I feel that Clinton's lead is self limiting. People can bring themselves to vote for her if there is thought to be a real risk of the alternative which is even worse but they do so with a sense of self loathing. If she looks likely to win easily then people think that they don't have to bother and can feel clean. Conversely, if the polling gets closer they will. 5% looks about the balancing point.
depends on the poll, but a 5% lead is pretty much an early night win for Clinton anyway.
Since 1948 a majority of presidential elections have been won by more than 5% so the 5% average lead Hillary now has with RCP is not massive, especially with differential turnout and a rise in white working class voters
id be interested in your evidence of rise in WWC voters. There is more quantifiable evidence of a eise in hispanic voters.
There is no evidence of a spike in WWC. @HYUFD believes they'll turn up on the day. Although my question is why are Hispanic WC turning out in early voting but WWC not.
Further if there is a spike in WWC for Trump it's worth about 1.5 points across all states. A spike in Hispanic turnout is worth more as they are clustered in many battleground states. And let's not forget those nasty women voters.
Yes, it would be good to see a thread exploring the prospects of a white nationalist electoral uprising I read about every morning on PB.
I see Justin Timberlake took a selfie of himself inside a polling station in Tennessee yesterday which is illegal in the state, however while he could have been in trouble the DA has now said they will not take action
One of Plato's (iirc) links this week was to a conspiracy theory about voting machines changing Trump votes to Clinton votes, and supporters were therefore advised to film their own voting. As you say, this is illegal in many places.
Is it illegal to film it, or to film and distribute it? I imagine it's the former.
The details will vary from place to place and will pre-date selfies, but may ban cameras, photography or even recording any details by any method. The reason, of course, is to stop people compelling you to vote for their candidate -- because in a secret ballot, they can't know you voted as you said you would.
I see Justin Timberlake took a selfie of himself inside a polling station in Tennessee yesterday which is illegal in the state, however while he could have been in trouble the DA has now said they will not take action
One of Plato's (iirc) links this week was to a conspiracy theory about voting machines changing Trump votes to Clinton votes, and supporters were therefore advised to film their own voting. As you say, this is illegal in many places.
Is it illegal to film it, or to film and distribute it? I imagine it's the former.
The details will vary from place to place and will pre-date selfies, but may ban cameras, photography or even recording any details by any method. The reason, of course, is to stop people compelling you to vote for their candidate -- because in a secret ballot, they can't know you voted as you said you would.
As a socialist and a feminist were I American I'd still vote for Trump. Yes he's an idiot ruled by his penis but that didn't stop Bill Clinton from being a good president. But on everything else I think he is broadly offering better solutions than continuity Clinton.
My main issue is simple. Their economic system is broken, allowing big corporates to asset strip offshore jobs and industry whilst wanting big tax cuts for the privilege of doing so. When your system is that broken the tried and tested solution is a big war to drive economic output, get the populace chanting USA and culling some of the poorer peons for profit. Personally I look at what the west is doing towards Russia and feel increasingly nervous. Trump is less likely to sabre rattle his way into a shooting war than Hillary Manchurian Candidate Clinton. Regardless of him being a womaniser like Clinton's husband.
Yes.
The Bernie Sanders supporters will be an interesting electoral demographic to watch. They really don't like Hillary, a lot will sit it out but many, like Mr Pioneers, might be happy to roll the dice on Donald.
The comments from Michael Moore noted yesterday, although possibly taken out of context, are very powerful to a demographic who think they have nothing left to lose and no-one on their side.
Well - the polls tell us it's a Hillary cakewalk. The polls might be wrong on the day. Who knows. I suspect she'll win and we'll get four more years of the same old same old establishment corporatism, elitist deploring, healthcare costs skyrocketing, conflict with Russia and American / western paralysis in the Middle East, social justice gone loopy (especially on campus) and all the rest. The USA is an empire in the decadence and decline phase of its life. What comes next is anyone's guess - or fear.
538 and RCP tell the same story. Clinton has a comfortable lead, but it's no landslide.
Yes, scraps from the master's table although Trump carrying OH looks value at 11/8.
I need a longshot saver somewhere to cover my long position on the WH2016 Trump victory, which, unlike the weirdo PB Morning Shift rampers who never bet, I consider to be a sure fire loser.
Trump winning OH was 15/8 on Ladbrokes last week, which Isnapped up - I'd get in on 11/8 while you can.
As a socialist and a feminist were I American I'd still vote for Trump. Yes he's an idiot ruled by his penis but that didn't stop Bill Clinton from being a good president. But on everything else I think he is broadly offering better solutions than continuity Clinton.
My main issue is simple. Their economic system is broken, allowing big corporates to asset strip offshore jobs and industry whilst wanting big tax cuts for the privilege of doing so. When your system is that broken the tried and tested solution is a big war to drive economic output, get the populace chanting USA and culling some of the poorer peons for profit. Personally I look at what the west is doing towards Russia and feel increasingly nervous. Trump is less likely to sabre rattle his way into a shooting war than Hillary Manchurian Candidate Clinton. Regardless of him being a womaniser like Clinton's husband.
First. Voting Leave and now Trump ? You seem able to stomach a lot of racism and xenophobia to get back to the sort of pre 1960's society that made Socialism in western societies viable. I'd like to jibe such views are odd for a Labour activist. Though a lifetimes experience of northern English Labour tells me they aren't. I'd love to be your Therapist though. It would be fascinating.
I feel that Clinton's lead is self limiting. People can bring themselves to vote for her if there is thought to be a real risk of the alternative which is even worse but they do so with a sense of self loathing. If she looks likely to win easily then people think that they don't have to bother and can feel clean. Conversely, if the polling gets closer they will. 5% looks about the balancing point.
depends on the poll, but a 5% lead is pretty much an early night win for Clinton anyway.
Since 1948 a majority of presidential elections have been won by more than 5% so the 5% average lead Hillary now has with RCP is not massive, especially with differential turnout and a rise in white working class voters
id be interested in your evidence of rise in WWC voters. There is more quantifiable evidence of a eise in hispanic voters.
There is no evidence of a spike in WWC. @HYUFD believes they'll turn up on the day. Although my question is why are Hispanic WC turning out in early voting but WWC not.
Further if there is a spike in WWC for Trump it's worth about 1.5 points across all states. A spike in Hispanic turnout is worth more as they are clustered in many battleground states. And let's not forget those nasty women voters.
Yes, it would be good to see a thread exploring the prospects of a white nationalist electoral uprising I read about every morning on PB.
Yep. Really the demographics are so stacked against Trump it is unbelievable. Yes, there will be a white roar of rage, mainly male, but it just can't possibly be enough as far as I can see.
I feel that Clinton's lead is self limiting. People can bring themselves to vote for her if there is thought to be a real risk of the alternative which is even worse but they do so with a sense of self loathing. If she looks likely to win easily then people think that they don't have to bother and can feel clean. Conversely, if the polling gets closer they will. 5% looks about the balancing point.
depends on the poll, but a 5% lead is pretty much an early night win for Clinton anyway.
Since 1948 a majority of presidential elections have been won by more than 5% so the 5% average lead Hillary now has with RCP is not massive, especially with differential turnout and a rise in white working class voters
id be interested in your evidence of rise in WWC voters. There is more quantifiable evidence of a eise in hispanic voters.
As I posted the other night in North Carolina white turnout is up 3% on 2012 and African American turnout down 4%. There are also still significantly more white working class voters than Hispanic voters
As a socialist and a feminist were I American I'd still vote for Trump. Yes he's an idiot ruled by his penis but that didn't stop Bill Clinton from being a good president. But on everything else I think he is broadly offering better solutions than continuity Clinton.
My main issue is simple. Their economic system is broken, allowing big corporates to asset strip offshore jobs and industry whilst wanting big tax cuts for the privilege of doing so. When your system is that broken the tried and tested solution is a big war to drive economic output, get the populace chanting USA and culling some of the poorer peons for profit. Personally I look at what the west is doing towards Russia and feel increasingly nervous. Trump is less likely to sabre rattle his way into a shooting war than Hillary Manchurian Candidate Clinton. Regardless of him being a womaniser like Clinton's husband.
Yes.
The Bernie Sanders supporters will be an interesting electoral demographic to watch. They really don't like Hillary, a lot will sit it out but many, like Mr Pioneers, might be happy to roll the dice on Donald.
The comments from Michael Moore noted yesterday, although possibly taken out of context, are very powerful to a demographic who think they have nothing left to lose and no-one on their side.
Rochdale Pioneers is an oddball. One of a weirdo PB nativist Corbynite-Leaver-Trumper troop who is denial of globalisation and thinks that making bare face lies about the NHS to the salt of the earth left-nationalists he purports to represent is acceptable.
Unusual on PB, but representative of quite a lot of voters.
For anyone interested - Wikileaks/KimDotCom and James O'Keefe appear to be coordinating a huge data/embarrassing video dump today - as a Hillary birthday present.
Yes, scraps from the master's table although Trump carrying OH looks value at 11/8.
I need a longshot saver somewhere to cover my long position on the WH2016 Trump victory, which, unlike the weirdo PB Morning Shift rampers who never bet, I consider to be a sure fire loser.
Difficult to see a long shot saver at this stage. Most of the value has left the market.
That said election day always provide opportunities for those who hold their nerve, ignore the rampers and do their homework as early numbers in some counties start to filter through.
Virginia was very profitable in 12 as many of the DC suburbs and Obama heavy areas reported late. Perhaps look to North Carolina, Florida and Pennsylvania for the same. Research and quick fingers are essential.
I feel that Clinton's lead is self limiting. People can bring themselves to vote for her if there is thought to be a real risk of the alternative which is even worse but they do so with a sense of self loathing. If she looks likely to win easily then people think that they don't have to bother and can feel clean. Conversely, if the polling gets closer they will. 5% looks about the balancing point.
depends on the poll, but a 5% lead is pretty much an early night win for Clinton anyway.
Since 1948 a majority of presidential elections have been won by more than 5% so the 5% average lead Hillary now has with RCP is not massive, especially with differential turnout and a rise in white working class voters
id be interested in your evidence of rise in WWC voters. There is more quantifiable evidence of a eise in hispanic voters.
As I posted the other night in North Carolina white turnout is up 3% on 2012 and African American turnout down 4%. There are also still significantly more white working class voters than Hispanic voters
White or WWC? Because white women and college educated white really does not help Trump.
I see Justin Timberlake took a selfie of himself inside a polling station in Tennessee yesterday which is illegal in the state, however while he could have been in trouble the DA has now said they will not take action
One of Plato's (iirc) links this week was to a conspiracy theory about voting machines changing Trump votes to Clinton votes, and supporters were therefore advised to film their own voting. As you say, this is illegal in many places.
It is illegal in about half the states, legal in the other half
I feel that Clinton's lead is self limiting. People can bring themselves to vote for her if there is thought to be a real risk of the alternative which is even worse but they do so with a sense of self loathing. If she looks likely to win easily then people think that they don't have to bother and can feel clean. Conversely, if the polling gets closer they will. 5% looks about the balancing point.
depends on the poll, but a 5% lead is pretty much an early night win for Clinton anyway.
Since 1948 a majority of presidential elections have been won by more than 5% so the 5% average lead Hillary now has with RCP is not massive, especially with differential turnout and a rise in white working class voters
id be interested in your evidence of rise in WWC voters. There is more quantifiable evidence of a eise in hispanic voters.
There is no evidence of a spike in WWC. @HYUFD believes they'll turn up on the day. Although my question is why are Hispanic WC turning out in early voting but WWC not.
Further if there is a spike in WWC for Trump it's worth about 1.5 points across all states. A spike in Hispanic turnout is worth more as they are clustered in many battleground states. And let's not forget those nasty women voters.
Also its too late for the wwc voters to register now anyway, we know from his lack of ground game he hasn't been doing that unlike Clinton.
The Bernie Sanders supporters will be an interesting electoral demographic to watch. They really don't like Hillary, a lot will sit it out but many, like Mr Pioneers, might be happy to roll the dice on Donald.
If a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters were sitting it out, you would expect Democrats to be struggling in early voting. The evidence from early voting is that registered Democrats are turning out.
I feel that Clinton's lead is self limiting. People can bring themselves to vote for her if there is thought to be a real risk of the alternative which is even worse but they do so with a sense of self loathing. If she looks likely to win easily then people think that they don't have to bother and can feel clean. Conversely, if the polling gets closer they will. 5% looks about the balancing point.
depends on the poll, but a 5% lead is pretty much an early night win for Clinton anyway.
Precisely. Her only risk is that people leave the deeply unpleasant task of voting for the second worst candidate in history to someone else. No wonder she is working so hard on early voting.
On what basis do you say she's the second worst candidate in history?
She's given no reason to vote for her other than her identity.
At least Obama had healthcare.
She has lots of policy. And her favourabity has gone up a lot.
Also, i do feel RCP should take out that crappy LA times poll.
Don't worry, it's balanced out by that ABC poll.
The 538 site gives more comprehensive coverage than RCP, which misses many polls.
RCP has called every presidential election right so far, Nate Silver's recent record in other elections is not perfect
Regardless of whether your relative confidence in RCP is right or wrong, my point was that the 538 site is reporting much more polling than RCP and updating its reporting more quickly. So if you want to keep track of polls in near real time as they come in, 538 is the place to look.
Look at both by all means but the national trend of about a 5% Clinton lead is no landslide
I feel that Clinton's lead is self limiting. People can bring themselves to vote for her if there is thought to be a real risk of the alternative which is even worse but they do so with a sense of self loathing. If she looks likely to win easily then people think that they don't have to bother and can feel clean. Conversely, if the polling gets closer they will. 5% looks about the balancing point.
depends on the poll, but a 5% lead is pretty much an early night win for Clinton anyway.
Since 1948 a majority of presidential elections have been won by more than 5% so the 5% average lead Hillary now has with RCP is not massive, especially with differential turnout and a rise in white working class voters
id be interested in your evidence of rise in WWC voters. There is more quantifiable evidence of a eise in hispanic voters.
As I posted the other night in North Carolina white turnout is up 3% on 2012 and African American turnout down 4%. There are also still significantly more white working class voters than Hispanic voters
Given the massive reduction in polling places in black neighbourhoods that is unsurprising.
I feel that Clinton's lead is self limiting. People can bring themselves to vote for her if there is thought to be a real risk of the alternative which is even worse but they do so with a sense of self loathing. If she looks likely to win easily then people think that they don't have to bother and can feel clean. Conversely, if the polling gets closer they will. 5% looks about the balancing point.
depends on the poll, but a 5% lead is pretty much an early night win for Clinton anyway.
Since 1948 a majority of presidential elections have been won by more than 5% so the 5% average lead Hillary now has with RCP is not massive, especially with differential turnout and a rise in white working class voters
id be interested in your evidence of rise in WWC voters. There is more quantifiable evidence of a eise in hispanic voters.
There is no evidence of a spike in WWC. @HYUFD believes they'll turn up on the day. Although my question is why are Hispanic WC turning out in early voting but WWC not.
Further if there is a spike in WWC for Trump it's worth about 1.5 points across all states. A spike in Hispanic turnout is worth more as they are clustered in many battleground states. And let's not forget those nasty women voters.
There are more white working class voters than Hispanics in Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania and North Carolina and in Florida some Hispanics are Cuban and lean Trump If Trump wins all those states he wins the presidency
£350 million for the NHS. A mendacious lie pedalled by Leaver-Corbynites like SandyRentool despite their knowing full well it was a bare face, flat lie.
They should hang their heads in shame.
Brwrecksit is coming - as Theresa May knew then as she knows now.
Brwrecksit!
I rather like that, and may use it.
That one goes straight on the list with "Bliar", "Camoron", "Fib Dems" et al.
David Chameleon was my personal favourite. Or Harriet Harperson.
I feel that Clinton's lead is self limiting. People can bring themselves to vote for her if there is thought to be a real risk of the alternative which is even worse but they do so with a sense of self loathing. If she looks likely to win easily then people think that they don't have to bother and can feel clean. Conversely, if the polling gets closer they will. 5% looks about the balancing point.
depends on the poll, but a 5% lead is pretty much an early night win for Clinton anyway.
Since 1948 a majority of presidential elections have been won by more than 5% so the 5% average lead Hillary now has with RCP is not massive, especially with differential turnout and a rise in white working class voters
id be interested in your evidence of rise in WWC voters. There is more quantifiable evidence of a eise in hispanic voters.
There is no evidence of a spike in WWC. @HYUFD believes they'll turn up on the day. Although my question is why are Hispanic WC turning out in early voting but WWC not.
Further if there is a spike in WWC for Trump it's worth about 1.5 points across all states. A spike in Hispanic turnout is worth more as they are clustered in many battleground states. And let's not forget those nasty women voters.
There are more white working class voters than Hispanics in Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania and North Carolina and in Florida some Hispanics are Cuban and lean Trump If Trump wins all those states he wins the presidency
For anyone interested - Wikileaks/KimDotCom and James O'Keefe appear to be coordinating a huge data/embarrassing video dump today - as a Hillary birthday present.
These usually appear about 3pm UK time.
Not really interested. Wikileaks are a busted flush. Putin should get his money back.
I feel that Clinton's lead is self limiting. People can bring themselves to vote for her if there is thought to be a real risk of the alternative which is even worse but they do so with a sense of self loathing. If she looks likely to win easily then people think that they don't have to bother and can feel clean. Conversely, if the polling gets closer they will. 5% looks about the balancing point.
depends on the poll, but a 5% lead is pretty much an early night win for Clinton anyway.
Since 1948 a majority of presidential elections have been won by more than 5% so the 5% average lead Hillary now has with RCP is not massive, especially with differential turnout and a rise in white working class voters
id be interested in your evidence of rise in WWC voters. There is more quantifiable evidence of a eise in hispanic voters.
As I posted the other night in North Carolina white turnout is up 3% on 2012 and African American turnout down 4%. There are also still significantly more white working class voters than Hispanic voters
Given the massive reduction in polling places in black neighbourhoods that is unsurprising.
I feel that Clinton's lead is self limiting. People can bring themselves to vote for her if there is thought to be a real risk of the alternative which is even worse but they do so with a sense of self loathing. If she looks likely to win easily then people think that they don't have to bother and can feel clean. Conversely, if the polling gets closer they will. 5% looks about the balancing point.
depends on the poll, but a 5% lead is pretty much an early night win for Clinton anyway.
Since 1948 a majority of presidential elections have been won by more than 5% so the 5% average lead Hillary now has with RCP is not massive, especially with differential turnout and a rise in white working class voters
id be interested in your evidence of rise in WWC voters. There is more quantifiable evidence of a eise in hispanic voters.
There is no evidence of a spike in WWC. @HYUFD believes they'll turn up on the day. Although my question is why are Hispanic WC turning out in early voting but WWC not.
Further if there is a spike in WWC for Trump it's worth about 1.5 points across all states. A spike in Hispanic turnout is worth more as they are clustered in many battleground states. And let's not forget those nasty women voters.
Yes, it would be good to see a thread exploring the prospects of a white nationalist electoral uprising I read about every morning on PB.
Not possible in the U.S too diverse maybe in Europe if inequality was same as the u.s. More likely in Hungary or other east European countries that are poor.
It's not an issue for Leavers as such. It's more a case that the Conservative government should be thinking right now what they're going to be telling the public as the NHS goes through what is going to more than just a seasonal rough patch. That is, the absence of funds which many key ministers in the government promised would be available for the NHS is a problem for a Conservative government implementing Brexit. A government now committed to Brexit can hardly turn around and admit that at least some significant extra funds for the NHS aren't available. Yet Brexit is going to happen so they're in a right bind.
I wasn't aware we would have left by Christmas. Even if there was any intention of honoring the 350m it would not have happened until we left, which might happen in a couple of years time or so. If the remainers get part of their way and we stay in the EEA and/or Customs Union, then we wont have saved any of that hypothetical money which might have been given.
It's ironic that for the Remain whine about the 350m to have any meaning we have to:
a) Have left, in 2 or more years time b) It has to be the most rock hard BrExit imaginable to "free" up the money
Morning all. I'm troubled that Leavers on here don't seem to have taken kindly to my constructive advice. Forewarned is forearmed, so you should be grateful that I've identified a potential problem to be addressed well in advance.
It's not an issue for Leavers as such. It's more a case that the Conservative government should be thinking right now what they're going to be telling the public as the NHS goes through what is going to more than just a seasonal rough patch. That is, the absence of funds which many key ministers in the government promised would be available for the NHS is a problem for a Conservative government implementing Brexit. A government now committed to Brexit can hardly turn around and admit that at least some significant extra funds for the NHS aren't available. Yet Brexit is going to happen so they're in a right bind.
I wasn't aware we would have left by Christmas. Even if there was any intention of honoring the 350m it would not have happened until we left, which might happen in a couple of years time or so. If the remainers get part of their way and we stay in the EEA and/or Customs Union, then we wont have saved any of that hypothetical money which might have been given.
It's ironic that for the Remain whine about the 350m to have any meaning we have to:
a) Have left, in 2 or more years time b) It has to be the most rock hard BrExit imaginable to "free" up the money
Both of which they are camplaining against.
I think that May (with her centralist leanings to win over the CDEs) and Hammond with his realism will come up with significant funds for the NHS. They will try to make a virtue out of neccessity.
They simply cannot afford to have too many things go off the rails similtaneously. Goodbye "austerity".
I didn't vote LEAVE because I expected the NHS to suddenly be much better off. The crisis in the NHS would be a topic for conversation if we had voted to REMAIN. It's a problem of which successive Governments were well aware but did nothing other than tinker with organisations and structures.
I always start with the premise it's not a National Health Service but a National Sickness Service - if you are healthy, you don't use it that much. To channel my inner Thatcherite (which doesn't get much of an airing), we are all responsible for our own health and given the confirmed links between lifestyle and a number of illnesses, there are some salutary lessons about how we live, work, eat, sleep etc, etc.
I suppose ultimately our lives are our deaths which is a bit glib for this time of the morning.
Moving on rapidly, a look at some of the polls from the GOP heartland as reported on RCP yesterday. Trump is only 7 points up in South Dakota which Romney won by 18 in 2012. Indiana has a Trump lead of 11 which is about the same as Romney's advantage in 2012. Trump is up 23 in Arkansas, again about the same and 29 ahead in Idaho which Romney won by 31.5 last time but that's down to McMullin polling about 10%.
Big discrepancy yesterday from NC - Remington Research (founded and owned by a GOP strategist, Jeff Roe) has Trump up by 3 while the NY Times has Clinton up by 7.
One clue might be the Party identification numbers - Remington used 26% Independents while NY Times used 36% Independent. Does this mean Independents are breaking more strongly for HRC ?
On Heathrow, even though I'm in favour in theory, why does it need to cut across the M25 - surely building it slightly eastward would have been the better option ?
Cutting over the M25 looks lik an error to me, even if more cash for CPO compo was needed better that than the M25 misery it will create for eons.
It's not an issue for Leavers as such. It's more a case that the Conservative government should be thinking right now what they're going to be telling the public as the NHS goes through what is going to more than just a seasonal rough patch. That is, the absence of funds which many key ministers in the government promised would be available for the NHS is a problem for a Conservative government implementing Brexit. A government now committed to Brexit can hardly turn around and admit that at least some significant extra funds for the NHS aren't available. Yet Brexit is going to happen so they're in a right bind.
I wasn't aware we would have left by Christmas. Even if there was any intention of honoring the 350m it would not have happened until we left, which might happen in a couple of years time or so. If the remainers get part of their way and we stay in the EEA and/or Customs Union, then we wont have saved any of that hypothetical money which might have been given.
It's ironic that for the Remain whine about the 350m to have any meaning we have to:
a) Have left, in 2 or more years time b) It has to be the most rock hard BrExit imaginable to "free" up the money
Both of which they are camplaining against.
Nor was I. However, governments do publish public spending forecasts that go several years beyond the current financial year, so their intentions for future NHS spending can't be left undisclosed for much longer.
You use of "any" means that you are saying that the price of a deal, if there is one, can only be that the UK's net contribution to the EU budget will be exactly what it is now.
On Heathrow, even though I'm in favour in theory, why does it need to cut across the M25 - surely building it slightly eastward would have been the better option ?
Cutting over the M25 looks lik an error to me, even if more cash for CPO compo was needed better that than the M25 misery it will create for eons.
One clue might be the Party identification numbers - Remington used 26% Independents while NY Times used 36% Independent. Does this mean Independents are breaking more strongly for HRC ?
Do we have any idea what the population breakdown by party identifications is ? Is 26% or 36% nearer to the actual number for American voters generally ?
To channel my inner Thatcherite (which doesn't get much of an airing), we are all responsible for our own health and given the confirmed links between lifestyle and a number of illnesses, there are some salutary lessons about how we live, work, eat, sleep etc, etc.
Very true. I wonder, has there been any research on how people view the importance of the NHS relative to their own lifestyles? On the one hand, I'd have thought those that think the NHS is really important ought to take good care of themselves - healthy diet, lots of exercise, etc. But I actually suspect people want a well funded NHS so that they feel free to live as they wish.
Morning all. I'm troubled that Leavers on here don't seem to have taken kindly to my constructive advice. Forewarned is forearmed, so you should be grateful that I've identified a potential problem to be addressed well in advance.
I think your advise is quite appropriate though I think "we haven't left yet" is a credible answer. If anything it could strengthen Hard Brexit supporters arguments for needing to end EU contributions.
On SPIN, I see that Donald Trump continues to tumble - he's now 199-209 while Hillary is now 327-337. Those prices imply 2 for Evan McMullin (Utah has 6 electoral college votes).
One question to ask is whether Evan almighty has a better or worse than one in three chance of taking Utah.
There are more white working class voters than Hispanics in Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania and North Carolina and in Florida some Hispanics are Cuban and lean Trump If Trump wins all those states he wins the presidency
Not quite true ... In the hugely unlikely event of Trump running your table but loses Arizona then Clinton wins 270/268. And then there's Utah ...
You seem to only believe there will be spike in WWC. What about those Trump friendly demographics of women, college educated whites and Hispanics. Do WWC outweigh them all ?!?
I see Justin Timberlake took a selfie of himself inside a polling station in Tennessee yesterday which is illegal in the state, however while he could have been in trouble the DA has now said they will not take action
One of Plato's (iirc) links this week was to a conspiracy theory about voting machines changing Trump votes to Clinton votes, and supporters were therefore advised to film their own voting. As you say, this is illegal in many places.
Would you like me to post video of it happening? I do love this dismissal of evidence - I linked yesterday to one Twitter user who's posted over 100 news articles citing voter fraud, I've posted video of the NYC DNC Election overseer saying there was a huge issue, Texas has reintroduced paper ballots this week after voting machine failures to select the right candidate.
Hand wave it all away - if you don't want to accept it as a live issue over there - well that's another matter.
What are you talking about? I cited your report urging people to film votes; however, if they are right then it is surely more likely Trump will lose, not less. Leaving this election aside, it is interesting that before this year it was the American left who accused voting machines of switching votes to Republicans. There was even a Simpsons cartoon about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxLPcvVljB8
Of course if the lovely benevolent EU insists in a blackmailling kind of way that the Uk has to continue to pay into the EU after Brexit for market access then this £350m will go to French farmers rather then our NHS.
I should imagine that will be a massive PR boost for the remain campaign.
FL - Clinton 47 .. Trump 44 - Sample 2,243 PA - Clinton 45 .. Trump 43 - Sample 1,709 NC - Clinton 48 .. Trump 42 - Sample 816 OH - Clinton 40 .. Trump 46 - Sample 1,627 IA - Clinton 40 .. Trump 45 - Sample 1,038 CO - Clinton 44 .. Trump 38 - Sample 1,318
Via 538
Not terrible for Trump, PA especially. Although if FL is gone it's hopeless.
538 adjust the polls Clinton +1 and they only have a C- rating. That said the figures are in the ball park. The trend lines across most polls are clear - Trump better in Iowa and Ohio but behind in states he has to win.
The thing is that he has to win so many where he's behind according to the polls (which still includes Ohio and Iowa according to 538). The argument here seems to be that he may indeed fail to do that in some of the southern and western states, but that he can still win by gaining several states in the mid-West/Pennsylvania. But that would mean a huge error in the polls. There seems to be very little evidence to back it up.
You use of "any" means that you are saying that the price of a deal, if there is one, can only be that the UK's net contribution to the EU budget will be exactly what it is now.
I am saying that the conceit of the 350m or whatever amount to be spent on the NHS was by repurposing the contributions we give to the EU in terms of membership fees and customs duties etc. If we stay in the EEA (especially if we opt for all the bells and whistles) we will save almost none of the former, and if we stay in the Customs Union we will save none of the later, so the would not be any money to re-hypothecate to the NHS. It therefore follows that the extra NHS money would only ever have been available, even in principle, in the case of a rock hard exit, and any success in softening the exit also destroys the case for supposed 350m.
On Heathrow, even though I'm in favour in theory, why does it need to cut across the M25 - surely building it slightly eastward would have been the better option ?
Cutting over the M25 looks lik an error to me, even if more cash for CPO compo was needed better that than the M25 misery it will create for eons.
Morning all. I'm troubled that Leavers on here don't seem to have taken kindly to my constructive advice. Forewarned is forearmed, so you should be grateful that I've identified a potential problem to be addressed well in advance.
Morning.
Your problem is, you are shadow boxing, or possibly tilting at windmills. Leave is not a political party and when it was a thing of any kind, the PM and the Government were Remainers. It would I think be illegal under electoral law for anyone to prove to you or anyone else how they voted in the referendum. You are very, very angry, but you don't know who with.
And and and the promise was of £350m per week post-Brexit. So what does an NHS funding crisis *this winter* have to do with it? Winter 2020-1 looks like the earliest time when those of the public unable to distinguish a mere puff from a contractual term can legitimately whine about this. PM Corbyn's problem, not yours or mine.
I feel that Clinton's lead is self limiting. People can bring themselves to vote for her if there is thought to be a real risk of the alternative which is even worse but they do so with a sense of self loathing. If she looks likely to win easily then people think that they don't have to bother and can feel clean. Conversely, if the polling gets closer they will. 5% looks about the balancing point.
depends on the poll, but a 5% lead is pretty much an early night win for Clinton anyway.
Precisely. Her only risk is that people leave the deeply unpleasant task of voting for the second worst candidate in history to someone else. No wonder she is working so hard on early voting.
On what basis do you say she's the second worst candidate in history?
She's given no reason to vote for her other than her identity.
At least Obama had healthcare.
She has lots of policy. And her favourabity has gone up a lot.
Also, i do feel RCP should take out that crappy LA times poll.
Don't worry, it's balanced out by that ABC poll.
The 538 site gives more comprehensive coverage than RCP, which misses many polls.
RCP has called every presidential election right so far, Nate Silver's recent record in other elections is not perfect
Regardless of whether your relative confidence in RCP is right or wrong, my point was that the 538 site is reporting much more polling than RCP and updating its reporting more quickly. So if you want to keep track of polls in near real time as they come in, 538 is the place to look.
Look at both by all means but the national trend of about a 5% Clinton lead is no landslide
You seem to be taking issue with a point that I haven't made.
And you don't seem to have got the point that I did make, which is that to get the quickest and most comprehensive update of polls, you go to the 538 update. No need to look at RCP for polling at all if 538 carry all the polls it does and many more, and updates its results more quickly.
FL - Clinton 47 .. Trump 44 - Sample 2,243 PA - Clinton 45 .. Trump 43 - Sample 1,709 NC - Clinton 48 .. Trump 42 - Sample 816 OH - Clinton 40 .. Trump 46 - Sample 1,627 IA - Clinton 40 .. Trump 45 - Sample 1,038 CO - Clinton 44 .. Trump 38 - Sample 1,318
Via 538
Not terrible for Trump, PA especially. Although if FL is gone it's hopeless.
538 adjust the polls Clinton +1 and they only have a C- rating. That said the figures are in the ball park. The trend lines across most polls are clear - Trump better in Iowa and Ohio but behind in states he has to win.
The thing is that he has to win so many where he's behind according to the polls (which still includes Ohio and Iowa according to 538). The argument here seems to be that he may indeed fail to do that in some of the southern and western states, but that he can still win by gaining several states in the mid-West/Pennsylvania. But that would mean a huge error in the polls. There seems to be very little evidence to back it up.
To channel my inner Thatcherite (which doesn't get much of an airing), we are all responsible for our own health and given the confirmed links between lifestyle and a number of illnesses, there are some salutary lessons about how we live, work, eat, sleep etc, etc.
Very true. I wonder, has there been any research on how people view the importance of the NHS relative to their own lifestyles? On the one hand, I'd have thought those that think the NHS is really important ought to take good care of themselves - healthy diet, lots of exercise, etc. But I actually suspect people want a well funded NHS so that they feel free to live as they wish.
The number of people with diabetes in Leicester and Rutland has trebled in the last 15 years. Some of that is earlier diagnosis, and the diabetologists also moved their goalposts but even allowing for that there is a doubling.
But we also see the problems of those superfit people becoming very old. Many of our hip fracture patients are in their nineties. They are as old as that because they have led clean lives, but even so are going to heal slowly if at all. Hip fracture mortality exceeeds many cancers. The rate of repair within 36 hours is one of the reporting targets, and a pretty accurate barometer of care elsewhere in an acute Trust.
There are more white working class voters than Hispanics in Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania and North Carolina and in Florida some Hispanics are Cuban and lean Trump If Trump wins all those states he wins the presidency
Not quite true ... In the hugely unlikely event of Trump running your table but loses Arizona then Clinton wins 270/268. And then there's Utah ...
It would be deeply ironic if Utah - a state that I reckon has the one of the lowest opinions of Hillary Clinton - splits the vote between her opponents, allowing her to collect its Electoral College votes and the Presidency...
Morning all. I'm troubled that Leavers on here don't seem to have taken kindly to my constructive advice. Forewarned is forearmed, so you should be grateful that I've identified a potential problem to be addressed well in advance.
Could somebody tell Mr Meeks The campaign's been over for weeks Remain didnt win it The EU we'll bin it and bad losers look like sad freaks
I am saying that the conceit of the 350m or whatever amount to be spent on the NHS was by repurposing the contributions we give to the EU in terms of membership fees and customs duties etc.
And also "repurposing" the rebate, which we never gave to the EU in the first place. Maybe "reimagining" would be a better word.
To channel my inner Thatcherite (which doesn't get much of an airing), we are all responsible for our own health and given the confirmed links between lifestyle and a number of illnesses, there are some salutary lessons about how we live, work, eat, sleep etc, etc.
Very true. I wonder, has there been any research on how people view the importance of the NHS relative to their own lifestyles? On the one hand, I'd have thought those that think the NHS is really important ought to take good care of themselves - healthy diet, lots of exercise, etc. But I actually suspect people want a well funded NHS so that they feel free to live as they wish.
There is a lot in that I think. The converse is also true, I live an hours flight or an overnight ferry ride from a hospital that you would consider being treated in for anything other than a simple injury. It certainly increases your interest in not getting sick! Diet now much more health, walk a couple of miles a day, swim half a mile or so most days, didn't do any of that in the UK
Morning all. I'm troubled that Leavers on here don't seem to have taken kindly to my constructive advice. Forewarned is forearmed, so you should be grateful that I've identified a potential problem to be addressed well in advance.
Alastair
Even the least well informed person will recognise that the UK continues to pay into the EU until it leaves. No one is expecting EU cash to be diverted to the NHS until we leave.
By implying otherwise you undermine your own argument.
To channel my inner Thatcherite (which doesn't get much of an airing), we are all responsible for our own health and given the confirmed links between lifestyle and a number of illnesses, there are some salutary lessons about how we live, work, eat, sleep etc, etc.
Very true. I wonder, has there been any research on how people view the importance of the NHS relative to their own lifestyles? On the one hand, I'd have thought those that think the NHS is really important ought to take good care of themselves - healthy diet, lots of exercise, etc. But I actually suspect people want a well funded NHS so that they feel free to live as they wish.
everyone behaving reasonably responsibly and living longer may be more expensive. better for the system to be utterly irresponsible (no half measures, mind)
On the NHS, I've spent too much time with relatives in A&E, visiting wards, and attending clinics over the last few years, but it has been an eye opener.
I'm not convinced that funding is truly an issue. I have seen three issues crop up again and again that need to be dealt with first.
1. Wastage; wasted time, wasted medication, and wasted equipment.
2. Paper shuffling, the NHS may have digitised some aspects of their work, but far too much time seems to be sent moving bits of paper around. You can sit in A&E and watch doctors and nurses go back and forth carrying paper between places.
3. Poor communications, scheduling, and logistics. Nobody in hospitals ever seems to know where people are, what they should be doing, what the level of stock for certain things is. Nor are they ever able to give you a straight answer about where you currently stand on something, invariably they seem to be waiting to hear back from someone.
I know it's an entirely different thing but it amazes me how much information Amazon can provide about an order for a few pounds worth of Chinese tat, you can track what is happening, and get notifications immediately if anything changes. The flow of information through that business is astounding, and customers are always in the loop, and it's all automated.
The NHS on the other hand seems to operate much like a business in the 1970s, you get an "allow 28 days for delivery" vibe when dealing with it. It simply doesn't feel like a modern organisation. It operates in a way that simply wouldn't be considerable acceptable if it was a private business.
Throwing more money at the NHS doesn't sound like a solution to me if it is allowed to carry on as it is.
Latest RealClearPolitics polling average — Clinton leads by 5 points, 48% to 43%. Not very convincing, given everything that's happened recently:
I feel that Clinton's lead is self limiting. People can bring themselves to vote for her if there is thought to be a real risk of the alternative which is even worse but they do so with a sense of self loathing. If she looks likely to win easily then people think that they don't have to bother and can feel clean. Conversely, if the polling gets closer they will. 5% looks about the balancing point.
depends on the poll, but a 5% lead is pretty much an early night win for Clinton anyway.
Precisely. Her only risk is that people leave the deeply unpleasant task of voting for the second worst candidate in history to someone else. No wonder she is working so hard on early voting.
On what basis do you say she's the second worst candidate in history?
At least Obama had healthcare.
She has lots of policy. And her favourabity has gone up a lot.
should take out that crappy LA times poll.
Don't worry, it's balanced out by that ABC poll.
The 538 site gives more comprehensive coverage than RCP, which misses many polls.
RCP has called every presidential election right so far, Nate Silver's recent record in other elections is not perfect
Regardless of whether your relative confidence in RCP is right or wrong, my point was that the 538 site is reporting much more polling than RCP and updating its reporting more quickly. So if you want to keep track of polls in near real time as they come in, 538 is the place to look.
Look at both by all means but the national trend of about a 5% Clinton lead is no landslide
You seem to be taking issue with a point that I haven't made.
And you don't seem to have got the point that I did make, which is that to get the quickest and most comprehensive update of polls, you go to the 538 update. No need to look at RCP for polling at all if 538 carry all the polls it does and many more, and updates its results more quickly.
He's just cherry picking the polls, Trump like, to argue that Trump is on the verge of winning. No point trying to suggest alternative polling methods which would show otherwise.
Morning all. I'm troubled that Leavers on here don't seem to have taken kindly to my constructive advice. Forewarned is forearmed, so you should be grateful that I've identified a potential problem to be addressed well in advance.
Could somebody tell Mr Meeks The campaign's been over for weeks Remain didnt win it The EU we'll bin it and bad losers look like sad freaks
FL - Clinton 47 .. Trump 44 - Sample 2,243 PA - Clinton 45 .. Trump 43 - Sample 1,709 NC - Clinton 48 .. Trump 42 - Sample 816 OH - Clinton 40 .. Trump 46 - Sample 1,627 IA - Clinton 40 .. Trump 45 - Sample 1,038 CO - Clinton 44 .. Trump 38 - Sample 1,318
Via 538
Not terrible for Trump, PA especially. Although if FL is gone it's hopeless.
538 adjust the polls Clinton +1 and they only have a C- rating. That said the figures are in the ball park. The trend lines across most polls are clear - Trump better in Iowa and Ohio but behind in states he has to win.
The thing is that he has to win so many where he's behind according to the polls (which still includes Ohio and Iowa according to 538). The argument here seems to be that he may indeed fail to do that in some of the southern and western states, but that he can still win by gaining several states in the mid-West/Pennsylvania. But that would mean a huge error in the polls. There seems to be very little evidence to back it up.
DONT FORGET THE SHY TRUMPERS AND WWC.
AND BREXIT!
on todays podcast from 538, yer man says something along the lines of "so, are you prepared to take odds of 15% at russian roulette?"
@Chris I am saying that the conceit of the 350m or whatever amount to be spent on the NHS was by repurposing the contributions we give to the EU in terms of membership fees and customs duties etc.
On the NHS, I've spent too much time with relatives in A&E, visiting wards, and attending clinics over the last few years, but it has been an eye opener.
I'm not convinced that funding is truly an issue. I have seen three issues crop up again and again that need to be dealt with first.
1. Wastage; wasted time, wasted medication, and wasted equipment.
2. Paper shuffling, the NHS may have digitised some aspects of their work, but far too much time seems to be sent moving bits of paper around. You can sit in A&E and watch doctors and nurses go back and forth carrying paper between places.
3. Poor communications, scheduling, and logistics. Nobody in hospitals ever seems to know where people are, what they should be doing, what the level of stock for certain things is. Nor are they ever able to give you a straight answer about where you currently stand on something, invariably they seem to be waiting to hear back from someone.
I know it's an entirely different thing but it amazes me how much information Amazon can provide about an order for a few pounds worth of Chinese tat, you can track what is happening, and get notifications immediately if anything changes. The flow of information through that business is astounding, and customers are always in the loop, and it's all automated.
The NHS on the other hand seems to operate much like a business in the 1970s, you get an "allow 28 days for delivery" vibe when dealing with it. It simply doesn't feel like a modern organisation. It operates in a way that simply wouldn't be considerable acceptable if it was a private business.
Throwing more money at the NHS doesn't sound like a solution to me if it is allowed to carry on as it is.
It's an I wouldn't start from here situation. The answer to being like Amazon is to have software like Amazon, but projects to write software like Amazon's for the NHS tend to run through a couple of billion quid and then collapse. Outsourcing the whole shooting-match to Amazon or Google might be the way forward.
Morning all. I'm troubled that Leavers on here don't seem to have taken kindly to my constructive advice. Forewarned is forearmed, so you should be grateful that I've identified a potential problem to be addressed well in advance.
Could somebody tell Mr Meeks The campaign's been over for weeks Remain didnt win it The EU we'll bin it and bad losers look like sad freaks
The thing is that he has to win so many where he's behind according to the polls (which still includes Ohio and Iowa according to 538). The argument here seems to be that he may indeed fail to do that in some of the southern and western states, but that he can still win by gaining several states in the mid-West/Pennsylvania. But that would mean a huge error in the polls. There seems to be very little evidence to back it up.
Essentially it's FOP and Romney 12 and Trump's there - a 273/265 win. But it's a huge ask and there's no margin for error.
Ohio and Iowa are on the cusp with some encouraging Trump polls. The others are trending Clinton with Trump struggling to keep the Romney states of North Carolina, Arizona and Utah. Trump has to get all his (Donald) ducks in a row. One missed shot and it's all over.
It would be deeply ironic if Utah - a state that I reckon has the one of the lowest opinions of Hillary Clinton - splits the vote between her opponents, allowing her to collect its Electoral College votes and the Presidency...
FL - Clinton 47 .. Trump 44 - Sample 2,243 PA - Clinton 45 .. Trump 43 - Sample 1,709 NC - Clinton 48 .. Trump 42 - Sample 816 OH - Clinton 40 .. Trump 46 - Sample 1,627 IA - Clinton 40 .. Trump 45 - Sample 1,038 CO - Clinton 44 .. Trump 38 - Sample 1,318
Via 538
Not terrible for Trump, PA especially. Although if FL is gone it's hopeless.
538 adjust the polls Clinton +1 and they only have a C- rating. That said the figures are in the ball park. The trend lines across most polls are clear - Trump better in Iowa and Ohio but behind in states he has to win.
The thing is that he has to win so many where he's behind according to the polls (which still includes Ohio and Iowa according to 538). The argument here seems to be that he may indeed fail to do that in some of the southern and western states, but that he can still win by gaining several states in the mid-West/Pennsylvania. But that would mean a huge error in the polls. There seems to be very little evidence to back it up.
DONT FORGET THE SHY TRUMPERS AND WWC.
AND BREXIT!
on todays podcast from 538, yer man says something along the lines of "so, are you prepared to take odds of 15% at russian roulette?"
With this and the story yesterday about Trump not doing anymore fundraisers ( and him taking a day off on Friday to open another hotel) and Pence spending a day in Utah this weekend...
The GOP are very much like acting like Trump is losing. I assume they have private polling indicating this. The Trumpers on here seem more optimistic of a win than the GOP!
It would be deeply ironic if Utah - a state that I reckon has the one of the lowest opinions of Hillary Clinton - splits the vote between her opponents, allowing her to collect its Electoral College votes and the Presidency...
For if there is to be a hard Brexit, Sturgeon would have to sell the prospect of Scotland leaving the UK, joining the EU and being confronted with not just border posts for anyone wanting to travel south but tariffs for anyone wanting to trade with England.
She’d have her work cut out.The UK is a significantly more vital trading partner for Scotland than the remaining 27 countries of the EU. Scotland’s exports to the rest of the UK outstrip what it sell to Europe about four to one, and it’s estimated that while 250,000 Scots jobs are tied to the EU, a million more rely on being in the UK.
On the NHS, I've spent too much time with relatives in A&E, visiting wards, and attending clinics over the last few years, but it has been an eye opener.
I'm not convinced that funding is truly an issue. I have seen three issues crop up again and again that need to be dealt with first.
1. Wastage; wasted time, wasted medication, and wasted equipment.
2. Paper shuffling, the NHS may have digitised some aspects of their work, but far too much time seems to be sent moving bits of paper around. You can sit in A&E and watch doctors and nurses go back and forth carrying paper between places.
3. Poor communications, scheduling, and logistics. Nobody in hospitals ever seems to know where people are, what they should be doing, what the level of stock for certain things is. Nor are they ever able to give you a straight answer about where you currently stand on something, invariably they seem to be waiting to hear back from someone.
I know it's an entirely different thing but it amazes me how much information Amazon can provide about an order for a few pounds worth of Chinese tat, you can track what is happening, and get notifications immediately if anything changes. The flow of information through that business is astounding, and customers are always in the loop, and it's all automated.
The NHS on the other hand seems to operate much like a business in the 1970s, you get an "allow 28 days for delivery" vibe when dealing with it. It simply doesn't feel like a modern organisation. It operates in a way that simply wouldn't be considerable acceptable if it was a private business.
Throwing more money at the NHS doesn't sound like a solution to me if it is allowed to carry on as it is.
I wouldn't disagree with much of that, though large public sector IT projects are famously expensive disasters.
It is not going to happen overnight though, and older CDE Leave votrs are the most reliant of us all on the NHS. Screw it up for them and don't expect any thanks at the ballot box.
The biggest stress on the acute Trusts is the lack of support in social care (as Charles points out). The governments policy has been to starve it, which pushes the patients to the Acute Trusts where they get stuck. Hence my 20 ambulances on the forecourt unable to unload.
With this and the story yesterday about Trump not doing anymore fundraisers ( and him taking a day off on Friday to open another hotel) and Pence spending a day in Utah this weekend...
The GOP are very much like acting like Trump is losing. I assume they have private polling indicating this. The Trumpers on here seem more optimistic of a win than the GOP!
For if there is to be a hard Brexit, Sturgeon would have to sell the prospect of Scotland leaving the UK, joining the EU and being confronted with not just border posts for anyone wanting to travel south but tariffs for anyone wanting to trade with England.
She’d have her work cut out.The UK is a significantly more vital trading partner for Scotland than the remaining 27 countries of the EU. Scotland’s exports to the rest of the UK outstrip what it sell to Europe about four to one, and it’s estimated that while 250,000 Scots jobs are tied to the EU, a million more rely on being in the UK.
For the third day running Sporting Index have increased their spread on Hillary's ECV count, despite 538.com having moved in precisely the opposite direction - at least they are now in almost precise agreement:
Mr. Dugarbandier, a problem for independence for Scotland is that the price of separation rises as the terms of our departure from the EU became harder.
On the NHS, I've spent too much time with relatives in A&E, visiting wards, and attending clinics over the last few years, but it has been an eye opener.
I'm not convinced that funding is truly an issue. I have seen three issues crop up again and again that need to be dealt with first.
1. Wastage; wasted time, wasted medication, and wasted equipment.
2. Paper shuffling, the NHS may have digitised some aspects of their work, but far too much time seems to be sent moving bits of paper around. You can sit in A&E and watch doctors and nurses go back and forth carrying paper between places.
3. Poor communications, scheduling, and logistics. Nobody in hospitals ever seems to know where people are, what they should be doing, what the level of stock for certain things is. Nor are they ever able to give you a straight answer about where you currently stand on something, invariably they seem to be waiting to hear back from someone.
I know it's an entirely different thing but it amazes me how much information Amazon can provide about an order for a few pounds worth of Chinese tat, you can track what is happening, and get notifications immediately if anything changes. The flow of information through that business is astounding, and customers are always in the loop, and it's all automated.
The NHS on the other hand seems to operate much like a business in the 1970s, you get an "allow 28 days for delivery" vibe when dealing with it. It simply doesn't feel like a modern organisation. It operates in a way that simply wouldn't be considerable acceptable if it was a private business.
Throwing more money at the NHS doesn't sound like a solution to me if it is allowed to carry on as it is.
I completely agree.
Lots of scope for cost saving and increased productivity in the NHS.
However, the NHS has to start by sacrificing some day to day expenditure to invest in better systems. This is always a hard thing to do and needs strong and confident leadership which may not be present everywhere at local level in the NHS.
The 350,000,000 a week for the NHS was the most iconic symbol of the referendum and it was most closely associated with Boris. It was clear way before the vote that this figure was bogus but that wont stop the irredeemably ignorant from wanting to take revenge when the NHS reaches cash starved crisis point as it always does.
The only thing to look forward to in the calamitous decision to leave te EU is witnessing the slow lingering political death of the leading Tories-particularly Johnson-who were rsponsible for it.
Certainly in my anecdata before the referendum (overheard conversations with patients in particular) the two big factors were immigration and the extra money for the NHS. Obviously my workplace is biased this way, but nonethess it was significant.
The voters of Leaverstan were typically older, poorer, and less able to access private resources to fund their health and social care than the voters of Remania. They want an old style welfare state as part of their socially conservative Britain. May and Hammond are going to have to find the money.
Alaistair is not exagerrating the stress on the system, indeed he understates it. Last Tuesday there were 20 ambulances in the forecourt at Leicester Royal Infirmary with patients in the back, unable to offload as there was no space or beds in our main hospital. This is a weekly event happenning up and down the land.
because nobody else ever has stress at their workplace.
Well most people don't have the stress of knowing their decisions will determine if people live or die. But I don't think the reference was to mental stress anyway...
most medical decisions arent life and death ones
Also for the few that are , if you are not up to it you should not be in teh job. It is not pleasant but it is reality. Lots of people have as much and more stress as majority of medical staff. When you watch on TV they seem to have lots of time for tea and cakes for sure.
On the NHS, I've spent too much time with relatives in A&E, visiting wards, and attending clinics over the last few years, but it has been an eye opener. I'm not convinced that funding is truly an issue. I have seen three issues crop up again and again that need to be dealt with first. 1. Wastage; wasted time, wasted medication, and wasted equipment. 2. Paper shuffling, ........ 3. Poor communications, scheduling, and logistics. .................... The NHS on the other hand seems to operate much like a business in the 1970s.......... Throwing more money at the NHS doesn't sound like a solution to me if it is allowed to carry on as it is.
Matches my observations. The core problem is its management. At the top they know that they should be making rapid improvements in productivity. They sign up to it and then the units mainly fail to achieve that so they over spend and under deliver. I do wonder if the solution should be to break the English NHS up into every county and unitary city and have a once off increase in the resources with a more standard level of funding (age alone related) and then have the local councillors and elected Mayors, take responsibility for what happens in their areas? The central function of the English NHS (unelected) and the Trusts (with appointments) seem to be incapable of effecting the rate of change required. There should also be a role for the patient's funding to be more portable where they can choose which hospital/gp etc to use.
Why is it so quiet on here this morning about the Richmond byelection. Its certainly not quiet in the bookies whete Zac is attracting a lot of support. Evens on him gone now..
“I told him yesterday, on the plane, ‘You and I are going to fight for the next 17 days.’ And he said, ‘Why?’” Conway recalled. “And I said: ‘Because I know you're going to win. And that comment you just made sounds like you think you're going to lose. And we're going to argue about it until you win.’”
Trump’s response, according to Conway, was, “OK, honey, then we’ll win.”
£350 million for the NHS. A mendacious lie pedalled by Leaver-Corbynites like SandyRentool despite their knowing full well it was a bare face, flat lie.
They should hang their heads in shame.
Brwrecksit is coming - as Theresa May knew then as she knows now.
Brwrecksit!
I rather like that, and may use it.
All credit to ScottP for that one - not one of mine!
He gets the odd useful thing from twitter but the deluge of normal dross far outwieghs the very occasional nugget.
Why is it so quiet on here this morning about the Richmond byelection. Its certainly not quiet in the bookies whete Zac is attracting a lot of support. Evens on him gone now..
Because all the value has gone now.
Yesterday was the day to do business on the markets with Ladbrokes going 6-4 Lib Dems, followed by Paddy Power 11-8 Zac Goldsmith
Mr. Dugarbandier, a problem for independence for Scotland is that the price of separation rises as the terms of our departure from the EU became harder.
As someone hinted downthread, brexit or Scottish independence are not reality-based decisions. Much as we humans like to believe we are rational creatures, actual rational decisions are fairly rare
On Heathrow, even though I'm in favour in theory, why does it need to cut across the M25 - surely building it slightly eastward would have been the better option ?
Cutting over the M25 looks lik an error to me, even if more cash for CPO compo was needed better that than the M25 misery it will create for eons.
I guess because you would have to destroy Harlington in addition to Sipson and Harmondsworth and you get the M4 extension motorway to deal with instead of the M25. The North West plan also shifts the noise envelope a bit further out of London.
The problem is many people are asking what is the point of the New Statesman!
Their campaign against Corbyn has collapsed, their uber unionism gives them a similar profile to the Daily Telegraph in Scotland and their understanding of the constitutional question is roughly the same as the Prime Minister's advisers.
If BREXIT logic is that countries do not discriminate against other countries with whom they have a trade surplus then why does that not apply to Scotland which is England's fourth largest marketplace.
If the Government claims that they can have an soft border between two parts of Ireland then why would Scots believe they would erect a hard border between England and Scotland.
Comments
Ahem, your suggestion is quite otherwise.
These usually appear about 3pm UK time.
That said election day always provide opportunities for those who hold their nerve, ignore the rampers and do their homework as early numbers in some counties start to filter through.
Virginia was very profitable in 12 as many of the DC suburbs and Obama heavy areas reported late. Perhaps look to North Carolina, Florida and Pennsylvania for the same. Research and quick fingers are essential.
If Trump wins all those states he wins the presidency
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/791191067412406273
https://twitter.com/b9AcE/status/790993749014900737
It's ironic that for the Remain whine about the 350m to have any meaning we have to:
a) Have left, in 2 or more years time
b) It has to be the most rock hard BrExit imaginable to "free" up the money
Both of which they are camplaining against.
I think Hunt has done a good job, and his reforms are needed.
The Lib Dem penny on income tax to fund it is also needed.
They simply cannot afford to have too many things go off the rails similtaneously. Goodbye "austerity".
I didn't vote LEAVE because I expected the NHS to suddenly be much better off. The crisis in the NHS would be a topic for conversation if we had voted to REMAIN. It's a problem of which successive Governments were well aware but did nothing other than tinker with organisations and structures.
I always start with the premise it's not a National Health Service but a National Sickness Service - if you are healthy, you don't use it that much. To channel my inner Thatcherite (which doesn't get much of an airing), we are all responsible for our own health and given the confirmed links between lifestyle and a number of illnesses, there are some salutary lessons about how we live, work, eat, sleep etc, etc.
I suppose ultimately our lives are our deaths which is a bit glib for this time of the morning.
Moving on rapidly, a look at some of the polls from the GOP heartland as reported on RCP yesterday. Trump is only 7 points up in South Dakota which Romney won by 18 in 2012. Indiana has a Trump lead of 11 which is about the same as Romney's advantage in 2012. Trump is up 23 in Arkansas, again about the same and 29 ahead in Idaho which Romney won by 31.5 last time but that's down to McMullin polling about 10%.
Big discrepancy yesterday from NC - Remington Research (founded and owned by a GOP strategist, Jeff Roe) has Trump up by 3 while the NY Times has Clinton up by 7.
One clue might be the Party identification numbers - Remington used 26% Independents while NY Times used 36% Independent. Does this mean Independents are breaking more strongly for HRC ?
Cutting over the M25 looks lik an error to me, even if more cash for CPO compo was needed better that than the M25 misery it will create for eons.
You use of "any" means that you are saying that the price of a deal, if there is one, can only be that the UK's net contribution to the EU budget will be exactly what it is now.
One question to ask is whether Evan almighty has a better or worse than one in three chance of taking Utah.
You seem to only believe there will be spike in WWC. What about those Trump friendly demographics of women, college educated whites and Hispanics. Do WWC outweigh them all ?!?
http://www.270towin.com/maps/nJWrd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxLPcvVljB8
I should imagine that will be a massive PR boost for the remain campaign.
Your problem is, you are shadow boxing, or possibly tilting at windmills. Leave is not a political party and when it was a thing of any kind, the PM and the Government were Remainers. It would I think be illegal under electoral law for anyone to prove to you or anyone else how they voted in the referendum. You are very, very angry, but you don't know who with.
And and and the promise was of £350m per week post-Brexit. So what does an NHS funding crisis *this winter* have to do with it? Winter 2020-1 looks like the earliest time when those of the public unable to distinguish a mere puff from a contractual term can legitimately whine about this. PM Corbyn's problem, not yours or mine.
And you don't seem to have got the point that I did make, which is that to get the quickest and most comprehensive update of polls, you go to the 538 update. No need to look at RCP for polling at all if 538 carry all the polls it does and many more, and updates its results more quickly.
AND BREXIT!
But we also see the problems of those superfit people becoming very old. Many of our hip fracture patients are in their nineties. They are as old as that because they have led clean lives, but even so are going to heal slowly if at all. Hip fracture mortality exceeeds many cancers. The rate of repair within 36 hours is one of the reporting targets, and a pretty accurate barometer of care elsewhere in an acute Trust.
The campaign's been over for weeks
Remain didnt win it
The EU we'll bin it
and bad losers look like sad freaks
Even the least well informed person will recognise that the UK continues to pay into the EU until it leaves. No one is expecting EU cash to be diverted to the NHS until we leave.
By implying otherwise you undermine your own argument.
I'm not convinced that funding is truly an issue. I have seen three issues crop up again and again that need to be dealt with first.
1. Wastage; wasted time, wasted medication, and wasted equipment.
2. Paper shuffling, the NHS may have digitised some aspects of their work, but far too much time seems to be sent moving bits of paper around. You can sit in A&E and watch doctors and nurses go back and forth carrying paper between places.
3. Poor communications, scheduling, and logistics. Nobody in hospitals ever seems to know where people are, what they should be doing, what the level of stock for certain things is. Nor are they ever able to give you a straight answer about where you currently stand on something, invariably they seem to be waiting to hear back from someone.
I know it's an entirely different thing but it amazes me how much information Amazon can provide about an order for a few pounds worth of Chinese tat, you can track what is happening, and get notifications immediately if anything changes. The flow of information through that business is astounding, and customers are always in the loop, and it's all automated.
The NHS on the other hand seems to operate much like a business in the 1970s, you get an "allow 28 days for delivery" vibe when dealing with it. It simply doesn't feel like a modern organisation. It operates in a way that simply wouldn't be considerable acceptable if it was a private business.
Throwing more money at the NHS doesn't sound like a solution to me if it is allowed to carry on as it is.
As we all know, the only man who can talk in caps lock is Brian Blessed.
I am saying that the conceit of the 350m or whatever amount to be spent on the NHS was by repurposing the contributions we give to the EU in terms of membership fees and customs duties etc.
https://twitter.com/scotnational/status/791202711232352257
Ohio and Iowa are on the cusp with some encouraging Trump polls. The others are trending Clinton with Trump struggling to keep the Romney states of North Carolina, Arizona and Utah. Trump has to get all his (Donald) ducks in a row. One missed shot and it's all over.
With this and the story yesterday about Trump not doing anymore fundraisers ( and him taking a day off on Friday to open another hotel) and Pence spending a day in Utah this weekend...
The GOP are very much like acting like Trump is losing. I assume they have private polling indicating this. The Trumpers on here seem more optimistic of a win than the GOP!
For if there is to be a hard Brexit, Sturgeon would have to sell the prospect of Scotland leaving the UK, joining the EU and being confronted with not just border posts for anyone wanting to travel south but tariffs for anyone wanting to trade with England.
She’d have her work cut out.The UK is a significantly more vital trading partner for Scotland than the remaining 27 countries of the EU. Scotland’s exports to the rest of the UK outstrip what it sell to Europe about four to one, and it’s estimated that while 250,000 Scots jobs are tied to the EU, a million more rely on being in the UK.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/10/hard-brexit-best-way-keep-scotland-uk-heres-why
Clinton 36 .. Trump 49
http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-indiana-polling-2/
It is not going to happen overnight though, and older CDE Leave votrs are the most reliant of us all on the NHS. Screw it up for them and don't expect any thanks at the ballot box.
The biggest stress on the acute Trusts is the lack of support in social care (as Charles points out). The governments policy has been to starve it, which pushes the patients to the Acute Trusts where they get stuck. Hence my 20 ambulances on the forecourt unable to unload.
POTUS Countdown (24 hr changes)
Sporting Index Mid-Spreads:
Clinton 332 (+2) Trump 204 (-3)
538.com Predictions:
Clinton 334 (-5) Trump 203 (+5)
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-confronts-rust-belt-rejection-230319
http://labourlist.org/2016/10/exclusive-labour-mps-call-on-party-to-drop-out-of-goldsmith-by-election/
is that at least some Labour MPs are ready to allow the Lib Dems off the naughty step.
Clinton 44.2 .. Trump 45.3
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
I completely agree.
Lots of scope for cost saving and increased productivity in the NHS.
However, the NHS has to start by sacrificing some day to day expenditure to invest in better systems. This is always a hard thing to do and needs strong and confident leadership which may not be present everywhere at local level in the NHS.
When you watch on TV they seem to have lots of time for tea and cakes for sure.
Its certainly not quiet in the bookies whete Zac is attracting a lot of support.
Evens on him gone now..
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-tweeting-kellyanne-conway-230283
“I told him yesterday, on the plane, ‘You and I are going to fight for the next 17 days.’ And he said, ‘Why?’” Conway recalled. “And I said: ‘Because I know you're going to win. And that comment you just made sounds like you think you're going to lose. And we're going to argue about it until you win.’”
Trump’s response, according to Conway, was, “OK, honey, then we’ll win.”
Yesterday was the day to do business on the markets with Ladbrokes going 6-4 Lib Dems, followed by Paddy Power 11-8 Zac Goldsmith
Runway bridges are a normal construction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMlC0-Ut8Ng
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/gingrich-blasts-kelly-for-trump-coverage-you-are-fascinated-with-sex-230318
Their campaign against Corbyn has collapsed, their uber unionism gives them a similar profile to the Daily Telegraph in Scotland and their understanding of the constitutional question is roughly the same as the Prime Minister's advisers.
If BREXIT logic is that countries do not discriminate against other countries with whom they have a trade surplus then why does that not apply to Scotland which is England's fourth largest marketplace.
If the Government claims that they can have an soft border between two parts of Ireland then why would Scots believe they would erect a hard border between England and Scotland.