I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact
“ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.
I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....
His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.
His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.
Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.
Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.
Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.
He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.
Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.
Tell me where I'm wrong?
Posts like this really piss me off, as do all the dumb "likes" it's accumulated.
I wouldn't mind it if you'd read his book, but you haven't, and admitted as much on here yesterday, so unless you bought and read it overnight this is simply an ignorant sledging. It's in the opinions are like arseholes category.
If you want to criticise someone's writings you have to read them first or your bluster is simply incredible - in the true sense of the word: not credible - and is worthy of nothing but instant dismissal.
I’ve read his books, I’ve read his articles, I’ve seen his interviews, he wants to send me back because he’s an Islamophobe.
No matter what we do, it’s a sign that Muslims hate the West/democracy.
Apparently I will always choose Islam over Western values/democracy, that I have no love for my country or her history.
Apparently we don’t integrate but when we do that he labels Humza Yousaf/Sadiq Khan infiltrators.
According to him when I have sex with a white Brit woman I am doing it to subjugate her, no Douglas I am doing it because I’m in love/I like sex.
I remember reading The War on the West and thinking it a decent read, it's on my shelf right now between The Madness of Crowds and the copy of Sex, Lies, and Politics I won in a PB by-election contest.
I don't really remember either of the Murray ones well, I recall likeing TMOC more. I get him confused with Goodwin in my head.
When people share twitter or tv comments from him he comes across as very click baity to me, another example of someone who enjoyed the rush of a minor amout of fame and goes down a path to please a base. Most political commentators do. And also common in confusing having a point (everyone manages that at some point) to suggesting anyone not reaching the same conclusion from it is ignoring the point.
I put him down as a lightweight commentator as a result, not worth getting worked up about (hence my mixing him up with Goodwin sometimes), but obviously given his targets that is not as easy for some as it would be for me. Iain Dale's book was pretty disappointing btw.
You have a book on "Leon"!
Nah, that would be multiple volumes.
One for each personality.
It would be like how the Encyclopeadia Brittanica used to look on your book shelves....
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
Trump's lead in Pennsylvania is small, but it seems, consistent.
Shapiro would have been the better choice.
The VP has rarely, in modern times, delivered their own state.
Shapiro had various negative issues with the base.
Walk has nearly no negatives, with a wide range of groups. That he was endorsed by both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli groups is a particular example.
I think this is right: the first rule with the VP pick is "do no harm", and Walz delivers a fair number of positives with (as far as I can tell) no serious negatives.
Shapiro might have added 0.5% in Pennsylvania, but at the expense of young Democrats in Michigan, etc
Regulating "fake news" does bring about a ministry of truth and while that may be of some use during exceptional circumstances such as war time, having a government department decide what constitutes acceptable "truth" during peacetime is probably the most Orwellian idea the government could come up with.
I hope that there is enough opposition to the idea within Labour's own benches to kill it, if not then we just have to hop the Tories, Lib Dems or a coalition are able repeal this in 2029.
As I understand the approach being taken, it isn't direct regulation. The social media platforms themselves would need to maintain effective policies to deal with complaints about harmful content etc. It's only if they don't have such a policy or clearly aren't operating it in practice that the regulator comes into play. That means the regulator would not be adjudicating on whether a particular thing should be taken down etc - which they don't have resource to do, quite apart from the "ministry of truth" suggestion.
That is, in fact, a very different framework from what you're describing. In this sort of area, you can have ex ante regulation (e.g. the British Board of Film Classification, who watch the film and certify it before general release), ex post regulation (e.g. Ofcom's Broadcasting Code - the broadcaster is responsible for ensuring compliance but Ofcom will look at individual incidents after the event in response to complaints), or self-regulation but where the regulator sets the parameters for that and checks it is working in the round but doesn't look at individual decisions. These are conceptually and practically very different things.
Asking private companies to regulate free speech is no better than the government doing it.
I feel like it's just a more complex situation than those wanting a solution asap tend to consider. We have regulation of kinds already, but if companies are directed to be more proactive or muscular in doing so, they presumably have to be instructed in what way they need to be by the government, and there's a wide spectrum of ways they could do that.
Trump Ukraine Boris (in the past) Brexit (but less so, @Scott_xP might be the last) Elon Musk Me (if I’m on really really good form) There must be others people can think of
These are all instances where a subject drives people loopy to the extent they set aside critical faculties, and for a betting site that’s not ideal
However, PB remains admirably objective compared to most of the chattering world: which is generally insane all the time about everything
Clocks going back in October?
Cash Planning regulations Cycle lanes Pissapple on pizzas
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
Trump's lead in Pennsylvania is small, but it seems, consistent.
Shapiro would have been the better choice.
The VP has rarely, in modern times, delivered their own state.
Shapiro had various negative issues with the base.
Walk has nearly no negatives, with a wide range of groups. That he was endorsed by both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli groups is a particular example.
I think this is right: the first rule with the VP pick is "do no harm", and Walz delivers a fair number of positives with (as far as I can tell) no serious negatives.
Shapiro might have added 0.5% in Pennsylvania, but at the expense of young Democrats in Michigan, etc
Obviously they were aware of the risk hence having Shapiro be the one to make a rally speech when Walz was announced, and he seems as on board with the ticket as it is possible to be, so they would hope any effect is minimised.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
It's an opportunity that is expiring fast. I expect VI polling is a gaping disaster for SKS.
We should have a competition to guess the first published VI following the election, assuming new methodology.
Given likely moves in the last week or so, and the approval ratings vs pre-election, I’m going with:
Ref is the hardest to predict. Either they’ve soared because of the riots and Farage being in the news, or they’ve slumped because of the riots and Farage being in the news, of they e stayed roughly the same. I’m assuming the latter because Con post election are unlikely to have surged so those right wing votes have to go somewhere. Green will be enjoying a post election honeymoon. LD will be getting the usual tactical unwind,
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
It really is time to emigrate, mate. Fuck this stupid country
What are we staying for? The lovely taxes? The enticing weather? Our government hates us and wants to silence us
I know, the tendency for censorship and authoritarianism by Labour has already started and it's only been a month. My conscience is clear, I didn't vote for them yet I will have to deal with the consequences.
While the US is an imperfect society, the first amendment gives them a truly iron clad right to free expression. Europeans just seem to not understand how sinister this kind of censorship is and "liberal" people who want to silence their opponents cheer this stuff on without realising they are signing their own death warrants.
These prosecutions are being conducted by the independent police and CPS under laws either enacted by Conservative administrations or not repealed by them. The laws around incitement to violence and hatred have been around for half a century; even longer under common law.
You can complain as much as you want about the general state of the UK, but it's a stretch to blame what is happening on the current Labour government.
Regulating "fake news" does bring about a ministry of truth and while that may be of some use during exceptional circumstances such as war time, having a government department decide what constitutes acceptable "truth" during peacetime is probably the most Orwellian idea the government could come up with.
I hope that there is enough opposition to the idea within Labour's own benches to kill it, if not then we just have to hop the Tories, Lib Dems or a coalition are able repeal this in 2029.
As I understand the approach being taken, it isn't direct regulation. The social media platforms themselves would need to maintain effective policies to deal with complaints about harmful content etc. It's only if they don't have such a policy or clearly aren't operating it in practice that the regulator comes into play. That means the regulator would not be adjudicating on whether a particular thing should be taken down etc - which they don't have resource to do, quite apart from the "ministry of truth" suggestion.
That is, in fact, a very different framework from what you're describing. In this sort of area, you can have ex ante regulation (e.g. the British Board of Film Classification, who watch the film and certify it before general release), ex post regulation (e.g. Ofcom's Broadcasting Code - the broadcaster is responsible for ensuring compliance but Ofcom will look at individual incidents after the event in response to complaints), or self-regulation but where the regulator sets the parameters for that and checks it is working in the round but doesn't look at individual decisions. These are conceptually and practically very different things.
Asking private companies to regulate free speech is no better than the government doing it.
I feel like it's just a more complex situation than those wanting a solution asap tend to consider. We have regulation of kinds already, but if companies are directed to be more proactive or muscular in doing so, they presumably have to be instructed in what way they need to be by the government, and there's a wide spectrum of ways they could do that.
But ultimately requires an arbiter of what is and isn't fake news, hence a ministry of truth either directly regulating free speech or instructing private companies on regulating free speech.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
Regulating "fake news" does bring about a ministry of truth and while that may be of some use during exceptional circumstances such as war time, having a government department decide what constitutes acceptable "truth" during peacetime is probably the most Orwellian idea the government could come up with.
I hope that there is enough opposition to the idea within Labour's own benches to kill it, if not then we just have to hop the Tories, Lib Dems or a coalition are able repeal this in 2029.
As I understand the approach being taken, it isn't direct regulation. The social media platforms themselves would need to maintain effective policies to deal with complaints about harmful content etc. It's only if they don't have such a policy or clearly aren't operating it in practice that the regulator comes into play. That means the regulator would not be adjudicating on whether a particular thing should be taken down etc - which they don't have resource to do, quite apart from the "ministry of truth" suggestion.
That is, in fact, a very different framework from what you're describing. In this sort of area, you can have ex ante regulation (e.g. the British Board of Film Classification, who watch the film and certify it before general release), ex post regulation (e.g. Ofcom's Broadcasting Code - the broadcaster is responsible for ensuring compliance but Ofcom will look at individual incidents after the event in response to complaints), or self-regulation but where the regulator sets the parameters for that and checks it is working in the round but doesn't look at individual decisions. These are conceptually and practically very different things.
Asking private companies to regulate free speech is no better than the government doing it.
I feel like it's just a more complex situation than those wanting a solution asap tend to consider. We have regulation of kinds already, but if companies are directed to be more proactive or muscular in doing so, they presumably have to be instructed in what way they need to be by the government, and there's a wide spectrum of ways they could do that.
But ultimately requires an arbiter of what is and isn't fake news, hence a ministry of truth either directly regulating free speech or instructing private companies on regulating free speech.
We already have that in the Advertising Standards Authority. It's just an opportunity to develop its remit...
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
She's kept fairly quiet the last few years, I had thought that would work against her as no longer being the person of the moment, but perhaps she has timed things to the point she is not associated with the tail end of the last government, but still in the loyalist flank of the party who don't want to get too close to Reform.
is it any good? I'm thinking of getting a new dry rack for the coming winter.
We have a couple (Not nec. the same brand/model). Can be put out on the patio and then hauled back in instantly when the showers come (Mrs C always checks with me what Netweather Radar has lined up for us).
Using it alone indoors is a bit iffy condensation wise, obviously, unless the windows are open, and thick stuff dries slowly even near a radiator, so a heated one might be better (have a look at Lakeland or John lewis, perhaps, though IANAE).
Trump Ukraine Boris (in the past) Brexit (but less so, @Scott_xP might be the last) Elon Musk Me (if I’m on really really good form) There must be others people can think of
These are all instances where a subject drives people loopy to the extent they set aside critical faculties, and for a betting site that’s not ideal
However, PB remains admirably objective compared to most of the chattering world: which is generally insane all the time about everything
Clocks going back in October?
Cash Planning regulations Cycle lanes Pissapple on pizzas
There is little point in speculating about the EC now. Still got several months to go and the path between here and there is unclear.
If you froze the campaigns now, then sure lets have that discussion. But they aren't frozen. The Democrats managed to take Biden off the ticket. The "Kamala is so unpopular" truth appears to have been fiction. She's got massive momentum now and a Veep pick that looks increasingly inspired.
Meanwhile, the Donald gets more and more unhinged as the flow goes away from him, which spawns crazier reactions and yet more flowing out of momentum away from him.
So before we talk about the EC we need to consider the impacts of the lunacy to come. I read that Kamala isn't good in debates because of ones 4 years ago. We know Trump isn't good in debates because of a few months ago - he only beat Biden because Biden. There is real risk for the RNC that Trump goes fully off the cliff this time - as Giulliani and the other loons did after the 2020 election...
There's also the darkly muttered notion that Trump might withdraw. That might require a manufactured "health event". Or reliance on the one he's currently going through...
The idea that Trump would withdraw seems really unlikely to me. It doesn’t suit his MO.
He won from behind in 2016, and in 2020 he lost after having been polling behind all campaign and then chose to stir up some mass delusion that he had really won.
I see nothing in his character that suggests he’d quit. If he takes another loss he’ll just spend another 4 years denying it
To be clear, I don't think it likely. Perhaps with the one scenario where Republican private polling shows he is losing well outside any margin of error they could call a stolen election. In that instance, it would be Trump's MO to run away from a hiding by the voters.
The most likely reason he never quits is that would leave him alone with his multiple law suits. And jail time. Being President again looks about the only way he can defeat these.
That, or the Ernie Saunders defence.
Don't forget, being President was a big money spinner for him too. All those government events held at Trump's hotel chains.
Having watched Harris' speech last night, it was a bit meh. She's not a great speaker - indeed, I would compare her to Clinton. She dealt with a heckler pretty effectively but she was rather cerebral and slow paced.
But it didn't matter.
Because Walz had warmed the crowd up and they were cheering everything anyway as a result.
That one-two punch could be critical if she's to go on to win, and it's good to see how she was carefully reminding everyone that they have a long way to go.
Agreed, Walz makes Harris look rather more measured. Cerebral. Aloof.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
It really is time to emigrate, mate. Fuck this stupid country
What are we staying for? The lovely taxes? The enticing weather? Our government hates us and wants to silence us
I know, the tendency for censorship and authoritarianism by Labour has already started and it's only been a month. My conscience is clear, I didn't vote for them yet I will have to deal with the consequences.
While the US is an imperfect society, the first amendment gives them a truly iron clad right to free expression. Europeans just seem to not understand how sinister this kind of censorship is and "liberal" people who want to silence their opponents cheer this stuff on without realising they are signing their own death warrants.
The disastrous governance of the UK has got so bad that I would seriously prefer to be French or American. French because at least they have a beautiful country, for all their problems; American because they have those constitutional freedoms, as you say
I will again spend the large majority of this year outside the UK. Next year it will be close to 95%. I will come back to see friends and fam, but I’m gone
Anybody looking to rent a property in London next year it seems like there could be an opportunity.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I had a wander around a wet market recently and I'm surprised nothing more serious had come from them.
I think we've been quite lucky that we've only COVID (?), bird flu, monkeypox, SARS so far given globalisation and how much more densely populated parts of Asia are.
There is little point in speculating about the EC now. Still got several months to go and the path between here and there is unclear.
If you froze the campaigns now, then sure lets have that discussion. But they aren't frozen. The Democrats managed to take Biden off the ticket. The "Kamala is so unpopular" truth appears to have been fiction. She's got massive momentum now and a Veep pick that looks increasingly inspired.
Meanwhile, the Donald gets more and more unhinged as the flow goes away from him, which spawns crazier reactions and yet more flowing out of momentum away from him.
So before we talk about the EC we need to consider the impacts of the lunacy to come. I read that Kamala isn't good in debates because of ones 4 years ago. We know Trump isn't good in debates because of a few months ago - he only beat Biden because Biden. There is real risk for the RNC that Trump goes fully off the cliff this time - as Giulliani and the other loons did after the 2020 election...
There's also the darkly muttered notion that Trump might withdraw. That might require a manufactured "health event". Or reliance on the one he's currently going through...
The idea that Trump would withdraw seems really unlikely to me. It doesn’t suit his MO.
He won from behind in 2016, and in 2020 he lost after having been polling behind all campaign and then chose to stir up some mass delusion that he had really won.
I see nothing in his character that suggests he’d quit. If he takes another loss he’ll just spend another 4 years denying it
To be clear, I don't think it likely. Perhaps with the one scenario where Republican private polling shows he is losing well outside any margin of error they could call a stolen election. In that instance, it would be Trump's MO to run away from a hiding by the voters.
The most likely reason he never quits is that would leave him alone with his multiple law suits. And jail time. Being President again looks about the only way he can defeat these.
That, or the Ernie Saunders defence.
Don't forget, being President was a big money spinner for him too. All those government events held at Trump's hotel chains.
Having watched Harris' speech last night, it was a bit meh. She's not a great speaker - indeed, I would compare her to Clinton. She dealt with a heckler pretty effectively but she was rather cerebral and slow paced.
But it didn't matter.
Because Walz had warmed the crowd up and they were cheering everything anyway as a result.
That one-two punch could be critical if she's to go on to win, and it's good to see how she was carefully reminding everyone that they have a long way to go.
Agreed, Walz makes Harris look rather more measured. Cerebral. Aloof.
But also - Presidential?
Nah, too wholesome seeming. Suspiciously so.
But Harris could be President for 8 years and then so could he, and he would still be younger than Donald Trump, so he might get his shot!
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
It's an opportunity that is expiring fast. I expect VI polling is a gaping disaster for SKS.
We should have a competition to guess the first published VI following the election, assuming new methodology.
Given likely moves in the last week or so, and the approval ratings vs pre-election, I’m going with:
Ref is the hardest to predict. Either they’ve soared because of the riots and Farage being in the news, or they’ve slumped because of the riots and Farage being in the news, of they e stayed roughly the same. I’m assuming the latter because Con post election are unlikely to have surged so those right wing votes have to go somewhere. Green will be enjoying a post election honeymoon. LD will be getting the usual tactical unwind,
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
It really is time to emigrate, mate. Fuck this stupid country
What are we staying for? The lovely taxes? The enticing weather? Our government hates us and wants to silence us
I know, the tendency for censorship and authoritarianism by Labour has already started and it's only been a month. My conscience is clear, I didn't vote for them yet I will have to deal with the consequences.
While the US is an imperfect society, the first amendment gives them a truly iron clad right to free expression. Europeans just seem to not understand how sinister this kind of censorship is and "liberal" people who want to silence their opponents cheer this stuff on without realising they are signing their own death warrants.
The disastrous governance of the UK has got so bad that I would seriously prefer to be French or American. French because at least they have a beautiful country, for all their problems; American because they have those constitutional freedoms, as you say
I will again spend the large majority of this year outside the UK. Next year it will be close to 95%. I will come back to see friends and fam, but I’m gone
Anybody looking to rent a property in London next year it seems like there could be an opportunity.
More likely to Airbnb it. Gives me more flexibility
Regulating "fake news" does bring about a ministry of truth and while that may be of some use during exceptional circumstances such as war time, having a government department decide what constitutes acceptable "truth" during peacetime is probably the most Orwellian idea the government could come up with.
I hope that there is enough opposition to the idea within Labour's own benches to kill it, if not then we just have to hop the Tories, Lib Dems or a coalition are able repeal this in 2029.
As I understand the approach being taken, it isn't direct regulation. The social media platforms themselves would need to maintain effective policies to deal with complaints about harmful content etc. It's only if they don't have such a policy or clearly aren't operating it in practice that the regulator comes into play. That means the regulator would not be adjudicating on whether a particular thing should be taken down etc - which they don't have resource to do, quite apart from the "ministry of truth" suggestion.
That is, in fact, a very different framework from what you're describing. In this sort of area, you can have ex ante regulation (e.g. the British Board of Film Classification, who watch the film and certify it before general release), ex post regulation (e.g. Ofcom's Broadcasting Code - the broadcaster is responsible for ensuring compliance but Ofcom will look at individual incidents after the event in response to complaints), or self-regulation but where the regulator sets the parameters for that and checks it is working in the round but doesn't look at individual decisions. These are conceptually and practically very different things.
Asking private companies to regulate free speech is no better than the government doing it.
I feel like it's just a more complex situation than those wanting a solution asap tend to consider. We have regulation of kinds already, but if companies are directed to be more proactive or muscular in doing so, they presumably have to be instructed in what way they need to be by the government, and there's a wide spectrum of ways they could do that.
But ultimately requires an arbiter of what is and isn't fake news, hence a ministry of truth either directly regulating free speech or instructing private companies on regulating free speech.
That was my point - even considering what we already do, strenghtening that requires government to exposit what they want dealt with.
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
That's an interesting melange. I'm not sure what to conclude.
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
The bias is on this site.
This board hates Trump and anything bad for him, and good for Harris, gets about 15 times as much coverage as it should and anything vaguely neutral, let alone positive, gets dismissed.
Kamala Harris lost in 2020 because, largely, she was seen as on the Left and Biden as the moderate. Don't think for a moment Americans have forgotten that. And she certainly has limitations as a candidate. She's far from home and dry and the VI is mainly due to Democrats firming up.
I expect the race to narrow as polling day approaches. And Trump could easily still win this.
Kamala Harris did not lose the 2020 primary election because she was too left wing.
She lost because she didn't even make it to Iowa. She pulled out long before the first votes were cast, because she was unable to raise money.
Why?
Because she was neither a champion of the left, like Warren or Sanders. Nor a fresh face like Buttigieg. Nor an ex Vice President like Biden.
She was a dull, centrist former Prosecutor and Attorney General, who has earned the enmity of the Left by being pretty tough on crime. And who was unable to enthuse the center of the party to compensate.
She was dreadful.
And I thought @HYUFD's historic take was spot on: she was a poor candidate. And the Dems would likely lose with her as candidate.
But you know what: she said utterly ruthless in sewing up the nomination. She made a very smart VP pick. And she's proved herself to be both well organized, and a blank slate. And there's nothing better for getting elected than being a blank slate.
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
She’s just blown it. Even if she gets to the final two (unlikely) the members won’t vote for that
There is little point in speculating about the EC now. Still got several months to go and the path between here and there is unclear.
If you froze the campaigns now, then sure lets have that discussion. But they aren't frozen. The Democrats managed to take Biden off the ticket. The "Kamala is so unpopular" truth appears to have been fiction. She's got massive momentum now and a Veep pick that looks increasingly inspired.
Meanwhile, the Donald gets more and more unhinged as the flow goes away from him, which spawns crazier reactions and yet more flowing out of momentum away from him.
So before we talk about the EC we need to consider the impacts of the lunacy to come. I read that Kamala isn't good in debates because of ones 4 years ago. We know Trump isn't good in debates because of a few months ago - he only beat Biden because Biden. There is real risk for the RNC that Trump goes fully off the cliff this time - as Giulliani and the other loons did after the 2020 election...
There's also the darkly muttered notion that Trump might withdraw. That might require a manufactured "health event". Or reliance on the one he's currently going through...
The idea that Trump would withdraw seems really unlikely to me. It doesn’t suit his MO.
He won from behind in 2016, and in 2020 he lost after having been polling behind all campaign and then chose to stir up some mass delusion that he had really won.
I see nothing in his character that suggests he’d quit. If he takes another loss he’ll just spend another 4 years denying it
To be clear, I don't think it likely. Perhaps with the one scenario where Republican private polling shows he is losing well outside any margin of error they could call a stolen election. In that instance, it would be Trump's MO to run away from a hiding by the voters.
The most likely reason he never quits is that would leave him alone with his multiple law suits. And jail time. Being President again looks about the only way he can defeat these.
That, or the Ernie Saunders defence.
Don't forget, being President was a big money spinner for him too. All those government events held at Trump's hotel chains.
Having watched Harris' speech last night, it was a bit meh. She's not a great speaker - indeed, I would compare her to Clinton. She dealt with a heckler pretty effectively but she was rather cerebral and slow paced.
But it didn't matter.
Because Walz had warmed the crowd up and they were cheering everything anyway as a result.
That one-two punch could be critical if she's to go on to win, and it's good to see how she was carefully reminding everyone that they have a long way to go.
Agreed, Walz makes Harris look rather more measured. Cerebral. Aloof.
But also - Presidential?
Nah, too wholesome seeming. Suspiciously so.
But Harris could be President for 8 years and then so could he, and he would still be younger than Donald Trump, so he might get his shot!
Unfortunately worded, if accidentally so doubtless ...
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
It's an opportunity that is expiring fast. I expect VI polling is a gaping disaster for SKS.
We should have a competition to guess the first published VI following the election, assuming new methodology.
Given likely moves in the last week or so, and the approval ratings vs pre-election, I’m going with:
Ref is the hardest to predict. Either they’ve soared because of the riots and Farage being in the news, or they’ve slumped because of the riots and Farage being in the news, of they e stayed roughly the same. I’m assuming the latter because Con post election are unlikely to have surged so those right wing votes have to go somewhere. Green will be enjoying a post election honeymoon. LD will be getting the usual tactical unwind,
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
There is little point in speculating about the EC now. Still got several months to go and the path between here and there is unclear.
If you froze the campaigns now, then sure lets have that discussion. But they aren't frozen. The Democrats managed to take Biden off the ticket. The "Kamala is so unpopular" truth appears to have been fiction. She's got massive momentum now and a Veep pick that looks increasingly inspired.
Meanwhile, the Donald gets more and more unhinged as the flow goes away from him, which spawns crazier reactions and yet more flowing out of momentum away from him.
So before we talk about the EC we need to consider the impacts of the lunacy to come. I read that Kamala isn't good in debates because of ones 4 years ago. We know Trump isn't good in debates because of a few months ago - he only beat Biden because Biden. There is real risk for the RNC that Trump goes fully off the cliff this time - as Giulliani and the other loons did after the 2020 election...
There's also the darkly muttered notion that Trump might withdraw. That might require a manufactured "health event". Or reliance on the one he's currently going through...
The idea that Trump would withdraw seems really unlikely to me. It doesn’t suit his MO.
He won from behind in 2016, and in 2020 he lost after having been polling behind all campaign and then chose to stir up some mass delusion that he had really won.
I see nothing in his character that suggests he’d quit. If he takes another loss he’ll just spend another 4 years denying it
To be clear, I don't think it likely. Perhaps with the one scenario where Republican private polling shows he is losing well outside any margin of error they could call a stolen election. In that instance, it would be Trump's MO to run away from a hiding by the voters.
The most likely reason he never quits is that would leave him alone with his multiple law suits. And jail time. Being President again looks about the only way he can defeat these.
That, or the Ernie Saunders defence.
Don't forget, being President was a big money spinner for him too. All those government events held at Trump's hotel chains.
Having watched Harris' speech last night, it was a bit meh. She's not a great speaker - indeed, I would compare her to Clinton. She dealt with a heckler pretty effectively but she was rather cerebral and slow paced.
But it didn't matter.
Because Walz had warmed the crowd up and they were cheering everything anyway as a result.
That one-two punch could be critical if she's to go on to win, and it's good to see how she was carefully reminding everyone that they have a long way to go.
Agreed, Walz makes Harris look rather more measured. Cerebral. Aloof.
But also - Presidential?
Nah, too wholesome seeming. Suspiciously so.
But Harris could be President for 8 years and then so could he, and he would still be younger than Donald Trump, so he might get his shot!
Sorry, was suggesting he makes Harris seem more Presidential.
Walz has suggested that being Veep is the height of his ambitions. But if he has been a rock by Harris's side for 8 years, I guess Coach might extend his public service for a few more years - if it was what the people wanted.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
My view is that the Chinese government is most on the hook for the way they tried to cover up the outbreak when it first happened, denying its severity and not collaborating with the west. This allowed it to get out of control, both within China and internationally.
If they had said: "Look, we've got something really bad going on here; we don't quite have a handle on what it is yet, or how it spreads, but it is look serious," along with data, then many lives may have been saved.
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
The bias is on this site.
This board hates Trump and anything bad for him, and good for Harris, gets about 15 times as much coverage as it should and anything vaguely neutral, let alone positive, gets dismissed.
Kamala Harris lost in 2020 because, largely, she was seen as on the Left and Biden as the moderate. Don't think for a moment Americans have forgotten that. And she certainly has limitations as a candidate. She's far from home and dry and the VI is mainly due to Democrats firming up.
I expect the race to narrow as polling day approaches. And Trump could easily still win this.
Kamala Harris did not lose the 2020 primary election because she was too left wing.
She lost because she didn't even make it to Iowa. She pulled out long before the first votes were cast, because she was unable to raise money.
Why?
Because she was neither a champion of the left, like Warren or Sanders. Nor a fresh face like Buttigieg. Nor an ex Vice President like Biden.
She was a dull, centrist former Prosecutor and Attorney General, who has earned the enmity of the Left by being pretty tough on crime. And who was unable to enthuse the center of the party to compensate.
She was dreadful.
And I thought @HYUFD's historic take was spot on: she was a poor candidate. And the Dems would likely lose with her as candidate.
But you know what: she said utterly ruthless in sewing up the nomination. She made a very smart VP pick. And she's proved herself to be both well organized, and a blank slate. And there's nothing better for getting elected than being a blank slate.
Yes that’s what I think. I presumed she was stupid as that’s what everyone told me - on all sides - I didn’t really check her for myself. But what I’ve observed in the last month is a canny operator with a certain degree of charm and probably very good advisors
She’s not Abe Lincoln but it’s likely enough to beat an ageing, ever-crazier Trump
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
It's an opportunity that is expiring fast. I expect VI polling is a gaping disaster for SKS.
We should have a competition to guess the first published VI following the election, assuming new methodology.
Given likely moves in the last week or so, and the approval ratings vs pre-election, I’m going with:
Ref is the hardest to predict. Either they’ve soared because of the riots and Farage being in the news, or they’ve slumped because of the riots and Farage being in the news, of they e stayed roughly the same. I’m assuming the latter because Con post election are unlikely to have surged so those right wing votes have to go somewhere. Green will be enjoying a post election honeymoon. LD will be getting the usual tactical unwind,
There's already been one poll since the election, from We Think.
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
The bias is on this site.
This board hates Trump and anything bad for him, and good for Harris, gets about 15 times as much coverage as it should and anything vaguely neutral, let alone positive, gets dismissed.
Kamala Harris lost in 2020 because, largely, she was seen as on the Left and Biden as the moderate. Don't think for a moment Americans have forgotten that. And she certainly has limitations as a candidate. She's far from home and dry and the VI is mainly due to Democrats firming up.
I expect the race to narrow as polling day approaches. And Trump could easily still win this.
Kamala Harris did not lose the 2020 primary election because she was too left wing.
She lost because she didn't even make it to Iowa. She pulled out long before the first votes were cast, because she was unable to raise money.
Why?
Because she was neither a champion of the left, like Warren or Sanders. Nor a fresh face like Buttigieg. Nor an ex Vice President like Biden.
She was a dull, centrist former Prosecutor and Attorney General, who has earned the enmity of the Left by being pretty tough on crime. And who was unable to enthuse the center of the party to compensate.
She was dreadful.
And I thought HYUFD's historic take was spot on: she was a poor candidate. And the Dems would likely lose with her as candidate.
But you know what: she said utterly ruthless in sewing up the nomination. She made a very smart VP pick. And she's proved herself to be both well organized, and a blank slate. And there's nothing better for getting elected than being a blank slate.
I had wondered about the left wing angle. My recollection was she was portrayed as a harsh prosecutor. In any case it was a busy field, failure in a primary doesn't necessarily mean someone has no change at other levels (though it's understandable people were skeptical).
After all, people lose races all the time and then come back somewhere else years down the line to win.
Heck, Trump lost the 2020 election and not only has that not hindered him with the GOP base he has them all convinced he never lost it!
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
She’s just blown it. Even if she gets to the final two (unlikely) the members won’t vote for that
True. The only point of her leadership was to be the right-wing candidate. Others can do the One Nation thing better than she can.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
It's an opportunity that is expiring fast. I expect VI polling is a gaping disaster for SKS.
We should have a competition to guess the first published VI following the election, assuming new methodology.
Given likely moves in the last week or so, and the approval ratings vs pre-election, I’m going with:
Ref is the hardest to predict. Either they’ve soared because of the riots and Farage being in the news, or they’ve slumped because of the riots and Farage being in the news, of they e stayed roughly the same. I’m assuming the latter because Con post election are unlikely to have surged so those right wing votes have to go somewhere. Green will be enjoying a post election honeymoon. LD will be getting the usual tactical unwind,
I was interested by the mention that the US had no BPC equivalent, since I recall that the BPC was US-inspired, as it confirms on its website - "The BPC was modelled on the National Council for Published Polls in the USA"!
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
The bias is on this site.
This board hates Trump and anything bad for him, and good for Harris, gets about 15 times as much coverage as it should and anything vaguely neutral, let alone positive, gets dismissed.
Kamala Harris lost in 2020 because, largely, she was seen as on the Left and Biden as the moderate. Don't think for a moment Americans have forgotten that. And she certainly has limitations as a candidate. She's far from home and dry and the VI is mainly due to Democrats firming up.
I expect the race to narrow as polling day approaches. And Trump could easily still win this.
Kamala Harris did not lose the 2020 primary election because she was too left wing.
She lost because she didn't even make it to Iowa. She pulled out long before the first votes were cast, because she was unable to raise money.
Why?
Because she was neither a champion of the left, like Warren or Sanders. Nor a fresh face like Buttigieg. Nor an ex Vice President like Biden.
She was a dull, centrist former Prosecutor and Attorney General, who has earned the enmity of the Left by being pretty tough on crime. And who was unable to enthuse the center of the party to compensate.
She was dreadful.
And I thought @HYUFD's historic take was spot on: she was a poor candidate. And the Dems would likely lose with her as candidate.
But you know what: she said utterly ruthless in sewing up the nomination. She made a very smart VP pick. And she's proved herself to be both well organized, and a blank slate. And there's nothing better for getting elected than being a blank slate.
Yes that’s what I think. I presumed she was stupid as that’s what everyone told me - on all sides - I didn’t really check her for myself. But what I’ve observed in the last month is a canny operator with a certain degree of charm and probably very good advisors
She’s not Abe Lincoln but it’s likely enough to beat an ageing, ever-crazier Trump
She would lose badly to a sane Republican
There aren't many sane republicans left, they've all sold out to the Cult of Donald. After he gets beaten this time (touch wood) they're all going to act like they've woken up from some trance like state and pretend nothing happened and that they definitely didn't support all of the madness.
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
She’s just blown it. Even if she gets to the final two (unlikely) the members won’t vote for that
It does look like a pitch to MPs more than Members. Which would make the opponent critical - pick two of that mould and you might lose another candidate to Reform.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
It's an opportunity that is expiring fast. I expect VI polling is a gaping disaster for SKS.
We should have a competition to guess the first published VI following the election, assuming new methodology.
Given likely moves in the last week or so, and the approval ratings vs pre-election, I’m going with:
Ref is the hardest to predict. Either they’ve soared because of the riots and Farage being in the news, or they’ve slumped because of the riots and Farage being in the news, of they e stayed roughly the same. I’m assuming the latter because Con post election are unlikely to have surged so those right wing votes have to go somewhere. Green will be enjoying a post election honeymoon. LD will be getting the usual tactical unwind,
There's already been one poll since the election, from We Think.
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
The bias is on this site.
This board hates Trump and anything bad for him, and good for Harris, gets about 15 times as much coverage as it should and anything vaguely neutral, let alone positive, gets dismissed.
Kamala Harris lost in 2020 because, largely, she was seen as on the Left and Biden as the moderate. Don't think for a moment Americans have forgotten that. And she certainly has limitations as a candidate. She's far from home and dry and the VI is mainly due to Democrats firming up.
I expect the race to narrow as polling day approaches. And Trump could easily still win this.
Kamala Harris did not lose the 2020 primary election because she was too left wing.
She lost because she didn't even make it to Iowa. She pulled out long before the first votes were cast, because she was unable to raise money.
Why?
Because she was neither a champion of the left, like Warren or Sanders. Nor a fresh face like Buttigieg. Nor an ex Vice President like Biden.
She was a dull, centrist former Prosecutor and Attorney General, who has earned the enmity of the Left by being pretty tough on crime. And who was unable to enthuse the center of the party to compensate.
She was dreadful.
And I thought @HYUFD's historic take was spot on: she was a poor candidate. And the Dems would likely lose with her as candidate.
But you know what: she said utterly ruthless in sewing up the nomination. She made a very smart VP pick. And she's proved herself to be both well organized, and a blank slate. And there's nothing better for getting elected than being a blank slate.
Yes that’s what I think. I presumed she was stupid as that’s what everyone told me - on all sides - I didn’t really check her for myself. But what I’ve observed in the last month is a canny operator with a certain degree of charm and probably very good advisors
She’s not Abe Lincoln but it’s likely enough to beat an ageing, ever-crazier Trump
She would lose badly to a sane Republican
There aren't many sane republicans left, they've all sold out to the Cult of Donald. After he gets beaten this time (touch wood) they're all going to act like they've woken up from some trance like state and pretend nothing happened and that they definitely didn't support all of the madness.
Not right away they won't. A handful did that when he did all he could (up to and including badgering his VP to ignore election results and declare him the winner) to not give up power last time, but 90% of them are fully on board now. There will be violence if he loses, and it'll prompt a handful to say he went too far again, but it will be some time before they actually disavow.
That's if he loses of course. If he wins, can you imagine who get the nod next time? I feel like Vance might get a challenge from one of the Trump children.
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
She’s just blown it. Even if she gets to the final two (unlikely) the members won’t vote for that
True. The only point of her leadership was to be the right-wing candidate. Others can do the One Nation thing better than she can.
Yes, if you want wet blairite Tory you might as well go for a blank slate like tugendhat who at least isn’t widely hated already. He’s barely known
I expect that most of that is bog standard Telegraph shit-stirring. Just like the pretence that the Govt adopting a definition of Islamophobia, majored on in their social media output, is some form of stalking horse for a blasphemy law protecting only Islam.
The Govt adopted an official definition of antisemitism in 2016, under Theresa May. That wasn't a blasphemy law either.
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
Are you sure they were interviewing Priti?
I can understand why you think that and to be honest it has surprised me as I agree with it, apart from her winning
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
She’s just blown it. Even if she gets to the final two (unlikely) the members won’t vote for that
True. The only point of her leadership was to be the right-wing candidate. Others can do the One Nation thing better than she can.
Yes, if you want wet blairite Tory you might as well go for a blank slate like tugendhat who at least isn’t widely hated already. He’s barely known
Why pick Patel now?
Maybe she is going for One Nation with right wing slant to broaden appeal?
She may have difficulty in that there are more centrist and more right wing candidates in the race, so how could she position herself?
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
She’s just blown it. Even if she gets to the final two (unlikely) the members won’t vote for that
It does look like a pitch to MPs more than Members. Which would make the opponent critical - pick two of that mould and you might lose another candidate to Reform.
If one of either jenrick or Badenoch reaches the last two then that one will win
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Leaving aside the polling, isn’t the story of actual elections over the last four years that MAGA republicans have significantly underperformed non-MAGA republicans? That added to the palpable enthusiasm the Harris Walz ticket has managed to generate is why I think Trump is going to be trounced.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
Having seen the average biological lab in UK universities... let's just say that even when playing with some fun stuff, it's not clean rooms and spacesuits.
I remember, when at uni, I used to visit people in their various places. Some of the tings that were sat in a pretty ordinary flask, with a stopper, was a bit startling.
Read the story if you like but there is this bit at the end about an earlier breakthrough creating jobs in Germany.
Their work has strong commercial potential and is already being applied to utilities, construction, and car manufacturing industries. Oxford PV, a UK-based firm spun out of Oxford University Physics in 2010 by Professor Henry Snaith to commercialise perovskite photovoltaics, recently started large-scale manufacturing of them at its factory near Berlin, Germany. This is the world’s first volume manufacturing line for these specially designed tandem solar cells.
‘We originally looked at UK sites to start manufacturing but the government has yet to match the fiscal and commercial incentives on offer in other parts of Europe and the United States,’ Professor Snaith said. ‘Thus far the UK has thought about solar energy purely in terms of building new solar farms, but the real growth will come from commercialising innovations – we very much hope that the newly-created British Energy will direct its attention to this.’
Mr. 43, "Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do."
Then
"Tell me where I'm wrong?"
The Batley Grammar School teacher in hiding for his life might disagree with your contention that Muslims are not imposing their cultural norms on him.
Thank you MD for introducing me to this which I hadn't heard before. The story as written in this Guardian article is well worth reading
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Indeed it could; but it could also be a totally natural event within the wet market. We don't - and can't - know, partly because of China's secrecy.
But we know the Chinese believed - or strongly suspected - it came from their lab because of all their behaviour. Deleting databases owned by the lab. Stopping journalists investigating the lab. Lying ceaselessly about the lab. Silencing - possibly killing - whistleblowers from the lab. Refusing WHO any real access to the lab
Why do all this if it came from the wet market??
It came from the lab, anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
Trump's lead in Pennsylvania is small, but it seems, consistent.
Shapiro would have been the better choice.
The VP has rarely, in modern times, delivered their own state.
Shapiro had various negative issues with the base.
Walk has nearly no negatives, with a wide range of groups. That he was endorsed by both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli groups is a particular example.
I think this is right: the first rule with the VP pick is "do no harm", and Walz delivers a fair number of positives with (as far as I can tell) no serious negatives.
Shapiro might have added 0.5% in Pennsylvania, but at the expense of young Democrats in Michigan, etc
More that it would be at the expense of enthusiasm among university students across the nation. And similar. Such people form a large chunk of the Democrat "get out the vote machine". Mobilising that and getting the enthusiasm up, to get out every vote they can in the key areas is a priority.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Indeed it could; but it could also be a totally natural event within the wet market. We don't - and can't - know, partly because of China's secrecy.
But we know the Chinese believed - or strongly suspected - it came from their lab because of all their behaviour. Deleting databases owned by the lab. Stopping journalists investigating the lab. Lying ceaselessly about the lab. Silencing - possibly killing - whistleblowers from the lab. Refusing WHO any real access to the lab
Why do all this if it came from the wet market??
It came from the lab, anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda
Your certainty is one of a religious zealot. A low-intelligence religious zealot, in fact.
Anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda.
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
Are you sure they were interviewing Priti?
I can understand why you think that and to be honest it has surprised me as I agree with it, apart from her winning
There is a phenomenon of politicians bending their public persona to fit the government they are in, or a perceived role.
Then, when they are out of the context, they spring back.
The most dramatic version of this was Portillo. Who twisted himself into a parody of a right winger. Much of the dislike for him in that pose was the insincerity. Which was clearly apparent.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Indeed it could; but it could also be a totally natural event within the wet market. We don't - and can't - know, partly because of China's secrecy.
As I said think of the equivalent in another country.
If there was an outbreak of something that was being researched into at Porton Down would you believe that the source was a local butcher selling wild rabbit ?
"The media narrative that endowed the EDL and various right-wing individuals with formidable organising resources was and remains the invention of the propaganda machine of the British Establishment. No doubt right wing activists posted provocative statements on the social media and a handful participated in rioting. But their influence has been blown out of proportion to inflate the role and the threat posed by the far right."
"Twelve theses on the distorted representation of the communal conflicts raging throughout the United Kingdom On the politics of fear pursued by the British Government and its collaborators in the media and the NGO complex
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
The bias is on this site.
This board hates Trump and anything bad for him, and good for Harris, gets about 15 times as much coverage as it should and anything vaguely neutral, let alone positive, gets dismissed.
Kamala Harris lost in 2020 because, largely, she was seen as on the Left and Biden as the moderate. Don't think for a moment Americans have forgotten that. And she certainly has limitations as a candidate. She's far from home and dry and the VI is mainly due to Democrats firming up.
I expect the race to narrow as polling day approaches. And Trump could easily still win this.
Kamala Harris did not lose the 2020 primary election because she was too left wing.
She lost because she didn't even make it to Iowa. She pulled out long before the first votes were cast, because she was unable to raise money.
Why?
Because she was neither a champion of the left, like Warren or Sanders. Nor a fresh face like Buttigieg. Nor an ex Vice President like Biden.
She was a dull, centrist former Prosecutor and Attorney General, who has earned the enmity of the Left by being pretty tough on crime. And who was unable to enthuse the center of the party to compensate.
She was dreadful.
And I thought @HYUFD's historic take was spot on: she was a poor candidate. And the Dems would likely lose with her as candidate.
But you know what: she said utterly ruthless in sewing up the nomination. She made a very smart VP pick. And she's proved herself to be both well organized, and a blank slate. And there's nothing better for getting elected than being a blank slate.
Yes that’s what I think. I presumed she was stupid as that’s what everyone told me - on all sides - I didn’t really check her for myself. But what I’ve observed in the last month is a canny operator with a certain degree of charm and probably very good advisors
She’s not Abe Lincoln but it’s likely enough to beat an ageing, ever-crazier Trump
She would lose badly to a sane Republican
Fortunately for her, she's facing an increasingly incoherent Trump
Tim Walz: I know I'm preaching to the choir - a damn big and beautiful choir - but practice is over people, the choir needs to sing. The choir needs to sing!...Bring that joy with you, bring those smiles, bring that positive future.
Looks silly written down, but his delivery is very good. They are trying to appeal to the middle ground as well, ex-Republicans and the like, but Walz and Harris are at the moment at least succeeding at enthusing their base, which remains important.
Leaving aside the polling, isn’t the story of actual elections over the last four years that MAGA republicans have significantly underperformed non-MAGA republicans? That added to the palpable enthusiasm the Harris Walz ticket has managed to generate is why I think Trump is going to be trounced.
Yes, but the non-MAGA republicans can't win republican primaries.
"The media narrative that endowed the EDL and various right-wing individuals with formidable organising resources was and remains the invention of the propaganda machine of the British Establishment. No doubt right wing activists posted provocative statements on the social media and a handful participated in rioting. But their influence has been blown out of proportion to inflate the role and the threat posed by the far right."
Things do get overblown a lot of the time. You might get a tiny account tweeting something racist about Star Wars or something and the reaction is so overwhelming it might get lost how tiny a thing it was in the first place.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Indeed it could; but it could also be a totally natural event within the wet market. We don't - and can't - know, partly because of China's secrecy.
But we know the Chinese believed - or strongly suspected - it came from their lab because of all their behaviour. Deleting databases owned by the lab. Stopping journalists investigating the lab. Lying ceaselessly about the lab. Silencing - possibly killing - whistleblowers from the lab. Refusing WHO any real access to the lab
Why do all this if it came from the wet market??
It came from the lab, anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda
Your certainty is one of a religious zealot. A low-intelligence religious zealot, in fact.
Anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda.
It is also the case that if the Chinese thought it might possibly be thought to have come from the lab, they would have done everything to delete all the evidence.
Not for outsiders. But for the hierarchy. Imagine you are the lab director - if you are accused of having caused a leak, you are dead. If you are the local boss in charge of labs - dead. If you approved any research at the labs - dead.
It's nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It's about the mere accusation being a crime.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Indeed it could; but it could also be a totally natural event within the wet market. We don't - and can't - know, partly because of China's secrecy.
As I said think of the equivalent in another country.
If there was an outbreak of something that was being researched into at Porton Down would you believe that the source was a local butcher selling wild rabbit ?
No; but AIUI the wet markets are much, much bigger than a 'local butcher', selling many more different types of animals from different regions in close proximity, with few, if any, animal welfare regulations.
Tim Walz: I know I'm preaching to the choir - a damn big and beautiful choir - but practice is over people, the choir needs to sing. The choir needs to sing!...Bring that joy with you, bring those smiles, bring that positive future.
Looks silly written down, but his delivery is very good. They are trying to appeal to the middle ground as well, ex-Republicans and the like, but Walz and Harris are at the moment at least succeeding at enthusing their base, which remains important.
Looks Trumpian, written down.
But his delivery was totally different...for a start, he smiled, and laughed, and clapped, and talked about other people not just himself.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
Having seen the average biological lab in UK universities... let's just say that even when playing with some fun stuff, it's not clean rooms and spacesuits.
I remember, when at uni, I used to visit people in their various places. Some of the tings that were sat in a pretty ordinary flask, with a stopper, was a bit startling.
As a student I worked in a Foot and Mouth research centre as a cleaner. We would clean the admin side then go across to the research side. To do so you had to remove your clothes and get temporary clothing to wear on the other side. On coming back you removed those clothes, took a shower and came back to your own clothes.
To clean the women's changing and shower area we would knock on a glass window between the two areas and someone would check the changing area was clear from the other side. One day I wandered in (having made the appropriate check) to find a lady standing there stark naked. Now before you get too excited she was almost as wide as she was tall. I apologised and made my exit
She obviously complained and we were called to some sort of manager's office and asked who had walked in on the lady. I owned up, expecting to get fired. He asked if I had seen anything to which I replied yes and then said that would be enough to put you off women for life and left it at that. Not sure that would be acceptable today.
"The media narrative that endowed the EDL and various right-wing individuals with formidable organising resources was and remains the invention of the propaganda machine of the British Establishment. No doubt right wing activists posted provocative statements on the social media and a handful participated in rioting. But their influence has been blown out of proportion to inflate the role and the threat posed by the far right."
Things do get overblown a lot of the time. You might get a tiny account tweeting something racist about Star Wars or something and the reaction is so overwhelming it might get lost how tiny a thing it was in the first place.
If you want overblown reactions, just put together a camp interpretation of the Last Supper/Feast of Dionysus.
Leaving aside the polling, isn’t the story of actual elections over the last four years that MAGA republicans have significantly underperformed non-MAGA republicans? That added to the palpable enthusiasm the Harris Walz ticket has managed to generate is why I think Trump is going to be trounced.
Its easier to vote against something than to vote for something.
So the more extreme a candidate the easier it is for voters to vote for the opponent.
For example in Pennsylvania in 2022 in the senate election the GOP had the weak, inexperienced but unthreatening Mehmet Oz as candidate and he lost by 5%:
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
Are you sure they were interviewing Priti?
I can understand why you think that and to be honest it has surprised me as I agree with it, apart from her winning
There is a phenomenon of politicians bending their public persona to fit the government they are in, or a perceived role.
Then, when they are out of the context, they spring back.
The most dramatic version of this was Portillo. Who twisted himself into a parody of a right winger. Much of the dislike for him in that pose was the insincerity. Which was clearly apparent.
Indeed it was. He looks and sounds like the very essence of a flabby metro-liberal. I've only ever seen him once - in the foyer of the Royal Opera House, naturally. I tend to assume he's there all the time, even when i'm not.
"The media narrative that endowed the EDL and various right-wing individuals with formidable organising resources was and remains the invention of the propaganda machine of the British Establishment. No doubt right wing activists posted provocative statements on the social media and a handful participated in rioting. But their influence has been blown out of proportion to inflate the role and the threat posed by the far right."
Things do get overblown a lot of the time. You might get a tiny account tweeting something racist about Star Wars or something and the reaction is so overwhelming it might get lost how tiny a thing it was in the first place.
If you want overblown reactions, just put together a camp interpretation of the Last Supper/Feast of Dionysus.
I wasn't really following the opening ceremony, I think they fed Christians to the lions or something?
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
Are you sure they were interviewing Priti?
I can understand why you think that and to be honest it has surprised me as I agree with it, apart from her winning
There is a phenomenon of politicians bending their public persona to fit the government they are in, or a perceived role.
Then, when they are out of the context, they spring back.
The most dramatic version of this was Portillo. Who twisted himself into a parody of a right winger. Much of the dislike for him in that pose was the insincerity. Which was clearly apparent.
Indeed it was. He looks and sounds like the very essence of a flabby metro-liberal. I've only ever seen him once - in the foyer of the Royal Opera House, naturally. I tend to assume he's there all the time, even when i'm not.
I wouldn’t say that.
Part of his anger at Cameron, is that he had a chance to lead the Conservative Party and do the Cameron thing, but self collapsed his campaign instead.
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
She’s just blown it. Even if she gets to the final two (unlikely) the members won’t vote for that
There's a Talleyrand "I wonder what she means by that?" thing going on with that list. They are the points a serious politician would make when Patel doesn't need to be serious and could be deeply unserious like all the other candidates and stand a good chance of being selected.
"The media narrative that endowed the EDL and various right-wing individuals with formidable organising resources was and remains the invention of the propaganda machine of the British Establishment. No doubt right wing activists posted provocative statements on the social media and a handful participated in rioting. But their influence has been blown out of proportion to inflate the role and the threat posed by the far right."
Things do get overblown a lot of the time. You might get a tiny account tweeting something racist about Star Wars or something and the reaction is so overwhelming it might get lost how tiny a thing it was in the first place.
If you want overblown reactions, just put together a camp interpretation of the Last Supper/Feast of Dionysus.
I wasn't really following the opening ceremony, I think they fed Christians to the lions or something?
While wearing dresses! Forget whether that was the Christians or the lions.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Indeed it could; but it could also be a totally natural event within the wet market. We don't - and can't - know, partly because of China's secrecy.
As I said think of the equivalent in another country.
If there was an outbreak of something that was being researched into at Porton Down would you believe that the source was a local butcher selling wild rabbit ?
No; but AIUI the wet markets are much, much bigger than a 'local butcher', selling many more different types of animals from different regions in close proximity, with few, if any, animal welfare regulations.
IMV it's a poor comparison.
And how many wet markets are there in China ?
The outbreak just happening to be at the one nearest to the lab.
Then there's the regulations doublethink:
So its supposedly easy for a market to be the cause as they have no regulations but impossible for the nearby lab to be because their regulations are perfect.
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
She’s just blown it. Even if she gets to the final two (unlikely) the members won’t vote for that
There's a Talleyrand "I wonder what she means by that?" thing going on with that list. They are the points a serious politician would make when Patel doesn't need to be serious and could be deeply unserious like all the other candidates and stand a good chance of being selected.
My suspicion is Patel doesn't actually want to win, at least in current Party conditions, and is putting a marker down.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
Having seen the average biological lab in UK universities... let's just say that even when playing with some fun stuff, it's not clean rooms and spacesuits.
I remember, when at uni, I used to visit people in their various places. Some of the tings that were sat in a pretty ordinary flask, with a stopper, was a bit startling.
As a student I worked in a Foot and Mouth research centre as a cleaner. We would clean the admin side then go across to the research side. To do so you had to remove your clothes and get temporary clothing to wear on the other side. On coming back you removed those clothes, took a shower and came back to your own clothes.
To clean the women's changing and shower area we would knock on a glass window between the two areas and someone would check the changing area was clear from the other side. One day I wandered in (having made the appropriate check) to find a lady standing there stark naked. Now before you get too excited she was almost as wide as she was tall. I apologised and made my exit
She obviously complained and we were called to some sort of manager's office and asked who had walked in on the lady. I owned up, expecting to get fired. He asked if I had seen anything to which I replied yes and then said that would be enough to put you off women for life and left it at that. Not sure that would be acceptable today.
The important point was that all the way through you were truthful. If the manager had had to indulge in detailed investigations of you and your colleagues he’d (I’m assuming he) have become irritated and taken things more seriously. But you’re right, I think it would have been taken somewhat more seriously today.
Leaving aside the polling, isn’t the story of actual elections over the last four years that MAGA republicans have significantly underperformed non-MAGA republicans? That added to the palpable enthusiasm the Harris Walz ticket has managed to generate is why I think Trump is going to be trounced.
There's a tendency to overrate Trump's chances on here. His best outcome is a razor fine EC win on a minority PV as per 2016. Harris otoh could either sneak it or win easily. I'll be looking to bet that view on the spreads when they come out (unless it's become consensus by then).
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
She’s just blown it. Even if she gets to the final two (unlikely) the members won’t vote for that
There's a Talleyrand "I wonder what she means by that?" thing going on with that list. They are the points a serious politician would make when Patel doesn't need to be serious and could be deeply unserious like all the other candidates and stand a good chance of being selected.
It feels like Patel doesn't want to win this time and she's going for the 'tell the membership the facts even when they are unwelcome' and position herself as the 'I was right all along' candidate of 2029.
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
She’s just blown it. Even if she gets to the final two (unlikely) the members won’t vote for that
There's a Talleyrand "I wonder what she means by that?" thing going on with that list. They are the points a serious politician would make when Patel doesn't need to be serious and could be deeply unserious like all the other candidates and stand a good chance of being selected.
My suspicion is Patel doesn't actually want to win, at least in current Party conditions, and is putting a marker down.
That had occurred to me, too. Playing the long game.
It’s also possible she might believe what she’s saying.
Odds against, for a conservative politician during a leadership contest, I grant you, but can’t be discounted.
Leaving aside the polling, isn’t the story of actual elections over the last four years that MAGA republicans have significantly underperformed non-MAGA republicans? That added to the palpable enthusiasm the Harris Walz ticket has managed to generate is why I think Trump is going to be trounced.
Its easier to vote against something than to vote for something.
So the more extreme a candidate the easier it is for voters to vote for the opponent.
For example in Pennsylvania in 2022 in the senate election the GOP had the weak, inexperienced but unthreatening Mehmet Oz as candidate and he lost by 5%:
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Indeed it could; but it could also be a totally natural event within the wet market. We don't - and can't - know, partly because of China's secrecy.
But we know the Chinese believed - or strongly suspected - it came from their lab because of all their behaviour. Deleting databases owned by the lab. Stopping journalists investigating the lab. Lying ceaselessly about the lab. Silencing - possibly killing - whistleblowers from the lab. Refusing WHO any real access to the lab
Why do all this if it came from the wet market??
It came from the lab, anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda
Your certainty is one of a religious zealot. A low-intelligence religious zealot, in fact.
Anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Indeed it could; but it could also be a totally natural event within the wet market. We don't - and can't - know, partly because of China's secrecy.
But we know the Chinese believed - or strongly suspected - it came from their lab because of all their behaviour. Deleting databases owned by the lab. Stopping journalists investigating the lab. Lying ceaselessly about the lab. Silencing - possibly killing - whistleblowers from the lab. Refusing WHO any real access to the lab
Why do all this if it came from the wet market??
It came from the lab, anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda
And yet many who aren't certain it came from the lab are not morons and are not liars with an agenda.
So that was a bit silly saying that there at the end.
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
She’s just blown it. Even if she gets to the final two (unlikely) the members won’t vote for that
There's a Talleyrand "I wonder what she means by that?" thing going on with that list. They are the points a serious politician would make when Patel doesn't need to be serious and could be deeply unserious like all the other candidates and stand a good chance of being selected.
My suspicion is Patel doesn't actually want to win, at least in current Party conditions, and is putting a marker down.
It’s also possible she might believe what she’s saying.
Odds against, for a conservative politician during a leadership contest, I grant you, but can’t be discounted.
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
She’s just blown it. Even if she gets to the final two (unlikely) the members won’t vote for that
There's a Talleyrand "I wonder what she means by that?" thing going on with that list. They are the points a serious politician would make when Patel doesn't need to be serious and could be deeply unserious like all the other candidates and stand a good chance of being selected.
My suspicion is Patel doesn't actually want to win, at least in current Party conditions, and is putting a marker down.
That had occurred to me, too. Playing the long game.
It’s also possible she might believe what she’s saying.
Odds against, for a conservative politician during a leadership contest, I grant you, but can’t be discounted.
I'm sure Patel does believe it, but she's not trimming her position, which is noteworthy. Why not?
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Indeed it could; but it could also be a totally natural event within the wet market. We don't - and can't - know, partly because of China's secrecy.
But we know the Chinese believed - or strongly suspected - it came from their lab because of all their behaviour. Deleting databases owned by the lab. Stopping journalists investigating the lab. Lying ceaselessly about the lab. Silencing - possibly killing - whistleblowers from the lab. Refusing WHO any real access to the lab
Why do all this if it came from the wet market??
It came from the lab, anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda
Your certainty is one of a religious zealot. A low-intelligence religious zealot, in fact.
Anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda.
While Leon can be a bit bodmin why only criticize his certainty and not Bondegzu's equally zealot like certainty?
Personally don't think we will ever know for certain and both are plausible.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Indeed it could; but it could also be a totally natural event within the wet market. We don't - and can't - know, partly because of China's secrecy.
But we know the Chinese believed - or strongly suspected - it came from their lab because of all their behaviour. Deleting databases owned by the lab. Stopping journalists investigating the lab. Lying ceaselessly about the lab. Silencing - possibly killing - whistleblowers from the lab. Refusing WHO any real access to the lab
Why do all this if it came from the wet market??
It came from the lab, anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda
And yet many who aren't certain it came from the lab are not morons and are not liars with an agenda.
So that was a bit silly saying that there at the end.
Regulating "fake news" does bring about a ministry of truth and while that may be of some use during exceptional circumstances such as war time, having a government department decide what constitutes acceptable "truth" during peacetime is probably the most Orwellian idea the government could come up with.
I hope that there is enough opposition to the idea within Labour's own benches to kill it, if not then we just have to hop the Tories, Lib Dems or a coalition are able repeal this in 2029.
Is there any actual proposed legislation, or is this just a Telegraph story ? Please post details, as I don't have access to the Telegraph.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Indeed it could; but it could also be a totally natural event within the wet market. We don't - and can't - know, partly because of China's secrecy.
But we know the Chinese believed - or strongly suspected - it came from their lab because of all their behaviour. Deleting databases owned by the lab. Stopping journalists investigating the lab. Lying ceaselessly about the lab. Silencing - possibly killing - whistleblowers from the lab. Refusing WHO any real access to the lab
Why do all this if it came from the wet market??
It came from the lab, anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda
Your certainty is one of a religious zealot. A low-intelligence religious zealot, in fact.
Anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda.
While Leon can be a bit bodmin why only criticize his certainty and not Bondegzu's equally zealot like certainty?
Personally don't think we will ever know for certain and both are plausible.
You could always ask the scientists their REAL opinions
Like Kristian Andersen, the virologist who co-wrote the notorious Proximal Origins Paper in Nature in early 2020 which famously attempted to refute lab leak, and promote Zoonosis
Even as he co-authored this paper, Kristian Andersen, who had studied the virus closely, wrote in a PRIVATE email (only unearthed by Freedom of Information) -
"the lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario"
I mean, even the main proponent of the "wet market" bollocks privately thinks it came from the lab. Indeed, he says it is "so frigging likely"
What does that tell you? It tells you it came from the lab
Tim Walz: I know I'm preaching to the choir - a damn big and beautiful choir - but practice is over people, the choir needs to sing. The choir needs to sing!...Bring that joy with you, bring those smiles, bring that positive future.
Looks silly written down, but his delivery is very good. They are trying to appeal to the middle ground as well, ex-Republicans and the like, but Walz and Harris are at the moment at least succeeding at enthusing their base, which remains important.
Looks Trumpian, written down.
But his delivery was totally different...for a start, he smiled, and laughed, and clapped, and talked about other people not just himself.
Nah, this is Trumpian: the Orange one on what a wonderful actor the late, great Hannibal Lecter was.
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
The bias is on this site.
This board hates Trump and anything bad for him, and good for Harris, gets about 15 times as much coverage as it should and anything vaguely neutral, let alone positive, gets dismissed.
Kamala Harris lost in 2020 because, largely, she was seen as on the Left and Biden as the moderate. Don't think for a moment Americans have forgotten that. And she certainly has limitations as a candidate. She's far from home and dry and the VI is mainly due to Democrats firming up.
I expect the race to narrow as polling day approaches. And Trump could easily still win this.
Kamala Harris did not lose the 2020 primary election because she was too left wing.
She lost because she didn't even make it to Iowa. She pulled out long before the first votes were cast, because she was unable to raise money.
Why?
Because she was neither a champion of the left, like Warren or Sanders. Nor a fresh face like Buttigieg. Nor an ex Vice President like Biden.
She was a dull, centrist former Prosecutor and Attorney General, who has earned the enmity of the Left by being pretty tough on crime. And who was unable to enthuse the center of the party to compensate.
She was dreadful.
And I thought @HYUFD's historic take was spot on: she was a poor candidate. And the Dems would likely lose with her as candidate.
But you know what: she said utterly ruthless in sewing up the nomination. She made a very smart VP pick. And she's proved herself to be both well organized, and a blank slate. And there's nothing better for getting elected than being a blank slate.
Yes that’s what I think. I presumed she was stupid as that’s what everyone told me - on all sides - I didn’t really check her for myself. But what I’ve observed in the last month is a canny operator with a certain degree of charm and probably very good advisors
She’s not Abe Lincoln but it’s likely enough to beat an ageing, ever-crazier Trump
She would lose badly to a sane Republican
There aren't many sane republicans left, they've all sold out to the Cult of Donald. After he gets beaten this time (touch wood) they're all going to act like they've woken up from some trance like state and pretend nothing happened and that they definitely didn't support all of the madness.
That will be difficult but they do have a highly developed facility for shameless about turns. Lindsey Graham is perhaps the master of it. Incredible guy he is.
Regulating "fake news" does bring about a ministry of truth and while that may be of some use during exceptional circumstances such as war time, having a government department decide what constitutes acceptable "truth" during peacetime is probably the most Orwellian idea the government could come up with.
I hope that there is enough opposition to the idea within Labour's own benches to kill it, if not then we just have to hop the Tories, Lib Dems or a coalition are able repeal this in 2029.
Is there any actual proposed legislation, or is this just a Telegraph story ? Please post details, as I don't have access to the Telegraph.
Here's the start of the article
Tech companies will be forced to ban fake news from their platforms under plans being considered by the Government in the wake of the riots. Sir Keir Starmer suggested on Friday that the Government would review social media laws as part of efforts to prevent further disorder. The Telegraph understands that ministers are looking at introducing a duty on social media companies to restrict “legal but harmful” content. It could mean that firms are required to remove or suppress posts spreading fake news about asylum seekers or other topics such as self-harm, even if they do not meet the threshold for illegality.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
No they don't. People who rely on public funding and want to appear not racist still state it might be what the Chinese told us. Everyone else with more than one brain cell can see what happened. You are the establishment, you are the censor and it is little wonder that you would back state censorship of speech. It's everything you've dreamed of, no dissent from what you and your masters deem acceptable or "truth". Anyone who says otherwise sees the inside of a jail cell.
Here's an anonymous survey of expert virologist, epidemiologists etc. showing that they think the most likely explanation is zoonosis.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
No they don't. People who rely on public funding and want to appear not racist still state it might be what the Chinese told us. Everyone else with more than one brain cell can see what happened. You are the establishment, you are the censor and it is little wonder that you would back state censorship of speech. It's everything you've dreamed of, no dissent from what you and your masters deem acceptable or "truth". Anyone who says otherwise sees the inside of a jail cell.
Here's an anonymous survey of expert virologist, epidemiologists etc. showing that they think the most likely explanation is zoonosis.
Britain Elects @BritainElects So far there has been disorder in about four in ten seats where Reform came second in July – that’s 38 of them. In these same areas, the Reform vote averaged 19 percent, compared to the 14 per cent they received nationally.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
No they don't. People who rely on public funding and want to appear not racist still state it might be what the Chinese told us. Everyone else with more than one brain cell can see what happened. You are the establishment, you are the censor and it is little wonder that you would back state censorship of speech. It's everything you've dreamed of, no dissent from what you and your masters deem acceptable or "truth". Anyone who says otherwise sees the inside of a jail cell.
Here's an anonymous survey of expert virologist, epidemiologists etc. showing that they think the most likely explanation is zoonosis.
Regulating "fake news" does bring about a ministry of truth and while that may be of some use during exceptional circumstances such as war time, having a government department decide what constitutes acceptable "truth" during peacetime is probably the most Orwellian idea the government could come up with.
I hope that there is enough opposition to the idea within Labour's own benches to kill it, if not then we just have to hop the Tories, Lib Dems or a coalition are able repeal this in 2029.
Is there any actual proposed legislation, or is this just a Telegraph story ? Please post details, as I don't have access to the Telegraph.
Here's the start of the article
Tech companies will be forced to ban fake news from their platforms under plans being considered by the Government in the wake of the riots. Sir Keir Starmer suggested on Friday that the Government would review social media laws as part of efforts to prevent further disorder. The Telegraph understands that ministers are looking at introducing a duty on social media companies to restrict “legal but harmful” content. It could mean that firms are required to remove or suppress posts spreading fake news about asylum seekers or other topics such as self-harm, even if they do not meet the threshold for illegality.
'Considered; 'understand that'; 'review'; 'looking at'. So incorrect to say that "tech companies will be forced to ban..."
If and when they introduce actual proposals, I'll consider getting wound up about it. A story in the Telegraph, not so much.
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
Which is the point I was making to mr Jessop he attacks Leon for his certainty (correctly in my view) but gives Bondezegu a free pass for his certainty (incorrectly in my view)
I think either could be the truth I doubt we will ever know and until either side brings compelling evidence then we should view any certainty about the origin as equally spurious
Comments
It would be like how the Encyclopeadia Brittanica used to look on your book shelves....
Priti Patel interview:
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
Shapiro might have added 0.5% in Pennsylvania, but at the expense of young Democrats in Michigan, etc
Given likely moves in the last week or so, and the approval ratings vs pre-election, I’m going with:
Lab: 34% (-)
Con: 22% (-2)
LD: 11% (-1)
Ref: 16% (+2)
Grn: 9% (+3)
SNP: 3% (-)
Other: 6%
Ref is the hardest to predict. Either they’ve soared because of the riots and Farage being in the news, or they’ve slumped because of the riots and Farage being in the news, of they e stayed roughly the same. I’m assuming the latter because Con post election are unlikely to have surged so those right wing votes have to go somewhere. Green will be enjoying a post election honeymoon. LD will be getting the usual tactical unwind,
You can complain as much as you want about the general state of the UK, but it's a stretch to blame what is happening on the current Labour government.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/03/opinion/covid-lab-leak.html
“Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points”
Using it alone indoors is a bit iffy condensation wise, obviously, unless the windows are open, and thick stuff dries slowly even near a radiator, so a heated one might be better (have a look at Lakeland or John lewis, perhaps, though IANAE).
But also - Presidential?
I think we've been quite lucky that we've only COVID (?), bird flu, monkeypox, SARS so far given globalisation and how much more densely populated parts of Asia are.
But Harris could be President for 8 years and then so could he, and he would still be younger than Donald Trump, so he might get his shot!
Lab: 39%
Con: 20%
LD: 11%
Ref: 16%
Grn: 9%
SNP: 2%
She lost because she didn't even make it to Iowa. She pulled out long before the first votes were cast, because she was unable to raise money.
Why?
Because she was neither a champion of the left, like Warren or Sanders. Nor a fresh face like Buttigieg. Nor an ex Vice President like Biden.
She was a dull, centrist former Prosecutor and Attorney General, who has earned the enmity of the Left by being pretty tough on crime. And who was unable to enthuse the center of the party to compensate.
She was dreadful.
And I thought @HYUFD's historic take was spot on: she was a poor candidate. And the Dems would likely lose with her as candidate.
But you know what: she said utterly ruthless in sewing up the nomination. She made a very smart VP pick. And she's proved herself to be both well organized, and a blank slate. And there's nothing better for getting elected than being a blank slate.
https://wethink-strapi-k5d3.onrender.com/uploads/Voter_Intention_Tracker_240715_2_a088324867.png
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above
Other defective equipment
Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that'
Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice'
Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity_incidents
Walz has suggested that being Veep is the height of his ambitions. But if he has been a rock by Harris's side for 8 years, I guess Coach might extend his public service for a few more years - if it was what the people wanted.
If they had said: "Look, we've got something really bad going on here; we don't quite have a handle on what it is yet, or how it spreads, but it is look serious," along with data, then many lives may have been saved.
She’s not Abe Lincoln but it’s likely enough to beat an ageing, ever-crazier Trump
She would lose badly to a sane Republican
After all, people lose races all the time and then come back somewhere else years down the line to win.
Heck, Trump lost the 2020 election and not only has that not hindered him with the GOP base he has them all convinced he never lost it!
I was interested by the mention that the US had no BPC equivalent, since I recall that the BPC was US-inspired, as it confirms on its website - "The BPC was modelled on the National Council for Published Polls in the USA"!
That's if he loses of course. If he wins, can you imagine who get the nod next time? I feel like Vance might get a challenge from one of the Trump children.
Why pick Patel now?
The Govt adopted an official definition of antisemitism in 2016, under Theresa May. That wasn't a blasphemy law either.
She may have difficulty in that there are more centrist and more right wing candidates in the race, so how could she position herself?
I remember, when at uni, I used to visit people in their various places. Some of the tings that were sat in a pretty ordinary flask, with a stopper, was a bit startling.
Oxford scientists make new solar cell technology discovery which you could soon wear, stick on your mobile or coat your car with
https://inews.co.uk/news/business/solar-energy-breakthrough-solar-panels-oxford-university-3219693
Read the story if you like but there is this bit at the end about an earlier breakthrough creating jobs in Germany.
Their work has strong commercial potential and is already being applied to utilities, construction, and car manufacturing industries. Oxford PV, a UK-based firm spun out of Oxford University Physics in 2010 by Professor Henry Snaith to commercialise perovskite photovoltaics, recently started large-scale manufacturing of them at its factory near Berlin, Germany. This is the world’s first volume manufacturing line for these specially designed tandem solar cells.
‘We originally looked at UK sites to start manufacturing but the government has yet to match the fiscal and commercial incentives on offer in other parts of Europe and the United States,’ Professor Snaith said. ‘Thus far the UK has thought about solar energy purely in terms of building new solar farms, but the real growth will come from commercialising innovations – we very much hope that the newly-created British Energy will direct its attention to this.’
There's only a certain amount of scrolling before it becomes too boring to bother
any real access to the lab
Why do all this if it came from the wet market??
It came from the lab, anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda
Anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda.
Then, when they are out of the context, they spring back.
The most dramatic version of this was Portillo. Who twisted himself into a parody of a right winger. Much of the dislike for him in that pose was the insincerity. Which was clearly apparent.
If there was an outbreak of something that was being researched into at Porton Down would you believe that the source was a local butcher selling wild rabbit ?
"The media narrative that endowed the EDL and various right-wing individuals with formidable organising resources was and remains the invention of the propaganda machine of the British Establishment. No doubt right wing activists posted provocative statements on the social media and a handful participated in rioting. But their influence has been blown out of proportion to inflate the role and the threat posed by the far right."
https://frankfuredi.substack.com/p/twelve-theses-on-the-distorted-representation
Title of substack post.
"Twelve theses on the distorted representation of the communal conflicts raging throughout the United Kingdom
On the politics of fear pursued by the British Government and its collaborators in the media and the NGO complex
FRANK FUREDI
AUG 10, 2024"
Looks silly written down, but his delivery is very good. They are trying to appeal to the middle ground as well, ex-Republicans and the like, but Walz and Harris are at the moment at least succeeding at enthusing their base, which remains important.
Not for outsiders. But for the hierarchy. Imagine you are the lab director - if you are accused of having caused a leak, you are dead. If you are the local boss in charge of labs - dead. If you approved any research at the labs - dead.
It's nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It's about the mere accusation being a crime.
The exact inverse of Just Culture, really.
IMV it's a poor comparison.
But his delivery was totally different...for a start, he smiled, and laughed, and clapped, and talked about other people not just himself.
To clean the women's changing and shower area we would knock on a glass window between the two areas and someone would check the changing area was clear from the other side. One day I wandered in (having made the appropriate check) to find a lady standing there stark naked. Now before you get too excited she was almost as wide as she was tall. I apologised and made my exit
She obviously complained and we were called to some sort of manager's office and asked who had walked in on the lady. I owned up, expecting to get fired. He asked if I had seen anything to which I replied yes and then said that would be enough to put you off women for life and left it at that. Not sure that would be acceptable today.
So the more extreme a candidate the easier it is for voters to vote for the opponent.
For example in Pennsylvania in 2022 in the senate election the GOP had the weak, inexperienced but unthreatening Mehmet Oz as candidate and he lost by 5%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Pennsylvania
but in the governor election the GOP had an extreme MAGA candidate in Doug Mastriano as candidate and lost by 15%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Pennsylvania_gubernatorial_election
Currently its a lot easier to vote against Trump-Vance than against Harris-Walz.
Part of his anger at Cameron, is that he had a chance to lead the Conservative Party and do the Cameron thing, but self collapsed his campaign instead.
The outbreak just happening to be at the one nearest to the lab.
Then there's the regulations doublethink:
So its supposedly easy for a market to be the cause as they have no regulations but impossible for the nearby lab to be because their regulations are perfect.
But you’re right, I think it would have been taken somewhat more seriously today.
Either that or he didn’t like the complainant!
It’s also possible she might believe what she’s saying.
Odds against, for a conservative politician during a leadership contest, I grant you, but can’t be discounted.
Unless November and December bring him a spate of legal problems and he’s finally locked up immediately after Christmas!
I'll go with "Mike Yarwood in Persons in the Theatre at the end of Southwold Pier."
Sometimes fun, but no single facet to be taken as comprehensive.
So that was a bit silly saying that there at the end.
Personally don't think we will ever know for certain and both are plausible.
Please post details, as I don't have access to the Telegraph.
Like Kristian Andersen, the virologist who co-wrote the notorious Proximal Origins Paper in Nature in early 2020 which famously attempted to refute lab leak, and promote Zoonosis
Even as he co-authored this paper, Kristian Andersen, who had studied the virus closely, wrote in a PRIVATE email (only unearthed by Freedom of Information) -
"the lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario"
I mean, even the main proponent of the "wet market" bollocks privately thinks it came from the lab. Indeed, he says it is "so frigging likely"
What does that tell you? It tells you it came from the lab
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1822118366682755571
Sir Keir Starmer suggested on Friday that the Government would review social media laws as part of efforts to prevent further disorder.
The Telegraph understands that ministers are looking at introducing a duty on social media companies to restrict “legal but harmful” content.
It could mean that firms are required to remove or suppress posts spreading fake news about asylum seekers or other topics such as self-harm, even if they do not meet the threshold for illegality.
https://www.science.org/content/article/virologists-and-epidemiologists-back-natural-origin-covid-19-survey-suggests
Britain Elects
@BritainElects
So far there has been disorder in about four in ten seats where Reform came second in July – that’s 38 of them. In these same areas, the Reform vote averaged 19 percent, compared to the 14 per cent they received nationally.
But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
So incorrect to say that "tech companies will be forced to ban..."
If and when they introduce actual proposals, I'll consider getting wound up about it.
A story in the Telegraph, not so much.
I think either could be the truth I doubt we will ever know and until either side brings compelling evidence then we should view any certainty about the origin as equally spurious