Look I'm not a Patel supporter, my only point is it could happen. If Johnson is seen to be a trimmer, a backslider or a 'betrayer' and loses his way, then attention could fall on a high profile 'full fat' alternative. Someone who is 'one of us'. And Patel is all of that.
I'm not saying it can't happen but if it did, she would be the first PM in living memory with an IQ in double digits. This would be a serious handicap in carrying out the job to an acceptable standard.
What is it about the ethnic minority MP with both a degree and a postgraduate degree and a career outside Westminster with companies like Diageo that makes you think she is stupid?
Look I'm not a Patel supporter, my only point is it could happen. If Johnson is seen to be a trimmer, a backslider or a 'betrayer' and loses his way, then attention could fall on a high profile 'full fat' alternative. Someone who is 'one of us'. And Patel is all of that.
I'm not saying it can't happen but if it did, she would be the first PM in living memory with an IQ in double digits. This would be a serious handicap in carrying out the job to an acceptable standard.
What is it about the ethnic minority MP with both a degree and a postgraduate degree and a career outside Westminster with companies like Diageo that makes you think she is stupid?
What is it about the ethnic minority MP with both a degree and a postgraduate degree and a career outside Westminster with companies like Diageo that makes you think she is stupid?
She is far from stupid. She is of slightly below average intelligence. This does make her relatively stupid for her position - since most cabinet ministers are of well above average intelligence - but being confident and driven and hard-working and of a robust nature more than compensates. Nevertheless it is clear that she is beyond her limits at Home Secretary, therefore the notion of her as PM is not a particularly welcome one.
I'm now very long Biden (And Warren and Klob; neutral Sanders). Here's the theory behind the position
All the signs are, Sanders is going to be hammered in tonight's debate. Negative headlines followed by a win for Biden in South Carolina, hopefully that'll push Biden in and Sanders out where I'll re-equalise them.
The markets are primed to over react to North Carolina. I too have gone long Biden and Warren for exactly this reason.
I am digging a bigger and bigger Bloomberg hole as I do so.
One thing I'm only just picking up on though - does Warren have an African America problem? I haven't really paid much attention to demographic breakdowns but if Warren is not connecting with Black people she is totally dead and my long is a total bust.
We have the Data Protection Act (2018) which effectively has brought much of the GDPR regulations into UK law - I don't recall a mass Conservative revolt about any of that and the Act received Royal Assent on 23/5/18.
Under the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, the remaining GDPR regulations became part of UK law on the UK leaving the EU.
Carswell and Hannan doesn't seem to realise the stable door is swinging in the breeze and the horse is halfway up the hill.
What is it about the ethnic minority MP with both a degree and a postgraduate degree and a career outside Westminster with companies like Diageo that makes you think she is stupid?
She is far from stupid. She is of slightly below average intelligence
Look I'm not a Patel supporter, my only point is it could happen. If Johnson is seen to be a trimmer, a backslider or a 'betrayer' and loses his way, then attention could fall on a high profile 'full fat' alternative. Someone who is 'one of us'. And Patel is all of that.
I'm not saying it can't happen but if it did, she would be the first PM in living memory with an IQ in double digits. This would be a serious handicap in carrying out the job to an acceptable standard.
What is it about the ethnic minority MP with both a degree and a postgraduate degree and a career outside Westminster with companies like Diageo that makes you think she is stupid?
Look I'm not a Patel supporter, my only point is it could happen. If Johnson is seen to be a trimmer, a backslider or a 'betrayer' and loses his way, then attention could fall on a high profile 'full fat' alternative. Someone who is 'one of us'. And Patel is all of that.
I'm not saying it can't happen but if it did, she would be the first PM in living memory with an IQ in double digits. This would be a serious handicap in carrying out the job to an acceptable standard.
What is it about the ethnic minority MP with both a degree and a postgraduate degree and a career outside Westminster with companies like Diageo that makes you think she is stupid?
Look I'm not a Patel supporter, my only point is it could happen. If Johnson is seen to be a trimmer, a backslider or a 'betrayer' and loses his way, then attention could fall on a high profile 'full fat' alternative. Someone who is 'one of us'. And Patel is all of that.
I'm not saying it can't happen but if it did, she would be the first PM in living memory with an IQ in double digits. This would be a serious handicap in carrying out the job to an acceptable standard.
What is it about the ethnic minority MP with both a degree and a postgraduate degree and a career outside Westminster with companies like Diageo that makes you think she is stupid?
Err... getting herself fired for running her own Foreign Policy? Threatening to starve the Irish over Brexit? Some of her comments on QT and other TV appearances.
She does not exactly dazzle the audience with her brilliance.
Look I'm not a Patel supporter, my only point is it could happen. If Johnson is seen to be a trimmer, a backslider or a 'betrayer' and loses his way, then attention could fall on a high profile 'full fat' alternative. Someone who is 'one of us'. And Patel is all of that.
I'm not saying it can't happen but if it did, she would be the first PM in living memory with an IQ in double digits. This would be a serious handicap in carrying out the job to an acceptable standard.
What is it about the ethnic minority MP with both a degree and a postgraduate degree and a career outside Westminster with companies like Diageo that makes you think she is stupid?
To be fair, Richard Burgon went to Cambridge.
And your point is?
It doesn't guarantee that someone is especially intelligent.
What is it about the ethnic minority MP with both a degree and a postgraduate degree and a career outside Westminster with companies like Diageo that makes you think she is stupid?
She is far from stupid. She is of slightly below average intelligence
You think her IQ is 99 or lower?
It's pretty tedious, saying people are morons or of low IQ. kinabalu isn't the only or most prolific offender.
Look I'm not a Patel supporter, my only point is it could happen. If Johnson is seen to be a trimmer, a backslider or a 'betrayer' and loses his way, then attention could fall on a high profile 'full fat' alternative. Someone who is 'one of us'. And Patel is all of that.
I'm not saying it can't happen but if it did, she would be the first PM in living memory with an IQ in double digits. This would be a serious handicap in carrying out the job to an acceptable standard.
What is it about the ethnic minority MP with both a degree and a postgraduate degree and a career outside Westminster with companies like Diageo that makes you think she is stupid?
What is it about the ethnic minority MP with both a degree and a postgraduate degree and a career outside Westminster with companies like Diageo that makes you think she is stupid?
She is far from stupid. She is of slightly below average intelligence. This does make her relatively stupid for her position - since most cabinet ministers are of well above average intelligence - but being confident and driven and hard-working and of a robust nature more than compensates. Nevertheless it is clear that she is beyond her limits at Home Secretary, therefore the notion of her as PM is not a particularly welcome one.
I'm pretty sure she's of above average intelligence.
Hello, I have a PhD in computing science. I have no clue what point 10 is supposed to mean.
The CCPA is a California law. Even the USA is discovering that without CCPA and GDPR type laws, many companies abuse personal data.
All the GDPR says is that data about me is mine and companies have to manage my data like any other asset of mine that they have access to.
As for your Point 10, I think what he is trying to say is that if our personal data is abused it is our fault for not looking after it and disclosing it in the first place.
This does make her relatively stupid for her position - since most cabinet ministers are of well above average intelligence - but being confident and driven and hard-working and of a robust nature more than compensates.
It would be interesting to see the evidence that "most cabinet ministers are of well above average intelligence."
How do you get to be an MP and then get into the Cabinet?
Party loyalty and the ability to network are obviously much more important than intelligence, independence of thinking & intellectual curiosity. In fact, the latter are hindrances rather than helps.
So, I suspect the reverse is true. If a sample of 200 Cabinet ministers (cross-parties) are compared to a random sample of 200 people, then the decrement will be in the Cabinet sample.
Hello, I have a PhD in computing science. I have no clue what point 10 is supposed to mean.
I assume he means GDPR gets in the way of other more effective protection and consumer control by being overly bureaucratic. Actually that's the best point he makes. The list is nonsense.
What is it about the ethnic minority MP with both a degree and a postgraduate degree and a career outside Westminster with companies like Diageo that makes you think she is stupid?
She is far from stupid. She is of slightly below average intelligence. This does make her relatively stupid for her position - since most cabinet ministers are of well above average intelligence - but being confident and driven and hard-working and of a robust nature more than compensates. Nevertheless it is clear that she is beyond her limits at Home Secretary, therefore the notion of her as PM is not a particularly welcome one.
I'm pretty sure she's of above average intelligence.
I am pretty sure that, from the shoulders up, she is one of the more attractive MPs that make certain Tories tumescent to the point they will forgive her anything. Their lower brain is in control
It would be interesting to see the evidence that "most cabinet ministers are of well above average intelligence."
How do you get to be an MP and then get into the Cabinet?
Party loyalty and the ability to network are obviously much more important than intelligence, independence of thinking & intellectual curiosity. In fact, the latter are hindrances rather than helps.
So, I suspect the reverse is true. If a sample of 200 Cabinet ministers (cross-parties) are compared to a random sample of 200 people, then the decrement will be in the Cabinet sample.
No way. If we could arrange that test I would bet you as much as you like that the Cabinet 200 would beat the Random 200 hands down.
This does make her relatively stupid for her position - since most cabinet ministers are of well above average intelligence - but being confident and driven and hard-working and of a robust nature more than compensates.
It would be interesting to see the evidence that "most cabinet ministers are of well above average intelligence."
How do you get to be an MP and then get into the Cabinet?
Party loyalty and the ability to network are obviously much more important than intelligence, independence of thinking & intellectual curiosity. In fact, the latter are hindrances rather than helps.
So, I suspect the reverse is true. If a sample of 200 Cabinet ministers (cross-parties) are compared to a random sample of 200 people, then the decrement will be in the Cabinet sample.
12 dead @2% = at least 600 infected, probably multiple times that because there will be many, as in China neither cured or dead. Iran are not even finding 10% of those infected right now.
Take a look at the number of cases outside China on the logarithmic scale. (Scroll down and click on logarithmic.)
You'll see that is basically a straight line. That means the growth is exponential. It is growing an order of magnitude every 20 days.
18 Feb 1,000 10 Mar 10,000 30 Mar 100,000 19 Apr 1,000,000 9 May 10,000,000 29 May 100,000,000 18 Jun 1,000,000,000 6 Jul everyone
But this won't happen for a variety of reasons. It is worth watching this chart to see when the straight line begins to deviate in a clockwise direction. That will mean that the exponential growth is slowing down.
The graph of death rate on that site appears to be levelling out at well above 2%.
Pity the poor Priti Patel twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1232202926329909248?s=19
The civil service should be careful not to overplay their hand. In Patel they may be unwittingly creating a rival to Johnson down the line.
What? You mean another vacuous, policy-free politician who plays to the popular audience whilst Rome burns?
I suspect Patel would play to the 'popular audience' even more than the current PM. Quite a bit more, actually.
Maybe she could provide the "creative destruction" so craved by the madder "advisors" clustering around Johnson? I suspect that after those two clowns, the UK would unrecognisable from its current (or former) self.
Look I'm not a Patel supporter, my only point is it could happen. If Johnson is seen to be a trimmer, a backslider or a 'betrayer' and loses his way, then attention could fall on a high profile 'full fat' alternative. Someone who is 'one of us'. And Patel is all of that.
I am not saying Patel cannot take over from Johnson. She could do so.
I am saying it would be a disaster for the country.
The Tory fanboy right wingers on here will love her though, will be having wet dreams about her being PM and deporting all and sundry whilst locking up the remainder of the non Tories etc.
It would be interesting to see the evidence that "most cabinet ministers are of well above average intelligence."
How do you get to be an MP and then get into the Cabinet?
Party loyalty and the ability to network are obviously much more important than intelligence, independence of thinking & intellectual curiosity. In fact, the latter are hindrances rather than helps.
So, I suspect the reverse is true. If a sample of 200 Cabinet ministers (cross-parties) are compared to a random sample of 200 people, then the decrement will be in the Cabinet sample.
No way. If we could arrange that test I would bet you as much as you like that the Cabinet 200 would beat the Random 200 hands down.
Above average but not necessarily well above. People forget the bump at the bottom owing to head injuries and the like. It depends what "well" means.
Hello, I have a PhD in computing science. I have no clue what point 10 is supposed to mean.
I seem to recall that USA tech companies are signing up to GDPR as a good standard.
Bannerman and Carswell are both talking bollocks, and seem to be unaware that much of this privacy and data protection law predates the GDPR, some of it goes back to the 1980s. Obviously companies were "against" it, they'd be against anything that costs them to implement, but that doesn't mean that data and privacy protection are a bad idea.
Given that internet services operate globally there's little to no advantage in a race to the bottom, as any UK internet service would have to comply with the GDPR to serve the EU, and whatever the US finally adopts as well. It's effectively no different from an international techincal standard, you implement the standard and deviate from it at your peril. Brexiteers who think leaving the EU means we should do everything differently are morons.
I'm pretty sure she's of above average intelligence.
Possibly, by a smidgen. But I still think just slightly below is more likely. I'm happy to go with bang on average. That won't be far wrong either way. She's not very bright but she's no moron.
Mrs C, I'd love to, but unfortunately a Mayan prophecy indicates the world will be destroyed by the dreaded Galactic Scorpion of Doom if I ever use quotes.
Hello, I have a PhD in computing science. I have no clue what point 10 is supposed to mean.
I assume he means GDPR gets in the way of other more effective protection and consumer control by being overly bureaucratic. Actually that's the best point he makes. The list is nonsense.
I think it's unavoidably bueracratic, if you don't mandate standards and police them companies will do their own thing and in most cases make a hash of it. Sometimes it really is better to say this is good practice, now do it or else.
Hello, I have a PhD in computing science. I have no clue what point 10 is supposed to mean.
I seem to recall that USA tech companies are signing up to GDPR as a good standard.
Bannerman and Carswell are both talking bollocks, and seem to be unaware that much of this privacy and data protection law predates the GDPR, some of it goes back to the 1980s. Obviously companies were "against" it, they'd be against anything that costs them to implement, but that doesn't mean that data and privacy protection are a bad idea.
Given that internet services operate globally there's little to no advantage in a race to the bottom, as any UK internet service would have to comply with the GDPR to serve the EU, and whatever the US finally adopts as well. It's effectively no different from an international techincal standard, you implement the standard and deviate from it at your peril. Brexiteers who think leaving the EU means we should do everything differently are morons.
Yup. Bit difficult to do all that fancy Data Science, AI etc stuff without the data.
Hello, I have a PhD in computing science. I have no clue what point 10 is supposed to mean.
The CCPA is a California law. Even the USA is discovering that without CCPA and GDPR type laws, many companies abuse personal data.
All the GDPR says is that data about me is mine and companies have to manage my data like any other asset of mine that they have access to.
As for your Point 10, I think what he is trying to say is that if our personal data is abused it is our fault for not looking after it and disclosing it in the first place.
Isn't Carswell a Libertarian of sorts ? A philosophy that says the powerful should be free to prey on the weak unhindered by state interference.
12 dead @2% = at least 600 infected, probably multiple times that because there will be many, as in China neither cured or dead. Iran are not even finding 10% of those infected right now.
Take a look at the number of cases outside China on the logarithmic scale. (Scroll down and click on logarithmic.)
You'll see that is basically a straight line. That means the growth is exponential. It is growing an order of magnitude every 20 days.
18 Feb 1,000 10 Mar 10,000 30 Mar 100,000 19 Apr 1,000,000 9 May 10,000,000 29 May 100,000,000 18 Jun 1,000,000,000 6 Jul everyone
But this won't happen for a variety of reasons. It is worth watching this chart to see when the straight line begins to deviate in a clockwise direction. That will mean that the exponential growth is slowing down.
The graph of death rate on that site appears to be levelling out at well above 2%.
Mrs C, I'd love to, but unfortunately a Mayan prophecy indicates the world will be destroyed by the dreaded Galactic Scorpion of Doom if I ever use quotes.
Pity the poor Priti Patel twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1232202926329909248?s=19
The civil service should be careful not to overplay their hand. In Patel they may be unwittingly creating a rival to Johnson down the line.
What? You mean another vacuous, policy-free politician who plays to the popular audience whilst Rome burns?
I suspect Patel would play to the 'popular audience' even more than the current PM. Quite a bit more, actually.
Maybe she could provide the "creative destruction" so craved by the madder "advisors" clustering around Johnson? I suspect that after those two clowns, the UK would unrecognisable from its current (or former) self.
Look I'm not a Patel supporter, my only point is it could happen. If Johnson is seen to be a trimmer, a backslider or a 'betrayer' and loses his way, then attention could fall on a high profile 'full fat' alternative. Someone who is 'one of us'. And Patel is all of that.
I am not saying Patel cannot take over from Johnson. She could do so.
I am saying it would be a disaster for the country.
The Tory fanboy right wingers on here will love her though, will be having wet dreams about her being PM and deporting all and sundry whilst locking up the remainder of the non Tories etc.
I am not a fan of Priti Patel and shudder at the thought of her being PM. She is too right wing for me and her immigration proposals will need amending in several areas
It's pretty tedious, saying people are morons or of low IQ. kinabalu isn't the only or most prolific offender.
No, I rarely venture into this area. However people were discussing Patel's PM prospects and in that context her relative lack of grey matter (which is undeniable) is IMO relevant.
As compared to, for example, the gratuitous Burgon and Abbott abuse that one often encounters.
Mrs C, I'd love to, but unfortunately a Mayan prophecy indicates the world will be destroyed by the dreaded Galactic Scorpion of Doom if I ever use quotes.
I was just beginning to admire your restraint and then you tell us it was Hobson's choice
Hello, I have a PhD in computing science. I have no clue what point 10 is supposed to mean.
I assume he means GDPR gets in the way of other more effective protection and consumer control by being overly bureaucratic. Actually that's the best point he makes. The list is nonsense.
I think it's unavoidably bueracratic, if you don't mandate standards and police them companies will do their own thing and in most cases make a hash of it. Sometimes it really is better to say this is good practice, now do it or else.
I think GDPR is more bureaucratic (although not necessarily more intrusive) than it needs be. The question though is whether the UK should sign up. Of course it should, for the reasons you have given on this thread.
Pity the poor Priti Patel twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1232202926329909248?s=19
The civil service should be careful not to overplay their hand. In Patel they may be unwittingly creating a rival to Johnson down the line.
What? You mean another vacuous, policy-free politician who plays to the popular audience whilst Rome burns?
I suspect Patel would play to the 'popular audience' even more than the current PM. Quite a bit more, actually.
Maybe she could provide the "creative destruction" so craved by the madder "advisors" clustering around Johnson? I suspect that after those two clowns, the UK would unrecognisable from its current (or former) self.
Look I'm not a Patel supporter, my only point is it could happen. If Johnson is seen to be a trimmer, a backslider or a 'betrayer' and loses his way, then attention could fall on a high profile 'full fat' alternative. Someone who is 'one of us'. And Patel is all of that.
I am not saying Patel cannot take over from Johnson. She could do so.
I am saying it would be a disaster for the country.
The Tory fanboy right wingers on here will love her though, will be having wet dreams about her being PM and deporting all and sundry whilst locking up the remainder of the non Tories etc.
I am not a fan of Priti Patel and shudder at the thought of her being PM. She is too right wing for me and her immigration proposals will need amending in several areas
Her immigration proposals (non-EU) are far more liberal than anything we ever had under either May or Cameron.
It's pretty tedious, saying people are morons or of low IQ. kinabalu isn't the only or most prolific offender.
No, I rarely venture into this area. However people were discussing Patel's PM prospects and in that context her relative lack of grey matter (which is undeniable) is IMO relevant.
As compared to, for example, the gratuitous Burgon and Abbott abuse that one often encounters.
What evidence do you have for a lack of grey matter.
I don't just find it undeniable, I outright deny it. She strikes me as very intelligent.
I am not a fan of Priti Patel and shudder at the thought of her being PM. She is too right wing for me and her immigration proposals will need amending in several areas
Oddly enough, it's not the immigration policy per se with which I have a problem - treating all prospective migrants equally from wherever they originate seems inherently reasonable - but her comments on the "economically inactive" which have really grated with me.
There are those who can't work, those who no longer want to work so if you want to do something to help those who do want to contribute, put some policies in place to make it easier for carers to find work and also support those with significant disabilities (the figures for unemployment among blind and partially sighted people are appalling).
If you want to "level up", encourage companies to provide work for carers and for those with disabilities, Make it easier for these groups and others to get into the workplace and stay in the workplace. That's the real challenge rather than migration.
Mrs C, I'd love to, but unfortunately a Mayan prophecy indicates the world will be destroyed by the dreaded Galactic Scorpion of Doom if I ever use quotes.
I would like to see the Scorpion of Doom Mr Dancer. Please use the button
What is it about the ethnic minority MP with both a degree and a postgraduate degree and a career outside Westminster with companies like Diageo that makes you think she is stupid?
She is far from stupid. She is of slightly below average intelligence. This does make her relatively stupid for her position - since most cabinet ministers are of well above average intelligence - but being confident and driven and hard-working and of a robust nature more than compensates. Nevertheless it is clear that she is beyond her limits at Home Secretary, therefore the notion of her as PM is not a particularly welcome one.
I'm pretty sure she's of above average intelligence.
What is it about the ethnic minority MP with both a degree and a postgraduate degree and a career outside Westminster with companies like Diageo that makes you think she is stupid?
She is far from stupid. She is of slightly below average intelligence. This does make her relatively stupid for her position - since most cabinet ministers are of well above average intelligence - but being confident and driven and hard-working and of a robust nature more than compensates. Nevertheless it is clear that she is beyond her limits at Home Secretary, therefore the notion of her as PM is not a particularly welcome one.
I'm pretty sure she's of above average intelligence.
I would think so too in terms of the general population - but below the level normally expected of someone in her position.
I am amused by people who were perfectly happy to hear Cameron and May attack immigration and hear them talk about how we need to get immigration down to the tens of thousands . . .
. . . are utterly appalled at Johnson and Patel for treating migrants fairly and equitably, abolishing the tens of thousand target and slashing the income required in order to be able to migrate here making it easier than it used to be for non-EU migrants.
12 dead @2% = at least 600 infected, probably multiple times that because there will be many, as in China neither cured or dead. Iran are not even finding 10% of those infected right now.
Take a look at the number of cases outside China on the logarithmic scale. (Scroll down and click on logarithmic.)
You'll see that is basically a straight line. That means the growth is exponential. It is growing an order of magnitude every 20 days.
18 Feb 1,000 10 Mar 10,000 30 Mar 100,000 19 Apr 1,000,000 9 May 10,000,000 29 May 100,000,000 18 Jun 1,000,000,000 6 Jul everyone
But this won't happen for a variety of reasons. It is worth watching this chart to see when the straight line begins to deviate in a clockwise direction. That will mean that the exponential growth is slowing down.
For most epidemics, the curve for the total number of people infected is a sigmoid curve. This starts off as exponential growth, becomes linear, then the number of new cases drops off asymptotically approaching a maximim.
It is clear that COVID 19 cases outside of china are in the exponential phase at the moment. The good news is it will start to level off, the bad news is, at this stage it is very difficult to estimate when and where the tail-off occurs.
12 dead @2% = at least 600 infected, probably multiple times that because there will be many, as in China neither cured or dead. Iran are not even finding 10% of those infected right now.
Take a look at the number of cases outside China on the logarithmic scale. (Scroll down and click on logarithmic.)
You'll see that is basically a straight line. That means the growth is exponential. It is growing an order of magnitude every 20 days.
18 Feb 1,000 10 Mar 10,000 30 Mar 100,000 19 Apr 1,000,000 9 May 10,000,000 29 May 100,000,000 18 Jun 1,000,000,000 6 Jul everyone
But this won't happen for a variety of reasons. It is worth watching this chart to see when the straight line begins to deviate in a clockwise direction. That will mean that the exponential growth is slowing down.
Now would be a good time but I fear that the number of cases is being determined more by the ability to test and the amount of testing being done than its actual prevalence.
I would think so too in terms of the general population - but below the level normally expected of someone in her position.
OK. I could just stretch to that. Bottom end of second quartile for the population as a whole. Bottom end of fourth quartile for a cabinet minister. And for a PM, a data point in her own right. A genuine outlier.
I am amused by people who were perfectly happy to hear Cameron and May attack immigration and hear them talk about how we need to get immigration down to the tens of thousands . . .
. . . are utterly appalled at Johnson and Patel for treating migrants fairly and equitably, abolishing the tens of thousand target and slashing the income required in order to be able to migrate here making it easier than it used to be for non-EU migrants.
I'm not sure those two sets of people are the same at all.
I am amused by people who were perfectly happy to hear Cameron and May attack immigration and hear them talk about how we need to get immigration down to the tens of thousands . . .
. . . are utterly appalled at Johnson and Patel for treating migrants fairly and equitably, abolishing the tens of thousand target and slashing the income required in order to be able to migrate here making it easier than it used to be for non-EU migrants.
I'm not sure those two sets of people are the same at all.
I'm thinking of anti-Johnson Conservatives on this site of which there are a fair few.
Personally I left the party when May became leader because I was repulsed by her ranting against immigrants while Cameron was PM. Hearing people who happily supported May and Cameron attack Johnson and Patel is bemusing to me.
I am amused by people who were perfectly happy to hear Cameron and May attack immigration and hear them talk about how we need to get immigration down to the tens of thousands . . .
. . . are utterly appalled at Johnson and Patel for treating migrants fairly and equitably, abolishing the tens of thousand target and slashing the income required in order to be able to migrate here making it easier than it used to be for non-EU migrants.
To play Devil's Advocate, the argument may not be about immigration per se but the lack of planning. If we knew we were going to take in x migrants in 2021, we could provide the housing and the infrastructural support to deal with x migrants.
It's one thing to oppose an open door policy on immigration but another to leave the door half-broken and swaying on its hinges and try to pretend there's a tough new policy on immigration.
I would think so too in terms of the general population - but below the level normally expected of someone in her position.
OK. I could just stretch to that. Bottom end of second quartile for the population as a whole. Bottom end of fourth quartile for a cabinet minister. And for a PM, a data point in her own right. A genuine outlier.
I would say above average for population as a whole, above average for a cabinet minister and waits to be seen but would do better than at least 2 PMs of the last 13 years.
What evidence do you have for a lack of grey matter.
I don't just find it undeniable, I outright deny it. She strikes me as very intelligent.
As I said down the thread, I base it on what I've heard from her over the years. There are umpteen clips I could dig out and post but I'm not minded to do so here and now. That "counter terrorism" car crash interview was a fairly good recent example, if you want to google it. I'm genuinely astonished that she strikes you as very intelligent. But if you tell me that she does, then OK I believe you. She is a person of limited intellect who to you is extremely intelligent.
I would think so too in terms of the general population - but below the level normally expected of someone in her position.
OK. I could just stretch to that. Bottom end of second quartile for the population as a whole. Bottom end of fourth quartile for a cabinet minister. And for a PM, a data point in her own right. A genuine outlier.
I would say above average for population as a whole, above average for a cabinet minister and waits to be seen but would do better than at least 2 PMs of the last 13 years.
Priti would be an absolute star as Tory Leader. She would guarantee an opposition victory.
I am amused by people who were perfectly happy to hear Cameron and May attack immigration and hear them talk about how we need to get immigration down to the tens of thousands . . .
. . . are utterly appalled at Johnson and Patel for treating migrants fairly and equitably, abolishing the tens of thousand target and slashing the income required in order to be able to migrate here making it easier than it used to be for non-EU migrants.
I'm not sure those two sets of people are the same at all.
I'm thinking of anti-Johnson Conservatives on this site of which there are a fair few.
Personally I left the party when May became leader because I was repulsed by her ranting against immigrants while Cameron was PM. Hearing people who happily supported May and Cameron attack Johnson and Patel is bemusing to me.
Fair enough. I thought the Cameron target absurd and dishonest, and May was worse.
I am amused by people who were perfectly happy to hear Cameron and May attack immigration and hear them talk about how we need to get immigration down to the tens of thousands . . .
. . . are utterly appalled at Johnson and Patel for treating migrants fairly and equitably, abolishing the tens of thousand target and slashing the income required in order to be able to migrate here making it easier than it used to be for non-EU migrants.
To play Devil's Advocate, the argument may not be about immigration per se but the lack of planning. If we knew we were going to take in x migrants in 2021, we could provide the housing and the infrastructural support to deal with x migrants.
It's one thing to oppose an open door policy on immigration but another to leave the door half-broken and swaying on its hinges and try to pretend there's a tough new policy on immigration.
There's an argument to be made (I don't buy it, but I get it can be made) to say x and mean x. However Cameron and May said x and never once got close to x - so even that argument is moot!
Furthermore I've not once heard Johnson and Patel "pretend there's a tough new policy on immigration" - quite the opposite, all I hear them talk about is that it is controlled. It was Cameron and May who were banging on about being tough and banging on about tens of thousands while leaving the door completely open.
Nobody would reasonably deny that the Aussies and Canadians control migration - but they also have more migrants per capita than we do. I'd rather control quality than try and put off numbers.
I would think so too in terms of the general population - but below the level normally expected of someone in her position.
OK. I could just stretch to that. Bottom end of second quartile for the population as a whole. Bottom end of fourth quartile for a cabinet minister. And for a PM, a data point in her own right. A genuine outlier.
I would say above average for population as a whole, above average for a cabinet minister and waits to be seen but would do better than at least 2 PMs of the last 13 years.
An exceptionally nasty piece of work even by Tory standards.
What evidence do you have for a lack of grey matter.
I don't just find it undeniable, I outright deny it. She strikes me as very intelligent.
As I said down the thread, I base it on what I've heard from her over the years. There are umpteen clips I could dig out and post but I'm not minded to do so here and now. That "counter terrorism" car crash interview was a fairly good recent example, if you want to google it. I'm genuinely astonished that she strikes you as very intelligent. But if you tell me that she does, then OK I believe you. She is a person of limited intellect who to you is extremely intelligent.
I went to see her speak during the Brexit referendum in Leicester. She was fairly well drilled, and spoke well but dealt poorly with questions even though it was an entirely (bar me!) pro Leave audience. The head of the East Midlands Chamber of Commerce out shone her.
She certainly is ambitious, and I would agree that her ugliness is on the inside, but not suitable for any position other than lobby fodder.
I am not a fan of Priti Patel and shudder at the thought of her being PM. She is too right wing for me and her immigration proposals will need amending in several areas
+1
But I must ask you something in the light of your "Boris" history.
Would you swing behind her if - god forbid - she somehow gets there?
I would think so too in terms of the general population - but below the level normally expected of someone in her position.
OK. I could just stretch to that. Bottom end of second quartile for the population as a whole. Bottom end of fourth quartile for a cabinet minister. And for a PM, a data point in her own right. A genuine outlier.
I would say above average for population as a whole, above average for a cabinet minister and waits to be seen but would do better than at least 2 PMs of the last 13 years.
An exceptionally nasty piece of work even by Tory standards.
What's she done in office that's exceptionally nasty?
* She's liberalised the elements of migration we controlled so that it is easier to get into this country. * She's abolished the tens of thousand target and trying to put off immigrants coming here.
Early days yet but that is two positives in my eyes.
I am not a fan of Priti Patel and shudder at the thought of her being PM. She is too right wing for me and her immigration proposals will need amending in several areas
+1
But I must ask you something in the light of your "Boris" history.
Would you swing behind her if - god forbid - she somehow gets there?
I would think so too in terms of the general population - but below the level normally expected of someone in her position.
OK. I could just stretch to that. Bottom end of second quartile for the population as a whole. Bottom end of fourth quartile for a cabinet minister. And for a PM, a data point in her own right. A genuine outlier.
I would say above average for population as a whole, above average for a cabinet minister and waits to be seen but would do better than at least 2 PMs of the last 13 years.
An exceptionally nasty piece of work even by Tory standards.
What's she done in office that's exceptionally nasty?
* She's liberalised the elements of migration we controlled so that it is easier to get into this country. * She's abolished the tens of thousand target and trying to put off immigrants coming here.
Early days yet but that is two positives in my eyes.
She is a Tory, she would deport her granny, she has a permanent smirk , and did I say she is a Tory
PS: Her immigration policy will kill Scotland, it is the opposite of what we need.
Pity the poor Priti Patel twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1232202926329909248?s=19
The civil service should be careful not to overplay their hand. In Patel they may be unwittingly creating a rival to Johnson down the line.
What? You mean another vacuous, policy-free politician who plays to the popular audience whilst Rome burns?
I suspect Patel would play to the 'popular audience' even more than the current PM. Quite a bit more, actually.
Maybe she could provide the "creative destruction" so craved by the madder "advisors" clustering around Johnson? I suspect that after those two clowns, the UK would unrecognisable from its current (or former) self.
Look I'm not a Patel supporter, my only point is it could happen. If Johnson is seen to be a trimmer, a backslider or a 'betrayer' and loses his way, then attention could fall on a high profile 'full fat' alternative. Someone who is 'one of us'. And Patel is all of that.
I am not saying Patel cannot take over from Johnson. She could do so.
I am saying it would be a disaster for the country.
The Tory fanboy right wingers on here will love her though, will be having wet dreams about her being PM and deporting all and sundry whilst locking up the remainder of the non Tories etc.
I am not a fan of Priti Patel and shudder at the thought of her being PM. She is too right wing for me and her immigration proposals will need amending in several areas
Oh Dear.
You'll start by threatening to resign if ever she gets the job.
Then there'll be a leadership election, she'll throw her hat into the ring, and you'll be scrabbling around trying to shift the problem onto some particular policy matter.
Then she'll become leader and we'll find you still a member of the party.
Within a month or two you'll turn into her biggest cheerleader. Because of course the thought of Starmer PM was so very terrible.
A few months later the particular policy will be heading for implementation and you'll be cheering it on.
Above average but not necessarily well above. People forget the bump at the bottom owing to head injuries and the like. It depends what "well" means.
OK, let's get numerical. I would instinctively say that the average IQ of a cabinet minister since the War is of the order 125. So top 5% of the population.
Course this cabinet (with Patel) is bringing that down a bit.
Look I'm not a Patel supporter, my only point is it could happen. If Johnson is seen to be a trimmer, a backslider or a 'betrayer' and loses his way, then attention could fall on a high profile 'full fat' alternative. Someone who is 'one of us'. And Patel is all of that.
I'm not saying it can't happen but if it did, she would be the first PM in living memory with an IQ in double digits. This would be a serious handicap in carrying out the job to an acceptable standard.
What is it about the ethnic minority MP with both a degree and a postgraduate degree and a career outside Westminster with companies like Diageo that makes you think she is stupid?
12 dead @2% = at least 600 infected, probably multiple times that because there will be many, as in China neither cured or dead. Iran are not even finding 10% of those infected right now.
Take a look at the number of cases outside China on the logarithmic scale. (Scroll down and click on logarithmic.)
You'll see that is basically a straight line. That means the growth is exponential. It is growing an order of magnitude every 20 days.
18 Feb 1,000 10 Mar 10,000 30 Mar 100,000 19 Apr 1,000,000 9 May 10,000,000 29 May 100,000,000 18 Jun 1,000,000,000 6 Jul everyone
But this won't happen for a variety of reasons. It is worth watching this chart to see when the straight line begins to deviate in a clockwise direction. That will mean that the exponential growth is slowing down.
The graph of death rate on that site appears to be levelling out at well above 2%.
When the outbreak is over, the mortality rate will be known (total deaths / total confirmed cases). During the outbreak this is harder because of the period between confirmation and death/survival. The mortality rate should be calculated as total deaths (today) / confirmed cases (T days before today, where T is the incubation period).
We have 2 problems. Firstly we don't have hard numbers on the number of confirmed cases because it is pretty clear that China is not using the same definition as everyone else and is keen to keep 'true' numbers down. Secondly we are not really sure what value to use for T (probably 14-21 days).
The best guess will be the people from the cruise ship as we have traceability. In a period of weeks we will get a final mortality rate - probably 4-9%, but will have to remember that the passenger profile may be older, sicker and more asian (higher risk ACE2 receptor count) than the general World population.
Above average but not necessarily well above. People forget the bump at the bottom owing to head injuries and the like. It depends what "well" means.
OK, let's get numerical. I would instinctively say that the average IQ of a cabinet minister since the War is of the order 125. So top 5% of the population.
Course this cabinet (with Patel) is bringing that down a bit.
You have to be joking , the amount of donkeys we had in Cameron;'s time would drop the average into single figures alone.
She is a Tory, she would deport her granny, she has a permanent smirk , and did I say she is a Tory
PS: Her immigration policy will kill Scotland, it is the opposite of what we need.
So nothing then.
1 is a good thing. 2 was her granny a serious criminal? She's only deporting criminals. 3 is just appearances. 4 is as I said earlier a good thing.
PS Scotland's not an independent country, your choice not mine. Why can't Scotland find migrants from within the large pool of migrants coming to this country, or from the rest of the UK? Maybe the SNP could consider using some of its devolved powers it already has to make Scotland a more attractive place to come and live.
Just an odd suggestion but Alaska as a cold and miserable place to live has lower taxes than the rest of the country to try and attract migrants. Has the SNP considered doing that? You could cut spending on something, lower taxes and attract people that way. Or do you only want to bitch and moan?
She is a Tory, she would deport her granny, she has a permanent smirk , and did I say she is a Tory
PS: Her immigration policy will kill Scotland, it is the opposite of what we need.
So nothing then.
1 is a good thing. 2 was her granny a serious criminal? She's only deporting criminals. 3 is just appearances. 4 is as I said earlier a good thing.
PS Scotland's not an independent country, your choice not mine. Why can't Scotland find migrants from within the large pool of migrants coming to this country, or from the rest of the UK? Maybe the SNP could consider using some of its devolved powers it already has to make Scotland a more attractive place to come and live.
Just an odd suggestion but Alaska as a cold and miserable place to live has lower taxes than the rest of the country to try and attract migrants. Has the SNP considered doing that? You could cut spending on something, lower taxes and attract people that way. Or do you only want to bitch and moan?
Thank F**k you are not anything to do with running the country, you have no clue what you are talking about and know even less about Scotland and the fact that 95% of the taxes are reserved to the cesspit at Westminster. FFS try and bone up on the basics before uttering drivel.
Comments
https://twitter.com/Joe_Mayes/status/1232253794597163008
https://twitter.com/mah_sadeghi/status/1232290661174587392
I am digging a bigger and bigger Bloomberg hole as I do so.
One thing I'm only just picking up on though - does Warren have an African America problem? I haven't really paid much attention to demographic breakdowns but if Warren is not connecting with Black people she is totally dead and my long is a total bust.
Under the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, the remaining GDPR regulations became part of UK law on the UK leaving the EU.
Carswell and Hannan doesn't seem to realise the stable door is swinging in the breeze and the horse is halfway up the hill.
She does not exactly dazzle the audience with her brilliance.
Cheshire school closes after ski trip to Italy and suspected case
All the GDPR says is that data about me is mine and companies have to manage my data like any other asset of mine that they have access to.
As for your Point 10, I think what he is trying to say is that if our personal data is abused it is our fault for not looking after it and disclosing it in the first place.
How do you get to be an MP and then get into the Cabinet?
Party loyalty and the ability to network are obviously much more important than intelligence, independence of thinking & intellectual curiosity. In fact, the latter are hindrances rather than helps.
So, I suspect the reverse is true. If a sample of 200 Cabinet ministers (cross-parties) are compared to a random sample of 200 people, then the decrement will be in the Cabinet sample.
But then, the PM isn't fit to be in Cabinet.
And yet they were still far better than the Opposition.
O tempora! O mores!
Anybody with brains stays out of politics
BTW, you really should try using that "Quote" thingy under people's posts. It does not bite. Honest
Just a splendidly nonsense phrase.
Given that internet services operate globally there's little to no advantage in a race to the bottom, as any UK internet service would have to comply with the GDPR to serve the EU, and whatever the US finally adopts as well. It's effectively no different from an international techincal standard, you implement the standard and deviate from it at your peril. Brexiteers who think leaving the EU means we should do everything differently are morons.
A philosophy that says the powerful should be free to prey on the weak unhindered by state interference.
As compared to, for example, the gratuitous Burgon and Abbott abuse that one often encounters.
Mr. B, Morris Dancer is a colossus of self-discipline.
*though I believe that the deceased legally belong to the Coroner until released to the family for funeral.
I don't just find it undeniable, I outright deny it. She strikes me as very intelligent.
There are those who can't work, those who no longer want to work so if you want to do something to help those who do want to contribute, put some policies in place to make it easier for carers to find work and also support those with significant disabilities (the figures for unemployment among blind and partially sighted people are appalling).
If you want to "level up", encourage companies to provide work for carers and for those with disabilities, Make it easier for these groups and others to get into the workplace and stay in the workplace. That's the real challenge rather than migration.
He didn't go to Interstellar Extradimensional Doom University to have his title truncated.
. . . are utterly appalled at Johnson and Patel for treating migrants fairly and equitably, abolishing the tens of thousand target and slashing the income required in order to be able to migrate here making it easier than it used to be for non-EU migrants.
It is clear that COVID 19 cases outside of china are in the exponential phase at the moment. The good news is it will start to level off, the bad news is, at this stage it is very difficult to estimate when and where the tail-off occurs.
https://youtu.be/TMXNV4cKjK4
Personally I left the party when May became leader because I was repulsed by her ranting against immigrants while Cameron was PM. Hearing people who happily supported May and Cameron attack Johnson and Patel is bemusing to me.
It's one thing to oppose an open door policy on immigration but another to leave the door half-broken and swaying on its hinges and try to pretend there's a tough new policy on immigration.
I thought the Cameron target absurd and dishonest, and May was worse.
Furthermore I've not once heard Johnson and Patel "pretend there's a tough new policy on immigration" - quite the opposite, all I hear them talk about is that it is controlled. It was Cameron and May who were banging on about being tough and banging on about tens of thousands while leaving the door completely open.
Nobody would reasonably deny that the Aussies and Canadians control migration - but they also have more migrants per capita than we do. I'd rather control quality than try and put off numbers.
See, I can compromise.
She certainly is ambitious, and I would agree that her ugliness is on the inside, but not suitable for any position other than lobby fodder.
But I must ask you something in the light of your "Boris" history.
Would you swing behind her if - god forbid - she somehow gets there?
* She's liberalised the elements of migration we controlled so that it is easier to get into this country.
* She's abolished the tens of thousand target and trying to put off immigrants coming here.
Early days yet but that is two positives in my eyes.
she would deport her granny,
she has a permanent smirk ,
and did I say she is a Tory
PS: Her immigration policy will kill Scotland, it is the opposite of what we need.
You'll start by threatening to resign if ever she gets the job.
Then there'll be a leadership election, she'll throw her hat into the ring, and you'll be scrabbling around trying to shift the problem onto some particular policy matter.
Then she'll become leader and we'll find you still a member of the party.
Within a month or two you'll turn into her biggest cheerleader. Because of course the thought of Starmer PM was so very terrible.
A few months later the particular policy will be heading for implementation and you'll be cheering it on.
We've been here before.
Course this cabinet (with Patel) is bringing that down a bit.
We have 2 problems. Firstly we don't have hard numbers on the number of confirmed cases because it is pretty clear that China is not using the same definition as everyone else and is keen to keep 'true' numbers down. Secondly we are not really sure what value to use for T (probably 14-21 days).
The best guess will be the people from the cruise ship as we have traceability. In a period of weeks we will get a final mortality rate - probably 4-9%, but will have to remember that the passenger profile may be older, sicker and more asian (higher risk ACE2 receptor count) than the general World population.
Lots of very clever ones. But not the current Home Secretary. I sense you know this.
1 is a good thing.
2 was her granny a serious criminal? She's only deporting criminals.
3 is just appearances.
4 is as I said earlier a good thing.
PS Scotland's not an independent country, your choice not mine. Why can't Scotland find migrants from within the large pool of migrants coming to this country, or from the rest of the UK? Maybe the SNP could consider using some of its devolved powers it already has to make Scotland a more attractive place to come and live.
Just an odd suggestion but Alaska as a cold and miserable place to live has lower taxes than the rest of the country to try and attract migrants. Has the SNP considered doing that? You could cut spending on something, lower taxes and attract people that way. Or do you only want to bitch and moan?