So on OGH's last holiday Nicola Sturgeon was arrested and today The Times reports
Nicola Sturgeon still under investigation in SNP finances inquiry
Operation Branchform was triggered in July 2021 after complaints relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP
Nicola Sturgeon is still under investigation as part of an inquiry into the SNP’s finances, Scotland’s chief constable has confirmed.
Jo Farrell refused to say when Operation Branchform, the police investigation into the funding and finances of the SNP, will end. The inquiry was triggered in July 2021 after complaints were made relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP to fight a new independence referendum campaign.
I’m sure they can stretch it out till 08/05/26 if they really, really try.
I've just been cited for court for something that happened in 2021. Will be late this year/next year. The police officer who phoned me about it couldn't help laughing about ridiculous the situation is.
In the High Court, where I work, that is about average unless the accused is in custody in which case it would be slightly faster. In the Sheriff court, where less serious matters are dealt with, that seems extraordinarily slow.
SKS really is doing something right, then, down here he's cleared up the backlog so people are getting jailed within bare weeks of their crimes!
Difference between proper crown court trials and magistrates courts.
Mags can only do 12 months, right? And people have been getting multiple years? (I missed a lot of the details, I was away for a couple of weeks).
Only six months maximum in magistrates
No. It’s been increased to 12 even for one offence under the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022.
That's interesting - the Gov UK website still says 6 months for one offence.
So on OGH's last holiday Nicola Sturgeon was arrested and today The Times reports
Nicola Sturgeon still under investigation in SNP finances inquiry
Operation Branchform was triggered in July 2021 after complaints relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP
Nicola Sturgeon is still under investigation as part of an inquiry into the SNP’s finances, Scotland’s chief constable has confirmed.
Jo Farrell refused to say when Operation Branchform, the police investigation into the funding and finances of the SNP, will end. The inquiry was triggered in July 2021 after complaints were made relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP to fight a new independence referendum campaign.
I’m sure they can stretch it out till 08/05/26 if they really, really try.
I've just been cited for court for something that happened in 2021. Will be late this year/next year. The police officer who phoned me about it couldn't help laughing about ridiculous the situation is.
In the High Court, where I work, that is about average unless the accused is in custody in which case it would be slightly faster. In the Sheriff court, where less serious matters are dealt with, that seems extraordinarily slow.
SKS really is doing something right, then, down here he's cleared up the backlog so people are getting jailed within bare weeks of their crimes!
Difference between proper crown court trials and magistrates courts.
Mags can only do 12 months, right? And people have been getting multiple years? (I missed a lot of the details, I was away for a couple of weeks).
There are a couple of exemptions to the 12 month max, IIRC - but not much more than that.
Yeah - they are *charging* people with more serious offences. Which is why they are going to crown court, and getting guilty pleas. The lawyers will be telling the clients that a) the offences can’t be disputed (mostly) and b) that the heavy charging means that the sentences can get big.
What has changed is the severity of the offences being charged. If they started handing out sentences outside the guidelines, those would be reduced on appeal, almost automatically.
In normal times, the *charges* are often much less than the offence could justify.
Also these charges while serious are not as serious as they could be. Replace Violent conduct with Riot and the starting point isn't 2 years it's (from memory) 5...
Hunt and Sunak both rather hard done by in terms of the forecasts. The OBR forecast was 0.8% for the entire year as recently as May of this year. Seriously wrong, adversely affecting borrowing and tax take tying the government's hands on both tax cuts and spending.
And Reeves wants to give them even more influence.
Wait until Rishi finds out who it was who called the election early instead of waiting for better economic news when Parliament still had most of a year left to go.
That seems to have been himself. There is going to be a modest blip upwards in inflation as we saw this week but the underlying news, particularly in terms of growth, was much better than was being reported.
Simplest explanation is that Hunt maxxed out the borrowing to engineer a pre-election feelgood boomlet. After all, consumers had 4p off their tax rate. These things generally aren't that sustainable, and it can be viewed as another of the poos that Hunt and Sunak left on the Downing St carpet for their sucessors to clean up.
Robert F Kennedy Jr, the independent presidential candidate, has revealed he attempted to meet Kamala Harris to broach the prospect of endorsing her in exchange for a cabinet position.
The son of the late former US attorney general launched his third party presidential bid last October and surprised many pundits by securing double-digits in some polls of the 2024 White House race.
His support has fallen dramatically since Joe Biden withdrew from the race and Ms Harris replaced the president at the top of the Democratic ticket.
Mr Kennedy, 70, sought a meeting with Ms Harris, 59, last week to discuss the possibility of backing her campaign in exchange for a high-level position in her administration should she win, his campaign aides told the Washington Post and CNN.
Ms Harris and her advisers did not take up the offer to meet and have shown no interest in the proposal, which Mr Kennedy called a “strategic mistake”.
Robert F Kennedy Jr, the independent presidential candidate, has revealed he attempted to meet Kamala Harris to broach the prospect of endorsing her in exchange for a cabinet position.
The son of the late former US attorney general launched his third party presidential bid last October and surprised many pundits by securing double-digits in some polls of the 2024 White House race.
His support has fallen dramatically since Joe Biden withdrew from the race and Ms Harris replaced the president at the top of the Democratic ticket.
Mr Kennedy, 70, sought a meeting with Ms Harris, 59, last week to discuss the possibility of backing her campaign in exchange for a high-level position in her administration should she win, his campaign aides told the Washington Post and CNN.
Ms Harris and her advisers did not take up the offer to meet and have shown no interest in the proposal, which Mr Kennedy called a “strategic mistake”.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
It's also clear that they need things to look like a tight election because this is the States and they could easily have rigged the unknown question to generate any result they wanted.
So on OGH's last holiday Nicola Sturgeon was arrested and today The Times reports
Nicola Sturgeon still under investigation in SNP finances inquiry
Operation Branchform was triggered in July 2021 after complaints relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP
Nicola Sturgeon is still under investigation as part of an inquiry into the SNP’s finances, Scotland’s chief constable has confirmed.
Jo Farrell refused to say when Operation Branchform, the police investigation into the funding and finances of the SNP, will end. The inquiry was triggered in July 2021 after complaints were made relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP to fight a new independence referendum campaign.
I’m sure they can stretch it out till 08/05/26 if they really, really try.
I've just been cited for court for something that happened in 2021. Will be late this year/next year. The police officer who phoned me about it couldn't help laughing about ridiculous the situation is.
In the High Court, where I work, that is about average unless the accused is in custody in which case it would be slightly faster. In the Sheriff court, where less serious matters are dealt with, that seems extraordinarily slow.
SKS really is doing something right, then, down here he's cleared up the backlog so people are getting jailed within bare weeks of their crimes!
Difference between proper crown court trials and magistrates courts.
Mags can only do 12 months, right? And people have been getting multiple years? (I missed a lot of the details, I was away for a couple of weeks).
There are a couple of exemptions to the 12 month max, IIRC - but not much more than that.
Yeah - they are *charging* people with more serious offences. Which is why they are going to crown court, and getting guilty pleas. The lawyers will be telling the clients that a) the offences can’t be disputed (mostly) and b) that the heavy charging means that the sentences can get big.
What has changed is the severity of the offences being charged. If they started handing out sentences outside the guidelines, those would be reduced on appeal, almost automatically.
In normal times, the *charges* are often much less than the offence could justify.
Also these charges while serious are not as serious as they could be. Replace Violent conduct with Riot and the starting point isn't 2 years it's (from memory) 5...
It's one way the system modulates the result - the government can turn the knob for charging up and down. And there is little that can be done to appeal that.
In theory, the ULEZ pipe bomb vs camera things could get you *life*, if they charge as a full terrorist offence.
So on OGH's last holiday Nicola Sturgeon was arrested and today The Times reports
Nicola Sturgeon still under investigation in SNP finances inquiry
Operation Branchform was triggered in July 2021 after complaints relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP
Nicola Sturgeon is still under investigation as part of an inquiry into the SNP’s finances, Scotland’s chief constable has confirmed.
Jo Farrell refused to say when Operation Branchform, the police investigation into the funding and finances of the SNP, will end. The inquiry was triggered in July 2021 after complaints were made relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP to fight a new independence referendum campaign.
I’m sure they can stretch it out till 08/05/26 if they really, really try.
I've just been cited for court for something that happened in 2021. Will be late this year/next year. The police officer who phoned me about it couldn't help laughing about ridiculous the situation is.
In the High Court, where I work, that is about average unless the accused is in custody in which case it would be slightly faster. In the Sheriff court, where less serious matters are dealt with, that seems extraordinarily slow.
SKS really is doing something right, then, down here he's cleared up the backlog so people are getting jailed within bare weeks of their crimes!
Difference between proper crown court trials and magistrates courts.
Mags can only do 12 months, right? And people have been getting multiple years? (I missed a lot of the details, I was away for a couple of weeks).
Only six months maximum in magistrates
No. It’s been increased to 12 even for one offence under the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022.
That's interesting - the Gov UK website still says 6 months for one offence.
So on OGH's last holiday Nicola Sturgeon was arrested and today The Times reports
Nicola Sturgeon still under investigation in SNP finances inquiry
Operation Branchform was triggered in July 2021 after complaints relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP
Nicola Sturgeon is still under investigation as part of an inquiry into the SNP’s finances, Scotland’s chief constable has confirmed.
Jo Farrell refused to say when Operation Branchform, the police investigation into the funding and finances of the SNP, will end. The inquiry was triggered in July 2021 after complaints were made relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP to fight a new independence referendum campaign.
I’m sure they can stretch it out till 08/05/26 if they really, really try.
I've just been cited for court for something that happened in 2021. Will be late this year/next year. The police officer who phoned me about it couldn't help laughing about ridiculous the situation is.
In the High Court, where I work, that is about average unless the accused is in custody in which case it would be slightly faster. In the Sheriff court, where less serious matters are dealt with, that seems extraordinarily slow.
SKS really is doing something right, then, down here he's cleared up the backlog so people are getting jailed within bare weeks of their crimes!
Difference between proper crown court trials and magistrates courts.
Mags can only do 12 months, right? And people have been getting multiple years? (I missed a lot of the details, I was away for a couple of weeks).
Only six months maximum in magistrates
No. It’s been increased to 12 even for one offence under the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022.
That's interesting - the Gov UK website still says 6 months for one offence.
Robert F Kennedy Jr, the independent presidential candidate, has revealed he attempted to meet Kamala Harris to broach the prospect of endorsing her in exchange for a cabinet position.
The son of the late former US attorney general launched his third party presidential bid last October and surprised many pundits by securing double-digits in some polls of the 2024 White House race.
His support has fallen dramatically since Joe Biden withdrew from the race and Ms Harris replaced the president at the top of the Democratic ticket.
Mr Kennedy, 70, sought a meeting with Ms Harris, 59, last week to discuss the possibility of backing her campaign in exchange for a high-level position in her administration should she win, his campaign aides told the Washington Post and CNN.
Ms Harris and her advisers did not take up the offer to meet and have shown no interest in the proposal, which Mr Kennedy called a “strategic mistake”.
I would call it the opposite of a strategic mistake - but it shows he hasn't got a clue where his voters are coming from.
Remember you typical RFK voter hasn't seen a conspiracy theory they don't believe in..
A month ago he had a few % of typical Democratic votes in the Biden too old category but now he is surely mostly taking from Trump. Therefore, without getting too conspiratorial wouldn't be surprised to see him now pull out if the reasons behind his campaign are what I suspect.
Excellent (paywalled) article on the recent riots. Some snippets:
UK needs no lessons from apologists for rioters
Those behind the rioting are not misguided social justice warriors, they are violent, far-right racists fortified by a general hooligan element that was up for a ruck and expected to face no consequences. Now they know better.
It is easy to mock Sir Keir Starmer for reverting to type as a former prosecutor but nearly 1,000 arrests and some rapid and tough sentences was the right response [to restore confidence in the law]
For all the vacuous “something must be donery” of many commentators there are real underlying issues. But even if you accept that the riots were about anything beyond violence, they have not changed the calculation. The answers are what they have always been: improved economic prospects, investment in skills to secure high-status blue-collar jobs, better housing, good public services. In fact, all the things Labour was elected to deliver.
For Starmer, these grim scenes have marred the start of his government. But the riots told us nothing we didn’t already know about the state of Britain except perhaps the value of a tough response, the true measure of the instigators and the cynicism of their apologists.
Robert F Kennedy Jr, the independent presidential candidate, has revealed he attempted to meet Kamala Harris to broach the prospect of endorsing her in exchange for a cabinet position.
The son of the late former US attorney general launched his third party presidential bid last October and surprised many pundits by securing double-digits in some polls of the 2024 White House race.
His support has fallen dramatically since Joe Biden withdrew from the race and Ms Harris replaced the president at the top of the Democratic ticket.
Mr Kennedy, 70, sought a meeting with Ms Harris, 59, last week to discuss the possibility of backing her campaign in exchange for a high-level position in her administration should she win, his campaign aides told the Washington Post and CNN.
Ms Harris and her advisers did not take up the offer to meet and have shown no interest in the proposal, which Mr Kennedy called a “strategic mistake”.
I would call it the opposite of a strategic mistake - but it shows he hasn't got a clue where his voters are coming from.
Remember you typical RFK voter hasn't seen a conspiracy theory they don't believe in..
He's already offered a similar deal to Trump. All it shows, as if one needed the demonstration, is his complete lack of any principle other than his own advancement.
Excellent (paywalled) article on the recent riots. Some snippets:
UK needs no lessons from apologists for rioters
Those behind the rioting are not misguided social justice warriors, they are violent, far-right racists fortified by a general hooligan element that was up for a ruck and expected to face no consequences. Now they know better.
It is easy to mock Sir Keir Starmer for reverting to type as a former prosecutor but nearly 1,000 arrests and some rapid and tough sentences was the right response [to restore confidence in the law]
For all the vacuous “something must be donery” of many commentators there are real underlying issues. But even if you accept that the riots were about anything beyond violence, they have not changed the calculation. The answers are what they have always been: improved economic prospects, investment in skills to secure high-status blue-collar jobs, better housing, good public services. In fact, all the things Labour was elected to deliver.
For Starmer, these grim scenes have marred the start of his government. But the riots told us nothing we didn’t already know about the state of Britain except perhaps the value of a tough response, the true measure of the instigators and the cynicism of their apologists.
Hunt and Sunak both rather hard done by in terms of the forecasts. The OBR forecast was 0.8% for the entire year as recently as May of this year. Seriously wrong, adversely affecting borrowing and tax take tying the government's hands on both tax cuts and spending.
And Reeves wants to give them even more influence.
Wait until Rishi finds out who it was who called the election early instead of waiting for better economic news when Parliament still had most of a year left to go.
That seems to have been himself. There is going to be a modest blip upwards in inflation as we saw this week but the underlying news, particularly in terms of growth, was much better than was being reported.
Simplest explanation is that Hunt maxxed out the borrowing to engineer a pre-election feelgood boomlet. After all, consumers had 4p off their tax rate. These things generally aren't that sustainable, and it can be viewed as another of the poos that Hunt and Sunak left on the Downing St carpet for their sucessors to clean up.
But it's a good thing for now.
Consumers had what off their what?
Taxes went UP. Not down. A cut in NI rates at the same time as the overall tax take goes up - the effect is that the rate of the tax increase is reduced vs how it would have been without the NI cut.
The reason why the Tories got destroyed is because as they visibly and noticeably put taxes up they kept insisting they were cutting taxes. It wasn't remotely credible because it was an egregious lie.
This 53 year old woman, who was jailed today, looks about 25 years older than she is. Makes you wonder what life is like in those parts of the country.
Reading that, the sentence seems totally disproportionate to the crime. She expressed an opinion she probably didn't even really hold (I doubt if you gave her a mosque full of adults and an explosive charge, completely free of legal consequence, she would actually push the plunger), suggesting she would prefer this unpleasant outcome to the community clear up that was actually ongoing.
Personally, I'd rather permit this sort of unpleasant speech than lose free speech, but even if you say that these sorts of sentiments are beyond the pale, and should be illegal, for a first time offender of previous good character, surely this is the sort of thing where community service would actually be a good answer.
She's likely to take it seriously, and not repeat offend. I can't see any useful purpose to be gained by imprisonment in this case - it's going to cost us a fortune, ruin her life, and at the end of it she'll probably be more convinced/radicalised that Tommy Robinson et-al are right about the system being rigged against "normal" people.
I think this is about context again. It is a time of widespread violent disorder, and the type of post she made is exactly the sort that has encouraged others to go to see what is happening, then get involved.
The post contributes to causing fear for sections of our society who are to be respected, are more vulnerable, and have a right not to be targeted. She was also reacting *against* the positive response of the local community.
For the sentence those contribute to the need to make it exemplary and a deterrent. Plus there are multiple aggravating factors.
We have had social media for 20 years, and we all know how things go viral. It is basic that we should not to react without thinking. Yes we've all done it, but most of us know that to call for people to be blown up or burnt alive is a *touch* unacceptable.
We also had very similar events, and provocations, and sentences, in the London and copycat riots in 2011.
IMO it had to be custodial. 15 months too much? I'm really not sure, perhaps I would say 6-9 months. They don't have much experience of sentencing yet, as that Act was only passed in the last year by the last Government.
Here are the videoed sentencing remarks by a Judge on another "keyboard warrior" case, who had a previous criminal record, and made more substantive posts. He got 20 months: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xelrwm7fS_k
It does feel harsh. But what if people had been burnt alive there? Or if the posts were promoting Islamic terrorists to burn people alive in churches? There needed to be swift and clear deterrents and that has worked in calming things down back to normal.
I hope she serves less than 5 months personally, even a month or two would be fine, but can understand why the sentencing was stricter based on the wider context not just her own actions.
So on OGH's last holiday Nicola Sturgeon was arrested and today The Times reports
Nicola Sturgeon still under investigation in SNP finances inquiry
Operation Branchform was triggered in July 2021 after complaints relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP
Nicola Sturgeon is still under investigation as part of an inquiry into the SNP’s finances, Scotland’s chief constable has confirmed.
Jo Farrell refused to say when Operation Branchform, the police investigation into the funding and finances of the SNP, will end. The inquiry was triggered in July 2021 after complaints were made relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP to fight a new independence referendum campaign.
I’m sure they can stretch it out till 08/05/26 if they really, really try.
I've just been cited for court for something that happened in 2021. Will be late this year/next year. The police officer who phoned me about it couldn't help laughing about ridiculous the situation is.
In the High Court, where I work, that is about average unless the accused is in custody in which case it would be slightly faster. In the Sheriff court, where less serious matters are dealt with, that seems extraordinarily slow.
SKS really is doing something right, then, down here he's cleared up the backlog so people are getting jailed within bare weeks of their crimes!
Difference between proper crown court trials and magistrates courts.
Mags can only do 12 months, right? And people have been getting multiple years? (I missed a lot of the details, I was away for a couple of weeks).
Only six months maximum in magistrates
Per offence, I thought. So they can go to two years.
In defence of Fox News polling they’re conducted jointly by a Dem and GOP research company . It has often in the past produced results that have drawn the ire of Trump .
The headline figure is not far removed from most other polls , we are basically talking MOE . People shouldn’t assume just because Fox News pays for the poll it’s biased.
So on OGH's last holiday Nicola Sturgeon was arrested and today The Times reports
Nicola Sturgeon still under investigation in SNP finances inquiry
Operation Branchform was triggered in July 2021 after complaints relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP
Nicola Sturgeon is still under investigation as part of an inquiry into the SNP’s finances, Scotland’s chief constable has confirmed.
Jo Farrell refused to say when Operation Branchform, the police investigation into the funding and finances of the SNP, will end. The inquiry was triggered in July 2021 after complaints were made relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP to fight a new independence referendum campaign.
I’m sure they can stretch it out till 08/05/26 if they really, really try.
I've just been cited for court for something that happened in 2021. Will be late this year/next year. The police officer who phoned me about it couldn't help laughing about ridiculous the situation is.
In the High Court, where I work, that is about average unless the accused is in custody in which case it would be slightly faster. In the Sheriff court, where less serious matters are dealt with, that seems extraordinarily slow.
SKS really is doing something right, then, down here he's cleared up the backlog so people are getting jailed within bare weeks of their crimes!
Difference between proper crown court trials and magistrates courts.
Mags can only do 12 months, right? And people have been getting multiple years? (I missed a lot of the details, I was away for a couple of weeks).
There are a couple of exemptions to the 12 month max, IIRC - but not much more than that.
Yeah - they are *charging* people with more serious offences. Which is why they are going to crown court, and getting guilty pleas. The lawyers will be telling the clients that a) the offences can’t be disputed (mostly) and b) that the heavy charging means that the sentences can get big.
What has changed is the severity of the offences being charged. If they started handing out sentences outside the guidelines, those would be reduced on appeal, almost automatically.
In normal times, the *charges* are often much less than the offence could justify.
Also these charges while serious are not as serious as they could be. Replace Violent conduct with Riot and the starting point isn't 2 years it's (from memory) 5...
It's one way the system modulates the result - the government can turn the knob for charging up and down. And there is little that can be done to appeal that.
In theory, the ULEZ pipe bomb vs camera things could get you *life*, if they charge as a full terrorist offence.
The other is which judge hears the cases.
Not really sentencing guidelines are rather strict and have to be followed - the judge really can't do anything if the defendant pleads guilty..
I hope all the A level students in people's lives got the grades they were hoping for. Our daughter got the grades she needed to study maths and philosophy at Oxford so we are very proud parents this morning.
So on OGH's last holiday Nicola Sturgeon was arrested and today The Times reports
Nicola Sturgeon still under investigation in SNP finances inquiry
Operation Branchform was triggered in July 2021 after complaints relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP
Nicola Sturgeon is still under investigation as part of an inquiry into the SNP’s finances, Scotland’s chief constable has confirmed.
Jo Farrell refused to say when Operation Branchform, the police investigation into the funding and finances of the SNP, will end. The inquiry was triggered in July 2021 after complaints were made relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP to fight a new independence referendum campaign.
I’m sure they can stretch it out till 08/05/26 if they really, really try.
I've just been cited for court for something that happened in 2021. Will be late this year/next year. The police officer who phoned me about it couldn't help laughing about ridiculous the situation is.
In the High Court, where I work, that is about average unless the accused is in custody in which case it would be slightly faster. In the Sheriff court, where less serious matters are dealt with, that seems extraordinarily slow.
SKS really is doing something right, then, down here he's cleared up the backlog so people are getting jailed within bare weeks of their crimes!
Difference between proper crown court trials and magistrates courts.
Mags can only do 12 months, right? And people have been getting multiple years? (I missed a lot of the details, I was away for a couple of weeks).
Only six months maximum in magistrates
Per offence, I thought. So they can go to two years.
They can go to 12 months for two offences. It briefly went up to 12 months per single offence in 2022 but inexplicably they went back to that position after changing their minds. Mea Culpa for not noticing the reversal.
So on OGH's last holiday Nicola Sturgeon was arrested and today The Times reports
Nicola Sturgeon still under investigation in SNP finances inquiry
Operation Branchform was triggered in July 2021 after complaints relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP
Nicola Sturgeon is still under investigation as part of an inquiry into the SNP’s finances, Scotland’s chief constable has confirmed.
Jo Farrell refused to say when Operation Branchform, the police investigation into the funding and finances of the SNP, will end. The inquiry was triggered in July 2021 after complaints were made relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP to fight a new independence referendum campaign.
I’m sure they can stretch it out till 08/05/26 if they really, really try.
I've just been cited for court for something that happened in 2021. Will be late this year/next year. The police officer who phoned me about it couldn't help laughing about ridiculous the situation is.
In the High Court, where I work, that is about average unless the accused is in custody in which case it would be slightly faster. In the Sheriff court, where less serious matters are dealt with, that seems extraordinarily slow.
SKS really is doing something right, then, down here he's cleared up the backlog so people are getting jailed within bare weeks of their crimes!
Difference between proper crown court trials and magistrates courts.
Mags can only do 12 months, right? And people have been getting multiple years? (I missed a lot of the details, I was away for a couple of weeks).
There are a couple of exemptions to the 12 month max, IIRC - but not much more than that.
Yeah - they are *charging* people with more serious offences. Which is why they are going to crown court, and getting guilty pleas. The lawyers will be telling the clients that a) the offences can’t be disputed (mostly) and b) that the heavy charging means that the sentences can get big.
What has changed is the severity of the offences being charged. If they started handing out sentences outside the guidelines, those would be reduced on appeal, almost automatically.
In normal times, the *charges* are often much less than the offence could justify.
Also these charges while serious are not as serious as they could be. Replace Violent conduct with Riot and the starting point isn't 2 years it's (from memory) 5...
It's one way the system modulates the result - the government can turn the knob for charging up and down. And there is little that can be done to appeal that.
In theory, the ULEZ pipe bomb vs camera things could get you *life*, if they charge as a full terrorist offence.
The other is which judge hears the cases.
Not really sentencing guidelines are rather strict and have to be followed - the judge really can't do anything if the defendant pleads guilty..
That's what I was trying to say - the guidelines are being followed. If the judge went outside the guidelines* then the judge would be hot water.
What is happening is that the defendants are being charged with more serious offences. And pleading guilty rather than risk even heavier sentences.
*The guidelines, for some offences, have specific "exceptional circumstances" escape hatches in them. But they need to be carefully justified, IIRC.
This 53 year old woman, who was jailed today, looks about 25 years older than she is. Makes you wonder what life is like in those parts of the country.
Reading that, the sentence seems totally disproportionate to the crime. She expressed an opinion she probably didn't even really hold (I doubt if you gave her a mosque full of adults and an explosive charge, completely free of legal consequence, she would actually push the plunger), suggesting she would prefer this unpleasant outcome to the community clear up that was actually ongoing.
Personally, I'd rather permit this sort of unpleasant speech than lose free speech, but even if you say that these sorts of sentiments are beyond the pale, and should be illegal, for a first time offender of previous good character, surely this is the sort of thing where community service would actually be a good answer.
She's likely to take it seriously, and not repeat offend. I can't see any useful purpose to be gained by imprisonment in this case - it's going to cost us a fortune, ruin her life, and at the end of it she'll probably be more convinced/radicalised that Tommy Robinson et-al are right about the system being rigged against "normal" people.
I think this is about context again. It is a time of widespread violent disorder, and the type of post she made is exactly the sort that has encouraged others to go to see what is happening, then get involved.
The post contributes to causing fear for sections of our society who are to be respected, are more vulnerable, and have a right not to be targeted. She was also reacting *against* the positive response of the local community.
For the sentence those contribute to the need to make it exemplary and a deterrent. Plus there are multiple aggravating factors.
We have had social media for 20 years, and we all know how things go viral. It is basic that we should not to react without thinking. Yes we've all done it, but most of us know that to call for people to be blown up or burnt alive is a *touch* unacceptable.
We also had very similar events, and provocations, and sentences, in the London and copycat riots in 2011.
IMO it had to be custodial. 15 months too much? I'm really not sure, perhaps I would say 6-9 months. They don't have much experience of sentencing yet, as that Act was only passed in the last year by the last Government.
Here are the videoed sentencing remarks by a Judge on another "keyboard warrior" case, who had a previous criminal record, and made more substantive posts. He got 20 months: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xelrwm7fS_k
It does feel harsh. But what if people had been burnt alive there? Or if the posts were promoting Islamic terrorists to burn people alive in churches? There needed to be swift and clear deterrents and that has worked in calming things down back to normal.
I hope she serves less than 5 months personally, even a month or two would be fine, but can understand why the sentencing was stricter based on the wider context not just her own actions.
Indeed.
Shouting "fire" in a virtually empty theatre, vs a packed theatre, where a panic has already caused injuries and risk of death.
I hope all the A level students in people's lives got the grades they were hoping for. Our daughter got the grades she needed to study maths and philosophy at Oxford so we are very proud parents this morning.
My eldest got the grades she wanted for History at UCL.
I hope all the A level students in people's lives got the grades they were hoping for. Our daughter got the grades she needed to study maths and philosophy at Oxford so we are very proud parents this morning.
Nice! I recommend she doesn’t waste money on joining the Oxford Union however hard she’s persuaded. First mistake I made.
I hope all the A level students in people's lives got the grades they were hoping for. Our daughter got the grades she needed to study maths and philosophy at Oxford so we are very proud parents this morning.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Fox polling has a really good record. A small Trump lead is within the MoE of the rest of the polling.
I think the vibes about how well Harris is doing have overshot the data a bit. People are comparing her polling to the worst of Biden's Dems-in-total-panic score, instead of the score she needs to win the election.
I hope all the A level students in people's lives got the grades they were hoping for. Our daughter got the grades she needed to study maths and philosophy at Oxford so we are very proud parents this morning.
Well done her! My son is studying PPE at Oxford, concentrating on philosophy and economics. He has loved it. He's at St Annes.
I hope all the A level students in people's lives got the grades they were hoping for. Our daughter got the grades she needed to study maths and philosophy at Oxford so we are very proud parents this morning.
Congratulations to your daughter, and very proud parents indeed.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
Hunt and Sunak both rather hard done by in terms of the forecasts. The OBR forecast was 0.8% for the entire year as recently as May of this year. Seriously wrong, adversely affecting borrowing and tax take tying the government's hands on both tax cuts and spending.
And Reeves wants to give them even more influence.
Wait until Rishi finds out who it was who called the election early instead of waiting for better economic news when Parliament still had most of a year left to go.
That seems to have been himself. There is going to be a modest blip upwards in inflation as we saw this week but the underlying news, particularly in terms of growth, was much better than was being reported.
Simplest explanation is that Hunt maxxed out the borrowing to engineer a pre-election feelgood boomlet. After all, consumers had 4p off their tax rate. These things generally aren't that sustainable, and it can be viewed as another of the poos that Hunt and Sunak left on the Downing St carpet for their sucessors to clean up.
But it's a good thing for now.
Consumers had what off their what?
Taxes went UP. Not down. A cut in NI rates at the same time as the overall tax take goes up - the effect is that the rate of the tax increase is reduced vs how it would have been without the NI cut.
The reason why the Tories got destroyed is because as they visibly and noticeably put taxes up they kept insisting they were cutting taxes. It wasn't remotely credible because it was an egregious lie.
It was a brief binge halfway through a decade-long diet. Utterly cynical and dishonest, and the distributional effects were horrible.
But perfectly timed to generate a spurt of growth around the election.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
Dismissing unfavourable polls for “your side” is dangerous.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
Dismissing unfavourable polls for “your side” is dangerous.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Fox polling has a really good record. A small Trump lead is within the MoE of the rest of the polling.
I think the vibes about how well Harris is doing have overshot the data a bit. People are comparing her polling to the worst of Biden's Dems-in-total-panic score, instead of the score she needs to win the election.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
On the flip side, the Trumpet 45% seems solid, still.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Fox polling has a really good record. A small Trump lead is within the MoE of the rest of the polling.
I think the vibes about how well Harris is doing have overshot the data a bit. People are comparing her polling to the worst of Biden's Dems-in-total-panic score, instead of the score she needs to win the election.
Yes, the real test is 2016 when Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1% and got comprehensively thumped in the EC. At the moment Harris's leads would not necessarily be enough to overcome the EC disadvantage although she seems to be doing better in swing states than Clinton did.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
So on OGH's last holiday Nicola Sturgeon was arrested and today The Times reports
Nicola Sturgeon still under investigation in SNP finances inquiry
Operation Branchform was triggered in July 2021 after complaints relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP
Nicola Sturgeon is still under investigation as part of an inquiry into the SNP’s finances, Scotland’s chief constable has confirmed.
Jo Farrell refused to say when Operation Branchform, the police investigation into the funding and finances of the SNP, will end. The inquiry was triggered in July 2021 after complaints were made relating to more than £600,000 of donations given to the SNP to fight a new independence referendum campaign.
I’m sure they can stretch it out till 08/05/26 if they really, really try.
I've just been cited for court for something that happened in 2021. Will be late this year/next year. The police officer who phoned me about it couldn't help laughing about ridiculous the situation is.
In the High Court, where I work, that is about average unless the accused is in custody in which case it would be slightly faster. In the Sheriff court, where less serious matters are dealt with, that seems extraordinarily slow.
SKS really is doing something right, then, down here he's cleared up the backlog so people are getting jailed within bare weeks of their crimes!
Difference between proper crown court trials and magistrates courts.
Mags can only do 12 months, right? And people have been getting multiple years? (I missed a lot of the details, I was away for a couple of weeks).
Only six months maximum in magistrates
No. It’s been increased to 12 even for one offence under the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022.
That's interesting - the Gov UK website still says 6 months for one offence.
We were, for a short period after 2022, permitted to sentence for up to twelve months for a single offence. That permission was removed. Magistrates are encouraged to retain cases where the likely sentence will exceed their sentencing powers if a trial beckons. If there is a finding of guilt the defendant can then be remanded to the Crown Court for sentence.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
FWIW I think Harris remains a pretty weak candidate (particularly her speeches, and I don't think there is a guarantee she'll be any good in the debate), and therefore the Democrat campaign is reliant on good vibes and Walz being American Dad. That might be enough but it's a long time till the election.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Fox polling has a really good record. A small Trump lead is within the MoE of the rest of the polling.
I think the vibes about how well Harris is doing have overshot the data a bit. People are comparing her polling to the worst of Biden's Dems-in-total-panic score, instead of the score she needs to win the election.
Yes, the real test is 2016 when Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1% and got comprehensively thumped in the EC. At the moment Harris's leads would not necessarily be enough to overcome the EC disadvantage although she seems to be doing better in swing states than Clinton did.
If you allocate states according to who is the betfair favourite in each one you get Harris winning but only just - 287/251. That seems a reasonable central forecast imo if we go by current data rather than (as I do) factoring in a view that Trump is on the slide.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
FWIW I think Harris remains a pretty weak candidate (particularly her speeches, and I don't think there is a guarantee she'll be any good in the debate), and therefore the Democrat campaign is reliant on good vibes and Walz being American Dad. That might be enough but it's a long time till the election.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is peak Harris.
She is largely dependent upon Trump becoming worse or suffering from set backs in his various trials and civil cases. The chances of that happening seem better than evens so I suspect Silver is not far off.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Fox polling has a really good record. A small Trump lead is within the MoE of the rest of the polling.
I think the vibes about how well Harris is doing have overshot the data a bit. People are comparing her polling to the worst of Biden's Dems-in-total-panic score, instead of the score she needs to win the election.
Yes, the real test is 2016 when Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1% and got comprehensively thumped in the EC. At the moment Harris's leads would not necessarily be enough to overcome the EC disadvantage although she seems to be doing better in swing states than Clinton did.
If you allocate states according to who is the betfair favourite in each one you get Harris winning but only just - 287/251. That seems a reasonable central forecast imo if we go by current data rather than (as I do) factoring in a view that Trump is on the slide.
Agreed but that wasn't the case last week before Harris's surge and it might not be next week if her Convention is a drag. Unless you take the view that Trump is having a melt down this is really, really close.
I'm sure you would differ from some of my views, but I'd be interested to hear comments.
I spent a bit of time looking at the direction Liz Truss is coming from, and came across a couple of conferences for this movement. Speakers for the UK conference in 2023 included the likes of Kevin Roberts (CEO Heritage Foundation), Mogg, Kruger, Miriam Cates, Braverman, Gove, Lee Anderson, Katherine Birbal-Singh, Toby Young, Theodore Dalrymple, Lord Frost, Melanie Philips, an 'interesting' South-Coast Vicar called Daniel French, Frank Furedi, Matthew Goodwin, Juliet Samuel, Darren Grimes, Louise Perry, David Starkey, Ed West and interestingly, also JD Vance.
Values are mono-culturalism, patriotism, social conservatism, anti-modernism, anti-feminism, nationalism (obviously), anti-immigration, cultural conservatism, Euroscepticism, opposition to modernity, 'family values', preservation of national and cultural identity. And a bit of an obsession with fertility in some quarters, especially Usonian, which may explain JD Vance's posturings about the threat posed by a deep stare under the control of single cat-ladies.
It has been described as an attempt to create an intellectual / philosophical base for Trumpism. That perhaps explains some of the people endorsing him.
Interesting to me is a move away from Thatcher's relative internationalism, free trade and economic liberalism. It seems to me to be quite heavily driven by fear of the other, and goes for withdrawal rather than engagement.
If I had to choose someone to be the "soul" of National Conservatism, I'd go for the Ghost of Roger Scruton.
Meh. Give me a poll about Holyrood voting intention and I will be interested.
Reform are a clear and present threat to the Tories, and did way better up here than expected. Lets see how the ongoing shitshow leadership elections plural influence that...
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
I think we can safely say that most people on here know a lot less about the US than they think they do.
I've lost a post but I was going to reply to @DougSeal that the other thing I've picked up from this site is that I don't know enough to sanely bet on the US elections, so I'm not going to.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
FWIW I think Harris remains a pretty weak candidate (particularly her speeches, and I don't think there is a guarantee she'll be any good in the debate), and therefore the Democrat campaign is reliant on good vibes and Walz being American Dad. That might be enough but it's a long time till the election.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is peak Harris.
Harris will be the third president in a row to be a one-term president who ranks in the bottom quintile of presidents overall, and who is there largely because her opponent is so dreadful. Still, I'd take that from here.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
FWIW I think Harris remains a pretty weak candidate (particularly her speeches, and I don't think there is a guarantee she'll be any good in the debate), and therefore the Democrat campaign is reliant on good vibes and Walz being American Dad. That might be enough but it's a long time till the election.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is peak Harris.
She is largely dependent upon Trump becoming worse or suffering from set backs in his various trials and civil cases. The chances of that happening seem better than evens so I suspect Silver is not far off.
I think all that's left before the election is the sentencing for the New York case? The Georgia case is a mess, the Florida one is as good as dead, and the DC case has been stalled enough for the prosecutor to give up trying to make it go fast, so presumably he's resigned to it getting kicked past the election.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
I think we can safely say that most people on here know a lot less about the US than they think they do.
I've lost a post but I was going to reply to @DougSeal that the other thing I've picked up from this site is that I don't know enough to sanely bet on the US elections, so I'm not going to.
The US is an insanely large and diverse country and far more different from the UK than most people realise. I lived there for 5 years but would still not claim any particular insight into it - especially the non-coastal portions.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
I think we can safely say that most people on here know a lot less about the US than they think they do.
I've lost a post but I was going to reply to @DougSeal that the other thing I've picked up from this site is that I don't know enough to sanely bet on the US elections, so I'm not going to.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
Is it any worse at that, than it is at discussing UK elections dispassionately ? I really don't think so.
Can you explain to the rest of us what it is that we are missing ?
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
Is it any worse at that, than it is at discussing UK elections dispassionately ? I really don't think so.
Can you explain to the rest of us what it is that we are missing ?
Exactly.
I can watch the Ashes passionately and win betting on it. I can watch the Euros passionately and win betting on it. I can follow politics passionately and win betting on it.
Of course passion can be a cause of bad betting but chanelled correctly it can also improve betting.
And far from everyone comes here to win betting anyway, and their reasons for being here are just as valid.
I hope all the A level students in people's lives got the grades they were hoping for. Our daughter got the grades she needed to study maths and philosophy at Oxford so we are very proud parents this morning.
Congratulations!
My lad will be starting his final year at Oxford (St. Hugh's) studying Economics and Management in October. He has had an absolute blast there, and has been doing an internship in London this summer. I get him back this weekend For someone like me from a working/lower middle class background, his experiences at Oxford have been something of an eye opener, though mostly in a good way!
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
There’s no US equivalent of the British Polling Council, so they can and do ask all sorts of leading questions which get discarded from the published headline VI figure. We don’t always see see raw data tables published either.
National US polling is really quite difficult, because of the size of the place and the localised political polarisation.
UK polling tends to be much more accurate, even if those of us used to comparing UK polling to out-turn don’t always think so.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
FWIW I think Harris remains a pretty weak candidate (particularly her speeches, and I don't think there is a guarantee she'll be any good in the debate), and therefore the Democrat campaign is reliant on good vibes and Walz being American Dad. That might be enough but it's a long time till the election.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is peak Harris.
Harris will be the third president in a row to be a one-term president who ranks in the bottom quintile of presidents overall, and who is there largely because her opponent is so dreadful. Still, I'd take that from here.
Those on here who are of a politically conservative disposition do raise an eyebrow when even before the election of a national leader who is not of a conservative disposition are confident that, should the national leader not of a conservative disposition be elected ( e.g. Starmer/ Harris) they will be a one term only leader ( they may be correct of course). Yet back in the distant days of December 2019 these same posters were mulling over, with some confidence, Boris Johnson's second, third and fourth terms, particularly from the following April against Captain Hindsight/ Sir Softie.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
I don't put huge faith in US pollsters compared with ours (for the reasons TSE has frequently outlines), but Fox's poll reporting tends to be a great deal less partisan overall than is their news reporting.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Fox polling has a really good record. A small Trump lead is within the MoE of the rest of the polling.
I think the vibes about how well Harris is doing have overshot the data a bit. People are comparing her polling to the worst of Biden's Dems-in-total-panic score, instead of the score she needs to win the election.
Yes, the real test is 2016 when Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1% and got comprehensively thumped in the EC. At the moment Harris's leads would not necessarily be enough to overcome the EC disadvantage although she seems to be doing better in swing states than Clinton did.
If you allocate states according to who is the betfair favourite in each one you get Harris winning but only just - 287/251. That seems a reasonable central forecast imo if we go by current data rather than (as I do) factoring in a view that Trump is on the slide.
Agreed but that wasn't the case last week before Harris's surge and it might not be next week if her Convention is a drag. Unless you take the view that Trump is having a melt down this is really, really close.
Yes, my view exactly. It's close now but will end up as a clear Harris win. Not so much because of her, because of him. I think I'm ahead of the curve (naturally enough), however time will tell on that.
I'm sure you would differ from some of my views, but I'd be interested to hear comments.
I spent a bit of time looking at the direction Liz Truss is coming from, and came across a couple of conferences for this movement. Speakers for the UK conference in 2023 included the likes of Kevin Roberts (CEO Heritage Foundation), Mogg, Kruger, Miriam Cates, Braverman, Gove, Lee Anderson, Katherine Birbal-Singh, Toby Young, Theodore Dalrymple, Lord Frost, Melanie Philips, an 'interesting' South-Coast Vicar called Daniel French, Frank Furedi, Matthew Goodwin, Juliet Samuel, Darren Grimes, Louise Perry, David Starkey, Ed West and interestingly, also JD Vance.
Values are mono-culturalism, patriotism, social conservatism, anti-modernism, anti-feminism, nationalism (obviously), anti-immigration, cultural conservatism, Euroscepticism, opposition to modernity, 'family values', preservation of national and cultural identity. And a bit of an obsession with fertility in some quarters, especially Usonian, which may explain JD Vance's posturings about the threat posed by a deep stare under the control of single cat-ladies.
It has been described as an attempt to create an intellectual / philosophical base for Trumpism. That perhaps explains some of the people endorsing him.
Interesting to me is a move away from Thatcher's relative internationalism, free trade and economic liberalism. It seems to me to be quite heavily driven by fear of the other, and goes for withdrawal rather than engagement.
If I had to choose someone to be the "soul" of National Conservatism, I'd go for the Ghost of Roger Scruton.
I'm always a bit annoyed at the co-option of the phrase "National Conservatism" by Anglosphere politicians, since it worked perfectly well for a strand in Central/Eastern European politics for many years prior. They are similar (definitely around Kinder, Küche, Kirche values), although I think the European version is more religious.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
FWIW I think Harris remains a pretty weak candidate (particularly her speeches, and I don't think there is a guarantee she'll be any good in the debate), and therefore the Democrat campaign is reliant on good vibes and Walz being American Dad. That might be enough but it's a long time till the election.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is peak Harris.
Harris will be the third president in a row to be a one-term president who ranks in the bottom quintile of presidents overall, and who is there largely because her opponent is so dreadful. Still, I'd take that from here.
Those on here who are of a politically conservative disposition do raise an eyebrow when even before the election of a national leader who is not of a conservative disposition are confident that, should the national leader not of a conservative disposition be elected ( e.g. Starmer/ Harris) they will be a one term only leader ( they may be correct of course). Yet back in the distant days of December 2019 these same posters were mulling over, with some confidence, Boris Johnson's second, third and fourth terms, particularly from the following April against Captain Hindsight/ Sir Softie.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
I think we can safely say that most people on here know a lot less about the US than they think they do.
I've lost a post but I was going to reply to @DougSeal that the other thing I've picked up from this site is that I don't know enough to sanely bet on the US elections, so I'm not going to.
The US is an insanely large and diverse country and far more different from the UK than most people realise. I lived there for 5 years but would still not claim any particular insight into it - especially the non-coastal portions.
During my Erasmus year in Germany, a long time ago, the British and American students were initially drawn together by their common language. I noticed, though, that after a little while, the Americans tended to stick with each other, while the Brits increasingly socialised with other Europeans. This brought home to me just how culturally different Americans are to Europeans, and that Brits generally have a more European than American worldview.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
I don't put huge faith in US pollsters compared with ours (for the reasons TSE has frequently outlines), but Fox's poll reporting tends to be a great deal less partisan overall than is their news reporting.
Congratulations to all those parents (and grandparents) whose offspring (etc) have done well in the A's, and commiserations to those who haven't done so well. However, not doing so well isn't the end of the world; there are other doors which can be opened as one of my offspring has clearly and successfully demonstrated.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
I think we can safely say that most people on here know a lot less about the US than they think they do.
I've lost a post but I was going to reply to @DougSeal that the other thing I've picked up from this site is that I don't know enough to sanely bet on the US elections, so I'm not going to.
The US is an insanely large and diverse country and far more different from the UK than most people realise. I lived there for 5 years but would still not claim any particular insight into it - especially the non-coastal portions.
During my Erasmus year in Germany, a long time ago, the British and American students were initially drawn together by their common language. I noticed, though, that after a little while, the Americans tended to stick with each other, while the Brits increasingly socialised with other Europeans. This brought home to me just how culturally different Americans are to Europeans, and that Brits generally have a more European than American worldview.
100% my experience too. Living in the US convinced me that the UK is just another European country.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I'm not sure that's entirely true. I might do a check of US vs UK polling for 2024 vs US 2020 in a bit.
I'm sure you would differ from some of my views, but I'd be interested to hear comments.
I spent a bit of time looking at the direction Liz Truss is coming from, and came across a couple of conferences for this movement. Speakers for the UK conference in 2023 included the likes of Kevin Roberts (CEO Heritage Foundation), Mogg, Kruger, Miriam Cates, Braverman, Gove, Lee Anderson, Katherine Birbal-Singh, Toby Young, Theodore Dalrymple, Lord Frost, Melanie Philips, an 'interesting' South-Coast Vicar called Daniel French, Frank Furedi, Matthew Goodwin, Juliet Samuel, Darren Grimes, Louise Perry, David Starkey, Ed West and interestingly, also JD Vance.
Values are mono-culturalism, patriotism, social conservatism, anti-modernism, anti-feminism, nationalism (obviously), anti-immigration, cultural conservatism, Euroscepticism, opposition to modernity, 'family values', preservation of national and cultural identity. And a bit of an obsession with fertility in some quarters, especially Usonian, which may explain JD Vance's posturings about the threat posed by a deep stare under the control of single cat-ladies.
It has been described as an attempt to create an intellectual / philosophical base for Trumpism. That perhaps explains some of the people endorsing him.
Interesting to me is a move away from Thatcher's relative internationalism, free trade and economic liberalism. It seems to me to be quite heavily driven by fear of the other, and goes for withdrawal rather than engagement.
If I had to choose someone to be the "soul" of National Conservatism, I'd go for the Ghost of Roger Scruton.
I'm always a bit annoyed at the co-option of the phrase "National Conservatism" by Anglosphere politicians, since it worked perfectly well for a strand in Central/Eastern European politics for many years prior. They are similar (definitely around Kinder, Küche, Kirche values), although I think the European version is more religious.
Digging a little further, Miriam Cates on the importance of having lots of babies.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
FWIW I think Harris remains a pretty weak candidate (particularly her speeches, and I don't think there is a guarantee she'll be any good in the debate), and therefore the Democrat campaign is reliant on good vibes and Walz being American Dad. That might be enough but it's a long time till the election.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is peak Harris.
Harris will be the third president in a row to be a one-term president who ranks in the bottom quintile of presidents overall, and who is there largely because her opponent is so dreadful. Still, I'd take that from here.
Those on here who are of a politically conservative disposition do raise an eyebrow when even before the election of a national leader who is not of a conservative disposition are confident that, should the national leader not of a conservative disposition be elected ( e.g. Starmer/ Harris) they will be a one term only leader ( they may be correct of course). Yet back in the distant days of December 2019 these same posters were mulling over, with some confidence, Boris Johnson's second, third and fourth terms, particularly from the following April against Captain Hindsight/ Sir Softie.
Sir Crasherooni Snoozefest!
That was the most ludicrously pathetic slur. I wonder what utter unimaginative clown came up with that.
In all fairness to DJT his troll-names are far more imaginative and effective than the genius Johnson. "Crooked Hillary", " Sleepy Joe", "Pocahontas", "Low Energy Jeb" and "Little Marco".
Excellent (paywalled) article on the recent riots. Some snippets:
UK needs no lessons from apologists for rioters
Those behind the rioting are not misguided social justice warriors, they are violent, far-right racists fortified by a general hooligan element that was up for a ruck and expected to face no consequences. Now they know better.
It is easy to mock Sir Keir Starmer for reverting to type as a former prosecutor but nearly 1,000 arrests and some rapid and tough sentences was the right response [to restore confidence in the law]
For all the vacuous “something must be donery” of many commentators there are real underlying issues. But even if you accept that the riots were about anything beyond violence, they have not changed the calculation. The answers are what they have always been: improved economic prospects, investment in skills to secure high-status blue-collar jobs, better housing, good public services. In fact, all the things Labour was elected to deliver.
For Starmer, these grim scenes have marred the start of his government. But the riots told us nothing we didn’t already know about the state of Britain except perhaps the value of a tough response, the true measure of the instigators and the cynicism of their apologists.
All that was needed to quell the riots was the swift response. The lengthy sentences are excessive: a week or two would suffice as deterrent. Contrast this with other crimes that appear to have no consequence because there is a year or more delay before reaching trial.
British Challenger 2 tanks have reportedly been used by Ukrainian troops inside Russia for the first time.
The Ministry of Defence and Ukraine’s armed forces have not commented on the use of the tanks, though UK government policy allows Kyiv’s forces to use British weapons, with the exception of Storm Shadow missiles, on Russian soil.
A video posted by a Russian Telegram account purports to show Vladimir Putin’s forces attacking a Challenger 2 inside Kursk.
A source told Sky News that the British tanks have been used in Ukraine’s cross-border assault into Kursk, which was launched last week.
The 82nd Air Assault Brigade, which has been operating British tanks since last year, has been involved in the ongoing incursion.
Kyiv claims it is in control of more than 1,000 sq km of Russian territory, while Moscow’s forces have been seen digging trenches around 17km north of Ukraine’s furthest position in Kursk.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
There’s no US equivalent of the British Polling Council, so they can and do ask all sorts of leading questions which get discarded from the published headline VI figure. We don’t always see see raw data tables published either.
National US polling is really quite difficult, because of the size of the place and the localised political polarisation.
UK polling tends to be much more accurate, even if those of us used to comparing UK polling to out-turn don’t always think so.
Robert F Kennedy Jr, the independent presidential candidate, has revealed he attempted to meet Kamala Harris to broach the prospect of endorsing her in exchange for a cabinet position.
The son of the late former US attorney general launched his third party presidential bid last October and surprised many pundits by securing double-digits in some polls of the 2024 White House race.
His support has fallen dramatically since Joe Biden withdrew from the race and Ms Harris replaced the president at the top of the Democratic ticket.
Mr Kennedy, 70, sought a meeting with Ms Harris, 59, last week to discuss the possibility of backing her campaign in exchange for a high-level position in her administration should she win, his campaign aides told the Washington Post and CNN.
Ms Harris and her advisers did not take up the offer to meet and have shown no interest in the proposal, which Mr Kennedy called a “strategic mistake”.
British Challenger 2 tanks have reportedly been used by Ukrainian troops inside Russia for the first time.
The Ministry of Defence and Ukraine’s armed forces have not commented on the use of the tanks, though UK government policy allows Kyiv’s forces to use British weapons, with the exception of Storm Shadow missiles, on Russian soil.
A video posted by a Russian Telegram account purports to show Vladimir Putin’s forces attacking a Challenger 2 inside Kursk.
A source told Sky News that the British tanks have been used in Ukraine’s cross-border assault into Kursk, which was launched last week.
The 82nd Air Assault Brigade, which has been operating British tanks since last year, has been involved in the ongoing incursion.
Kyiv claims it is in control of more than 1,000 sq km of Russian territory, while Moscow’s forces have been seen digging trenches around 17km north of Ukraine’s furthest position in Kursk.
I'd be prouder if the restriction on using Storm Shadow missiles were lifted.
There should be no restrictions (besides the Geneva Convention etc) on Ukraine defending herself until the war is over and Russia withdraws her troops from every square inch of Ukrainian sovereign territory.
Hunt and Sunak both rather hard done by in terms of the forecasts. The OBR forecast was 0.8% for the entire year as recently as May of this year. Seriously wrong, adversely affecting borrowing and tax take tying the government's hands on both tax cuts and spending.
And Reeves wants to give them even more influence.
Wait until Rishi finds out who it was who called the election early instead of waiting for better economic news when Parliament still had most of a year left to go.
That seems to have been himself. There is going to be a modest blip upwards in inflation as we saw this week but the underlying news, particularly in terms of growth, was much better than was being reported.
Simplest explanation is that Hunt maxxed out the borrowing to engineer a pre-election feelgood boomlet. After all, consumers had 4p off their tax rate. These things generally aren't that sustainable, and it can be viewed as another of the poos that Hunt and Sunak left on the Downing St carpet for their sucessors to clean up.
But it's a good thing for now.
Consumers had what off their what?
Taxes went UP. Not down. A cut in NI rates at the same time as the overall tax take goes up - the effect is that the rate of the tax increase is reduced vs how it would have been without the NI cut.
The reason why the Tories got destroyed is because as they visibly and noticeably put taxes up they kept insisting they were cutting taxes. It wasn't remotely credible because it was an egregious lie.
It was a brief binge halfway through a decade-long diet. Utterly cynical and dishonest, and the distributional effects were horrible.
But perfectly timed to generate a spurt of growth around the election.
The distributional effects were fantastic, boosting the earnings of those working for a living while increasing the taxes on those with unearned incomes - and increasing the incentive to work by meaning people can keep more of their earned income.
You seem to have a real bugbear over this. Do you rely more on unearned incomes than a paycheck for your living? Oh well, you should pay the same tax rate as everyone on PAYE.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
FWIW I think Harris remains a pretty weak candidate (particularly her speeches, and I don't think there is a guarantee she'll be any good in the debate), and therefore the Democrat campaign is reliant on good vibes and Walz being American Dad. That might be enough but it's a long time till the election.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is peak Harris.
Harris will be the third president in a row to be a one-term president who ranks in the bottom quintile of presidents overall, and who is there largely because her opponent is so dreadful. Still, I'd take that from here.
Absurd, IMO, to rank Biden in the bottom quintile of US presidents. Even setting aside Trump (who currently polls around the bottom of the pile), what about Buchanan; Pierce; Andrew Johnson; Harding; Fillmore; Taylor; Tyler; Hoover; Coolidge; Nixon or GW Bush ?
He's governed a country as divided as it's been since the 60s, and managed to get substantial domestic and foreign policy legislation through a divided Congress. And dealt pretty gracefully with being obliged to retire at the end of his first term, while living his party considerably stronger than he found it.
Excellent (paywalled) article on the recent riots. Some snippets:
UK needs no lessons from apologists for rioters
Those behind the rioting are not misguided social justice warriors, they are violent, far-right racists fortified by a general hooligan element that was up for a ruck and expected to face no consequences. Now they know better.
It is easy to mock Sir Keir Starmer for reverting to type as a former prosecutor but nearly 1,000 arrests and some rapid and tough sentences was the right response [to restore confidence in the law]
For all the vacuous “something must be donery” of many commentators there are real underlying issues. But even if you accept that the riots were about anything beyond violence, they have not changed the calculation. The answers are what they have always been: improved economic prospects, investment in skills to secure high-status blue-collar jobs, better housing, good public services. In fact, all the things Labour was elected to deliver.
For Starmer, these grim scenes have marred the start of his government. But the riots told us nothing we didn’t already know about the state of Britain except perhaps the value of a tough response, the true measure of the instigators and the cynicism of their apologists.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I'm not sure that's entirely true. I might do a check of US vs UK polling for 2024 vs US 2020 in a bit.
Errors from the last month of polling across all pollsters for the final month of campaign (Oct 2020 US, June 2024 UK)
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
FWIW I think Harris remains a pretty weak candidate (particularly her speeches, and I don't think there is a guarantee she'll be any good in the debate), and therefore the Democrat campaign is reliant on good vibes and Walz being American Dad. That might be enough but it's a long time till the election.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is peak Harris.
Harris will be the third president in a row to be a one-term president who ranks in the bottom quintile of presidents overall, and who is there largely because her opponent is so dreadful. Still, I'd take that from here.
Those on here who are of a politically conservative disposition do raise an eyebrow when even before the election of a national leader who is not of a conservative disposition are confident that, should the national leader not of a conservative disposition be elected ( e.g. Starmer/ Harris) they will be a one term only leader ( they may be correct of course). Yet back in the distant days of December 2019 these same posters were mulling over, with some confidence, Boris Johnson's second, third and fourth terms, particularly from the following April against Captain Hindsight/ Sir Softie.
I'm presuming you're talking about me here, as you're replying to my post. But I'm really not sure I was doing that.
But my point about Kamala wasn't so much the one-term bit - which was a bit of a throwaway remark - but that she's not really a great politician. Look back even as far as 2012 - and pretty much at every election which preceded it - and you had a pretty high quality politician on either side. Abruptly, in 2016, that changed, and we've had mediocre or low quality politicians on either side ever since, with the winner being the one who was least awful. (I do take the point that Joe Biden was once a convincing politician, but those days had passed by 2020.) What changed? Twitter? Trump's mere presence? The degeneration of society and culture? Some sort of successful conspiracy by the Chinese?
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
FWIW I think Harris remains a pretty weak candidate (particularly her speeches, and I don't think there is a guarantee she'll be any good in the debate), and therefore the Democrat campaign is reliant on good vibes and Walz being American Dad. That might be enough but it's a long time till the election.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is peak Harris.
Harris will be the third president in a row to be a one-term president who ranks in the bottom quintile of presidents overall, and who is there largely because her opponent is so dreadful. Still, I'd take that from here.
Absurd, IMO, to rank Biden in the bottom quintile of US presidents. Even setting aside Trump (who currently polls around the bottom of the pile), what about Buchanan; Pierce; Andrew Johnson; Harding; Fillmore; Taylor; Tyler; Hoover; Coolidge; Nixon or GW Bush ?
He's governed a country as divided as it's been since the 60s, and managed to get substantial domestic and foreign policy legislation through a divided Congress. And dealt pretty gracefully with being obliged to retire at the end of his first term, while living his party considerably stronger than he found it.
I'd rate him pretty highly myself.
As for Harris, we'll have to wait and see.
He's done a great job both domestically (see investment in manufacturing following his reforms) and internationally in helping Ukraine to defeat Putin.
The one failure in his term was Afghanistan but that owes more to his predecessors than him. It was Trump who signed a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban and it was GWB who invaded and him and his successors who failed to win the peace after the invasion.
Biden is right to retire, but he'll retire in the top half of Presidents overall.
I'm sure you would differ from some of my views, but I'd be interested to hear comments.
I spent a bit of time looking at the direction Liz Truss is coming from, and came across a couple of conferences for this movement. Speakers for the UK conference in 2023 included the likes of Kevin Roberts (CEO Heritage Foundation), Mogg, Kruger, Miriam Cates, Braverman, Gove, Lee Anderson, Katherine Birbal-Singh, Toby Young, Theodore Dalrymple, Lord Frost, Melanie Philips, an 'interesting' South-Coast Vicar called Daniel French, Frank Furedi, Matthew Goodwin, Juliet Samuel, Darren Grimes, Louise Perry, David Starkey, Ed West and interestingly, also JD Vance.
Values are mono-culturalism, patriotism, social conservatism, anti-modernism, anti-feminism, nationalism (obviously), anti-immigration, cultural conservatism, Euroscepticism, opposition to modernity, 'family values', preservation of national and cultural identity. And a bit of an obsession with fertility in some quarters, especially Usonian, which may explain JD Vance's posturings about the threat posed by a deep stare under the control of single cat-ladies.
It has been described as an attempt to create an intellectual / philosophical base for Trumpism. That perhaps explains some of the people endorsing him.
Interesting to me is a move away from Thatcher's relative internationalism, free trade and economic liberalism. It seems to me to be quite heavily driven by fear of the other, and goes for withdrawal rather than engagement.
If I had to choose someone to be the "soul" of National Conservatism, I'd go for the Ghost of Roger Scruton.
I'm always a bit annoyed at the co-option of the phrase "National Conservatism" by Anglosphere politicians, since it worked perfectly well for a strand in Central/Eastern European politics for many years prior. They are similar (definitely around Kinder, Küche, Kirche values), although I think the European version is more religious.
Digging a little further, Miriam Cates on the importance of having lots of babies.
Indeed. The NatCon lectures are online, as are its more English cousin PopCon's lectures. Whilst not necessarily pleasant they are rewarding to listen to. On a first approximation the NatCon are more TED talks for the Anglosphere Patriots, but the PopCons are more English. To give an obvious example, Lee Anderson can (and has) spoken at PopCon, but wouldn't have been invited to NatCon, and vice-versa for Darren Grimes.
Robert F Kennedy Jr, the independent presidential candidate, has revealed he attempted to meet Kamala Harris to broach the prospect of endorsing her in exchange for a cabinet position.
The son of the late former US attorney general launched his third party presidential bid last October and surprised many pundits by securing double-digits in some polls of the 2024 White House race.
His support has fallen dramatically since Joe Biden withdrew from the race and Ms Harris replaced the president at the top of the Democratic ticket.
Mr Kennedy, 70, sought a meeting with Ms Harris, 59, last week to discuss the possibility of backing her campaign in exchange for a high-level position in her administration should she win, his campaign aides told the Washington Post and CNN.
Ms Harris and her advisers did not take up the offer to meet and have shown no interest in the proposal, which Mr Kennedy called a “strategic mistake”.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I'm not sure that's entirely true. I might do a check of US vs UK polling for 2024 vs US 2020 in a bit.
Errors from the last month of polling across all pollsters for the final month of campaign (Oct 2020 US, June 2024 UK)
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I'm not sure that's entirely true. I might do a check of US vs UK polling for 2024 vs US 2020 in a bit.
While you're at it can you look at German polling, which at least for federal elections seems to be a) rarely very far from the actual result b) not a massive variation between different pollsters c) very little variation with the same pollster from one poll to the next
what's going on?
Here's a site showing latest averages and ranges, also how far off pollsters were last time (+ potential coalitions...)
Eg, it shows a maximum range of 2.5% in any of the 6 parties across the latest polls from 6 different pollsters, sometimes there's even less variation.
The *maximum* error across 12 pollsters in their last polls before the election compared to the actual election across all parties was 3.2%. The average error ranged from 0.63% from Allensbach to 1.38% from Verian
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
I think we can safely say that most people on here know a lot less about the US than they think they do.
I've lost a post but I was going to reply to @DougSeal that the other thing I've picked up from this site is that I don't know enough to sanely bet on the US elections, so I'm not going to.
The US is an insanely large and diverse country and far more different from the UK than most people realise. I lived there for 5 years but would still not claim any particular insight into it - especially the non-coastal portions.
During my Erasmus year in Germany, a long time ago, the British and American students were initially drawn together by their common language. I noticed, though, that after a little while, the Americans tended to stick with each other, while the Brits increasingly socialised with other Europeans. This brought home to me just how culturally different Americans are to Europeans, and that Brits generally have a more European than American worldview.
100% my experience too. Living in the US convinced me that the UK is just another European country.
Living in Australia convinced me the UK is more than just another European country.
So Reform are now doing better in Scotland than they did in the UK overall last month when they got 14%? Unlikely. I doubt SLab have fallen from 35% to 22% in a month either nor the SCons from 12% to 4%
Hunt and Sunak both rather hard done by in terms of the forecasts. The OBR forecast was 0.8% for the entire year as recently as May of this year. Seriously wrong, adversely affecting borrowing and tax take tying the government's hands on both tax cuts and spending.
And Reeves wants to give them even more influence.
Wait until Rishi finds out who it was who called the election early instead of waiting for better economic news when Parliament still had most of a year left to go.
That seems to have been himself. There is going to be a modest blip upwards in inflation as we saw this week but the underlying news, particularly in terms of growth, was much better than was being reported.
Simplest explanation is that Hunt maxxed out the borrowing to engineer a pre-election feelgood boomlet. After all, consumers had 4p off their tax rate. These things generally aren't that sustainable, and it can be viewed as another of the poos that Hunt and Sunak left on the Downing St carpet for their sucessors to clean up.
But it's a good thing for now.
Consumers had what off their what?
Taxes went UP. Not down. A cut in NI rates at the same time as the overall tax take goes up - the effect is that the rate of the tax increase is reduced vs how it would have been without the NI cut.
The reason why the Tories got destroyed is because as they visibly and noticeably put taxes up they kept insisting they were cutting taxes. It wasn't remotely credible because it was an egregious lie.
It was a brief binge halfway through a decade-long diet. Utterly cynical and dishonest, and the distributional effects were horrible.
But perfectly timed to generate a spurt of growth around the election.
The distributional effects were fantastic, boosting the earnings of those working for a living while increasing the taxes on those with unearned incomes - and increasing the incentive to work by meaning people can keep more of their earned income.
You seem to have a real bugbear over this. Do you rely more on unearned incomes than a paycheck for your living? Oh well, you should pay the same tax rate as everyone on PAYE.
That's not my bugbear.
My issue is that the tax increases were done by freezing thresholds. "Dragging more people into the tax net" as old fashioned Conservatives used to put it. Whereas the cuts were done on percentage rates, which benefits higher earners more.
Taking more from the worse off to take less from the better off.
And yes, I do have a problem with that, despite being in the bit of the population (income from work, comfortable without being mega rich) that the 2024 changes was laser-focused on.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
FWIW I think Harris remains a pretty weak candidate (particularly her speeches, and I don't think there is a guarantee she'll be any good in the debate), and therefore the Democrat campaign is reliant on good vibes and Walz being American Dad. That might be enough but it's a long time till the election.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is peak Harris.
She is largely dependent upon Trump becoming worse or suffering from set backs in his various trials and civil cases. The chances of that happening seem better than evens so I suspect Silver is not far off.
Realistically, the only major obstacle now for Trump trial-wise is the verdict in the NY case as the others are stalled / will be past-the election. Who knows how that will go.
Trump could melt down but it is fair to say we have been here before multiple times where people claim he is losing it, on his way out etc. The polling also has underestimated his support at the last elections.
I suspect @Eabhal is right, it feels like peak Harris. Jim Acosta at CNN had a go at her campaign manager for only offering one interview before the end of the month, and it is starting to be picked up by others. If I was Harris and truly feeling Trump was on the run, I would be interviewing like mad and hammering the points home.
Robert F Kennedy Jr, the independent presidential candidate, has revealed he attempted to meet Kamala Harris to broach the prospect of endorsing her in exchange for a cabinet position.
The son of the late former US attorney general launched his third party presidential bid last October and surprised many pundits by securing double-digits in some polls of the 2024 White House race.
His support has fallen dramatically since Joe Biden withdrew from the race and Ms Harris replaced the president at the top of the Democratic ticket.
Mr Kennedy, 70, sought a meeting with Ms Harris, 59, last week to discuss the possibility of backing her campaign in exchange for a high-level position in her administration should she win, his campaign aides told the Washington Post and CNN.
Ms Harris and her advisers did not take up the offer to meet and have shown no interest in the proposal, which Mr Kennedy called a “strategic mistake”.
I'm sure you would differ from some of my views, but I'd be interested to hear comments.
I spent a bit of time looking at the direction Liz Truss is coming from, and came across a couple of conferences for this movement. Speakers for the UK conference in 2023 included the likes of Kevin Roberts (CEO Heritage Foundation), Mogg, Kruger, Miriam Cates, Braverman, Gove, Lee Anderson, Katherine Birbal-Singh, Toby Young, Theodore Dalrymple, Lord Frost, Melanie Philips, an 'interesting' South-Coast Vicar called Daniel French, Frank Furedi, Matthew Goodwin, Juliet Samuel, Darren Grimes, Louise Perry, David Starkey, Ed West and interestingly, also JD Vance.
Values are mono-culturalism, patriotism, social conservatism, anti-modernism, anti-feminism, nationalism (obviously), anti-immigration, cultural conservatism, Euroscepticism, opposition to modernity, 'family values', preservation of national and cultural identity. And a bit of an obsession with fertility in some quarters, especially Usonian, which may explain JD Vance's posturings about the threat posed by a deep stare under the control of single cat-ladies.
It has been described as an attempt to create an intellectual / philosophical base for Trumpism. That perhaps explains some of the people endorsing him.
Interesting to me is a move away from Thatcher's relative internationalism, free trade and economic liberalism. It seems to me to be quite heavily driven by fear of the other, and goes for withdrawal rather than engagement.
If I had to choose someone to be the "soul" of National Conservatism, I'd go for the Ghost of Roger Scruton.
I'll tentatively hold my hand up there. I don't think I'm fanatical about any of those, but in all cases I probably prefer them to the alternatives - though of course with all sorts of nuances. And I certainly hold Roger Scruton in reasonably high regard. I'd also add an adherence to democracy in to that lot of values - though of course that word can mean different things to different people. I think it means primarily an adherence to the will of the people (and thereby a certain scepticism of technocracy). I'm not totally sure I'd be particularly comfortable including Trump or Trumpism (whatever that really is) in with that lot though. I wouldn't necessarily lump Truss in with that lot though - her values used to be more those of a libertarian, though she appears to be flailing around a bit since her removal from office.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
It will be dismissed because it's good for "Trump".
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
My cynicism comes from the fact it's the perfect result for Fox news - it may be 100% accurate but it also 100% matches the result Fox would want to talk about..
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
I've also picked up that this site is terrible at discussing the US election dispassionately.
FWIW I think Harris remains a pretty weak candidate (particularly her speeches, and I don't think there is a guarantee she'll be any good in the debate), and therefore the Democrat campaign is reliant on good vibes and Walz being American Dad. That might be enough but it's a long time till the election.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is peak Harris.
Harris will be the third president in a row to be a one-term president who ranks in the bottom quintile of presidents overall, and who is there largely because her opponent is so dreadful. Still, I'd take that from here.
Absurd, IMO, to rank Biden in the bottom quintile of US presidents. Even setting aside Trump (who currently polls around the bottom of the pile), what about Buchanan; Pierce; Andrew Johnson; Harding; Fillmore; Taylor; Tyler; Hoover; Coolidge; Nixon or GW Bush ?
He's governed a country as divided as it's been since the 60s, and managed to get substantial domestic and foreign policy legislation through a divided Congress. And dealt pretty gracefully with being obliged to retire at the end of his first term, while living his party considerably stronger than he found it.
I'd rate him pretty highly myself.
As for Harris, we'll have to wait and see.
He's done a great job both domestically (see investment in manufacturing following his reforms) and internationally in helping Ukraine to defeat Putin.
The one failure in his term was Afghanistan but that owes more to his predecessors than him. It was Trump who signed a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban and it was GWB who invaded and him and his successors who failed to win the peace after the invasion.
Biden is right to retire, but he'll retire in the top half of Presidents overall.
Afghanistan wasn't a failure. The war in Afghanistan was a failure, Biden successfully ended it.
The evacuation was a mess while the airport was still under the control of the Turks, but then the Americans took it over and made a google doc so they could keep track of which planes were coming in and out and stuff and after that it was executed competently.
Fox NEws puts out a poll that supports their deeply held gut feeling?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Carried out by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research who are rated 2.8 stars (out of 3) on 538 pollster ratings, so can't just be dismissed.
I don't put huge faith in US pollsters compared with ours (for the reasons TSE has frequently outlines), but Fox's poll reporting tends to be a great deal less partisan overall than is their news reporting.
Comments
"Fox News Poll: New matchup, same result — Trump bests Harris by one point | Fox News" https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-new-matchup-same-result-trump-bests-harris-one-point.amp
https://www.gov.uk/courts
Remember you typical RFK voter hasn't seen a conspiracy theory they don't believe in..
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
In theory, the ULEZ pipe bomb vs camera things could get you *life*, if they charge as a full terrorist offence.
The other is which judge hears the cases.
https://www.3pb.co.uk/content/uploads/OH-12-month-sentencing-powers-for-magistrates-reversed-but-why-by-3PB-Barristers.pdf
UK needs no lessons from apologists for rioters
Those behind the rioting are not misguided social justice warriors, they are violent, far-right racists fortified by a general hooligan element that was up for a ruck and expected to face no consequences. Now they know better.
It is easy to mock Sir Keir Starmer for reverting to type as a former prosecutor but nearly 1,000 arrests and some rapid and tough sentences was the right response [to restore confidence in the law]
For all the vacuous “something must be donery” of many commentators there are real underlying issues. But even if you accept that the riots were about anything beyond violence, they have not changed the calculation. The answers are what they have always been: improved economic prospects, investment in skills to secure high-status blue-collar jobs, better housing, good public services. In fact, all the things Labour was elected to deliver.
For Starmer, these grim scenes have marred the start of his government. But the riots told us nothing we didn’t already know about the state of Britain except perhaps the value of a tough response, the true measure of the instigators and the cynicism of their apologists.
https://www.ft.com/content/c3dd8dbd-e203-45af-b5b3-36c993900d2a
All it shows, as if one needed the demonstration, is his complete lack of any principle other than his own advancement.
Unlike the response to COVID, it turned out that the existing plan actually matched what was needed.
EDIT: On the answers quoted - Yes, exactly. Much like Biden's answers to MAGA.
Taxes went UP. Not down. A cut in NI rates at the same time as the overall tax take goes up - the effect is that the rate of the tax increase is reduced vs how it would have been without the NI cut.
The reason why the Tories got destroyed is because as they visibly and noticeably put taxes up they kept insisting they were cutting taxes. It wasn't remotely credible because it was an egregious lie.
I hope she serves less than 5 months personally, even a month or two would be fine, but can understand why the sentencing was stricter based on the wider context not just her own actions.
The headline figure is not far removed from most other polls , we are basically talking MOE . People shouldn’t assume just because Fox News pays for the poll it’s biased.
What is happening is that the defendants are being charged with more serious offences. And pleading guilty rather than risk even heavier sentences.
*The guidelines, for some offences, have specific "exceptional circumstances" escape hatches in them. But they need to be carefully justified, IIRC.
Shouting "fire" in a virtually empty theatre, vs a packed theatre, where a panic has already caused injuries and risk of death.
Unforgivable on a betting site - particularly one that was founded to discuss the 2004 Kerry v Bush election - but that's where we're at.
small Trump lead is within the MoE of the rest of the polling.
I think the vibes about how well Harris is doing have overshot the data a bit. People are comparing her polling to the worst of Biden's Dems-in-total-panic score, instead of the score she needs to win the election.
The one thing I've picked up from this site is that US polling is awful compared to the UK..
But perfectly timed to generate a spurt of growth around the election.
Looks like Kennedy is collapsing.
Cassandra
@BrochBairn
Westminster voting intention:
Scotland
SNP 29%
Lab 22%
Ref 19%
LD 9%
Grn 6%
oth 11%
(Omnisis, 7-8 Aug)
9:30 am · 15 Aug 2024
Cassandra
@BrochBairn
forgot Con 4%
Magistrates are encouraged to retain cases where the likely sentence will exceed their sentencing powers if a trial beckons. If there is a finding of guilt the defendant can then be remanded to the Crown Court for sentence.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is peak Harris.
I'm sure you would differ from some of my views, but I'd be interested to hear comments.
I spent a bit of time looking at the direction Liz Truss is coming from, and came across a couple of conferences for this movement. Speakers for the UK conference in 2023 included the likes of Kevin Roberts (CEO Heritage Foundation), Mogg, Kruger, Miriam Cates, Braverman, Gove, Lee Anderson, Katherine Birbal-Singh, Toby Young, Theodore Dalrymple, Lord Frost, Melanie Philips, an 'interesting' South-Coast Vicar called Daniel French, Frank Furedi, Matthew Goodwin, Juliet Samuel, Darren Grimes, Louise Perry, David Starkey, Ed West and interestingly, also JD Vance.
Values are mono-culturalism, patriotism, social conservatism, anti-modernism, anti-feminism, nationalism (obviously), anti-immigration, cultural conservatism, Euroscepticism, opposition to modernity, 'family values', preservation of national and cultural identity. And a bit of an obsession with fertility in some quarters, especially Usonian, which may explain JD Vance's posturings about the threat posed by a deep stare under the control of single cat-ladies.
It has been described as an attempt to create an intellectual / philosophical base for Trumpism. That perhaps explains some of the people endorsing him.
Interesting to me is a move away from Thatcher's relative internationalism, free trade and economic liberalism. It seems to me to be quite heavily driven by fear of the other, and goes for withdrawal rather than engagement.
If I had to choose someone to be the "soul" of National Conservatism, I'd go for the Ghost of Roger Scruton.
Speaker and Programme page:
https://nationalconservatism.org/natcon-uk-2023/
Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_conservatism
Reform are a clear and present threat to the Tories, and did way better up here than expected. Lets see how the ongoing shitshow leadership elections plural influence that...
I've lost a post but I was going to reply to @DougSeal that the other thing I've picked up from this site is that I don't know enough to sanely bet on the US elections, so I'm not going to.
Still, I'd take that from here.
It's UK politics where I make my money.
I really don't think so.
Can you explain to the rest of us what it is that we are missing ?
I can watch the Ashes passionately and win betting on it.
I can watch the Euros passionately and win betting on it.
I can follow politics passionately and win betting on it.
Of course passion can be a cause of bad betting but chanelled correctly it can also improve betting.
And far from everyone comes here to win betting anyway, and their reasons for being here are just as valid.
My lad will be starting his final year at Oxford (St. Hugh's) studying Economics and Management in October. He has had an absolute blast there, and has been doing an internship in London this summer. I get him back this weekend
National US polling is really quite difficult, because of the size of the place and the localised political polarisation.
UK polling tends to be much more accurate, even if those of us used to comparing UK polling to out-turn don’t always think so.
leader not of a conservative disposition be elected ( e.g. Starmer/ Harris) they will be a one term only leader ( they may be correct of course). Yet back in the distant days of December 2019 these same posters were mulling over, with some confidence, Boris Johnson's second, third and fourth terms, particularly from the following April against Captain Hindsight/ Sir Softie.
Here, for example, is a recent rundown on the Senate races:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-power-rankings-voters-appetite-ticket-splitting-decide-senate
Doesn't seem unrealistic at all.
Their evening ‘opinion’ shows have a clear conservative/Republican lean, but also generate most of the headlines.
https://nationalconservatism.org/natcon-uk-2023/presenters/miriam-cates/
That was the most ludicrously pathetic slur. I wonder what utter unimaginative clown came up with that.
In all fairness to DJT his troll-names are far more imaginative and effective than the genius Johnson. "Crooked Hillary", " Sleepy Joe", "Pocahontas", "Low Energy Jeb" and "Little Marco".
British Challenger 2 tanks have reportedly been used by Ukrainian troops inside Russia for the first time.
The Ministry of Defence and Ukraine’s armed forces have not commented on the use of the tanks, though UK government policy allows Kyiv’s forces to use British weapons, with the exception of Storm Shadow missiles, on Russian soil.
A video posted by a Russian Telegram account purports to show Vladimir Putin’s forces attacking a Challenger 2 inside Kursk.
A source told Sky News that the British tanks have been used in Ukraine’s cross-border assault into Kursk, which was launched last week.
The 82nd Air Assault Brigade, which has been operating British tanks since last year, has been involved in the ongoing incursion.
Kyiv claims it is in control of more than 1,000 sq km of Russian territory, while Moscow’s forces have been seen digging trenches around 17km north of Ukraine’s furthest position in Kursk.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/08/15/ukraine-russia-war-latest-news21/
https://aapor.org/standards-and-ethics/transparency-initiative/
which includes most of the reputable pollsters, I think.
There should be no restrictions (besides the Geneva Convention etc) on Ukraine defending herself until the war is over and Russia withdraws her troops from every square inch of Ukrainian sovereign territory.
You seem to have a real bugbear over this. Do you rely more on unearned incomes than a paycheck for your living? Oh well, you should pay the same tax rate as everyone on PAYE.
Even setting aside Trump (who currently polls around the bottom of the pile), what about Buchanan; Pierce; Andrew Johnson; Harding; Fillmore; Taylor; Tyler; Hoover; Coolidge; Nixon or GW Bush ?
He's governed a country as divided as it's been since the 60s, and managed to get substantial domestic and foreign policy legislation through a divided Congress. And dealt pretty gracefully with being obliged to retire at the end of his first term, while living his party considerably stronger than he found it.
I'd rate him pretty highly myself.
As for Harris, we'll have to wait and see.
27.6% in England, up from 26.5% in 2023
29.9% in Wales, down from 34%
30.3% in Northern Ireland, down from 37.5%
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn021vn2zllt?post=asset:49c32546-3c20-4bc2-bb42-a0ea6fc75ae3#post
Labour Wales beats Tory England at A-level top trumps? Some mistake, surely.
England exam scores rise after Tory reforms, sharp decline in Labour Wales. Yes, that's more like it.
( + = polls overestimated, - = polls underestimated)
Con -3.3%
Lab +6.08%
LD -1.47%
Green -0.89%
Reform +0.89%
Trump -4.83%
Biden -0.03%
But my point about Kamala wasn't so much the one-term bit - which was a bit of a throwaway remark - but that she's not really a great politician. Look back even as far as 2012 - and pretty much at every election which preceded it - and you had a pretty high quality politician on either side. Abruptly, in 2016, that changed, and we've had mediocre or low quality politicians on either side ever since, with the winner being the one who was least awful. (I do take the point that Joe Biden was once a convincing politician, but those days had passed by 2020.)
What changed? Twitter? Trump's mere presence? The degeneration of society and culture? Some sort of successful conspiracy by the Chinese?
The one failure in his term was Afghanistan but that owes more to his predecessors than him. It was Trump who signed a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban and it was GWB who invaded and him and his successors who failed to win the peace after the invasion.
Biden is right to retire, but he'll retire in the top half of Presidents overall.
Con 3.5%
Lab 6.08%
Trump 4.85%
Biden 1.71%
So actually the US polling for their last big election was better than ours.
Note Labour is identical on both scores because they were overestimated by every single poll.
a) rarely very far from the actual result
b) not a massive variation between different pollsters
c) very little variation with the same pollster from one poll to the next
what's going on?
Here's a site showing latest averages and ranges, also how far off pollsters were last time (+ potential coalitions...)
https://dawum.de/Bundestag/
Eg, it shows a maximum range of 2.5% in any of the 6 parties across the latest polls from 6 different pollsters, sometimes there's even less variation.
The *maximum* error across 12 pollsters in their last polls before the election compared to the actual election across all parties was 3.2%. The average error ranged from 0.63% from Allensbach to 1.38% from Verian
My issue is that the tax increases were done by freezing thresholds. "Dragging more people into the tax net" as old fashioned Conservatives used to put it. Whereas the cuts were done on percentage rates, which benefits higher earners more.
Taking more from the worse off to take less from the better off.
And yes, I do have a problem with that, despite being in the bit of the population (income from work, comfortable without being mega rich) that the 2024 changes was laser-focused on.
Trump could melt down but it is fair to say we have been here before multiple times where people claim he is losing it, on his way out etc. The polling also has underestimated his support at the last elections.
I suspect @Eabhal is right, it feels like peak Harris. Jim Acosta at CNN had a go at her campaign manager for only offering one interview before the end of the month, and it is starting to be picked up by others. If I was Harris and truly feeling Trump was on the run, I would be interviewing like mad and hammering the points home.
Meanwhile the main party machines are denying him access to the debates by organising them among themselves, and doing their best to cause him no end of legal bills as they attempt to find technical ways to keep him off ballots.
The Democrats got him kicked in New York yesterday. https://apnews.com/article/kennedy-rfk-jr-ballot-new-york-residency-faaf0c8d7638cdfcdbe3c4eb7b542eef
I'd also add an adherence to democracy in to that lot of values - though of course that word can mean different things to different people. I think it means primarily an adherence to the will of the people (and thereby a certain scepticism of technocracy).
I'm not totally sure I'd be particularly comfortable including Trump or Trumpism (whatever that really is) in with that lot though.
I wouldn't necessarily lump Truss in with that lot though - her values used to be more those of a libertarian, though she appears to be flailing around a bit since her removal from office.
The evacuation was a mess while the airport was still under the control of the Turks, but then the Americans took it over and made a google doc so they could keep track of which planes were coming in and out and stuff and after that it was executed competently.