of us, a minister and two witnesses), but planning everything round various different levels of restriction is just nightmarish - and we're having a small do by modern standards - 120ish people in the little mission hall my fiancée attended until she left home, and a hog roast afterwards in a hired church hall.
What the poor people who want to invite hundreds to a fancy do in a big hotel costing thousands and thousands* are going through I've no idea...
*I reckon we'll end up spending £1500-2000 all in
£12 a person sounds a bit low: are you charging these 120 teetotallers for the hog roast or has your accountant slipped a decimal point somewhere along the line? ETA and congratulations!
At £2k it's £16.67 a head. Most of that will be on the reception hall, food and drink. There won't be a big booze bill as we're both from the same sort of teatotal baptist background, as will be most of our guests - we might get through a few crates of bubbles on the toasts, but that's about it. I've got to drive us 250 miles to our honeymoon cottage afterwards, so definitely won't be imbibing more than a token splash...
I am shocked that a stupid target probably won't be met
Why was it stupid? The announcement resulted in a surge of people getting their booster shots.
It was sold as a target, however you try to spin it.
Although in reality everyone knew it was the booster to short term boost Johnson's ratings. The deeper the trouble Johnson found himself in, the harder the vaccinations were pushed. So if some genuine benefit was derived as a result, great.
The target has been met surely?
The target was to offer a vaccination to everyone. Everyone has been offered a vaccination. If anyone hasn't had theirs yet, when there's millions of appointments available unfilled, is their own damned fault.
Do you ever read anyone's posts before just responding with Conservative Party propaganda?
120 people is a small wedding? Christ. Not in my experience.
There were only two people at my wedding: me and Mrs DA. That's a small wedding.
She wanted me to wear my 1BW Formal Dress 'Prestige Suit' and sword. In order to prepare her for the life of recurrung disappointment that awaited her I didn't.
That time of year when we look back at some of the shit BJ has written over many years. Tbf that's really a 365 pursuit.
Hoping Topping and IshmaelZ can shed some light on the 'semi-sexual relation with the horse' thing.
My understanding is that for the female of the species (humans not horses) there can be some degree of semi-sexual experience but you would have to ask them (again, the humans not the horses).
Your man on the spot(ted pony).
Sounds like you have knowledge of this stuff Topping, someone been giving you the gory details
Would be almost exactly 2010 in reverse, only Starmer as Cameron and Boris as Brown. A hung parliament but Labour comfortably most seats.
Labour and the LDs combined would have a majority if SF did not take their seats and could ignore the SNP
That would be a good Government.
No government with a bare majority hostage to the whim of every nutty backbencher is likely to be a good government.
Exhibits A, B, and C - May, Major and Callaghan.
Fair point but I believe Labour/LD would be a lot better than the current shower. Probably as good as 2010-2015 from the competence perspective
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
Edit - your second sentence, no way. That government had a majority of 76. That in itself makes an enormous difference to the competence of the government.
So...you are saying a Government with a mandated majority of 80 seats, a whopping 80 seats no less, would be absolutely, awesomely competent. Err...
No. After all, even apart from this lot, look at Blair 2001-2005 or Thatcher 1987-90.
What I am saying is that a government in coalition with no majority at all would inevitably be paralysed and unstable. Which means it would struggle to be competent.
120 people is a small wedding? Christ. Not in my experience.
There were only two people at my wedding: me and Mrs DA. That's a small wedding.
She wanted me to wear my 1BW Formal Dress 'Prestige Suit' and sword. In order to prepare her for the life of recurrung disappointment that awaited her I didn't.
Presume that was abroad? I *think* in the UK the apsolute minum is 5 people - the couple, a minister/registrar and two witnesses?
120 people is a small wedding? Christ. Not in my experience.
There were only two people at my wedding: me and Mrs DA. That's a small wedding.
She wanted me to wear my 1BW Formal Dress 'Prestige Suit' and sword. In order to prepare her for the life of recurrung disappointment that awaited her I didn't.
Presume that was abroad? I *think* in the UK the apsolute minum is 5 people - the couple, a minister/registrar and two witnesses?
Cyprus. It was performed by some unshaven local government functionary so I guess it was three people. He just wrote illegible scrawls across the witness signature lines on the document.
Well, the original gerrymander in the US was the 3/5ths....
These days, the whole US is a peculiar institution...
True dat.
The real problem is that the country is fairly evenly divided. The politicians have handed power to the judicial branch, which strangely has resulted in the politicisation of the judiciary. And made things worse....
"Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions" as JA Froude observed - if people don't believe that the deal they get under the current constitution is the one they want, they will break it. Rather than sitting in awe.
Since the Constitution is not possible to amend in such a sharply divided polity, that would be a revolutionary act.
JA Froude made the comment in his "Caesar: A Sketch"* - when presented with the Senatorial oligarchy** using the Roman constitution as the justification for their power***, the Head Count and lower Plebians turned to men who overthrew the constitution.
*28 chapters.... **The Roman Senate was never elected in any way. Its was quite literally and carefully composed of the landed rich. ***And use of political murder as their ultimate resort.
I thought it was the descendants of people who had been rich at the point the Senate was constituted. Hence why Caesar could get in - although his father’s family were equities (?) his mother’s were senatorial (I believe his uncle was Marius which helped) and he was too rich to ignore
120 people is a small wedding? Christ. Not in my experience.
You must move in different circles to me. By the time my fiancée and I have invited the various family relatives who "must" be invited, we're north of 50 people... So we get to invite about 30 people each we actually want to be there...I wouldn't say that's huge.
Obviously people can and do have smaller events (particularly in my experience if they're getting remarried), but compared to the last half a dozen weddings I've been to, it's pretty low key.
We restricted ours to 120 based on the capacity of the room we wanted to dine in. Great excuse to limit numbers…
Comments
Though its worth noting that Hugh Grant's PM was being led by his penis not criticism of Iraq which was relevant when the movie was made and that perhaps does seem more believable right now.
And they may well be right
Well, the original gerrymander in the US was the 3/5ths....
Your man on the spot(ted pony).
Unless there’s clear evidence of an imminent health system collapse, getting the cabinet and Parliament to agree to any more restrictions is going to be very difficult. Rising case numbers alone, isn’t going to cut it.
BBC: "The NHS has said there are 1,551,187 vaccination slots still available to be booked between Monday and January"
It looks like we are running out of arms to stick booster jabs in.
Therefore topping one million in a day looking unlikely.
The real problem is that the country is fairly evenly divided. The politicians have handed power to the judicial branch, which strangely has resulted in the politicisation of the judiciary. And made things worse....
"Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions" as JA Froude observed - if people don't believe that the deal they get under the current constitution is the one they want, they will break it. Rather than sitting in awe.
Labour and the LDs combined would have close to a majority and could ignore the SNP
A fairly basic rule of thumb in Operations Research is that any system run to capacity or nearly, is about to fail.
For example, the following is the graph of PCR testing capacity vs usage
It is quite easy to spot the point where people were unable to book tests and the system came under massive strain.
What the poor people who want to invite hundreds to a fancy do in a big hotel costing thousands and thousands* are going through I've no idea...
*I reckon we'll end up spending £1500-2000 all in
Immunity waning would take place over a period of six months or so. The second doses were six+ months ago before the boosters began and immunity levels will be higher post-boosters than they were after the second jabs.
So why are you panicking over waning immunity and talking about big trouble "in a month or two and needing a lockdown". Just what preparations are you thinking we need to make "now" to prevent big trouble in a month's time?
You're acting as if immunity from the boosters will vanish almost overnight, rather than waning over a six+ month period.
A fourth jab campaign will be in either the Spring or the Autumn most likely. Its not going to be in the next month.
Exhibits A, B, and C - May, Major and Callaghan.
It's even more tragic that it is...
Lots of fun tables there, including margins of error for every seat. As usual there are a number where local knowledge may suggest otherwise, but the overall pattern that the Red Wall is collapsing is clear.
https://cdn.survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/26234631/Constituency-Vote-Share-Nolan-Cost-of-Living.xlsx
Though now the state has severely restricted teaching about its founding in schools, understanding if it’s history is likely to decline further.
If the booster programme doesn't work, its free ammo for the opposition, if it does work, no one will be grateful because that's politics.
Yes, the worst horror stories have been around the larger weddings, where a lot of service providers (photogographer, florist, caterer) had been paid up front and would offer only credit notes, where venues refused to cancel because they were not ordered shut (but did have mask mandates, social distancing reducing capacity etc), where venues cancelled but could only offer rebooking dates in 2024, that sort of thing.
However, the key sentence in the article is this one:
"All the large UK supermarket chains, led by Asda, Sainsbury’s and Waitrose, have already started installing electric car chargers to try to lure shoppers – who can top up on energy while they shop."
The supermarkets see providing electric car chargers as something they have to do to remain competitive against their peers, and they're doing this before any regulations were introduced. So the regulations aren't required. This is a good news story.
Every adult in the country has been offered their booster, the target has been hit and spare slots are available. If anyone hasn't taken up the offer, that's their responsibility nobody else's.
We quite rightly don't live in a country that compels injections on people who don't want it. Let them die or tax them more instead.
And I deliberately didn't comment on whether they had or not.
'It is amazing how much can be accomplished if no one cares who gets the credit.'
Which is the real definition of success in this, I think.
There are 24,413 schools in England - even if every hit was an individual and led to an application that's just one each.
Which even if they could get through the checks, which they can't, isn't going to go very far.
Pure gimmickry.
Slipped in in the middle of this story (£):
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/26/schools-plan-send-home-whole-year-groups-covid-fears-mount/
Although in reality everyone knew it was the booster to short term boost Johnson's ratings. The deeper the trouble Johnson found himself in, the harder the vaccinations were pushed. So if some genuine benefit was derived as a result, great.
Edit - your second sentence, no way. That government had a majority of 76. That in itself makes an enormous difference to the competence of the government.
@fesshole
I'm an aide to a government minister, and I can tell you that it's far, far worse than reported. He doesn't even have the most basic grasp of details, everything has to be spoon fed, and it's not some clever front. I should really resign, but I have no skills and huge debts.
Damian
@taergsinaimad
Replying to
@fesshole
Good morning Carrie
*28 chapters....
**The Roman Senate was never elected in any way. Its was quite literally and carefully composed of the landed rich.
***And use of political murder as their ultimate resort.
What do the polling % look like on new boundaries? Presumably Survation is on the older ones..
Obviously people can and do have smaller events (particularly in my experience if they're getting remarried), but compared to the last half a dozen weddings I've been to, it's pretty low key.
voted for new restrictions.
The target was to offer a vaccination to everyone. Everyone has been offered a vaccination. If anyone hasn't had theirs yet, when there's millions of appointments available unfilled, is their own damned fault.
What I am saying is that a government in coalition with no majority at all would inevitably be paralysed and unstable. Which means it would struggle to be competent.
Is that the time already?
She wanted me to wear my 1BW Formal Dress 'Prestige Suit' and sword. In order to prepare her for the life of recurrung disappointment that awaited her I didn't.
Good morning.