Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Could this mean shy (young) Trumpers? – politicalbetting.com

1234689

Comments

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,209
    edited October 21

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    Donald Trump doesn't have a monopoly on low information voters but to the extent a Trump victory will cause a big problem his voters are relevant to that problem as Harris' voters are not. Also we might want to understand why those voters choose Trump when better informed people see the outcome as problematic.

    It's probably too late to do anything about it. It's also difficult to stop people choosing a bad outcome, whether deliberately or unintentionally. Furthermore mistakes, tragedies even, don't stop being such if people choose to plough on regardless. The rest of us have to protect ourselves from bad choices made by other people as best we can.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,887
    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Crime has fallen under Biden.
    'Defund police' isn't a thing.
    The cities aren't 'collapsing'.
    The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas.
    I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
    Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places
    Defund police was definitely a thing
    You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots
    You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show
    Immigration is a disaster
    Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck
    Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
    It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.

    Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
    The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.

    https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/10/fbi-quietly-changes-crime-stats-after-falsely-reporting-a-decrease-in-crime/
    And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
    Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting

    This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise
    "gonna" ... lol.
    That's the calibre of your response to what is a fair point @Leon makes.

    Dear God.

    Leon is absolutely right here. In my town on a Friday and a Saturday some businesses have to lock their front doors at 5PM and be careful who they allow in given they have had gangs of kids, some with ski masks and balaclavas on causing trouble inside, being abusive to shop owners and customers.

    Now there is minimal crime where I live but crime in the local town is very real, the Police ineffective, and we won't go out there for an evening now.
    So you'll be voting for the next far right demagogue you stumble across, will you? No, didn't think so.

    His 'point' is garbage. America is a vast and complex country that has always had (and always will have) big problems. This has never before led to them electing somebody who doesn't respect their democracy and constitution as president. It wouldn't explain it now.
    In the past, usually both parties tend to make vaguely positive noises about upholding the rule of law. Since 2020, the Dems have been caught up with the side which wants to abolish the law. Harris (and Biden) might not bear personal responsiblity for this. But the mad west coast cities which have decriminalised shoplifting and the defund the poluice movement have tainted the Dem brand.
    People value democracy. But actually people value safety more.
    Trump himself probably knows best what is driving his support. That's why he demonises migrants. He's relentless on that. It's the core of his pitch.

    "They are dirty and dangerous and I will protect you from them."

    It's nothing new but he's a skilled practitioner.
    They're considerably less 'dangerous' than the born citizens' population, statistically.

    And his language goes well beyond that. It's not dissimilar to the language used by Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines, pre Rwandan genocide.
    Taking a granular approach to crime statistics might play into Trump's hands even more. It's their version of "£350 million a week".
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,230
    kinabalu said:

    Barnesian said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Feeling doomy today.

    As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.

    Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.

    It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.

    Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.

    No.

    If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if
    America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.

    It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.

    I'm feeling pretty gloomy too at the moment about the result. Looks like Trump 2.0 is coming. Harris just isn't pulling ahead enough nationally to be likely to scrape through in swing states that are key. But more than that it is just feels like she is going to fall short.
    The betting has it 60/40 Trump and I can't disagree with that based on how the polls are looking. But I'm not folding yet, not by a long chalk. A Harris win is still perfectly compatible with where we are.
    If Kamala loses, it will be because of a combination of racism by whites and sexism by men. A double whammy. Nothing to do with Trump. Racism was tested by Obama and he won. Sexism was tested by H Clinton and she lost.

    Racism and sexism are the unknowns. Apart from that, she has it in the bag.
    I'm sceptical of the betting for reasons we've discussed. I don't think the polling is being grossly distorted by GOP bias. I just think [hope] it is wrong as it was in 2016.
    Gender is a bigger obstacle for her than race imo.
    Yes, because she's head of a left wing party.

    My long-held belief that there will never be a left-wing female president ( Dem party US) or PM ( Labour UK) in my lifetime still holds but is soon the be tested. 50/50 at the mo.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,053

    What happened to France between the wars?

    Never read enough about this. But it seems a very large number of French actively and enthusiastically collaborated with the Germans during WWII, including betraying allied PoWs and generally aiding and abetting their racial policies.

    What caused this?

    Antisemitism was big in France, probably as virulent as Germany in its own special way. In fact the Nazis looked to many French writers and theorists to reinforce their own racial bollox.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,229
    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Crime has fallen under Biden.
    'Defund police' isn't a thing.
    The cities aren't 'collapsing'.
    The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas.
    I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
    Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places
    Defund police was definitely a thing
    You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots
    You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show
    Immigration is a disaster
    Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck
    Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
    It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.

    Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
    The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.

    https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/10/fbi-quietly-changes-crime-stats-after-falsely-reporting-a-decrease-in-crime/
    And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
    Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting

    This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise
    I've seen more low level crime in the last year in London (presumably all unreported, certainly all unsolved) than I have in the last decade put together.

    I've personally come close to being mowed down by people on ebikes twice this year, have had friends had their phones snatched out of their hands, know people who've been pickpocketed, had mates with girlfriends who've been followed home from the tube. Either my friends have had a particularly unlucky year or something is up. As a result I'm always on my guard now in a way I never used to be. A sense of low level menace I haven't felt on the streets in years, since before CCTV was widespread. And I don't think it's just London. See Taz the other day making a similar point about youths intimidating a village near him up north.

    So even though stats for big ticket items like stabbing and shooting and breaking and entering might be down, no amount of being battered over the head with statistics is going to convince me that things are getting better. It's the low level stuff that changes your experience, your perception, and hence, how you vote.
    As we discussed the last time you said this, others of us also live in London and have had very different experiences. I sense no menace. I see less crime than in the past.

    Personal experiences vary. That’s why things like the British Crime Survey or polling are useful. Because (and this may come as a shock to some PBers) you can’t just presume your personal experience speaks for everyone.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Crime has fallen under Biden.
    'Defund police' isn't a thing.
    The cities aren't 'collapsing'.
    The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas.
    I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
    Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places
    Defund police was definitely a thing
    You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots
    You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show
    Immigration is a disaster
    Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck
    Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
    It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.

    Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
    The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.

    https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/10/fbi-quietly-changes-crime-stats-after-falsely-reporting-a-decrease-in-crime/
    And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
    Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting

    This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise
    "gonna" ... lol.
    That's the calibre of your response to what is a fair point @Leon makes.

    Dear God.

    Leon is absolutely right here. In my town on a Friday and a Saturday some businesses have to lock their front doors at 5PM and be careful who they allow in given they have had gangs of kids, some with ski masks and balaclavas on causing trouble inside, being abusive to shop owners and customers.

    Now there is minimal crime where I live but crime in the local town is very real, the Police ineffective, and we won't go out there for an evening now.
    So you'll be voting for the next far right demagogue you stumble across, will you? No, didn't think so.

    His 'point' is garbage. America is a vast and complex country that has always had (and always will have) big problems. This has never before led to them electing somebody who doesn't respect their democracy and constitution as president. It wouldn't explain it now.
    In the past, usually both parties tend to make vaguely positive noises about upholding the rule of law. Since 2020, the Dems have been caught up with the side which wants to abolish the law. Harris (and Biden) might not bear personal responsiblity for this. But the mad west coast cities which have decriminalised shoplifting and the defund the poluice movement have tainted the Dem brand.
    People value democracy. But actually people value safety more.
    Trump himself probably knows best what is driving his support. That's why he demonises migrants. He's relentless on that. It's the core of his pitch.

    "They are dirty and dangerous and I will protect you from them."

    It's nothing new but he's a skilled practitioner.
    They're considerably less 'dangerous' than the born citizens' population, statistically.

    And his language goes well beyond that. It's not dissimilar to the language used by Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines, pre Rwandan genocide.
    Taking a granular approach to crime statistics might play into Trump's hands even more. It's their version of "£350 million a week".
    Of course. A similar thing.

    Except Trump's rhetoric is more dangerous.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,581
    tlg86 said:

    What do we think she'll get?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7x17ljpzgo

    A woman who threw a McDonald's milkshake over Reform UK leader Nigel Farage during the general election campaign has pleaded guilty to assault by beating.

    Victoria Thomas Bowen, 25, from Clacton, had previously denied the charge, and will be sentenced at Westminster Magistrates' Court in December.

    A suspended sentence like the guy in Barnsley got.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,565

    What happened to France between the wars?

    Never read enough about this. But it seems a very large number of French actively and enthusiastically collaborated with the Germans during WWII, including betraying allied PoWs and generally aiding and abetting their racial policies.

    What caused this?

    Antisemitism was big in France, probably as virulent as Germany in its own special way. In fact the Nazis looked to many French writers and theorists to reinforce their own racial bollox.
    But why? And why did that turn so readily to dobbing in their allies?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,774
    edited October 21

    What happened to France between the wars?

    Never read enough about this. But it seems a very large number of French actively and enthusiastically collaborated with the Germans during WWII, including betraying allied PoWs and generally aiding and abetting their racial policies.

    What caused this?

    Antisemitism was big in France, probably as virulent as Germany in its own special way. In fact the Nazis looked to many French writers and theorists to reinforce their own racial bollox.
    But why? And why did that turn so readily to dobbing in their allies?
    What I remember is that WWI physically took place on French soil that had an impact on them and they didn’t want a repeat so it was easier to collaborate than oppose.
  • What happened to France between the wars?

    Never read enough about this. But it seems a very large number of French actively and enthusiastically collaborated with the Germans during WWII, including betraying allied PoWs and generally aiding and abetting their racial policies.

    What caused this?

    Antisemitism was big in France, probably as virulent as Germany in its own special way. In fact the Nazis looked to many French writers and theorists to reinforce their own racial bollox.
    Yes, and antisemitism and clericalism have also always been linked in France, too.

    This nexus wasn't there in the U.K, but I remember all the Daily Mail readerccomments over the years from innocent-sounding Home Counties villages, about how "the Germans always had much more in common with us than we were led to believe."
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,656
    tlg86 said:

    What do we think she'll get?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7x17ljpzgo

    A woman who threw a McDonald's milkshake over Reform UK leader Nigel Farage during the general election campaign has pleaded guilty to assault by beating.

    Victoria Thomas Bowen, 25, from Clacton, had previously denied the charge, and will be sentenced at Westminster Magistrates' Court in December.

    Hopefully 100 hours of community service, cleaning up fast food detritus on Saturday nights on her local High St.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,184
    Taz said:

    tlg86 said:

    What do we think she'll get?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7x17ljpzgo

    A woman who threw a McDonald's milkshake over Reform UK leader Nigel Farage during the general election campaign has pleaded guilty to assault by beating.

    Victoria Thomas Bowen, 25, from Clacton, had previously denied the charge, and will be sentenced at Westminster Magistrates' Court in December.

    A suspended sentence like the guy in Barnsley got.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy549q44524o

    Greally, who had previously pleaded guilty to a charge of using threatening, abusive, insulting words and behaviour with intent to cause fear, was given a six-week prison sentence suspended for 12 months.

    I think the woman in Clacton has pleaded guilty to a more serious offence.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951
    Eabhal said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Crime has fallen under Biden.
    'Defund police' isn't a thing.
    The cities aren't 'collapsing'.
    The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas.
    I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
    Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places
    Defund police was definitely a thing
    You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots
    You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show
    Immigration is a disaster
    Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck
    Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
    It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.

    Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
    The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.

    https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/10/fbi-quietly-changes-crime-stats-after-falsely-reporting-a-decrease-in-crime/
    And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
    Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting

    This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise
    "gonna" ... lol.
    That's the calibre of your response to what is a fair point @Leon makes.

    Dear God.

    Leon is absolutely right here. In my town on a Friday and a Saturday some businesses have to lock their front doors at 5PM and be careful who they allow in given they have had gangs of kids, some with ski masks and balaclavas on causing trouble inside, being abusive to shop owners and customers.

    Now there is minimal crime where I live but crime in the local town is very real, the Police ineffective, and we won't go out there for an evening now.
    Do you blame Biden/Harris, too ?
    Yes, they are totally responsible for delinquent youths in North East England :smiley:

    But Leon's point is perfectly reasonable, wherever it is happening.

    People's lived experience and perception of crime is an issue and certainly some parts of the USA have seen stores closing due to crime.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/26/business/target-retail-theft-store-closures/index.html
    Again with the "lived experience".
    Perhaps it is a useful term, after all.

    Anyway, reposting this, which no one seems to have read.
    It's a more sensible analysis of the urban problem in the US, and gives a better idea of how solutions might be thought about.

    Facing multiple crises, how can cities survive?
    https://thehill.com/future-america/future-of-cities/4934050-cities-crises-climate-finances-housing/
    It's funny how "lived experience" is totally legitimate when it's people complaining about Haitians eating swans or something, but woke lefty nonsense when it's someone who has experienced discrimination or similar.

    I actually think it's a useful phrase, particularly when trying to understand why people vote for Trump or Corbyn etc. For me, it's how irritated people are by cyclists going through red lights when the data is clear about how few do it, and how little danger they pose. You can point at spreadsheets or video analysis as much as you want but people are deeply influenced by their inherent biases and what they can see and hear in person.

    A key element or a "lived experience" is not how it was at the time, but how you look back on it. I've had breakups where I was reasonably calm and resigned at the time, but weeks or even months later it starts to have a dreadful effect on me.
    I agree with this.

    There is also an element of anecdata... famously the David Herdson post on here predicting Corbyn was way closer in 2017 than the polls suggested, just by being out on the streets canvassing in the days before.

    Often with statistics and large datasets, we're either collecting the wrong data (e.g. crime has fallen, but also more minor crimes are going unreported, thus creating the disconnect between experience and the stats). Or the data itself is being cherry picked to paint a narrative, e.g. being told inflation was super low for the last decade (but everyone feels poorer because of skyrocketing housing costs) or the economy is healthy because there's low unemployment (despite the fact that many of the jobs are zero hours or formerly well paid white collar professionals taking jobs far lower than their skill level to make ends meet).

    Intuition matters. A lot.

    As someone who has done a lot of market research, I tend to listen to the qual first and only then see what the data says. And if the two don't match, I don't just blindly accept the data over the 'lived experience'. I question the data.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    Incidentally, Ladbrokes' odds on the various US election markets are amusingly ungenerous compared to Betfair exchange.

    I was looking to hedge a bit more, with the bit of spare cash I have there, but gave up for now.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,806
    tlg86 said:

    What do we think she'll get?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7x17ljpzgo

    A woman who threw a McDonald's milkshake over Reform UK leader Nigel Farage during the general election campaign has pleaded guilty to assault by beating.

    Victoria Thomas Bowen, 25, from Clacton, had previously denied the charge, and will be sentenced at Westminster Magistrates' Court in December.

    Had it been a McFlurry, she'd no doubt have got her just deserts.

    As it is, throwing the book at her seems a little harsh in comparison to the original crime.

    Some kind of community service order plus costs? She'll probably shake it off, unless she decides to milk the notoriety for her other endeavours.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,229

    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Crime has fallen under Biden.
    'Defund police' isn't a thing.
    The cities aren't 'collapsing'.
    The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas.
    I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
    Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places
    Defund police was definitely a thing
    You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots
    You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show
    Immigration is a disaster
    Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck
    Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
    It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.

    Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
    The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.

    https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/10/fbi-quietly-changes-crime-stats-after-falsely-reporting-a-decrease-in-crime/
    And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
    Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting

    This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise
    "gonna" ... lol.
    That's the calibre of your response to what is a fair point @Leon makes.

    Dear God.

    Leon is absolutely right here. In my town on a Friday and a Saturday some businesses have to lock their front doors at 5PM and be careful who they allow in given they have had gangs of kids, some with ski masks and balaclavas on causing trouble inside, being abusive to shop owners and customers.

    Now there is minimal crime where I live but crime in the local town is very real, the Police ineffective, and we won't go out there for an evening now.
    Do you blame Biden/Harris, too ?
    Yes, they are totally responsible for delinquent youths in North East England :smiley:

    But Leon's point is perfectly reasonable, wherever it is happening.

    People's lived experience and perception of crime is an issue and certainly some parts of the USA have seen stores closing due to crime.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/26/business/target-retail-theft-store-closures/index.html
    What is the point of putting 'lived' in front of 'experience'? How would one experience anything if one wasn't alive?
    Typical anti-zombie prejudice. I hoped we could do better around this time of year.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Crime has fallen under Biden.
    'Defund police' isn't a thing.
    The cities aren't 'collapsing'.
    The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas.
    I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
    Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places
    Defund police was definitely a thing
    You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots
    You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show
    Immigration is a disaster
    Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck
    Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
    It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.

    Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
    The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.

    https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/10/fbi-quietly-changes-crime-stats-after-falsely-reporting-a-decrease-in-crime/
    And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
    Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting

    This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise
    "gonna" ... lol.
    That's the calibre of your response to what is a fair point @Leon makes.

    Dear God.

    Leon is absolutely right here. In my town on a Friday and a Saturday some businesses have to lock their front doors at 5PM and be careful who they allow in given they have had gangs of kids, some with ski masks and balaclavas on causing trouble inside, being abusive to shop owners and customers.

    Now there is minimal crime where I live but crime in the local town is very real, the Police ineffective, and we won't go out there for an evening now.
    Do you blame Biden/Harris, too ?
    Yes, they are totally responsible for delinquent youths in North East England :smiley:

    But Leon's point is perfectly reasonable, wherever it is happening.

    People's lived experience and perception of crime is an issue and certainly some parts of the USA have seen stores closing due to crime.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/26/business/target-retail-theft-store-closures/index.html
    Again with the "lived experience".
    Perhaps it is a useful term, after all.

    Anyway, reposting this, which no one seems to have read.
    It's a more sensible analysis of the urban problem in the US, and gives a better idea of how solutions might be thought about.

    Facing multiple crises, how can cities survive?
    https://thehill.com/future-america/future-of-cities/4934050-cities-crises-climate-finances-housing/
    It's funny how "lived experience" is totally legitimate when it's people complaining about Haitians eating swans or something, but woke lefty nonsense when it's someone who has experienced discrimination or similar.

    I actually think it's a useful phrase, particularly when trying to understand why people vote for Trump or Corbyn etc. For me, it's how irritated people are by cyclists going through red lights when the data is clear about how few do it, and how little danger they pose. You can point at spreadsheets or video analysis as much as you want but people are deeply influenced by their inherent biases and what they can see and hear in person.

    A key element or a "lived experience" is not how it was at the time, but how you look back on it. I've had breakups where I was reasonably calm and resigned at the time, but weeks or even months later it starts to have a dreadful effect on me.
    I agree with this.

    There is also an element of anecdata... famously the David Herdson post on here predicting Corbyn was way closer in 2017 than the polls suggested, just by being out on the streets canvassing in the days before.

    Often with statistics and large datasets, we're either collecting the wrong data (e.g. crime has fallen, but also more minor crimes are going unreported, thus creating the disconnect between experience and the stats). Or the data itself is being cherry picked to paint a narrative, e.g. being told inflation was super low for the last decade (but everyone feels poorer because of skyrocketing housing costs) or the economy is healthy because there's low unemployment (despite the fact that many of the jobs are zero hours or formerly well paid white collar professionals taking jobs far lower than their skill level to make ends meet).

    Intuition matters. A lot.

    As someone who has done a lot of market research, I tend to listen to the qual first and only then see what the data says. And if the two don't match, I don't just blindly accept the data over the 'lived experience'. I question the data.
    That's extremely hard to do somewhere the size of the US, though.
    David H. style anecdata from a US congressional district is far more likely to be misleading.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,910
    Carnyx said:

    Sounds like a bargain at double the price, this is further proof that society values lawyers.

    Elite lawyers raise fees 40pc to £449 per hour amid ballooning costs

    PwC survey shows firms are increasing number of billable hours amid rebound in deal-making


    Britain’s biggest law firms are charging their clients 40pc more an hour compared to five years ago as they pass on higher costs to customers, a new report has found.

    According to PwC’s annual law firm survey published on Monday, the 10 largest UK-headquartered firms by revenue raised fees to £449 per hour in 2024 – up from £321 in 2019.

    These firms also increased the number of billable hours that all lawyers, from trainee to partner, charged clients amid a rebound in deal-making and an active litigation market.

    The rise in hourly rates has helped the elite group grow fee income by a record 11.6pc and absorb higher inflationary costs by passing them on to clients.

    This includes higher pay for lawyers because of increased competition from US rivals in London, forcing UK law firms to hike salaries to attract and retain talent.

    The talent war has seen Britain’s largest law firms, known as the “magic circle”, raise salaries this year for newly qualified solicitors to £150,000 – up 20pc from the prior year.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/21/elite-lawyers-raise-fees-40pc-amid-ballooning-costs/

    "higher pay for lawyers because of increased competition"

    Mmm. Works that way, does it, when it's not doctors or train drivers?
    Would it be a popular move if the government made all lawyers pay 98% income tax?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    Selebian said:

    tlg86 said:

    What do we think she'll get?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7x17ljpzgo

    A woman who threw a McDonald's milkshake over Reform UK leader Nigel Farage during the general election campaign has pleaded guilty to assault by beating.

    Victoria Thomas Bowen, 25, from Clacton, had previously denied the charge, and will be sentenced at Westminster Magistrates' Court in December.

    Had it been a McFlurry, she'd no doubt have got her just deserts.

    As it is, throwing the book at her seems a little harsh in comparison to the original crime.

    Some kind of community service order plus costs? She'll probably shake it off, unless she decides to milk the notoriety for her other endeavours.
    A stiff period of community service, clearing up fast food litter, would be a recondite punishment.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,229
    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Crime has fallen under Biden.
    'Defund police' isn't a thing.
    The cities aren't 'collapsing'.
    The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas.
    I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
    Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places
    Defund police was definitely a thing
    You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots
    You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show
    Immigration is a disaster
    Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck
    Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
    It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.

    Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
    The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.

    https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/10/fbi-quietly-changes-crime-stats-after-falsely-reporting-a-decrease-in-crime/
    And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
    Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting

    This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise
    "gonna" ... lol.
    That's the calibre of your response to what is a fair point @Leon makes.

    Dear God.

    Leon is absolutely right here. In my town on a Friday and a Saturday some businesses have to lock their front doors at 5PM and be careful who they allow in given they have had gangs of kids, some with ski masks and balaclavas on causing trouble inside, being abusive to shop owners and customers.

    Now there is minimal crime where I live but crime in the local town is very real, the Police ineffective, and we won't go out there for an evening now.
    Do you blame Biden/Harris, too ?
    Yes, they are totally responsible for delinquent youths in North East England :smiley:

    But Leon's point is perfectly reasonable, wherever it is happening.

    People's lived experience and perception of crime is an issue and certainly some parts of the USA have seen stores closing due to crime.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/26/business/target-retail-theft-store-closures/index.html
    Again with the "lived experience".
    Perhaps it is a useful term, after all.

    Anyway, reposting this, which no one seems to have read.
    It's a more sensible analysis of the urban problem in the US, and gives a better idea of how solutions might be thought about.

    Facing multiple crises, how can cities survive?
    https://thehill.com/future-america/future-of-cities/4934050-cities-crises-climate-finances-housing/
    It's funny how "lived experience" is totally legitimate when it's people complaining about Haitians eating swans or something, but woke lefty nonsense when it's someone who has experienced discrimination or similar.

    I actually think it's a useful phrase, particularly when trying to understand why people vote for Trump or Corbyn etc. For me, it's how irritated people are by cyclists going through red lights when the data is clear about how few do it, and how little danger they pose. You can point at spreadsheets or video analysis as much as you want but people are deeply influenced by their inherent biases and what they can see and hear in person.

    A key element or a "lived experience" is not how it was at the time, but how you look back on it. I've had breakups where I was reasonably calm and resigned at the time, but weeks or even months later it starts to have a dreadful effect on me.
    I agree with this.

    There is also an element of anecdata... famously the David Herdson post on here predicting Corbyn was way closer in 2017 than the polls suggested, just by being out on the streets canvassing in the days before.

    Often with statistics and large datasets, we're either collecting the wrong data (e.g. crime has fallen, but also more minor crimes are going unreported, thus creating the disconnect between experience and the stats). Or the data itself is being cherry picked to paint a narrative, e.g. being told inflation was super low for the last decade (but everyone feels poorer because of skyrocketing housing costs) or the economy is healthy because there's low unemployment (despite the fact that many of the jobs are zero hours or formerly well paid white collar professionals taking jobs far lower than their skill level to make ends meet).

    Intuition matters. A lot.

    As someone who has done a lot of market research, I tend to listen to the qual first and only then see what the data says. And if the two don't match, I don't just blindly accept the data over the 'lived experience'. I question the data.
    Qual data is data too. Good market research qual data is very valuable, and will be more useful than just extrapolating from one’s own experience.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,613
    tlg86 said:

    What do we think she'll get?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7x17ljpzgo

    A woman who threw a McDonald's milkshake over Reform UK leader Nigel Farage during the general election campaign has pleaded guilty to assault by beating.

    Victoria Thomas Bowen, 25, from Clacton, had previously denied the charge, and will be sentenced at Westminster Magistrates' Court in December.

    She is an OnlyFans 'model', so perhaps some form of extended community service linked to that?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,656
    ClippP said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sounds like a bargain at double the price, this is further proof that society values lawyers.

    Elite lawyers raise fees 40pc to £449 per hour amid ballooning costs

    PwC survey shows firms are increasing number of billable hours amid rebound in deal-making


    Britain’s biggest law firms are charging their clients 40pc more an hour compared to five years ago as they pass on higher costs to customers, a new report has found.

    According to PwC’s annual law firm survey published on Monday, the 10 largest UK-headquartered firms by revenue raised fees to £449 per hour in 2024 – up from £321 in 2019.

    These firms also increased the number of billable hours that all lawyers, from trainee to partner, charged clients amid a rebound in deal-making and an active litigation market.

    The rise in hourly rates has helped the elite group grow fee income by a record 11.6pc and absorb higher inflationary costs by passing them on to clients.

    This includes higher pay for lawyers because of increased competition from US rivals in London, forcing UK law firms to hike salaries to attract and retain talent.

    The talent war has seen Britain’s largest law firms, known as the “magic circle”, raise salaries this year for newly qualified solicitors to £150,000 – up 20pc from the prior year.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/21/elite-lawyers-raise-fees-40pc-amid-ballooning-costs/

    "higher pay for lawyers because of increased competition"

    Mmm. Works that way, does it, when it's not doctors or train drivers?
    Would it be a popular move if the government made all lawyers pay 98% income tax?
    Why be so generous to the lawyers?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,283

    tlg86 said:

    What do we think she'll get?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7x17ljpzgo

    A woman who threw a McDonald's milkshake over Reform UK leader Nigel Farage during the general election campaign has pleaded guilty to assault by beating.

    Victoria Thomas Bowen, 25, from Clacton, had previously denied the charge, and will be sentenced at Westminster Magistrates' Court in December.

    She is an OnlyFans 'model', so perhaps some form of extended community service linked to that?
    Giving away free cake to Leon's of this world?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,806
    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Barnesian said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Feeling doomy today.

    As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.

    Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.

    It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.

    Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.

    No.

    If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if
    America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.

    It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.

    I'm feeling pretty gloomy too at the moment about the result. Looks like Trump 2.0 is coming. Harris just isn't pulling ahead enough nationally to be likely to scrape through in swing states that are key. But more than that it is just feels like she is going to fall short.
    The betting has it 60/40 Trump and I can't disagree with that based on how the polls are looking. But I'm not folding yet, not by a long chalk. A Harris win is still perfectly compatible with where we are.
    If Kamala loses, it will be because of a combination of racism by whites and sexism by men. A double whammy. Nothing to do with Trump. Racism was tested by Obama and he won. Sexism was tested by H Clinton and she lost.

    Racism and sexism are the unknowns. Apart from that, she has it in the bag.
    I'm sceptical of the betting for reasons we've discussed. I don't think the polling is being grossly distorted by GOP bias. I just think [hope] it is wrong as it was in 2016.
    Gender is a bigger obstacle for her than race imo.
    Yes, because she's head of a left wing party.

    My long-held belief that there will never be a left-wing female president ( Dem party US) or PM ( Labour UK) in my lifetime still holds but is soon the be tested. 50/50 at the mo.

    What's your basis for that? Genuinely interested.

    I don't know your age, but I'd be pretty shocked if those things didn't happen in my lifetime (partly because that might imply my lifetime being not as long as I'd like!). But next ~40 years, say. Say Dems/Lab in power for half of that time, one of them having a female leader in power seems very likely.

    Given the 'left-wing' comment, do you see this as a particularly left wing voter issue?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    Nigelb said:

    Incidentally, Ladbrokes' odds on the various US election markets are amusingly ungenerous compared to Betfair exchange.

    I was looking to hedge a bit more, with the bit of spare cash I have there, but gave up for now.

    5/4 on a Republican Trifecta ?

    Even allowing for electoral correlation, that is not generous.
  • tlg86 said:

    What do we think she'll get?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7x17ljpzgo

    A woman who threw a McDonald's milkshake over Reform UK leader Nigel Farage during the general election campaign has pleaded guilty to assault by beating.

    Victoria Thomas Bowen, 25, from Clacton, had previously denied the charge, and will be sentenced at Westminster Magistrates' Court in December.

    She is an OnlyFans 'model', so perhaps some form of extended community service linked to that?
    My Dyson blade less fan packed up recently.

    Is OnlyFans a good place to source a replacement ?
  • Also, I recently googled ‘DP World’.

    😱😳😱
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,795
    edited October 21
    kyf_100 said:

    Eabhal said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Crime has fallen under Biden.
    'Defund police' isn't a thing.
    The cities aren't 'collapsing'.
    The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas.
    I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
    Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places
    Defund police was definitely a thing
    You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots
    You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show
    Immigration is a disaster
    Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck
    Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
    It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.

    Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
    The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.

    https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/10/fbi-quietly-changes-crime-stats-after-falsely-reporting-a-decrease-in-crime/
    And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
    Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting

    This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise
    "gonna" ... lol.
    That's the calibre of your response to what is a fair point @Leon makes.

    Dear God.

    Leon is absolutely right here. In my town on a Friday and a Saturday some businesses have to lock their front doors at 5PM and be careful who they allow in given they have had gangs of kids, some with ski masks and balaclavas on causing trouble inside, being abusive to shop owners and customers.

    Now there is minimal crime where I live but crime in the local town is very real, the Police ineffective, and we won't go out there for an evening now.
    Do you blame Biden/Harris, too ?
    Yes, they are totally responsible for delinquent youths in North East England :smiley:

    But Leon's point is perfectly reasonable, wherever it is happening.

    People's lived experience and perception of crime is an issue and certainly some parts of the USA have seen stores closing due to crime.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/26/business/target-retail-theft-store-closures/index.html
    Again with the "lived experience".
    Perhaps it is a useful term, after all.

    Anyway, reposting this, which no one seems to have read.
    It's a more sensible analysis of the urban problem in the US, and gives a better idea of how solutions might be thought about.

    Facing multiple crises, how can cities survive?
    https://thehill.com/future-america/future-of-cities/4934050-cities-crises-climate-finances-housing/
    It's funny how "lived experience" is totally legitimate when it's people complaining about Haitians eating swans or something, but woke lefty nonsense when it's someone who has experienced discrimination or similar.

    I actually think it's a useful phrase, particularly when trying to understand why people vote for Trump or Corbyn etc. For me, it's how irritated people are by cyclists going through red lights when the data is clear about how few do it, and how little danger they pose. You can point at spreadsheets or video analysis as much as you want but people are deeply influenced by their inherent biases and what they can see and hear in person.

    A key element or a "lived experience" is not how it was at the time, but how you look back on it. I've had breakups where I was reasonably calm and resigned at the time, but weeks or even months later it starts to have a dreadful effect on me.
    I agree with this.

    There is also an element of anecdata... famously the David Herdson post on here predicting Corbyn was way closer in 2017 than the polls suggested, just by being out on the streets canvassing in the days before.

    Often with statistics and large datasets, we're either collecting the wrong data (e.g. crime has fallen, but also more minor crimes are going unreported, thus creating the disconnect between experience and the stats). Or the data itself is being cherry picked to paint a narrative, e.g. being told inflation was super low for the last decade (but everyone feels poorer because of skyrocketing housing costs) or the economy is healthy because there's low unemployment (despite the fact that many of the jobs are zero hours or formerly well paid white collar professionals taking jobs far lower than their skill level to make ends meet).

    Intuition matters. A lot.

    As someone who has done a lot of market research, I tend to listen to the qual first and only then see what the data says. And if the two don't match, I don't just blindly accept the data over the 'lived experience'. I question the data.
    I suppose my conclusion is the opposite - the data is often "right" but people's interpretation of it is different to what you'd expect.

    So, there is pervasive sense of unlawfulness in Edinburgh despite all the stats showing the city is light years ahead of where it was in the 90s. That's down to how much more obvious the crime is - kids on e-bikes wearing balaclavas or causing havoc on the buses. Relatively harmless, yet people feel "under siege".

    They assume their "lived" experience reflects society as a whole, even though broadly speaking things are significantly better for most.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,283

    Also, I recently googled ‘DP World’.

    😱😳😱

    Did it return lots of results for rogue operators?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,774
    edited October 21

    Also, I recently googled ‘DP World’.

    😱😳😱

    Did it return lots of results for rogue operators?
    Yah.

    One thing I have found in recent months is that Google is utterly shit for searching stuff on, I now default to using Bing.

    What’s going on?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,229

    Also, I recently googled ‘DP World’.

    😱😳😱

    Did it return lots of results for rogue operators?
    Yah.

    One thing I have found in recent months is that Google is utterly shit for searching stuff on, I now default to using Bing.

    What’s going on?
    https://mashable.com/article/google-search-low-quality-research?test_uuid=01iI2GpryXngy77uIpA3Y4B&test_variant=b
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,581

    tlg86 said:

    What do we think she'll get?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7x17ljpzgo

    A woman who threw a McDonald's milkshake over Reform UK leader Nigel Farage during the general election campaign has pleaded guilty to assault by beating.

    Victoria Thomas Bowen, 25, from Clacton, had previously denied the charge, and will be sentenced at Westminster Magistrates' Court in December.

    She is an OnlyFans 'model', so perhaps some form of extended community service linked to that?
    My Dyson blade less fan packed up recently.

    Is OnlyFans a good place to source a replacement ?
    It is and should you need a new pen I would recommend Pen Island.
  • 2 point to consider which i have heard few people talking about with regards to the upcoming election.

    Firstly the electoral college has been redistributed for this election, while the change is not dramatic, it is beneficial to Trump

    Texas gained two votes.
    Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon each gained one.
    California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia each lost one.

    From the 2020 election result this gives Trump +3 extra ECV.

    Secondly is about polling, the polling error in 2020 was even larger than 2016, albeit that it still called the right winner with Biden. There is expectations that the methodology this time round has been changed to try and avoid this error, so those expecting a Trump boost from underpolling again might be mistaken, i do wonder if this polling has overshot and actually has gone too far the other way.

    Both points worth considering for election day.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,806
    edited October 21
    The omission of words and punctuation in newspaper article URLs is often fun. Here, my mind is adding a semi colon to get:

    "Australian senator heckled; King wore hamas-style headband"

    ETA: 'Interesting' fashion choice though, given the timing (from the headline it could have been a green bandana 20 years ago, but the pic and apparent timing are somewhat more damning)
  • Also, I recently googled ‘DP World’.

    😱😳😱

    Did it return lots of results for rogue operators?
    Yah.

    One thing I have found in recent months is that Google is utterly shit for searching stuff on, I now default to using Bing.

    What’s going on?
    You're not the only one that's noticed this.

    It seems that paid-for results are beginning to swallow Google's usefulness in some areas.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,576

    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Crime has fallen under Biden.
    'Defund police' isn't a thing.
    The cities aren't 'collapsing'.
    The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas.
    I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
    Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places
    Defund police was definitely a thing
    You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots
    You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show
    Immigration is a disaster
    Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck
    Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
    It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.

    Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
    The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.

    https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/10/fbi-quietly-changes-crime-stats-after-falsely-reporting-a-decrease-in-crime/
    And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
    Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting

    This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise
    I've seen more low level crime in the last year in London (presumably all unreported, certainly all unsolved) than I have in the last decade put together.

    I've personally come close to being mowed down by people on ebikes twice this year, have had friends had their phones snatched out of their hands, know people who've been pickpocketed, had mates with girlfriends who've been followed home from the tube. Either my friends have had a particularly unlucky year or something is up. As a result I'm always on my guard now in a way I never used to be. A sense of low level menace I haven't felt on the streets in years, since before CCTV was widespread. And I don't think it's just London. See Taz the other day making a similar point about youths intimidating a village near him up north.

    So even though stats for big ticket items like stabbing and shooting and breaking and entering might be down, no amount of being battered over the head with statistics is going to convince me that things are getting better. It's the low level stuff that changes your experience, your perception, and hence, how you vote.
    As we discussed the last time you said this, others of us also live in London and have had very different experiences. I sense no menace. I see less crime than in the past.

    Personal experiences vary. That’s why things like the British Crime Survey or polling are useful. Because (and this may come as a shock to some PBers) you can’t just presume your personal experience speaks for everyone.
    Not menace.

    But phone theft of the street snatch type is a massive issue. A neighbour grabbed a phone snatcher hard enough to cause him come off his e-bike. The police were more interested in his “attack” on the phone snatcher, than in the phone snatching…

    Bike theft is off the scale.

    A number of shops are going the route of locking doors and opening to people they like.

    The local mini Tesco has adopted an interesting policy - a “cousin” hangs around, and gets stuck in on the shoplifters. They’ve taken him to court. He claims to be nothing to do with the Tesco, just hangs around there, and assaults shoplifters for LOLs.

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,795
    Selebian said:

    The omission of words and punctuation in newspaper article URLs is often fun. Here, my mind is adding a semi colon to get:

    "Australian senator heckled; King wore hamas-style headband"
    Topping has form for misunderstanding URLs and headlines like that.

    (And got very upset when we pointed out his mistake)
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,053
    That the Tele would use ‘Hamas-style’ and ‘reminiscent of’ bullshit to whip up morons? Yep, entirely predictable.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,806

    tlg86 said:

    What do we think she'll get?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7x17ljpzgo

    A woman who threw a McDonald's milkshake over Reform UK leader Nigel Farage during the general election campaign has pleaded guilty to assault by beating.

    Victoria Thomas Bowen, 25, from Clacton, had previously denied the charge, and will be sentenced at Westminster Magistrates' Court in December.

    She is an OnlyFans 'model', so perhaps some form of extended community service linked to that?
    My Dyson blade less fan packed up recently.

    Is OnlyFans a good place to source a replacement ?
    I'm led to believe they do have experts in blowing.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,415

    Andy_JS said:

    Interesting article in UnHerd.

    "In San Francisco, for instance, it’s illegal not to compost your food scraps. But you can smoke meth outside a playground and suffer little more than glares from passersby. In California, college students are required by law to obtain repeated, vocal permission from their partners for a sexual encounter to be deemed not rape. But pimps can openly sex traffic minors on city streets in broad daylight, and the police can do little about it. All of these disparate approaches to perceived social problems are regarded as “progressive”."

    https://unherd.com/2024/10/californias-woes-were-born-in-england/

    This reminds me of the way in which romantic sex, and eroticism generally, is beginning to disappear from mainstreamn American television altogether, while the country has a vast and brutalised porn culture.

    This is some sort of dangerously hypocritical, ultra-puritan model that we really don' want to be importing here, but we are.
    I'm beginning to think that feminists are right about porn.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,283
    edited October 21

    That the Tele would use ‘Hamas-style’ and ‘reminiscent of’ bullshit to whip up morons? Yep, entirely predictable.
    Its of course not just that...she is a racist with a white father of English / Irish descent and a general full on loon, too loony for even the greens.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,806
    Eabhal said:

    Selebian said:

    The omission of words and punctuation in newspaper article URLs is often fun. Here, my mind is adding a semi colon to get:

    "Australian senator heckled; King wore hamas-style headband"
    Topping has form for misunderstanding URLs and headlines like that.

    (And got very upset when we pointed out his mistake)
    Oh? I missed that, I think :disappointed:
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,053
    Selebian said:

    The omission of words and punctuation in newspaper article URLs is often fun. Here, my mind is adding a semi colon to get:

    "Australian senator heckled; King wore hamas-style headband"

    ETA: 'Interesting' fashion choice though, given the timing (from the headline it could have been a green bandana 20 years ago, but the pic and apparent timing are somewhat more damning)
    He is defender of faiths and a descendant of Muhammed(pbuh) after all.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,656

    Also, I recently googled ‘DP World’.

    😱😳😱

    Why would you want to do that, when https://www.dpworld.com/ works just fine?

    If you can’t cope with the internet, at least put the safe search on…
  • Sean_F said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Interesting article in UnHerd.

    "In San Francisco, for instance, it’s illegal not to compost your food scraps. But you can smoke meth outside a playground and suffer little more than glares from passersby. In California, college students are required by law to obtain repeated, vocal permission from their partners for a sexual encounter to be deemed not rape. But pimps can openly sex traffic minors on city streets in broad daylight, and the police can do little about it. All of these disparate approaches to perceived social problems are regarded as “progressive”."

    https://unherd.com/2024/10/californias-woes-were-born-in-england/

    This reminds me of the way in which romantic sex, and eroticism generally, is beginning to disappear from mainstreamn American television altogether, while the country has a vast and brutalised porn culture.

    This is some sort of dangerously hypocritical, ultra-puritan model that we really don' want to be importing here, but we are.
    I'm beginning to think that feminists are right about porn.
    Well, I think that's complex. Some more misguided strands of the feminist movement are also partly responsible for the removal of eroticism from the mainstream, which feeds an ever more brutal porn culture in the underground.

    On the other hand, some portion of it was also always bound to be brutal and degrading.
  • Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    Bring back prudent Gordon Brown. He would deal with it.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,657

    Sounds like a bargain at double the price, this is further proof that society values lawyers.

    Elite lawyers raise fees 40pc to £449 per hour amid ballooning costs

    PwC survey shows firms are increasing number of billable hours amid rebound in deal-making


    Britain’s biggest law firms are charging their clients 40pc more an hour compared to five years ago as they pass on higher costs to customers, a new report has found.

    According to PwC’s annual law firm survey published on Monday, the 10 largest UK-headquartered firms by revenue raised fees to £449 per hour in 2024 – up from £321 in 2019.

    These firms also increased the number of billable hours that all lawyers, from trainee to partner, charged clients amid a rebound in deal-making and an active litigation market.

    The rise in hourly rates has helped the elite group grow fee income by a record 11.6pc and absorb higher inflationary costs by passing them on to clients.

    This includes higher pay for lawyers because of increased competition from US rivals in London, forcing UK law firms to hike salaries to attract and retain talent.

    The talent war has seen Britain’s largest law firms, known as the “magic circle”, raise salaries this year for newly qualified solicitors to £150,000 – up 20pc from the prior year.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/21/elite-lawyers-raise-fees-40pc-amid-ballooning-costs/

    A ripe market for AI lawyers who'll be a lot cheaper!
    What are the alternative careers for redundant lawyers?
  • Also, I recently googled ‘DP World’.

    😱😳😱

    Did it return lots of results for rogue operators?
    Yah.

    One thing I have found in recent months is that Google is utterly shit for searching stuff on, I now default to using Bing.

    What’s going on?
    You're not the only one that's noticed this.

    It seems that paid-for results are beginning to swallow Google's usefulness in some areas.
    100%right. 15 years ago some non sponsored good articles were on there. Now rarely.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,669
    She is apparently a former Bike Gang member, kicked out of the Greens for links to organized crime. Quite the character.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,243
    In person early numbers looking good for Trump in Florida.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    Interesting.

    The recombinant shingles vaccine is associated with lower risk of dementia
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03201-5
    There is emerging evidence that the live herpes zoster (shingles) vaccine might protect against dementia. However, the existing data are limited and refer only to the live vaccine, which is now discontinued in the United States and many other countries in favor of a recombinant vaccine. Whether the recombinant shingles vaccine protects against dementia remains unknown. Here we used a natural experiment opportunity created by the rapid transition from the use of live to the use of recombinant vaccines to compare the risk of dementia between vaccine types. We show that the recombinant vaccine is associated with a significantly lower risk of dementia in the 6 years post-vaccination. Specifically, receiving the recombinant vaccine is associated with a 17% increase in diagnosis-free time, translating into 164 additional days lived without a diagnosis of dementia in those subsequently affected. The recombinant shingles vaccine was also associated with lower risks of dementia than were two other vaccines commonly used in older people: influenza and tetanus–diphtheria–pertussis vaccines. The effect was robust across multiple secondary analyses, and was present in both men and women but was greater in women. These findings should stimulate studies investigating the mechanisms underpinning the protection and could facilitate the design of a large-scale randomized control trial to confirm the possible additional benefit of the recombinant shingles vaccine...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,556
    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Crime has fallen under Biden.
    'Defund police' isn't a thing.
    The cities aren't 'collapsing'.
    The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas.
    I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
    Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places
    Defund police was definitely a thing
    You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots
    You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show
    Immigration is a disaster
    Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck
    Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
    It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.

    Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
    The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.

    https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/10/fbi-quietly-changes-crime-stats-after-falsely-reporting-a-decrease-in-crime/
    And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
    Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting

    This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise
    "gonna" ... lol.
    That's the calibre of your response to what is a fair point @Leon makes.

    Dear God.

    Leon is absolutely right here. In my town on a Friday and a Saturday some businesses have to lock their front doors at 5PM and be careful who they allow in given they have had gangs of kids, some with ski masks and balaclavas on causing trouble inside, being abusive to shop owners and customers.

    Now there is minimal crime where I live but crime in the local town is very real, the Police ineffective, and we won't go out there for an evening now.
    Do you blame Biden/Harris, too ?
    Yes, they are totally responsible for delinquent youths in North East England :smiley:

    But Leon's point is perfectly reasonable, wherever it is happening.

    People's lived experience and perception of crime is an issue and certainly some parts of the USA have seen stores closing due to crime.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/26/business/target-retail-theft-store-closures/index.html
    What is the point of putting 'lived' in front of 'experience'? How would one experience anything if one wasn't alive?
    Jesus effing Christ, I was mocking lefty terminology. Twit
    Well be more obvious.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,656
    Pulpstar said:

    In person early numbers looking good for Trump in Florida.

    If he has to worry about Florida then he’s going to be in big trouble in Pennsylvania and Nevada.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,230
    edited October 21
    Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.

    I don't think she knows what she is doing.

    I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.

    To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,444
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    In person early numbers looking good for Trump in Florida.

    If he has to worry about Florida then he’s going to be in big trouble in Pennsylvania and Nevada.
    Anyone looking at early voting and thinking it tells you anything about the end result is delusional.

    Equally I think anyone with a clue as to what the end result of the US election is going to be is also delusional - there isn't enough trustworthy data to give an accurate answer...
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,229
    Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    I wish they would just raise income tax.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,900

    Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    Bring back prudent Gordon Brown. He would deal with it.
    It's Chris Patten's fault. If his 'tax bombshell' campaign had not won a surprise victory for Major then Labour would not have been so terrified of it happening again that they had to rule out changing the three big tax earners: income, vat, ni.

    This has left them scrabbling around with little bits of £1b here and £0.5b there.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Leon said:

    AnthonyT said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

    The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)
    lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

    Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

    Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
    Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
    Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
    Crime has fallen under Biden.
    'Defund police' isn't a thing.
    The cities aren't 'collapsing'.
    The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas.
    I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
    Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places
    Defund police was definitely a thing
    You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots
    You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show
    Immigration is a disaster
    Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck
    Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
    It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.

    Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
    The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.

    https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/10/fbi-quietly-changes-crime-stats-after-falsely-reporting-a-decrease-in-crime/
    And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
    Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting

    This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise
    "gonna" ... lol.
    That's the calibre of your response to what is a fair point @Leon makes.

    Dear God.

    Leon is absolutely right here. In my town on a Friday and a Saturday some businesses have to lock their front doors at 5PM and be careful who they allow in given they have had gangs of kids, some with ski masks and balaclavas on causing trouble inside, being abusive to shop owners and customers.

    Now there is minimal crime where I live but crime in the local town is very real, the Police ineffective, and we won't go out there for an evening now.
    Do you blame Biden/Harris, too ?
    Yes, they are totally responsible for delinquent youths in North East England :smiley:

    But Leon's point is perfectly reasonable, wherever it is happening.

    People's lived experience and perception of crime is an issue and certainly some parts of the USA have seen stores closing due to crime.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/26/business/target-retail-theft-store-closures/index.html
    What is the point of putting 'lived' in front of 'experience'? How would one experience anything if one wasn't alive?
    Jesus effing Christ, I was mocking lefty terminology. Twit
    Well be more obvious.
    Could Leon be more obvious ?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,184
    Pulpstar said:

    In person early numbers looking good for Trump in Florida.

    Do you mean for Florida or for the US? I thought Florida was now a must for the Republicans.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,694
    edited October 21
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting.

    The recombinant shingles vaccine is associated with lower risk of dementia
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03201-5
    There is emerging evidence that the live herpes zoster (shingles) vaccine might protect against dementia. However, the existing data are limited and refer only to the live vaccine, which is now discontinued in the United States and many other countries in favor of a recombinant vaccine. Whether the recombinant shingles vaccine protects against dementia remains unknown. Here we used a natural experiment opportunity created by the rapid transition from the use of live to the use of recombinant vaccines to compare the risk of dementia between vaccine types. We show that the recombinant vaccine is associated with a significantly lower risk of dementia in the 6 years post-vaccination. Specifically, receiving the recombinant vaccine is associated with a 17% increase in diagnosis-free time, translating into 164 additional days lived without a diagnosis of dementia in those subsequently affected. The recombinant shingles vaccine was also associated with lower risks of dementia than were two other vaccines commonly used in older people: influenza and tetanus–diphtheria–pertussis vaccines. The effect was robust across multiple secondary analyses, and was present in both men and women but was greater in women. These findings should stimulate studies investigating the mechanisms underpinning the protection and could facilitate the design of a large-scale randomized control trial to confirm the possible additional benefit of the recombinant shingles vaccine...

    I'm convinced that a large proportion of dementia / alzheimers cases are connected with infections of some kind or other (ie, an immune response).

    My mother in law has very advanced dementia of some kind but has entirely stopped getting worse since being put on continuous low dose antibiotics over a year ago.

    This doesn't really help her or us to be honest, but that's a different argument.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,243
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    In person early numbers looking good for Trump in Florida.

    Do you mean for Florida or for the US? I thought Florida was now a must for the Republicans.
    For Florida. I thought Harris might have an outside shot at it, but it's comfortably gone if my tea leaf reading skills are right.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,444
    edited October 21
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting.

    The recombinant shingles vaccine is associated with lower risk of dementia
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03201-5
    There is emerging evidence that the live herpes zoster (shingles) vaccine might protect against dementia. However, the existing data are limited and refer only to the live vaccine, which is now discontinued in the United States and many other countries in favor of a recombinant vaccine. Whether the recombinant shingles vaccine protects against dementia remains unknown. Here we used a natural experiment opportunity created by the rapid transition from the use of live to the use of recombinant vaccines to compare the risk of dementia between vaccine types. We show that the recombinant vaccine is associated with a significantly lower risk of dementia in the 6 years post-vaccination. Specifically, receiving the recombinant vaccine is associated with a 17% increase in diagnosis-free time, translating into 164 additional days lived without a diagnosis of dementia in those subsequently affected. The recombinant shingles vaccine was also associated with lower risks of dementia than were two other vaccines commonly used in older people: influenza and tetanus–diphtheria–pertussis vaccines. The effect was robust across multiple secondary analyses, and was present in both men and women but was greater in women. These findings should stimulate studies investigating the mechanisms underpinning the protection and could facilitate the design of a large-scale randomized control trial to confirm the possible additional benefit of the recombinant shingles vaccine...

    I thought that was old news - there is research paper on this exact topic that used Wales as the source of the data from 2022 https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/trc2.12293 (the data used was from 2013 to 2020) 2013 was when the Shingles vaccine was given automatically to people so there is a very simple delineation date.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,283

    Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    I wish they would just raise income tax.
    They are going to end up breaking their manifesto commitments anyway, albeit pretending they haven't, which I think will go down worse as nobody will believe this well we only said working people etc.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    So they're going to elect a president they hate.

    Net Favorable Polling:

    Harris: +5%
    Walz: +4%

    Vance: -15%
    Trump: -18%

    AP / Oct 18, 2024

    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1848373070378999877

    It would refute a long standing PB axiom.


  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,381
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Barnesian said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Feeling doomy today.

    As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.

    Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.

    It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.

    Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.

    No.

    If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if
    America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.

    It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.

    I'm feeling pretty gloomy too at the moment about the result. Looks like Trump 2.0 is coming. Harris just isn't pulling ahead enough nationally to be likely to scrape through in swing states that are key. But more than that it is just feels like she is going to fall short.
    The betting has it 60/40 Trump and I can't disagree with that based on how the polls are looking. But I'm not folding yet, not by a long chalk. A Harris win is still perfectly compatible with where we are.
    If Kamala loses, it will be because of a combination of racism by whites and sexism by men. A double whammy. Nothing to do with Trump. Racism was tested by Obama and he won. Sexism was tested by H Clinton and she lost.

    Racism and sexism are the unknowns. Apart from that, she has it in the bag.
    I'm sceptical of the betting for reasons we've discussed. I don't think the polling is being grossly distorted by GOP bias. I just think [hope] it is wrong as it was in 2016.
    Gender is a bigger obstacle for her than race imo.
    Here’s a recent Trump ad.

    Kamala is for “they/them”, not for you.

    https://x.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1847984248092762622
    Sure but I meant her gender. They've never had a woman president but she's not playing that up for a reason. She feels (imo correctly) it's an obstacle not a help.
  • Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    I wish they would just raise income tax.
    They are going to end up breaking their manifesto commitments anyway, albeit pretending they haven't, which I think will go down worse as nobody will believe this well we only said working people etc.
    They will? No surprise to that. Business As Usual.
  • Excellent appointment from SKS.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,656
    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.

    I don't think she knows what she is doing.

    I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.

    To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he will draw £100,000 instead. He will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
    The government does appear to have an interesting view on how people react to tax changes.

    The idea that raising CGT rates to be the same as income tax rates leads to anything but an exodus of capital from the country, is totally for the birds. It could plausibly cause a proper run on the stock market and the pound for the first time in decades.

    Compare the scale of those tax changes to what was proposed but never enacted in September 2022…
  • MangoMango Posts: 1,019
    kenObi said:

    MaxPB said:

    What amuses me is that I know a girl who wore a "never kissed a Tory" t-shirt who unwittingly definitely kissed a Tory ;-)

    Mwhahahaha.

    In my experience those were the ones that absolutely loved dating a right winger, it was like forbidden fruit for them.
    I see the PB imagination is running wild this morning.

    I'm surprised Noris McWhirter isn't claiming a threesome at Greenham common.
    Would just have been him and his brother wanking over a warhead...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,887
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Barnesian said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Feeling doomy today.

    As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.

    Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.

    It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.

    Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.

    No.

    If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if
    America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.

    It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.

    I'm feeling pretty gloomy too at the moment about the result. Looks like Trump 2.0 is coming. Harris just isn't pulling ahead enough nationally to be likely to scrape through in swing states that are key. But more than that it is just feels like she is going to fall short.
    The betting has it 60/40 Trump and I can't disagree with that based on how the polls are looking. But I'm not folding yet, not by a long chalk. A Harris win is still perfectly compatible with where we are.
    If Kamala loses, it will be because of a combination of racism by whites and sexism by men. A double whammy. Nothing to do with Trump. Racism was tested by Obama and he won. Sexism was tested by H Clinton and she lost.

    Racism and sexism are the unknowns. Apart from that, she has it in the bag.
    I'm sceptical of the betting for reasons we've discussed. I don't think the polling is being grossly distorted by GOP bias. I just think [hope] it is wrong as it was in 2016.
    Gender is a bigger obstacle for her than race imo.
    Here’s a recent Trump ad.

    Kamala is for “they/them”, not for you.

    https://x.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1847984248092762622
    Sure but I meant her gender. They've never had a woman president but she's not playing that up for a reason. She feels (imo correctly) it's an obstacle not a help.
    That would explain the panicky targeting of black men in particular.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,283

    Excellent appointment from SKS.

    It helps if you provide a bit of detail.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,694

    Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    I wish they would just raise income tax.
    Quite.

    "We've looked at all the alternative ways of raising tax revenue and it turns out they are all unfair, inefficient, or counter productive. Therefore we'll have to go back on our pledge and raise income tax. We will offset this to some degree by continuing to reduce national insurance albeit by a smaller amount."

    If the government wants/needs the money, then why not? It would probably make me a lot less annoyed than I suspect I'm going to be.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,444
    Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    https://x.com/SouthEastRailGp/status/1848306656578265155 said the same earlier.

    It's a pity that Labour didn't state the blooming obvious last year when NI was cut that the money actually wasn't there to justify the cut because then they could have sorted the problem by reversing the NI cut or throwing 3p on income tax to ensure the pain was shared equally.

  • Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    In person early numbers looking good for Trump in Florida.

    Do you mean for Florida or for the US? I thought Florida was now a must for the Republicans.
    For Florida. I thought Harris might have an outside shot at it, but it's comfortably gone if my tea leaf reading skills are right.
    Latinos voting for Trump to stop immigration and save their jobs according to Donald plus rural types who are GOP supporters.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522
    Election modeller discards all the substandard GOP polls from their model, along with the recent AtlasIntel one (which some people questioned).

    And gets this:
    Got a lot of questions about where @SplitTicket_ polling aggregates would be without AtlasIntel, and only quality pollsters (at least 2/3 stars on 538).

    Before -> After
    US: D+1.9 -> D+2.2
    PA: D +0.6 -> D+1.2
    MI: D+0.7 -> D+0.6
    WI: D +1.0 -> D+0.8

    Model: 53% Harris -> 52% Harris

    https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1848244968613171341
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,229
    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.

    I don't think she knows what she is doing.

    I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.

    To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
    “very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
  • Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    I wish they would just raise income tax.
    They are going to end up breaking their manifesto commitments anyway, albeit pretending they haven't, which I think will go down worse as nobody will believe this well we only said working people etc.
    They will? No surprise to that. Business As Usual.
    Do the 70s Labour trick.85% for top rate tax payers. They wont do that. Other smoke and mirror taxes.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,444
    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.

    I don't think she knows what she is doing.

    I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.

    To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.


    The problem with any changes to pensions is that people have other options - one of which will be don't bother saving money in the pension in the first place..
  • carnforth said:

    She is apparently a former Bike Gang member, kicked out of the Greens for links to organized crime. Quite the character.
    Friend of Greta?
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,581

    Excellent appointment from SKS.

    It helps if you provide a bit of detail.
    Indeed, it's just a bit of engagement farming.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,230
    Sandpit said:

    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.

    I don't think she knows what she is doing.

    I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.

    To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he will draw £100,000 instead. He will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
    The government does appear to have an interesting view on how people react to tax changes.

    The idea that raising CGT rates to be the same as income tax rates leads to anything but an exodus of capital from the country, is totally for the birds. It could plausibly cause a proper run on the stock market and the pound for the first time in decades.

    Compare the scale of those tax changes to what was proposed but never enacted in September 2022…
    Raising CGT would also be a disincentive to sell a capital asset in the first place. (There should be indexation from purchase price but that's another topic.)

    Coming back to speculation over limiting tax free cash from pensions - the other issue is that of timing.

    If she did it from immediate effect, that would shatter retirement plans of many, provide particular problems for those with pension mortgages and in effect be a form or retrospective taxation.

    If she delayed the change until April 2025 there would be a stampede for TFC between now and then which would destabilise financial firms and create a significate market withdrawal affecting stock markets.

    She could protect people from a certain age, e.g. the reduction is not applicable to those already over, say, age 55.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,710
    To add to the excitement, today there's a provincial election in New Brunswick, just 2 days after the election in British Columbia.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,307

    Excellent appointment from SKS.

    It's going to take more than one appointment to reduce NHS waiting lists.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    The rabidly anglophobic* New York Times is again mocking British pretensions, by having the gall to report on the upcoming election for Chancellor of Oxford University.

    NYT story says 37 candidates to replace Chris Patten; what do the bookies & punters have to say?

    *Actually NYT is staunchly anglophile as any student of US journalism OR daily reader can confirm; very fact they are covering election at Oxford U (home of the Disputing Oxen?) testifies to this, as pretty much nobody else from sea to shining sea gives a damn.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,900


    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    4h
    There is obviously still time for the picture to change. But on current polling - both national and statewide - it's clear Trump is moving ahead. To the point I'm not sure it will be the close result people are expecting. At least not in the Electoral College.

    https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1848308952557105243
  • eekeek Posts: 28,444
    edited October 21

    Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    I wish they would just raise income tax.
    Quite.

    "We've looked at all the alternative ways of raising tax revenue and it turns out they are all unfair, inefficient, or counter productive. Therefore we'll have to go back on our pledge and raise income tax. We will offset this to some degree by continuing to reduce national insurance albeit by a smaller amount."

    If the government wants/needs the money, then why not? It would probably make me a lot less annoyed than I suspect I'm going to be.
    Two additional points -

    1) it's 4 years to the next election - if things improve elsewhere people will forget about the income tax increase. And without money coming from somewhere Labour are going to lose the next election because Austerity doesn't generate Labour votes...
    2) raise income tax by 3p but announce the retention of the WFA for everyone. That would make all pensioners with less than £10,000 of pension income better off than they currently are (yes I know that doesn't work for married pensions where it's £5,000 each or so) but it would fix a political mess at the same time - and show that the pain is not just being given to working people.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522

    Nigelb said:

    Interesting.

    The recombinant shingles vaccine is associated with lower risk of dementia
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03201-5
    There is emerging evidence that the live herpes zoster (shingles) vaccine might protect against dementia. However, the existing data are limited and refer only to the live vaccine, which is now discontinued in the United States and many other countries in favor of a recombinant vaccine. Whether the recombinant shingles vaccine protects against dementia remains unknown. Here we used a natural experiment opportunity created by the rapid transition from the use of live to the use of recombinant vaccines to compare the risk of dementia between vaccine types. We show that the recombinant vaccine is associated with a significantly lower risk of dementia in the 6 years post-vaccination. Specifically, receiving the recombinant vaccine is associated with a 17% increase in diagnosis-free time, translating into 164 additional days lived without a diagnosis of dementia in those subsequently affected. The recombinant shingles vaccine was also associated with lower risks of dementia than were two other vaccines commonly used in older people: influenza and tetanus–diphtheria–pertussis vaccines. The effect was robust across multiple secondary analyses, and was present in both men and women but was greater in women. These findings should stimulate studies investigating the mechanisms underpinning the protection and could facilitate the design of a large-scale randomized control trial to confirm the possible additional benefit of the recombinant shingles vaccine...

    I'm convinced that a large proportion of dementia / alzheimers cases are connected with infections of some kind or other (ie, an immune response).

    My mother in law has very advanced dementia of some kind but has entirely stopped getting worse since being put on continuous low dose antibiotics over a year ago.

    This doesn't really help her or us to be honest, but that's a different argument.
    Well we now know that Epstein Barr infection dramatically increases the risk of MS, so is almost certainly causative.
    Neuron damage is very likely true for a number other of other viruses - and the herpes virus infects neurons, of course.

    Where antibiotics come into it, I don't know. My father's early dementia was made much worse by a bit of bacteraemia, and although it improved when antibiotics cleared that, it didn't halt the steady progression of the dementia.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,949
    eek said:

    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.

    I don't think she knows what she is doing.

    I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.

    To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.


    The problem with any changes to pensions is that people have other options - one of which will be don't bother saving money in the pension in the first place..
    If that is shifting higher earners to spend billions of pounds now instead of 25 years time surely that is good for the economy and especially government finances?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,381
    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    Barnesian said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Feeling doomy today.

    As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.

    Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.

    It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.

    Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.

    No.

    If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if
    America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.

    It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.

    I'm feeling pretty gloomy too at the moment about the result. Looks like Trump 2.0 is coming. Harris just isn't pulling ahead enough nationally to be likely to scrape through in swing states that are key. But more than that it is just feels like she is going to fall short.
    The betting has it 60/40 Trump and I can't disagree with that based on how the polls are looking. But I'm not folding yet, not by a long chalk. A Harris win is still perfectly compatible with where we are.
    If Kamala loses, it will be because of a combination of racism by whites and sexism by men. A double whammy. Nothing to do with Trump. Racism was tested by Obama and he won. Sexism was tested by H Clinton and she lost.

    Racism and sexism are the unknowns. Apart from that, she has it in the bag.
    I'm sceptical of the betting for reasons we've discussed. I don't think the polling is being grossly distorted by GOP bias. I just think [hope] it is wrong as it was in 2016.
    Gender is a bigger obstacle for her than race imo.
    Yes, because she's head of a left wing party.

    My long-held belief that there will never be a left-wing female president ( Dem party US) or PM ( Labour UK) in my lifetime still holds but is soon the be tested. 50/50 at the mo.
    Well I don't agree (obvs) but there is some logic to that view. If (as surely is the case) it's right wing voters who are more sexist then a female leader of a right wing party is better placed to win a general plebiscite because they have party loyalty working for them on one side and on the other side they'll peel off some voters who'll actively want to see a woman make it.

    Just literally thought of that now. Right here on the spot. Talk about sharp for my age.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,413

    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.

    I don't think she knows what she is doing.

    I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.

    To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
    “very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
    seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,514

    Excellent appointment from SKS.

    Who or what?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,522

    The rabidly anglophobic* New York Times is again mocking British pretensions, by having the gall to report on the upcoming election for Chancellor of Oxford University.

    NYT story says 37 candidates to replace Chris Patten; what do the bookies & punters have to say?

    *Actually NYT is staunchly anglophile as any student of US journalism OR daily reader can confirm; very fact they are covering election at Oxford U (home of the Disputing Oxen?) testifies to this, as pretty much nobody else from sea to shining sea gives a damn.

    Patten was amusing about Mandelson's bid, when interviewed a few weeks back.

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/sep/12/peter-mandelson-call-for-labour-chancellor-oxford-stupid-says-chris-patten
    ..“I have views [on the candidates] but I am not going to express what they are except that it is important that it should be someone who’s already done things and who understands Oxford and isn’t just doing it to step a bit further up the greasy pole.”

    Asked whether this description could be made of Mandelson, Patten responded: “I couldn’t possibly comment..
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,468
    Stocky said:

    Sandpit said:

    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.

    I don't think she knows what she is doing.

    I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.

    To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he will draw £100,000 instead. He will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
    The government does appear to have an interesting view on how people react to tax changes.

    The idea that raising CGT rates to be the same as income tax rates leads to anything but an exodus of capital from the country, is totally for the birds. It could plausibly cause a proper run on the stock market and the pound for the first time in decades.

    Compare the scale of those tax changes to what was proposed but never enacted in September 2022…
    Raising CGT would also be a disincentive to sell a capital asset in the first place. (There should be indexation from purchase price but that's another topic.)

    Coming back to speculation over limiting tax free cash from pensions - the other issue is that of timing.

    If she did it from immediate effect, that would shatter retirement plans of many, provide particular problems for those with pension mortgages and in effect be a form or retrospective taxation.

    If she delayed the change until April 2025 there would be a stampede for TFC between now and then which would destabilise financial firms and create a significate market withdrawal affecting stock markets.

    She could protect people from a certain age, e.g. the reduction is not applicable to those already over, say, age 55.
    If CGT rises it will be by a relatively small amount (maybe 4 to 6%), and should be applied with immediate effect, imo.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,900

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    In person early numbers looking good for Trump in Florida.

    Do you mean for Florida or for the US? I thought Florida was now a must for the Republicans.
    For Florida. I thought Harris might have an outside shot at it, but it's comfortably gone if my tea leaf reading skills are right.
    Latinos voting for Trump to stop immigration and save their jobs according to Donald plus rural types who are GOP supporters.
    Haitians are none too pleased though.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,230

    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.

    I don't think she knows what she is doing.

    I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.

    To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
    “very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
    Last time I looked a £30,000 index linked pension with 50% spouse's pension equates to a pension fund in the real world of over £1million. We see far more clients with DB pension incomes at that level or more versus DC planholders with over £1m invested, and they are all public sector.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,229
    malcolmg said:

    Stocky said:

    Fishing said:

    Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

    I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

    She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.

    I don't think she knows what she is doing.

    I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.

    To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.
    “very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.
    seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot
    Thanks. Do you have a split by private vs public sector?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,444



    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    4h
    There is obviously still time for the picture to change. But on current polling - both national and statewide - it's clear Trump is moving ahead. To the point I'm not sure it will be the close result people are expecting. At least not in the Electoral College.

    https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1848308952557105243

    As I posted below - anyone who thinks they know the US election result is delusion...
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    In person early numbers looking good for Trump in Florida.

    If he has to worry about Florida then he’s going to be in big trouble in Pennsylvania and Nevada.
    Anyone looking at early voting and thinking it tells you anything about the end result is delusional.

    Equally I think anyone with a clue as to what the end result of the US election is going to be is also delusional - there isn't enough trustworthy data to give an accurate answer...


This discussion has been closed.