"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
"The GOP sources believe Biden's woes could leave Trump feeling free to pick a conservative firebrand such as Vance over lower-key top contenders such as North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum or Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)."
Axios
It makes sense to let Trump finalise his VP choice and only then change the Democrat ticket, leaving Trump with a toxic mess on the lower half of his ticket.
Terrible, at least IDS was re elected and can now reintroduce his death by dangerous cycling bill into Parliament as a private member's bill
Why? Why do we need new laws when existing laws will do. People get killed by reckless skiing but we don't have a specific law for that. In the case of motor cars it is a frequent event needing specific consideration, but in the case of cycling it is very rare indeed and current laws cope with it as they would do for skiing, football, rugby or even tiddly-winks.
Except they won't do which is precisely the point. Drivers and motorcyclists can be charged with death by dangerous driving or death by careless driving. Cyclists who kill pedestrians can be charged with neither despite increasing cases of it happening, only careless cycling or 'wanton or furious driving' which carries a much lower sentence than drivers can face if they kill. While jurors are reluctant to convict either of manslaughter.
There may also be a case for death by dangerous or reckless skiing too
Hmm, take your point having looked up the max penalty, although manslaughter should be an option. I don't know why juries won't convict if that is the case.
However on average 2 pedestrians are killed per year in the UK by bikes and we have no idea if they are at fault in those instances so it does seem over the top. I imagine there are similar numbers for reckless actions in football, rugby, hockey, roller skating, etc, etc. Where do you stop in passing new laws.
I would be interested to know if there is a law in the skiing countries re reckless skiing because I assume the numbers are huge in comparison. On average 100 people die skiing in Europe each year and I have seen some spectacularly reckless skiing in my time.
In France and Italy there is yes 'While in many countries, including the UK, skiing accidents are generally dealt with as civil matters, in some European countries, including France and Italy, this may not be the case, with accidents potentially resulting in criminal charges.
Joanne Brine, Partner at law firm JMW Solicitors, said: “While accidents on the slopes here in the UK would be dealt with as civil matters, most people are unaware that in some European countries – such as Italy, France and Austria, home to some of the world’s most popular ski resorts - skiing accidents can carry criminal penalties. Investigations are often carried out by the police, under the supervision of the public prosecutor.
“I once represented a young lady who had unfortunately had a minor accident while on holiday in France causing a collision on the slopes. While we’re not talking a custodial sentence, the incident did leave her having to navigate the French criminal courts and facing a criminal conviction, which could have cost her career since she was obliged to inform the General Medical Council. It caused a great deal of stress and was an incredibly worrying time for her. It certainly wasn’t the trip she had imagined.” https://www.jmw.co.uk/articles/accidents-abroad/bump-slopes-could-mean-criminal-charges-warns-leading-travel-lawyer
We'll know that the Conservatives are a political force again when they stop banging on about cyclists. The survival of IDS might be the most catastrophic result of the election.
Curiously Reform didn't make a big deal of it in their manifesto or campaign. I suspect that's because cycling rates were significantly higher in the 50s then they are now, so lots of rose tinted memories of meeting sweethearts and cycling down to the shop to fetch the groceries.
Some Reform voters would prefer an era pre motorway let alone cycle lane
"The GOP sources believe Biden's woes could leave Trump feeling free to pick a conservative firebrand such as Vance over lower-key top contenders such as North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum or Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)."
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
"The GOP sources believe Biden's woes could leave Trump feeling free to pick a conservative firebrand such as Vance over lower-key top contenders such as North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum or Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)."
Axios
It makes sense to let Trump finalise his VP choice and only then change the Democrat ticket, leaving Trump with a toxic mess on the lower half of his ticket.
... to go with the toxic mess on the top half of his ticket.
Terrible, at least IDS was re elected and can now reintroduce his death by dangerous cycling bill into Parliament as a private member's bill
Why? Why do we need new laws when existing laws will do. People get killed by reckless skiing but we don't have a specific law for that. In the case of motor cars it is a frequent event needing specific consideration, but in the case of cycling it is very rare indeed and current laws cope with it as they would do for skiing, football, rugby or even tiddly-winks.
Except they won't do which is precisely the point. Drivers and motorcyclists can be charged with death by dangerous driving or death by careless driving. Cyclists who kill pedestrians can be charged with neither despite increasing cases of it happening, only careless cycling or 'wanton or furious driving' which carries a much lower sentence than drivers can face if they kill. While jurors are reluctant to convict either of manslaughter.
There may also be a case for death by dangerous or reckless skiing too
Hmm, take your point having looked up the max penalty, although manslaughter should be an option. I don't know why juries won't convict if that is the case.
However on average 2 pedestrians are killed per year in the UK by bikes and we have no idea if they are at fault in those instances so it does seem over the top. I imagine there are similar numbers for reckless actions in football, rugby, hockey, roller skating, etc, etc. Where do you stop in passing new laws.
I would be interested to know if there is a law in the skiing countries re reckless skiing because I assume the numbers are huge in comparison. On average 100 people die skiing in Europe each year and I have seen some spectacularly reckless skiing in my time.
In France and Italy there is yes 'While in many countries, including the UK, skiing accidents are generally dealt with as civil matters, in some European countries, including France and Italy, this may not be the case, with accidents potentially resulting in criminal charges.
Joanne Brine, Partner at law firm JMW Solicitors, said: “While accidents on the slopes here in the UK would be dealt with as civil matters, most people are unaware that in some European countries – such as Italy, France and Austria, home to some of the world’s most popular ski resorts - skiing accidents can carry criminal penalties. Investigations are often carried out by the police, under the supervision of the public prosecutor.
“I once represented a young lady who had unfortunately had a minor accident while on holiday in France causing a collision on the slopes. While we’re not talking a custodial sentence, the incident did leave her having to navigate the French criminal courts and facing a criminal conviction, which could have cost her career since she was obliged to inform the General Medical Council. It caused a great deal of stress and was an incredibly worrying time for her. It certainly wasn’t the trip she had imagined.” https://www.jmw.co.uk/articles/accidents-abroad/bump-slopes-could-mean-criminal-charges-warns-leading-travel-lawyer
We'll know that the Conservatives are a political force again when they stop banging on about cyclists. The survival of IDS might be the most catastrophic result of the election.
Curiously Reform didn't make a big deal of it in their manifesto or campaign. I suspect that's because cycling rates were significantly higher in the 50s then they are now, so lots of rose tinted memories of meeting sweethearts and cycling down to the shop to fetch the groceries.
Some Reform voters would prefer an era pre motorway let alone cycle lane
Terrible, at least IDS was re elected and can now reintroduce his death by dangerous cycling bill into Parliament as a private member's bill
Why? Why do we need new laws when existing laws will do. People get killed by reckless skiing but we don't have a specific law for that. In the case of motor cars it is a frequent event needing specific consideration, but in the case of cycling it is very rare indeed and current laws cope with it as they would do for skiing, football, rugby or even tiddly-winks.
Except they won't do which is precisely the point. Drivers and motorcyclists can be charged with death by dangerous driving or death by careless driving. Cyclists who kill pedestrians can be charged with neither despite increasing cases of it happening, only careless cycling or 'wanton or furious driving' which carries a much lower sentence than drivers can face if they kill. While jurors are reluctant to convict either of manslaughter.
There may also be a case for death by dangerous or reckless skiing too
Hmm, take your point having looked up the max penalty, although manslaughter should be an option. I don't know why juries won't convict if that is the case.
However on average 2 pedestrians are killed per year in the UK by bikes and we have no idea if they are at fault in those instances so it does seem over the top. I imagine there are similar numbers for reckless actions in football, rugby, hockey, roller skating, etc, etc. Where do you stop in passing new laws.
I would be interested to know if there is a law in the skiing countries re reckless skiing because I assume the numbers are huge in comparison. On average 100 people die skiing in Europe each year and I have seen some spectacularly reckless skiing in my time.
In France and Italy there is yes 'While in many countries, including the UK, skiing accidents are generally dealt with as civil matters, in some European countries, including France and Italy, this may not be the case, with accidents potentially resulting in criminal charges.
Joanne Brine, Partner at law firm JMW Solicitors, said: “While accidents on the slopes here in the UK would be dealt with as civil matters, most people are unaware that in some European countries – such as Italy, France and Austria, home to some of the world’s most popular ski resorts - skiing accidents can carry criminal penalties. Investigations are often carried out by the police, under the supervision of the public prosecutor.
“I once represented a young lady who had unfortunately had a minor accident while on holiday in France causing a collision on the slopes. While we’re not talking a custodial sentence, the incident did leave her having to navigate the French criminal courts and facing a criminal conviction, which could have cost her career since she was obliged to inform the General Medical Council. It caused a great deal of stress and was an incredibly worrying time for her. It certainly wasn’t the trip she had imagined.” https://www.jmw.co.uk/articles/accidents-abroad/bump-slopes-could-mean-criminal-charges-warns-leading-travel-lawyer
We'll know that the Conservatives are a political force again when they stop banging on about cyclists. The survival of IDS might be the most catastrophic result of the election.
Curiously Reform didn't make a big deal of it in their manifesto or campaign. I suspect that's because cycling rates were significantly higher in the 50s then they are now, so lots of rose tinted memories of meeting sweethearts and cycling down to the shop to fetch the groceries.
Some Reform voters would prefer an era pre motorway let alone cycle lane
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
Terrible, at least IDS was re elected and can now reintroduce his death by dangerous cycling bill into Parliament as a private member's bill
Why? Why do we need new laws when existing laws will do. People get killed by reckless skiing but we don't have a specific law for that. In the case of motor cars it is a frequent event needing specific consideration, but in the case of cycling it is very rare indeed and current laws cope with it as they would do for skiing, football, rugby or even tiddly-winks.
Except they won't do which is precisely the point. Drivers and motorcyclists can be charged with death by dangerous driving or death by careless driving. Cyclists who kill pedestrians can be charged with neither despite increasing cases of it happening, only careless cycling or 'wanton or furious driving' which carries a much lower sentence than drivers can face if they kill. While jurors are reluctant to convict either of manslaughter.
There may also be a case for death by dangerous or reckless skiing too
Hmm, take your point having looked up the max penalty, although manslaughter should be an option. I don't know why juries won't convict if that is the case.
However on average 2 pedestrians are killed per year in the UK by bikes and we have no idea if they are at fault in those instances so it does seem over the top. I imagine there are similar numbers for reckless actions in football, rugby, hockey, roller skating, etc, etc. Where do you stop in passing new laws.
I would be interested to know if there is a law in the skiing countries re reckless skiing because I assume the numbers are huge in comparison. On average 100 people die skiing in Europe each year and I have seen some spectacularly reckless skiing in my time.
In France and Italy there is yes 'While in many countries, including the UK, skiing accidents are generally dealt with as civil matters, in some European countries, including France and Italy, this may not be the case, with accidents potentially resulting in criminal charges.
Joanne Brine, Partner at law firm JMW Solicitors, said: “While accidents on the slopes here in the UK would be dealt with as civil matters, most people are unaware that in some European countries – such as Italy, France and Austria, home to some of the world’s most popular ski resorts - skiing accidents can carry criminal penalties. Investigations are often carried out by the police, under the supervision of the public prosecutor.
“I once represented a young lady who had unfortunately had a minor accident while on holiday in France causing a collision on the slopes. While we’re not talking a custodial sentence, the incident did leave her having to navigate the French criminal courts and facing a criminal conviction, which could have cost her career since she was obliged to inform the General Medical Council. It caused a great deal of stress and was an incredibly worrying time for her. It certainly wasn’t the trip she had imagined.” https://www.jmw.co.uk/articles/accidents-abroad/bump-slopes-could-mean-criminal-charges-warns-leading-travel-lawyer
We'll know that the Conservatives are a political force again when they stop banging on about cyclists. The survival of IDS might be the most catastrophic result of the election.
Curiously Reform didn't make a big deal of it in their manifesto or campaign. I suspect that's because cycling rates were significantly higher in the 50s then they are now, so lots of rose tinted memories of meeting sweethearts and cycling down to the shop to fetch the groceries.
Some Reform voters would prefer an era pre motorway let alone cycle lane
Cycle lanes predate motorways; A roads in the 1930s were built with accompanying cycle infrastructure.
The vast majority of these incidents are minor and/or maintenance-related. But once the media have got it in for you, you get dragged through the mud every time.
This interesting article - we shall see plenty more - gives no account of why, in two trials, the defence called no expert evidence either medical or statistical. Until this is addressed all the other speculation falls away.
The assumption must be that the obvious explanation is, sadly, the correct one.
Maths upset her lawyers, because numbers are silly/weird?
The lawyers had two goes. By the second trial the 'free the Letby one' campaign was well under way. If (big if) in the second trial the defence - as it was completely free to do - had called a decent range of the experts now emerging to give expert evidence, and an acquittal had followed following the serious undermining of the prosecution case there is no serious doubt that the CCRC would have started taking an interest, as of course would the media.
None of this occurred. BTW, the defence will of course have made every effort along these lines in both trials. They could have 20 reports saying 'sorry, I can't give expert evidence that would assist - the facts are against you' and that data is confidential for ever. If only one report would have helped, they would have called that expert. They didn't.
IIRC the defence were not allowed to call these witnesses in the second trial. (Something to do with it being a re-trial, not a trial from scratch?). They also weren’t allowed any of their evidence in their appeal claim. The prosecution was allowed to alter their prosecution evidence though. Funny how that works...
As I said last time this was discussed - if Letby is innocent, this would not be the first time someone has been convicted of heinous crimes on little more than dodgy statistical evidence. It has happened in the UK & a very similar case happened in Belgium (IIRC).
I just don’t have the confidence in our criminal justice system to be able to state that because a court found her guilty we should believe that the verdict is sound, especially a verdict based on statistics and the medical evidence of a single expert witness.
We have seen that combination go wrong too many times before.
A few citations are needed. On one point, there was substantial corroboration of the medical/statistical evidence in the form of Letby's own notes.
Blaming yourself for the deaths of a succession of babies that were placed in your care doesn’t seem that psychologically unlikely.
Again, I don’t know whether Letby is guilty or innocent. I do know that very similar cases have wrongly convicted women in the past; cases driven by the testimony of very plausible expert witnesses in which the court system placed far too much faith.
This case stinks. Letby might also be guilty of killing babies. Both of these things can be true simultaneously.
Yes, her own notes seemed to be a fairly weak part of the prosecution's case.
It's not as if they said things like "I murdered another baby today", they were exactly the sort of anguished self-loathing I would expect from someone working on an under-staffed ward feeling immense pressure after a cluster of deaths had occurred.
How probative it is is a matter for the jury, but "I am evil, I did this" in its context is potentially corroboration for the jury to consider.
BTW, the more you read the appeal judgment, the more stark is the absence of expert evidence from the defence. This has only one explanation. (See para 5 of the judgment):
" though the defence instructed a number of expert witnesses of their own, and many reports were served from them before and during the trial, no expert evidence was called on the applicant's behalf."
"The GOP sources believe Biden's woes could leave Trump feeling free to pick a conservative firebrand such as Vance over lower-key top contenders such as North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum or Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)."
Axios
Why do GOP sources believe Trump wants to pick a conservative firebrand when their complaint for the past eight years has been that Trump is not a true Republican? Their fear should be that Trump will feel free to pick one of his own children if he thinks the White House is in the bag.
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
No sh!t, Sherlock, aided and abetted by the likes of the Wall St Journal, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC…
If the liberal media had been honest with their reporting for the past year, there would have been a contested primary season and the Democratic Party wouldn’t have got themselves into this mess in the first place.
Terrible, at least IDS was re elected and can now reintroduce his death by dangerous cycling bill into Parliament as a private member's bill
Why? Why do we need new laws when existing laws will do. People get killed by reckless skiing but we don't have a specific law for that. In the case of motor cars it is a frequent event needing specific consideration, but in the case of cycling it is very rare indeed and current laws cope with it as they would do for skiing, football, rugby or even tiddly-winks.
There are sections of the Highway Act 1835 still in force, so imo a date means little.
That alone is not sufficient imo. They don't seem to have any problem catching and prosecuting them, and more of them are imprisoned than those prosecuted under Death by Dangerous or Careless driving.
Terrible, at least IDS was re elected and can now reintroduce his death by dangerous cycling bill into Parliament as a private member's bill
I’ve cycled along many tow paths. I just can’t imagine doing the speed that would catapult someone you hit into the air. They are all mixed use.
I'd be interested in the physics that could send someone airborne from a cycling collision. What speed? How would you generate upwards force given your high centre if gravity?
I can imagine if the cyclist swerves to avoid, they are no longer vertical, and the bottom of their wheel takes out the pedestrian's legs, catapulting them. P'haps.
Hmm.
FWIW, I've had very nearly the same thing happen to me on a tow path. Rang my bell, there was apparent movement to the side, slowed down anyway due to the tightness of the path, just about braked in time when they moved back to the other side. I came off, but slowly into a hedge so all fine.
I don't think you'd need to travelling at any great speed at all to knock someone over given how much higher you are in the saddle.
I think the 'flying through the air' may be Daily Mail embroidery, so the debate needs to be about newspaper ethics, not Newtonian physics.
The witness statement seems to be knocked flat. A tragic accident, that probably could have been avoided by the cyclist. However it should be noted that a) hasn't fled the scene b) hasn't avoided a breath/blood alcohol test c) hasn't returned to the scene to berate / assault the injured party before fleeing again all not infrequent actions of motor vehicle drivers at fault in serious traffic incidents but which are so usual that the Mail doesn't report them
Terrible, at least IDS was re elected and can now reintroduce his death by dangerous cycling bill into Parliament as a private member's bill
I’ve cycled along many tow paths. I just can’t imagine doing the speed that would catapult someone you hit into the air. They are all mixed use.
I'd be interested in the physics that could send someone airborne from a cycling collision. What speed? How would you generate upwards force given your high centre if gravity?
I can imagine if the cyclist swerves to avoid, they are no longer vertical, and the bottom of their wheel takes out the pedestrian's legs, catapulting them. P'haps.
Reading it, it sounds like a typical inelastic collision so a simple momentum transfer gives some indication.
Assuming the mass of the bike is 10kg = 100N, the rider is 100kg = 1000N, the woman 55kg = 550n and that he was riding reasonably quickly (say 15mph = 7½ m/s) then the velocity of the woman after the collision would be
Not surprised you've already noticed the improvement. The grown-ups are back in charge now.
I thought the whole point of getting Starmer in was to get rid of the criminals and sociopaths.
Tony is neither a criminal nor a sociopath. What he is, is highly experienced, having run the best government of the last many decades.
What was your favoured part of Tony's Government?
The explosion of house prices?
The introduction of tuition fees?
The increase in national insurance?
If you're a pensioner who wanted to not pay tax and were free to call at 8am to get an NHS appointment whenever you wanted then Tony's government was great. If you were a young adult, or a child who'd grow into a young adult subsequently, then his legacy was utterly toxic.
Almost everything (besides masts) that you regularly complain about can be traced back to his government.
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
I also think it would give Harris a boost if Biden stepped graciously down and gave her his backing. All the ‘come at me if you think your tough enough’ stuff is just strategising West Wing bollocks.
Keeping Biden at top of the ticket is now madness.
It will not only give Trump 2.0 an easy win but quite probably hammer further down the ballot.
But looks like that is what is going to happen although the ragin' cajun thinks Biden will step down.
Trump wants Biden to step down, he knows Harris is very unpopular in the rustbelt and would give him a Reagan like landslide.
Whereas he knows Biden beat him there last time and the Dems would probably have to nominate Harris if Biden stepped down unless Michelle Obama could be persuaded, who is the only Dem candidate he really fears
"The GOP sources believe Biden's woes could leave Trump feeling free to pick a conservative firebrand such as Vance over lower-key top contenders such as North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum or Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)."
Axios
There was some Dem fundraiser person (an emigrant from Sheffield as it happens) on R4 this morning. She was a bit gushily dim but she did make a reasonable point that the Dems should hold off until Trump chooses his running mate. It would be some 3D chess patter if all the Biden tough guy bluster is a strategy to fool Trump into choosing another extremist idiot before he knew who he’d be facing, but it doesn’t feel like that.
The vast majority of these incidents are minor and/or maintenance-related. But once the media have got it in for you, you get dragged through the mud every time.
It happens to the most professional operators and the RAF.
That ASRAAM is a war shot with a a live warhead and seeker just to add to the gaiety of the occasion.
Not surprised you've already noticed the improvement. The grown-ups are back in charge now.
I thought the whole point of getting Starmer in was to get rid of the criminals and sociopaths.
Tony is neither a criminal nor a sociopath. What he is, is highly experienced, having run the best government of the last many decades.
What was your favoured part of Tony's Government?
The explosion of house prices?
The introduction of tuition fees?
The increase in national insurance?
If you're a pensioner who wanted to not pay tax and were free to call at 8am to get an NHS appointment whenever you wanted then Tony's government was great. If you were a young adult, or a child who'd grow into a young adult subsequently, then his legacy was utterly toxic.
Almost everything (besides masts) that you regularly complain about can be traced back to his government.
Why are you having a go at my posting on masts? It's an area I have experience and knowledge of, it's no more boring than listening to you talk about housing say.
Terrible, at least IDS was re elected and can now reintroduce his death by dangerous cycling bill into Parliament as a private member's bill
Why? Why do we need new laws when existing laws will do. People get killed by reckless skiing but we don't have a specific law for that. In the case of motor cars it is a frequent event needing specific consideration, but in the case of cycling it is very rare indeed and current laws cope with it as they would do for skiing, football, rugby or even tiddly-winks.
Except they won't do which is precisely the point. Drivers and motorcyclists can be charged with death by dangerous driving or death by careless driving. Cyclists who kill pedestrians can be charged with neither despite increasing cases of it happening, only careless cycling or 'wanton or furious driving' which carries a much lower sentence than drivers can face if they kill. While jurors are reluctant to convict either of manslaughter.
There may also be a case for death by dangerous or reckless skiing too
Hmm, take your point having looked up the max penalty, although manslaughter should be an option. I don't know why juries won't convict if that is the case.
However on average 2 pedestrians are killed per year in the UK by bikes and we have no idea if they are at fault in those instances so it does seem over the top. I imagine there are similar numbers for reckless actions in football, rugby, hockey, roller skating, etc, etc. Where do you stop in passing new laws.
I would be interested to know if there is a law in the skiing countries re reckless skiing because I assume the numbers are huge in comparison. On average 100 people die skiing in Europe each year and I have seen some spectacularly reckless skiing in my time.
In France and Italy there is yes 'While in many countries, including the UK, skiing accidents are generally dealt with as civil matters, in some European countries, including France and Italy, this may not be the case, with accidents potentially resulting in criminal charges.
Joanne Brine, Partner at law firm JMW Solicitors, said: “While accidents on the slopes here in the UK would be dealt with as civil matters, most people are unaware that in some European countries – such as Italy, France and Austria, home to some of the world’s most popular ski resorts - skiing accidents can carry criminal penalties. Investigations are often carried out by the police, under the supervision of the public prosecutor.
“I once represented a young lady who had unfortunately had a minor accident while on holiday in France causing a collision on the slopes. While we’re not talking a custodial sentence, the incident did leave her having to navigate the French criminal courts and facing a criminal conviction, which could have cost her career since she was obliged to inform the General Medical Council. It caused a great deal of stress and was an incredibly worrying time for her. It certainly wasn’t the trip she had imagined.” https://www.jmw.co.uk/articles/accidents-abroad/bump-slopes-could-mean-criminal-charges-warns-leading-travel-lawyer
Yes, in lots of incidents and accidents of all kinds in Italy, the opening of criminal proceedings is quite routine.
Thus the international outcry over the prosecution of the seismologists who'd commented on the earthquake swarmed around L'Aquila before the more destructive earthquake happened.
On topic - So we would assume the Welsh polls were right too? Because they were a horror show - heavily overstating Lab and understating PC.
The issue with the MRPs was simple. Garbage In Garbage Out. If you input VI suggesting a 16-21 point Lab lead then you will not get accurate results for a GE that ends with a 10-point Lab lead. Memories of the MRP will I think settle on the Survation and Savanta MRPs which were a mess but which anyone who has followed polls at all viewed with extreme scepticism. MIC and YouGov were far less wide of the mark. Using MRPs to predict individual constituencies is not what they claim to do and is not what they are useful for. If people use them for that purpose then on their own head be it.
The message of the MRPs was that Lab would win a landslide, the Cons and SNP would be hammered, the LDs would do well, Reform would win more than just Clacton. Terrible weren't they.
Not surprised you've already noticed the improvement. The grown-ups are back in charge now.
I thought the whole point of getting Starmer in was to get rid of the criminals and sociopaths.
Tony is neither a criminal nor a sociopath. What he is, is highly experienced, having run the best government of the last many decades.
What was your favoured part of Tony's Government?
The explosion of house prices?
The introduction of tuition fees?
The increase in national insurance?
If you're a pensioner who wanted to not pay tax and were free to call at 8am to get an NHS appointment whenever you wanted then Tony's government was great. If you were a young adult, or a child who'd grow into a young adult subsequently, then his legacy was utterly toxic.
Almost everything (besides masts) that you regularly complain about can be traced back to his government.
Why are you having a go at my posting on masts? It's an area I have experience and knowledge of, it's no more boring than listening to you talk about housing say.
The Sunderland story was a none story
The Blackpool story was the wrong place for the mast (as decided by both the planners at the council, the council itself and the planning inspectorate at appeal).
Not surprised you've already noticed the improvement. The grown-ups are back in charge now.
I thought the whole point of getting Starmer in was to get rid of the criminals and sociopaths.
Tony is neither a criminal nor a sociopath. What he is, is highly experienced, having run the best government of the last many decades.
What was your favoured part of Tony's Government?
The explosion of house prices?
The introduction of tuition fees?
The increase in national insurance?
If you're a pensioner who wanted to not pay tax and were free to call at 8am to get an NHS appointment whenever you wanted then Tony's government was great. If you were a young adult, or a child who'd grow into a young adult subsequently, then his legacy was utterly toxic.
Almost everything (besides masts) that you regularly complain about can be traced back to his government.
Why are you having a go at my posting on masts? It's an area I have experience and knowledge of, it's no more boring than listening to you talk about housing say.
I didn't.
I said that besides masts (which are not Tony's fault), almost everything you regularly get upset over like house prices, the treatment of the young versus the old etc, got much worse under Tony Blair.
Not surprised you've already noticed the improvement. The grown-ups are back in charge now.
I thought the whole point of getting Starmer in was to get rid of the criminals and sociopaths.
Tony is neither a criminal nor a sociopath. What he is, is highly experienced, having run the best government of the last many decades.
What was your favoured part of Tony's Government?
The explosion of house prices?
The introduction of tuition fees?
The increase in national insurance?
If you're a pensioner who wanted to not pay tax and were free to call at 8am to get an NHS appointment whenever you wanted then Tony's government was great. If you were a young adult, or a child who'd grow into a young adult subsequently, then his legacy was utterly toxic.
Almost everything (besides masts) that you regularly complain about can be traced back to his government.
Why are you having a go at my posting on masts? It's an area I have experience and knowledge of, it's no more boring than listening to you talk about housing say.
I didn't.
I said that besides masts (which are not Tony's fault), almost everything you regularly get upset over like house prices, the treatment of the young versus the old etc, got much worse under Tony Blair.
SureStart was a Labour policy destroyed by Osbourne from 2010 onwards..
You can talk about the treatment of the young being bad in the 2000's (I don't think it was) but there are multiple examples post 2010 to show the treatment of the young got way worse since 2010 while most of the old did very well out of it.
On topic - So we would assume the Welsh polls were right too? Because they were a horror show - heavily overstating Lab and understating PC.
The issue with the MRPs was simple. Garbage In Garbage Out. If you input VI suggesting a 16-21 point Lab lead then you will not get accurate results for a GE that ends with a 10-point Lab lead. Memories of the MRP will I think settle on the Survation and Savanta MRPs which were a mess but which anyone who has followed polls at all viewed with extreme scepticism. MIC and YouGov were far less wide of the mark. Using MRPs to predict individual constituencies is not what they claim to do and is not what they are useful for. If people use them for that purpose then on their own head be it.
The message of the MRPs was that Lab would win a landslide, the Cons and SNP would be hammered, the LDs would do well, Reform would win more than just Clacton. Terrible weren't they.
The exit poll had similar issues with predicting individual constituencies. They should have just reported the headline seat counts and then adjusted according to the early results.
As I predicted on election day or the day after, it looks like the Lichfield to Crewe bit of HS2 is going to be back on in short order.
"Rail minister appointment fuels hopes of HS2 revival Network Rail chief Lord Hendy is likely to be an advocate for extending the network"
"His appointment as rail minister may represent the best chance of saving elements of the scheme, including a link from the Midlands to Crewe that would allow full formations of HS2 trains to travel at top speed through to Manchester, leading figures in the sector said."
It will come down to whether Lord Hendy can gets things through the Department of Transport
But he's clueful enough to know how to get HS2 back on track and to kick off a number of quick win projects. For instance there are 60 miles of track that were they electrified opens up 2million track mile of freight a year shifting to electric...
In a highly competitive list cancelling HS2 was right up there for the Sunak government in terms of worst decisions.
You should be blaming the greed and incompetence that surrounded HS2 for a decade before Sunak became PM. Or even CoE.
I lot of the blame for the costs rests on the head of the former MP for Chesham and Amersham and look at the gratitude that waste of £10bn gold plating a set of tunnels did for the tory party (they lost the byelection).
The funny bit is that the air vents look worse and are way more visible than the original cutting would have looked like...
The bigger the project the greater the scope for excess spending when issues arise.
When a project is declared to be 'the biggest in Europe' the scope for excess spending becomes the biggest in Europe.
When a project is declared to be 'world beating' the scope for excess spending becomes world beating.
After a while the excess spending is deemed to be a good thing - the more that is spent means that the project becomes ever more 'biggest in Europe' or 'world beating'. Bigger is always deemed to be better.
The problem with these projects is that the moment you've signed the contract then the contractors hold you to ransom. The issue with a cutting is that it's a physical barrier, my uncle and aunt sold up in deepest Buckinghamshire because my uncle said that, rather than a 15 minute meander along country lanes to get to his friends on the other side of the route, it would become a 30 minute drive just to get to a crossing point.
This is especially so when government is involved and always so when its a government 'prestige project'.
The extra money is always paid and then used as a justification for supporting the project on a 'the bigger, the better' basis.
Yet that isn't the case elsewhere in Europe where High speed routes are being built for a fraction of the cost in the UK..
Now they are multiple reasons for that 1 of which is that companies in Europe know that work is continual so there is little risk of the project being cancelled once they start work on it.
That hasn't been the case in the UK for the past 12 years - hence additional risk costs are added into every project bid.
Comparing 'prestige' infrastructure spending between different countries is worthy of in depth research and discussion.
I expect we would discover that some countries are good at X and bad at Y with other countries the opposite. Perhaps for reasons which are intrinsic and impossible to change.
Which would suggest that countries should stick to what they are capable of doing well instead of incompetently and expensively trying to imitate what other countries do better.
For example its likely to be a lot easier and cheaper to build rail lines through the emptiness of Castille and Leon than through the Chiltern nimbys.
https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu has done lots of deep dives on UK civil engineering. It's exactly how you think it is.
I don't know his area of expertise but last night he commented on one of my areas and this is a beyond stupid take.
Sam Dumitriu @Sam_Dumitriu Digital ID (a good idea) is different to ID Cards (not a good idea).
Hint Digital ID has all the bad bits of an ID card without the physical benefit that it would confirm I am fullname here with the right to work in the UK with an ID number that matches the one in your system...
And my final point is - given that he talks crap on an area I know something about his other viewpoints are probably equally poor (being generous there by using poor when other words may be better).
But right to work checks are already going digital thanks to the eVisa system, which replaces physical BRP/BRCs from the end of this year.
A universal Digital ID in the UK is mainly scuppered because we don't actually have a canonical list of who is or isn't a UK citizen.
The Verify programme was probably the best possible substitute that we could hope to manage, but it failed for a variety of reasons including limited buy-in from some govt departments (HMRC and Home Office!), and changing priorities in the face of Brexit. Its replacement, One Login, is much more limited in scope.
The chances of the new govt pushing for anything beyond this in the near future are pretty slim (I hope!)
Tory unity latest: Anunziata Rees-Mogg tells attendees at a Popular Conservatism event in Westminster: “Don’t gloat about the colleagues we wanted to lose and lost.”
Note: Every single 'popular Conservative' candidate last week lost their seat, including Liz Truss.
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm in the same betting boat as you. If Trump wins, it will be my biggest betting loss ever - I laid Trump starting in May 2021 at 10s. Average is 7.7. Ouch. But a far bigger loss will be the impact on the US, on Ukraine, on Nato. Far bigger impact than a miserly £1K loss.
I have a net gain of £3.4K on my political betting over several years - so hardly an income. I'm betting with my winnings so I'm feeling blase about my potential financial loss, but not about the political impact of a Trump win.
Oh very much ditto. My loss as it stands would be a touch bigger but that is far from my main concern. Trump back as president would be just wrong on every level.
Not surprised you've already noticed the improvement. The grown-ups are back in charge now.
I thought the whole point of getting Starmer in was to get rid of the criminals and sociopaths.
Tony is neither a criminal nor a sociopath. What he is, is highly experienced, having run the best government of the last many decades.
What was your favoured part of Tony's Government?
The explosion of house prices?
The introduction of tuition fees?
The increase in national insurance?
If you're a pensioner who wanted to not pay tax and were free to call at 8am to get an NHS appointment whenever you wanted then Tony's government was great. If you were a young adult, or a child who'd grow into a young adult subsequently, then his legacy was utterly toxic.
Almost everything (besides masts) that you regularly complain about can be traced back to his government.
Why are you having a go at my posting on masts? It's an area I have experience and knowledge of, it's no more boring than listening to you talk about housing say.
I didn't.
I said that besides masts (which are not Tony's fault), almost everything you regularly get upset over like house prices, the treatment of the young versus the old etc, got much worse under Tony Blair.
SureStart was a Labour policy destroyed by Osbourne from 2010 onwards..
You can talk about the treatment of the young being bad in the 2000's (I don't think it was) but there are multiple examples post 2010 to show the treatment of the young got way worse since 2010 while most of the old did very well out of it.
Maybe if Labour had increased taxes on everyone at the same rate, instead of adding a 9% "graduate" tax onto young people, plus multiple national insurance increases on workers, while those on pensions or unearned incomes evaded both, then SureStart etc would have been affordable without a chronic deficit that Osborne had to close.
As I predicted on election day or the day after, it looks like the Lichfield to Crewe bit of HS2 is going to be back on in short order.
"Rail minister appointment fuels hopes of HS2 revival Network Rail chief Lord Hendy is likely to be an advocate for extending the network"
"His appointment as rail minister may represent the best chance of saving elements of the scheme, including a link from the Midlands to Crewe that would allow full formations of HS2 trains to travel at top speed through to Manchester, leading figures in the sector said."
It will come down to whether Lord Hendy can gets things through the Department of Transport
But he's clueful enough to know how to get HS2 back on track and to kick off a number of quick win projects. For instance there are 60 miles of track that were they electrified opens up 2million track mile of freight a year shifting to electric...
In a highly competitive list cancelling HS2 was right up there for the Sunak government in terms of worst decisions.
You should be blaming the greed and incompetence that surrounded HS2 for a decade before Sunak became PM. Or even CoE.
I lot of the blame for the costs rests on the head of the former MP for Chesham and Amersham and look at the gratitude that waste of £10bn gold plating a set of tunnels did for the tory party (they lost the byelection).
The funny bit is that the air vents look worse and are way more visible than the original cutting would have looked like...
The bigger the project the greater the scope for excess spending when issues arise.
When a project is declared to be 'the biggest in Europe' the scope for excess spending becomes the biggest in Europe.
When a project is declared to be 'world beating' the scope for excess spending becomes world beating.
After a while the excess spending is deemed to be a good thing - the more that is spent means that the project becomes ever more 'biggest in Europe' or 'world beating'. Bigger is always deemed to be better.
The problem with these projects is that the moment you've signed the contract then the contractors hold you to ransom. The issue with a cutting is that it's a physical barrier, my uncle and aunt sold up in deepest Buckinghamshire because my uncle said that, rather than a 15 minute meander along country lanes to get to his friends on the other side of the route, it would become a 30 minute drive just to get to a crossing point.
This is especially so when government is involved and always so when its a government 'prestige project'.
The extra money is always paid and then used as a justification for supporting the project on a 'the bigger, the better' basis.
Yet that isn't the case elsewhere in Europe where High speed routes are being built for a fraction of the cost in the UK..
Now they are multiple reasons for that 1 of which is that companies in Europe know that work is continual so there is little risk of the project being cancelled once they start work on it.
That hasn't been the case in the UK for the past 12 years - hence additional risk costs are added into every project bid.
Comparing 'prestige' infrastructure spending between different countries is worthy of in depth research and discussion.
I expect we would discover that some countries are good at X and bad at Y with other countries the opposite. Perhaps for reasons which are intrinsic and impossible to change.
Which would suggest that countries should stick to what they are capable of doing well instead of incompetently and expensively trying to imitate what other countries do better.
For example its likely to be a lot easier and cheaper to build rail lines through the emptiness of Castille and Leon than through the Chiltern nimbys.
https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu has done lots of deep dives on UK civil engineering. It's exactly how you think it is.
I don't know his area of expertise but last night he commented on one of my areas and this is a beyond stupid take.
Sam Dumitriu @Sam_Dumitriu Digital ID (a good idea) is different to ID Cards (not a good idea).
Hint Digital ID has all the bad bits of an ID card without the physical benefit that it would confirm I am fullname here with the right to work in the UK with an ID number that matches the one in your system...
And my final point is - given that he talks crap on an area I know something about his other viewpoints are probably equally poor (being generous there by using poor when other words may be better).
But right to work checks are already going digital thanks to the eVisa system, which replaces physical BRP/BRCs from the end of this year.
A universal Digital ID in the UK is mainly scuppered because we don't actually have a canonical list of who is or isn't a UK citizen.
The Verify programme was probably the best possible substitute that we could hope to manage, but it failed for a variety of reasons including limited buy-in from some govt departments (HMRC and Home Office!), and changing priorities in the face of Brexit. Its replacement, One Login, is much more limited in scope.
The chances of the new govt pushing for anything beyond this in the near future are pretty slim (I hope!)
I would note the flaw in that scheme is the existing one of how do you remotely verify a UK citizen who has not got a passport.... Round here that's a far bigger problem than you may think it is...
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
There are other recent pollsters with very different figures.
Most still show Harris doing worse than Biden v Trump
I can only find four polls since the debate comparing Harrs and Biden versus Trump.
Your JLP 3rd July Harris -11%, Biden -5% versus Trump IPSOS 2nd July Harris -1%, Biden -2% YouGov 1st July Harris -2%, Biden -2% CNN 30th June Harris -2%, Biden -6%
JLP looks to be a bit of an outlier. I wouldn't rely on it to support your case against Harris.
I know that, for whatever reason, you really don't like Harris. But be careful your emotion doesn't cloud your objectivity - particularly when it comes to betting.
Not surprised you've already noticed the improvement. The grown-ups are back in charge now.
I thought the whole point of getting Starmer in was to get rid of the criminals and sociopaths.
Tony is neither a criminal nor a sociopath. What he is, is highly experienced, having run the best government of the last many decades.
What was your favoured part of Tony's Government?
The explosion of house prices?
The introduction of tuition fees?
The increase in national insurance?
If you're a pensioner who wanted to not pay tax and were free to call at 8am to get an NHS appointment whenever you wanted then Tony's government was great. If you were a young adult, or a child who'd grow into a young adult subsequently, then his legacy was utterly toxic.
Almost everything (besides masts) that you regularly complain about can be traced back to his government.
Why are you having a go at my posting on masts? It's an area I have experience and knowledge of, it's no more boring than listening to you talk about housing say.
I didn't.
I said that besides masts (which are not Tony's fault), almost everything you regularly get upset over like house prices, the treatment of the young versus the old etc, got much worse under Tony Blair.
SureStart was a Labour policy destroyed by Osbourne from 2010 onwards..
You can talk about the treatment of the young being bad in the 2000's (I don't think it was) but there are multiple examples post 2010 to show the treatment of the young got way worse since 2010 while most of the old did very well out of it.
Maybe if Labour had increased taxes on everyone at the same rate, instead of adding a 9% "graduate" tax onto young people, plus multiple national insurance increases on workers, while those on pensions or unearned incomes evaded both, then SureStart etc would have been affordable without a chronic deficit that Osborne had to close.
Prior to 2010 most people had a chance of paying that "graduate tax" off, since then unless you earn £100k+ you may as well not bother trying...
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
As I predicted on election day or the day after, it looks like the Lichfield to Crewe bit of HS2 is going to be back on in short order.
"Rail minister appointment fuels hopes of HS2 revival Network Rail chief Lord Hendy is likely to be an advocate for extending the network"
"His appointment as rail minister may represent the best chance of saving elements of the scheme, including a link from the Midlands to Crewe that would allow full formations of HS2 trains to travel at top speed through to Manchester, leading figures in the sector said."
It will come down to whether Lord Hendy can gets things through the Department of Transport
But he's clueful enough to know how to get HS2 back on track and to kick off a number of quick win projects. For instance there are 60 miles of track that were they electrified opens up 2million track mile of freight a year shifting to electric...
In a highly competitive list cancelling HS2 was right up there for the Sunak government in terms of worst decisions.
You should be blaming the greed and incompetence that surrounded HS2 for a decade before Sunak became PM. Or even CoE.
I lot of the blame for the costs rests on the head of the former MP for Chesham and Amersham and look at the gratitude that waste of £10bn gold plating a set of tunnels did for the tory party (they lost the byelection).
The funny bit is that the air vents look worse and are way more visible than the original cutting would have looked like...
The bigger the project the greater the scope for excess spending when issues arise.
When a project is declared to be 'the biggest in Europe' the scope for excess spending becomes the biggest in Europe.
When a project is declared to be 'world beating' the scope for excess spending becomes world beating.
After a while the excess spending is deemed to be a good thing - the more that is spent means that the project becomes ever more 'biggest in Europe' or 'world beating'. Bigger is always deemed to be better.
The problem with these projects is that the moment you've signed the contract then the contractors hold you to ransom. The issue with a cutting is that it's a physical barrier, my uncle and aunt sold up in deepest Buckinghamshire because my uncle said that, rather than a 15 minute meander along country lanes to get to his friends on the other side of the route, it would become a 30 minute drive just to get to a crossing point.
This is especially so when government is involved and always so when its a government 'prestige project'.
The extra money is always paid and then used as a justification for supporting the project on a 'the bigger, the better' basis.
Yet that isn't the case elsewhere in Europe where High speed routes are being built for a fraction of the cost in the UK..
Now they are multiple reasons for that 1 of which is that companies in Europe know that work is continual so there is little risk of the project being cancelled once they start work on it.
That hasn't been the case in the UK for the past 12 years - hence additional risk costs are added into every project bid.
One of he lessons we might learn from the French is the system they use for planning and building their high speed lines (even though I still think HS2 is an enormous white elephant and waste of money).
In France the central Government will decided they needed a high speed line from, say, Paris to Marsaille (I use that example as it is the basis of an excellent paper describing exactly how their paning system worked on that line).
That decision is effectively the end of the central Government involvement in planning.
The relevant regions then decide on a 10-15km strip through which the line will run. This is based on regional issues such as national parcs etc.
Within that strip the departments then decide on a 3km strip through their department where the line will run based on more local requirements.
Finally the local commune decide on a 300m wide strip for the final route of the line with any issues between communes being decided by properly independent inspectors. As far as I can see it is not until this point that the local population have much of a say but at this point they do seem to have a lot more say in terms of avoiding (for example) ancient woodland or important local features. But legally they have to provide a viable final 300m wide route within that 3km strip.
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
I also think it would give Harris a boost if Biden stepped graciously down and gave her his backing. All the ‘come at me if you think your tough enough’ stuff is just strategising West Wing bollocks.
Keeping Biden at top of the ticket is now madness.
It will not only give Trump 2.0 an easy win but quite probably hammer further down the ballot.
But looks like that is what is going to happen although the ragin' cajun thinks Biden will step down.
Trump wants Biden to step down, he knows Harris is very unpopular in the rustbelt and would give him a Reagan like landslide.
Whereas he knows Biden beat him there last time and the Dems would probably have to nominate Harris if Biden stepped down unless Michelle Obama could be persuaded, who is the only Dem candidate he really fears
Trump beats Biden after the disastrous debate.
Anyone is now better equipped than Biden to beat Trump. Biden should be over already.
Sometimes I think you might be a secret Trump fanboi.
Not surprised you've already noticed the improvement. The grown-ups are back in charge now.
I thought the whole point of getting Starmer in was to get rid of the criminals and sociopaths.
Tony is neither a criminal nor a sociopath. What he is, is highly experienced, having run the best government of the last many decades.
What was your favoured part of Tony's Government?
The explosion of house prices?
The introduction of tuition fees?
The increase in national insurance?
If you're a pensioner who wanted to not pay tax and were free to call at 8am to get an NHS appointment whenever you wanted then Tony's government was great. If you were a young adult, or a child who'd grow into a young adult subsequently, then his legacy was utterly toxic.
Almost everything (besides masts) that you regularly complain about can be traced back to his government.
Why are you having a go at my posting on masts? It's an area I have experience and knowledge of, it's no more boring than listening to you talk about housing say.
I didn't.
I said that besides masts (which are not Tony's fault), almost everything you regularly get upset over like house prices, the treatment of the young versus the old etc, got much worse under Tony Blair.
SureStart was a Labour policy destroyed by Osbourne from 2010 onwards..
You can talk about the treatment of the young being bad in the 2000's (I don't think it was) but there are multiple examples post 2010 to show the treatment of the young got way worse since 2010 while most of the old did very well out of it.
Maybe if Labour had increased taxes on everyone at the same rate, instead of adding a 9% "graduate" tax onto young people, plus multiple national insurance increases on workers, while those on pensions or unearned incomes evaded both, then SureStart etc would have been affordable without a chronic deficit that Osborne had to close.
Prior to 2010 most people had a chance of paying that "graduate tax" off, since then unless you earn £100k+ you may as well not bother trying...
Unfortunately that's the nature of taxes, they're introduced as the thin end of the wedge then always get increased.
It is immoral to tax graduates at a higher rate than anyone else. If taxes need to go up, and ideally I think they should not, they should go up on everyone at the same rate equitably. Not 9% for some people and 0% for others.
As I predicted on election day or the day after, it looks like the Lichfield to Crewe bit of HS2 is going to be back on in short order.
"Rail minister appointment fuels hopes of HS2 revival Network Rail chief Lord Hendy is likely to be an advocate for extending the network"
"His appointment as rail minister may represent the best chance of saving elements of the scheme, including a link from the Midlands to Crewe that would allow full formations of HS2 trains to travel at top speed through to Manchester, leading figures in the sector said."
It will come down to whether Lord Hendy can gets things through the Department of Transport
But he's clueful enough to know how to get HS2 back on track and to kick off a number of quick win projects. For instance there are 60 miles of track that were they electrified opens up 2million track mile of freight a year shifting to electric...
In a highly competitive list cancelling HS2 was right up there for the Sunak government in terms of worst decisions.
You should be blaming the greed and incompetence that surrounded HS2 for a decade before Sunak became PM. Or even CoE.
I lot of the blame for the costs rests on the head of the former MP for Chesham and Amersham and look at the gratitude that waste of £10bn gold plating a set of tunnels did for the tory party (they lost the byelection).
The funny bit is that the air vents look worse and are way more visible than the original cutting would have looked like...
The bigger the project the greater the scope for excess spending when issues arise.
When a project is declared to be 'the biggest in Europe' the scope for excess spending becomes the biggest in Europe.
When a project is declared to be 'world beating' the scope for excess spending becomes world beating.
After a while the excess spending is deemed to be a good thing - the more that is spent means that the project becomes ever more 'biggest in Europe' or 'world beating'. Bigger is always deemed to be better.
The problem with these projects is that the moment you've signed the contract then the contractors hold you to ransom. The issue with a cutting is that it's a physical barrier, my uncle and aunt sold up in deepest Buckinghamshire because my uncle said that, rather than a 15 minute meander along country lanes to get to his friends on the other side of the route, it would become a 30 minute drive just to get to a crossing point.
This is especially so when government is involved and always so when its a government 'prestige project'.
The extra money is always paid and then used as a justification for supporting the project on a 'the bigger, the better' basis.
Yet that isn't the case elsewhere in Europe where High speed routes are being built for a fraction of the cost in the UK..
Now they are multiple reasons for that 1 of which is that companies in Europe know that work is continual so there is little risk of the project being cancelled once they start work on it.
That hasn't been the case in the UK for the past 12 years - hence additional risk costs are added into every project bid.
Comparing 'prestige' infrastructure spending between different countries is worthy of in depth research and discussion.
I expect we would discover that some countries are good at X and bad at Y with other countries the opposite. Perhaps for reasons which are intrinsic and impossible to change.
Which would suggest that countries should stick to what they are capable of doing well instead of incompetently and expensively trying to imitate what other countries do better.
For example its likely to be a lot easier and cheaper to build rail lines through the emptiness of Castille and Leon than through the Chiltern nimbys.
https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu has done lots of deep dives on UK civil engineering. It's exactly how you think it is.
I don't know his area of expertise but last night he commented on one of my areas and this is a beyond stupid take.
Sam Dumitriu @Sam_Dumitriu Digital ID (a good idea) is different to ID Cards (not a good idea).
Hint Digital ID has all the bad bits of an ID card without the physical benefit that it would confirm I am fullname here with the right to work in the UK with an ID number that matches the one in your system...
And my final point is - given that he talks crap on an area I know something about his other viewpoints are probably equally poor (being generous there by using poor when other words may be better).
But right to work checks are already going digital thanks to the eVisa system, which replaces physical BRP/BRCs from the end of this year.
A universal Digital ID in the UK is mainly scuppered because we don't actually have a canonical list of who is or isn't a UK citizen.
The Verify programme was probably the best possible substitute that we could hope to manage, but it failed for a variety of reasons including limited buy-in from some govt departments (HMRC and Home Office!), and changing priorities in the face of Brexit. Its replacement, One Login, is much more limited in scope.
The chances of the new govt pushing for anything beyond this in the near future are pretty slim (I hope!)
I would note the flaw in that scheme is the existing one of how do you remotely verify a UK citizen who has not got a passport.... Round here that's a far bigger problem than you may think it is...
Wasn’t that exactly what happened with many of the Windrush immigrants, that they had somehow lived in the country for 30 or 40 years without any formal ID at all?
Not surprised you've already noticed the improvement. The grown-ups are back in charge now.
I thought the whole point of getting Starmer in was to get rid of the criminals and sociopaths.
Tony is neither a criminal nor a sociopath. What he is, is highly experienced, having run the best government of the last many decades.
What was your favoured part of Tony's Government?
The explosion of house prices?
The introduction of tuition fees?
The increase in national insurance?
If you're a pensioner who wanted to not pay tax and were free to call at 8am to get an NHS appointment whenever you wanted then Tony's government was great. If you were a young adult, or a child who'd grow into a young adult subsequently, then his legacy was utterly toxic.
Almost everything (besides masts) that you regularly complain about can be traced back to his government.
Why are you having a go at my posting on masts? It's an area I have experience and knowledge of, it's no more boring than listening to you talk about housing say.
I didn't.
I said that besides masts (which are not Tony's fault), almost everything you regularly get upset over like house prices, the treatment of the young versus the old etc, got much worse under Tony Blair.
SureStart was a Labour policy destroyed by Osbourne from 2010 onwards..
You can talk about the treatment of the young being bad in the 2000's (I don't think it was) but there are multiple examples post 2010 to show the treatment of the young got way worse since 2010 while most of the old did very well out of it.
Maybe if Labour had increased taxes on everyone at the same rate, instead of adding a 9% "graduate" tax onto young people, plus multiple national insurance increases on workers, while those on pensions or unearned incomes evaded both, then SureStart etc would have been affordable without a chronic deficit that Osborne had to close.
Prior to 2010 most people had a chance of paying that "graduate tax" off, since then unless you earn £100k+ you may as well not bother trying...
Unfortunately that's the nature of taxes, they're introduced as the thin end of the wedge then always get increased.
It is immoral to tax graduates at a higher rate than anyone else. If taxes need to go up, and ideally I think they should not, they should go up on everyone at the same rate equitably. Not 9% for some people and 0% for others.
Devils advocate - they didn't need to go to university and the cost of that has to be paid by someone, surely it should be paid for by the people who benefited from it.
Not surprised you've already noticed the improvement. The grown-ups are back in charge now.
I thought the whole point of getting Starmer in was to get rid of the criminals and sociopaths.
Tony is neither a criminal nor a sociopath. What he is, is highly experienced, having run the best government of the last many decades.
What was your favoured part of Tony's Government?
The explosion of house prices?
The introduction of tuition fees?
The increase in national insurance?
If you're a pensioner who wanted to not pay tax and were free to call at 8am to get an NHS appointment whenever you wanted then Tony's government was great. If you were a young adult, or a child who'd grow into a young adult subsequently, then his legacy was utterly toxic.
Almost everything (besides masts) that you regularly complain about can be traced back to his government.
Why are you having a go at my posting on masts? It's an area I have experience and knowledge of, it's no more boring than listening to you talk about housing say.
The Sunderland story was a none story
The Blackpool story was the wrong place for the mast (as decided by both the planners at the council, the council itself and the planning inspectorate at appeal).
Dunno much about Blackpool but I am surprised they are struggling for somewhere high up to stick a transmitter
Scotland also has 25+ years of (somewhat) proportional representation at Holyrood and council level, making us experts at finely balanced tactical voting and an understanding of how effective it can be.
Not surprised you've already noticed the improvement. The grown-ups are back in charge now.
I thought the whole point of getting Starmer in was to get rid of the criminals and sociopaths.
Tony is neither a criminal nor a sociopath. What he is, is highly experienced, having run the best government of the last many decades.
What was your favoured part of Tony's Government?
The explosion of house prices?
The introduction of tuition fees?
The increase in national insurance?
If you're a pensioner who wanted to not pay tax and were free to call at 8am to get an NHS appointment whenever you wanted then Tony's government was great. If you were a young adult, or a child who'd grow into a young adult subsequently, then his legacy was utterly toxic.
Almost everything (besides masts) that you regularly complain about can be traced back to his government.
Why are you having a go at my posting on masts? It's an area I have experience and knowledge of, it's no more boring than listening to you talk about housing say.
The Sunderland story was a none story
The Blackpool story was the wrong place for the mast (as decided by both the planners at the council, the council itself and the planning inspectorate at appeal).
Dunno much about Blackpool but I am surprised they are struggling for somewhere high up to stick a transmitter
They aren't - it was either the owner of the property after extra bucks or the phone company being lazy...
Terrible, at least IDS was re elected and can now reintroduce his death by dangerous cycling bill into Parliament as a private member's bill
I’ve cycled along many tow paths. I just can’t imagine doing the speed that would catapult someone you hit into the air. They are all mixed use.
I'd be interested in the physics that could send someone airborne from a cycling collision. What speed? How would you generate upwards force given your high centre if gravity?
I can imagine if the cyclist swerves to avoid, they are no longer vertical, and the bottom of their wheel takes out the pedestrian's legs, catapulting them. P'haps.
Reading it, it sounds like a typical inelastic collision so a simple momentum transfer gives some indication.
Assuming the mass of the bike is 10kg = 100N, the rider is 100kg = 1000N, the woman 55kg = 550n and that he was riding reasonably quickly (say 15mph = 7½ m/s) then the velocity of the woman after the collision would be
(100 + 1000) / 550 * 7.5 = 15m/s or approx 30 mph
She might as well have been hit by a car.
15mph is v. fast for someone cycling on a towpath. That’s the maximum legal speed for e-bike assistance.
It would be unlikely they were going that quickly. I have seen the occasional eejit on the Oxford towpath going far too fast so I wouldn’t put it beyond the bounds of possibility but those individuals make up a tiny minority of towpath cyclists in my experience.
Terrible, at least IDS was re elected and can now reintroduce his death by dangerous cycling bill into Parliament as a private member's bill
I’ve cycled along many tow paths. I just can’t imagine doing the speed that would catapult someone you hit into the air. They are all mixed use.
I'd be interested in the physics that could send someone airborne from a cycling collision. What speed? How would you generate upwards force given your high centre if gravity?
I can imagine if the cyclist swerves to avoid, they are no longer vertical, and the bottom of their wheel takes out the pedestrian's legs, catapulting them. P'haps.
Reading it, it sounds like a typical inelastic collision so a simple momentum transfer gives some indication.
Assuming the mass of the bike is 10kg = 100N, the rider is 100kg = 1000N, the woman 55kg = 550n and that he was riding reasonably quickly (say 15mph = 7½ m/s) then the velocity of the woman after the collision would be
(100 + 1000) / 550 * 7.5 = 15m/s or approx 30 mph
She might as well have been hit by a car.
Using your own formula, the velocity of the women had she been hit by a car would be 500mph.
As I predicted on election day or the day after, it looks like the Lichfield to Crewe bit of HS2 is going to be back on in short order.
"Rail minister appointment fuels hopes of HS2 revival Network Rail chief Lord Hendy is likely to be an advocate for extending the network"
"His appointment as rail minister may represent the best chance of saving elements of the scheme, including a link from the Midlands to Crewe that would allow full formations of HS2 trains to travel at top speed through to Manchester, leading figures in the sector said."
It will come down to whether Lord Hendy can gets things through the Department of Transport
But he's clueful enough to know how to get HS2 back on track and to kick off a number of quick win projects. For instance there are 60 miles of track that were they electrified opens up 2million track mile of freight a year shifting to electric...
In a highly competitive list cancelling HS2 was right up there for the Sunak government in terms of worst decisions.
You should be blaming the greed and incompetence that surrounded HS2 for a decade before Sunak became PM. Or even CoE.
I lot of the blame for the costs rests on the head of the former MP for Chesham and Amersham and look at the gratitude that waste of £10bn gold plating a set of tunnels did for the tory party (they lost the byelection).
The funny bit is that the air vents look worse and are way more visible than the original cutting would have looked like...
The bigger the project the greater the scope for excess spending when issues arise.
When a project is declared to be 'the biggest in Europe' the scope for excess spending becomes the biggest in Europe.
When a project is declared to be 'world beating' the scope for excess spending becomes world beating.
After a while the excess spending is deemed to be a good thing - the more that is spent means that the project becomes ever more 'biggest in Europe' or 'world beating'. Bigger is always deemed to be better.
The problem with these projects is that the moment you've signed the contract then the contractors hold you to ransom. The issue with a cutting is that it's a physical barrier, my uncle and aunt sold up in deepest Buckinghamshire because my uncle said that, rather than a 15 minute meander along country lanes to get to his friends on the other side of the route, it would become a 30 minute drive just to get to a crossing point.
This is especially so when government is involved and always so when its a government 'prestige project'.
The extra money is always paid and then used as a justification for supporting the project on a 'the bigger, the better' basis.
Yet that isn't the case elsewhere in Europe where High speed routes are being built for a fraction of the cost in the UK..
Now they are multiple reasons for that 1 of which is that companies in Europe know that work is continual so there is little risk of the project being cancelled once they start work on it.
That hasn't been the case in the UK for the past 12 years - hence additional risk costs are added into every project bid.
Comparing 'prestige' infrastructure spending between different countries is worthy of in depth research and discussion.
I expect we would discover that some countries are good at X and bad at Y with other countries the opposite. Perhaps for reasons which are intrinsic and impossible to change.
Which would suggest that countries should stick to what they are capable of doing well instead of incompetently and expensively trying to imitate what other countries do better.
For example its likely to be a lot easier and cheaper to build rail lines through the emptiness of Castille and Leon than through the Chiltern nimbys.
https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu has done lots of deep dives on UK civil engineering. It's exactly how you think it is.
I don't know his area of expertise but last night he commented on one of my areas and this is a beyond stupid take.
Sam Dumitriu @Sam_Dumitriu Digital ID (a good idea) is different to ID Cards (not a good idea).
Hint Digital ID has all the bad bits of an ID card without the physical benefit that it would confirm I am fullname here with the right to work in the UK with an ID number that matches the one in your system...
And my final point is - given that he talks crap on an area I know something about his other viewpoints are probably equally poor (being generous there by using poor when other words may be better).
But right to work checks are already going digital thanks to the eVisa system, which replaces physical BRP/BRCs from the end of this year.
A universal Digital ID in the UK is mainly scuppered because we don't actually have a canonical list of who is or isn't a UK citizen.
The Verify programme was probably the best possible substitute that we could hope to manage, but it failed for a variety of reasons including limited buy-in from some govt departments (HMRC and Home Office!), and changing priorities in the face of Brexit. Its replacement, One Login, is much more limited in scope.
The chances of the new govt pushing for anything beyond this in the near future are pretty slim (I hope!)
I would note the flaw in that scheme is the existing one of how do you remotely verify a UK citizen who has not got a passport.... Round here that's a far bigger problem than you may think it is...
Wasn’t that exactly what happened with many of the Windrush immigrants, that they had somehow lived in the country for 30 or 40 years without any formal ID at all?
It's not exactly difficult if you don't go away abroad on holiday / fly anywhere.
I've only encountered the scale of the issue as Eek twin A helps at a particular scout pack and the difference between her world view and theirs (incredibly local) is remarkable. It's also the same at her guide pack (in a Durham pit village) where the long standing locals have a very different viewpoint to those who come in from Durham itself.
And a decision needs to be made soon on Thames Water.
I think given the recent displays by management, there's only one good option, and that's not a private sector solution. Government should step in before (as I predict) the regulator folds and bails out shareholders at the expense of bill payers.
Thames Water to tap investors for funds as it will run out of cash by next June https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jul/09/thames-water-funds-debt ..The slow-burn crisis at Thames Water stepped up in March, when it said shareholders – which include the pension funds USS and Omers – had U-turned on £500m of promised funding, claiming Ofwat had made the company “uninvestable”.
The Guardian has since revealed that Thames’s board approved a £150m dividend just hours before the announcement...
The Government (read: taxpayers) absolutely should not step in.
There's a perfectly viable private sector solution: bankruptcy.
The firm goes bankrupt. Shareholders and bondholders get wiped out. Assets get sold, to either the state or another firm for £1 to be ran as a going concern.
No reason to bailout those who've made bad investments.
I suspect that right now there are people in the City saying "but we must ensure that Britain is a safe place for foreign investors".
Perhaps more pertinently there are several million people in the Thames Water region drinking and shitting who won't be considerate enough to pause while a private sector solution is worked out. The entities that took out most of the £bns have long distanced themselves from the mess, there will be no other solution than state funding to rectify this because the private sector know that the govt can't allow several million people to go without water. So either it's left in private hands and they cream off a % of the govt funding or it becomes quasi-public run.
Not surprised you've already noticed the improvement. The grown-ups are back in charge now.
I thought the whole point of getting Starmer in was to get rid of the criminals and sociopaths.
Tony is neither a criminal nor a sociopath. What he is, is highly experienced, having run the best government of the last many decades.
What was your favoured part of Tony's Government?
The explosion of house prices?
The introduction of tuition fees?
The increase in national insurance?
If you're a pensioner who wanted to not pay tax and were free to call at 8am to get an NHS appointment whenever you wanted then Tony's government was great. If you were a young adult, or a child who'd grow into a young adult subsequently, then his legacy was utterly toxic.
Almost everything (besides masts) that you regularly complain about can be traced back to his government.
Why are you having a go at my posting on masts? It's an area I have experience and knowledge of, it's no more boring than listening to you talk about housing say.
I didn't.
I said that besides masts (which are not Tony's fault), almost everything you regularly get upset over like house prices, the treatment of the young versus the old etc, got much worse under Tony Blair.
SureStart was a Labour policy destroyed by Osbourne from 2010 onwards..
You can talk about the treatment of the young being bad in the 2000's (I don't think it was) but there are multiple examples post 2010 to show the treatment of the young got way worse since 2010 while most of the old did very well out of it.
Maybe if Labour had increased taxes on everyone at the same rate, instead of adding a 9% "graduate" tax onto young people, plus multiple national insurance increases on workers, while those on pensions or unearned incomes evaded both, then SureStart etc would have been affordable without a chronic deficit that Osborne had to close.
Prior to 2010 most people had a chance of paying that "graduate tax" off, since then unless you earn £100k+ you may as well not bother trying...
Unfortunately that's the nature of taxes, they're introduced as the thin end of the wedge then always get increased.
It is immoral to tax graduates at a higher rate than anyone else. If taxes need to go up, and ideally I think they should not, they should go up on everyone at the same rate equitably. Not 9% for some people and 0% for others.
Devils advocate - they didn't need to go to university and the cost of that has to be paid by someone, surely it should be paid for by the people who benefited from it.
If they're paying for it they should pay for it at a fixed rate not related to their income.
By tying it to their income its just another income tax, and income taxes should be the same equitably for all.
We could say the same for college until recently people didn't need to go to college either. Similarly for the NHS plenty of people make choices that mean they need treatment and so on and so forth.
The even more absurd argument is that only new graduates should pay taxes while past graduates shouldn't pay taxes because they went to university at a time when only a small elite could, but as it became more universal its become unaffordable. Funnily enough, we don't say that pensions when introduced were only for a year or two and most didn't live to get them, and now we have more pensioners they're unaffordable.
Not surprised you've already noticed the improvement. The grown-ups are back in charge now.
I thought the whole point of getting Starmer in was to get rid of the criminals and sociopaths.
Tony is neither a criminal nor a sociopath. What he is, is highly experienced, having run the best government of the last many decades.
What was your favoured part of Tony's Government?
The explosion of house prices?
The introduction of tuition fees?
The increase in national insurance?
If you're a pensioner who wanted to not pay tax and were free to call at 8am to get an NHS appointment whenever you wanted then Tony's government was great. If you were a young adult, or a child who'd grow into a young adult subsequently, then his legacy was utterly toxic.
Almost everything (besides masts) that you regularly complain about can be traced back to his government.
Why are you having a go at my posting on masts? It's an area I have experience and knowledge of, it's no more boring than listening to you talk about housing say.
I didn't.
I said that besides masts (which are not Tony's fault), almost everything you regularly get upset over like house prices, the treatment of the young versus the old etc, got much worse under Tony Blair.
SureStart was a Labour policy destroyed by Osbourne from 2010 onwards..
You can talk about the treatment of the young being bad in the 2000's (I don't think it was) but there are multiple examples post 2010 to show the treatment of the young got way worse since 2010 while most of the old did very well out of it.
Maybe if Labour had increased taxes on everyone at the same rate, instead of adding a 9% "graduate" tax onto young people, plus multiple national insurance increases on workers, while those on pensions or unearned incomes evaded both, then SureStart etc would have been affordable without a chronic deficit that Osborne had to close.
Prior to 2010 most people had a chance of paying that "graduate tax" off, since then unless you earn £100k+ you may as well not bother trying...
Unfortunately that's the nature of taxes, they're introduced as the thin end of the wedge then always get increased.
It is immoral to tax graduates at a higher rate than anyone else. If taxes need to go up, and ideally I think they should not, they should go up on everyone at the same rate equitably. Not 9% for some people and 0% for others.
Devils advocate - they didn't need to go to university and the cost of that has to be paid by someone, surely it should be paid for by the people who benefited from it.
Give everyone a lifetime education allowance of about 50-100 weeks post 18 tuition. Those who don't use it at 18 should be able to dip in and out to add skills part time alongside employment when it best suits them.
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
I also think it would give Harris a boost if Biden stepped graciously down and gave her his backing. All the ‘come at me if you think your tough enough’ stuff is just strategising West Wing bollocks.
Keeping Biden at top of the ticket is now madness.
It will not only give Trump 2.0 an easy win but quite probably hammer further down the ballot.
But looks like that is what is going to happen although the ragin' cajun thinks Biden will step down.
Trump wants Biden to step down, he knows Harris is very unpopular in the rustbelt and would give him a Reagan like landslide.
Whereas he knows Biden beat him there last time and the Dems would probably have to nominate Harris if Biden stepped down unless Michelle Obama could be persuaded, who is the only Dem candidate he really fears
Trump beats Biden after the disastrous debate.
Anyone is now better equipped than Biden to beat Trump. Biden should be over already.
Sometimes I think you might be a secret Trump fanboi.
Even Ipsos for example (a better poll for Harris), has Trump and Biden even but Trump leading Harris by 1%, Trump leading Newsom by 4% and Trump ahead of Whitmer by 5%.
Only Michelle Obama does any better than Biden, beating Trump by 11%
The vast majority of these incidents are minor and/or maintenance-related. But once the media have got it in for you, you get dragged through the mud every time.
It happens to the most professional operators and the RAF.
That ASRAAM is a war shot with a a live warhead and seeker just to add to the gaiety of the occasion.
Whoops, someone had a bad day.
If I were to guess, a small remote-controlled truck with an airbag on top, driven in somewhere under the fus just inboard of the broken wheel, that could lift it clear of the ground by inflating the bag?
"The GOP sources believe Biden's woes could leave Trump feeling free to pick a conservative firebrand such as Vance over lower-key top contenders such as North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum or Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)."
Axios
What they fail to note is that Trump was probably waiting to see whether he'd face Harris before picking a VP (likely in the next week). As it stands, he's probably going to have to choose without being entirely sure who he'll face in November.
And a decision needs to be made soon on Thames Water.
I think given the recent displays by management, there's only one good option, and that's not a private sector solution. Government should step in before (as I predict) the regulator folds and bails out shareholders at the expense of bill payers.
Thames Water to tap investors for funds as it will run out of cash by next June https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jul/09/thames-water-funds-debt ..The slow-burn crisis at Thames Water stepped up in March, when it said shareholders – which include the pension funds USS and Omers – had U-turned on £500m of promised funding, claiming Ofwat had made the company “uninvestable”.
The Guardian has since revealed that Thames’s board approved a £150m dividend just hours before the announcement...
The Government (read: taxpayers) absolutely should not step in.
There's a perfectly viable private sector solution: bankruptcy.
The firm goes bankrupt. Shareholders and bondholders get wiped out. Assets get sold, to either the state or another firm for £1 to be ran as a going concern.
No reason to bailout those who've made bad investments.
I suspect that right now there are people in the City saying "but we must ensure that Britain is a safe place for foreign investors".
Perhaps more pertinently there are several million people in the Thames Water region drinking and shitting who won't be considerate enough to pause while a private sector solution is worked out. The entities that took out most of the £bns have long distanced themselves from the mess, there will be no other solution than state funding to rectify this because the private sector know that the govt can't allow several million people to go without water. So either it's left in private hands and they cream off a % of the govt funding or it becomes quasi-public run.
That's not how the private sector works.
If the firm goes bankrupt then the operation of drinking and flushing etc can continue as a going concern even if the firm is bankrupt. Bankruptcy doesn't mean operations shut down overnight.
If they go bankrupt then operations get handed over and the going concern continues, we still have water treatment and sewage, but the bond holders and shareholders get wiped out or end up with a massive haircut. As they well deserve.
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
There are other recent pollsters with very different figures.
Most still show Harris doing worse than Biden v Trump
I can only find four polls since the debate comparing Harrs and Biden versus Trump.
Your JLP 3rd July Harris -11%, Biden -5% versus Trump IPSOS 2nd July Harris -1%, Biden -2% YouGov 1st July Harris -2%, Biden -2% CNN 30th June Harris -2%, Biden -6%
JLP looks to be a bit of an outlier. I wouldn't rely on it to support your case against Harris.
I know that, for whatever reason, you really don't like Harris. But be careful your emotion doesn't cloud your objectivity - particularly when it comes to betting.
Your Ipsos numbers are wrong for starters, so only the CNN poll has Harris doing better than Trump
Not surprised you've already noticed the improvement. The grown-ups are back in charge now.
I thought the whole point of getting Starmer in was to get rid of the criminals and sociopaths.
Tony is neither a criminal nor a sociopath. What he is, is highly experienced, having run the best government of the last many decades.
What was your favoured part of Tony's Government?
The explosion of house prices?
The introduction of tuition fees?
The increase in national insurance?
If you're a pensioner who wanted to not pay tax and were free to call at 8am to get an NHS appointment whenever you wanted then Tony's government was great. If you were a young adult, or a child who'd grow into a young adult subsequently, then his legacy was utterly toxic.
Almost everything (besides masts) that you regularly complain about can be traced back to his government.
Why are you having a go at my posting on masts? It's an area I have experience and knowledge of, it's no more boring than listening to you talk about housing say.
The Sunderland story was a none story
The Blackpool story was the wrong place for the mast (as decided by both the planners at the council, the council itself and the planning inspectorate at appeal).
It wasn't the "wrong place" though. The location was chosen because it provided the coverage the MNO needed. That is the baseline for why it was there.
They couldn't choose another location as it did not provide sufficient coverage. This is exactly the point I am making, objecting to these masts should be a thing of the past.
Terrible, at least IDS was re elected and can now reintroduce his death by dangerous cycling bill into Parliament as a private member's bill
I’ve cycled along many tow paths. I just can’t imagine doing the speed that would catapult someone you hit into the air. They are all mixed use.
I'd be interested in the physics that could send someone airborne from a cycling collision. What speed? How would you generate upwards force given your high centre if gravity?
I can imagine if the cyclist swerves to avoid, they are no longer vertical, and the bottom of their wheel takes out the pedestrian's legs, catapulting them. P'haps.
Reading it, it sounds like a typical inelastic collision so a simple momentum transfer gives some indication.
Assuming the mass of the bike is 10kg = 100N, the rider is 100kg = 1000N, the woman 55kg = 550n and that he was riding reasonably quickly (say 15mph = 7½ m/s) then the velocity of the woman after the collision would be
(100 + 1000) / 550 * 7.5 = 15m/s or approx 30 mph
She might as well have been hit by a car.
Well, no. Assuming a car weighs about 1000 kg, your calculation would imply that, had she been hit by a car, the velocity of the woman after the collision would be 300 mph. This is clearly absurd, which indicates that your calculation is incorrect.
Apart from equating newtons with kilograms, which makes no sense at all if the Earth's gravity isn't involved, you're making the incorrect assumption that all of the bike + rider's momentum is transferred to the woman. This can't happen because it would violate conservation of energy. In an inelastic collision, the rider + bike would continue to move in the same direction after the collision, albeit more slowly. Not all of the momentum would be transferred. This is more obvious if you imagine a car/pedestrian collision.
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
Those polls though are a snapshot of “now”. Of course they could stay like that for Harris v Trump but there is also a chance that if Harris is pushed forward, gets big airtime, national support, able to expand on her policies and personality those polls can shift.
I heard someone the other day say “nobody really knows more than one or two things about Harris”. She’s been quite invisible but if she comes to the fore and is sane, articulate, decent and balanced she could turn those polls about face against Trump, but because it hasn’t been tried the polls don’t reflect the possibilities.
If I was American I would vote for Biden over Trump or Michelle Obama or even Whitmer over Trump.
I would vote for Trump over Harris though, she is too woke and too left liberal for me
You probably represent a very limited demographic in the US, though. (And Michelle O is also probably far more 'woke', whatever that means to you, than is Harris.)
And a decision needs to be made soon on Thames Water.
I think given the recent displays by management, there's only one good option, and that's not a private sector solution. Government should step in before (as I predict) the regulator folds and bails out shareholders at the expense of bill payers.
Thames Water to tap investors for funds as it will run out of cash by next June https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jul/09/thames-water-funds-debt ..The slow-burn crisis at Thames Water stepped up in March, when it said shareholders – which include the pension funds USS and Omers – had U-turned on £500m of promised funding, claiming Ofwat had made the company “uninvestable”.
The Guardian has since revealed that Thames’s board approved a £150m dividend just hours before the announcement...
The Government (read: taxpayers) absolutely should not step in.
There's a perfectly viable private sector solution: bankruptcy.
The firm goes bankrupt. Shareholders and bondholders get wiped out. Assets get sold, to either the state or another firm for £1 to be ran as a going concern.
No reason to bailout those who've made bad investments.
I suspect that right now there are people in the City saying "but we must ensure that Britain is a safe place for foreign investors".
Perhaps more pertinently there are several million people in the Thames Water region drinking and shitting who won't be considerate enough to pause while a private sector solution is worked out. The entities that took out most of the £bns have long distanced themselves from the mess, there will be no other solution than state funding to rectify this because the private sector know that the govt can't allow several million people to go without water. So either it's left in private hands and they cream off a % of the govt funding or it becomes quasi-public run.
That's not how the private sector works.
If the firm goes bankrupt then the operation of drinking and flushing etc can continue as a going concern even if the firm is bankrupt. Bankruptcy doesn't mean operations shut down overnight.
If they go bankrupt then operations get handed over and the going concern continues, we still have water treatment and sewage, but the bond holders and shareholders get wiped out or end up with a massive haircut. As they well deserve.
Are you talking about water companies or universities?
They both deserve the same treatment, should either live or die on the basis of the product they sell, and if the management screw up the shareholders get wiped out.
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
There are other recent pollsters with very different figures.
Most still show Harris doing worse than Biden v Trump
I'll remind you for the umpteenth time that you're comparing a hypothetical with an actual. You're the polling guru - tell me how realistic such a comparison is likely to be.
Terrible, at least IDS was re elected and can now reintroduce his death by dangerous cycling bill into Parliament as a private member's bill
I’ve cycled along many tow paths. I just can’t imagine doing the speed that would catapult someone you hit into the air. They are all mixed use.
I'd be interested in the physics that could send someone airborne from a cycling collision. What speed? How would you generate upwards force given your high centre if gravity?
I can imagine if the cyclist swerves to avoid, they are no longer vertical, and the bottom of their wheel takes out the pedestrian's legs, catapulting them. P'haps.
Reading it, it sounds like a typical inelastic collision so a simple momentum transfer gives some indication.
Assuming the mass of the bike is 10kg = 100N, the rider is 100kg = 1000N, the woman 55kg = 550n and that he was riding reasonably quickly (say 15mph = 7½ m/s) then the velocity of the woman after the collision would be
(100 + 1000) / 550 * 7.5 = 15m/s or approx 30 mph
She might as well have been hit by a car.
Using your own formula, the velocity of the women had she been hit by a car would be 500mph.
So not quite "might as well have".
This is why car impacts are so deadly, but if it makes you happier, to acquire a velocity of 15m/s is equivalent to falling 11m or about twice the height of the average house.
[Edit: I should also add that for a car, a 30mph collision does not result in a complete momentum transfer due to the huge disparity in mass between a car and a pedestrian. In the bike case, people are of comparable masses and enough to make the bike's weight near negligible. So the 500mph thing you reference does not happen]
As I predicted on election day or the day after, it looks like the Lichfield to Crewe bit of HS2 is going to be back on in short order.
"Rail minister appointment fuels hopes of HS2 revival Network Rail chief Lord Hendy is likely to be an advocate for extending the network"
"His appointment as rail minister may represent the best chance of saving elements of the scheme, including a link from the Midlands to Crewe that would allow full formations of HS2 trains to travel at top speed through to Manchester, leading figures in the sector said."
It will come down to whether Lord Hendy can gets things through the Department of Transport
But he's clueful enough to know how to get HS2 back on track and to kick off a number of quick win projects. For instance there are 60 miles of track that were they electrified opens up 2million track mile of freight a year shifting to electric...
In a highly competitive list cancelling HS2 was right up there for the Sunak government in terms of worst decisions.
You should be blaming the greed and incompetence that surrounded HS2 for a decade before Sunak became PM. Or even CoE.
I lot of the blame for the costs rests on the head of the former MP for Chesham and Amersham and look at the gratitude that waste of £10bn gold plating a set of tunnels did for the tory party (they lost the byelection).
The funny bit is that the air vents look worse and are way more visible than the original cutting would have looked like...
The bigger the project the greater the scope for excess spending when issues arise.
When a project is declared to be 'the biggest in Europe' the scope for excess spending becomes the biggest in Europe.
When a project is declared to be 'world beating' the scope for excess spending becomes world beating.
After a while the excess spending is deemed to be a good thing - the more that is spent means that the project becomes ever more 'biggest in Europe' or 'world beating'. Bigger is always deemed to be better.
The problem with these projects is that the moment you've signed the contract then the contractors hold you to ransom. The issue with a cutting is that it's a physical barrier, my uncle and aunt sold up in deepest Buckinghamshire because my uncle said that, rather than a 15 minute meander along country lanes to get to his friends on the other side of the route, it would become a 30 minute drive just to get to a crossing point.
This is especially so when government is involved and always so when its a government 'prestige project'.
The extra money is always paid and then used as a justification for supporting the project on a 'the bigger, the better' basis.
Yet that isn't the case elsewhere in Europe where High speed routes are being built for a fraction of the cost in the UK..
Now they are multiple reasons for that 1 of which is that companies in Europe know that work is continual so there is little risk of the project being cancelled once they start work on it.
That hasn't been the case in the UK for the past 12 years - hence additional risk costs are added into every project bid.
Comparing 'prestige' infrastructure spending between different countries is worthy of in depth research and discussion.
I expect we would discover that some countries are good at X and bad at Y with other countries the opposite. Perhaps for reasons which are intrinsic and impossible to change.
Which would suggest that countries should stick to what they are capable of doing well instead of incompetently and expensively trying to imitate what other countries do better.
For example its likely to be a lot easier and cheaper to build rail lines through the emptiness of Castille and Leon than through the Chiltern nimbys.
https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu has done lots of deep dives on UK civil engineering. It's exactly how you think it is.
I don't know his area of expertise but last night he commented on one of my areas and this is a beyond stupid take.
Sam Dumitriu @Sam_Dumitriu Digital ID (a good idea) is different to ID Cards (not a good idea).
Hint Digital ID has all the bad bits of an ID card without the physical benefit that it would confirm I am fullname here with the right to work in the UK with an ID number that matches the one in your system...
And my final point is - given that he talks crap on an area I know something about his other viewpoints are probably equally poor (being generous there by using poor when other words may be better).
But right to work checks are already going digital thanks to the eVisa system, which replaces physical BRP/BRCs from the end of this year.
A universal Digital ID in the UK is mainly scuppered because we don't actually have a canonical list of who is or isn't a UK citizen.
The Verify programme was probably the best possible substitute that we could hope to manage, but it failed for a variety of reasons including limited buy-in from some govt departments (HMRC and Home Office!), and changing priorities in the face of Brexit. Its replacement, One Login, is much more limited in scope.
The chances of the new govt pushing for anything beyond this in the near future are pretty slim (I hope!)
I would note the flaw in that scheme is the existing one of how do you remotely verify a UK citizen who has not got a passport.... Round here that's a far bigger problem than you may think it is...
Anecdata: when my employer was taken over by a global megacorp, I could not prove my right to work. In the end, the megacorp decided it could assume my bona fides had been checked already and TUPE'd across.
Anecdata: when my employer sent me to do various certifications, one vendor refused to accept my expired passport as proof of ID, even though no foreign travel was needed to take the exam for a fairly worthless certificate.
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
There are other recent pollsters with very different figures.
Most still show Harris doing worse than Biden v Trump
I'll remind you for the umpteenth time that you're comparing a hypothetical with an actual. You're the polling guru - tell me how realistic such a comparison is likely to be.
Normally pretty accurate, as was the 2019 hypothetical with Boris beating Corbyn, as was the 1990 hypothetical with Major beating Kinnock unlike Thatcher. As was the 2020 hypothetical with Starmer doing best of Labour leadership contenders.
As was the 2020 hypothetical with Biden beating Trump
The vast majority of these incidents are minor and/or maintenance-related. But once the media have got it in for you, you get dragged through the mud every time.
It happens to the most professional operators and the RAF.
That ASRAAM is a war shot with a a live warhead and seeker just to add to the gaiety of the occasion.
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
There are other recent pollsters with very different figures.
Most still show Harris doing worse than Biden v Trump
I can only find four polls since the debate comparing Harrs and Biden versus Trump.
Your JLP 3rd July Harris -11%, Biden -5% versus Trump IPSOS 2nd July Harris -1%, Biden -2% YouGov 1st July Harris -2%, Biden -2% CNN 30th June Harris -2%, Biden -6%
JLP looks to be a bit of an outlier. I wouldn't rely on it to support your case against Harris.
I know that, for whatever reason, you really don't like Harris. But be careful your emotion doesn't cloud your objectivity - particularly when it comes to betting.
Your Ipsos numbers are wrong for starters, so only the CNN poll has Harris doing better than Trump
Where we do agree, I think, it that Michelle is best placed to beat Trump. I'd like to eavesdrop on the discussions which surely are going on between Joe, Jill, Michelle and Barak.
Terrible, at least IDS was re elected and can now reintroduce his death by dangerous cycling bill into Parliament as a private member's bill
I’ve cycled along many tow paths. I just can’t imagine doing the speed that would catapult someone you hit into the air. They are all mixed use.
I'd be interested in the physics that could send someone airborne from a cycling collision. What speed? How would you generate upwards force given your high centre if gravity?
I can imagine if the cyclist swerves to avoid, they are no longer vertical, and the bottom of their wheel takes out the pedestrian's legs, catapulting them. P'haps.
Reading it, it sounds like a typical inelastic collision so a simple momentum transfer gives some indication.
Assuming the mass of the bike is 10kg = 100N, the rider is 100kg = 1000N, the woman 55kg = 550n and that he was riding reasonably quickly (say 15mph = 7½ m/s) then the velocity of the woman after the collision would be
(100 + 1000) / 550 * 7.5 = 15m/s or approx 30 mph
She might as well have been hit by a car.
15mph is v. fast for someone cycling on a towpath. That’s the maximum legal speed for e-bike assistance.
It would be unlikely they were going that quickly. I have seen the occasional eejit on the Oxford towpath going far too fast so I wouldn’t put it beyond the bounds of possibility but those individuals make up a tiny minority of towpath cyclists in my experience.
Mmm, 15mph seemed like a very high figure to me too. On the other hand the number of cyclists who actually knock somebody over, let alone kill them, is also a tiny minority. If it was 15mph then I would expect that to feature in the prosecution case as clearly excessive, but the Mail doesn't mention speed. Might just be crap reporting, of course..
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
There are other recent pollsters with very different figures.
Most still show Harris doing worse than Biden v Trump
I can only find four polls since the debate comparing Harrs and Biden versus Trump.
Your JLP 3rd July Harris -11%, Biden -5% versus Trump IPSOS 2nd July Harris -1%, Biden -2% YouGov 1st July Harris -2%, Biden -2% CNN 30th June Harris -2%, Biden -6%
JLP looks to be a bit of an outlier. I wouldn't rely on it to support your case against Harris.
I know that, for whatever reason, you really don't like Harris. But be careful your emotion doesn't cloud your objectivity - particularly when it comes to betting.
Your Ipsos numbers are wrong for starters, so only the CNN poll has Harris doing better than Trump
Where we do agree, I think, it that Michelle is best placed to beat Trump. I'd like to eavesdrop on the discussions which surely are going on between Joe, Jill, Michelle and Barak.
I do agree on that but absent Michelle O agreeing to run (in which case I think Biden would agree to step down) he stays in regardless
Not surprised you've already noticed the improvement. The grown-ups are back in charge now.
I thought the whole point of getting Starmer in was to get rid of the criminals and sociopaths.
Tony is neither a criminal nor a sociopath. What he is, is highly experienced, having run the best government of the last many decades.
What was your favoured part of Tony's Government?
The explosion of house prices?
The introduction of tuition fees?
The increase in national insurance?
If you're a pensioner who wanted to not pay tax and were free to call at 8am to get an NHS appointment whenever you wanted then Tony's government was great. If you were a young adult, or a child who'd grow into a young adult subsequently, then his legacy was utterly toxic.
Almost everything (besides masts) that you regularly complain about can be traced back to his government.
Why are you having a go at my posting on masts? It's an area I have experience and knowledge of, it's no more boring than listening to you talk about housing say.
The Sunderland story was a none story
The Blackpool story was the wrong place for the mast (as decided by both the planners at the council, the council itself and the planning inspectorate at appeal).
It wasn't the "wrong place" though. The location was chosen because it provided the coverage the MNO needed. That is the baseline for why it was there.
They couldn't choose another location as it did not provide sufficient coverage. This is exactly the point I am making, objecting to these masts should be a thing of the past.
So you need to build 2 masts rather than 1 - tough get on with both applications.
I have zero sympathy for the issue - given the way your industry has been trying to improve reception on the M6 by putting a mast up that would be visible from 20 miles away on a prime part of the Yorkshire Dales. Being blunt all I see is people who are lazy and don't want to spend money doing things appropriately...
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
There are other recent pollsters with very different figures.
Most still show Harris doing worse than Biden v Trump
I'll remind you for the umpteenth time that you're comparing a hypothetical with an actual. You're the polling guru - tell me how realistic such a comparison is likely to be.
Normally pretty accurate, as was the 2019 hypothetical with Boris beating Corbyn, as was the 1990 hypothetical with Major beating Kinnock unlike Thatcher. As was the 2020 hypothetical with Starmer doing best of Labour leadership contenders.
As was the 2020 hypothetical with Biden beating Trump
Those are not the same kind of hypothetical versus actual, obviously.
You're comparing a declared candidate for the presidency - with all that implies - against someone who isn't a candidate for the presidency.
The vast majority of these incidents are minor and/or maintenance-related. But once the media have got it in for you, you get dragged through the mud every time.
It happens to the most professional operators and the RAF.
That ASRAAM is a war shot with a a live warhead and seeker just to add to the gaiety of the occasion.
Why is there a big grin on the Typhoon's face ?
Because if you run it off the end of a carrier without first removing all the red bits, your plane goes swimming instead of flying.
Prof John Ashton, a former public health director, became exercised about Letby’s trial before it was finished. He had blown the whistle on a cluster of baby and maternal deaths at the Morecambe Bay hospitals when he was regional director of public health for the north-west of England. His direct experience, with the Morecambe Bay scandal, is that human instinct drives people to look for someone or something to blame, but the root causes are often more complicated and numerous.
It's almost been forgotten that the complete opposite happened in this case. That's not to say that proves Letby is guilty, but I think we can discount the possibility that she was scapegoated.
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
There are other recent pollsters with very different figures.
Most still show Harris doing worse than Biden v Trump
I can only find four polls since the debate comparing Harrs and Biden versus Trump.
Your JLP 3rd July Harris -11%, Biden -5% versus Trump IPSOS 2nd July Harris -1%, Biden -2% YouGov 1st July Harris -2%, Biden -2% CNN 30th June Harris -2%, Biden -6%
JLP looks to be a bit of an outlier. I wouldn't rely on it to support your case against Harris.
I know that, for whatever reason, you really don't like Harris. But be careful your emotion doesn't cloud your objectivity - particularly when it comes to betting.
Your Ipsos numbers are wrong for starters, so only the CNN poll has Harris doing better than Trump
Where we do agree, I think, it that Michelle is best placed to beat Trump. I'd like to eavesdrop on the discussions which surely are going on between Joe, Jill, Michelle and Barak.
I do agree on that but absent Michelle O agreeing to run (in which case I think Biden would agree to step down) he stays in regardless
It looks that way. I think it needs a decisive shortfall in the polls and an agreement to stand from Michelle to dislodge Biden. I've thought that all along.
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
There are other recent pollsters with very different figures.
Most still show Harris doing worse than Biden v Trump
I can only find four polls since the debate comparing Harrs and Biden versus Trump.
Your JLP 3rd July Harris -11%, Biden -5% versus Trump IPSOS 2nd July Harris -1%, Biden -2% YouGov 1st July Harris -2%, Biden -2% CNN 30th June Harris -2%, Biden -6%
JLP looks to be a bit of an outlier. I wouldn't rely on it to support your case against Harris.
I know that, for whatever reason, you really don't like Harris. But be careful your emotion doesn't cloud your objectivity - particularly when it comes to betting.
Your Ipsos numbers are wrong for starters, so only the CNN poll has Harris doing better than Trump
Where we do agree, I think, it that Michelle is best placed to beat Trump. I'd like to eavesdrop on the discussions which surely are going on between Joe, Jill, Michelle and Barak.
I do agree on that but absent Michelle O agreeing to run (in which case I think Biden would agree to step down) he stays in regardless
I also can't see why Michelle O would want to be President - she shows zero interesting in having a political career unlike Hilary.
As for any polls that place her ahead - it's wishcasting that will disappear as soon as her name was on the ballot.
Terrible, at least IDS was re elected and can now reintroduce his death by dangerous cycling bill into Parliament as a private member's bill
I’ve cycled along many tow paths. I just can’t imagine doing the speed that would catapult someone you hit into the air. They are all mixed use.
I'd be interested in the physics that could send someone airborne from a cycling collision. What speed? How would you generate upwards force given your high centre if gravity?
I can imagine if the cyclist swerves to avoid, they are no longer vertical, and the bottom of their wheel takes out the pedestrian's legs, catapulting them. P'haps.
Reading it, it sounds like a typical inelastic collision so a simple momentum transfer gives some indication.
Assuming the mass of the bike is 10kg = 100N, the rider is 100kg = 1000N, the woman 55kg = 550n and that he was riding reasonably quickly (say 15mph = 7½ m/s) then the velocity of the woman after the collision would be
(100 + 1000) / 550 * 7.5 = 15m/s or approx 30 mph
She might as well have been hit by a car.
15mph is v. fast for someone cycling on a towpath. That’s the maximum legal speed for e-bike assistance.
It would be unlikely they were going that quickly. I have seen the occasional eejit on the Oxford towpath going far too fast so I wouldn’t put it beyond the bounds of possibility but those individuals make up a tiny minority of towpath cyclists in my experience.
Mmm, 15mph seemed like a very high figure to me too. On the other hand the number of cyclists who actually knock somebody over, let alone kill them, is also a tiny minority. If it was 15mph then I would expect that to feature in the prosecution case as clearly excessive, but the Mail doesn't mention speed. Might just be crap reporting, of course..
Thankfully the roads in the UK are pretty safe and the number of drivers and the number of cyclists who actually knock anyone over, let alone kill them, is a tiny minority either way.
Interestingly, proportionately per vehicle/bike per mile, it seems that cycles and cars are about exactly as dangerous as each other to pedestrians. I'm not sure why that is considering vehicles are heavier you'd think they'd be more dangerous but they're not? Perhaps because cyclists are more likely to ride on the pavement so increasing the risk to pedestrians.
The vast majority of these incidents are minor and/or maintenance-related. But once the media have got it in for you, you get dragged through the mud every time.
It happens to the most professional operators and the RAF.
That ASRAAM is a war shot with a a live warhead and seeker just to add to the gaiety of the occasion.
Whoops, someone had a bad day.
If I were to guess, a small remote-controlled truck with an airbag on top, driven in somewhere under the fus just inboard of the broken wheel, that could lift it clear of the ground by inflating the bag?
Is that wing bent, or just the normal washout toward the tip?
Luke Tryl generously giving good advice to social conservatives.
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1810576343941128529 Leave aside the substance for a minute and it’s interesting to look at why Braverman’s speech fails three key tests the Tories should look for in a new leader. 1. They should speak in language intelligible to people who aren’t involved in highly political debates...
Also I'm eating cold roast chicken, ripe Cavaillon melon, and sipping chilled rose wine, as I gaze over the Luberon, and my flint knapping is done for the day. So all I have to do is loaf about, maybe have a siesta, go look at a church in the lavender fields, then drink Bandol
As I predicted on election day or the day after, it looks like the Lichfield to Crewe bit of HS2 is going to be back on in short order.
"Rail minister appointment fuels hopes of HS2 revival Network Rail chief Lord Hendy is likely to be an advocate for extending the network"
"His appointment as rail minister may represent the best chance of saving elements of the scheme, including a link from the Midlands to Crewe that would allow full formations of HS2 trains to travel at top speed through to Manchester, leading figures in the sector said."
It will come down to whether Lord Hendy can gets things through the Department of Transport
But he's clueful enough to know how to get HS2 back on track and to kick off a number of quick win projects. For instance there are 60 miles of track that were they electrified opens up 2million track mile of freight a year shifting to electric...
In a highly competitive list cancelling HS2 was right up there for the Sunak government in terms of worst decisions.
You should be blaming the greed and incompetence that surrounded HS2 for a decade before Sunak became PM. Or even CoE.
I lot of the blame for the costs rests on the head of the former MP for Chesham and Amersham and look at the gratitude that waste of £10bn gold plating a set of tunnels did for the tory party (they lost the byelection).
The funny bit is that the air vents look worse and are way more visible than the original cutting would have looked like...
The bigger the project the greater the scope for excess spending when issues arise.
When a project is declared to be 'the biggest in Europe' the scope for excess spending becomes the biggest in Europe.
When a project is declared to be 'world beating' the scope for excess spending becomes world beating.
After a while the excess spending is deemed to be a good thing - the more that is spent means that the project becomes ever more 'biggest in Europe' or 'world beating'. Bigger is always deemed to be better.
The problem with these projects is that the moment you've signed the contract then the contractors hold you to ransom. The issue with a cutting is that it's a physical barrier, my uncle and aunt sold up in deepest Buckinghamshire because my uncle said that, rather than a 15 minute meander along country lanes to get to his friends on the other side of the route, it would become a 30 minute drive just to get to a crossing point.
This is especially so when government is involved and always so when its a government 'prestige project'.
The extra money is always paid and then used as a justification for supporting the project on a 'the bigger, the better' basis.
Yet that isn't the case elsewhere in Europe where High speed routes are being built for a fraction of the cost in the UK..
Now they are multiple reasons for that 1 of which is that companies in Europe know that work is continual so there is little risk of the project being cancelled once they start work on it.
That hasn't been the case in the UK for the past 12 years - hence additional risk costs are added into every project bid.
Comparing 'prestige' infrastructure spending between different countries is worthy of in depth research and discussion.
I expect we would discover that some countries are good at X and bad at Y with other countries the opposite. Perhaps for reasons which are intrinsic and impossible to change.
Which would suggest that countries should stick to what they are capable of doing well instead of incompetently and expensively trying to imitate what other countries do better.
For example its likely to be a lot easier and cheaper to build rail lines through the emptiness of Castille and Leon than through the Chiltern nimbys.
https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu has done lots of deep dives on UK civil engineering. It's exactly how you think it is.
I don't know his area of expertise but last night he commented on one of my areas and this is a beyond stupid take.
Sam Dumitriu @Sam_Dumitriu Digital ID (a good idea) is different to ID Cards (not a good idea).
Hint Digital ID has all the bad bits of an ID card without the physical benefit that it would confirm I am fullname here with the right to work in the UK with an ID number that matches the one in your system...
And my final point is - given that he talks crap on an area I know something about his other viewpoints are probably equally poor (being generous there by using poor when other words may be better).
But right to work checks are already going digital thanks to the eVisa system, which replaces physical BRP/BRCs from the end of this year.
A universal Digital ID in the UK is mainly scuppered because we don't actually have a canonical list of who is or isn't a UK citizen.
The Verify programme was probably the best possible substitute that we could hope to manage, but it failed for a variety of reasons including limited buy-in from some govt departments (HMRC and Home Office!), and changing priorities in the face of Brexit. Its replacement, One Login, is much more limited in scope.
The chances of the new govt pushing for anything beyond this in the near future are pretty slim (I hope!)
I would note the flaw in that scheme is the existing one of how do you remotely verify a UK citizen who has not got a passport.... Round here that's a far bigger problem than you may think it is...
For British and Irish citizens, the employer just needs to see a copy of your birth certificate (or naturalisation certificate) plus an official letter addressed to you by name and containing your NINO (from HMRC or DWP, for example). There's no need to check anything online.
The real edge case is Commonwealth citizens who have the right to work but who may not have a passport or birth certificate - think of the Windrush scheme, for example. They need fall back to the Employer Checking Service, which I believe is operated using manual verification by the Home Office and which therefore takes an age.
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
There are other recent pollsters with very different figures.
Most still show Harris doing worse than Biden v Trump
I can only find four polls since the debate comparing Harrs and Biden versus Trump.
Your JLP 3rd July Harris -11%, Biden -5% versus Trump IPSOS 2nd July Harris -1%, Biden -2% YouGov 1st July Harris -2%, Biden -2% CNN 30th June Harris -2%, Biden -6%
JLP looks to be a bit of an outlier. I wouldn't rely on it to support your case against Harris.
I know that, for whatever reason, you really don't like Harris. But be careful your emotion doesn't cloud your objectivity - particularly when it comes to betting.
Your Ipsos numbers are wrong for starters, so only the CNN poll has Harris doing better than Trump
Where we do agree, I think, it that Michelle is best placed to beat Trump. I'd like to eavesdrop on the discussions which surely are going on between Joe, Jill, Michelle and Barak.
I do agree on that but absent Michelle O agreeing to run (in which case I think Biden would agree to step down) he stays in regardless
Isn’t Biden a bit salty with the Obamas stretching back to choosing Hilary over Joe after Obama’s stint ended? I’m not sure that will shift him.
I also think, with absolutely no evidence, that Michelle O is likely to be more polarising than Harris who is still a bit of a blank slate and many can project their hopes onto her. I also am sure being back in the political front line is miles away from where she wants to be.
Also I'm eating cold roast chicken, ripe Cavaillon melon, and sipping chilled rose wine, as I gaze over the Luberon, and my flint knapping is done for the day. So all I have to do is loaf about, maybe have a siesta, go look at a church in the lavender fields, then drink Bandol
Not surprised you've already noticed the improvement. The grown-ups are back in charge now.
I thought the whole point of getting Starmer in was to get rid of the criminals and sociopaths.
Tony is neither a criminal nor a sociopath. What he is, is highly experienced, having run the best government of the last many decades.
What was your favoured part of Tony's Government?
The explosion of house prices?
The introduction of tuition fees?
The increase in national insurance?
If you're a pensioner who wanted to not pay tax and were free to call at 8am to get an NHS appointment whenever you wanted then Tony's government was great. If you were a young adult, or a child who'd grow into a young adult subsequently, then his legacy was utterly toxic.
Almost everything (besides masts) that you regularly complain about can be traced back to his government.
Why are you having a go at my posting on masts? It's an area I have experience and knowledge of, it's no more boring than listening to you talk about housing say.
The Sunderland story was a none story
The Blackpool story was the wrong place for the mast (as decided by both the planners at the council, the council itself and the planning inspectorate at appeal).
It wasn't the "wrong place" though. The location was chosen because it provided the coverage the MNO needed. That is the baseline for why it was there.
They couldn't choose another location as it did not provide sufficient coverage. This is exactly the point I am making, objecting to these masts should be a thing of the past.
So you need to build 2 masts rather than 1 - tough get on with both applications.
I have zero sympathy for the issue - given the way your industry has been trying to improve reception on the M6 by putting a mast up that would be visible from 20 miles away on a prime part of the Yorkshire Dales. Being blunt all I see is people who are lazy and don't want to spend money doing things appropriately...
And in any case, an industry which places masts in the middle of a cycle path as already discussed ...
What I don't understand is how they can credibly insist that it's essential to put the mast in the middle of the path rather than 2m to either side.
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
I also think it would give Harris a boost if Biden stepped graciously down and gave her his backing. All the ‘come at me if you think your tough enough’ stuff is just strategising West Wing bollocks.
Keeping Biden at top of the ticket is now madness.
It will not only give Trump 2.0 an easy win but quite probably hammer further down the ballot.
But looks like that is what is going to happen although the ragin' cajun thinks Biden will step down.
Trump wants Biden to step down, he knows Harris is very unpopular in the rustbelt and would give him a Reagan like landslide.
Whereas he knows Biden beat him there last time and the Dems would probably have to nominate Harris if Biden stepped down unless Michelle Obama could be persuaded, who is the only Dem candidate he really fears
Trump beats Biden after the disastrous debate.
Anyone is now better equipped than Biden to beat Trump. Biden should be over already.
Sometimes I think you might be a secret Trump fanboi.
Yes, quite. No way does Trump want Biden to stand down, now
Trump is 99.5% likely to beat Demented Joe. If the Dems get a grip and choose someone else, maybe someone sane and under 90 years old, then it is all up in the air again
The Dems have fucked themselves royally, but it is not terminal. They can still rescue things - maybe - if they kick Joe out
The vast majority of these incidents are minor and/or maintenance-related. But once the media have got it in for you, you get dragged through the mud every time.
It happens to the most professional operators and the RAF.
That ASRAAM is a war shot with a a live warhead and seeker just to add to the gaiety of the occasion.
Whoops, someone had a bad day.
If I were to guess, a small remote-controlled truck with an airbag on top, driven in somewhere under the fus just inboard of the broken wheel, that could lift it clear of the ground by inflating the bag?
Is that wing bent, or just the normal washout toward the tip?
As a guess there’s a lot of weight on that (live!) missile and what’s left of the gear leg, which is distorting the wing slightly to the outside, but not enough to actually damage it. Scary as hell for anyone close by though!
Terrible, at least IDS was re elected and can now reintroduce his death by dangerous cycling bill into Parliament as a private member's bill
I’ve cycled along many tow paths. I just can’t imagine doing the speed that would catapult someone you hit into the air. They are all mixed use.
I'd be interested in the physics that could send someone airborne from a cycling collision. What speed? How would you generate upwards force given your high centre if gravity?
I can imagine if the cyclist swerves to avoid, they are no longer vertical, and the bottom of their wheel takes out the pedestrian's legs, catapulting them. P'haps.
Reading it, it sounds like a typical inelastic collision so a simple momentum transfer gives some indication.
Assuming the mass of the bike is 10kg = 100N, the rider is 100kg = 1000N, the woman 55kg = 550n and that he was riding reasonably quickly (say 15mph = 7½ m/s) then the velocity of the woman after the collision would be
(100 + 1000) / 550 * 7.5 = 15m/s or approx 30 mph
She might as well have been hit by a car.
Hold on, this maths is complete bullshit. You don’t convert mass to force & then do a calculation based on Newtons! But that’s a side issue - the real problem is that you have assumed that all of his momentum is transferred to her, which is physically extremely unlikely - people do not rebound off each other in this way.
A more physically plausible outcome is that the two people roughly move as one after the collision, so assuming an inelastic collision where the two people move together after the collision with no elastic rebound - given your numbers the momentum beforehand is 110kg * 7.5m/s + 55*0 = 825 N m / s. Afterwards the mass is 165kg, momentum is conserved so the velocity of the two people would be 5 m / s or about 11 mph.
Although obviously a real world collision would be different because of the complexity of two bodies colliding, but a joint post impact velocity of 11mph is far more plausible than 30mph!
(your approach would also imply that the heavier the object that is moving beforehand, the fast the hit person will be moving afterwards which is clearly physically implausible - people hit by lorries do not sproing off into the distance at 100s of mph.)
Terrible, at least IDS was re elected and can now reintroduce his death by dangerous cycling bill into Parliament as a private member's bill
I’ve cycled along many tow paths. I just can’t imagine doing the speed that would catapult someone you hit into the air. They are all mixed use.
I'd be interested in the physics that could send someone airborne from a cycling collision. What speed? How would you generate upwards force given your high centre if gravity?
I can imagine if the cyclist swerves to avoid, they are no longer vertical, and the bottom of their wheel takes out the pedestrian's legs, catapulting them. P'haps.
Reading it, it sounds like a typical inelastic collision so a simple momentum transfer gives some indication.
Assuming the mass of the bike is 10kg = 100N, the rider is 100kg = 1000N, the woman 55kg = 550n and that he was riding reasonably quickly (say 15mph = 7½ m/s) then the velocity of the woman after the collision would be
(100 + 1000) / 550 * 7.5 = 15m/s or approx 30 mph
She might as well have been hit by a car.
Well, no. Assuming a car weighs about 1000 kg, your calculation would imply that, had she been hit by a car, the velocity of the woman after the collision would be 300 mph. This is clearly absurd, which indicates that your calculation is incorrect.
Apart from equating newtons with kilograms, which makes no sense at all if the Earth's gravity isn't involved, you're making the incorrect assumption that all of the bike + rider's momentum is transferred to the woman. This can't happen because it would violate conservation of energy. In an inelastic collision, the rider + bike would continue to move in the same direction after the collision, albeit more slowly. Not all of the momentum would be transferred. This is more obvious if you imagine a car/pedestrian collision.
An inelastic collision bringing a car to a complete halt when hitting a pedestrian does not happen - the car continues for some distance or maybe never stops at all.
People bumping into each other produce a totally different outcome because their masses are comparable. If you knock someone over you, you usually halt.
Different scenarios. You simply cannot upgrade a person to a car. Due to the paucity of information a lot of assumptions are in the calculations but upping the mass of one person by a factor of 10 or more invalidates an already strecthed scenario.
Fair point about converting to Newtons - I did not need that but it cancels out anyway
"Senior White House advisers for more than a year have aggressively stage-managed President Biden’s schedule, movements and personal interactions, as they sought to minimize signs of how age has taken a toll on the oldest president in U.S. history.”
Wall Street Journal.
The idea that this is all going to go away and it will be business as usual if Biden makes a few speeches without freezing up or trailing off is absolutely ridiculous.
The Democrats are starting to really damage their own brand.
I've long been confident there'll be no return to the WH for Donald Trump but I am now starting to worry. I'll be 100% for Biden if he (wrong-headedly imo) insists on staying in (that remains a no-brainer) but I don't have a vote, I only have a betting position which loses a packet if the (to me) unthinkable were to happen. Sadly it becomes less unthinkable if the Dem candidate is too frail to campaign properly. With that gift, plus a poll lead, plus having both the GOP and SC in his pocket, you have to say Trump has a big chance in November. Eg on the betting, if you compare WH prices and Nominee prices, it implies Biden at over 4 vs Trump if that is the match-up. With the election only 4 months away that's not great.
I'm definitely worried. Biden made sense to me as a candidate because he beat Trump before and has imo been a good president, with an economic record to be envied.
But there's no way his age can't be a big drag now on his campaign.
So reluctantly, I think he should step down, and pass on to Harris. Democrats should unite around the person they agreed should be backup president.
There are other recent pollsters with very different figures.
Most still show Harris doing worse than Biden v Trump
I can only find four polls since the debate comparing Harrs and Biden versus Trump.
Your JLP 3rd July Harris -11%, Biden -5% versus Trump IPSOS 2nd July Harris -1%, Biden -2% YouGov 1st July Harris -2%, Biden -2% CNN 30th June Harris -2%, Biden -6%
JLP looks to be a bit of an outlier. I wouldn't rely on it to support your case against Harris.
I know that, for whatever reason, you really don't like Harris. But be careful your emotion doesn't cloud your objectivity - particularly when it comes to betting.
Your Ipsos numbers are wrong for starters, so only the CNN poll has Harris doing better than Trump
Where we do agree, I think, it that Michelle is best placed to beat Trump. I'd like to eavesdrop on the discussions which surely are going on between Joe, Jill, Michelle and Barak.
I do agree on that but absent Michelle O agreeing to run (in which case I think Biden would agree to step down) he stays in regardless
Isn’t Biden a bit salty with the Obamas stretching back to choosing Hilary over Joe after Obama’s stint ended? I’m not sure that will shift him.
I also think, with absolutely no evidence, that Michelle O is likely to be more polarising than Harris who is still a bit of a blank slate and many can project their hopes onto her. I also am sure being back in the political front line is miles away from where she wants to be.
Michelle O has a 60% favourable rating in the US, Harris just 37% favourable
Comments
(Granted, Tone isn't senile yet, which helps.)
For example IPSOS 2nd July Harris 42% Trump 43%
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-july-4th-b2576034.html
Get Sir Tony back into cabinet immediately.
But yes.
BTW, the more you read the appeal judgment, the more stark is the absence of expert evidence from the defence. This has only one explanation. (See para 5 of the judgment):
" though the defence instructed a number of expert witnesses of their own, and many reports were served from them before and during the trial, no expert evidence was called on the applicant's behalf."
If the liberal media had been honest with their reporting for the past year, there would have been a contested primary season and the Democratic Party wouldn’t have got themselves into this mess in the first place.
A tragic accident, that probably could have been avoided by the cyclist.
However it should be noted that
a) hasn't fled the scene
b) hasn't avoided a breath/blood alcohol test
c) hasn't returned to the scene to berate / assault the injured party before fleeing again
all not infrequent actions of motor vehicle drivers at fault in serious traffic incidents but which are so usual that the Mail doesn't report them
Assuming the mass of the bike is 10kg = 100N, the rider is 100kg = 1000N, the woman 55kg = 550n and that he was riding reasonably quickly (say 15mph = 7½ m/s) then the velocity of the woman after the collision would be
(100 + 1000) / 550 * 7.5 = 15m/s or approx 30 mph
She might as well have been hit by a car.
The explosion of house prices?
The introduction of tuition fees?
The increase in national insurance?
If you're a pensioner who wanted to not pay tax and were free to call at 8am to get an NHS appointment whenever you wanted then Tony's government was great. If you were a young adult, or a child who'd grow into a young adult subsequently, then his legacy was utterly toxic.
Almost everything (besides masts) that you regularly complain about can be traced back to his government.
That ASRAAM is a war shot with a a live warhead and seeker just to add to the gaiety of the occasion.
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1810631888941220124
Thus the international outcry over the prosecution of the seismologists who'd commented on the earthquake swarmed around L'Aquila before the more destructive earthquake happened.
The issue with the MRPs was simple. Garbage In Garbage Out. If you input VI suggesting a 16-21 point Lab lead then you will not get accurate results for a GE that ends with a 10-point Lab lead. Memories of the MRP will I think settle on the Survation and Savanta MRPs which were a mess but which anyone who has followed polls at all viewed with extreme scepticism. MIC and YouGov were far less wide of the mark. Using MRPs to predict individual constituencies is not what they claim to do and is not what they are useful for. If people use them for that purpose then on their own head be it.
The message of the MRPs was that Lab would win a landslide, the Cons and SNP would be hammered, the LDs would do well, Reform would win more than just Clacton. Terrible weren't they.
The Blackpool story was the wrong place for the mast (as decided by both the planners at the council, the council itself and the planning inspectorate at appeal).
I said that besides masts (which are not Tony's fault), almost everything you regularly get upset over like house prices, the treatment of the young versus the old etc, got much worse under Tony Blair.
You can talk about the treatment of the young being bad in the 2000's (I don't think it was) but there are multiple examples post 2010 to show the treatment of the young got way worse since 2010 while most of the old did very well out of it.
Quite a simple solution from the end user's point of view: get a one-time code from https://www.gov.uk/prove-right-to-work and pass it to your employer who validates it with https://www.gov.uk/check-immigration-status
A universal Digital ID in the UK is mainly scuppered because we don't actually have a canonical list of who is or isn't a UK citizen.
The Verify programme was probably the best possible substitute that we could hope to manage, but it failed for a variety of reasons including limited buy-in from some govt departments (HMRC and Home Office!), and changing priorities in the face of Brexit. Its replacement, One Login, is much more limited in scope.
The chances of the new govt pushing for anything beyond this in the near future are pretty slim (I hope!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOgN3Jw2wJk
ETA close the chat which is being hammered by both sides on Gaza/Israel. PopCon is obviously new to the social media moderation game.
But hey I'm not conceding yet. He's no shoo-in.
Your JLP 3rd July Harris -11%, Biden -5% versus Trump
IPSOS 2nd July Harris -1%, Biden -2%
YouGov 1st July Harris -2%, Biden -2%
CNN 30th June Harris -2%, Biden -6%
JLP looks to be a bit of an outlier. I wouldn't rely on it to support your case against Harris.
I know that, for whatever reason, you really don't like Harris. But be careful your emotion doesn't cloud your objectivity - particularly when it comes to betting.
In France the central Government will decided they needed a high speed line from, say, Paris to Marsaille (I use that example as it is the basis of an excellent paper describing exactly how their paning system worked on that line).
That decision is effectively the end of the central Government involvement in planning.
The relevant regions then decide on a 10-15km strip through which the line will run. This is based on regional issues such as national parcs etc.
Within that strip the departments then decide on a 3km strip through their department where the line will run based on more local requirements.
Finally the local commune decide on a 300m wide strip for the final route of the line with any issues between communes being decided by properly independent inspectors. As far as I can see it is not until this point that the local population have much of a say but at this point they do seem to have a lot more say in terms of avoiding (for example) ancient woodland or important local features. But legally they have to provide a viable final 300m wide route within that 3km strip.
This approach seems to work extremely well.
Anyone is now better equipped than Biden to beat Trump. Biden should be over already.
Sometimes I think you might be a secret Trump fanboi.
It is immoral to tax graduates at a higher rate than anyone else. If taxes need to go up, and ideally I think they should not, they should go up on everyone at the same rate equitably. Not 9% for some people and 0% for others.
It would be unlikely they were going that quickly. I have seen the occasional eejit on the Oxford towpath going far too fast so I wouldn’t put it beyond the bounds of possibility but those individuals make up a tiny minority of towpath cyclists in my experience.
So not quite "might as well have".
I've only encountered the scale of the issue as Eek twin A helps at a particular scout pack and the difference between her world view and theirs (incredibly local) is remarkable. It's also the same at her guide pack (in a Durham pit village) where the long standing locals have a very different viewpoint to those who come in from Durham itself.
The entities that took out most of the £bns have long distanced themselves from the mess, there will be no other solution than state funding to rectify this because the private sector know that the govt can't allow several million people to go without water. So either it's left in private hands and they cream off a % of the govt funding or it becomes quasi-public run.
By tying it to their income its just another income tax, and income taxes should be the same equitably for all.
We could say the same for college until recently people didn't need to go to college either. Similarly for the NHS plenty of people make choices that mean they need treatment and so on and so forth.
The even more absurd argument is that only new graduates should pay taxes while past graduates shouldn't pay taxes because they went to university at a time when only a small elite could, but as it became more universal its become unaffordable. Funnily enough, we don't say that pensions when introduced were only for a year or two and most didn't live to get them, and now we have more pensioners they're unaffordable.
Only Michelle Obama does any better than Biden, beating Trump by 11%
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/one-three-democrats-think-biden-should-quit-race-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2024-07-02/
If I were to guess, a small remote-controlled truck with an airbag on top, driven in somewhere under the fus just inboard of the broken wheel, that could lift it clear of the ground by inflating the bag?
As it stands, he's probably going to have to choose without being entirely sure who he'll face in November.
If the firm goes bankrupt then the operation of drinking and flushing etc can continue as a going concern even if the firm is bankrupt. Bankruptcy doesn't mean operations shut down overnight.
If they go bankrupt then operations get handed over and the going concern continues, we still have water treatment and sewage, but the bond holders and shareholders get wiped out or end up with a massive haircut. As they well deserve.
They couldn't choose another location as it did not provide sufficient coverage. This is exactly the point I am making, objecting to these masts should be a thing of the past.
Apart from equating newtons with kilograms, which makes no sense at all if the Earth's gravity isn't involved, you're making the incorrect assumption that all of the bike + rider's momentum is transferred to the woman. This can't happen because it would violate conservation of energy. In an inelastic collision, the rider + bike would continue to move in the same direction after the collision, albeit more slowly. Not all of the momentum would be transferred. This is more obvious if you imagine a car/pedestrian collision.
(And Michelle O is also probably far more 'woke', whatever that means to you, than is Harris.)
Just had to put a heater on for the first time this summer.
They both deserve the same treatment, should either live or die on the basis of the product they sell, and if the management screw up the shareholders get wiped out.
You're the polling guru - tell me how realistic such a comparison is likely to be.
[Edit: I should also add that for a car, a 30mph collision does not result in a complete momentum transfer due to the huge disparity in mass between a car and a pedestrian. In the bike case, people are of comparable masses and enough to make the bike's weight near negligible. So the 500mph thing you reference does not happen]
Anecdata: when my employer sent me to do various certifications, one vendor refused to accept my expired passport as proof of ID, even though no foreign travel was needed to take the exam for a fairly worthless certificate.
As was the 2020 hypothetical with Biden beating Trump
I hesitate to mention that it is a glorious, cloudless 30C in Oppede Le Vieux. Oops, I mentioned it
I have zero sympathy for the issue - given the way your industry has been trying to improve reception on the M6 by putting a mast up that would be visible from 20 miles away on a prime part of the Yorkshire Dales. Being blunt all I see is people who are lazy and don't want to spend money doing things appropriately...
You're comparing a declared candidate for the presidency - with all that implies - against someone who isn't a candidate for the presidency.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59470276
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question
The ending was interesting:
Prof John Ashton, a former public health director, became exercised about Letby’s trial before it was finished. He had blown the whistle on a cluster of baby and maternal deaths at the Morecambe Bay hospitals when he was regional director of public health for the north-west of England. His direct experience, with the Morecambe Bay scandal, is that human instinct drives people to look for someone or something to blame, but the root causes are often more complicated and numerous.
It's almost been forgotten that the complete opposite happened in this case. That's not to say that proves Letby is guilty, but I think we can discount the possibility that she was scapegoated.
As for any polls that place her ahead - it's wishcasting that will disappear as soon as her name was on the ballot.
Interestingly, proportionately per vehicle/bike per mile, it seems that cycles and cars are about exactly as dangerous as each other to pedestrians. I'm not sure why that is considering vehicles are heavier you'd think they'd be more dangerous but they're not? Perhaps because cyclists are more likely to ride on the pavement so increasing the risk to pedestrians.
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1810576343941128529
Leave aside the substance for a minute and it’s interesting to look at why Braverman’s speech fails three key tests the Tories should look for in a new leader.
1. They should speak in language intelligible to people who aren’t involved in highly political debates...
https://www.avignon-et-provence.com/en/monuments/senanque-abbey
As a man of advanced years, that is close to perfect happiness
The real edge case is Commonwealth citizens who have the right to work but who may not have a passport or birth certificate - think of the Windrush scheme, for example. They need fall back to the Employer Checking Service, which I believe is operated using manual verification by the Home Office and which therefore takes an age.
I also think, with absolutely no evidence, that Michelle O is likely to be more polarising than Harris who is still a bit of a blank slate and many can project their hopes onto her. I also am sure being back in the political front line is miles away from where she wants to be.
Looks nice, though.
What I don't understand is how they can credibly insist that it's essential to put the mast in the middle of the path rather than 2m to either side.
Trump is 99.5% likely to beat Demented Joe. If the Dems get a grip and choose someone else, maybe someone sane and under 90 years old, then it is all up in the air again
The Dems have fucked themselves royally, but it is not terminal. They can still rescue things - maybe - if they kick Joe out
A more physically plausible outcome is that the two people roughly move as one after the collision, so assuming an inelastic collision where the two people move together after the collision with no elastic rebound - given your numbers the momentum beforehand is 110kg * 7.5m/s + 55*0 = 825 N m / s. Afterwards the mass is 165kg, momentum is conserved so the velocity of the two people would be 5 m / s or about 11 mph.
Although obviously a real world collision would be different because of the complexity of two bodies colliding, but a joint post impact velocity of 11mph is far more plausible than 30mph!
(your approach would also imply that the heavier the object that is moving beforehand, the fast the hit person will be moving afterwards which is clearly physically implausible - people hit by lorries do not sproing off into the distance at 100s of mph.)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/09/home-office-flying-of-pride-flag-was-monstrous-thing-says-suella-braverman
People bumping into each other produce a totally different outcome because their masses are comparable. If you knock someone over you, you usually halt.
Different scenarios. You simply cannot upgrade a person to a car. Due to the paucity of information a lot of assumptions are in the calculations but upping the mass of one person by a factor of 10 or more invalidates an already strecthed scenario.
Fair point about converting to Newtons - I did not need that but it cancels out anyway
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/
https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/michelle-obama-president-popular-joe-biden-us-elections-13743143.html
See post above.