I think this election is very much about differential turnout of supporters in the swing states rather than convincing the undecideds, who are few in number and most of whom won't vote anyway.
Graduates are much more likely to vote than non-graduates. Kamala has a big lead with graduates.
She has a better ground game with more money and resources.
"Anti" sentiment is a more powerful motivator to vote than "pro". There is much more "anti" sentiment against Trump. Look at the net approval ratings. Look at the candidates!
So ignoring the polls, which I suspect are being manipulated, who has the better chance?
If the GOP manipulate polling, why did it understate them in 2016 and 2020?
Leaving manipulation aside there's also the factor that pollsters have made changes to counteract their previous error in undersampling Trump voters. This can overshoot the other way. Life is often like that.
@TimesRadio “If I had to bet, I think Kamala Harris will win comfortably.”
@RoryStewartUK tells @jhansonradio that polling companies are no longer working, and they’re scared to predict Trump will lose after miscalculating the 2016 election.
Thomas Tuchel would become the England men's senior team's fourth foreign coach after Sven-Göran Eriksson (Swedish), Fabio Capello (Italian) and Steve McClaren (Dutch).
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Dan Neidle @DanNeidle · 3h I don’t believe for a second the Budget will actually put up employer national insurance. It’s one of the worst taxes the Government could raise, and it probably breaks a manifesto promise.
This makes perfectly good sense of course but doesn't address the harder question. Which are the tax increases which: stick to the election pledges, raise 20-30 billion a year, don't cause flight of the monied from the country, don't end up losing more than you gain, don't discourage enterprise, don't cost jobs and are reasonably willingly paid by those taxed?
Personally I suggest 5% VAT on all food; taxes on non-work income to be the same as earned income (including pensioners like me); revalue property for council tax and ensure a 2 million house always pays loads and loads more than a 200k house, regardless of location.
These modest suggestions would probably bring the government down.
The more I see Starmer the more I think Gordon Brown.....
Unfair on Gordon, actually.
He could, when in the mood, deliver an engaging speech. Not Blair level, but really quite good.
Starmer is to Brown what Sunak was to Cameron.
Yes, and while I don't buy the Gordon-was-brilliant-at-economics line, he certainly understood the importance of somebody earning some money to pay for everything.
Thomas Tuchel would become the England men's senior team's fourth foreign coach after Sven-Göran Eriksson (Swedish), Fabio Capello (Italian) and Steve McClaren (Dutch).
Dan Neidle @DanNeidle · 3h I don’t believe for a second the Budget will actually put up employer national insurance. It’s one of the worst taxes the Government could raise, and it probably breaks a manifesto promise.
This makes perfectly good sense of course but doesn't address the harder question. Which are the tax increases which: stick to the election pledges, raise 20-30 billion a year, don't cause flight of the monied from the country, don't end up losing more than you gain, don't discourage enterprise, don't cost jobs and are reasonably willingly paid by those taxed?
Personally I suggest 5% VAT on all food; taxes on non-work income to be the same as earned income (including pensioners like me); revalue property for council tax and ensure a 2 million house always pays loads and loads more than a 200k house, regardless of location.
These modest suggestions would probably bring the government down.
End foreign aid, nut zero and subsidies to Northern Ireland. Maybe £45 billion saved.
Also allow asylum seekers to work while their claims are processed so we don't need to house most of them at the taxpayer's expense. I think I'm right in saying they can't?
@SeaShanty. Any surprises to look for in Washington re House elections?
There are only two WA State congressional seat that are up for grabs this year
> WA CD03 is rematch between surprise 2022 winner, Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, and Republican Joe Kent, which I reckon is WAY toooooo close to call:
WA State Standard - Gluesenkamp Perez and Kent spar as poll shows rematch is a dead heat
The Democratic congresswoman and Republican challenger are at odds over immigration, foreign policy and replacement plans for the Interstate 5 bridge [across Columbia River to Portland OR]
> WA CD04 is latest Trumper attempt to defeat incumbent Rep Rep. who voted to impeach Trump in 2021; note that August Top Two primary resulted in TWO GOPer on general election ballot: incumbent Dan Newhouse and MAGA-maniac challenger. NOTE that Newhouse was elected in the first place in similar scenario, because he split the GOP vote . . . AND also won the lion's share of votes from Democrats, at least those who did not skip over the congressional race. Am pretty sure that Dan the Man will do so again.
It's being reported now that Western intelligence thinks North Korea has sent 10,000 troops to help Russia in the war. This is not a good development.
That's about a month's cannon fodder.
I wonder what NK are getting in return?
Probably oil and gas.
I think they are going to be guarding other places in order to free up Russians for the meat grinder. It's not just Ukraine that is running out of fit men.
It's being reported now that Western intelligence thinks North Korea has sent 10,000 troops to help Russia in the war. This is not a good development.
That's about a month's cannon fodder.
I wonder what NK are getting in return?
Probably oil and gas.
I think they are going to be guarding other places in order to free up Russians for the meat grinder. It's not just Ukraine that is running out of fit men.
@TimesRadio “If I had to bet, I think Kamala Harris will win comfortably.”
@RoryStewartUK tells @jhansonradio that polling companies are no longer working, and they’re scared to predict Trump will lose after miscalculating the 2016 election.
I think this election is very much about differential turnout of supporters in the swing states rather than convincing the undecideds, who are few in number and most of whom won't vote anyway.
Graduates are much more likely to vote than non-graduates. Kamala has a big lead with graduates.
She has a better ground game with more money and resources.
"Anti" sentiment is a more powerful motivator to vote than "pro". There is much more "anti" sentiment against Trump. Look at the net approval ratings. Look at the candidates!
So ignoring the polls, which I suspect are being manipulated, who has the better chance?
If the GOP manipulate polling, why did it understate them in 2016 and 2020?
I don't think Trump and his gang were actively planning to challenge the election in advance of the 2016 and 2020 elections.
In 2016, Trump was shocked when he won. In 2020, he thought he was winning when the early results came in. He thought it was a repeat of 2016. When he lost he developed the stolen election story.
This time is different. The Trump gang are actively setting up the stolen election story in advance.
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
It's being reported now that Western intelligence thinks North Korea has sent 10,000 troops to help Russia in the war. This is not a good development.
That's about a month's cannon fodder.
I wonder what NK are getting in return?
Probably oil and gas.
I think they are going to be guarding other places in order to free up Russians for the meat grinder. It's not just Ukraine that is running out of fit men.
I thought that would be the case as well (freeing up Russian troops); but it appears that they're going to be going to the frontlines as pretendy Russians. Some have apparently already gone missing.
Allegedly, Ukraine are trying to negotiate a deal where any NK soldier surrendering voluntarily will get South Korean citizenship...
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
It would have been an absolute nothingburger aside from the fact loads of MPs accepted free tickets for themselves and hangers-on. That makes the 'excuses' appear to be excuses for pathetic grift.
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
What death threats?
She wanted the convenience of a blue light escort. This has sod all to do with any terrorist threat.
The weight loss jab for millions leaves me a little queasy.
I feel I am a 'dog in manger' person.
Benzos in 60s and 70s were the solution to anxiety and emotional upset and prescribed to millions with little thought as to the long term outcomes.
SSRI antidepressants were "so effective" they are handed out like lollipops by GPs desperate to quick fix patients when there is little talking therapy available. Millions now take them. UK is one of the worst countries for this. Plenty of issues with long term effects and difficulties stopping.
How long will people have to stay on these new 'wonder' drugs? Do we have any idea what the long term effects of messing so massively with the metabolism system is?
If his rallies are going so poorly and recent polls have Harris ahead how do we account for his 1.79 price on bf? Too short surely?
I have a suspicion that some of the polls and betting sites are being manipulated by the Trump campaign to set up the narrative that the election was stolen.
They have the money to distort the betting and partisan polling outfits that hide their methodology, and they have the motive and ability.
It might be a betting opportunity.
Remember not to bet more than you can afford to lose.
I'll be about £2K down if Trump wins with a landslide. On the other hand I'm cumulatively £3.2K up on all my political betting so it's Ladbroke's et al's money I'm playing with. I'll be about £2K up if Kamala wins with a landslide.
I'm similar but a bit more. Yet I'm not kidding when I say that if I contemplate what a Trump win would mean the potential hit to my betting P/L hardly features.
But anyway he's not winning. She is.
As much as I want her to win because a Trump win would please Putin and embolden Nethanyahu and his economic policies would be a calamity and inflationary as well as increasing the US debt far more than hers my one comfort with him winning would be the reaction of PB's posters for Kamala on here and the grieving they would endure.
Why would that give you comfort?
Because their support is borderline obsessive to the extent they will brook no criticism of her. Wilful blindness and they are emotionally invested in her.
It is a purity test here. If you dare to criticise Kamala, and she is not a great candidate, you get pulled up (as has happened to me a couple of times) for not criticising Trump in the same post.
I am pretty much where Cookie is on Kamala v Trump. Goes without saying Trump is not going to be great for the USA but Kamala's flaws should be criticised.
I've always vaguely supposed that people on here are so (understandably) desperate for Trump not to win that it is taboo to say that Harris is also rubbish in case it somehow persuades people not to vote for her. I can sort of understand this impulse in UK elections - we are all voters, after all - but I think we can safely assume our views are not being sought by the voters of Erie PA before they make up their minds. (Granted the excellent @Jim_Miller and @SeaShantyIrish2 may look in but I think it's safe to say they have already made up their minds.) I think we can reasonably say what we like without fear of jinxing anything.
So is it just Jim Miller who is "excellent"? Or both me and him? Personally would agree with the former rather than latter!
As to your statement that, "I think we can safely assume our views are not being sought by the voters of Erie PA before they make up their minds" me thinks this is true in the sense you mean.
HOWEVER, am concerned that a segment of PBers has been working to turn PB into an adjunct AND amplifyer for Putinist pro-Trump propaganda. Does anyone actually know, is this board being (ab)used in thi way, for example being cited at validation by MAGA-mongers back in the USA?
We see regular Putinist trolls, who are swiftly excised. We do also see regular PBers repeating Putinist, pro-Trump propaganda, but I think that's because they believe it. They are acting sincerely, if also being полезные дураки, useful idiots.
Yes, I know all about that, of course.
What I do NOT know, is the degree (if any) that PB is being (ab)used as part of the Putin/Trump echo chamber back in US and elsewhere?
I don't know. I guess if you're trying to shift the narrative, so to speak, then every retweet, every repeat of a false claim, adds to the overall effect.
Dan Neidle @DanNeidle · 3h I don’t believe for a second the Budget will actually put up employer national insurance. It’s one of the worst taxes the Government could raise, and it probably breaks a manifesto promise.
This makes perfectly good sense of course but doesn't address the harder question. Which are the tax increases which: stick to the election pledges, raise 20-30 billion a year, don't cause flight of the monied from the country, don't end up losing more than you gain, don't discourage enterprise, don't cost jobs and are reasonably willingly paid by those taxed?
Personally I suggest 5% VAT on all food; taxes on non-work income to be the same as earned income (including pensioners like me); revalue property for council tax and ensure a 2 million house always pays loads and loads more than a 200k house, regardless of location.
These modest suggestions would probably bring the government down.
End foreign aid, nut zero and subsidies to Northern Ireland. Maybe £45 billion saved.
Also allow asylum seekers to work while their claims are processed so we don't need to house most of them at the taxpayer's expense. I think I'm right in saying they can't?
Are people with allergies forcing the whole country to go nut zero? It's woke gone mad.
Dan Neidle @DanNeidle · 3h I don’t believe for a second the Budget will actually put up employer national insurance. It’s one of the worst taxes the Government could raise, and it probably breaks a manifesto promise.
It is much more likely that employers will have to pay NI on pension contributions than an increase in the 'basic' rate of 13.8%. This would apparently raise £17bn per year!
This means Rachel wouldn't have to raise too many other taxes, good thing too bearing in mind most of what had been talked about won't work.
Still room for increase in CGT to 30%, reduction/elimination of CGT and dividend allowances, ISA limits, done technical IHT changes.
That would throw public sector pay costs up 4% and would have serious impacts elsewhere - company directors would simply stop paying into their pension and retain money in the company
I think this election is very much about differential turnout of supporters in the swing states rather than convincing the undecideds, who are few in number and most of whom won't vote anyway.
Graduates are much more likely to vote than non-graduates. Kamala has a big lead with graduates.
She has a better ground game with more money and resources.
"Anti" sentiment is a more powerful motivator to vote than "pro". There is much more "anti" sentiment against Trump. Look at the net approval ratings. Look at the candidates!
So ignoring the polls, which I suspect are being manipulated, who has the better chance?
If the GOP manipulate polling, why did it understate them in 2016 and 2020?
I don't think Trump and his gang were actively planning to challenge the election in advance of the 2016 and 2020 elections.
In 2016, Trump was shocked when he won. In 2020, he thought he was winning when the early results came in. He thought it was a repeat of 2016. When he lost he developed the stolen election story.
This time is different. The Trump gang are actively setting up the stolen election story in advance.
And Yougov is helping them? I mean, I believe that Trump would do this, but the polls right now point to more or less a tie, not a great way to set up a stolen election narrative. How many pollsters do they control? How many results can they skew without it being far too obvious? When have Trump followers ever needed evidence to believe what he told them? I just don't see it, but I will leave it there. We will find out soon enough.
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
What death threats?
She wanted the convenience of a blue light escort. This has sod all to do with any terrorist threat.
It's being reported now that Western intelligence thinks North Korea has sent 10,000 troops to help Russia in the war. This is not a good development.
That's about a month's cannon fodder.
I wonder what NK are getting in return?
Probably oil and gas.
I think they are going to be guarding other places in order to free up Russians for the meat grinder. It's not just Ukraine that is running out of fit men.
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Combination of there still being a Blank Space where the government's agenda ought to be, and the way that many of the media (left and right) really dislike the government on general principles...
Dan Neidle @DanNeidle · 3h I don’t believe for a second the Budget will actually put up employer national insurance. It’s one of the worst taxes the Government could raise, and it probably breaks a manifesto promise.
This makes perfectly good sense of course but doesn't address the harder question. Which are the tax increases which: stick to the election pledges, raise 20-30 billion a year, don't cause flight of the monied from the country, don't end up losing more than you gain, don't discourage enterprise, don't cost jobs and are reasonably willingly paid by those taxed?
Personally I suggest 5% VAT on all food; taxes on non-work income to be the same as earned income (including pensioners like me); revalue property for council tax and ensure a 2 million house always pays loads and loads more than a 200k house, regardless of location.
These modest suggestions would probably bring the government down.
End foreign aid, nut zero and subsidies to Northern Ireland. Maybe £45 billion saved.
Also allow asylum seekers to work while their claims are processed so we don't need to house most of them at the taxpayer's expense. I think I'm right in saying they can't?
Are people with allergies forcing the whole country to go nut zero? It's woke gone mad.
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
It would have been an absolute nothingburger aside from the fact loads of MPs accepted free tickets for themselves and hangers-on. That makes the 'excuses' appear to be excuses for pathetic grift.
Some of those MPs being the ministers who were pressuring the authorities for the VIP treatment.
Any major artist in town for a concert will have a security team who will liaise with the local police about arrangements. There will have been 20 different ways of getting the artist from the hotel to the venue, without the full blue light motorcade.
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
What death threats?
She wanted the convenience of a blue light escort. This has sod all to do with any terrorist threat.
I think this election is very much about differential turnout of supporters in the swing states rather than convincing the undecideds, who are few in number and most of whom won't vote anyway.
Graduates are much more likely to vote than non-graduates. Kamala has a big lead with graduates.
She has a better ground game with more money and resources.
"Anti" sentiment is a more powerful motivator to vote than "pro". There is much more "anti" sentiment against Trump. Look at the net approval ratings. Look at the candidates!
So ignoring the polls, which I suspect are being manipulated, who has the better chance?
If the GOP manipulate polling, why did it understate them in 2016 and 2020?
I don't think Trump and his gang were actively planning to challenge the election in advance of the 2016 and 2020 elections.
In 2016, Trump was shocked when he won. In 2020, he thought he was winning when the early results came in. He thought it was a repeat of 2016. When he lost he developed the stolen election story.
This time is different. The Trump gang are actively setting up the stolen election story in advance.
And Yougov is helping them? I mean, I believe that Trump would do this, but the polls right now point to more or less a tie, not a great way to set up a stolen election narrative. How many pollsters do they control? How many results can they skew without it being far too obvious? When have Trump followers ever needed evidence to believe what he told them? I just don't see it, but I will leave it there. We will find out soon enough.
"the polls right now point to more or less a tie, not a great way to set up a stolen election narrative."
So you were NOT around for 2020? Or 2000?? How about 1960??
Very close elections are actually the PERFECT breeding ground for "a stolen election narrative".
NOT inevitable (as per several UK examples such as GE 1964) but unfortunately all to common.
It's being reported now that Western intelligence thinks North Korea has sent 10,000 troops to help Russia in the war. This is not a good development.
That's about a month's cannon fodder.
I wonder what NK are getting in return?
Probably oil and gas.
I think they are going to be guarding other places in order to free up Russians for the meat grinder. It's not just Ukraine that is running out of fit men.
I thought that would be the case as well (freeing up Russian troops); but it appears that they're going to be going to the frontlines as pretendy Russians. Some have apparently already gone missing.
Allegedly, Ukraine are trying to negotiate a deal where any NK soldier surrendering voluntarily will get South Korean citizenship...
There is actually a longstanding Ukranian Korean diaspora, dating from Stalins time deporting suspect nationalities, this time from rather than to the East.
The weight loss jab for millions leaves me a little queasy.
I feel I am a 'dog in manger' person.
Benzos in 60s and 70s were the solution to anxiety and emotional upset and prescribed to millions with little thought as to the long term outcomes.
SSRI antidepressants were "so effective" they are handed out like lollipops by GPs desperate to quick fix patients when there is little talking therapy available. Millions now take them. UK is one of the worst countries for this. Plenty of issues with long term effects and difficulties stopping.
How long will people have to stay on these new 'wonder' drugs? Do we have any idea what the long term effects of messing so massively with the metabolism system is?
Nature does not hand out free lunches imho.
I share your doubts to a degree, but they really do work and are the best new pharmaceutical in Diabetes for years, also working on a number of other addictions.
Not without sideffects though, and sustainability in the long run is a legitimate question.
I think this election is very much about differential turnout of supporters in the swing states rather than convincing the undecideds, who are few in number and most of whom won't vote anyway.
Graduates are much more likely to vote than non-graduates. Kamala has a big lead with graduates.
She has a better ground game with more money and resources.
"Anti" sentiment is a more powerful motivator to vote than "pro". There is much more "anti" sentiment against Trump. Look at the net approval ratings. Look at the candidates!
So ignoring the polls, which I suspect are being manipulated, who has the better chance?
If the GOP manipulate polling, why did it understate them in 2016 and 2020?
I don't think Trump and his gang were actively planning to challenge the election in advance of the 2016 and 2020 elections.
In 2016, Trump was shocked when he won. In 2020, he thought he was winning when the early results came in. He thought it was a repeat of 2016. When he lost he developed the stolen election story.
This time is different. The Trump gang are actively setting up the stolen election story in advance.
You really think that Trumps election denialism is post-2020 phenomenon? The facts beg to differ:
ABC News - A timeline of Donald Trump's election denial claims, which Republican politicians increasingly embrace
. . . Trump has a long history of crying foul in contests he doesn't win, including previously saying that the "Emmys are all politics" after his reality TV show, "The Apprentice," never won an award. He also labeled then-President Barack Obama's 2012 reelection "a total sham." e leaned on that same tactic in 2016 during the GOP primaries, including the Iowa and Colorado caucuses, which he lost to Cruz.
"Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified," Trump tweeted that year without providing evidence. Cruz rebuffed Trump at the time, telling supporters at one event: "Donald, it ain’t stealing when the voters vote against you -- it is the voters reclaiming this country and reclaiming sanity."
Trump later said the Colorado caucuses were similarly "rigged" and dismissed opponent Hillary Clinton's victory over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary.
Yet it was during and after the 2016 general election, in which he lost the popular vote to Clinton but won the Electoral College, that he began making claims of fraud more consistently.
In the final weeks of the 2016 race, he refused to confirm whether he would accept a defeat. Afterward, he insisted he had only lost the popular vote through wrongdoing.
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
What death threats?
She wanted the convenience of a blue light escort. This has sod all to do with any terrorist threat.
There was a very real terrorist threat against one of her shows in Austria.
But this was in London, right? And, if there was a credible threat in London...
Rachel Cunliffe @RMCunliffe · 8h Don’t understand why Labour doesn’t just say “Yes we ensured the most famous woman in the world had protection after her Vienna concerts were cancelled due to terror threats and she threatened to axe the London ones - AND???”
And let the Tories say they would have cancelled them
Pedley is absolutely right on this. Presidential polling history and the current state of the polls strongly suggest a Trump victory. It is not a good position as a campaign to need the polls to be wrong. The Dems are in that positon at the moment but there are three weeks to go and US polls generally are wrong - just not necessarily in the way that helps!
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
What death threats?
She wanted the convenience of a blue light escort. This has sod all to do with any terrorist threat.
There was a very real terrorist threat against one of her shows in Austria.
But this was in London, right? And, if there was a credible threat in London...
Rachel Cunliffe @RMCunliffe · 8h Don’t understand why Labour doesn’t just say “Yes we ensured the most famous woman in the world had protection after her Vienna concerts were cancelled due to terror threats and she threatened to axe the London ones - AND???”
And let the Tories say they would have cancelled them
Swifties are falling into the same trap as football fans. There are far more people who don't give a toss about taylor bloody swift.
Take the names, personalities and partisan politics out of it and consider how the situation would look to someone new.
The incumbent is unpopular because of perceived failure on the economy and has been forced to withdraw from the contest following a disastrous debate. They have been replaced by their deputy, leaving their party tied to the record of the incumbent.
The challenger is favoured on the two most important issues to the electorate - the economy and immigration - and is personally more popular now than when they won election eight years ago.
That sounds like it should be a blowout win for the Challenger. It won't be, in part because the strength of the partisan divide makes a blowout win for either side much more difficult.
But the Democrats and Harris have a hell of a mountain to climb for this election.
I hear what you are saying, and the economy is apparently what is driving a lot of first time voters. But I think that there will be a surge in younger women voters this time, compared to all previous elections, and their driving motive is but one thing …. Hint, it’s not the economy or immigration.
Yes, that's the strongest pro-Harris argument.
Getting those potential voters to vote is visit important, and not easy if they're first-time voters. It could be the ground game organisation that decides the election.
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
What death threats?
She wanted the convenience of a blue light escort. This has sod all to do with any terrorist threat.
There was a very real terrorist threat against one of her shows in Austria.
But this was in London, right? And, if there was a credible threat in London...
Rachel Cunliffe @RMCunliffe · 8h Don’t understand why Labour doesn’t just say “Yes we ensured the most famous woman in the world had protection after her Vienna concerts were cancelled due to terror threats and she threatened to axe the London ones - AND???”
And let the Tories say they would have cancelled them
Swifties are falling into the same trap as football fans. There are far more people who don't give a toss about taylor bloody swift.
How many people give a toss, about somebody who IS a Taylor Swift fan? And who wants to go to one i of her concerts . . . and come back in one piece!
Trump effectively admits he has had phone calls with Putin. To think there was a time in the USA where buying a bottle of vodka could get you accused of being a Commie !
Now the Trump cult are happy to see their Dear Leader acting like Putin’s bxtch !
I think this election is very much about differential turnout of supporters in the swing states rather than convincing the undecideds, who are few in number and most of whom won't vote anyway.
Graduates are much more likely to vote than non-graduates. Kamala has a big lead with graduates.
She has a better ground game with more money and resources.
"Anti" sentiment is a more powerful motivator to vote than "pro". There is much more "anti" sentiment against Trump. Look at the net approval ratings. Look at the candidates!
So ignoring the polls, which I suspect are being manipulated, who has the better chance?
If the GOP manipulate polling, why did it understate them in 2016 and 2020?
I don't think Trump and his gang were actively planning to challenge the election in advance of the 2016 and 2020 elections.
In 2016, Trump was shocked when he won. In 2020, he thought he was winning when the early results came in. He thought it was a repeat of 2016. When he lost he developed the stolen election story.
This time is different. The Trump gang are actively setting up the stolen election story in advance.
And Yougov is helping them? I mean, I believe that Trump would do this, but the polls right now point to more or less a tie, not a great way to set up a stolen election narrative. How many pollsters do they control? How many results can they skew without it being far too obvious? When have Trump followers ever needed evidence to believe what he told them? I just don't see it, but I will leave it there. We will find out soon enough.
"the polls right now point to more or less a tie, not a great way to set up a stolen election narrative."
So you were NOT around for 2020? Or 2000?? How about 1960??
Very close elections are actually the PERFECT breeding ground for "a stolen election narrative".
NOT inevitable (as per several UK examples such as GE 1964) but unfortunately all to common.
Was 2000 a narrative? I thought Gore had a point tbh. Of course, it was a dem that cost him the election with that crappy butterfly design. As for 2020, I thought the polls themselves pointed to a Biden victory. It is the close result that was used to imply wrongdoing. That's why I just do not see polling being a great way to get this narrative going. especially as polls tend to be out in presidential elections by about 4 points.
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
It would have been an absolute nothingburger aside from the fact loads of MPs accepted free tickets for themselves and hangers-on. That makes the 'excuses' appear to be excuses for pathetic grift.
Some of those MPs being the ministers who were pressuring the authorities for the VIP treatment.
Any major artist in town for a concert will have a security team who will liaise with the local police about arrangements. There will have been 20 different ways of getting the artist from the hotel to the venue, without the full blue light motorcade.
Taylor Swift is not any other major artist. This is the highest grossing music tour of all time. Let's quote Wikipedia:
In Latin America, Swift's shows in Mexico City generated an estimated Mex$1,000,000,000 (US$59 million) in revenue across the city.[121] Veja estimated a "tremendous" R$400,000,000 (US$74 million) economic boost for Brazil during the tour.[122] Whereas in Asia, Mitsumasa Etou, professor from Tokyo City University, projected an economic boost of up to ¥34,100,000,000 (US$229.6 million) in Japan, making the tour "Japan's biggest ever musical event", surpassing the Fuji Rock Festival.[111] Bloomberg estimated that the tour's six shows in Singapore would increase the country's GDP by 0.2 percentage points (approximately US$200 million).[123][124] According to Sally Capp, Lord Mayor of Melbourne, Australia, the tour generated an estimated A$1,200,000,000 (US$780 million) in economic value for the city.[125] Venues NSW chief executive Kerrie Mather said the four shows in Sydney will contribute around A$135,800,000 (US$88.7 million) to the state's economy.[126]
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
What death threats?
She wanted the convenience of a blue light escort. This has sod all to do with any terrorist threat.
@SeaShanty. Any surprises to look for in Washington re House elections?
There are only two WA State congressional seat that are up for grabs this year
> WA CD03 is rematch between surprise 2022 winner, Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, and Republican Joe Kent, which I reckon is WAY toooooo close to call:
WA State Standard - Gluesenkamp Perez and Kent spar as poll shows rematch is a dead heat
The Democratic congresswoman and Republican challenger are at odds over immigration, foreign policy and replacement plans for the Interstate 5 bridge [across Columbia River to Portland OR]
> WA CD04 is latest Trumper attempt to defeat incumbent Rep Rep. who voted to impeach Trump in 2021; note that August Top Two primary resulted in TWO GOPer on general election ballot: incumbent Dan Newhouse and MAGA-maniac challenger. NOTE that Newhouse was elected in the first place in similar scenario, because he split the GOP vote . . . AND also won the lion's share of votes from Democrats, at least those who did not skip over the congressional race. Am pretty sure that Dan the Man will do so again.
(You'll have to tell me what they are saying behind the paywall!)
Thanks. I’ve moved from MD to northern VA (Loudon County). Interesting that a number of yards have the local GOP Rep’s signs up without the corresponding Trump/Vance sign.
Dan Neidle @DanNeidle · 3h I don’t believe for a second the Budget will actually put up employer national insurance. It’s one of the worst taxes the Government could raise, and it probably breaks a manifesto promise.
It is much more likely that employers will have to pay NI on pension contributions than an increase in the 'basic' rate of 13.8%. This would apparently raise £17bn per year!
This means Rachel wouldn't have to raise too many other taxes, good thing too bearing in mind most of what had been talked about won't work.
Still room for increase in CGT to 30%, reduction/elimination of CGT and dividend allowances, ISA limits, done technical IHT changes.
The CGT and dividend allowances are too low currently. Reducing them, or in effect eliminating would cause an admin nightmare. I have no idea how I would calculate CGT on some shares we have eg issued monthly via payroll but not CGT free issued between 20 and 5 years ago some paid for some foc and about 200 allocations. Small beer and impossible to calculate.
Just ask Sharedata. Very cheap statements of values at time t = a, b, c ... they sorted out a horrendously complex sequence of company takeovers, share issues, mergers etc. on some shares my late mother hadn't paid her CGT on before her demise.
The weight loss jab for millions leaves me a little queasy.
I feel I am a 'dog in manger' person.
Benzos in 60s and 70s were the solution to anxiety and emotional upset and prescribed to millions with little thought as to the long term outcomes.
SSRI antidepressants were "so effective" they are handed out like lollipops by GPs desperate to quick fix patients when there is little talking therapy available. Millions now take them. UK is one of the worst countries for this. Plenty of issues with long term effects and difficulties stopping.
How long will people have to stay on these new 'wonder' drugs? Do we have any idea what the long term effects of messing so massively with the metabolism system is?
Nature does not hand out free lunches imho.
When it comes to weight loss miracle cures too many free lunches seems to be the problem, not the solution.
I think this election is very much about differential turnout of supporters in the swing states rather than convincing the undecideds, who are few in number and most of whom won't vote anyway.
Graduates are much more likely to vote than non-graduates. Kamala has a big lead with graduates.
She has a better ground game with more money and resources.
"Anti" sentiment is a more powerful motivator to vote than "pro". There is much more "anti" sentiment against Trump. Look at the net approval ratings. Look at the candidates!
So ignoring the polls, which I suspect are being manipulated, who has the better chance?
If the GOP manipulate polling, why did it understate them in 2016 and 2020?
I don't think Trump and his gang were actively planning to challenge the election in advance of the 2016 and 2020 elections.
In 2016, Trump was shocked when he won. In 2020, he thought he was winning when the early results came in. He thought it was a repeat of 2016. When he lost he developed the stolen election story.
This time is different. The Trump gang are actively setting up the stolen election story in advance.
And Yougov is helping them? I mean, I believe that Trump would do this, but the polls right now point to more or less a tie, not a great way to set up a stolen election narrative. How many pollsters do they control? How many results can they skew without it being far too obvious? When have Trump followers ever needed evidence to believe what he told them? I just don't see it, but I will leave it there. We will find out soon enough.
Good questions which have caused me to investigate and change my mind. Thank you.
So I've stripped out the unreliable pollsters from my EMA but it only increases Kamala's lead by 0.2%. So I think my hypothesis is flawed. That's not to say some polls are skewed, but it is not really material.
I still think that the way US polls treat likelihood to vote is suspect. Maybe I'm wishcasting. As you say - we will find out soon enough.
The weight loss jab for millions leaves me a little queasy.
I feel I am a 'dog in manger' person.
Benzos in 60s and 70s were the solution to anxiety and emotional upset and prescribed to millions with little thought as to the long term outcomes.
SSRI antidepressants were "so effective" they are handed out like lollipops by GPs desperate to quick fix patients when there is little talking therapy available. Millions now take them. UK is one of the worst countries for this. Plenty of issues with long term effects and difficulties stopping.
How long will people have to stay on these new 'wonder' drugs? Do we have any idea what the long term effects of messing so massively with the metabolism system is?
Nature does not hand out free lunches imho.
I share your doubts to a degree, but they really do work and are the best new pharmaceutical in Diabetes for years, also working on a number of other addictions.
Not without sideffects though, and sustainability in the long run is a legitimate question.
I agree it is the best new pharma in years for things like diabetes on face of things.
What I am concerned about is the rush to declare this is the new world and everything will be for the best.
“Act in haste, repent at leisure”
Ramp this up slowly.
On diabetes it has taken years and years to allow Prof Roy Taylor's ideas about weight loss to be rolled out across NHS widely. Something which in worst scenario has no long term side effects.
Let's take the same measured effect to these drugs and not been blinded by the pharma people or the desperation to fix waiting lists etc etc.
Dan Neidle @DanNeidle · 3h I don’t believe for a second the Budget will actually put up employer national insurance. It’s one of the worst taxes the Government could raise, and it probably breaks a manifesto promise.
This makes perfectly good sense of course but doesn't address the harder question. Which are the tax increases which: stick to the election pledges, raise 20-30 billion a year, don't cause flight of the monied from the country, don't end up losing more than you gain, don't discourage enterprise, don't cost jobs and are reasonably willingly paid by those taxed?
Personally I suggest 5% VAT on all food; taxes on non-work income to be the same as earned income (including pensioners like me); revalue property for council tax and ensure a 2 million house always pays loads and loads more than a 200k house, regardless of location.
These modest suggestions would probably bring the government down.
End foreign aid, nut zero and subsidies to Northern Ireland. Maybe £45 billion saved.
Also allow asylum seekers to work while their claims are processed so we don't need to house most of them at the taxpayer's expense. I think I'm right in saying they can't?
Are people with allergies forcing the whole country to go nut zero? It's woke gone mad.
I think this election is very much about differential turnout of supporters in the swing states rather than convincing the undecideds, who are few in number and most of whom won't vote anyway.
Graduates are much more likely to vote than non-graduates. Kamala has a big lead with graduates.
She has a better ground game with more money and resources.
"Anti" sentiment is a more powerful motivator to vote than "pro". There is much more "anti" sentiment against Trump. Look at the net approval ratings. Look at the candidates!
So ignoring the polls, which I suspect are being manipulated, who has the better chance?
If the GOP manipulate polling, why did it understate them in 2016 and 2020?
I don't think Trump and his gang were actively planning to challenge the election in advance of the 2016 and 2020 elections.
In 2016, Trump was shocked when he won. In 2020, he thought he was winning when the early results came in. He thought it was a repeat of 2016. When he lost he developed the stolen election story.
This time is different. The Trump gang are actively setting up the stolen election story in advance.
And Yougov is helping them? I mean, I believe that Trump would do this, but the polls right now point to more or less a tie, not a great way to set up a stolen election narrative. How many pollsters do they control? How many results can they skew without it being far too obvious? When have Trump followers ever needed evidence to believe what he told them? I just don't see it, but I will leave it there. We will find out soon enough.
"the polls right now point to more or less a tie, not a great way to set up a stolen election narrative."
So you were NOT around for 2020? Or 2000?? How about 1960??
Very close elections are actually the PERFECT breeding ground for "a stolen election narrative".
NOT inevitable (as per several UK examples such as GE 1964) but unfortunately all to common.
Was 2000 a narrative? I thought Gore had a point tbh. Of course, it was a dem that cost him the election with that crappy butterfly design. As for 2020, I thought the polls themselves pointed to a Biden victory. It is the close result that was used to imply wrongdoing. That's why I just do not see polling being a great way to get this narrative going. especially as polls tend to be out in presidential elections by about 4 points.
I think this election is very much about differential turnout of supporters in the swing states rather than convincing the undecideds, who are few in number and most of whom won't vote anyway.
Graduates are much more likely to vote than non-graduates. Kamala has a big lead with graduates.
She has a better ground game with more money and resources.
"Anti" sentiment is a more powerful motivator to vote than "pro". There is much more "anti" sentiment against Trump. Look at the net approval ratings. Look at the candidates!
So ignoring the polls, which I suspect are being manipulated, who has the better chance?
If the GOP manipulate polling, why did it understate them in 2016 and 2020?
I don't think Trump and his gang were actively planning to challenge the election in advance of the 2016 and 2020 elections.
In 2016, Trump was shocked when he won. In 2020, he thought he was winning when the early results came in. He thought it was a repeat of 2016. When he lost he developed the stolen election story.
This time is different. The Trump gang are actively setting up the stolen election story in advance.
You really think that Trumps election denialism is post-2020 phenomenon? The facts beg to differ:
ABC News - A timeline of Donald Trump's election denial claims, which Republican politicians increasingly embrace
. . . Trump has a long history of crying foul in contests he doesn't win, including previously saying that the "Emmys are all politics" after his reality TV show, "The Apprentice," never won an award. He also labeled then-President Barack Obama's 2012 reelection "a total sham." e leaned on that same tactic in 2016 during the GOP primaries, including the Iowa and Colorado caucuses, which he lost to Cruz.
"Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified," Trump tweeted that year without providing evidence. Cruz rebuffed Trump at the time, telling supporters at one event: "Donald, it ain’t stealing when the voters vote against you -- it is the voters reclaiming this country and reclaiming sanity."
Trump later said the Colorado caucuses were similarly "rigged" and dismissed opponent Hillary Clinton's victory over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary.
Yet it was during and after the 2016 general election, in which he lost the popular vote to Clinton but won the Electoral College, that he began making claims of fraud more consistently.
In the final weeks of the 2016 race, he refused to confirm whether he would accept a defeat. Afterward, he insisted he had only lost the popular vote through wrongdoing.
No I don't think that Trumps election denialism is a post-2020 phenomenon. As you say, he's always done it. I was hypothesising that this time it was a systematic attempt by his campaign team to set up the stolen election story in advance, not just Trump shooting off his mouth.
However, on investigation, I don't think my hypothesis on deliberate poll rigging as part of that campaign, stands up.
Trump effectively admits he has had phone calls with Putin. To think there was a time in the USA where buying a bottle of vodka could get you accused of being a Commie !
Now the Trump cult are happy to see their Dear Leader acting like Putin’s bxtch !
I think this election is very much about differential turnout of supporters in the swing states rather than convincing the undecideds, who are few in number and most of whom won't vote anyway.
Graduates are much more likely to vote than non-graduates. Kamala has a big lead with graduates.
She has a better ground game with more money and resources.
"Anti" sentiment is a more powerful motivator to vote than "pro". There is much more "anti" sentiment against Trump. Look at the net approval ratings. Look at the candidates!
So ignoring the polls, which I suspect are being manipulated, who has the better chance?
If the GOP manipulate polling, why did it understate them in 2016 and 2020?
I don't think Trump and his gang were actively planning to challenge the election in advance of the 2016 and 2020 elections.
In 2016, Trump was shocked when he won. In 2020, he thought he was winning when the early results came in. He thought it was a repeat of 2016. When he lost he developed the stolen election story.
This time is different. The Trump gang are actively setting up the stolen election story in advance.
And Yougov is helping them? I mean, I believe that Trump would do this, but the polls right now point to more or less a tie, not a great way to set up a stolen election narrative. How many pollsters do they control? How many results can they skew without it being far too obvious? When have Trump followers ever needed evidence to believe what he told them? I just don't see it, but I will leave it there. We will find out soon enough.
Good questions which have caused me to investigate and change my mind. Thank you.
So I've stripped out the unreliable pollsters from my EMA but it only increases Kamala's lead by 0.2%. So I think my hypothesis is flawed. That's not to say some polls are skewed, but it is not really material.
I still think that the way US polls treat likelihood to vote is suspect. Maybe I'm wishcasting. As you say - we will find out soon enough.
There are now so many biased polls. Over half of polling released since the end of September has a bias to Trump . They often try to look respectable by not publishing outlandish results .
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
What death threats?
She wanted the convenience of a blue light escort. This has sod all to do with any terrorist threat.
There was a very real terrorist threat against one of her shows in Austria.
But this was in London, right? And, if there was a credible threat in London...
Rachel Cunliffe @RMCunliffe · 8h Don’t understand why Labour doesn’t just say “Yes we ensured the most famous woman in the world had protection after her Vienna concerts were cancelled due to terror threats and she threatened to axe the London ones - AND???”
And let the Tories say they would have cancelled them
Swifties are falling into the same trap as football fans. There are far more people who don't give a toss about taylor bloody swift.
How many people give a toss, about somebody who IS a Taylor Swift fan? And who wants to go to one i of her concerts . . . and come back in one piece!
The weight loss jab for millions leaves me a little queasy.
I feel I am a 'dog in manger' person.
Benzos in 60s and 70s were the solution to anxiety and emotional upset and prescribed to millions with little thought as to the long term outcomes.
SSRI antidepressants were "so effective" they are handed out like lollipops by GPs desperate to quick fix patients when there is little talking therapy available. Millions now take them. UK is one of the worst countries for this. Plenty of issues with long term effects and difficulties stopping.
How long will people have to stay on these new 'wonder' drugs? Do we have any idea what the long term effects of messing so massively with the metabolism system is?
Nature does not hand out free lunches imho.
I share your doubts to a degree, but they really do work and are the best new pharmaceutical in Diabetes for years, also working on a number of other addictions.
Not without sideffects though, and sustainability in the long run is a legitimate question.
I agree it is the best new pharma in years for things like diabetes on face of things.
What I am concerned about is the rush to declare this is the new world and everything will be for the best.
“Act in haste, repent at leisure”
Ramp this up slowly.
On diabetes it has taken years and years to allow Prof Roy Taylor's ideas about weight loss to be rolled out across NHS widely. Something which in worst scenario has no long term side effects.
Let's take the same measured effect to these drugs and not been blinded by the pharma people or the desperation to fix waiting lists etc etc.
There is a Clockwork Orange side to them. The appetite suppression and nausea often stops people from enjoying food and wine. I think a bit of Ludwig Van is still OK.
If people shed a couple of stone and reform their diet then it can stay off, alas for most it is an addiction not a cure.
I think this election is very much about differential turnout of supporters in the swing states rather than convincing the undecideds, who are few in number and most of whom won't vote anyway.
Graduates are much more likely to vote than non-graduates. Kamala has a big lead with graduates.
She has a better ground game with more money and resources.
"Anti" sentiment is a more powerful motivator to vote than "pro". There is much more "anti" sentiment against Trump. Look at the net approval ratings. Look at the candidates!
So ignoring the polls, which I suspect are being manipulated, who has the better chance?
If the GOP manipulate polling, why did it understate them in 2016 and 2020?
I don't think Trump and his gang were actively planning to challenge the election in advance of the 2016 and 2020 elections.
In 2016, Trump was shocked when he won. In 2020, he thought he was winning when the early results came in. He thought it was a repeat of 2016. When he lost he developed the stolen election story.
This time is different. The Trump gang are actively setting up the stolen election story in advance.
And Yougov is helping them? I mean, I believe that Trump would do this, but the polls right now point to more or less a tie, not a great way to set up a stolen election narrative. How many pollsters do they control? How many results can they skew without it being far too obvious? When have Trump followers ever needed evidence to believe what he told them? I just don't see it, but I will leave it there. We will find out soon enough.
"the polls right now point to more or less a tie, not a great way to set up a stolen election narrative."
So you were NOT around for 2020? Or 2000?? How about 1960??
Very close elections are actually the PERFECT breeding ground for "a stolen election narrative".
NOT inevitable (as per several UK examples such as GE 1964) but unfortunately all to common.
Was 2000 a narrative? I thought Gore had a point tbh. Of course, it was a dem that cost him the election with that crappy butterfly design. As for 2020, I thought the polls themselves pointed to a Biden victory. It is the close result that was used to imply wrongdoing. That's why I just do not see polling being a great way to get this narrative going. especially as polls tend to be out in presidential elections by about 4 points.
In 2020, Al Gore was his own worst enemy. For example, he was advised to request a FULL hand recount in Florida; instead, he and his brain-deficient advisors opted for a cherry-picking PARTIAL recount. Absolute media AND legal disaster.
As for polling, that is actually NOT the key issue in very close, disputed POTUS elections. It's the ACTUAL very close result.
As in 1876, when there WAS not even quasi-scientific polling.
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
What death threats?
She wanted the convenience of a blue light escort. This has sod all to do with any terrorist threat.
There was a very real terrorist threat against one of her shows in Austria.
But this was in London, right? And, if there was a credible threat in London...
Rachel Cunliffe @RMCunliffe · 8h Don’t understand why Labour doesn’t just say “Yes we ensured the most famous woman in the world had protection after her Vienna concerts were cancelled due to terror threats and she threatened to axe the London ones - AND???”
And let the Tories say they would have cancelled them
Swifties are falling into the same trap as football fans. There are far more people who don't give a toss about taylor bloody swift.
How many people give a toss, about somebody who IS a Taylor Swift fan? And who wants to go to one i of her concerts . . . and come back in one piece!
This was "protection" for HER, not her fans.
Of things to care about it is a long way down my list. Number infinity plus one down the list.
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
What death threats?
She wanted the convenience of a blue light escort. This has sod all to do with any terrorist threat.
There was a very real terrorist threat against one of her shows in Austria.
But this was in London, right? And, if there was a credible threat in London...
Rachel Cunliffe @RMCunliffe · 8h Don’t understand why Labour doesn’t just say “Yes we ensured the most famous woman in the world had protection after her Vienna concerts were cancelled due to terror threats and she threatened to axe the London ones - AND???”
And let the Tories say they would have cancelled them
Swifties are falling into the same trap as football fans. There are far more people who don't give a toss about taylor bloody swift.
But there is a further fallacy lurking here. It matters not that most people don't care about football or Taylor Swift or whatever it is; the political reality is that any motivated group of a couple of million or so can swing an election. This remains a permanent political danger to all UK politics and politicians.
To take a realistic example, this is why a referendum on abolishing the monarchy will never feature in any significant manifesto even if, say, polling showed 80% of the population liked the idea. The votes of the 20% of royalists would swing the election away from that party. The 80% will never care enough to counteract it.
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
What death threats?
She wanted the convenience of a blue light escort. This has sod all to do with any terrorist threat.
There was a very real terrorist threat against one of her shows in Austria.
But this was in London, right? And, if there was a credible threat in London...
Rachel Cunliffe @RMCunliffe · 8h Don’t understand why Labour doesn’t just say “Yes we ensured the most famous woman in the world had protection after her Vienna concerts were cancelled due to terror threats and she threatened to axe the London ones - AND???”
And let the Tories say they would have cancelled them
Swifties are falling into the same trap as football fans. There are far more people who don't give a toss about taylor bloody swift.
How many people give a toss, about somebody who IS a Taylor Swift fan? And who wants to go to one i of her concerts . . . and come back in one piece!
This was "protection" for HER, not her fans.
Of things to care about it is a long way down my list. Number infinity plus one down the list.
Premier League football clubs must pay more for policing outside games, says former Met chief Lord Hogan Howe
"But the Premiership pay £100 million for a player, they have the money available.
"It's the rest of us that are picking up the bill. I would target the Premiership and change the rules so they have to pay for what's not at the ground."
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
It would have been an absolute nothingburger aside from the fact loads of MPs accepted free tickets for themselves and hangers-on. That makes the 'excuses' appear to be excuses for pathetic grift.
Some of those MPs being the ministers who were pressuring the authorities for the VIP treatment.
Any major artist in town for a concert will have a security team who will liaise with the local police about arrangements. There will have been 20 different ways of getting the artist from the hotel to the venue, without the full blue light motorcade.
Taylor Swift is not any other major artist. This is the highest grossing music tour of all time. Let's quote Wikipedia:
In Latin America, Swift's shows in Mexico City generated an estimated Mex$1,000,000,000 (US$59 million) in revenue across the city.[121] Veja estimated a "tremendous" R$400,000,000 (US$74 million) economic boost for Brazil during the tour.[122] Whereas in Asia, Mitsumasa Etou, professor from Tokyo City University, projected an economic boost of up to ¥34,100,000,000 (US$229.6 million) in Japan, making the tour "Japan's biggest ever musical event", surpassing the Fuji Rock Festival.[111] Bloomberg estimated that the tour's six shows in Singapore would increase the country's GDP by 0.2 percentage points (approximately US$200 million).[123][124] According to Sally Capp, Lord Mayor of Melbourne, Australia, the tour generated an estimated A$1,200,000,000 (US$780 million) in economic value for the city.[125] Venues NSW chief executive Kerrie Mather said the four shows in Sydney will contribute around A$135,800,000 (US$88.7 million) to the state's economy.[126]
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
What death threats?
She wanted the convenience of a blue light escort. This has sod all to do with any terrorist threat.
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
What death threats?
She wanted the convenience of a blue light escort. This has sod all to do with any terrorist threat.
There was a very real terrorist threat against one of her shows in Austria.
But this was in London, right? And, if there was a credible threat in London...
Rachel Cunliffe @RMCunliffe · 8h Don’t understand why Labour doesn’t just say “Yes we ensured the most famous woman in the world had protection after her Vienna concerts were cancelled due to terror threats and she threatened to axe the London ones - AND???”
And let the Tories say they would have cancelled them
Swifties are falling into the same trap as football fans. There are far more people who don't give a toss about taylor bloody swift.
How many people give a toss, about somebody who IS a Taylor Swift fan? And who wants to go to one i of her concerts . . . and come back in one piece!
This was "protection" for HER, not her fans.
Of things to care about it is a long way down my list. Number infinity plus one down the list.
I’m reminded on the New Labour policies towards celebrities - all kinds of special access.
This seems to be the tribute band in the local pub version of that.
Yes it’s daft . The US elections really put ours to shame in terms of wtf moments !
Kamala Harris campaigning to win votes of Black men, is NOT nearly as daft as Rishi Sunak launching the 2024 GE campaign in a rainstorm without an umbrella.
OR the sight of Ed Davey campaigning (successfully as it turned out) slip-sliding down water-slides & similar.
US Black males have a disproportionate percentage of the prison population often for stupid reasons like the one above - if fixing it adds a few votes I don’t see the problem
Yes it’s daft . The US elections really put ours to shame in terms of wtf moments !
Kamala Harris campaigning to win votes of Black men, is NOT nearly as daft as Rishi Sunak launching the 2024 GE campaign in a rainstorm without an umbrella.
OR the sight of Ed Davey campaigning (successfully as it turned out) slip-sliding down water-slides & similar.
Ours still has a rather charming "It's A Knockout!" feel about it. Where-as the US election has ever more of a "It's A Shoot-out!" feel.
Dan Neidle @DanNeidle · 3h I don’t believe for a second the Budget will actually put up employer national insurance. It’s one of the worst taxes the Government could raise, and it probably breaks a manifesto promise.
It is much more likely that employers will have to pay NI on pension contributions than an increase in the 'basic' rate of 13.8%. This would apparently raise £17bn per year!
This means Rachel wouldn't have to raise too many other taxes, good thing too bearing in mind most of what had been talked about won't work.
Still room for increase in CGT to 30%, reduction/elimination of CGT and dividend allowances, ISA limits, done technical IHT changes.
The CGT and dividend allowances are too low currently. Reducing them, or in effect eliminating would cause an admin nightmare. I have no idea how I would calculate CGT on some shares we have eg issued monthly via payroll but not CGT free issued between 20 and 5 years ago some paid for some foc and about 200 allocations. Small beer and impossible to calculate.
Just ask Sharedata. Very cheap statements of values at time t = a, b, c ... they sorted out a horrendously complex sequence of company takeovers, share issues, mergers etc. on some shares my late mother hadn't paid her CGT on before her demise.
A logical approach would be to increase the allowance to something sensible, but if you are over the allowance the CGT or Dividend Tax applies to it all i.e. you don't get the allowance. That way you raise more tax but don't pull into tax small complex gains.
In the case I am referring to there would be something like 2 or 3 shares purchased each month and 1 or 2 free shares each month over a period of 15 years so that is 180 prices to look up and 360 calculations and then you have to decide if selling only some which ones count. I assume HMRC lay down some rules for this part of the calculation (oh and all of that is in Swiss Francs so exchange issues as well).
After all of that the gain may only be a few hundred pounds so a tax of a few tens of pounds.
This is likely to apply to a lot of people
As per the example you gave many privatisations which many people will have will have the problem of takeovers, rights issues, capital refunds, shares bought with dividends and decades passed. Again we should be forgetting about most of these if the sale price is a few thousand, the gains a few hundred and therefore the tax is a few tens of pounds.
There is a reason for these allowances. They make sense.
Yes it’s daft . The US elections really put ours to shame in terms of wtf moments !
Kamala Harris campaigning to win votes of Black men, is NOT nearly as daft as Rishi Sunak launching the 2024 GE campaign in a rainstorm without an umbrella.
OR the sight of Ed Davey campaigning (successfully as it turned out) slip-sliding down water-slides & similar.
This myth that Trump is doing well with black men gets wheeled out for now the 3rd time and come the day he crashes and burns with that cohort . My concern is that although the policies put forward mostly include not just black voters isn’t there a danger that it could be misconstrued . Since the infamous NY Times Siena poll other polls haven’t supported it .
I think this election is very much about differential turnout of supporters in the swing states rather than convincing the undecideds, who are few in number and most of whom won't vote anyway.
Graduates are much more likely to vote than non-graduates. Kamala has a big lead with graduates.
She has a better ground game with more money and resources.
"Anti" sentiment is a more powerful motivator to vote than "pro". There is much more "anti" sentiment against Trump. Look at the net approval ratings. Look at the candidates!
So ignoring the polls, which I suspect are being manipulated, who has the better chance?
If the GOP manipulate polling, why did it understate them in 2016 and 2020?
I don't think Trump and his gang were actively planning to challenge the election in advance of the 2016 and 2020 elections.
In 2016, Trump was shocked when he won. In 2020, he thought he was winning when the early results came in. He thought it was a repeat of 2016. When he lost he developed the stolen election story.
This time is different. The Trump gang are actively setting up the stolen election story in advance.
And Yougov is helping them? I mean, I believe that Trump would do this, but the polls right now point to more or less a tie, not a great way to set up a stolen election narrative. How many pollsters do they control? How many results can they skew without it being far too obvious? When have Trump followers ever needed evidence to believe what he told them? I just don't see it, but I will leave it there. We will find out soon enough.
"the polls right now point to more or less a tie, not a great way to set up a stolen election narrative."
So you were NOT around for 2020? Or 2000?? How about 1960??
Very close elections are actually the PERFECT breeding ground for "a stolen election narrative".
NOT inevitable (as per several UK examples such as GE 1964) but unfortunately all to common.
Was 2000 a narrative? I thought Gore had a point tbh. Of course, it was a dem that cost him the election with that crappy butterfly design. As for 2020, I thought the polls themselves pointed to a Biden victory. It is the close result that was used to imply wrongdoing. That's why I just do not see polling being a great way to get this narrative going. especially as polls tend to be out in presidential elections by about 4 points.
In 2020, Al Gore was his own worst enemy. For example, he was advised to request a FULL hand recount in Florida; instead, he and his brain-deficient advisors opted for a cherry-picking PARTIAL recount. Absolute media AND legal disaster.
As for polling, that is actually NOT the key issue in very close, disputed POTUS elections. It's the ACTUAL very close result.
As in 1876, when there WAS not even quasi-scientific polling.
I must say that I absolutely love US elections . There’s just so much going on with a host of different races . The craziness of the whole thing and the over the top coverage .
The economy and prices may help Trump as will his tariff plans with rustbelt car workers but the US economy is still growing nonetheless, the fundamentals are not that bad for Harris and inflation has fallen.
Normally Presidents are re elected after only one term of their party in the White House, however Biden's ratings are as nearly low as Trump's were in 2020 albeit Harris now has about 49% approval.
It still looks close but Harris will really need to use Obama to get the black vote out, especially in Georgia, North Carolina and Philadelphia and Detroit and hope her marijuana legalisation plans help with black males too
More news from the US - Mr Trump's Town Hall event near Philadelphia had passed me by. I know these events are his happy place but dancing alone on stage to music for 30 minutes after the vast majority of the crowd had left seems a little, er, odd.
More news from the US - Mr Trump's Town Hall event near Philadelphia had passed me by. I know these events are his happy place but dancing alone on stage to music for 30 minutes after the vast majority of the crowd had left seems a little, er, odd.
Can you imagine if Harris did that . The US media is complicit in sane washing Trump when he’s clearly losing it .
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
What death threats?
She wanted the convenience of a blue light escort. This has sod all to do with any terrorist threat.
There was a very real terrorist threat against one of her shows in Austria.
But this was in London, right? And, if there was a credible threat in London...
Rachel Cunliffe @RMCunliffe · 8h Don’t understand why Labour doesn’t just say “Yes we ensured the most famous woman in the world had protection after her Vienna concerts were cancelled due to terror threats and she threatened to axe the London ones - AND???”
And let the Tories say they would have cancelled them
The jury particularly praised the "very complete appearance" of the winning cow, which impressed in terms of her rear end and pelvic length. The udder was also highlighted as being particularly perfectly shaped. The experts praised this cow as being very close to the breeding goal.
I think this election is very much about differential turnout of supporters in the swing states rather than convincing the undecideds, who are few in number and most of whom won't vote anyway.
Graduates are much more likely to vote than non-graduates. Kamala has a big lead with graduates.
She has a better ground game with more money and resources.
"Anti" sentiment is a more powerful motivator to vote than "pro". There is much more "anti" sentiment against Trump. Look at the net approval ratings. Look at the candidates!
So ignoring the polls, which I suspect are being manipulated, who has the better chance?
If the GOP manipulate polling, why did it understate them in 2016 and 2020?
I don't think Trump and his gang were actively planning to challenge the election in advance of the 2016 and 2020 elections.
In 2016, Trump was shocked when he won. In 2020, he thought he was winning when the early results came in. He thought it was a repeat of 2016. When he lost he developed the stolen election story.
This time is different. The Trump gang are actively setting up the stolen election story in advance.
And Yougov is helping them? I mean, I believe that Trump would do this, but the polls right now point to more or less a tie, not a great way to set up a stolen election narrative. How many pollsters do they control? How many results can they skew without it being far too obvious? When have Trump followers ever needed evidence to believe what he told them? I just don't see it, but I will leave it there. We will find out soon enough.
"the polls right now point to more or less a tie, not a great way to set up a stolen election narrative."
So you were NOT around for 2020? Or 2000?? How about 1960??
Very close elections are actually the PERFECT breeding ground for "a stolen election narrative".
NOT inevitable (as per several UK examples such as GE 1964) but unfortunately all to common.
Was 2000 a narrative? I thought Gore had a point tbh. Of course, it was a dem that cost him the election with that crappy butterfly design. As for 2020, I thought the polls themselves pointed to a Biden victory. It is the close result that was used to imply wrongdoing. That's why I just do not see polling being a great way to get this narrative going. especially as polls tend to be out in presidential elections by about 4 points.
In 2020, Al Gore was his own worst enemy. For example, he was advised to request a FULL hand recount in Florida; instead, he and his brain-deficient advisors opted for a cherry-picking PARTIAL recount. Absolute media AND legal disaster.
As for polling, that is actually NOT the key issue in very close, disputed POTUS elections. It's the ACTUAL very close result.
As in 1876, when there WAS not even quasi-scientific polling.
I didn't realise Gore stood in 2020?
Fat finger slippage. But thanks for reposting my post AND my (non-chronological) point!
BTW, in 2004 - for the record four years after Bush v Gore - in the VERY close Washington State govenor's race, the Republicans AND the media expected the Democrats to make the same mistake as Gore, that is request a PARTIAL hand recount. They eve had the state GOP chairman in the state capitol, ready to put down deposit for whatever the Dems did NOT want recounted.
However, Dems asked for the whole hog . . . and as a result ended up winning by margin of +131 votes statewide.
BTW, that Republican party state chairman, is now a leading Never Trumper.
Is the allegation that Taylor Swift is trying to influence government policy? This row has completely got away from me.
Considering she had to cancel concerts in Austria due to terrorist threats, and consequently risk to her audience, then a bit of police protection seems very appropriate.
Classic 'can't win' political situation.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
This was the easiest decision of the month for them. "Have whatever security you want, here's the bill".
It's the taxpayer picking up the tab for a rich popstar on her way to play a very expensive gig that hurts. That and the fact half the government were there on freebe tickets, which makes the whole decision-making process stink.
I mean, does anyone really think a 'recreational marijuana user' should go to jail for it?
Regardless of your views on legalising, punishing users with jail time (as definitely happens in the US) for something half the prosecution team and jury has also used in their lives is clearly beyond ridiculous.
The jury particularly praised the "very complete appearance" of the winning cow, which impressed in terms of her rear end and pelvic length. The udder was also highlighted as being particularly perfectly shaped. The experts praised this cow as being very close to the breeding goal.
Along lines suggested by this PB thread -
"J'mooos! Allegations of cow jury rigging - 'an udder disgrace!'"
The jury particularly praised the "very complete appearance" of the winning cow, which impressed in terms of her rear end and pelvic length. The udder was also highlighted as being particularly perfectly shaped. The experts praised this cow as being very close to the breeding goal.
Along lines suggested by this PB thread -
"J'mooos! Allegations of cow jury rigging - 'an udder disgrace!'"
So this is weird. I cannot log in on the politicalbetting.com site, but I can on the vf.politicalbetting.com site. Does anyone know why that would be the case?
Dan Neidle @DanNeidle · 3h I don’t believe for a second the Budget will actually put up employer national insurance. It’s one of the worst taxes the Government could raise, and it probably breaks a manifesto promise.
It is much more likely that employers will have to pay NI on pension contributions than an increase in the 'basic' rate of 13.8%. This would apparently raise £17bn per year!
This means Rachel wouldn't have to raise too many other taxes, good thing too bearing in mind most of what had been talked about won't work.
Still room for increase in CGT to 30%, reduction/elimination of CGT and dividend allowances, ISA limits, done technical IHT changes.
The CGT and dividend allowances are too low currently. Reducing them, or in effect eliminating would cause an admin nightmare. I have no idea how I would calculate CGT on some shares we have eg issued monthly via payroll but not CGT free issued between 20 and 5 years ago some paid for some foc and about 200 allocations. Small beer and impossible to calculate.
Just ask Sharedata. Very cheap statements of values at time t = a, b, c ... they sorted out a horrendously complex sequence of company takeovers, share issues, mergers etc. on some shares my late mother hadn't paid her CGT on before her demise.
A logical approach would be to increase the allowance to something sensible, but if you are over the allowance the CGT or Dividend Tax applies to it all i.e. you don't get the allowance. That way you raise more tax but don't pull into tax small complex gains.
In the case I am referring to there would be something like 2 or 3 shares purchased each month and 1 or 2 free shares each month over a period of 15 years so that is 180 prices to look up and 360 calculations and then you have to decide if selling only some which ones count. I assume HMRC lay down some rules for this part of the calculation (oh and all of that is in Swiss Francs so exchange issues as well).
After all of that the gain may only be a few hundred pounds so a tax of a few tens of pounds.
This is likely to apply to a lot of people
As per the example you gave many privatisations which many people will have will have the problem of takeovers, rights issues, capital refunds, shares bought with dividends and decades passed. Again we should be forgetting about most of these if the sale price is a few thousand, the gains a few hundred and therefore the tax is a few tens of pounds.
There is a reason for these allowances. They make sense.
Quite so. It's why I am so cautious about piecemeal share purchases on that sort of scale outwith a ISA. And why I was so annoyed when Brexit converted at least one investment operation into a foreign bank with weird new rules on what went into Income Tax and CGT but could be played off against each other. The further problem with mine was that the annual fees had been paid by share sales for years ...
Edit: Mostly, that was catered for by the annual CGT allowance, but a couple of major asset sales put paid to that, and full calculation was needed!
I mean, does anyone really think a 'recreational marijuana user' should go to jail for it?
Regardless of your views on legalising, punishing users with jail time (as definitely happens in the US) for something half the prosecution team and jury has also used in their lives is clearly beyond ridiculous.
Either it needs legalising properly - all the way up the supply chain - or it needs harsh enough punishment for possession that people actually think twice.
The "blind eye" legalisation is totally dumb.
I'd rather they legalised coke personally, coke just makes people unpleasant whilst under the influence, weed makes an unfortunate subset of users permanently paranoid and psychotic.
IF you think that Kamala Harris making a reasoned & reasonable appeal to Black men re: convictions using marijuana, is ipso facto wacky, then check out THIS news story:
New York Times (via Seattle Times) - How a man imprisoned in New York could sway a key House race in Alaska
In the race for Alaska’s sole seat in the House of Representatives, candidates are defined by credentials specific to the state.
The Democratic incumbent, Mary Peltola, is an Alaska Native who grew up in a fishing family. Her Republican challenger, Nick Begich III, hails from an Anchorage political dynasty. John Wayne Howe, a third-party candidate, has mined for gold and battled a bear.
Then there is Inmate 00932-005, campaigning from the Otisville Federal Correctional Institution in New York, some 4,000 miles from Alaska. He is Eric Hafner, running in a state he has never set foot in and cannot visit soon.
Hafner, 33, is serving 20 years for threatening public officials in New Jersey, where he grew up. Now in his dubious quest to become one himself, he has emerged as an unlikely factor in the fight for control of Congress.
Hafner has been a fringe congressional candidate at least twice before: in Hawaii in 2016 as a Republican and in Oregon two years later as a Democrat. This year, his Alaska candidacy withstood Democratic challenges in two courts and has pundits discussing the national implications of his possibly tipping the race, which could be key to control of the House. . . .
He entered as a Democrat, even without the support of the state party, which backs Peltola.
His paltry 467 votes, less than half a percent of the 109,000 cast, left him far behind the top finishers, Peltola and Begich, but still in a respectable sixth place among 12 candidates.
That wasn’t bad for a man in a federal lockup, but wasn’t enough to advance to the top-four general election ballot next month — at least until the third- and fourth-place finishers, both Republicans, dropped out, leaving Begich as the sole Republican. With that, Hafner was smack in the middle of a House race seen as one of a handful where the Democrat is vulnerable.
Democrats immediately began worrying that even while sitting in Otisville, about 70 miles northwest of New York City, Hafner, as a second Democrat, might pull votes from Peltola. Pundits speculated about whether he could play spoiler in a tight race between her and Begich. . . .
Federal law allows candidates to run for office in states where they do not live, as long as they plan to move there once elected. This seems difficult for Hafner, whose sentence ends in 2036 . . .
I mean, does anyone really think a 'recreational marijuana user' should go to jail for it?
Regardless of your views on legalising, punishing users with jail time (as definitely happens in the US) for something half the prosecution team and jury has also used in their lives is clearly beyond ridiculous.
Either it needs legalising properly - all the way up the supply chain - or it needs harsh enough punishment for possession that people actually think twice.
The "blind eye" legalisation is totally dumb.
I'd rather they legalised coke personally, coke just makes people unpleasant whilst under the influence, weed makes an unfortunate subset of users permanently paranoid and psychotic.
I'd much rather full legalisation and taxation up the supply chain. At least for drugs where the risks and harms are well understood and can be included on all labelling etc like cigarettes. I would probably limit sales to shops with specific licenses though. And public health policy would be to make the risks you mention known front and centre to discourage it.
I can understand your position, but only if the likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are prosecuted for usage if caught as well as those from more disadvantaged backgrounds.
Comments
I wonder what NK are getting in return?
It’s Schteve.
S-C-H-T-E-V-E
Also allow asylum seekers to work while their claims are processed so we don't need to house most of them at the taxpayer's expense. I think I'm right in saying they can't?
> WA CD03 is rematch between surprise 2022 winner, Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, and Republican Joe Kent, which I reckon is WAY toooooo close to call:
WA State Standard - Gluesenkamp Perez and Kent spar as poll shows rematch is a dead heat
The Democratic congresswoman and Republican challenger are at odds over immigration, foreign policy and replacement plans for the Interstate 5 bridge [across Columbia River to Portland OR]
https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2024/10/08/gluesenkamp-perez-and-kent-spar-as-poll-shows-rematch-is-a-dead-heat/
> WA CD04 is latest Trumper attempt to defeat incumbent Rep Rep. who voted to impeach Trump in 2021; note that August Top Two primary resulted in TWO GOPer on general election ballot: incumbent Dan Newhouse and MAGA-maniac challenger. NOTE that Newhouse was elected in the first place in similar scenario, because he split the GOP vote . . . AND also won the lion's share of votes from Democrats, at least those who did not skip over the congressional race. Am pretty sure that Dan the Man will do so again.
The Hill - Washington 4 House Forecast
https://elections2024.thehill.com/forecast/2024/house/washington-4/
Should add, that another WA congressional race, for CD08, appears is NOT competitive this year, despite being a major GOP target in 2022.
The Economist - Kim Schrier is almost certain to win in Washington's 8th district
https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/prediction-model/house/washington-8
(You'll have to tell me what they are saying behind the paywall!)
I think they are going to be guarding other places in order to free up Russians for the meat grinder. It's not just Ukraine that is running out of fit men.
If the Russian conscripts in Kursk Oblast are anything to go by, half of them will be Ukranian PoWs before November.
In 2016, Trump was shocked when he won. In 2020, he thought he was winning when the early results came in. He thought it was a repeat of 2016. When he lost he developed the stolen election story.
This time is different. The Trump gang are actively setting up the stolen election story in advance.
If there had been no extra security then Mail would be screaming that Labour ministers left "star revered by millions exposed to evil islamist death threats" etc etc.
Allegedly, Ukraine are trying to negotiate a deal where any NK soldier surrendering voluntarily will get South Korean citizenship...
She wanted the convenience of a blue light escort. This has sod all to do with any terrorist threat.
I feel I am a 'dog in manger' person.
Benzos in 60s and 70s were the solution to anxiety and emotional upset and prescribed to millions with little thought as to the long term outcomes.
SSRI antidepressants were "so effective" they are handed out like lollipops by GPs desperate to quick fix patients when there is little talking therapy available. Millions now take them. UK is one of the worst countries for this. Plenty of issues with long term effects and difficulties stopping.
How long will people have to stay on these new 'wonder' drugs? Do we have any idea what the long term effects of messing so massively with the metabolism system is?
Nature does not hand out free lunches imho.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k37dm9e0eo
https://news.sky.com/story/taylor-swift-suspects-in-foiled-terror-plot-on-eras-tour-shows-in-vienna-intended-to-kill-tens-of-thousands-cia-says-13205431
There was a very real terrorist threat against one of her shows in Austria.
No not got anything for that second problem.
Any major artist in town for a concert will have a security team who will liaise with the local police about arrangements. There will have been 20 different ways of getting the artist from the hotel to the venue, without the full blue light motorcade.
So you were NOT around for 2020? Or 2000?? How about 1960??
Very close elections are actually the PERFECT breeding ground for "a stolen election narrative".
NOT inevitable (as per several UK examples such as GE 1964) but unfortunately all to common.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreans_in_Ukraine
Not without sideffects though, and sustainability in the long run is a legitimate question.
ABC News - A timeline of Donald Trump's election denial claims, which Republican politicians increasingly embrace
. . . Trump has a long history of crying foul in contests he doesn't win, including previously saying that the "Emmys are all politics" after his reality TV show, "The Apprentice," never won an award. He also labeled then-President Barack Obama's 2012 reelection "a total sham."
e leaned on that same tactic in 2016 during the GOP primaries, including the Iowa and Colorado caucuses, which he lost to Cruz.
"Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified," Trump tweeted that year without providing evidence. Cruz rebuffed Trump at the time, telling supporters at one event: "Donald, it ain’t stealing when the voters vote against you -- it is the voters reclaiming this country and reclaiming sanity."
Trump later said the Colorado caucuses were similarly "rigged" and dismissed opponent Hillary Clinton's victory over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary.
Yet it was during and after the 2016 general election, in which he lost the popular vote to Clinton but won the Electoral College, that he began making claims of fraud more consistently.
In the final weeks of the 2016 race, he refused to confirm whether he would accept a defeat. Afterward, he insisted he had only lost the popular vote through wrongdoing.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-donald-trumps-election-denial-claims-republican-politicians/story?id=89168408
@RMCunliffe
·
8h
Don’t understand why Labour doesn’t just say “Yes we ensured the most famous woman in the world had protection after her Vienna concerts were cancelled due to terror threats and she threatened to axe the London ones - AND???”
And let the Tories say they would have cancelled them
Trump 1.76
Harris 2.4
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961
Getting those potential voters to vote is visit important, and not easy if they're first-time voters. It could be the ground game organisation that decides the election.
Now the Trump cult are happy to see their Dear Leader acting like Putin’s bxtch !
In Latin America, Swift's shows in Mexico City generated an estimated Mex$1,000,000,000 (US$59 million) in revenue across the city.[121] Veja estimated a "tremendous" R$400,000,000 (US$74 million) economic boost for Brazil during the tour.[122] Whereas in Asia, Mitsumasa Etou, professor from Tokyo City University, projected an economic boost of up to ¥34,100,000,000 (US$229.6 million) in Japan, making the tour "Japan's biggest ever musical event", surpassing the Fuji Rock Festival.[111] Bloomberg estimated that the tour's six shows in Singapore would increase the country's GDP by 0.2 percentage points (approximately US$200 million).[123][124] According to Sally Capp, Lord Mayor of Melbourne, Australia, the tour generated an estimated A$1,200,000,000 (US$780 million) in economic value for the city.[125] Venues NSW chief executive Kerrie Mather said the four shows in Sydney will contribute around A$135,800,000 (US$88.7 million) to the state's economy.[126] I think after what happened in Austria, you can understand the desire to step up security even without specific threats in other countries.
YouGov and NYT are reliable pollsters according to 538.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
Trafalfar, Harris, TIPP etc are not.
So I've stripped out the unreliable pollsters from my EMA but it only increases Kamala's lead by 0.2%. So I think my hypothesis is flawed. That's not to say some polls are skewed, but it is not really material.
I still think that the way US polls treat likelihood to vote is suspect. Maybe I'm wishcasting. As you say - we will find out soon enough.
What I am concerned about is the rush to declare this is the new world and everything will be for the best.
“Act in haste, repent at leisure”
Ramp this up slowly.
On diabetes it has taken years and years to allow Prof Roy Taylor's ideas about weight loss to be rolled out across NHS widely. Something which in worst scenario has no long term side effects.
Let's take the same measured effect to these drugs and not been blinded by the pharma people or the desperation to fix waiting lists etc etc.
I was hypothesising that this time it was a systematic attempt by his campaign team to set up the stolen election story in advance, not just Trump shooting off his mouth.
However, on investigation, I don't think my hypothesis on deliberate poll rigging as part of that campaign, stands up.
If people shed a couple of stone and reform their diet then it can stay off, alas for most it is an addiction not a cure.
As for polling, that is actually NOT the key issue in very close, disputed POTUS elections. It's the ACTUAL very close result.
As in 1876, when there WAS not even quasi-scientific polling.
To take a realistic example, this is why a referendum on abolishing the monarchy will never feature in any significant manifesto even if, say, polling showed 80% of the population liked the idea. The votes of the 20% of royalists would swing the election away from that party. The 80% will never care enough to counteract it.
It’s really kicked off now with the UAW twitter page calling him a scab !
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/premier-league-football-clubs-pay-more-policing-lord-hogan-howe/
Premier League football clubs must pay more for policing outside games, says former Met chief Lord Hogan Howe
"But the Premiership pay £100 million for a player, they have the money available.
"It's the rest of us that are picking up the bill. I would target the Premiership and change the rules so they have to pay for what's not at the ground."
Clearly team Harris thinks there is a problem with black male support. Now support for recreational weed users.
https://x.com/kamalaharris/status/1846228061173256714?s=61
This seems to be the tribute band in the local pub version of that.
OR the sight of Ed Davey campaigning (successfully as it turned out) slip-sliding down water-slides & similar.
A logical approach would be to increase the allowance to something sensible, but if you are over the allowance the CGT or Dividend Tax applies to it all i.e. you don't get the allowance. That way you raise more tax but don't pull into tax small complex gains.
In the case I am referring to there would be something like 2 or 3 shares purchased each month and 1 or 2 free shares each month over a period of 15 years so that is 180 prices to look up and 360 calculations and then you have to decide if selling only some which ones count. I assume HMRC lay down some rules for this part of the calculation (oh and all of that is in Swiss Francs so exchange issues as well).
After all of that the gain may only be a few hundred pounds so a tax of a few tens of pounds.
This is likely to apply to a lot of people
As per the example you gave many privatisations which many people will have will have the problem of takeovers, rights issues, capital refunds, shares bought with dividends and decades passed. Again we should be forgetting about most of these if the sale price is a few thousand, the gains a few hundred and therefore the tax is a few tens of pounds.
There is a reason for these allowances. They make sense.
Normally Presidents are re elected after only one term of their party in the White House, however Biden's ratings are as nearly low as Trump's were in 2020 albeit Harris now has about 49% approval.
It still looks close but Harris will really need to use Obama to get the black vote out, especially in Georgia, North Carolina and Philadelphia and Detroit and hope her marijuana legalisation plans help with black males too
Landesspiegel Liechtenstein - Belinda is the most beautiful cow in Liechtenstein
https://landesspiegel.li/2024/10/belinda-ist-die-schoenste-kuh-liechtensteins/
If Harris wins I think she may well end up Bush to Trump's Gore, perhaps with Pennsylvania her Florida
BTW, in 2004 - for the record four years after Bush v Gore - in the VERY close Washington State govenor's race, the Republicans AND the media expected the Democrats to make the same mistake as Gore, that is request a PARTIAL hand recount. They eve had the state GOP chairman in the state capitol, ready to put down deposit for whatever the Dems did NOT want recounted.
However, Dems asked for the whole hog . . . and as a result ended up winning by margin of +131 votes statewide.
BTW, that Republican party state chairman, is now a leading Never Trumper.
It's the taxpayer picking up the tab for a rich popstar on her way to play a very expensive gig that hurts. That and the fact half the government were there on freebe tickets, which makes the whole decision-making process stink.
Regardless of your views on legalising, punishing users with jail time (as definitely happens in the US) for something half the prosecution team and jury has also used in their lives is clearly beyond ridiculous.
Trump 50% Harris 49%
https://patriotpolling.com/our-polls/f/trump-and-baldwin-hold-narrow-leads-in-wisconsin
Michigan SoCal Strategies
Harris 49% Trump 48%
https://substack.com/inbox/post/150241214
"J'mooos! Allegations of cow jury rigging - 'an udder disgrace!'"
Edit: Mostly, that was catered for by the annual CGT allowance, but a couple of major asset sales put paid to that, and full calculation was needed!
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/15/nx-s1-5144185/georgia-election-certification-rules
The "blind eye" legalisation is totally dumb.
I'd rather they legalised coke personally, coke just makes people unpleasant whilst under the influence, weed makes an unfortunate subset of users permanently paranoid and psychotic.
New York Times (via Seattle Times) - How a man imprisoned in New York could sway a key House race in Alaska
In the race for Alaska’s sole seat in the House of Representatives, candidates are defined by credentials specific to the state.
The Democratic incumbent, Mary Peltola, is an Alaska Native who grew up in a fishing family. Her Republican challenger, Nick Begich III, hails from an Anchorage political dynasty. John Wayne Howe, a third-party candidate, has mined for gold and battled a bear.
Then there is Inmate 00932-005, campaigning from the Otisville Federal Correctional Institution in New York, some 4,000 miles from Alaska. He is Eric Hafner, running in a state he has never set foot in and cannot visit soon.
Hafner, 33, is serving 20 years for threatening public officials in New Jersey, where he grew up. Now in his dubious quest to become one himself, he has emerged as an unlikely factor in the fight for control of Congress.
Hafner has been a fringe congressional candidate at least twice before: in Hawaii in 2016 as a Republican and in Oregon two years later as a Democrat. This year, his Alaska candidacy withstood Democratic challenges in two courts and has pundits discussing the national implications of his possibly tipping the race, which could be key to control of the House. . . .
He entered as a Democrat, even without the support of the state party, which backs Peltola.
His paltry 467 votes, less than half a percent of the 109,000 cast, left him far behind the top finishers, Peltola and Begich, but still in a respectable sixth place among 12 candidates.
That wasn’t bad for a man in a federal lockup, but wasn’t enough to advance to the top-four general election ballot next month — at least until the third- and fourth-place finishers, both Republicans, dropped out, leaving Begich as the sole Republican. With that, Hafner was smack in the middle of a House race seen as one of a handful where the Democrat is vulnerable.
Democrats immediately began worrying that even while sitting in Otisville, about 70 miles northwest of New York City, Hafner, as a second Democrat, might pull votes from Peltola. Pundits speculated about whether he could play spoiler in a tight race between her and Begich. . . .
Federal law allows candidates to run for office in states where they do not live, as long as they plan to move there once elected. This seems difficult for Hafner, whose sentence ends in 2036 . . .
I can understand your position, but only if the likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are prosecuted for usage if caught as well as those from more disadvantaged backgrounds.