Nate Cohen and Nate Silver both think the discrepancies between results in counties using machines and paper ballots are what would be expected on demographic grounds.
Afternoon all. One thing that I have discovered today is that if you attended a hospital appointment while wearing a hi viz coat. Numerous people will confuse you as a member of staff from the moment you arrive.
When my Dad was in hospital a few years ago I turned up in a suit and asked to see his diagnostics. Apparently they thought I was a doctor!
(Even more worrying there was only one parameter out of the normal range... that was the parameter that explained his unidentified illness. And I was the first person to notice it!)
When my son broke his arm as a young child I had to rush over to the hospital wearing a suit. The problem is that I have a very bad problem with bones (blood and guts, not a problem) and especially broken ones. Just thinking about them makes me queasy. So, anyway, I got into A&E in my suit and the staff showed me an X-ray in the waiting room. I took one look at it and fainted!!! All those waiting for treatment thought I was a doctor. It makes me laugh now. It was very humiliating at the time.
How odd, never heard of someone who was squeamish about bones before.
I think we might do very well by being outside both the US and EU internet and data rules.
Possibly, possibly not. The ongoing tendency to move stuff to the cloud has implications for data protection. Leaving will require cloud servers to be located in the UK instead of - say - US, Spain or Ireland and that has cost implications. This process is already underway. It also has implications wrt the GDPR - it will come in preLeaveDay
However, if we are lucky, we will get rid of that bloody cookie consent thing, which bugs the heck out of me.
The issue is more the other way. We won't be able to process data from the EU unless we are part of its data protection laws. As a country that exports a lot of services that's a big issue.
If that were true then it would be impossible to fly to the USA or any of hundreds of other destinations outside the EU as all such flights involve firms processing data outside of EU data protection laws.
As a fine point of interest in the early 1990s when the EU put out its first first draft of data protection legislation the abolition of outside EU air travel, banking and commerce generally was one of the effects that would have occurred had the proposed legislation been accepted. Fortunately it wasn't.
Afternoon all. One thing that I have discovered today is that if you attended a hospital appointment while wearing a hi viz coat. Numerous people will confuse you as a member of staff from the moment you arrive.
If you're an Asian heritage chap in a suit and you attend a hospital appointments, numerous people will also confuse you as a Doctor.
True but more will think your a health tourist and ask for your passport, due to Tory dog whistle politics
My sister who has been referred to a specialist cancer hospital has been asked to provide two forms of identification. The only people who have anything to worry about are those who are not entitled to care in the first place. And liberal types who think the NHS is an international health service.
Of course they have cause for worry. They may have no driving licence and no up to date passport. The proposed measure risks costing more in admin. than it saves ... as Nye Bevan pointed out.
Perhaps the government wants us to focus on 'greedy' foreigners and ignore the political decision to starve the NHS of funds versus other developed countries (percent of GDP basis).
My MP won't say if the aim is to encourage the well off to take out private insurance, setting up a de facto two-tier system, only that 'the NHS will stay free at the point of use'. Well that's true of Medicaid, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid, but you wouldn't want to use it.
"OBR estimate that Brexit - as opposed to other changes & policy decisions - adds a cumulative £68bn to borrowing."
What touching faith you have in financial forecasts. I have a friend who'd like to interest you in a sure-fire investment. Guaranteed to make you a fortune. Please send all you bank details.
Seriously, could you acquaint me with a Government forecast in the Autumn statement or Budget that hasn't been amended within months, not years?
Yep. Government optimistically forecasts a deficit of X and it turns out to be X PLUS Y. How often is that forecast unduly PESSIMISTIC and it turns out to be X MINUS Y?
Yes, it's an exercise in "the government are awesome" for the run up to 2020. That 90% debt figure is, IMO, going to feature especially if, as I suspect, net debt reaches about 75% by the end of 2019. Due to the government's policies and a good Brexit deal we've managed to avert disaster, vote for us.
75% is a bit optimstic for three years away.
We're at (what) 88% now. If we assume an average deficit of 2% of GDP, then we get to add 6% to 94%. But then we have to divide by 1.045 three times to simulate 4.5% nominal GDP growth. So, 82% at end of 2019.
Even that's a tad optimistic as you've compounded the nominal growth but not compounded the deficit. 2% of nominal GDP three years from now != 2% of nominal GDP today.
Personally, I expect him to lose spectacularly. I wouldn't be overly surprised if he's not even nominated if he goes on reneging on campaign promises as he has this last fortnight.
I think there has been a (gradually coming and now here) sea change in how the American public, especially the right leaning public, view their politicians and that Trump could 180 on every single policy and still go into 2020 projecting himself as a winner which will be accepted by a significant proportion of the population.
Frank shield.
I posted an article yesterday that I think is fascinating about how the American press has completely failed to understand and report on what has been happening over the last decade or so and ended up feeding the dragon
I do wonder whether his support base will survive contact with reality. It's one thing advocating two contradictory policies at different times to different groups (or even the same one); it's another thing governing in reality with all the grubbiness of pork-barrelling, compromise and quid pro quos.
My review.
Trump only just won this year against a weak Democrat candidate. It's rare for any party to lose the White House on a first defence and as a rule presidents seeking a second term gain support. All the same, Trump is likely to need to add to what he achieved this year if he's to win in 2020.
Also it's difficult to present yourself as an insurgent who will 'drain the swamp' when you and your party have been running things for four years.
You'd think a Billionaire socialite who's glad handed politicians of all stripes would have difficulty presenting themselves as a insurgent full stop.
I think that's the point of the pressthink article, Trump has forecfully presented and alternative take on reality which his supporters have unquestionably accepted. There is not "meeting reality", they exist in Trump's reality.
He won on an exceptionally low vote percentage. His big danger in 2020 will be turnout if things have not gone well. What he has on his side, though, is a complete lack of inhibition about stigmatising/launching a cultural war against whatever minority he thinks it would be most advantageous to attack.
His vote % whilst low wasn't breaking any records for lowest % of vote for POTUS.
Afternoon all. One thing that I have discovered today is that if you attended a hospital appointment while wearing a hi viz coat. Numerous people will confuse you as a member of staff from the moment you arrive.
If you're an Asian heritage chap in a suit and you attend a hospital appointments, numerous people will also confuse you as a Doctor.
True but more will think your a health tourist and ask for your passport, due to Tory dog whistle politics
My sister who has been referred to a specialist cancer hospital has been asked to provide two forms of identification. The only people who have anything to worry about are those who are not entitled to care in the first place. And liberal types who think the NHS is an international health service.
Of course they have cause for worry. They may have no driving licence and no up to date passport. The proposed measure risks costing more in admin. than it saves ... as Nye Bevan pointed out.
Perhaps the government wants us to focus on 'greedy' foreigners and ignore the political decision to starve the NHS of funds versus other developed countries (percent of GDP basis).
My MP won't say if the aim is to encourage the well off to take out private insurance, setting up a de facto two-tier system, only that 'the NHS will stay free at the point of use'. Well that's true of Medicaid, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid, but you wouldn't want to use it.
"The proposed measure risks costing more in admin. than it saves"
I've heard this before, but I'm not sure how it could be. Surly administrative systems aren't that borken?
Personally, I expect him to lose spectacularly. I wouldn't be overly surprised if he's not even nominated if he goes on reneging on campaign promises as he has this last fortnight.
I think there has been a (gradually coming and now here) sea change in how the American public, especially the right leaning public, view their politicians and that Trump could 180 on every single policy and still go into 2020 projecting himself as a winner which will be accepted by a significant proportion of the population.
Frank shield.
I posted an article yesterday that I think is fascinating about how the American press has completely failed to understand and report on what has been happening over the last decade or so and ended up feeding the dragon
I do wonder whether his support base will survive contact with reality. It's one thing advocating two contradictory policies at different times to different groups (or even the same one); it's another thing governing in reality with all the grubbiness of pork-barrelling, compromise and quid pro quos.
My review.
Trump only just won this year against a weak Democrat candidate. It's rare for any party to lose the White House on a first defence and as a rule presidents seeking a second term gain support. All the same, Trump is likely to need to add to what he achieved this year if he's to win in 2020.
Also it's difficult to present yourself as an insurgent who will 'drain the swamp' when you and your party have been running things for four years.
You'd think a Billionaire socialite who's glad handed politicians of all stripes would have difficulty presenting themselves as a insurgent full stop.
I think that's the point of the pressthink article, Trump has forecfully presented and alternative take on reality which his supporters have unquestionably accepted. There is not "meeting reality", they exist in Trump's reality.
He won on an exceptionally low vote percentage. His big danger in 2020 will be turnout if things have not gone well. What he has on his side, though, is a complete lack of inhibition about stigmatising/launching a cultural war against whatever minority he thinks it would be most advantageous to attack.
His vote % whilst low wasn't breaking any records for lowest % of vote for POTUS.
Clinton and Nixon both won with less.
They were three horse races, though, weren't they?
Personally, I expect him to lose spectacularly. I wouldn't be overly surprised if he's not even nominated if he goes on reneging on campaign promises as he has this last fortnight.
I think there has been a (gradually coming and now here) sea change in how the American public, especially the right leaning public, view their politicians and that Trump could 180 on every single policy and still go into 2020 projecting himself as a winner which will be accepted by a significant proportion of the population.
Frank shield.
I posted an article yesterday that I think is fascinating about how the American press has completely failed to understand and report on what has been happening over the last decade or so and ended up feeding the dragon
I do wonder whether his support base will survive contact with reality. It's one thing advocating two contradictory policies at different times to different groups (or even the same one); it's another thing governing in reality with all the grubbiness of pork-barrelling, compromise and quid pro quos.
My review.
Trump only just won this year against a weak Democrat candidate. It's rare for any party to lose the White House on a first defence and as a rule presidents seeking a second term gain support. All the same, Trump is likely to need to add to what he achieved this year if he's to win in 2020.
Also it's difficult to present yourself as an insurgent who will 'drain the swamp' when you and your party have been running things for four years.
You'd think a Billionaire socialite who's glad handed politicians of all stripes would have difficulty presenting themselves as a insurgent full stop.
I think that's the point of the pressthink article, Trump has forecfully presented and alternative take on reality which his supporters have unquestionably accepted. There is not "meeting reality", they exist in Trump's reality.
He won on an exceptionally low vote percentage. His big danger in 2020 will be turnout if things have not gone well. What he has on his side, though, is a complete lack of inhibition about stigmatising/launching a cultural war against whatever minority he thinks it would be most advantageous to attack.
His vote % whilst low wasn't breaking any records for lowest % of vote for POTUS.
I've just watch the Andrew Neil interview, where he absolutely shredded Shadow ???? Rebecca Long-Bailey. Where do Labour find these useless people? Another product of their all women short-lists, no doubt!
Nate Cohen and Nate Silver both think the discrepancies between results in counties using machines and paper ballots are what would be expected on demographic grounds.
Why on earth didn't they control for demographics!
It's very difficult to believe that didn't occur to them. It seems more likely that somewhere in the chain of transmission between the conference call with Clinton's staff and the anonymous source who spoke to the journalist, the details got garbled.
I suppose it's possible that they did correct for demographics, and that that accounted for most but not all of the reported 7% discrepancy between machines and paper ballots. The quoted estimate of 30,000 votes lost by Clinton would represent only about 1% of the votes cast in Wisconsin.
Nate Cohen and Nate Silver both think the discrepancies between results in counties using machines and paper ballots are what would be expected on demographic grounds.
Why on earth didn't they control for demographics!
It's very difficult to believe that didn't occur to them. It seems more likely that somewhere in the chain of transmission between the conference call with Clinton's staff and the anonymous source who spoke to the journalist, the details got garbled.
I suppose it's possible that they did correct for demographics, and that that eliminated most but not all of the reported 7% discrepancy between machines and paper ballots. The quoted estimate of 30,000 votes lost by Clinton would represent only about 1% of the votes cast in Wisconsin.
I've just watch the Andrew Neil interview, where he absolutely shredded Shadow ???? Rebecca Long-Bailey. Where do Labour find these useless people? Another product of their all women short-lists, no doubt!
How much better England would be if only Tory activists had the vote, eh, Lady B?
Nate Cohen and Nate Silver both think the discrepancies between results in counties using machines and paper ballots are what would be expected on demographic grounds.
Why on earth didn't they control for demographics!
It's very difficult to believe that didn't occur to them. It seems more likely that somewhere in the chain of transmission between the conference call with Clinton's staff and the anonymous source who spoke to the journalist, the details got garbled.
I suppose it's possible that they did correct for demographics, and that that eliminated most but not all of the reported 7% discrepancy between machines and paper ballots. The quoted estimate of 30,000 votes lost by Clinton would represent only about 1% of the votes cast in Wisconsin.
1% is huge in this context.
Yes, in that it's bigger than Trump's majority over Clinton.
But I was just speculating whether the 30,000 was just a simple estimate based on that 7% difference, or whether it represented only part of it unaccounted for by demographics. Obviously it depends on what percentage of people voted using machines.
I've just watch the Andrew Neil interview, where he absolutely shredded Shadow ???? Rebecca Long-Bailey. Where do Labour find these useless people? Another product of their all women short-lists, no doubt!
Unite backed candidate. No experience / qualifications for the role as a Manchester metropolitan qualified solicitor.
At last we actually have a CoE that is qualified to do the job!
I've just watch the Andrew Neil interview, where he absolutely shredded Shadow ???? Rebecca Long-Bailey. Where do Labour find these useless people? Another product of their all women short-lists, no doubt!
How much better England would be if only Tory activists had the vote, eh, Lady B?
Seriously, I'd watch it before you get all huffy. Then come back and defend her from outrageous Tory slurs.
Wisconsin has had a republican governor for the last 6 years at least. Some would be Democrats probably stayed at home, or voted Harambe/Sanders as well. Add that to a more motivated Trump vote, and well there is your polling error.
1) In the summer I often went to the hospital ward straight from work in suit and tie to visit my other half. I was frequently mistaken for a doctor.
2) My other half was out cold from the moment he fell and the need for treatment was time critical, literally a matter of life and death. At what point was he supposed to show his passport?
Wisconsin has had a republican governor for the last 6 years at least. Some would be Democrats probably stayed at home, or voted Harambe/Sanders as well. Add that to a more motivated Trump vote, and well there is your polling error.
Are there published figures for write-ins? How did Harambe do?
I've just watch the Andrew Neil interview, where he absolutely shredded Shadow ???? Rebecca Long-Bailey. Where do Labour find these useless people? Another product of their all women short-lists, no doubt!
Unite backed candidate. No experience / qualifications for the role as a Manchester metropolitan qualified solicitor.
At last we actually have a CoE that is qualified to do the job!
Presumably her main qualification is that she can't be accused of being a Blairite (i.e. anyone to the right of Chairman Mao) and doesn't resist Corbyn and McD.
1) In the summer I often went to the hospital ward straight from work in suit and tie to visit my other half. I was frequently mistaken for a doctor.
2) My other half was out cold from the moment he fell and the need for treatment was time critical, literally a matter of life and death. At what point was he supposed to show his passport?
On 2) I understood the proposal was for non-emergency treatment only?
Mind you I think it is unworkable anyway. My mother has been in a care home for 2 years and hasn't had a passport or a driver's licence for the last 10 so how she would be able to verify her ID is beyond me.
The NHS passport idea is a farce. Some (but not all) UK visas entitle people to NHS treatment, as are citizens of all 27 EU countries. Is every NHS doctor now expected to be an immigration expert?
Then there's the c. 10% of UK citizens who don't own a passport, who are now effectively being forced to spend £75 on a document they are not legally required to hold.
I have increasingly wondered about the level of attention in HoC chamber as everyone plays with their phones. Seems even during the big set pieces this is now the norm:
"He had a good point – and he made it so badly that even the members of his Labour frontbench Treasury team were glued to their phones throughout. (Which, incidentally, made me wonder about the diffusion of attention in the Commons: reading and typing on electronic devices is now the norm and creates a quite different atmosphere from the occasional backbencher doing his constituency correspondence on paper during quieter debates a few years ago.)" http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/autumn-statement-philip-hammond-john-mcdonnell-labour-response-missing-in-action-john-rentoul-a7433481.html
Afternoon all. One thing that I have discovered today is that if you attended a hospital appointment while wearing a hi viz coat. Numerous people will confuse you as a member of staff from the moment you arrive.
But not the CofE, presumably, given Hammond is less of a fan of the Hi Vis?
It was either patient transport or security that people think I am. Nothing posh like a Dr. It's the perils of going straight from work.
The NHS passport idea is a farce. Some (but not all) UK visas entitle people to NHS treatment, as are citizens of all 27 EU countries. Is every NHS doctor now expected to be an immigration expert?
Then there's the c. 10% of UK citizens who don't own a passport, who are now effectively being forced to spend £75 on a document they are not legally required to hold.
Maybe we should all carry ID cards. Whatever happened to Jacqui Smith anyway?
Mr. Jonathan, the card wouldn't've been playable had Labour not decided devolution was for everyone but the English, that British/English culture was an optional extra for migrants and that opening the floodgates was a good idea.
[The Coalition/Conservatives also deserve blame for the lack of an English Parliament, but they inherited rather than created the democratic deficit].
I think we might do very well by being outside both the US and EU internet and data rules.
Possibly, possibly not. The ongoing tendency to move stuff to the cloud has implications for data protection. Leaving will require cloud servers to be located in the UK instead of - say - US, Spain or Ireland and that has cost implications. This process is already underway. It also has implications wrt the GDPR - it will come in preLeaveDay
However, if we are lucky, we will get rid of that bloody cookie consent thing, which bugs the heck out of me.
The issue is more the other way. We won't be able to process data from the EU unless we are part of its data protection laws. As a country that exports a lot of services that's a big issue.
If that were true then it would be impossible to fly to the USA or any of hundreds of other destinations outside the EU as all such flights involve firms processing data outside of EU data protection laws.
As a fine point of interest in the early 1990s when the EU put out its first first draft of data protection legislation the abolition of outside EU air travel, banking and commerce generally was one of the effects that would have occurred had the proposed legislation been accepted. Fortunately it wasn't.
US companies could sign up for EU data protection certification under the so called Safe Harbor agreement. This arrangement was struck down a couple of years ago by the ECJ and for a while there was no legal way personal data could be processed in the United States. A new arrangement has been instituted in the past couple of months, Privacy Shield, the legality of which is still to be tested.
This kind of data handling is normally carried out by third parties and not the airline you used in your example. The client will get the contractors to fill in a form possibly running to a hundred pages where you explain exactly what you will do with that data. Unless they have already decided otherwise the client will insist the data stays in the EU and won't be interested in your explanations of equivalence.
The NHS passport idea is a farce. Some (but not all) UK visas entitle people to NHS treatment, as are citizens of all 27 EU countries. Is every NHS doctor now expected to be an immigration expert?
Then there's the c. 10% of UK citizens who don't own a passport, who are now effectively being forced to spend £75 on a document they are not legally required to hold.
Maybe we should all carry ID cards. Whatever happened to Jacqui Smith anyway?
The alleged fact that there are " 1 million" illegals in the UK makes me want to prefer ID cards.
1) In the summer I often went to the hospital ward straight from work in suit and tie to visit my other half. I was frequently mistaken for a doctor.
2) My other half was out cold from the moment he fell and the need for treatment was time critical, literally a matter of life and death. At what point was he supposed to show his passport?
re: (2)
They aren't asking for it in emergency situations. Starting with maternity.
For example, Peterborough said that their recovery rate on non-eligible patients payments rose from £100,000 three years ago to £250,000 today (>95% reclaim rate vs <40%).
That's £150,000 extra that can be spent on healthcare services for the people who pay for the health system. Multiply that up by all the other hospitals in the UK and you are talking pretty big numbers.
The NHS passport idea is a farce. Some (but not all) UK visas entitle people to NHS treatment, as are citizens of all 27 EU countries. Is every NHS doctor now expected to be an immigration expert?
Then there's the c. 10% of UK citizens who don't own a passport, who are now effectively being forced to spend £75 on a document they are not legally required to hold.
These checks already exist for people who wish to access social security.
Comments
As a fine point of interest in the early 1990s when the EU put out its first first draft of data protection legislation the abolition of outside EU air travel, banking and commerce generally was one of the effects that would have occurred had the proposed legislation been accepted. Fortunately it wasn't.
I wanted to see what Paul Staines had to say for himself after the Jo Cox verdict.
Nothing.
I then checked his twitter.
Nothing.
He got what he wanted and the Cox family paid the price.
He's a nasty nasty piece of work, that man. A true enemy of the people.
I hope he finds his peace one day.
Perhaps the government wants us to focus on 'greedy' foreigners and ignore the political decision to starve the NHS of funds versus other developed countries (percent of GDP basis).
My MP won't say if the aim is to encourage the well off to take out private insurance, setting up a de facto two-tier system, only that 'the NHS will stay free at the point of use'. Well that's true of Medicaid, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid, but you wouldn't want to use it.
Clinton and Nixon both won with less.
Here is what he has said on the subject:
http://order-order.com/people/jo-cox/
Even an old cynic like Guido had something in his eye after the tribute to Jo Cox from Rachel Reeves today.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/
I've heard this before, but I'm not sure how it could be. Surly administrative systems aren't that borken?
I suppose it's possible that they did correct for demographics, and that that accounted for most but not all of the reported 7% discrepancy between machines and paper ballots. The quoted estimate of 30,000 votes lost by Clinton would represent only about 1% of the votes cast in Wisconsin.
Johnson got 3.5%
But I was just speculating whether the 30,000 was just a simple estimate based on that 7% difference, or whether it represented only part of it unaccounted for by demographics. Obviously it depends on what percentage of people voted using machines.
At last we actually have a CoE that is qualified to do the job!
Or not.
Add that to a more motivated Trump vote, and well there is your polling error.
2) My other half was out cold from the moment he fell and the need for treatment was time critical, literally a matter of life and death. At what point was he supposed to show his passport?
Mind you I think it is unworkable anyway. My mother has been in a care home for 2 years and hasn't had a passport or a driver's licence for the last 10 so how she would be able to verify her ID is beyond me.
I hope your other half is still making progress.
Then there's the c. 10% of UK citizens who don't own a passport, who are now effectively being forced to spend £75 on a document they are not legally required to hold.
"He had a good point – and he made it so badly that even the members of his Labour frontbench Treasury team were glued to their phones throughout. (Which, incidentally, made me wonder about the diffusion of attention in the Commons: reading and typing on electronic devices is now the norm and creates a quite different atmosphere from the occasional backbencher doing his constituency correspondence on paper during quieter debates a few years ago.)"
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/autumn-statement-philip-hammond-john-mcdonnell-labour-response-missing-in-action-john-rentoul-a7433481.html
Labour 232 seats
No to Indy 55%
Yes to Indy 45%
LEAVE 52%
REMAIN 48%
[The Coalition/Conservatives also deserve blame for the lack of an English Parliament, but they inherited rather than created the democratic deficit].
This kind of data handling is normally carried out by third parties and not the airline you used in your example. The client will get the contractors to fill in a form possibly running to a hundred pages where you explain exactly what you will do with that data. Unless they have already decided otherwise the client will insist the data stays in the EU and won't be interested in your explanations of equivalence.
NEW THREAD
"I now believe that we will see war between the major powers within my lifetime."
Today's Guardian.
They aren't asking for it in emergency situations. Starting with maternity.
For example, Peterborough said that their recovery rate on non-eligible patients payments rose from £100,000 three years ago to £250,000 today (>95% reclaim rate vs <40%).
That's £150,000 extra that can be spent on healthcare services for the people who pay for the health system. Multiply that up by all the other hospitals in the UK and you are talking pretty big numbers.