Completely off topic personal news but got a couple of reasons to celebrate. Had an interview last week for a new job and have been offered and accepted the job which I'm looking to starting.
And separately, after eight months on my carnivore diet I have now lost 54lbs (24.5kg, nearly 4 stone). I am now pleased to say I have 'beaten' obesity and am well clear of the threshold for being obese. I set originally the target of losing 70lbs which will mean I'm no longer overweight at all if I can achieve that, let alone obese.
Well done on both counts. Keep at it but don't panic if you bob up a bit it would only be natural. Losing weight is the most miserable thing and 4 stone is a huge amount, literally. Most people revert, sadly, once they have been on a diet so now the challenge is to find a mode of living and eating whereby you don't feel the need to eat in the way that you had done pre-weight loss.
Thanks, yeah. It has bobbed up and down over the past eight months, with the odd plateaus too, but the long-term trend has been one-way.
I think everyone is different and everyone needs to find something that works for them and they can sustain, which is why facile things like "just eat less and move more" is like saying to pilot a jet you just need to "decide where you want to go, go up in the air, then get there".
I've never been addicted to smoking or anything else, but I now think that battling your weight is kind of like battling an addiction. When I was eating carbs I would be very hungry and craving food not many hours after having eaten, which is caused by biology and how it affects some people.
Cutting out carbs, I no longer have the cravings, I very rarely get hungry and typically only eat because I know its time to eat and not because I'm "starving" and need to eat.
The danger is going to be if I reintroduce carbs and the cravings come back, but to be honest I don't really miss them anyway. My dad was a vegetarian for decades until he got diabetes (which is what motivated me to lose the weight) and he switched from eating a vegetarian diet to more protein/meat based (but not as extreme as me). I don't really miss carbs, besides sushi which I'll probably allow myself as a "cheat" from time to time once I'm looking to maintain my weight rather than lose anymore.
A colleague has been on and off ozempic equivalents (supply issues mainly) and hates it. He had it for diabetes, and it is brutally effective. It stops him eating. He has no appetite, gets really full quickly and cannot drink beer anymore. Result is rapid weight loss to the point where he will need to stop the drug because his BMI will be below 25.
I can see why people want to use this drug to lose weight. It works. But I also recall the old saying "if you only drink water and eat lettuce you won't live forever, but it will feel like it". For a lot of people eating is fun. Take that away and I suspect a lot of people will wonder if its worth it.
Im on something similar for Type 2 the last three months.
Works by inhibiting the enzyme in your kidneys that recycles glucose back into your body so it gets sent to the bladder instead.
Result is kg a month gone despite craving for sugar since I went on it (and caving to it a little more often than I should).
Appears it puts you into keto and you burn visceral fat.
Which is a side effect. I was 17 stone when didgnosed and got down to 14 on hard work, self control and metformin.
Down to about 13.5 and only a couple of points away from BMI healthy weight status. Although that is a good few kilos.
It does have a less beneficial but thankfully rare side effect. Galloping cock rot due to sugar in the Urine causing gangrenous infection of the genitals.
Given recent events on PB perhaps this isn’t the best place to throw insults about dementia or make amateur guesses about dementia when you’re not qualified to do so.
We all, of course, see your point - but how else do we discuss last night? If we aren’t allowed to use these words? Everyone in the American media is now openly using them - even the Biden friendly media
Doddery, old, slow, forgetful - plenty of words to use other than dementia.
To be honest the clips I've seen remind me of my late grandad, who did not have dementia but who was increasingly slow and forgetful and could lose his place more easily.
Dementia is something different and although I didn't watch the debate I've seen no signs of that in any of the debates, I just see a frail old man who is past it.
I'd agree with that. My father had dementia for many years before his death. I'm not medically qualified to assess it, obviously, but I don't see the same in Biden.
But his political opponents - as has Leon - will reach for the word as a shorthand anyway, and there's little or nothing the Democrats can do about that.
(Mike himself was strongly of the opinion that Biden was too old to run for a second term, of course.)
Er, it’s not me reaching for the word - it’s pundits on Biden friendly media like CNN and NYT actually using it. But whatever
In previous elections, I thought laying Michelle Obama for the Presidency was smart - tipped by many on here regularly at good odds.
This year, however, I was against it - because I thought there was actually a chance.
And we might be seeing why.
If you want to ditch Harris, it goes over much better with your Democrat base to pick another black woman.
She can be continuity Obama/Biden without the flaws - which might be enough against Trump.
I remember in 2020 a lot of American pundits suggesting that Michelle would win 400+ seats against Trump, either as Biden’s VP or herself. I’m not sure *that* much but I see the logic.
If Trump knocks her lack of experience, she can easily say “Donald you were a reality TV star before becoming President, whereas I did XYZ in the White House…”
I also think, in 2020, we saw how Barack Obama had the clout to unite the party behind Biden against Bernie. In 2024, he is perhaps uniquely placed to tell his old friend Joe it’s time to stand aside - and to encourage his wife, who might be reluctant to do it, that she needs to ‘Save America’.
Michelle Obama for President also allows you to pick a safe pair of hands as a VP candidate, which might bolster the ticket overall. E.g. Newsom for President might be seen as supplanting Harris in a negative manner. But Obama / Newsom might be more palatable.
To be honest I still think Harris is more likely than the above but you cannot rule it out and I think laying Michelle for President is bad at the odds quoted.
Last night showed Biden may be toast, but also, this is not the Trump of 2016 or 2020. He is more beatable than he seems right now.
The last Harris vs Trump poll has Trump winning by 47-42 (same poll has Trump beating Biden 46-44).
If there has been any attempt to persuade Biden to stand down, these kinds of polls would have persuaded him that he is the best person to beat Trump again.
There are, of course, no polls which show an actual alternative nominee against Trump.
Hypotheticals - particularly when they're only a couple of percentage points different - don't really shown anything very useful. At least Harris has run for office before. No one has any idea how Michelle Obama might perform as an actual candidate.
Yes, I don't think these polls tell us much - EXCEPT that Trump is still doing pretty well against both hypothetical candidates, and it's not really a name-recognition thing (like polls showing Trump having a lead against Whitmer nationally).
It's definitely *possible* that *President* Harris will do better against Trump, especially with the fairly large numbers who are unhappy with both current candidates.
Labour will force every borough to take its fair share of migrants and all successful Asylum seekers will be prioritised for social housing.
This is a positive move. It is not acceptable that for too long these people have just been dumped in places like Rochdale, Middlesbrough and Gateshead where housing is dirt cheap. It is good and will reduce the costs of these people being dumped in hotels.
I think Labour will be positive on this. I also think an amnesty is not a bad thing.
Why doesn't the First Lady persuade him to stand down ... after all, he can't need the money? It seems that she doesn't have any influence at all which doesn't do her reputation any good either.
Given recent events on PB perhaps this isn’t the best place to throw insults about dementia or make amateur guesses about dementia when you’re not qualified to do so.
We all, of course, see your point - but how else do we discuss last night? If we aren’t allowed to use these words? Everyone in the American media is now openly using them - even the Biden friendly media
Doddery, old, slow, forgetful - plenty of words to use other than dementia.
To be honest the clips I've seen remind me of my late grandad, who did not have dementia but who was increasingly slow and forgetful and could lose his place more easily.
Dementia is something different and although I didn't watch the debate I've seen no signs of that in any of the debates, I just see a frail old man who is past it.
I’ve seen dementia up close and personal. My poor mother has it now, and her husband has it too (I thank god they are sinking together)
He in particular exhibits all the behaviours we see in Biden. The vacant staring. The incoherent speech. The wandering off. Some of it is identical
However I’ve no wish to upset the mods and if @TSE and @rcs would prefer us to use different words that’s fine and I will obey. The point is made, anyway
The 'point' is that you are (1) clueless about dementia and (2) cheap and nasty enough to be forever spreading Trumpist propaganda and gloating whenever anything happens that you think improves his chances of becoming President again.
And it is indeed made. It's been made for quite some time tbf.
I am actually quite upbeat on learning about Biden's disasterous performance last night.
Trump was already clear favourite for the polling and to turn it around the Democrats were relying on a candidate whose mental facilities were in visible and rapid decline. The danger to the Democrats was that Biden was somehow able to soldier on for two or three more months and then inevitably put in a performance like last night's at a point when it was far too late to replace him.
The early debate has worked out in the Democrats' favour, and Trump will in a week's time be regretting having agreed to it. That is, the Democrats will now be forced to press the reset button with over four months to go still and put in place a new fresh candidate who has every opportunity of beating Trump in November.
If you could wave a magic wand and hey presto Andy Beshear is the Dem candidate against Trump, then I think Trump would lose (NB I don't know anything about Andy Beshear, except he is a very popular Democratic governor in a Republican state). But I don't see how we get there.
Trump is a discredited and weak candidate who is very beatable. His polling lead has been dependent only upon him running against a even weaker candidate in the form of a visibly senile old man who will do well to last another 4 months in office let alone 4 years. Yes having messed up so far the Democrats are also well capable of messing up their choice of who to replace Biden with, but even they get the choice wrong they will still have a fighting chance and if they get the choice half right the Democrat's candidate will have an excellent chance of winning.
Mr. Chameleon, on the 'woman' angle: the only reason Hillary Clinton lost is because she screwed it up. A more sensible approach of spending time in battlegrounds rather than California and not describing voters as a basket of deplorables would've been enough. She got really close, even with those dumb calls.
Yet Biden didn't improve on Clinton's margin against Trump in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania more than he did nationally.
In fact:
National margin: Biden 2.4% better than Clinton Wisconsin (tipping point state both times) margin: Biden 1.4% better than Clinton
Arizona (11 ECV): Biden 4.78% better than Clinton and had it swung by National Margin then Trump would have won Arizona Georgia (16 ECV) Biden 4.18% better than Clinton and had it swung by the national margin the Trump would have won Georgia Michigan (16 ECV) Biden 3.35% better than Clinton
Biden campaigned more than Clinton in the swing states and got a bigger swing as a result in most of the swing states, winning some of them purely due to that fact.
So Clinton should have spent more time campaigning in Georgia?
Electoral Calculus has revised/updated its forecast and it looks interesting (LibDems HMMLO and Reform on a more realistic six seats (vs 19 previously)
Edit: sorry for going off topic into UK politics (there's a PB apology for you).
But many of their predictions look bizarre, and out of line with all the others - for example they have the LibDems taking Labour Cambridge and Labour Bermondsey, neither of which seems remotely likely?
EC's prediction is still that the LDs (6 seats ahead of Con) will be HMLO, and Davey LOTO. I wouldn't mind at all if this happened, but I don't think it will.
Reform is a band 3 to 6 - not "6" !
For Ashfield they have a RefUK win probability down from 85% to 64%.
The Leeanderthal Man is having a day away for 'family matters', or I'm sure he'd post it.
i am greatly amused by Leon's account of the horrors of 2m seas.
In January I was evacuated along with the rest of the crew from the Ocean Great White semi-sub, West of Shetlands. 30m seas and 100 knot winds - though by the time we were evacuated it was down to a mere 17m seas and 70 knots. The waves ripped all the equipment off the bottom if the rig and dropped 1000 tons of riser onto the seafloor and right across the main gas export line.
I think someone quoted it was a force 3. Nice dingy sailing weather. Bit touch and go as to whether it is worth taking a Catamaran out though. Need a bit more wind.
When I was at RMAS we did a night exercise on Salisbury Plain. There was a guy who had a stammer in the platoon and sometimes it was good and sometimes it was bad.
He was appointed platoon commander for the night phase and was in the middle of giving orders to us all when the Queen walked in, on a visit to the range area (no idea why she was doing it so late but there you are). She asked him something and he couldn't reply. He just stood there, silent, trying to get a word out.
After about 30 seconds (an eternity) someone else in the platoon said "what he is trying to say is..." and at that the Queen turned and gave him (the interrupting guy) a huge bollocking, telling us all to wait and that the words would come. Which they did shortly afterwards, which she listened to intently before thanking him and heading off.
I will be taking questions about the socio-political implications of this story during my forthcoming podcast.
(narrator: Queen Elizabeth II's father was King George VI, who had a stutter)
We had a well-attended (200 or so) candidate hustings last night (in Wallingford) - everyone studiously polite and two hours of detailed, positive discussion. Certainly vastly better than the TV squabbles, but also a little boring, with no pressure on candidates to address the weak spots in their narratives. A little sharper questioning and candidate interaction it'd have been perfect.
I am actually quite upbeat on learning about Biden's disasterous performance last night.
Trump was already clear favourite for the polling and to turn it around the Democrats were relying on a candidate whose mental facilities were in visible and rapid decline. The danger to the Democrats was that Biden was somehow able to soldier on for two or three more months and then inevitably put in a performance like last night's at a point when it was far too late to replace him.
The early debate has worked out in the Democrats' favour, and Trump will in a week's time be regretting having agreed to it. That is, the Democrats will now be forced to press the reset button with over four months to go still and put in place a new fresh candidate who has every opportunity of beating Trump in November.
If you could wave a magic wand and hey presto Andy Beshear is the Dem candidate against Trump, then I think Trump would lose (NB I don't know anything about Andy Beshear, except he is a very popular Democratic governor in a Republican state). But I don't see how we get there.
I have a tiny amount of money on him at 150/1 to be the VP nominee.
Completely off topic personal news but got a couple of reasons to celebrate. Had an interview last week for a new job and have been offered and accepted the job which I'm looking to starting.
And separately, after eight months on my carnivore diet I have now lost 54lbs (24.5kg, nearly 4 stone). I am now pleased to say I have 'beaten' obesity and am well clear of the threshold for being obese. I set originally the target of losing 70lbs which will mean I'm no longer overweight at all if I can achieve that, let alone obese.
Well done on both counts. Keep at it but don't panic if you bob up a bit it would only be natural. Losing weight is the most miserable thing and 4 stone is a huge amount, literally. Most people revert, sadly, once they have been on a diet so now the challenge is to find a mode of living and eating whereby you don't feel the need to eat in the way that you had done pre-weight loss.
Thanks, yeah. It has bobbed up and down over the past eight months, with the odd plateaus too, but the long-term trend has been one-way.
I think everyone is different and everyone needs to find something that works for them and they can sustain, which is why facile things like "just eat less and move more" is like saying to pilot a jet you just need to "decide where you want to go, go up in the air, then get there".
I've never been addicted to smoking or anything else, but I now think that battling your weight is kind of like battling an addiction. When I was eating carbs I would be very hungry and craving food not many hours after having eaten, which is caused by biology and how it affects some people.
Cutting out carbs, I no longer have the cravings, I very rarely get hungry and typically only eat because I know its time to eat and not because I'm "starving" and need to eat.
The danger is going to be if I reintroduce carbs and the cravings come back, but to be honest I don't really miss them anyway. My dad was a vegetarian for decades until he got diabetes (which is what motivated me to lose the weight) and he switched from eating a vegetarian diet to more protein/meat based (but not as extreme as me). I don't really miss carbs, besides sushi which I'll probably allow myself as a "cheat" from time to time once I'm looking to maintain my weight rather than lose anymore.
A colleague has been on and off ozempic equivalents (supply issues mainly) and hates it. He had it for diabetes, and it is brutally effective. It stops him eating. He has no appetite, gets really full quickly and cannot drink beer anymore. Result is rapid weight loss to the point where he will need to stop the drug because his BMI will be below 25.
I can see why people want to use this drug to lose weight. It works. But I also recall the old saying "if you only drink water and eat lettuce you won't live forever, but it will feel like it". For a lot of people eating is fun. Take that away and I suspect a lot of people will wonder if its worth it.
Yeah I agree with you 100%.
I wouldn't recommend my diet to everyone, but to anyone who's considering it I would say give it a try.
But you need to find something you enjoy that you can live with.
To be honest I enjoy meat, eggs, cheese etc more than other stuff anyway, so having that as my day to day food isn't something I regret or makes me think I'm missing out.
Mr. Chameleon, on the 'woman' angle: the only reason Hillary Clinton lost is because she screwed it up. A more sensible approach of spending time in battlegrounds rather than California and not describing voters as a basket of deplorables would've been enough. She got really close, even with those dumb calls.
Yet Biden didn't improve on Clinton's margin against Trump in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania more than he did nationally.
In fact:
National margin: Biden 2.4% better than Clinton Wisconsin (tipping point state both times) margin: Biden 1.4% better than Clinton
Arizona (11 ECV): Biden 4.78% better than Clinton and had it swung by National Margin then Trump would have won Arizona Georgia (16 ECV) Biden 4.18% better than Clinton and had it swung by the national margin the Trump would have won Georgia Michigan (16 ECV) Biden 3.35% better than Clinton
Biden campaigned more than Clinton in the swing states and got a bigger swing as a result in most of the swing states, winning some of them purely due to that fact.
So Clinton should have spent more time campaigning in Georgia?
Of course!
Less time in California and more time in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and all the other states she lost but Biden won.
I woke, inadvertently, at 2.40 and listened to the second half of Trump v. Biden. Trump was terrible - nothing remotely constructive to say, garbled nonsense, and just constant repetition of the 'open borders' stuff regardless of the question asked.
Unfortunately, Biden was even worse - totally incoherent and kept losing his way. Trump was there for the taking and could have been ripped apart by anybody reasonably bright, but Biden was clueless.
So, having defended Biden in the past, my view now is that he has to go. He'll lose, albeit against a terrible Republican candidate. It really doesn't matter what the cause of Biden's decline is - no point in trying to put a label on it. I'm more optimistic than some on here that Harris, of whoever else emerges, could still slaughter Trump, largely on the grounds that he's as mad as a box of frogs. But they need to get a move on.
Sir Keir Starmer will delay recognition of a Palestinian state under a Labour government because of fears it could undermine Britain's special relationship with the US
The Labour leader has promised to recognise Palestine as part of a wider push to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza and ultimately revive the peace process.
He is under pressure from the left of the party to quickly deliver on this promise, which some see as the correction of a historical wrong given Britain’s role in the creation of Israel.
His allies have argued that Labour should not rush into recognising a Palestinian state, since it would isolate Britain from its major allies and open up a dividing line with the US
I have divided politicians into two categories: the Signposts and the Weathercocks.
The Signpost says: 'This is the way we should go.' And you don't have to follow them but if you come back in ten years time the Signpost is still there.
The Weathercock hasn’t got an opinion until they've looked at the polls, talked to the focus groups, discussed it with the spin doctors.
And I've no time for Weathercocks, I'm a Signpost man.
And in fairness, although I disagreed with everything she did, Mrs Thatcher was a Signpost. She said what she meant. Meant what she said. Did what she said she’d do if you voted for her. So everybody who voted for her shared responsibility for what happened. And I think that we do need a few more Signposts and few fewer Weathercocks.
I’m not sure if I’ve defended Biden on here in the past but certainly for the past year I’ve been telling friends and colleagues that he is not fit to run again.
More lately I’ve been describing his seeming determination to run again as unethical if not immoral, given the jeopardy into which it places the US
I see Thomas Friedman - having written an apologia for Biden just a few months ago - has posted an article on the NYT where he describes watching the debate in tears and that Biden must go.
When I was at RMAS we did a night exercise on Salisbury Plain. There was a guy who had a stammer in the platoon and sometimes it was good and sometimes it was bad.
He was appointed platoon commander for the night phase and was in the middle of giving orders to us all when the Queen walked in, on a visit to the range area (no idea why she was doing it so late but there you are). She asked him something and he couldn't reply. He just stood there, silent, trying to get a word out.
After about 30 seconds (an eternity) someone else in the platoon said "what he is trying to say is..." and at that the Queen turned and gave him (the interrupting guy) a huge bollocking, telling us all to wait and that the words would come. Which they did shortly afterwards, which she listened to intently before thanking him and heading off.
I will be taking questions about the socio-political implications of this story during my forthcoming podcast.
Good story. You can see how characters like this were elevated to deity status in times when storytelling was how history was made. You can imagine it getting embellished and growing over the years. The aspect about her just turning up unannounced on Salisbury Plain in the middle of the night just adds to it. Also, I love that we still all know who you mean by 'the Queen'. I wonder for how long she will remain THE Queen - and all other queens have to be given titles (e.g. names or of...) to differentiate them from THE queen. I feel a bit sorry for "what he is trying to say is..." guy. Presumably his intentions were nothing but helpful, towards both colleague and queen. But that takes nothing away from the story.
I'd say she'll remain "THE Queen" for 3 generations or more.
We had a well-attended (200 or so) candidate hustings last night (in Wallingford) - everyone studiously polite and two hours of detailed, positive discussion. Certainly vastly better than the TV squabbles, but also a little boring, with no pressure on candidates to address the weak spots in their narratives. A little sharper questioning and candidate interaction it'd have been perfect.
Were any of the 200+ actual normal voters or were they all Lab/LD/Tory/Green/Reform/SDP activists? My experience of hustings is they are a complete waste of time, that you have to go thru', because the hall is stuffed with activists.
I woke, inadvertently, at 2.40 and listened to the second half of Trump v. Biden. Trump was terrible - nothing remotely constructive to say, garbled nonsense, and just constant repetition of the 'open borders' stuff regardless of the question asked.
Unfortunately, Biden was even worse - totally incoherent and kept losing his way. Trump was there for the taking and could have been ripped apart by anybody reasonably bright, but Biden was clueless.
So, having defended Biden in the past, my view now is that he has to go. He'll lose, albeit against a terrible Republican candidate. It really doesn't matter what the cause of Biden's decline is - no point in trying to put a label on it. I'm more optimistic than some on here that Harris, of whoever else emerges, could still slaughter Trump, largely on the grounds that he's as mad as a box of frogs. But they need to get a move on.
Biden was reportedly better in the second half of the debate than the first.
In previous elections, I thought laying Michelle Obama for the Presidency was smart - tipped by many on here regularly at good odds.
This year, however, I was against it - because I thought there was actually a chance.
And we might be seeing why.
If you want to ditch Harris, it goes over much better with your Democrat base to pick another black woman.
She can be continuity Obama/Biden without the flaws - which might be enough against Trump.
I remember in 2020 a lot of American pundits suggesting that Michelle would win 400+ seats against Trump, either as Biden’s VP or herself. I’m not sure *that* much but I see the logic.
If Trump knocks her lack of experience, she can easily say “Donald you were a reality TV star before becoming President, whereas I did XYZ in the White House…”
I also think, in 2020, we saw how Barack Obama had the clout to unite the party behind Biden against Bernie. In 2024, he is perhaps uniquely placed to tell his old friend Joe it’s time to stand aside - and to encourage his wife, who might be reluctant to do it, that she needs to ‘Save America’.
Michelle Obama for President also allows you to pick a safe pair of hands as a VP candidate, which might bolster the ticket overall. E.g. Newsom for President might be seen as supplanting Harris in a negative manner. But Obama / Newsom might be more palatable.
To be honest I still think Harris is more likely than the above but you cannot rule it out and I think laying Michelle for President is bad at the odds quoted.
Last night showed Biden may be toast, but also, this is not the Trump of 2016 or 2020. He is more beatable than he seems right now.
The last Harris vs Trump poll has Trump winning by 47-42 (same poll has Trump beating Biden 46-44).
If there has been any attempt to persuade Biden to stand down, these kinds of polls would have persuaded him that he is the best person to beat Trump again.
There are, of course, no polls which show an actual alternative nominee against Trump.
Hypotheticals - particularly when they're only a couple of percentage points different - don't really shown anything very useful. At least Harris has run for office before. No one has any idea how Michelle Obama might perform as an actual candidate.
Her not wanting to do it (indeed hating the idea) is the killer, I think. If that's the case it can't happen, since she's a free person.
I woke, inadvertently, at 2.40 and listened to the second half of Trump v. Biden. Trump was terrible - nothing remotely constructive to say, garbled nonsense, and just constant repetition of the 'open borders' stuff regardless of the question asked.
Unfortunately, Biden was even worse - totally incoherent and kept losing his way. Trump was there for the taking and could have been ripped apart by anybody reasonably bright, but Biden was clueless.
So, having defended Biden in the past, my view now is that he has to go. He'll lose, albeit against a terrible Republican candidate. It really doesn't matter what the cause of Biden's decline is - no point in trying to put a label on it. I'm more optimistic than some on here that Harris, of whoever else emerges, could still slaughter Trump, largely on the grounds that he's as mad as a box of frogs. But they need to get a move on.
Biden was reportedly better in the second half of the debate than the first.
Yes, I read that - which is why I pointed out that I'd only listened to the second half. Worrying.
Blue Wall frontline: These are Conservative-held seats where the Liberal Democrats are the primary challenger and can claim the seat on a swing of 10% or less.
Red Wall defences: These are those former Labour strongholds in the North, Midlands and Wales which the Conservatives infamously flipped (many for the first time) on election night of 2019.
Conservative/Leave redoubts: These are seats which have been solidly Conservative for at least the last four elections, and which all voted Leave to a greater extent that the national average in 2016.
Conservative/Strong Leave seats: These are Conservative seats which have previously been Labour, and where ‘Leave’ won over 65% of the vote in 2016.
Diverse battlegrounds: Local elections, indicated that Labour might see a backlash in those areas of the country with large Asian and Muslim populations, in response to its position on the conflict in Gaza. Meanwhile, there are several Conservative seats where the incumbent’s majority is under 30%, and the Asian population is above 20%.
Graduate-heavy seats: Recent elections have shown that education is now a key dividing line among British voters, with university graduates and those without a degree often having very different political preferences. These are seats which, despite having different levels of socioeconomic development and diversity, have high concentrations of graduates.
Labour breakthrough: These are Conservative-held seats in England where the incumbent has a majority of less than 30%, and Labour came second in 2019. However, Labour has not won the seat since 2005, or maybe ever.
Major change seats: On the back of the 2023 boundary reforms, some constituencies have undergone a huge degree of change, with some being broken up and reallocated between three or four new seats.
SNP/Labour battlegrounds: These are SNP-held seats where the incumbent has less than a 40% majority, and which Labour has held before. Labour is second in almost all these seats.
Traditional swing seats: These constituencies and their predecessors have traditionally been bellwethers.
Hmm, it's got Bassetlaw down as a "traditional swing seat". The last time it was Conservative prior to 2019 was 1924 !
It's too late to change from Biden. If they thought they had an option to go for someone else, well, they still might have arrived at this point because taking down an incumbent is very difficult. There's no consensus on who would pick up the baton either, even though Harris is obvious.
I think the USA will really do it, they'll elect Trump again, and he's an unstable, idiotic, vindictive, criminal. Nothing he says or does appears to bother 45% of the country, and the 5-10% swayable voters may not be fans but don't fear him either, as they should.
Btw I’ve been going over the history of “Biden is senile, no he’s not” arguments - the best of them are hilarious, I’ll post later - but I’ve noted how lucid and articulate you’ve been on this for many months. You said it a year ago and six months ago. “Biden is losing his mind and this is bad, people are in denial”
So well done you. Seriously
Also @Luckyguy1983 - absolutely clear that Biden is senile and was roundly abused on here for saying it. Deserves an apology
What's all this 'apology' bollocks? Where the fuck do you think you are?
Halfway between Le Conquet and Ile Ouessant in a heavy sea
What a weird bit of France. What is there.
Only thirty-five leagues to get home from there, Spanish ladies being left behind.
Biden was awful last night and it seems to have (finally) got through to the US media that he isn’t up to the job. The issue now is that whoever they replace him with will have to contend with Trump calling it a “DNC establishment stitch up”. They will also have to deal with the issue of Kamala Harris also being terrible. If it’s Newsom, he won’t have Kamala as his running mate. If they try to crown Kamala - all hell will break loose.
Anyone in the Democratic party who is younger than 55 should be agitating to kick all elected representatives over 70 out of their safe seats. We had RBG stay in post too long, and the Dems threw away a SCOTUS seat, we had Pelosi and Reid who did their jobs too long, and Schumer who can’t manage his own caucus; as well as Feinstein whose illness was holding up judicial nominees. Not only are these people failing in their jobs, but they’re not letting younger politicians gain skills they need to keep the party going. By hanging onto power they are dooming the US…
I am actually quite upbeat on learning about Biden's disasterous performance last night.
Trump was already clear favourite for the polling and to turn it around the Democrats were relying on a candidate whose mental facilities were in visible and rapid decline. The danger to the Democrats was that Biden was somehow able to soldier on for two or three more months and then inevitably put in a performance like last night's at a point when it was far too late to replace him.
The early debate has worked out in the Democrats' favour, and Trump will in a week's time be regretting having agreed to it. That is, the Democrats will now be forced to press the reset button with over four months to go still and put in place a new fresh candidate who has every opportunity of beating Trump in November.
If you could wave a magic wand and hey presto Andy Beshear is the Dem candidate against Trump, then I think Trump would lose (NB I don't know anything about Andy Beshear, except he is a very popular Democratic governor in a Republican state). But I don't see how we get there.
I have a tiny amount of money on him at 150/1 to be the VP nominee.
He'd make a good VP choice if KH is the candidate.
My complaint is this: the word 'love' is doing too much work in the world and needs splitting into two or three different words. I'm sure I'm not alone in interpreting the word 'love' in one of two or three different senses: romantic love (as I feel for my wife); platonic love (as I feel for family and friends) and wild enthusiasm (as I feel for, for example, the music of the Pixies). Even this is too much work for one word to do, but having grown up in the English language I can quite happily interpret the meaning from the context.
But I'm quite sure Nigel Farage doesn't 'love' Britons of all races and religions in any of these senses. I certainly don't. It would be exhausting.
There is a fourth sense - which tends to be used by those without English as a first language and/or by religion, and sometimes by the far left, which means something like 'cheerful acceptance' - as in, love thy neighbour. That's the sense I assume the author of the piece above is using it. But this feels slightly jarring to secular Anglophones.
My understanding (and I am no expert) is that in the Greek that the Bible was translated from, there are actual several different words for what we call love: one meaning 'cheerful acceptance', one meaning romantic love, one meaning platonic love, one meaning wild enthusiasm. But because English didn't have separate words, the word 'love' has been called upon to do far too much work. I am sure the injunction to love thy neighbour would be far more willingly embraced if we had a different verb closer to its intended meaning.
Any scholars of Greek (or indeed anyone else) are free to shoot any part of this down.
Given that Goodwin gave a speech on Weds 26th at Unherd urging everyone to vote for Reform, and the previous poll of his, I daresay he might just post a poll with Reform on a ridiculously high figure in the hopes that it boosts their turnout.
Those Unherd hustings videos, in the order of their release
Labour will force every borough to take its fair share of migrants and all successful Asylum seekers will be prioritised for social housing.
This is a positive move. It is not acceptable that for too long these people have just been dumped in places like Rochdale, Middlesbrough and Gateshead where housing is dirt cheap. It is good and will reduce the costs of these people being dumped in hotels.
I think Labour will be positive on this. I also think an amnesty is not a bad thing.
Cracking, lovely to see the next government is really focused on improving the lives of the British people, not illegal economic migrants.
On the plus side this will probably be radicalising enough that by 2030 we'll be up for a serious discussion on using Ascension island as our version of Nauru.
It’s incredible isn’t it?
I now foresee the following chain of events as quite likely: Labour lose all control of migration and asylum, the boats get worse, this is accompanied by storms of Wokeness which enrage everyone
Labour do ok things but all these are drowned out by the above. Public anger is incendiary
Labour collapse in the polls and a new populist right party - either the Tories rebranded, some merger with reform, or something else - surges in opposition. The hard right wins and takes over in 2028
All avoidable. But this is where we’re headed. Just as the Joe Biden disaster was avoidable but no one did anything
To give a bit of an alternative prediction for the next couple of years:
- Labour win 480 ish seats or something else ridiculous. Lib Dems squeak out 2nd party status. Tories 3rd on seats, only just behind.
- REFUK have a handful of seats on a decent vote share - enough to give Farage the power to say “Make me Tory leader, we’ll do a merger, and we can be the opposition. Otherwise the Tories are finished.” The desire to be the opposition party makes disgruntled Tories fall in line.
- Meanwhile Labour’s first few months are quite surprising - or unsurprising. They use their massive majority and end up basically junking half the manifesto, bringing in a whole swathe of initially unpopular tax reforms to get more money.
- This gives LOTO Farage a bounce in the polls as the Tories get to all say “we told you so about Labour’s taxes!” But time passes and it turns out the sky doesn’t fall in. Things like council tax reform are actually possible to sell with a large enough majority.
- A year later and Farage is bored of this. The reality dawns on him that 2029 is a long time away, and he might not even win then. Meanwhile there’s a ton of scandals with the Reform MPs that have joined the merged party. Some of the remaining moderate Tories think “Sod this” and join Davey’s Lib Dems - who now become the new opposition. Farage resigns, not wanting to be 3rd place, saying that the establishment have stitched him up, but he may be back someday. Someone like Suella takes over.
- The resurgent Lib Dems battle Labour on issues such as closer integration with the EU, which causes them to win by elections in former Labour strongholds. The strangeness of former Tories supporting this party is mitigated by the fact that they’re not avowedly ‘Pro Rejoin’ - they just want a better appears students are actually finally voting for the Lib Dems again! This spooks Labour, who can see their massive majority being vulnerable in 2029 - the Lib Dems attract enough support from the anti Labour vote across the board to suddenly look very strong.
- Overall, the government still has a decent amount of benefit of the doubt, being in the first couple of years of a new parliament. Problems lurk on the horizon in the longer term but for the most part people are content enough, and Starmer’s ‘boringness’ is actually a pleasant relief for many.
No offence to you but if this is being published in the Daily Telegraph Newspaper it says more about the paper. The discussion about the different types of love is as old as the average Reform member i.e. biblical
Lord Ashcroft focus group among past Tory voters in Newquay, Plymouth & NE Somerset - asked if leaders were sportsmen, who would they be:
Rishi Sunak? “Andy Murray. A bit dull and never fit to play;” “Wayne Rooney. Nice enough person but a hopeless manager;” “Most of the Man United squad, overpaid and underachieving;” “Is there a marbles championship? Maybe he’s good at marbles.”
Biden was awful last night and it seems to have (finally) got through to the US media that he isn’t up to the job. The issue now is that whoever they replace him with will have to contend with Trump calling it a “DNC establishment stitch up”. They will also have to deal with the issue of Kamala Harris also being terrible. If it’s Newsom, he won’t have Kamala as his running mate. If they try to crown Kamala - all hell will break loose.
Anyone in the Democratic party who is younger than 55 should be agitating to kick all elected representatives over 70 out of their safe seats. We had RBG stay in post too long, and the Dems threw away a SCOTUS seat, we had Pelosi and Reid who did their jobs too long, and Schumer who can’t manage his own caucus; as well as Feinstein whose illness was holding up judicial nominees. Not only are these people failing in their jobs, but they’re not letting younger politicians gain skills they need to keep the party going. By hanging onto power they are dooming the US…
Boomers just keep on booming. The most selfish generation.
Given recent events on PB perhaps this isn’t the best place to throw insults about dementia or make amateur guesses about dementia when you’re not qualified to do so.
We all, of course, see your point - but how else do we discuss last night? If we aren’t allowed to use these words? Everyone in the American media is now openly using them - even the Biden friendly media
Doddery, old, slow, forgetful - plenty of words to use other than dementia.
To be honest the clips I've seen remind me of my late grandad, who did not have dementia but who was increasingly slow and forgetful and could lose his place more easily.
Dementia is something different and although I didn't watch the debate I've seen no signs of that in any of the debates, I just see a frail old man who is past it.
I’ve seen dementia up close and personal. My poor mother has it now, and her husband has it too (I thank god they are sinking together)
He in particular exhibits all the behaviours we see in Biden. The vacant staring. The incoherent speech. The wandering off. Some of it is identical
However I’ve no wish to upset the mods and if @TSE and @rcs would prefer us to use different words that’s fine and I will obey. The point is made, anyway
The 'point' is that you are (1) clueless about dementia and (2) cheap and nasty enough to be forever spreading Trumpist propaganda and gloating whenever anything happens that you think improves his chances of becoming President again.
And it is indeed made. It's been made for quite some time tbf.
Yes, I am “clueless” about dementia apart from the fact that my mother has it, as does her husband, and I was there when she was formally diagnosed by the dementia nurse (along with her husband) and we spent an afternoon discussing - with the nurse - what this meant, why she had this diagnosis, what the prognosis was (not great) and so on
Apart from that I have no experience of it at all and I am obviously unable to see it in others
You know, sometimes I forgive you your inane commentary because you’re not very sharp. But occasionally I realise you’re not just a bit dim, you are also quite inadequate as a human being
Biden was awful last night and it seems to have (finally) got through to the US media that he isn’t up to the job. The issue now is that whoever they replace him with will have to contend with Trump calling it a “DNC establishment stitch up”. They will also have to deal with the issue of Kamala Harris also being terrible. If it’s Newsom, he won’t have Kamala as his running mate. If they try to crown Kamala - all hell will break loose.
Anyone in the Democratic party who is younger than 55 should be agitating to kick all elected representatives over 70 out of their safe seats. We had RBG stay in post too long, and the Dems threw away a SCOTUS seat, we had Pelosi and Reid who did their jobs too long, and Schumer who can’t manage his own caucus; as well as Feinstein whose illness was holding up judicial nominees. Not only are these people failing in their jobs, but they’re not letting younger politicians gain skills they need to keep the party going. By hanging onto power they are dooming the US…
It's always fun when a poster you habitually disagree with (nothing personal, 148grss, you are a decent and erudite poster and I'm pleased you're here) says something you agree with every word of.
i am greatly amused by Leon's account of the horrors of 2m seas.
In January I was evacuated along with the rest of the crew from the Ocean Great White semi-sub, West of Shetlands. 30m seas and 100 knot winds - though by the time we were evacuated it was down to a mere 17m seas and 70 knots. The waves ripped all the equipment off the bottom if the rig and dropped 1000 tons of riser onto the seafloor and right across the main gas export line.
I heard some longer clips of Biden on Talk Radio (Not the friendliest of stations to centre-left politicians) and he definitely sounded better than the word salads that have been clipped up online.
A low bar, granted but I don't think there's enough there to oust him and then he can do a COMEBACK debate in September
Hillary Clinton would have made a great President. What a pity the US are lumbered with such crap voters. Like a whole country of Clactons and jaywicks
That will become SPECTACULARLY unpopular very very quickly
(Tho I entirely agree the present situation is hugely unfair on a few benighted places)
My sense is that Labour will fail to get any grip on migration or asylum, indeed they will possibly make it WORSE and that they could implode over this issue in the first year or two
There is no will in the Labour Party to reduce immigration the way the people want, even if there was it would cause a whole load of issues for other problems Labour want to tackle like staffing the NHS. So in all likelihood the issue will remain a large problem for Labour and make the government unpopular. All Labour might do is make the system run a bit faster and smoother, but I doubt that there will be a big change in the level of immigration, and there are good reasons to think things will get worse.
There are far more reasons for it to get better, short of another major Ukranian refugee crisis. Numbers will halve on current projections.
Given that Goodwin gave a speech on Weds 26th at Unherd urging everyone to vote for Reform, and the previous poll of his, I daresay he might just post a poll with Reform on a ridiculously high figure in the hopes that it boosts their turnout.
Those Unherd hustings videos, in the order of their release
Lord Ashcroft focus group among past Tory voters in Newquay, Plymouth & NE Somerset - asked if leaders were sportsmen, who would they be:
Rishi Sunak? “Andy Murray. A bit dull and never fit to play;” “Wayne Rooney. Nice enough person but a hopeless manager;” “Most of the Man United squad, overpaid and underachieving;” “Is there a marbles championship? Maybe he’s good at marbles.”
Mr. Chameleon, on the 'woman' angle: the only reason Hillary Clinton lost is because she screwed it up. A more sensible approach of spending time in battlegrounds rather than California and not describing voters as a basket of deplorables would've been enough. She got really close, even with those dumb calls.
Yet Biden didn't improve on Clinton's margin against Trump in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania more than he did nationally.
In fact:
National margin: Biden 2.4% better than Clinton Wisconsin (tipping point state both times) margin: Biden 1.4% better than Clinton
Arizona (11 ECV): Biden 4.78% better than Clinton and had it swung by National Margin then Trump would have won Arizona Georgia (16 ECV) Biden 4.18% better than Clinton and had it swung by the national margin the Trump would have won Georgia Michigan (16 ECV) Biden 3.35% better than Clinton
Biden campaigned more than Clinton in the swing states and got a bigger swing as a result in most of the swing states, winning some of them purely due to that fact.
So Clinton should have spent more time campaigning in Georgia?
Of course!
Less time in California and more time in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and all the other states she lost but Biden won.
Which is exactly what Biden did. And he won them.
My point is that the picture is a lot more mixed than people seem to realise. And at the time Clinton was criticised for not campaigning specifically in Wisconsin - which she didn't visit at all. I don't remember anyone saying she should have campaigned more in Georgia.
"Over the final 100 days of the election, Trump made a total of 133 visits to Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan and Wisconsin. Over the same time period, Hillary Clinton visited the first five of those states a total of 87 times. She never traveled to Wisconsin during the 102 days between the convention and the election."
Of those 6 states only in Michigan and North Carolina (marginally) did Biden have a better swing than nationally. In the other 4 his swing was worse than nationally, in some cases much worse.
spoiler: Florida figures prominently for BOTH candidates. California isn't mentioned for either.
Clinton wasn't a great candidate in 2016, but Biden wasn't actually much better in 2020. Trump lost the election by telling people to inject bleach to cure Covid.
i am greatly amused by Leon's account of the horrors of 2m seas.
In January I was evacuated along with the rest of the crew from the Ocean Great White semi-sub, West of Shetlands. 30m seas and 100 knot winds - though by the time we were evacuated it was down to a mere 17m seas and 70 knots. The waves ripped all the equipment off the bottom if the rig and dropped 1000 tons of riser onto the seafloor and right across the main gas export line.
I’m reminded of a story of a colleague who took a trip on a tanker, round the North Cape to the Kara.
There was a swimming pool on board. He reported that the waves *in the pool* were getting worrying at one point.
I’m in Ushant in a stupid shitty van. Is anyone else in Ushant in a stupid shitty van? We could get together and swap tips and barter advice
Like, why the fuck have they given me a stupid shitty van to drive around? And what is there to do in ushant in a stupid shitty van? From what I can see so far: nothing
When I was at RMAS we did a night exercise on Salisbury Plain. There was a guy who had a stammer in the platoon and sometimes it was good and sometimes it was bad.
He was appointed platoon commander for the night phase and was in the middle of giving orders to us all when the Queen walked in, on a visit to the range area (no idea why she was doing it so late but there you are). She asked him something and he couldn't reply. He just stood there, silent, trying to get a word out.
After about 30 seconds (an eternity) someone else in the platoon said "what he is trying to say is..." and at that the Queen turned and gave him (the interrupting guy) a huge bollocking, telling us all to wait and that the words would come. Which they did shortly afterwards, which she listened to intently before thanking him and heading off.
I will be taking questions about the socio-political implications of this story during my forthcoming podcast.
(narrator: Queen Elizabeth II's father was King George VI, who had a stutter)
My complaint is this: the word 'love' is doing too much work in the world and needs splitting into two or three different words. I'm sure I'm not alone in interpreting the word 'love' in one of two or three different senses: romantic love (as I feel for my wife); platonic love (as I feel for family and friends) and wild enthusiasm (as I feel for, for example, the music of the Pixies). Even this is too much work for one word to do, but having grown up in the English language I can quite happily interpret the meaning from the context.
But I'm quite sure Nigel Farage doesn't 'love' Britons of all races and religions in any of these senses. I certainly don't. It would be exhausting.
There is a fourth sense - which tends to be used by those without English as a first language and/or by religion, and sometimes by the far left, which means something like 'cheerful acceptance' - as in, love thy neighbour. That's the sense I assume the author of the piece above is using it. But this feels slightly jarring to secular Anglophones.
My understanding (and I am no expert) is that in the Greek that the Bible was translated from, there are actual several different words for what we call love: one meaning 'cheerful acceptance', one meaning romantic love, one meaning platonic love, one meaning wild enthusiasm. But because English didn't have separate words, the word 'love' has been called upon to do far too much work. I am sure the injunction to love thy neighbour would be far more willingly embraced if we had a different verb closer to its intended meaning.
Any scholars of Greek (or indeed anyone else) are free to shoot any part of this down.
Beginning with the New Testament the Christian tradition identifies all of these meanings of love - embracing enthusiasm, friendship, familial, erotic - but adds another; love (agape) as self-giving love, fully articulated and described in I Corinthians 13, being a reflection of the divine love for creation.
This makes sense of the 'love your enemies (and neighbour)' stuff. You don't have to like horrible people, rapists, tyrants whatever, or you neighbour. But you have to desire their good (eg by their turning their hearts to better things) in the divine scheme of things.
If there is a better way of interpreting this wicked world I don't know what it is.
Why doesn't the First Lady persuade him to stand down ... after all, he can't need the money? It seems that she doesn't have any influence at all which doesn't do her reputation any good either.
The suspicion is that it’s exactly the opposite, with Jill Biden being complicit in enabling those who are actually running the country in Joe’s name.
I woke, inadvertently, at 2.40 and listened to the second half of Trump v. Biden. Trump was terrible - nothing remotely constructive to say, garbled nonsense, and just constant repetition of the 'open borders' stuff regardless of the question asked.
Unfortunately, Biden was even worse - totally incoherent and kept losing his way. Trump was there for the taking and could have been ripped apart by anybody reasonably bright, but Biden was clueless.
So, having defended Biden in the past, my view now is that he has to go. He'll lose, albeit against a terrible Republican candidate. It really doesn't matter what the cause of Biden's decline is - no point in trying to put a label on it. I'm more optimistic than some on here that Harris, of whoever else emerges, could still slaughter Trump, largely on the grounds that he's as mad as a box of frogs. But they need to get a move on.
I considered a bet on Biden this morning, reasoning that there's still a big barrier to replacement - the Dems probably have to just agree on someone at this point and that will be tricky, particularly if they're sure it's not KH and she doesn't want to step aside. There's also often value in betting on things not happening and if Biden isn't replaced soon then he surely has to come back in a bit for the nomination and pres (5 or more is not sustainable if he is the candidate) so it could, in theory be a decent trading bet.
Then I watched a bit of the debate and that stayed my hand! Suffice to say that I'm glad I've laid Trump rather than backed Biden so far (other than backing Biden sometime in 2021, but I traded that out when his odds started to come in).
Why doesn't the First Lady persuade him to stand down ... after all, he can't need the money? It seems that she doesn't have any influence at all which doesn't do her reputation any good either.
The suspicion is that it’s exactly the opposite, with Jill Biden being complicit in enabling those who are actually running the country in Joe’s name.
He's actually run the country very well and competently. So despite my misgivings about his age, I do actually rank him as a good President.
I’m not sure if I’ve defended Biden on here in the past but certainly for the past year I’ve been telling friends and colleagues that he is not fit to run again.
More lately I’ve been describing his seeming determination to run again as unethical if not immoral, given the jeopardy into which it places the US
I see Thomas Friedman - having written an apologia for Biden just a few months ago - has posted an article on the NYT where he describes watching the debate in tears and that Biden must go.
I'm currently hosting two US pharmacy students on a rotation. We discussed the election at one point last week and they were both in despair about the situation. Both are from Texas, and one of them has Trump voters in the family.
I know we've had a dodgy set-up in the UK for a few years, but at least in 598 7 we should be back to adults in the room politics, with a new government with a chance to change the countries direction.
If Gavin Newsom really wants and believes he is fully eqipped to become the next POTUS, he desparately needs to demonstrate the courage to stand up and say so ... NOW. Failing which, he doesn't deserve any further consideration. If he leaves it any longer, it will be too late and someone else will need to step up to the plate.
Mr. Chameleon, on the 'woman' angle: the only reason Hillary Clinton lost is because she screwed it up. A more sensible approach of spending time in battlegrounds rather than California and not describing voters as a basket of deplorables would've been enough. She got really close, even with those dumb calls.
Yet Biden didn't improve on Clinton's margin against Trump in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania more than he did nationally.
In fact:
National margin: Biden 2.4% better than Clinton Wisconsin (tipping point state both times) margin: Biden 1.4% better than Clinton
Arizona (11 ECV): Biden 4.78% better than Clinton and had it swung by National Margin then Trump would have won Arizona Georgia (16 ECV) Biden 4.18% better than Clinton and had it swung by the national margin the Trump would have won Georgia Michigan (16 ECV) Biden 3.35% better than Clinton
Biden campaigned more than Clinton in the swing states and got a bigger swing as a result in most of the swing states, winning some of them purely due to that fact.
So Clinton should have spent more time campaigning in Georgia?
Of course!
Less time in California and more time in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and all the other states she lost but Biden won.
Which is exactly what Biden did. And he won them.
My point is that the picture is a lot more mixed than people seem to realise. And at the time Clinton was criticised for not campaigning specifically in Wisconsin - which she didn't visit at all. I don't remember anyone saying she should have campaigned more in Georgia.
"Over the final 100 days of the election, Trump made a total of 133 visits to Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan and Wisconsin. Over the same time period, Hillary Clinton visited the first five of those states a total of 87 times. She never traveled to Wisconsin during the 102 days between the convention and the election."
Of those 6 states only in Michigan and North Carolina (marginally) did Biden have a better swing than nationally. In the other 4 his swing was worse than nationally, in some cases much worse.
spoiler: Florida figures prominently for BOTH candidates. California isn't mentioned for either.
Clinton wasn't a great candidate in 2016, but Biden wasn't actually much better in 2020. Trump lost the election by telling people to inject bleach to cure Covid.
In July 2016 (100 days to go) my headline post here suggested:
1. iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Florida as "normal" swing states; and 2. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia as states Donald Trump (in particular) might choose to win instead
I’m in Ushant in a stupid shitty van. Is anyone else in Ushant in a stupid shitty van? We could get together and swap tips and barter advice
Like, why the fuck have they given me a stupid shitty van to drive around? And what is there to do in ushant in a stupid shitty van? From what I can see so far: nothing
He is definitely too old. But he shows no signs of dementia.
However, Trump does.
Careful, Leon is pretending that he is making a 'spreadsheet'
Absolutely Biden should be replaced but is anyone actually capable of defeating Trump?
Biden is the only candidate to have ever actually beaten Trump.
But that's only because he's stood against Clinton, who screwed up by going on holiday and not listening to advice and Biden.
It's perfectly possibly someone else could take the fight to Trump - I mean you could just have a puppet replying to Trump - that's not true, that's a lie, that's not correct...
Biden was awful last night and it seems to have (finally) got through to the US media that he isn’t up to the job. The issue now is that whoever they replace him with will have to contend with Trump calling it a “DNC establishment stitch up”. They will also have to deal with the issue of Kamala Harris also being terrible. If it’s Newsom, he won’t have Kamala as his running mate. If they try to crown Kamala - all hell will break loose.
Anyone in the Democratic party who is younger than 55 should be agitating to kick all elected representatives over 70 out of their safe seats. We had RBG stay in post too long, and the Dems threw away a SCOTUS seat, we had Pelosi and Reid who did their jobs too long, and Schumer who can’t manage his own caucus; as well as Feinstein whose illness was holding up judicial nominees. Not only are these people failing in their jobs, but they’re not letting younger politicians gain skills they need to keep the party going. By hanging onto power they are dooming the US…
Boomers just keep on booming. The most selfish generation.
Biden isn't one of those young Boomer kids, he's the generation before, the Silent Generation.
If Gavin Newsom really wants and believes he is fully eqipped to become the next POTUS, he desparately needs to demonstrate the courage to stand up and say so ... NOW. Failing which, he doesn't deserve any further consideration. If he leaves it any longer, it will be too late and someone else will need to step up to the plate.
Sidestepping Kamala will play very badly. It needs to come from Kamala either standing herself or standing aside - in a way that doesn’t annoy black / women voters.
It’s a very tricky balance to strike but it’s why I think they will have to go for Kamala, unless Michelle is happy to go for it.
He is definitely too old. But he shows no signs of dementia.
However, Trump does.
I am not a doctor, but I have two grandparents over 85 who do not have dementia and I have also seen other grandparents with dementia. Both Biden and Trump seem like they could reasonably have the illness.
If the DNC were serious about winning they would pull Biden. (I mean if they were serious about winning they would never have run him in the first place…)
i am greatly amused by Leon's account of the horrors of 2m seas.
In January I was evacuated along with the rest of the crew from the Ocean Great White semi-sub, West of Shetlands. 30m seas and 100 knot winds - though by the time we were evacuated it was down to a mere 17m seas and 70 knots. The waves ripped all the equipment off the bottom if the rig and dropped 1000 tons of riser onto the seafloor and right across the main gas export line.
I’m reminded of a story of a colleague who took a trip on a tanker, round the North Cape to the Kara.
There was a swimming pool on board. He reported that the waves *in the pool* were getting worrying at one point.
I have a similar pool story
I was in southern Peru touring the Nazca lines. And staying in an unexpectedly swish hotel in the desert by the sea
At night there was a pretty serious earthquake - serious enough that it shook the swimming pool so violently the water was thrown out of the pool
However the hotel was built for earthquakes and all the structures were fine. But then I thought: shit, we are by the coast = earthquake = tsunami
So I urgently called the concierge and I asked him
“We just had a big earthquake? Is there going to be a tsunami??”
He paused and said “I don’t know. That’s a good question. I will check”. So then he went away and checked - online? - and he called me back and he said: “No”
Completely off topic personal news but got a couple of reasons to celebrate. Had an interview last week for a new job and have been offered and accepted the job which I'm looking to starting.
And separately, after eight months on my carnivore diet I have now lost 54lbs (24.5kg, nearly 4 stone). I am now pleased to say I have 'beaten' obesity and am well clear of the threshold for being obese. I set originally the target of losing 70lbs which will mean I'm no longer overweight at all if I can achieve that, let alone obese.
Well done on both counts. Keep at it but don't panic if you bob up a bit it would only be natural. Losing weight is the most miserable thing and 4 stone is a huge amount, literally. Most people revert, sadly, once they have been on a diet so now the challenge is to find a mode of living and eating whereby you don't feel the need to eat in the way that you had done pre-weight loss.
Thanks, yeah. It has bobbed up and down over the past eight months, with the odd plateaus too, but the long-term trend has been one-way.
I think everyone is different and everyone needs to find something that works for them and they can sustain, which is why facile things like "just eat less and move more" is like saying to pilot a jet you just need to "decide where you want to go, go up in the air, then get there".
I've never been addicted to smoking or anything else, but I now think that battling your weight is kind of like battling an addiction. When I was eating carbs I would be very hungry and craving food not many hours after having eaten, which is caused by biology and how it affects some people.
Cutting out carbs, I no longer have the cravings, I very rarely get hungry and typically only eat because I know its time to eat and not because I'm "starving" and need to eat.
The danger is going to be if I reintroduce carbs and the cravings come back, but to be honest I don't really miss them anyway. My dad was a vegetarian for decades until he got diabetes (which is what motivated me to lose the weight) and he switched from eating a vegetarian diet to more protein/meat based (but not as extreme as me). I don't really miss carbs, besides sushi which I'll probably allow myself as a "cheat" from time to time once I'm looking to maintain my weight rather than lose anymore.
A colleague has been on and off ozempic equivalents (supply issues mainly) and hates it. He had it for diabetes, and it is brutally effective. It stops him eating. He has no appetite, gets really full quickly and cannot drink beer anymore. Result is rapid weight loss to the point where he will need to stop the drug because his BMI will be below 25.
I can see why people want to use this drug to lose weight. It works. But I also recall the old saying "if you only drink water and eat lettuce you won't live forever, but it will feel like it". For a lot of people eating is fun. Take that away and I suspect a lot of people will wonder if its worth it.
Except that is something you can adjust in your diet, too.
I'd recommend the Carbs and Cals series of recipe / cook books, and apps.
First came out of the need to help people with diabetes get to grips with carb counting (with iirc calorie counting as an add on), as most people are more visual than PBers doing arbitrage calculations in our heads, and have a range of useful recipes with details of ... carbs and cals. Another medical-adjacent product which I think came from a clinician who has created a second career.
Plus an ingredient reference photographed at different sizes, which is fun and establishes a visual link, and helps avoid "larger portions by stealth". Covers a lot of purchased foods, too.
You won't get on with everything, but it's a way to explore options. I have about 4 of them - the first one, salads, soups, world foods etc.
* I know that 60g is a fairly normal hegg because my school friend who competed with his dad in the Great Hegg Race was mortified that he could only find one 0.2g above the specified minimum weight, and it was about that weight.
He is definitely too old. But he shows no signs of dementia.
However, Trump does.
Careful, Leon is pretending that he is making a 'spreadsheet'
Absolutely Biden should be replaced but is anyone actually capable of defeating Trump?
Biden is the only candidate to have ever actually beaten Trump.
Trump is really unpopular - the DNC just seems to enjoy putting up more unpopular politicians against him. Anyone not named Hillary Clinton would have beaten Trump in 2016. Anyone not named Joe Biden could probably beat him easily now.
Lord Ashcroft focus group among past Tory voters in Newquay, Plymouth & NE Somerset - asked if leaders were sportsmen, who would they be:
Rishi Sunak? “Andy Murray. A bit dull and never fit to play;” “Wayne Rooney. Nice enough person but a hopeless manager;” “Most of the Man United squad, overpaid and underachieving;” “Is there a marbles championship? Maybe he’s good at marbles.”
i am greatly amused by Leon's account of the horrors of 2m seas.
In January I was evacuated along with the rest of the crew from the Ocean Great White semi-sub, West of Shetlands. 30m seas and 100 knot winds - though by the time we were evacuated it was down to a mere 17m seas and 70 knots. The waves ripped all the equipment off the bottom if the rig and dropped 1000 tons of riser onto the seafloor and right across the main gas export line.
Is it true that the North Sea is one of the roughest/most volatile? I'm sure I've read that somewhere, but I would be interested to hear first hand!
He is definitely too old. But he shows no signs of dementia.
However, Trump does.
How are you defining 'no signs of dementia"? Pretty clear signs to most observers.
I have considerable experience of dementia in our family and our friends and it is clear that, sadly, Biden is suffering from a form of dementia and as I said earlier this morning it is time for his wife and family to act in his and the US best interests and gently persuade him to accept he needs to move on and spend time with his family away from the spotlight
Um, if you are going to draft in a Biden replacement, wouldn't Jill Biden be an adequate replacement? Narratively it'd work, although the Dem upper echelon would hate it (so another plus there then... )
He is definitely too old. But he shows no signs of dementia.
However, Trump does.
Careful, Leon is pretending that he is making a 'spreadsheet'
Absolutely Biden should be replaced but is anyone actually capable of defeating Trump?
Biden is the only candidate to have ever actually beaten Trump.
Trump is really unpopular - the DNC just seems to enjoy putting up more unpopular politicians against him. Anyone not named Hillary Clinton would have beaten Trump in 2016. Anyone not named Joe Biden could probably beat him easily now.
But who? That is the point, who is this person?
I am not interested in some mythical person, I want an actual person.
If Gavin Newsom really wants and believes he is fully eqipped to become the next POTUS, he desparately needs to demonstrate the courage to stand up and say so ... NOW. Failing which, he doesn't deserve any further consideration. If he leaves it any longer, it will be too late and someone else will need to step up to the plate.
Sidestepping Kamala will play very badly. It needs to come from Kamala either standing herself or standing aside - in a way that doesn’t annoy black / women voters.
It’s a very tricky balance to strike but it’s why I think they will have to go for Kamala, unless Michelle is happy to go for it.
If we're doing fantasy Democratic candidates then I don't know why everyone is overlooking Oprah.
Mr. Chameleon, on the 'woman' angle: the only reason Hillary Clinton lost is because she screwed it up. A more sensible approach of spending time in battlegrounds rather than California and not describing voters as a basket of deplorables would've been enough. She got really close, even with those dumb calls.
Yet Biden didn't improve on Clinton's margin against Trump in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania more than he did nationally.
In fact:
National margin: Biden 2.4% better than Clinton Wisconsin (tipping point state both times) margin: Biden 1.4% better than Clinton
Arizona (11 ECV): Biden 4.78% better than Clinton and had it swung by National Margin then Trump would have won Arizona Georgia (16 ECV) Biden 4.18% better than Clinton and had it swung by the national margin the Trump would have won Georgia Michigan (16 ECV) Biden 3.35% better than Clinton
Biden campaigned more than Clinton in the swing states and got a bigger swing as a result in most of the swing states, winning some of them purely due to that fact.
So Clinton should have spent more time campaigning in Georgia?
Of course!
Less time in California and more time in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and all the other states she lost but Biden won.
Which is exactly what Biden did. And he won them.
My point is that the picture is a lot more mixed than people seem to realise. And at the time Clinton was criticised for not campaigning specifically in Wisconsin - which she didn't visit at all. I don't remember anyone saying she should have campaigned more in Georgia.
"Over the final 100 days of the election, Trump made a total of 133 visits to Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan and Wisconsin. Over the same time period, Hillary Clinton visited the first five of those states a total of 87 times. She never traveled to Wisconsin during the 102 days between the convention and the election."
Of those 6 states only in Michigan and North Carolina (marginally) did Biden have a better swing than nationally. In the other 4 his swing was worse than nationally, in some cases much worse.
spoiler: Florida figures prominently for BOTH candidates. California isn't mentioned for either.
Clinton wasn't a great candidate in 2016, but Biden wasn't actually much better in 2020. Trump lost the election by telling people to inject bleach to cure Covid.
Yes, all he had to do to get re-elected was not behave like a total dick during the pandemic. But he couldn't manage that. He had to be true to himself. I expect the same this time and the same result - unless we get the nightmare scenario of Biden insisting on running and then proving incapable of it. This must be avoided. I don't know exactly how but it really has to be.
i am greatly amused by Leon's account of the horrors of 2m seas.
In January I was evacuated along with the rest of the crew from the Ocean Great White semi-sub, West of Shetlands. 30m seas and 100 knot winds - though by the time we were evacuated it was down to a mere 17m seas and 70 knots. The waves ripped all the equipment off the bottom if the rig and dropped 1000 tons of riser onto the seafloor and right across the main gas export line.
i am greatly amused by Leon's account of the horrors of 2m seas.
In January I was evacuated along with the rest of the crew from the Ocean Great White semi-sub, West of Shetlands. 30m seas and 100 knot winds - though by the time we were evacuated it was down to a mere 17m seas and 70 knots. The waves ripped all the equipment off the bottom if the rig and dropped 1000 tons of riser onto the seafloor and right across the main gas export line.
Is it true that the North Sea is one of the roughest/most volatile? I'm sure I've read that somewhere, but I would be interested to hear first hand!
I believe the sea between Shetland and Foula is one of the roughest in the world (I flew over it to get to foula). They told me they have, on average, one calm day a year. Maybe they were pulling my leg? But when I went to the tiny harbour I saw a device for hauling the ferry boat entirely out of the sea in case of storms - a huge crane that held the boat aloft. IN THE HARBOUR
If you have to do that then you definitely have rough seas
If Gavin Newsom really wants and believes he is fully eqipped to become the next POTUS, he desparately needs to demonstrate the courage to stand up and say so ... NOW. Failing which, he doesn't deserve any further consideration. If he leaves it any longer, it will be too late and someone else will need to step up to the plate.
Sidestepping Kamala will play very badly. It needs to come from Kamala either standing herself or standing aside - in a way that doesn’t annoy black / women voters.
It’s a very tricky balance to strike but it’s why I think they will have to go for Kamala, unless Michelle is happy to go for it.
Kamala didn’t have much support among African American voters in the primary, and women voters care more about Dobbs and other issues than Kamala. The best ticket would likely be Newsom and Whitmer; two Dem governors, Newsom can bring in the cash, Whitmer is a great campaigner, and they’d kick Trump’s arse. They’d still be centrists - but I think they’d be more attack focussed on the GOP than Biden has been.
Still on elections, is there really this bias against independant candidates?
As an Independent Candidate I was unable to get access to the voters roll, and in particular to the Postal (Absent) Voters Roll until the day the election was called, and the day I had completed formal nomination forms and they were accepted.
Or so you would think. In reality, it took Perth and Kinross Council a further full week before I was supplied with this information… and it took a bit of a battle before they sent it to me.
This matters, because, unlike the parties (who have access to the previous GE/HE voters roll register – and they don’t change too much) – it gives the Independent Candidate almost no time to canvass, leaflet, or write to, Postal Voters prior to the postal votes being issued and then returned. (Postal vote forms were sent out on 19th, and counting of them starts, on 27th)
To be fair to Biden it could have been worse. A CNN poll had him losing 33% to 67% for Trump, which is actually better than the CNN poll in 2012 after the first debate for Obama, which CNN found Romney won with 67% to just 25% for Obama
Anyway onto the next big event which is Trump's sentencing for his Stormy Daniels hush money convictions in a fortnight. It is unlikely he will be jailed but not impossible given his complete absence of remorse and if he were to be jailed we would have one candidate clearly with dementia and the other candidate in a state jail before the conventions even begin!
He is definitely too old. But he shows no signs of dementia.
However, Trump does.
Careful, Leon is pretending that he is making a 'spreadsheet'
Absolutely Biden should be replaced but is anyone actually capable of defeating Trump?
Biden is the only candidate to have ever actually beaten Trump.
Trump is really unpopular - the DNC just seems to enjoy putting up more unpopular politicians against him. Anyone not named Hillary Clinton would have beaten Trump in 2016. Anyone not named Joe Biden could probably beat him easily now.
But who? That is the point, who is this person?
I am not interested in some mythical person, I want an actual person.
Newsom or Whitmer would probably be the establishment Dem choice, and probably the easiest to run. I’d personally prefer Whitmer as POTUS and Newsom as VP, but I think Newsom is the favourite for POTUS.
He is definitely too old. But he shows no signs of dementia.
However, Trump does.
Careful, Leon is pretending that he is making a 'spreadsheet'
Absolutely Biden should be replaced but is anyone actually capable of defeating Trump?
Biden is the only candidate to have ever actually beaten Trump.
Trump is really unpopular - the DNC just seems to enjoy putting up more unpopular politicians against him. Anyone not named Hillary Clinton would have beaten Trump in 2016. Anyone not named Joe Biden could probably beat him easily now.
They wouldn't, Hafrris for instance polls worse than Biden against Trump.
Of course if it wasn't for Hillary Clinton's ego, Biden would have been Democratic candidate in 2016 as Obama's VP, beaten Trump most likely and been re elected in 2020 probably as well.
This would be his final year in office and the Democrats would likely be nominating a younger candidate at their convention in August. The GOP candidate would almost certainly not be Trump, maybe even a dynamic centrist like one Nikki Haley!
He is definitely too old. But he shows no signs of dementia.
However, Trump does.
Careful, Leon is pretending that he is making a 'spreadsheet'
Absolutely Biden should be replaced but is anyone actually capable of defeating Trump?
Biden is the only candidate to have ever actually beaten Trump.
Trump is really unpopular - the DNC just seems to enjoy putting up more unpopular politicians against him. Anyone not named Hillary Clinton would have beaten Trump in 2016. Anyone not named Joe Biden could probably beat him easily now.
But who? That is the point, who is this person?
I am not interested in some mythical person, I want an actual person.
Newsom or Whitmer would probably be the establishment Dem choice, and probably the easiest to run. I’d personally prefer Whitmer as POTUS and Newsom as VP, but I think Newsom is the favourite for POTUS.
Thanks. And how do these people replace Biden or it's too late?
If Gavin Newsom really wants and believes he is fully eqipped to become the next POTUS, he desparately needs to demonstrate the courage to stand up and say so ... NOW. Failing which, he doesn't deserve any further consideration. If he leaves it any longer, it will be too late and someone else will need to step up to the plate.
Sidestepping Kamala will play very badly. It needs to come from Kamala either standing herself or standing aside - in a way that doesn’t annoy black / women voters.
It’s a very tricky balance to strike but it’s why I think they will have to go for Kamala, unless Michelle is happy to go for it.
Kamala didn’t have much support among African American voters in the primary, and women voters care more about Dobbs and other issues than Kamala. The best ticket would likely be Newsom and Whitmer; two Dem governors, Newsom can bring in the cash, Whitmer is a great campaigner, and they’d kick Trump’s arse. They’d still be centrists - but I think they’d be more attack focussed on the GOP than Biden has been.
Newsom is unelectable because of this:
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
Starting Jan. 1, all undocumented immigrants, regardless of age, will qualify for Medi-Cal, California's version of the federal Medicaid program for people with low incomes.
No offence to you but if this is being published in the Daily Telegraph Newspaper it says more about the paper. The discussion about the different types of love is as old as the average Reform member i.e. biblical
No, the discussion of different types of love isn't being discussed in the Telegraph. My post was my reaction to a headline in the Telegraph which used the word 'love' in a way which I found clunky. I didn't actually read the article which in any case I think was about something else entirely!
i am greatly amused by Leon's account of the horrors of 2m seas.
In January I was evacuated along with the rest of the crew from the Ocean Great White semi-sub, West of Shetlands. 30m seas and 100 knot winds - though by the time we were evacuated it was down to a mere 17m seas and 70 knots. The waves ripped all the equipment off the bottom if the rig and dropped 1000 tons of riser onto the seafloor and right across the main gas export line.
Is it true that the North Sea is one of the roughest/most volatile? I'm sure I've read that somewhere, but I would be interested to hear first hand!
I believe the sea between Shetland and Foula is one of the roughest in the world (I flew over it to get to foula). They told me they have, on average, one calm day a year. Maybe they were pulling my leg? But when I went to the tiny harbour I saw a device for hauling the ferry boat entirely out of the sea in case of storms - a huge crane that held the boat aloft. IN THE HARBOUR
If you have to do that then you definitely have rough seas
My father in law recounted that on many occasions on returning to his home port of Lossiemouth from fishing off the west coast of Scotland he would go astern, even with full power, at times in the Pentland Firth where the Atlantic meets the North Sea
However, the roughest seas are on the Southern Ocean and in particular Drake passage
Blue Wall frontline: These are Conservative-held seats where the Liberal Democrats are the primary challenger and can claim the seat on a swing of 10% or less.
Red Wall defences: These are those former Labour strongholds in the North, Midlands and Wales which the Conservatives infamously flipped (many for the first time) on election night of 2019.
Conservative/Leave redoubts: These are seats which have been solidly Conservative for at least the last four elections, and which all voted Leave to a greater extent that the national average in 2016.
Conservative/Strong Leave seats: These are Conservative seats which have previously been Labour, and where ‘Leave’ won over 65% of the vote in 2016.
Diverse battlegrounds: Local elections, indicated that Labour might see a backlash in those areas of the country with large Asian and Muslim populations, in response to its position on the conflict in Gaza. Meanwhile, there are several Conservative seats where the incumbent’s majority is under 30%, and the Asian population is above 20%.
Graduate-heavy seats: Recent elections have shown that education is now a key dividing line among British voters, with university graduates and those without a degree often having very different political preferences. These are seats which, despite having different levels of socioeconomic development and diversity, have high concentrations of graduates.
Labour breakthrough: These are Conservative-held seats in England where the incumbent has a majority of less than 30%, and Labour came second in 2019. However, Labour has not won the seat since 2005, or maybe ever.
Major change seats: On the back of the 2023 boundary reforms, some constituencies have undergone a huge degree of change, with some being broken up and reallocated between three or four new seats.
SNP/Labour battlegrounds: These are SNP-held seats where the incumbent has less than a 40% majority, and which Labour has held before. Labour is second in almost all these seats.
Traditional swing seats: These constituencies and their predecessors have traditionally been bellwethers.
Hmm, it's got Bassetlaw down as a "traditional swing seat". The last time it was Conservative prior to 2019 was 1924 !
They've also characterised Bolsover and Mansfield in that category. And ignored Ashfield entirely (B*st*rds !).
I heard some longer clips of Biden on Talk Radio (Not the friendliest of stations to centre-left politicians) and he definitely sounded better than the word salads that have been clipped up online.
A low bar, granted but I don't think there's enough there to oust him and then he can do a COMEBACK debate in September
I forgot about the debate and woke up to the PB Header and my heart sank.
Playing catch-up I read the PB comments and then watched the CNN highlights and Biden wasn't as bad as I'd feared, but this may be because I've thought for a long time that he isn't fit to be president due to dementia/age. If you were in denial of this then I suppose his performance in the debate would have been more of a shock.
Yes, sure, it’s theoretically possible that Channel 4 just *happened* to strike gold by finding a horrendous racist who just HAPPENS to be an actor who just HAPPENS to specialise in the same “rough voice” used in the undercover footage and just HAPPENS to be a Reform supporter.
Anyone who knows somebody with dementia as I do would not class Biden as having it.
There are several forms of dementia. They do not all have the same symptoms. My mother's partner had one of the less common ones and in its early stages it wasn't entirely dissimilar to how Biden is presenting.
Comments
Works by inhibiting the enzyme in your kidneys that recycles glucose back into your body so it gets sent to the bladder instead.
Result is kg a month gone despite craving for sugar since I went on it (and caving to it a little more often than I should).
Appears it puts you into keto and you burn visceral fat.
Which is a side effect. I was 17 stone when didgnosed and got down to 14 on hard work, self control and metformin.
Down to about 13.5 and only a couple of points away from BMI healthy weight status. Although that is a good few kilos.
It does have a less beneficial but thankfully rare side effect. Galloping cock rot due to sugar in the Urine causing gangrenous infection of the genitals.
It's definitely *possible* that *President* Harris will do better against Trump, especially with the fairly large numbers who are unhappy with both current candidates.
It seems that she doesn't have any influence at all which doesn't do her reputation any good either.
And it is indeed made. It's been made for quite some time tbf.
For Ashfield they have a RefUK win probability down from 85% to 64%.
The Leeanderthal Man is having a day away for 'family matters', or I'm sure he'd post it.
I wouldn't recommend my diet to everyone, but to anyone who's considering it I would say give it a try.
But you need to find something you enjoy that you can live with.
To be honest I enjoy meat, eggs, cheese etc more than other stuff anyway, so having that as my day to day food isn't something I regret or makes me think I'm missing out.
Find something that works for you.
Less time in California and more time in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and all the other states she lost but Biden won.
Which is exactly what Biden did. And he won them.
Unfortunately, Biden was even worse - totally incoherent and kept losing his way. Trump was there for the taking and could have been ripped apart by anybody reasonably bright, but Biden was clueless.
So, having defended Biden in the past, my view now is that he has to go. He'll lose, albeit against a terrible Republican candidate. It really doesn't matter what the cause of Biden's decline is - no point in trying to put a label on it. I'm more optimistic than some on here that Harris, of whoever else emerges, could still slaughter Trump, largely on the grounds that he's as mad as a box of frogs. But they need to get a move on.
Exclusive from @georgegrylls
Sir Keir Starmer will delay recognition of a Palestinian state under a Labour government because of fears it could undermine Britain's special relationship with the US
The Labour leader has promised to recognise Palestine as part of a wider push to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza and ultimately revive the peace process.
He is under pressure from the left of the party to quickly deliver on this promise, which some see as the correction of a historical wrong given Britain’s role in the creation of Israel.
His allies have argued that Labour should not rush into recognising a Palestinian state, since it would isolate Britain from its major allies and open up a dividing line with the US
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1806616813645558271
Tony Benn:
I have divided politicians into two categories: the Signposts and the Weathercocks.
The Signpost says: 'This is the way we should go.' And you don't have to follow them but if
you come back in ten years time the Signpost is still there.
The Weathercock hasn’t got an opinion until they've looked at the polls, talked to the focus groups, discussed it with the spin doctors.
And I've no time for Weathercocks, I'm a Signpost man.
And in fairness, although I disagreed with everything she did, Mrs Thatcher was a Signpost. She said what she meant. Meant what she said. Did what she said she’d do if you voted for her. So everybody who voted for her shared responsibility for what happened. And I think that we do need a few more Signposts and few fewer Weathercocks.
Horribly reminiscent of Marjorie Taylor Greene.
More lately I’ve been describing his seeming determination to run again as unethical if not immoral, given the jeopardy into which it places the US
I see Thomas Friedman - having written an apologia for Biden just a few months ago - has posted an article on the NYT where he describes watching the debate in tears and that Biden must go.
Anyone in the Democratic party who is younger than 55 should be agitating to kick all elected representatives over 70 out of their safe seats. We had RBG stay in post too long, and the Dems threw away a SCOTUS seat, we had Pelosi and Reid who did their jobs too long, and Schumer who can’t manage his own caucus; as well as Feinstein whose illness was holding up judicial nominees. Not only are these people failing in their jobs, but they’re not letting younger politicians gain skills they need to keep the party going. By hanging onto power they are dooming the US…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/27/nigel-farage-is-no-islamaphobe-he-loves-britons-of-all-race/
My complaint is this: the word 'love' is doing too much work in the world and needs splitting into two or three different words.
I'm sure I'm not alone in interpreting the word 'love' in one of two or three different senses: romantic love (as I feel for my wife); platonic love (as I feel for family and friends) and wild enthusiasm (as I feel for, for example, the music of the Pixies). Even this is too much work for one word to do, but having grown up in the English language I can quite happily interpret the meaning from the context.
But I'm quite sure Nigel Farage doesn't 'love' Britons of all races and religions in any of these senses. I certainly don't. It would be exhausting.
There is a fourth sense - which tends to be used by those without English as a first language and/or by religion, and sometimes by the far left, which means something like 'cheerful acceptance' - as in, love thy neighbour. That's the sense I assume the author of the piece above is using it. But this feels slightly jarring to secular Anglophones.
My understanding (and I am no expert) is that in the Greek that the Bible was translated from, there are actual several different words for what we call love: one meaning 'cheerful acceptance', one meaning romantic love, one meaning platonic love, one meaning wild enthusiasm. But because English didn't have separate words, the word 'love' has been called upon to do far too much work.
I am sure the injunction to love thy neighbour would be far more willingly embraced if we had a different verb closer to its intended meaning.
Any scholars of Greek (or indeed anyone else) are free to shoot any part of this down.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVpdZfbhqJ8 Green (Florence Green)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJP1tmven4g Labour (Rowenna Davis)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWF1sS3N0Pg Reform (Matthew Goodwin)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvy9FPVYSdk SDP (Rod Liddle)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KwvosRNmbM Not Reform* (Peter Hitchens)
* Peter Hitchens could not bring himself to say "vote Con"- Labour win 480 ish seats or something else ridiculous. Lib Dems squeak out 2nd party status. Tories 3rd on seats, only just behind.
- REFUK have a handful of seats on a decent vote share - enough to give Farage the power to say “Make me Tory leader, we’ll do a merger, and we can be the opposition. Otherwise the Tories are finished.” The desire to be the opposition party makes disgruntled Tories fall in line.
- Meanwhile Labour’s first few months are quite surprising - or unsurprising. They use their massive majority and end up basically junking half the manifesto, bringing in a whole swathe of initially unpopular tax reforms to get more money.
- This gives LOTO Farage a bounce in the polls as the Tories get to all say “we told you so about Labour’s taxes!” But time passes and it turns out the sky doesn’t fall in. Things like council tax reform are actually possible to sell with a large enough majority.
- A year later and Farage is bored of this. The reality dawns on him that 2029 is a long time away, and he might not even win then. Meanwhile there’s a ton of scandals with the Reform MPs that have joined the merged party. Some of the remaining moderate Tories think “Sod this” and join Davey’s Lib Dems - who now become the new opposition. Farage resigns, not wanting to be 3rd place, saying that the establishment have stitched him up, but he may be back someday. Someone like Suella takes over.
- The resurgent Lib Dems battle Labour on issues such as closer integration with the EU, which causes them to win by elections in former Labour strongholds. The strangeness of former Tories supporting this party is mitigated by the fact that they’re not avowedly ‘Pro Rejoin’ - they just want a better appears students are actually finally voting for the Lib Dems again! This spooks Labour, who can see their massive majority being vulnerable in 2029 - the Lib Dems attract enough support from the anti Labour vote across the board to suddenly look very strong.
- Overall, the government still has a decent amount of benefit of the doubt, being in the first couple of years of a new parliament. Problems lurk on the horizon in the longer term but for the most part people are content enough, and Starmer’s ‘boringness’ is actually a pleasant relief for many.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves
No offence to you but if this is being published in the Daily Telegraph Newspaper it says more about the paper. The discussion about the different types of love is as old as the average Reform member i.e. biblical
Rishi Sunak? “Andy Murray. A bit dull and never fit to play;” “Wayne Rooney. Nice enough person but a hopeless manager;” “Most of the Man United squad, overpaid and underachieving;” “Is there a marbles championship? Maybe he’s good at marbles.”
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2024/06/its-a-metaphor-for-the-whole-conservative-government-my-focus-groups-in-newquay-plymouth-and-ne-somerset/
The most selfish generation.
Apart from that I have no experience of it at all and I am obviously unable to see it in others
You know, sometimes I forgive you your inane commentary because you’re not very sharp. But occasionally I realise you’re not just a bit dim, you are also quite inadequate as a human being
Kind of hectoring and with a vague threat of lunacy.
That’s why she doesn’t poll well.
There may well be a misogynist or racist element to the dislike, but I don’t know anybody who wants her or thinks her a viable Prez candidate.
He is old.
Anyone who knows somebody with dementia as I do would not class Biden as having it.
https://www.upstreamonline.com/rigs-and-vessels/investigation-under-way-as-semisub-rig-unintentionally-drops-equipment/2-1-1594117?zephr_sso_ott=R0whr2
Who?! They need someone fast as we now all agree
A low bar, granted but I don't think there's enough there to oust him and then he can do a COMEBACK debate in September
However, Trump does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0a5SPJwGzA
Has to be one of the most damning comments made about any politician anywhere, like, ever!
Here's a typical post-election analysis from November 2016
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-out-campaigned-clinton-50-percent-key-battlegrounds-final-100-n683116
"Over the final 100 days of the election, Trump made a total of 133 visits to Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan and Wisconsin. Over the same time period, Hillary Clinton visited the first five of those states a total of 87 times. She never traveled to Wisconsin during the 102 days between the convention and the election."
Of those 6 states only in Michigan and North Carolina (marginally) did Biden have a better swing than nationally. In the other 4 his swing was worse than nationally, in some cases much worse.
Here's more info about which states the candidates in 2016 campaigned the most in and where they had rallies:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trumps-campaigns-numbers/story?id=43356783
spoiler: Florida figures prominently for BOTH candidates. California isn't mentioned for either.
Clinton wasn't a great candidate in 2016, but Biden wasn't actually much better in 2020. Trump lost the election by telling people to inject bleach to cure Covid.
There was a swimming pool on board. He reported that the waves *in the pool* were getting worrying at one point.
Like, why the fuck have they given me a stupid shitty van to drive around? And what is there to do in ushant in a stupid shitty van? From what I can see so far: nothing
Biden is the only candidate to have ever actually beaten Trump.
This makes sense of the 'love your enemies (and neighbour)' stuff. You don't have to like horrible people, rapists, tyrants whatever, or you neighbour. But you have to desire their good (eg by their turning their hearts to better things) in the divine scheme of things.
If there is a better way of interpreting this wicked world I don't know what it is.
Then I watched a bit of the debate and that stayed my hand! Suffice to say that I'm glad I've laid Trump rather than backed Biden so far (other than backing Biden sometime in 2021, but I traded that out when his odds started to come in).
Indeed, until fairly recently, Biden's USP was "popular enough to beat Trump, more so than the alternatives'. Events seem to have overtaken that.
I proffer this only in a spirit of "stupid times call for stupid ideas",
If only there were someone wildly popular, rich enough to fund a campaign and who was available from the end of the convention to election day.
https://twitter.com/Mr_John_Oxley/status/1806613326434037846
She does suffer from being a blank slate politically.
The US is utterly doomed if Trump wins.
I know we've had a dodgy set-up in the UK for a few years, but at least in
5987 we should be back to adults in the room politics, with a new government with a chance to change the countries direction.If he leaves it any longer, it will be too late and someone else will need to step up to the plate.
1. iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Florida as "normal" swing states; and
2. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia as states Donald Trump (in particular) might choose to win instead
Their actual campaigning seems pretty consistent
It's perfectly possibly someone else could take the fight to Trump - I mean you could just have a puppet replying to Trump - that's not true, that's a lie, that's not correct...
It’s a very tricky balance to strike but it’s why I think they will have to go for Kamala, unless Michelle is happy to go for it.
If the DNC were serious about winning they would pull Biden. (I mean if they were serious about winning they would never have run him in the first place…)
I was in southern Peru touring the Nazca lines. And staying in an unexpectedly swish hotel in the desert by the sea
At night there was a pretty serious earthquake - serious enough that it shook the swimming pool so violently the water was thrown out of the pool
However the hotel was built for earthquakes and all
the structures were fine. But then I thought: shit, we are by the coast = earthquake = tsunami
So I urgently called the concierge and I asked him
“We just had a big earthquake? Is there going to be a tsunami??”
He paused and said “I don’t know. That’s a good question. I will check”. So then he went away and checked - online? - and he called me back and he said: “No”
I'd recommend the Carbs and Cals series of recipe / cook books, and apps.
First came out of the need to help people with diabetes get to grips with carb counting (with iirc calorie counting as an add on), as most people are more visual than PBers doing arbitrage calculations in our heads, and have a range of useful recipes with details of ... carbs and cals. Another medical-adjacent product which I think came from a clinician who has created a second career.
Plus an ingredient reference photographed at different sizes, which is fun and establishes a visual link, and helps avoid "larger portions by stealth". Covers a lot of purchased foods, too.
You won't get on with everything, but it's a way to explore options. I have about 4 of them - the first one, salads, soups, world foods etc.
I'll use my photo today for the page from the general book about heggs *.
https://carbsandcals.com/
* I know that 60g is a fairly normal hegg because my school friend who competed with his dad in the Great Hegg Race was mortified that he could only find one 0.2g above the specified minimum weight, and it was about that weight.
I am not interested in some mythical person, I want an actual person.
boat aloft. IN THE HARBOUR
If you have to do that then you definitely have rough seas
As an Independent Candidate I was unable to get access to the voters roll, and in particular to the Postal (Absent) Voters Roll until the day the election was called, and the day I had completed formal nomination forms and they were accepted.
Or so you would think. In reality, it took Perth and Kinross Council a further full week before I was supplied with this information… and it took a bit of a battle before they sent it to me.
This matters, because, unlike the parties (who have access to the previous GE/HE voters roll register – and they don’t change too much) – it gives the Independent Candidate almost no time to canvass, leaflet, or write to, Postal Voters prior to the postal votes being issued and then returned. (Postal vote forms were sent out on 19th, and counting of them starts, on 27th)
If they go with Biden, they lose now I’m afraid.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/who-won-debate-polls-trump-biden-b2570405.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/polls-mitt-romney-wins-first-debate-against-barack-obama/
Anyway onto the next big event which is Trump's sentencing for his Stormy Daniels hush money convictions in a fortnight. It is unlikely he will be jailed but not impossible given his complete absence of remorse and if he were to be jailed we would have one candidate clearly with dementia and the other candidate in a state jail before the conventions even begin!
I cannot conclude in any way that Biden can be worse than Trump. But somehow the Americans have.
Of course if it wasn't for Hillary Clinton's ego, Biden would have been Democratic candidate in 2016 as Obama's VP, beaten Trump most likely and been re elected in 2020 probably as well.
This would be his final year in office and the Democrats would likely be nominating a younger candidate at their convention in August. The GOP candidate would almost certainly not be Trump, maybe even a dynamic centrist like one Nikki Haley!
California will welcome the new year by becoming the first state to offer health insurance for all undocumented immigrants.
Starting Jan. 1, all undocumented immigrants, regardless of age, will qualify for Medi-Cal, California's version of the federal Medicaid program for people with low incomes.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/california-1st-state-offer-health-insurance-undocumented-immigrants/story?id=105986377#:~:text=California will welcome the new,for people with low incomes.
However, the roughest seas are on the Southern Ocean and in particular Drake passage
I'm not very inclined to listen to this one.
Playing catch-up I read the PB comments and then watched the CNN highlights and Biden wasn't as bad as I'd feared, but this may be because I've thought for a long time that he isn't fit to be president due to dementia/age. If you were in denial of this then I suppose his performance in the debate would have been more of a shock.
Apparently the racist RefUK volunteer featured on Channel 4 last night is an actor
Whitmer maybe the only alternative who polls better there
The RefUK team are claiming he wasn't a volunteer at all
Everyone else is pointing out that volunteers also have day jobs...
@IsabelOakeshott
Yes, sure, it’s theoretically possible that Channel 4 just *happened* to strike gold by finding a horrendous racist who just HAPPENS to be an actor who just HAPPENS to specialise in the same “rough voice” used in the undercover footage and just HAPPENS to be a Reform supporter.