ISAM. It is heartless but your insistence on quoting it in full twice unlike Andy who just posted a link makes you no better than the Guardian
You are a complete idiot
Andy’s post was a link behind a paywall that many may not have seen. I want everyone to see it.
In all honesty, how can you possibly think that me highlighting a newspapers disgusting behaviour is as bad as their disgusting behaviour? By that logic, anyone who references The Sun’s Hillsborough coverage is as bad as them. Behave yourself
If I had to choose between an Enoch Powell admirer and someone who wrote a single tasteless editorial about privilege I know who I'd find more offensive
It says it all that you have to try and make me morally inferior to your beloved Guardian rather than accept any criticism of them. What a joker
What’s Japanese for “fixer upper”? That said I once had a Japanese colleague who was doing up his house in Japan and I commiserated with him asking how far over budget and behind schedule it was. He replied, “this is Japan, it is on time and on budget - do they do things differently in the U.K.?
So generally if you were going to restore a place - as opposed to doing the normal thing and knocking it down and starting again - you'd contract with a company that would make a generously padded schedule, take the cost of the actual work and double it, and make sure that as far as the customer is concerned everything happens on time and under budget. The downside is that they take half the money.
But we know the builder dude who did a bunch of friends' houses and he just comes over with his friend from school and her dog and builds stuff and Mrs In Tokyo helps out and he asks me for money every now and then. So I don't really have a budget or a schedule, just see how it goes, I never did mind about the little things etc etc.
Mr. grss, I am unpersuaded that a larger bank account or better career dulls the edge of a child's death. Do you think money makes up for a dead son or daughter?
If not, I'd be intrigued to hear how you think Cameron's pain was any less than that of any other father in his situation.
The material benefits of wealth and power make overcoming grief and loss easier. Poorer people have to go back to work to survive, their employer may not even offer bereavement leave, they are more likely to have a smaller social safety net and will have fewer opportunities for private counselling, assistance etc. etc.
We already know that poorer people are more likely to experience mental illness, likely due to the fact they don't have the resources to take time to focus on their mental health alone, why should grief and bereavement be any different?
Sure, the pain is immeasurable, that is humanity, each person suffers loss as an individual. But the material impact of that loss is more on those who already have less.
P.S I also have the anecdotal tale of me and my best friend from uni both losing a parent at aged 11. His dad left behind a local government pension for the family, which allowed them to get better mental health care and his mum didn't have to go back to work. My mum's passing did not leave as much of a windfall, and my dad had to work, and I did not get immediate counselling. Now, granted, there were loads of other differences between our situations and neither of us are perfectly mentally health people, but even between us we recognised the economic stability he enjoyed post trauma that I didn't had impacts.
On topic I really can't help feeling that Pocahontas is the Donald's dream opponent. But then I don't think any of them will scare him much.
He needs to keep the consumer bubble inflated until November next year. Not easy but bullying the Fed to cut interest rates to zero is probably the best way of achieving it. My guess, FWIW, is that it won't be as close as it was the last time.
This time he’ll lose by 8m votes ?
Oh, he'll probably lose the popular vote again thanks to California but I think he will win more EC votes than he did the last time.
I can see him grabbing Virginia, but other than that, I can't see any other pickups.
Mr. grss, people with higher IQs have higher co-morbidity with mental illness. I wouldn't argue that the intelligent suffer more than the average or stupid when it comes to mourning their dead children.
Poor people can also have friends. And the wealthy can be lonely. Not to mention the effect of introversion or extroversion. And few people were as subject to the public spotlight as David Cameron was when he lost his child (sadly, one of the few things he and Gordon Brown had in common).
The comment in the Guardian was crass beyond belief, and your defence of it almost entirely depends upon introducing new factors independent of wealth.
Mr. grss, I am unpersuaded that a larger bank account or better career dulls the edge of a child's death. Do you think money makes up for a dead son or daughter?
If not, I'd be intrigued to hear how you think Cameron's pain was any less than that of any other father in his situation.
The material benefits of wealth and power make overcoming grief and loss easier. Poorer people have to go back to work to survive, their employer may not even offer bereavement leave, they are more likely to have a smaller social safety net and will have fewer opportunities for private counselling, assistance etc. etc.
We already know that poorer people are more likely to experience mental illness, likely due to the fact they don't have the resources to take time to focus on their mental health alone, why should grief and bereavement be any different?
Sure, the pain is immeasurable, that is humanity, each person suffers loss as an individual. But the material impact of that loss is more on those who already have less.
P.S I also have the anecdotal tale of me and my best friend from uni both losing a parent at aged 11. His dad left behind a local government pension for the family, which allowed them to get better mental health care and his mum didn't have to go back to work. My mum's passing did not leave as much of a windfall, and my dad had to work, and I did not get immediate counselling. Now, granted, there were loads of other differences between our situations and neither of us are perfectly mentally health people, but even between us we recognised the economic stability he enjoyed post trauma that I didn't had impacts.
This is a bad subject, and has precious little to do with politics or betting.
The material benefits of wealth and power make overcoming grief and loss easier. Poorer people have to go back to work to survive, their employer may not even offer bereavement leave, they are more likely to have a smaller social safety net and will have fewer opportunities for private counselling, assistance etc. etc.
We already know that poorer people are more likely to experience mental illness, likely due to the fact they don't have the resources to take time to focus on their mental health alone, why should grief and bereavement be any different?
Sure, the pain is immeasurable, that is humanity, each person suffers loss as an individual. But the material impact of that loss is more on those who already have less.
You are making one heck of a lot of assumptions, and also coming across rather nastily.
So now we now. Rich people can’t be as broken hearted as poor people, can’t grieve a loved one as deeply as poor people. I suppose it doesn’t hurt them as much when their partner leaves them or they are dying either.
Inverse snobbery is so embarrassing. No doubt the people who think like this are all in favour of equality
Iran will not be nice and easy for them , they have plenty of decent firepower and that nice narrow Strait of Hormuz. They also have some nice buddies.
On topic I really can't help feeling that Pocahontas is the Donald's dream opponent. But then I don't think any of them will scare him much.
He needs to keep the consumer bubble inflated until November next year. Not easy but bullying the Fed to cut interest rates to zero is probably the best way of achieving it. My guess, FWIW, is that it won't be as close as it was the last time.
This time he’ll lose by 8m votes ?
Oh, he'll probably lose the popular vote again thanks to California but I think he will win more EC votes than he did the last time.
I can see him grabbing Virginia, but other than that, I can't see any other pickups.
Really? Virginia has been blue since 2008 and is trending away from the GOP in the past few elections when you account for the national picture, and the Republicans did poorly in the midterms there in 2017. Fairfax county is full of federal workers and it continues to grow.
Worth seeing what happens there in November when VA has its state midterms.
My personal opinion is that the 2020 election will be won and lost in Pennsylvania. I don’t see Trump holding WI.
I think people underestimate the degree that Clinton lost a) because turnout amongst Dem electorate was down, which won't happen again, b) because Trump was viewed as a moderate Republican, which he isn't anymore, c) Clinton was especially disliked by the electorate, which no one else on the Dem side even comes close to.
I think Warren will end up being the compromise pick for those who don't want Biden and don't want Bernie OR that as things get to the final three, it will be Biden v Warren v Bernie and the Biden may get the plurality of delegates. Warren and Bernie will make a deal so one of them (most likely Warren in my view) will be the nominee but with a compromise platform and a compromise Veep.
As I keep banging on an on Trump got almost exactly the same vote share as Romany in the Rust Belt but Clinton lost up to 10 percentage points. Trump even got less absolute votes than Romney in Wisconsin.
For me the only thing stopping me saying Trump is losing the rustbelt guaranteed mortal lock bet the house on it is what the spineless jellyfish called NeverTrumps do this time out. NeverTrumps love all the judicial nominations Trump has done, they may well fall in behind this time out.
I mean, I think the bigger reason Trump my get reelected is many people just don't like considering they were wrong first time around, and will throw good money after bad.
Speaking of the Middle East, keep an eye on rising oil prices which in the past have been bad for government polling, though this time round might provide political cover for Brexit-related disruption. If continued, it might also improve the economic outlook for Russia and Scotland.
Independence would do a lot more for the economic outlook for Scotland than any oil price rise. London steals, and always has done , all our oil revenue.
So now we now. Rich people can’t be as broken hearted as poor people, can’t grieve a loved one as deeply as poor people. I suppose it doesn’t hurt them as much when their partner leaves them or they are dying either.
Inverse snobbery is so embarrassing. No doubt the people who think like this are all in favour of equality
I never said they couldn't, all I'm saying is that the impact of that loss is easier to deal with when you have economic security. I still don't really understand how that is a controversial statement.
Are we saying it is controversial that the suffering of a rich guy with all the privileges of power is not necessarily the same as the suffering of poor people, and that it is not okay to point out that this rich guy increased the suffering of poor people, despite suffering himself? Is that really a controversy?
Do you think a parent suffers less at the suffering and death of a beloved child because they are rich?
ISAM. It is heartless but your insistence on quoting it in full twice unlike Andy who just posted a link makes you no better than the Guardian
You are a complete idiot
Andy’s post was a link behind a paywall that many may not have seen. I want everyone to see it.
In all honesty, how can you possibly think that me highlighting a newspapers disgusting behaviour is as bad as their disgusting behaviour? By that logic, anyone who references The Sun’s Hillsborough coverage is as bad as them. Behave yourself
If I had to choose between an Enoch Powell admirer and someone who wrote a single tasteless editorial about privilege I know who I'd find more offensive
It says it all that you have to try and make me morally inferior to your beloved Guardian rather than accept any criticism of them. What a joker
Many of us had read the link and commented on it. There is 'no paywall'
Are we saying it is controversial that the suffering of a rich guy with all the privileges of power is not necessarily the same as the suffering of poor people, and that it is not okay to point out that this rich guy increased the suffering of poor people, despite suffering himself? Is that really a controversy?
Do you think a parent suffers less at the suffering and death of a beloved child because they are rich?
He or she has already confirmed that this is what they think
On topic I really can't help feeling that Pocahontas is the Donald's dream opponent. But then I don't think any of them will scare him much.
He needs to keep the consumer bubble inflated until November next year. Not easy but bullying the Fed to cut interest rates to zero is probably the best way of achieving it. My guess, FWIW, is that it won't be as close as it was the last time.
This time he’ll lose by 8m votes ?
Oh, he'll probably lose the popular vote again thanks to California but I think he will win more EC votes than he did the last time.
I can see him grabbing Virginia, but other than that, I can't see any other pickups.
Really? Virginia has been blue since 2008 and is trending away from the GOP in the past few elections when you account for the national picture, and the Republicans did poorly in the midterms there in 2017. Fairfax county is full of federal workers and it continues to grow.
Worth seeing what happens there in November when VA has its state midterms.
My personal opinion is that the 2020 election will be won and lost in Pennsylvania. I don’t see Trump holding WI.
It will be difficult for Trump to hold Pa. His Majority in that state was under 50 thousand from 6.1 Million votes. You only need a small number of voters who are Dem leaning but could not bring themselves to vote for Clinton, to gat out and vote for the state to change. In the Midterms it was closely fought and swung more Dem.
In addition Trump has to ensure there is no upset in the large swingy states such as Ohio and Florida.
But you're right in as much as, in 13 months time, we will be pouring over the exit polls from Pa.
So now we now. Rich people can’t be as broken hearted as poor people, can’t grieve a loved one as deeply as poor people. I suppose it doesn’t hurt them as much when their partner leaves them or they are dying either.
Inverse snobbery is so embarrassing. No doubt the people who think like this are all in favour of equality
I never said they couldn't, all I'm saying is that the impact of that loss is easier to deal with when you have economic security. I still don't really understand how that is a controversial statement.
It’s not controversial, it’s typical of Guardianista types. It’s just wrong.
So now we now. Rich people can’t be as broken hearted as poor people, can’t grieve a loved one as deeply as poor people. I suppose it doesn’t hurt them as much when their partner leaves them or they are dying either. Inverse snobbery is so embarrassing. No doubt the people who think like this are all in favour of equality
Until all those those grieiving poor people vote for Brexit. Then they are just thick.
Mr. grss, people with higher IQs have higher co-morbidity with mental illness. I wouldn't argue that the intelligent suffer more than the average or stupid when it comes to mourning their dead children.
Poor people can also have friends. And the wealthy can be lonely. Not to mention the effect of introversion or extroversion. And few people were as subject to the public spotlight as David Cameron was when he lost his child (sadly, one of the few things he and Gordon Brown had in common).
The comment in the Guardian was crass beyond belief, and your defence of it almost entirely depends upon introducing new factors independent of wealth.
As a Guardian reader, and indeed subscriber, I agree. It was crass; whoever wrote it should get the 'fortune telling' of their lives and whoever subbed it and passed it for publication as well. I hope neither of them have the experience the Cameron family have had.
ISAM. It is heartless but your insistence on quoting it in full twice unlike Andy who just posted a link makes you no better than the Guardian
You are a complete idiot
Andy’s post was a link behind a paywall that many may not have seen. I want everyone to see it.
In all honesty, how can you possibly think that me highlighting a newspapers disgusting behaviour is as bad as their disgusting behaviour? By that logic, anyone who references The Sun’s Hillsborough coverage is as bad as them. Behave yourself
If I had to choose between an Enoch Powell admirer and someone who wrote a single tasteless editorial about privilege I know who I'd find more offensive
It says it all that you have to try and make me morally inferior to your beloved Guardian rather than accept any criticism of them. What a joker
Many of us had read the link and commented on it. There is 'no paywall'
Wrong, obviously. (£)
Just carry on defending the indefensible and leave me out of it. You are the site jester but jesters aren’t my thing.
Are we saying it is controversial that the suffering of a rich guy with all the privileges of power is not necessarily the same as the suffering of poor people, and that it is not okay to point out that this rich guy increased the suffering of poor people, despite suffering himself? Is that really a controversy?
Do you think a parent suffers less at the suffering and death of a beloved child because they are rich?
No, I think that people who are rich are in a better position economically to cope with their grief. As I said, every individual will suffer grief differently, but being wealthy allows more options to assist in dealing with it.
Are we saying it is controversial that the suffering of a rich guy with all the privileges of power is not necessarily the same as the suffering of poor people, and that it is not okay to point out that this rich guy increased the suffering of poor people, despite suffering himself? Is that really a controversy?
Do you think a parent suffers less at the suffering and death of a beloved child because they are rich?
Been there twice and can affirm the answer is no. It's a pain you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy, rich or poor, privileged or otherwise.
Would really prefer it if we could find something else to chat about.
So now we now. Rich people can’t be as broken hearted as poor people, can’t grieve a loved one as deeply as poor people. I suppose it doesn’t hurt them as much when their partner leaves them or they are dying either.
Inverse snobbery is so embarrassing. No doubt the people who think like this are all in favour of equality
I’ve only read the excerpt posted by Zak Goldsmith but based on it, that isn’t what the article is saying at all.
It’s simply saying that Cameron hasn’t had direct contact with the most underfunded parts of the NHS and that his experience doesn’t make him an expert in the NHS.
Which is a reasonable point to make. It’s incredibly varied across the country.
I have regular contact with a certain part of the NHS here in Newcastle and they are fantastic. However 20 miles down the road in County Durham it’s very poor.
Is anyone on PB left in the UK, or have they gone already and I am supposed to turn out the lights.
Still here. And not planning on going further than Edinburgh today.
Otoh there is a fair chunk of pb dedicated to removing Edinburgh from the UK.
And a fair few of us committed to making sure that never happens.
It’s bizarre how some of the most passionate unionists are also eurosceptics. It presents as a failure of logic on their part.
It must pain them that so many of their southron Eurosceptic brothers & sisters are indifferent or even antipathetic to the Union, which of course makes me sad.
If ever there were something to reaffirm my confirmation bias, that’d be it. His son dying is ‘privileged pain’.
Absolutely typical quite-rich-and-privileged-themselves Guardian think. What an embarrassment they are.
It speaks absolute volumes about the Guardian that an editorial as disgusting as that ever got as far as it did.
As you say, I bet a number of their key staff have very good private health insurance that they make good use of themselves.
Well we know the fastest way to get the ban hammer commenting on the graudian site is to ever mention how all their leading lights went to top public schools and are as rich as dave.
ISAM. It is heartless but your insistence on quoting it in full twice unlike Andy who just posted a link makes you no better than the Guardian
You are a complete idiot
Andy’s post was a link behind a paywall that many may not have seen. I want everyone to see it.
In all honesty, how can you possibly think that me highlighting a newspapers disgusting behaviour is as bad as their disgusting behaviour? By that logic, anyone who references The Sun’s Hillsborough coverage is as bad as them. Behave yourself
If I had to choose between an Enoch Powell admirer and someone who wrote a single tasteless editorial about privilege I know who I'd find more offensive
On topic I really can't help feeling that Pocahontas is the Donald's dream opponent. But then I don't think any of them will scare him much.
He WIW, is that it won't be as close as it was the last time.
This time he’ll lose by 8m votes ?
Oh, he'll probably lose the popular vote again thanks to California but I think he will win more EC votes than he did the last time.
I can see him grabbing Virginia, but other than that, I can't see any other pickups.
Really? Virginia has been blue since 2008 and is trending away from the GOP in the past few elections when you account for the national picture, and the Republicans did poorly in the midterms there in 2017. Fairfax county is full of federal workers and it continues to grow.
Worth seeing what happens there in November when VA has its state midterms.
My personal opinion is that the 2020 election will be won and lost in Pennsylvania. I don’t see Trump holding WI.
It will be difficult for Trump to hold Pa. His Majority in that state was under 50 thousand from 6.1 Million votes. You only need a small number of voters who are Dem leaning but could not bring themselves to vote for Clinton, to gat out and vote for the state to change. In the Midterms it was closely fought and swung more Dem.
In addition Trump has to ensure there is no upset in the large swingy states such as Ohio and Florida.
But you're right in as much as, in 13 months time, we will be pouring over the exit polls from Pa.
I think Beto would be an excellent VP choice for the Dems. He won’t win Texas, but it will force the GOP to put effort into defending it, distracting them from the likes of PA.
Is anyone on PB left in the UK, or have they gone already and I am supposed to turn out the lights.
Still here. And not planning on going further than Edinburgh today.
Otoh there is a fair chunk of pb dedicated to removing Edinburgh from the UK.
And a fair few of us committed to making sure that never happens.
It’s bizarre how some of the most passionate unionists are also eurosceptics. It presents as a failure of logic on their part.
It must pain them that so many of their southron Eurosceptic brothers & sisters are indifferent or even antipathetic to the Union, which of course makes me sad.
'Brexit: UK will reject any delay offer, PM to tell Juncker'
Didn't the HoC tell Boris he couldn't do this, or words to that effect?
He can't say that after October the 19th and everyone on the EU side know exactly what the HoC has passed in the Benn Bill.
Even for those who think that the EU will crack under the pressure of a No-Deal brexit, you have to admit that the EU are very unlikely to be acessories to Johnson breaking the law.
Pretty unpleasant, but it's clearly not their corporate view, as it was rapidly pulled.
Did the editor not read it before it went to press?
I have no knowledge of the editorial procedures of the Guardian, but it's a fair question. That it was pulled in the manner it was suggest that its not an article of faith for them.
As I said below, I don't think there are gradations in the suffering experienced by a parent who loses a child, no matter how rich or poor. The experience of trying to arrange treatment for that child is likely to be considerably different, though.
Far more starkly, set against all that the experience of a son or daughter trying to arrange care for a parent with dementia. For the rich and the not rich, that is two wholly different worlds.
Going beyond that, I do think it possible Cameron overgeneralised the insights he derived from what he went through with his child. What I'm very clear on, for example, is that his policies on school inclusion for children with special needs have been extremely malign where there has been inadequate funding - with the effects hardest felt in the poorest areas.
Is anyone on PB left in the UK, or have they gone already and I am supposed to turn out the lights.
Still here. And not planning on going further than Edinburgh today.
Otoh there is a fair chunk of pb dedicated to removing Edinburgh from the UK.
And a fair few of us committed to making sure that never happens.
It’s bizarre how some of the most passionate unionists are also eurosceptics. It presents as a failure of logic on their part.
It must pain them that so many of their southron Eurosceptic brothers & sisters are indifferent or even antipathetic to the Union, which of course makes me sad.
Ha! Fair point!
They know that the only way to keep Scotland out of the EU is to remain in the UK.
Are we saying it is controversial that the suffering of a rich guy with all the privileges of power is not necessarily the same as the suffering of poor people, and that it is not okay to point out that this rich guy increased the suffering of poor people, despite suffering himself? Is that really a controversy?
Do you think a parent suffers less at the suffering and death of a beloved child because they are rich?
Been there twice and can affirm the answer is no. It's a pain you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy, rich or poor, privileged or otherwise.
Would really prefer it if we could find something else to chat about.
Indeed. Not sure why this was even raised as a discussion point, it’s bound to be an unpleasant topic and has sod all to do with politics. I’d rather plough through the usual morass of credulous No Dealers than posts about this TBH.
So now we now. Rich people can’t be as broken hearted as poor people, can’t grieve a loved one as deeply as poor people. I suppose it doesn’t hurt them as much when their partner leaves them or they are dying either.
Inverse snobbery is so embarrassing. No doubt the people who think like this are all in favour of equality
I’ve only read the excerpt posted by Zak Goldsmith but based on it, that isn’t what the article is saying at all.
It’s simply saying that Cameron hasn’t had direct contact with the most underfunded parts of the NHS and that his experience doesn’t make him an expert in the NHS.
Which is a reasonable point to make. It’s incredibly varied across the country.
I have regular contact with a certain part of the NHS here in Newcastle and they are fantastic. However 20 miles down the road in County Durham it’s very poor.
148grss is making the point that rich people suffer less.
The Guardian are calling David Cameron’s child dying, ‘privileged pain’. Defend it all you like
So now we now. Rich people can’t be as broken hearted as poor people, can’t grieve a loved one as deeply as poor people. I suppose it doesn’t hurt them as much when their partner leaves them or they are dying either.
Inverse snobbery is so embarrassing. No doubt the people who think like this are all in favour of equality
I’ve only read the excerpt posted by Zak Goldsmith but based on it, that isn’t what the article is saying at all.
It’s simply saying that Cameron hasn’t had direct contact with the most underfunded parts of the NHS and that his experience doesn’t make him an expert in the NHS.
Which is a reasonable point to make. It’s incredibly varied across the country.
I have regular contact with a certain part of the NHS here in Newcastle and they are fantastic. However 20 miles down the road in County Durham it’s very poor.
148grss is making the point that rich people suffer less.
The Guardian are calling David Cameron’s child dying, ‘privileged pain’. Defend it all you like
So now we now. Rich people can’t be as broken hearted as poor people, can’t grieve a loved one as deeply as poor people. I suppose it doesn’t hurt them as much when their partner leaves them or they are dying either.
Inverse snobbery is so embarrassing. No doubt the people who think like this are all in favour of equality
I’ve only read the excerpt posted by Zak Goldsmith but based on it, that isn’t what the article is saying at all.
It’s simply saying that Cameron hasn’t had direct contact with the most underfunded parts of the NHS and that his experience doesn’t make him an expert in the NHS.
Which is a reasonable point to make. It’s incredibly varied across the country.
I have regular contact with a certain part of the NHS here in Newcastle and they are fantastic. However 20 miles down the road in County Durham it’s very poor.
It's the phrase "privileged pain" that's the problem. I think it's fair to say that the NHS treatment of sick children is better than the treatment of elderly patients, but I wouldn't wish what those parents go through on my worst enemy.
So now we now. Rich people can’t be as broken hearted as poor people, can’t grieve a loved one as deeply as poor people. I suppose it doesn’t hurt them as much when their partner leaves them or they are dying either.
Inverse snobbery is so embarrassing. No doubt the people who think like this are all in favour of equality
I’ve only read the excerpt posted by Zak Goldsmith but based on it, that isn’t what the article is saying at all.
It’s simply saying that Cameron hasn’t had direct contact with the most underfunded parts of the NHS and that his experience doesn’t make him an expert in the NHS.
Which is a reasonable point to make. It’s incredibly varied across the country.
I have regular contact with a certain part of the NHS here in Newcastle and they are fantastic. However 20 miles down the road in County Durham it’s very poor.
148grss is making the point that rich people suffer less.
The Guardian are calling David Cameron’s child dying, ‘privileged pain’. Defend it all you like
Pretty unpleasant, but it's clearly not their corporate view, as it was rapidly pulled.
Did the editor not read it before it went to press?
I have no knowledge of the editorial procedures of the Guardian, but it's a fair question. That it was pulled in the manner it was suggest that its not an article of faith for them.
As I said below, I don't think there are gradations in the suffering experienced by a parent who loses a child, no matter how rich or poor. The experience of trying to arrange treatment for that child is likely to be considerably different, though.
Far more starkly, set against all that the experience of a son or daughter trying to arrange care for a parent with dementia. For the rich and the not rich, that is two wholly different worlds.
Going beyond that, I do think it possible Cameron overgeneralised the insights he derived from what he went through with his child. What I'm very clear on, for example, is that his policies on school inclusion for children with special needs have been extremely malign where there has been inadequate funding - with the effects hardest felt in the poorest areas.
Yup. The best specialists, doctors, nurses, want to work in hospitals in the richer areas together. Which is reasonable. Who wouldn’t?
I think the trust system is to blame.
There is no reason why Gastroenterology, for example, cannot be commonly ran across the country with common high standards. If not across the country, at least across regions.
Are we saying it is controversial that the suffering of a rich guy with all the privileges of power is not necessarily the same as the suffering of poor people, and that it is not okay to point out that this rich guy increased the suffering of poor people, despite suffering himself? Is that really a controversy?
Do you think a parent suffers less at the suffering and death of a beloved child because they are rich?
Been there twice and can affirm the answer is no. It's a pain you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy, rich or poor, privileged or otherwise.
Would really prefer it if we could find something else to chat about.
On topic I really can't help feeling that Pocahontas is the Donald's dream opponent. But then I don't think any of them will scare him much.
He needs to keep the consumer bubble inflated until November next year. Not easy but bullying the Fed to cut interest rates to zero is probably the best way of achieving it. My guess, FWIW, is that it won't be as close as it was the last time.
This time he’ll lose by 8m votes ?
Oh, he'll probably lose the popular vote again thanks to California but I think he will win more EC votes than he did the last time.
I can see him grabbing Virginia, but other than that, I can't see any other pickups.
Really? Virginia has been blue since 2008 and is trending away from the GOP in the past few elections when you account for the national picture, and the Republicans did poorly in the midterms there in 2017. Fairfax county is full of federal workers and it continues to grow.
Worth seeing what happens there in November when VA has its state midterms.
My personal opinion is that the 2020 election will be won and lost in Pennsylvania. I don’t see Trump holding WI.
Trump does hold Michigan though in the latest Firehouse strategies poll against Warren or Sanders (but not Biden) even if he is narrowly behind in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. So Michigan is likely the key state.
I think Virginia and Nevada are possible Trump pickups
So now we now. Rich people can’t be as broken hearted as poor people, can’t grieve a loved one as deeply as poor people. I suppose it doesn’t hurt them as much when their partner leaves them or they are dying either.
Inverse snobbery is so embarrassing. No doubt the people who think like this are all in favour of equality
I’ve only read the excerpt posted by Zak Goldsmith but based on it, that isn’t what the article is saying at all.
It’s simply saying that Cameron hasn’t had direct contact with the most underfunded parts of the NHS and that his experience doesn’t make him an expert in the NHS.
Which is a reasonable point to make. It’s incredibly varied across the country.
I have regular contact with a certain part of the NHS here in Newcastle and they are fantastic. However 20 miles down the road in County Durham it’s very poor.
148grss is making the point that rich people suffer less.
The Guardian are calling David Cameron’s child dying, ‘privileged pain’. Defend it all you like
I’m not defending that poorly chosen commentary but the general point of the article is reasonable.
Are we saying it is controversial that the suffering of a rich guy with all the privileges of power is not necessarily the same as the suffering of poor people, and that it is not okay to point out that this rich guy increased the suffering of poor people, despite suffering himself? Is that really a controversy?
Do you think a parent suffers less at the suffering and death of a beloved child because they are rich?
Been there twice and can affirm the answer is no. It's a pain you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy, rich or poor, privileged or otherwise.
Would really prefer it if we could find something else to chat about.
Indeed. Not sure why this was even raised as a discussion point, it’s bound to be an unpleasant topic and has sod all to do with politics. I’d rather plough through the usual morass of credulous No Dealers than posts about this TBH.
The NHS and David Cameron, the editorial of the leading left wing paper - ‘Sod all to do with politics’
Only on PB
Only from Bobajob, Thelastboyscout, BobaFett, HanDodges, Anazina, Jobabob.... 😴
Mr. grss, people with higher IQs have higher co-morbidity with mental illness. I wouldn't argue that the intelligent suffer more than the average or stupid when it comes to mourning their dead children.
Poor people can also have friends. And the wealthy can be lonely. Not to mention the effect of introversion or extroversion. And few people were as subject to the public spotlight as David Cameron was when he lost his child (sadly, one of the few things he and Gordon Brown had in common).
The comment in the Guardian was crass beyond belief, and your defence of it almost entirely depends upon introducing new factors independent of wealth.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/X565-HW49-CHR0-FYB4 (specifically this line in the abstract: Income did not appear to contribute negatively to bereavement itself but rather to the constellation of debilitating variables which surrounds those with low income.)
On topic I really can't help feeling that Pocahontas is the Donald's dream opponent. But then I don't think any of them will scare him much.
He needs to keep the consumer bubble inflated until November next year. Not easy but bullying the Fed to cut interest rates to zero is probably the best way of achieving it. My guess, FWIW, is that it won't be as close as it was the last time.
This time he’ll lose by 8m votes ?
Oh, he'll probably lose the popular vote again thanks to California but I think he will win more EC votes than he did the last time.
Against Biden maybe but he would probably lose the EC against him as well.
However I think Trump could even win the popular vote against Sanders or Warren, the likes of wealthy Orange Country California voted narrowly for Hillary but would not vote for a populist left liberal candidate like Warren or Sanders
So now we now. Rich people can’t be as broken hearted as poor people, can’t grieve a loved one as deeply as poor people. I suppose it doesn’t hurt them as much when their partner leaves them or they are dying either.
Inverse snobbery is so embarrassing. No doubt the people who think like this are all in favour of equality
I’ve only read the excerpt posted by Zak Goldsmith but based on it, that isn’t what the article is saying at all.
It’s simply saying that Cameron hasn’t had direct contact with the most underfunded parts of the NHS and that his experience doesn’t make him an expert in the NHS.
Which is a reasonable point to make. It’s incredibly varied across the country.
I have regular contact with a certain part of the NHS here in Newcastle and they are fantastic. However 20 miles down the road in County Durham it’s very poor.
148grss is making the point that rich people suffer less.
The Guardian are calling David Cameron’s child dying, ‘privileged pain’. Defend it all you like
I’m not defending that poorly chosen commentary but the general point of the article is reasonable.
No, it isn't. 'The general point' - that life is a great deal more difficult without money - was conflated with a crass attempt to put some kind of score on emotional pain.
(edit) I have just seen Peter's post, and will refrain from pursuing the topic any further.
On topic I really can't help feeling that Pocahontas is the Donald's dream opponent. But then I don't think any of them will scare him much.
He needs to keep the consumer bubble inflated until November next year. Not easy but bullying the Fed to cut interest rates to zero is probably the best way of achieving it. My guess, FWIW, is that it won't be as close as it was the last time.
This time he’ll lose by 8m votes ?
Oh, he'll probably lose the popular vote again thanks to California but I think he will win more EC votes than he did the last time.
I can see him grabbing Virginia, but other than that, I can't see any other pickups.
Really? Virginia has been blue since 2008 and is trending away from the GOP in the past few elections when you account for the national picture, and the Republicans did poorly in the midterms there in 2017. Fairfax county is full of federal workers and it continues to grow.
Worth seeing what happens there in November when VA has its state midterms.
My personal opinion is that the 2020 election will be won and lost in Pennsylvania. I don’t see Trump holding WI.
Trump does hold Michigan though in the latest Firehouse strategies poll against Warren or Sanders (but not Biden) even if he is narrowly behind in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. So Michigan is likely the key state.
I think Virginia and Nevada are possible Trump pickups
It’s highly unlikely Trump will win Michigan again. Dems won the 2018 midterms by 8 points there and easily held the senate seat. And the Dems will certainly give it more attention this time round.
I think Beto would be an excellent VP choice for the Dems. He won’t win Texas, but it will force the GOP to put effort into defending it, distracting them from the likes of PA.
O'Rourke is still young. If he keeps his nose clean and continues campaigning as he has so far, he could be a good Presidential candidate in 2028 (or 2024 if trump wins 2020) exactly for this reason. Texas is an absolute must for the Republicans, and it would harm them a lot if there is a genuine fight for the state (as I pointed out around the time of the Mid-Terms).
So now we now. Rich people can’t be as broken hearted as poor people, can’t grieve a loved one as deeply as poor people. I suppose it doesn’t hurt them as much when their partner leaves them or they are dying either.
Inverse snobbery is so embarrassing. No doubt the people who think like this are all in favour of equality
I’ve only read the excerpt posted by Zak Goldsmith but based on it, that isn’t what the article is saying at all.
It’s simply saying that Cameron hasn’t had direct contact with the most underfunded parts of the NHS and that his experience doesn’t make him an expert in the NHS.
Which is a reasonable point to make. It’s incredibly varied across the country.
I have regular contact with a certain part of the NHS here in Newcastle and they are fantastic. However 20 miles down the road in County Durham it’s very poor.
148grss is making the point that rich people suffer less.
The Guardian are calling David Cameron’s child dying, ‘privileged pain’. Defend it all you like
I’m not defending that poorly chosen commentary but the general point of the article is reasonable.
No, it isn't. 'The general point' - that life is a great deal more difficult without money - was conflated with a crass attempt to put some kind of score on emotional pain.
So now we now. Rich people can’t be as broken hearted as poor people, can’t grieve a loved one as deeply as poor people. I suppose it doesn’t hurt them as much when their partner leaves them or they are dying either.
Inverse snobbery is so embarrassing. No doubt the people who think like this are all in favour of equality
I’ve only read the excerpt posted by Zak Goldsmith but based on it, that isn’t what the article is saying at all.
It’s simply saying that Cameron hasn’t had direct contact with the most underfunded parts of the NHS and that his experience doesn’t make him an expert in the NHS.
Which is a reasonable point to make. It’s incredibly varied across the country.
I have regular contact with a certain part of the NHS here in Newcastle and they are fantastic. However 20 miles down the road in County Durham it’s very poor.
148grss is making the point that rich people suffer less.
The Guardian are calling David Cameron’s child dying, ‘privileged pain’. Defend it all you like
The case for Warren's strong betting position is that she's fought a vigorous campaign and lived down the usual stuff that every candidate has to go through (in her case Pocohantas, but opponents always find something), and that if she can knock out Sanders then most of his vote will switch to her, which would put her ahead. But it's tricky - the Sanders people who I know are wary of her as not consistently progressive (banker-bashing isn't always progressive and can be tokenism) and if she's aggressively anti-Sanders they won't come over even if he drops out. So she has to campaign positively and hope to edge him out as the most plausible progressive.
I think she's got a good shot - but the odds for the nomination should be about 5-2.
On topic I really can't help feeling that Pocahontas is the Donald's dream opponent. But then I don't think any of them will scare him much.
He needs to keep the consumer bubble inflated until November next year. Not easy but bullying the Fed to cut interest rates to zero is probably the best way of achieving it. My guess, FWIW, is that it won't be as close as it was the last time.
This time he’ll lose by 8m votes ?
Oh, he'll probably lose the popular vote again thanks to California but I think he will win more EC votes than he did the last time.
I can see him grabbing Virginia, but other than that, I can't see any other pickups.
Really? Virginia has been blue since 2008 and is trending away from the GOP in the past few elections when you account for the national picture, and the Republicans did poorly in the midterms there in 2017. Fairfax county is full of federal workers and it continues to grow.
Worth seeing what happens there in November when VA has its state midterms.
My personal opinion is that the 2020 election will be won and lost in Pennsylvania. I don’t see Trump holding WI.
Trump does hold Michigan though in the latest Firehouse strategies poll against Warren or Sanders (but not Biden) even if he is narrowly behind in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. So Michigan is likely the key state.
I think Virginia and Nevada are possible Trump pickups
It’s highly unlikely Trump will win Michigan again. Dems won the 2018 midterms by 8 points there and easily held the senate seat. And the Dems will certainly give it more attention this time round.
Latest Michigan poll has Trump beating Sanders 43% to 40% and Trump beating Warren 42% to 41% actually though Biden beats Trump 42% to 41%.
At least they’re consistent... When one of the lefts special interest groups drops a clanger... smear, smear, whataboutery, inverse snobbery and ‘oh guys can we just, like not talk about this FFS’
On topic I really can't help feeling that Pocahontas is the Donald's dream opponent. But then I don't think any of them will scare him much.
He needs to keep the consumer bubble inflated until November next year. Not easy but bullying the Fed to cut interest rates to zero is probably the best way of achieving it. My guess, FWIW, is that it won't be as close as it was the last time.
This time he’ll lose by 8m votes ?
Oh, he'll probably lose the popular vote again thanks to California but I think he will win more EC votes than he did the last time.
I can see him grabbing Virginia, but other than that, I can't see any other pickups.
.
My personal opinion is that the 2020 election will be won and lost in Pennsylvania. I don’t see Trump holding WI.
I think people underestimate the degree that Clinton lost a) because turnout amongst Dem electorate was down, which won't happen again, b) because Trump was viewed as a moderate Republican, which he isn't anymore, c) Clinton was especially disliked by the electorate, which no one else on the Dem side even comes close to.
I think Warren will end up being the compromise pick for those who don't want Biden and don't want Bernie OR that as things get to the final three, it will be Biden v Warren v Bernie and the Biden may get the plurality of delegates. Warren and Bernie will make a deal so one of them (most likely Warren in my view) will be the nominee but with a compromise platform and a compromise Veep.
As I keep banging on an on Trump got almost exactly the same vote share as Romany in the Rust Belt but Clinton lost up to 10 percentage points. Trump even got less absolute votes than Romney in Wisconsin.
For me the only thing stopping me saying Trump is losing the rustbelt guaranteed mortal lock bet the house on it is what the spineless jellyfish called NeverTrumps do this time out. NeverTrumps love all the judicial nominations Trump has done, they may well fall in behind this time out.
You see, I heavily discount analysis like this because it’s so obvious that you detest Trump.
I’m interested in betting and the cold sober analysis of the dynamics of the electoral college.
My initial view is that Trump has been very good at delivering on the manifesto for his base and the economy isn’t actually doing too badly. Therefore, it’s very far from the slam dunk his opponents make it out to be.
I think Beto would be an excellent VP choice for the Dems. He won’t win Texas, but it will force the GOP to put effort into defending it, distracting them from the likes of PA.
O'Rourke is still young. If he keeps his nose clean and continues campaigning as he has so far, he could be a good Presidential candidate in 2028 (or 2024 if trump wins 2020) exactly for this reason. Texas is an absolute must for the Republicans, and it would harm them a lot if there is a genuine fight for the state (as I pointed out around the time of the Mid-Terms).
Which is why he ought to have run for the Senate seat again. Too late for that now, of course. I'm not convinced O'Rourke on the VP ticket would make a huge amount of difference. The Democrats will give Texas a pretty good shot in any event.
Are we saying it is controversial that the suffering of a rich guy with all the privileges of power is not necessarily the same as the suffering of poor people, and that it is not okay to point out that this rich guy increased the suffering of poor people, despite suffering himself? Is that really a controversy?
Do you think a parent suffers less at the suffering and death of a beloved child because they are rich?
Been there twice and can affirm the answer is no. It's a pain you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy, rich or poor, privileged or otherwise.
Would really prefer it if we could find something else to chat about.
Indeed. Not sure why this was even raised as a discussion point, it’s bound to be an unpleasant topic and has sod all to do with politics. I’d rather plough through the usual morass of credulous No Dealers than posts about this TBH.
The NHS and David Cameron, the editorial of the leading left wing paper - ‘Sod all to do with politics’
Only on PB
Only from Bobajob, Thelastboyscout, BobaFett, HanDodges, Anazina, Jobabob.... 😴
I'm not sure in what sense the centrist and less popular Guardian is supposed to be the "leading left wing paper", over, say, the Mirror.
On topic I really can't help feeling that Pocahontas is the Donald's dream opponent. But then I don't think any of them will scare him much.
He needs to keep the consumer bubble inflated until November next year. Not easy but bullying the Fed to cut interest rates to zero is probably the best way of achieving it. My guess, FWIW, is that it won't be as close as it was the last time.
This time he’ll lose by 8m votes ?
Oh, he'll probably lose the popular vote again thanks to California but I think he will win more EC votes than he did the last time.
I can see him grabbing Virginia, but other than that, I can't see any other pickups.
Really? Virginia has been blue since 2008 and is trending away from the GOP in the past few elections when you account for the national picture, and the Republicans did poorly in the midterms there in 2017. Fairfax county is full of federal workers and it continues to grow.
Worth seeing what happens there in November when VA has its state midterms.
My personal opinion is that the 2020 election will be won and lost in Pennsylvania. I don’t see Trump holding WI.
Trump does hold Michigan though in the latest Firehouse strategies poll against Warren or Sanders (but not Biden) even if he is narrowly behind in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. So Michigan is likely the key state.
I think Virginia and Nevada are possible Trump pickups
It’s highly unlikely Trump will win Michigan again. Dems won the 2018 midterms by 8 points there and easily held the senate seat. And the Dems will certainly give it more attention this time round.
Latest Michigan poll has Trump beating Sanders 43% to 40% and Trump beating Warren 42% to 41% actually though Biden beats Trump 42% to 41%.
Polls over a year out from the election when we don’t know who the Dem candidate are near meaningless compares to actual election results.
Many seem to have forgotten just how close Trump’s victories in PA, WI and MI were. They were all unlikely wins that were achieved in near ideal circumstances (poor Dem candidate, incumbent D President, Trump getting benefit of the doubt) which won’t reoccur in 2020z
I think we can all agree that the Guardian and isam are equally as bad as each other.
Why? Because they wrote it and I dislike it? How would that be equal in any way?
No, you're right in this instance. It's just, in general, you're an awful person.
Go cry about it to the mods
Maybe something awful will happen to my family to cheer you up
Now now, I don't approve of that kind of thing, and I have said you're right about this Guardian article. I wish your family health and longevity, and that one of them points out to you that Enoch Powell was an arsehole.
On topic I really can't help feeling that Pocahontas is the Donald's dream opponent. But then I don't think any of them will scare him much.
He needs to keep the consumer bubble inflated until November next year. Not easy but bullying the Fed to cut interest rates to zero is probably the best way of achieving it. My guess, FWIW, is that it won't be as close as it was the last time.
This time he’ll lose by 8m votes ?
Oh, he'll probably lose the popular vote again thanks to California but I think he will win more EC votes than he did the last time.
I can see him grabbing Virginia, but other than that, I can't see any other pickups.
Really? Virginia has been blue since 2008 and is trending away from the GOP in the past few elections when you account for the national picture, and the Republicans did poorly in the midterms there in 2017. Fairfax county is full of federal workers and it continues to grow.
Worth seeing what happens there in November when VA has its state midterms.
My personal opinion is that the 2020 election will be won and lost in Pennsylvania. I don’t see Trump holding WI.
Trump does hold Michigan though in the latest Firehouse strategies poll against Warren or Sanders (but not Biden) even if he is narrowly behind in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. So Michigan is likely the key state.
I think Virginia and Nevada are possible Trump pickups
It’s highly unlikely Trump will win Michigan again. Dems won the 2018 midterms by 8 points there and easily held the senate seat. And the Dems will certainly give it more attention this time round.
Latest Michigan poll has Trump beating Sanders 43% to 40% and Trump beating Warren 42% to 41% actually though Biden beats Trump 42% to 41%.
Polls over a year out from the election when we don’t know who the Dem candidate are near meaningless compares to actual election results.
Many seem to have forgotten just how close Trump’s victories in PA, WI and MI were. They were all unlikely wins that were achieved in near ideal circumstances (poor Dem candidate, incumbent D President, Trump getting benefit of the doubt) which won’t reoccur in 2020z
Ignore poll results you dislike if you wish but the polling evidence is clear, Trump can beat Warren and Sanders but cannot beat Biden as it stands now and Michigan as a key swing state reflects that
I can see him grabbing Virginia, but other than that, I can't see any other pickups.
My personal opinion is that the 2020 election will be won and lost in Pennsylvania. I don’t see Trump holding WI.
I think people underestimate the degree that Clinton lost a) because turnout amongst Dem electorate was down, which won't happen again, b) because Trump was viewed as a moderate Republican, which he isn't anymore, c) Clinton was especially disliked by the electorate, which no one else on the Dem side even comes close to.
I think Warren will end up being the compromise pick for those who don't want Biden and don't want Bernie OR that as things get to the final three, it will be Biden v Warren v Bernie and the Biden may get the plurality of delegates. Warren and Bernie will make a deal so one of them (most likely Warren in my view) will be the nominee but with a compromise platform and a compromise Veep.
As I keep banging on an on Trump got almost exactly the same vote share as Romany in the Rust Belt but Clinton lost up to 10 percentage points. Trump even got less absolute votes than Romney in Wisconsin.
For me the only thing stopping me saying Trump is losing the rustbelt guaranteed mortal lock bet the house on it is what the spineless jellyfish called NeverTrumps do this time out. NeverTrumps love all the judicial nominations Trump has done, they may well fall in behind this time out.
You see, I heavily discount analysis like this because it’s so obvious that you detest Trump.
I’m interested in betting and the cold sober analysis of the dynamics of the electoral college.
My initial view is that Trump has been very good at delivering on the manifesto for his base and the economy isn’t actually doing too badly. Therefore, it’s very far from the slam dunk his opponents make it out to be.
I keep thinking that Trump only just won last time so there's a decent chance he won't win next time. But then I think back to the 2015 GE and Michael Portillo saying "parties in power do not increase their share of the vote at subsequent elections." Nothing is certain, and the Dems need to be ready to fight hard to win next year.
I think we can all agree that the Guardian and isam are equally as bad as each other.
Why? Because they wrote it and I dislike it? How would that be equal in any way?
No, you're right in this instance. It's just, in general, you're an awful person.
Go cry about it to the mods
Maybe something awful will happen to my family to cheer you up
Now now, I don't approve of that kind of thing, and I have said you're right about this Guardian article. I wish your family health and longevity, and that one of them points out to you that Enoch Powell was an arsehole.
You joined this site on Sep 1st. I doubt I have mentioned any support of Enoch Powell’s view on immigration for over two years.
If ever there were something to reaffirm my confirmation bias, that’d be it. His son dying is ‘privileged pain’.
Absolutely typical quite-rich-and-privileged-themselves Guardian think. What an embarrassment they are.
It speaks absolute volumes about the Guardian that an editorial as disgusting as that ever got as far as it did.
As you say, I bet a number of their key staff have very good private health insurance that they make good use of themselves.
Well we know the fastest way to get the ban hammer commenting on the graudian site is to ever mention how all their leading lights went to top public schools and are as rich as dave.
Agreed.
Out of respect for @Peter_the_Punter I’m not going to comment on this anymore.
On topic I really can't help feeling that Pocahontas is the Donald's dream opponent. But then I don't think any of them will scare him much.
He needs to keep the consumer bubble inflated until November next year. Not easy but bullying the Fed to cut interest rates to zero is probably the best way of achieving it. My guess, FWIW, is that it won't be as close as it was the last time.
This time he’ll lose by 8m votes ?
Oh, he'll probably lose the popular vote again thanks to California but I think he will win more EC votes than he did the last time.
I can see him grabbing Virginia, but other than that, I can't see any other pickups.
Really? Virginia has been blue since 2008 and is trending away from the GOP in the past few elections when you account for the national picture, and the Republicans did poorly in the midterms there in 2017. Fairfax county is full of federal workers and it continues to grow.
Worth seeing what happens there in November when VA has its state midterms.
My personal opinion is that the 2020 election will be won and lost in Pennsylvania. I don’t see Trump holding WI.
Trump does hold Michigan though in the latest Firehouse strategies poll against Warren or Sanders (but not Biden) even if he is narrowly behind in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. So Michigan is likely the key state.
I think Virginia and Nevada are possible Trump pickups
It’s highly unlikely Trump will win Michigan again. Dems won the 2018 midterms by 8 points there and easily held the senate seat. And the Dems will certainly give it more attention this time round.
Latest Michigan poll has Trump beating Sanders 43% to 40% and Trump beating Warren 42% to 41% actually though Biden beats Trump 42% to 41%.
Talk about burying the lede... EXCLUSIVE SURVEY: Democrats Lead Trump in Key Swing States
...Overall, Trump continues to struggle in these three states. He trails Biden in all three states, and only leads Warren and Sanders in Michigan. His approval rating is also underwater by 4 points in Michigan, 9 points in Pennsylvania, and 12 points in Wisconsin....
On topic I really can't help feeling that Pocahontas is the Donald's dream opponent. But then I don't think any of them will scare him much.
He needs to keep the consumer bubble inflated until November next year. Not easy but bullying the Fed to cut interest rates to zero is probably the best way of achieving it. My guess, FWIW, is that it won't be as close as it was the last time.
This time he’ll lose by 8m votes ?
Oh, he'll probably lose the popular vote again thanks to California but I think he will win more EC votes than he did the last time.
I can see him grabbing Virginia, but other than that, I can't see any other pickups.
Really? Virginia has been blue since 2008 and is trending away from the GOP in the past few elections when you account for the national picture, and the Republicans did poorly in the midterms there in 2017. Fairfax county is full of federal workers and it continues to grow.
Worth seeing what happens there in November when VA has its state midterms.
My personal opinion is that the 2020 election will be won and lost in Pennsylvania. I don’t see Trump holding WI.
Trump does hold Michigan though in the latest Firehouse strategies poll against Warren or Sanders (but not Biden) even if he is narrowly behind in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. So Michigan is likely the key state.
I think Virginia and Nevada are possible Trump pickups
It’s highly unlikely Trump will win Michigan again. Dems won the 2018 midterms by 8 points there and easily held the senate seat. And the Dems will certainly give it more attention this time round.
Latest Michigan poll has Trump beating Sanders 43% to 40% and Trump beating Warren 42% to 41% actually though Biden beats Trump 42% to 41%.
Polls over a year out from the election when we don’t know who the Dem candidate are near meaningless compares to actual election results.
Many seem to have forgotten just how close Trump’s victories in PA, WI and MI were. They were all unlikely wins that were achieved in near ideal circumstances (poor Dem candidate, incumbent D President, Trump getting benefit of the doubt) which won’t reoccur in 2020z
I'm long the Dems but these particular polls indicate a tight race. A long long long way to go in the General though.
On topic I really can't help feeling that Pocahontas is the Donald's dream opponent. But then I don't think any of them will scare him much.
He
This time he’ll lose by 8m votes ?
Oh, he'll probably lose the popular vote again thanks to California but I think he will win more EC votes than he did the last time.
I can see him grabbing Virginia, but other than that, I can't see any other pickups.
Really? Virginia has been blue since 2008 and is trending away from the GOP in the past few elections when you account for the national picture, and the Republicans did poorly in the midterms there in 2017. Fairfax county is full of federal workers and it continues to grow.
Worth seeing what happens there in November when VA has its state midterms.
My personal opinion is that the 2020 election will be won and lost in Pennsylvania. I don’t see Trump holding WI.
I think Virginia and Nevada are possible Trump pickups
It’s highly unlikely Trump will win Michigan again. Dems won the 2018 midterms by 8 points there and easily held the senate seat. And the Dems will certainly give it more attention this time round.
Latest Michigan poll has Trump beating Sanders 43% to 40% and Trump beating Warren 42% to 41% actually though Biden beats Trump 42% to 41%.
Polls over a year out from the election when we don’t know who the Dem candidate are near meaningless compares to actual election results.
Many seem to have forgotten just how close Trump’s victories in PA, WI and MI were. They were all unlikely wins that were achieved in near ideal circumstances (poor Dem candidate, incumbent D President, Trump getting benefit of the doubt) which won’t reoccur in 2020z
Ignore poll results you dislike if you wish but the polling evidence is clear, Trump can beat Warren and Sanders but cannot beat Biden as it stands now and Michigan as a key swing state reflects that
This far out, they’re not evidence (and appear to show 15-20% undecided anyway). Now if the polls are saying the same thing this time next year you will have a point.
I personally expect the Dem nominee to win all the Clinton states plus MI, WI and PA, plus maybe Arizona too. NH is probably the most vulnerable Dem state.
Michel Barnier has written that the backstop “is not about changing the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. That is none of the EU’s business…” Yet that is precisely what the backstop does do. He goes on to claim that “the backstop fully respects the carefully negotiated balance found in that Belfast/Good Friday Agreement between competing political views and different identities in Northern Ireland”: he is wrong – he is riding rough shod over our Agreement. That is why Unionists oppose it and why the Government, having listened and learned, now insists that the backstop must go.
I keep thinking that Trump only just won last time so there's a decent chance he won't win next time. But then I think back to the 2015 GE and Michael Portillo saying "parties in power do not increase their share of the vote at subsequent elections." Nothing is certain, and the Dems need to be ready to fight hard to win next year.
Nothing is certain, and events can shift the dial in a matter of hours. So it would be foolish to be unequivocal about the outcome. That said, I think it's uphill for Trump from this point. Impeachment proceedings are going to start and there will be a drip drip effect as the revelations gets aired on tv, which will help them cut through. Objectively, there's a huge quantity of extremely sketchy stuff going on directly attributable to Trump and his cronies, and if it cuts through he is toast. The senate won't convict him, but the damage will be done (and rightly so).
Comments
But we know the builder dude who did a bunch of friends' houses and he just comes over with his friend from school and her dog and builds stuff and Mrs In Tokyo helps out and he asks me for money every now and then. So I don't really have a budget or a schedule, just see how it goes, I never did mind about the little things etc etc.
We already know that poorer people are more likely to experience mental illness, likely due to the fact they don't have the resources to take time to focus on their mental health alone, why should grief and bereavement be any different?
Sure, the pain is immeasurable, that is humanity, each person suffers loss as an individual. But the material impact of that loss is more on those who already have less.
P.S I also have the anecdotal tale of me and my best friend from uni both losing a parent at aged 11. His dad left behind a local government pension for the family, which allowed them to get better mental health care and his mum didn't have to go back to work. My mum's passing did not leave as much of a windfall, and my dad had to work, and I did not get immediate counselling. Now, granted, there were loads of other differences between our situations and neither of us are perfectly mentally health people, but even between us we recognised the economic stability he enjoyed post trauma that I didn't had impacts.
Poor people can also have friends. And the wealthy can be lonely. Not to mention the effect of introversion or extroversion. And few people were as subject to the public spotlight as David Cameron was when he lost his child (sadly, one of the few things he and Gordon Brown had in common).
The comment in the Guardian was crass beyond belief, and your defence of it almost entirely depends upon introducing new factors independent of wealth.
Inverse snobbery is so embarrassing. No doubt the people who think like this are all in favour of equality
'Brexit: UK will reject any delay offer, PM to tell Juncker'
Didn't the HoC tell Boris he couldn't do this, or words to that effect?
In addition Trump has to ensure there is no upset in the large swingy states such as Ohio and Florida.
But you're right in as much as, in 13 months time, we will be pouring over the exit polls from Pa.
I hope neither of them have the experience the Cameron family have had.
Just carry on defending the indefensible and leave me out of it. You are the site jester but jesters aren’t my thing.
Would really prefer it if we could find something else to chat about.
It’s simply saying that Cameron hasn’t had direct contact with the most underfunded parts of the NHS and that his experience doesn’t make him an expert in the NHS.
Which is a reasonable point to make. It’s incredibly varied across the country.
I have regular contact with a certain part of the NHS here in Newcastle and they are fantastic. However 20 miles down the road in County Durham it’s very poor.
https://www.nmrn.org.uk/our-museums/national-museum-royal-navy-hartlepool
The latest Yougov Iowa poll has Biden ahead on 29%, Sanders second on 26% and Warren 3rd on 17%
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1COIH-m2a-0WUpiTfhf-_GddIsopndHkT/preview
Even for those who think that the EU will crack under the pressure of a No-Deal brexit, you have to admit that the EU are very unlikely to be acessories to Johnson breaking the law.
As I said below, I don't think there are gradations in the suffering experienced by a parent who loses a child, no matter how rich or poor. The experience of trying to arrange treatment for that child is likely to be considerably different, though.
Far more starkly, set against all that the experience of a son or daughter trying to arrange care for a parent with dementia. For the rich and the not rich, that is two wholly different worlds.
Going beyond that, I do think it possible Cameron overgeneralised the insights he derived from what he went through with his child.
What I'm very clear on, for example, is that his policies on school inclusion for children with special needs have been extremely malign where there has been inadequate funding - with the effects hardest felt in the poorest areas.
Indeed. Not sure why this was even raised as a discussion point, it’s bound to be an unpleasant topic and has sod all to do with politics. I’d rather plough through the usual morass of credulous No Dealers than posts about this TBH.
The Guardian are calling David Cameron’s child dying, ‘privileged pain’. Defend it all you like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heugh_Battery
(the official website http://www.heughbattery.co.uk/ just doesn't seem to give a sense of it)
I think the trust system is to blame.
There is no reason why Gastroenterology, for example, cannot be commonly ran across the country with common high standards. If not across the country, at least across regions.
I think Virginia and Nevada are possible Trump pickups
Only on PB
Only from Bobajob, Thelastboyscout, BobaFett, HanDodges, Anazina, Jobabob.... 😴
https://www.theguardian.com/money/work-blog/2014/jan/10/bereavement-leave-your-rights-support-work
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/X565-HW49-CHR0-FYB4 (specifically this line in the abstract: Income did not appear to contribute negatively to bereavement itself but rather to the constellation of debilitating variables which surrounds those with low income.)
However I think Trump could even win the popular vote against Sanders or Warren, the likes of wealthy Orange Country California voted narrowly for Hillary but would not vote for a populist left liberal candidate like Warren or Sanders
'The general point' - that life is a great deal more difficult without money - was conflated with a crass attempt to put some kind of score on emotional pain.
(edit) I have just seen Peter's post, and will refrain from pursuing the topic any further.
It's just, in general, you're an awful person.
I think she's got a good shot - but the odds for the nomination should be about 5-2.
http://firehousestrategies.com/exclusive-survey-democrats-lead-trump-in-key-swing-states/
Like clockwork
I’m interested in betting and the cold sober analysis of the dynamics of the electoral college.
My initial view is that Trump has been very good at delivering on the manifesto for his base and the economy isn’t actually doing too badly. Therefore, it’s very far from the slam dunk his opponents make it out to be.
Maybe something awful will happen to my family to cheer you up
I'm not convinced O'Rourke on the VP ticket would make a huge amount of difference. The Democrats will give Texas a pretty good shot in any event.
Isn't this what TMay did, and both wings gave her the finger?
https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1173505932560601088?s=20
Many seem to have forgotten just how close Trump’s victories in PA, WI and MI were. They were all unlikely wins that were achieved in near ideal circumstances (poor Dem candidate, incumbent D President, Trump getting benefit of the doubt) which won’t reoccur in 2020z
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1173368423381962752
🤔
Out of respect for @Peter_the_Punter I’m not going to comment on this anymore.
EXCLUSIVE SURVEY: Democrats Lead Trump in Key Swing States
...Overall, Trump continues to struggle in these three states. He trails Biden in all three states, and only leads Warren and Sanders in Michigan. His approval rating is also underwater by 4 points in Michigan, 9 points in Pennsylvania, and 12 points in Wisconsin....
I personally expect the Dem nominee to win all the Clinton states plus MI, WI and PA, plus maybe Arizona too. NH is probably the most vulnerable Dem state.
Michel Barnier has written that the backstop “is not about changing the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. That is none of the EU’s business…” Yet that is precisely what the backstop does do. He goes on to claim that “the backstop fully respects the carefully negotiated balance found in that Belfast/Good Friday Agreement between competing political views and different identities in Northern Ireland”: he is wrong – he is riding rough shod over our Agreement. That is why Unionists oppose it and why the Government, having listened and learned, now insists that the backstop must go.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/09/david-trimble-we-can-do-better-than-the-backstop-why-the-withdrawal-agreement-breaches-the-terms-of-the-belfast-agreement.html
That said, I think it's uphill for Trump from this point. Impeachment proceedings are going to start and there will be a drip drip effect as the revelations gets aired on tv, which will help them cut through. Objectively, there's a huge quantity of extremely sketchy stuff going on directly attributable to Trump and his cronies, and if it cuts through he is toast. The senate won't convict him, but the damage will be done (and rightly so).