The Park Inn where the incident took place was being used to house asylum seekers during lockdown.
Robina Qureshi, director of charity Positive Action in Housing, said 370 refugees and asylum seekers had been "forcibly removed into hotels" across Glasgow at the beginning of April by the Mears Group.
Interesting way of putting, being housed in very good conditions at the taxpayers expense.
UK really is a soft mark, is it any wonder they travel across whole of Europe just to get here by any means.
About 12 years ago I had the misfortune to stay at the Palms for 4 nights, on work. In my job I stayed at hundreds of hotels. I can honestly say the Palms is the only place I've ever stayed that made me fearful - every night, it looked like something could kick off. Seemed to be a gathering place for Essex criminals?
The Friday nights there were a good laugh. One of the easiest pick up joints in Essex! I can imagine there were some shady goings on there too.
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Isn't he the owner of Mirror Group Newspapers ?
Formerly of the Express Group. Need I say more? I will though, he bought the Express on the back of a successful career as a purveyor of pornographic magazines. Nice!
Isn't it all part of the same group and wasn't the Mirror's editor in chief sat at the same table
I thought Trinity Mirror bought the Express titles from Desmond. They then changed the name to Reach.
Back in the 70s there was a man called Desmond who owned a title called "Men Only" which - I am told - featured the monthly horizontal jogging exploits of one Fiona Richmond. Is this related?
Wasn't it a bit like Autocar or Motor, only the vicar's daughter road tested men rather than cars.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
The Southern states of the USA say a collective hi-y-all!
It is these states I am referring to. Who cares how many cases there are of a disease that is becoming less of a threat to human life by the week?
We don;t stop people going out in the summer because there are more cases of sunstroke. What makes Corona so special? Its a disease that is gradually having its d8ck cut off.
'Starmer has played a blinder' = Tories still polling at 40-year record levels, same as they got in GE2019...
Tory lead has weakened from 11% at GE to about 6% now. Projected Tory majority (Electoral calculus) down from 80 to 26. There is a consistent downwards movement for the Tories. 6 months gone. Another 54 months to go?
For those that need a further illustration that Trump now needs Biden to lose this election, I have produced a swingometer for you...
That's a great chart which I might use as part of a header
I have already predicted Biden at 413, but I am beginning to wonder if that will be too low.
For example, there is no recent polling in SC. In January, Trump was +12, in February +4 (both RV). I have to wonder what COVID, the economy, and BLM have done to those numbers. Much will depend on new RV and relative turnout, but ...
And we have had one poll in Arkansas, FFS, where Trump is only +2
Biden's gap over Clinton is fairly consistent, which makes me think that a shock in SC and an enormous shock in Arkansas are rather unlikely. The former however cannot be ruled out.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
The Southern states of the USA say a collective hi-y-all!
It is these states I am referring to. Who cares how many cases there are of a disease that is becoming less of a threat to human life by the week?
We don;t stop people going out in the summer because there are more cases of sunstroke. What makes Corona so special? Its a disease that is gradually having its d8ck cut off.
I love your rather fruity optimism. I hope you're right.
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Isn't he the owner of Mirror Group Newspapers ?
Formerly of the Express Group. Need I say more? I will though, he bought the Express on the back of a successful career as a purveyor of pornographic magazines. Nice!
Isn't it all part of the same group and wasn't the Mirror's editor in chief sat at the same table
I thought Trinity Mirror bought the Express titles from Desmond. They then changed the name to Reach.
Back in the 70s there was a man called Desmond who owned a title called "Men Only" which - I am told - featured the monthly horizontal jogging exploits of one Fiona Richmond. Is this related?
Wasn't it a bit like Autocar or Motor, only the vicar's daughter road tested men rather than cars.
Classy!
Was it Desmond who published Alistair Campbell's porn column 'Riviera Gigolo'?
I posted on here over a month ago that Trump was finished and that Biden would have to kill a child for Trump to have a chance.
It is fair to say that the joy of the electoral college does give some opportunity where in a binary contest he won't have hope but I suspect come November his biggest problem is that enough of the GOP vote is done with him. They might not cast for Biden but they won't vote for him. Even if Biden outperforms Clinton which looks likely as it stands, too many of Trump voters in 2016 are going to, at the very least, sit it out. Biden has one great asset over Clinton, people don't dislike him. He will, as I have said before, offer a rather sunny contrast to Trump's narcissistic and generally grim shit tendencies.
The die hard base of Trump which sits at 42 or so percent is even at risk on current form.
What the people on the Hill are really looking at is whether Trump's presence will see them to defeat in both houses Congress in November. That's the major concern.
The Park Inn where the incident took place was being used to house asylum seekers during lockdown.
Robina Qureshi, director of charity Positive Action in Housing, said 370 refugees and asylum seekers had been "forcibly removed into hotels" across Glasgow at the beginning of April by the Mears Group.
Interesting way of putting, being housed in very good conditions at the taxpayers expense.
UK really is a soft mark, is it any wonder they travel across whole of Europe just to get here by any means.
Priti Patel was supposed to be across this after Farage raised it initially.
She clearly isn't. Just like she clearly isn't on top of the multitude of other incidents she is 'appalled by'. All the people she is giving stern talking tos are just laughing or doing the opposite. Either by design, accident or some other reason Patel appears to be toothless.
Patel talks tough but does nothing. She is vulnerable to getting replaced.
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Isn't he the owner of Mirror Group Newspapers ?
Formerly of the Express Group. Need I say more? I will though, he bought the Express on the back of a successful career as a purveyor of pornographic magazines. Nice!
Isn't it all part of the same group and wasn't the Mirror's editor in chief sat at the same table
I thought Trinity Mirror bought the Express titles from Desmond. They then changed the name to Reach.
Back in the 70s there was a man called Desmond who owned a title called "Men Only" which - I am told - featured the monthly horizontal jogging exploits of one Fiona Richmond. Is this related?
Wasn't it a bit like Autocar or Motor, only the vicar's daughter road tested men rather than cars.
Classy!
Was it Desmond who published Alistair Campbell's porn column 'Riviera Gigolo'?
No idea. Neither did I realise that Malcolm Tucker wrote a column called "Riviera Gigolo".
As well as Trump's struggles against the English language, the transcript starting this thread demonstrates how urgently Trump needs a big idea.
Like them or not (and I certainly didn't), he had three big and memorable policy lines in 2016 - build the wall, tear up and aggressively renegotiate trade deals, and repeal Obamacare.
Mixed success on those - McCain had his revenge by destroying the third, and you can debate how far he's got on the other two.
But he can't just repeat them in 2020 and expect them to have the same resonance. He needs some pithy applause lines for the next few years - whether that's tearing up the international order (NATO, UN etc), abolishing federal income tax, or whatever.
That's particularly vital for a populist like Trump. He can't exactly campaign as a steady hand on the tiller in troubled times - he needs to provide fresh, red meat to those who aren't sold on him personally but who also don't like the established order because it doesn't feel like it works for them.
As well as Trump's struggles against the English language, the transcript starting this thread demonstrates how urgently Trump needs a big idea.
Like them or not (and I certainly didn't), he had three big and memorable policy lines in 2016 - build the wall, tear up and aggressively renegotiate trade deals, and repeal Obamacare.
Mixed success on those - McCain had his revenge by destroying the third, and you can debate how far he's got on the other two.
But he can't just repeat them in 2020 and expect them to have the same resonance. He needs some pithy applause lines for the next few years - whether that's tearing up the international order (NATO, UN etc), abolishing federal income tax, or whatever.
That's particularly vital for a populist like Trump. He can't exactly campaign as a steady hand on the tiller in troubled times - he needs to provide fresh, red meat to those who aren't sold on him personally but who also don't like the established order because it doesn't feel like it works for them.
Don't worry, the Conservatives will quite likely uptick as lockdown eases.
People are demob happy and partying like it is 1945. A second spike will come sooner rather than later ( we have already been told to expect it) because people can't control themselves. When that happens, those partying on Bournemouth beach won't blame themselves, they will blame the people who told them it was safe so to do. That will reflect in opinion polls.
You may well turn out to be right about the dreaded second wave, but if it comes I'm not so sure it'll have much to do with the beaches.
The panic about overcrowded sunbathers goes all the way back to the London parks in April; however, since the peak in the first half of that month, deaths and hospitalisations have been on a continuous downward trend.
The beaches is something of a red herring, however it does illustrate people really couldn't give a toss about the ramifications of spreading Covid-19 at the moment. Presumably until it happens to them or their loved ones.
Hard to say. It rather depends how that segment of the population willing to go out in the first place breaks down between those who don't care about the disease (whether through ignorance or wilfully on purpose) and those who do but are weighing up the risk of their actions in a considered fashion.
Outdoor activities are low risk, especially if you're lolling about on a beach or in a park and not interacting socially with other family groups. You're probably not going to be touching contaminated hard surfaces and the whole environment is being constantly saturated with UV radiation. If a carrier of the disease gets anywhere near you then you're nevertheless unlikely to catch it from them unless they cough in your face, and prevalence of the illness amongst the general population is relatively low in any event.
I would imagine that quite a lot of people who have managed to acquire some knowledge of this virus would be a lot happier going to the beach than the supermarket, for example.
Beyond that, if you're young (and especially if you're not living with a vulnerable person) then you might take the view that you're so unlikely to suffer serious consequences if you catch the wretched thing that you might as well go out and enjoy yourself. Regardless of whether you regard this as to any degree selfish or not, it's certainly understandable.
Northumberland Police tweeted yesterday that they were going to allow a BLM protest to go ahead, but that they wouldn't allow any other protests to take place. That means they were allowing a protest by a group whose official policy is to de-fund the police, and would not have allowed a counter-protest by a group that was, for example, not in favour of de-funding the police.
Don't worry, the Conservatives will quite likely uptick as lockdown eases.
People are demob happy and partying like it is 1945. A second spike will come sooner rather than later ( we have already been told to expect it) because people can't control themselves. When that happens, those partying on Bournemouth beach won't blame themselves, they will blame the people who told them it was safe so to do. That will reflect in opinion polls.
You may well turn out to be right about the dreaded second wave, but if it comes I'm not so sure it'll have much to do with the beaches.
The panic about overcrowded sunbathers goes all the way back to the London parks in April; however, since the peak in the first half of that month, deaths and hospitalisations have been on a continuous downward trend.
The beaches is something of a red herring, however it does illustrate people really couldn't give a toss about the ramifications of spreading Covid-19 at the moment. Presumably until it happens to them or their loved ones.
The mixed messaging from Johnson has been statling. I am beginning to think Mrs May would have got the tone right. Moreso than Blair, Brown, Cameron and certainly by a country mile, Johnson.
I'ts really hard to predict how some leaders would react to this. Cuomo, in New York, was regarded as an awful power-monger before this, even by most Dems. But he actually managed to do a good job.
Texas - among those leading the charge to loosen virus restrictions - has seen thousands of new cases in recent days, including a record 5,996 new infections on Thursday and 47 new deaths, the highest daily toll for a month. Texas has also seen a record number of people requiring hospital treatment for 13 days in a row.
Abbott, a Republican, announced that he would stop river-rafting and order restaurants to reduce capacity from 75% to 50% as well as closing down bars.
Here in Georgia, which was among the first to reopen, (May 1), and we are now completely open, we are seeing a spike in cases. The goal is to keep the spike from overwhelming the health system. Social distancing is the key and seems to be mitigating. There is no panic here - yet.
Another complete shutdown is out of the question.
If new cases continue to rise in Georgia, then there will be a de facto one, even if there's not a de jure one.
As well as Trump's struggles against the English language, the transcript starting this thread demonstrates how urgently Trump needs a big idea.
Like them or not (and I certainly didn't), he had three big and memorable policy lines in 2016 - build the wall, tear up and aggressively renegotiate trade deals, and repeal Obamacare.
Mixed success on those - McCain had his revenge by destroying the third, and you can debate how far he's got on the other two.
But he can't just repeat them in 2020 and expect them to have the same resonance. He needs some pithy applause lines for the next few years - whether that's tearing up the international order (NATO, UN etc), abolishing federal income tax, or whatever.
That's particularly vital for a populist like Trump. He can't exactly campaign as a steady hand on the tiller in troubled times - he needs to provide fresh, red meat to those who aren't sold on him personally but who also don't like the established order because it doesn't feel like it works for them.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
The Southern states of the USA say a collective hi-y-all!
It is these states I am referring to. Who cares how many cases there are of a disease that is becoming less of a threat to human life by the week?
We don;t stop people going out in the summer because there are more cases of sunstroke. What makes Corona so special? Its a disease that is gradually having its d8ck cut off.
Counterpoint: it's good news that treatment is getting better, and there's no reason to think that process won't continue for a while longer. So holding off infections until the survival odds are as good as they can reasonably be is a wise move.
As well as Trump's struggles against the English language, the transcript starting this thread demonstrates how urgently Trump needs a big idea.
Like them or not (and I certainly didn't), he had three big and memorable policy lines in 2016 - build the wall, tear up and aggressively renegotiate trade deals, and repeal Obamacare.
Mixed success on those - McCain had his revenge by destroying the third, and you can debate how far he's got on the other two.
But he can't just repeat them in 2020 and expect them to have the same resonance. He needs some pithy applause lines for the next few years - whether that's tearing up the international order (NATO, UN etc), abolishing federal income tax, or whatever.
That's particularly vital for a populist like Trump. He can't exactly campaign as a steady hand on the tiller in troubled times - he needs to provide fresh, red meat to those who aren't sold on him personally but who also don't like the established order because it doesn't feel like it works for them.
A military adventure could work.
Or leaving the UN and evicting it from New York?
Wow! I'll never be able to watch 'North by North West' again without thinking of Trump's vandalism.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
As well as Trump's struggles against the English language, the transcript starting this thread demonstrates how urgently Trump needs a big idea.
Like them or not (and I certainly didn't), he had three big and memorable policy lines in 2016 - build the wall, tear up and aggressively renegotiate trade deals, and repeal Obamacare.
Mixed success on those - McCain had his revenge by destroying the third, and you can debate how far he's got on the other two.
But he can't just repeat them in 2020 and expect them to have the same resonance. He needs some pithy applause lines for the next few years - whether that's tearing up the international order (NATO, UN etc), abolishing federal income tax, or whatever.
That's particularly vital for a populist like Trump. He can't exactly campaign as a steady hand on the tiller in troubled times - he needs to provide fresh, red meat to those who aren't sold on him personally but who also don't like the established order because it doesn't feel like it works for them.
Any incumbent has to point to their record. Not even Trump can be an insurgent against himself. It was clear Trump was going to lead on job numbers for the election. Even now he tries to talk them up.
As well as Trump's struggles against the English language, the transcript starting this thread demonstrates how urgently Trump needs a big idea.
Like them or not (and I certainly didn't), he had three big and memorable policy lines in 2016 - build the wall, tear up and aggressively renegotiate trade deals, and repeal Obamacare.
Mixed success on those - McCain had his revenge by destroying the third, and you can debate how far he's got on the other two.
But he can't just repeat them in 2020 and expect them to have the same resonance. He needs some pithy applause lines for the next few years - whether that's tearing up the international order (NATO, UN etc), abolishing federal income tax, or whatever.
That's particularly vital for a populist like Trump. He can't exactly campaign as a steady hand on the tiller in troubled times - he needs to provide fresh, red meat to those who aren't sold on him personally but who also don't like the established order because it doesn't feel like it works for them.
A military adventure could work.
To go well that requires: a) The USA to be attacked first or genuinely feel threatened, b) the US has to be seen to win and win quick
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
The Southern states of the USA say a collective hi-y-all!
It is these states I am referring to. Who cares how many cases there are of a disease that is becoming less of a threat to human life by the week?
We don;t stop people going out in the summer because there are more cases of sunstroke. What makes Corona so special? Its a disease that is gradually having its d8ck cut off.
Counterpoint: it's good news that treatment is getting better, and there's no reason to think that process won't continue for a while longer. So holding off infections until the survival odds are as good as they can reasonably be is a wise move.
Its a good point, but economically its now getting quite late in the day. At some juncture very soon people are going to have to live with the risk of corona or see their standards of living plummet permanently and their liberties shrink.
As well as Trump's struggles against the English language, the transcript starting this thread demonstrates how urgently Trump needs a big idea.
Like them or not (and I certainly didn't), he had three big and memorable policy lines in 2016 - build the wall, tear up and aggressively renegotiate trade deals, and repeal Obamacare.
Mixed success on those - McCain had his revenge by destroying the third, and you can debate how far he's got on the other two.
But he can't just repeat them in 2020 and expect them to have the same resonance. He needs some pithy applause lines for the next few years - whether that's tearing up the international order (NATO, UN etc), abolishing federal income tax, or whatever.
That's particularly vital for a populist like Trump. He can't exactly campaign as a steady hand on the tiller in troubled times - he needs to provide fresh, red meat to those who aren't sold on him personally but who also don't like the established order because it doesn't feel like it works for them.
A military adventure could work.
To go well that requires: a) The USA to be attacked first or genuinely feel threatened, b) the US has to be seen to win and win quick
For those that need a further illustration that Trump now needs Biden to lose this election, I have produced a swingometer for you...
That's a great chart which I might use as part of a header
I have already predicted Biden at 413, but I am beginning to wonder if that will be too low.
For example, there is no recent polling in SC. In January, Trump was +12, in February +4 (both RV). I have to wonder what COVID, the economy, and BLM have done to those numbers. Much will depend on new RV and relative turnout, but ...
And we have had one poll in Arkansas, FFS, where Trump is only +2
Biden's gap over Clinton is fairly consistent, which makes me think that a shock in SC and an enormous shock in Arkansas are rather unlikely. The former however cannot be ruled out.
Biden probably won't get those states even if the polls now are surprisingly tight, as they simply aren't going to be pivotal so Biden is unlikely to sink resources into them. Because Republicans are dominant and organised in those places, it will see them over the line even if it's fairly close.
Per White Rabbit's useful table, there are more than enough winning combos from states won by Trump by under 5% not to look far beyond that in terms of campaign resources. Biden might dip his toe into Georgia and Iowa because the Senate seats may just about be in play, it broadens his options further, and adds to the sense of momentum if he's seen fighting on unlikely ground. Possibly Ohio if the polls look really good (but no Senate race there). Texas is just too huge a media market.
Of course, if he wins a landslide, he possibly wins states he didn't do much in (like Labour winning some odd seats in 1997). But ultimately that's just a nice bonus, not in the strategy.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
If we don’t get a vaccine, then you may have a point, and the US will be ahead of Europe in heading toward immunity. That’s assuming its hospitals aren’t overwhelmed, which is the real fear as rcs says.
The other issue is the evidence that some people may be left with long term and even lifelong morbidity after apparently recovering from the virus. We don’t yet know how rare this is.
As well as Trump's struggles against the English language, the transcript starting this thread demonstrates how urgently Trump needs a big idea.
Like them or not (and I certainly didn't), he had three big and memorable policy lines in 2016 - build the wall, tear up and aggressively renegotiate trade deals, and repeal Obamacare.
Mixed success on those - McCain had his revenge by destroying the third, and you can debate how far he's got on the other two.
But he can't just repeat them in 2020 and expect them to have the same resonance. He needs some pithy applause lines for the next few years - whether that's tearing up the international order (NATO, UN etc), abolishing federal income tax, or whatever.
That's particularly vital for a populist like Trump. He can't exactly campaign as a steady hand on the tiller in troubled times - he needs to provide fresh, red meat to those who aren't sold on him personally but who also don't like the established order because it doesn't feel like it works for them.
A military adventure could work.
To go well that requires: a) The USA to be attacked first or genuinely feel threatened, b) the US has to be seen to win and win quick
Well, over-running Canada shouldn't be too hard.
The last time they tried that The White House ended up on fire...
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
As well as Trump's struggles against the English language, the transcript starting this thread demonstrates how urgently Trump needs a big idea.
Like them or not (and I certainly didn't), he had three big and memorable policy lines in 2016 - build the wall, tear up and aggressively renegotiate trade deals, and repeal Obamacare.
Mixed success on those - McCain had his revenge by destroying the third, and you can debate how far he's got on the other two.
But he can't just repeat them in 2020 and expect them to have the same resonance. He needs some pithy applause lines for the next few years - whether that's tearing up the international order (NATO, UN etc), abolishing federal income tax, or whatever.
That's particularly vital for a populist like Trump. He can't exactly campaign as a steady hand on the tiller in troubled times - he needs to provide fresh, red meat to those who aren't sold on him personally but who also don't like the established order because it doesn't feel like it works for them.
Any incumbent has to point to their record. Not even Trump can be an insurgent against himself. It was clear Trump was going to lead on job numbers for the election. Even now he tries to talk them up.
I don't agree with that.
Trump has very much continued (with some success) to rail against the system and the swamp as President.
Additionally, even more conventional incumbents can't afford to look as if they are out of energy and ideas. Look at Churchill... won a world war, and the voters immediately said, "yeah, but what are you doing for your next trick, grandpa?"
The whole Trump brand relies on inventing new dragons for him to slay. Saying, "things are pretty good" only wins his hardcore 35-40% - he has to make a bold offer to win over the rest.
As well as Trump's struggles against the English language, the transcript starting this thread demonstrates how urgently Trump needs a big idea.
Like them or not (and I certainly didn't), he had three big and memorable policy lines in 2016 - build the wall, tear up and aggressively renegotiate trade deals, and repeal Obamacare.
Mixed success on those - McCain had his revenge by destroying the third, and you can debate how far he's got on the other two.
But he can't just repeat them in 2020 and expect them to have the same resonance. He needs some pithy applause lines for the next few years - whether that's tearing up the international order (NATO, UN etc), abolishing federal income tax, or whatever.
That's particularly vital for a populist like Trump. He can't exactly campaign as a steady hand on the tiller in troubled times - he needs to provide fresh, red meat to those who aren't sold on him personally but who also don't like the established order because it doesn't feel like it works for them.
A military adventure could work.
To go well that requires: a) The USA to be attacked first or genuinely feel threatened, b) the US has to be seen to win and win quick
He could conquer St. Barts and put a Trump hotel on it to make a stand against European colonialism.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
The Southern states of the USA say a collective hi-y-all!
It is these states I am referring to. Who cares how many cases there are of a disease that is becoming less of a threat to human life by the week?
We don;t stop people going out in the summer because there are more cases of sunstroke. What makes Corona so special? Its a disease that is gradually having its d8ck cut off.
Counterpoint: it's good news that treatment is getting better, and there's no reason to think that process won't continue for a while longer. So holding off infections until the survival odds are as good as they can reasonably be is a wise move.
Its a good point, but economically its now getting quite late in the day. At some juncture very soon people are going to have to live with the risk of corona or see their standards of living plummet permanently and their liberties shrink.
Sure. At some point pretty soon, we need to move to a "new normal for a while" that keeps the infection rate low. We all know roughly what that looks like- masks, distancing where possible, keep superspreading events to a minimum and lots of tracking and testing. And wash your hands (thank you baked potato).
I suspect that the UK isn't quite there yet; slightly too many cases, not enough working contact tracing. A lot of that is because the UK response has been a bit too poor, albeit not as bad as (say) Florida or Texas. We're so close (2 -3 weeks?), though, that it's worth getting there and ending up on a European trajectory, rather than an American one.
Otherwise, we risk spoiling the ship for a ha'penny (even a few quid) of tar.
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Isn't he the owner of Mirror Group Newspapers ?
Formerly of the Express Group. Need I say more? I will though, he bought the Express on the back of a successful career as a purveyor of pornographic magazines. Nice!
Isn't it all part of the same group and wasn't the Mirror's editor in chief sat at the same table
I thought Trinity Mirror bought the Express titles from Desmond. They then changed the name to Reach.
Back in the 70s there was a man called Desmond who owned a title called "Men Only" which - I am told - featured the monthly horizontal jogging exploits of one Fiona Richmond. Is this related?
Wasn't it a bit like Autocar or Motor, only the vicar's daughter road tested men rather than cars.
As well as Trump's struggles against the English language, the transcript starting this thread demonstrates how urgently Trump needs a big idea.
Like them or not (and I certainly didn't), he had three big and memorable policy lines in 2016 - build the wall, tear up and aggressively renegotiate trade deals, and repeal Obamacare.
Mixed success on those - McCain had his revenge by destroying the third, and you can debate how far he's got on the other two.
But he can't just repeat them in 2020 and expect them to have the same resonance. He needs some pithy applause lines for the next few years - whether that's tearing up the international order (NATO, UN etc), abolishing federal income tax, or whatever.
That's particularly vital for a populist like Trump. He can't exactly campaign as a steady hand on the tiller in troubled times - he needs to provide fresh, red meat to those who aren't sold on him personally but who also don't like the established order because it doesn't feel like it works for them.
A military adventure could work.
To go well that requires: a) The USA to be attacked first or genuinely feel threatened, b) the US has to be seen to win and win quick
He could conquer St. Barts and put a Trump hotel on it to make a stand against European colonialism.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
The Southern states of the USA say a collective hi-y-all!
It is these states I am referring to. Who cares how many cases there are of a disease that is becoming less of a threat to human life by the week?
We don;t stop people going out in the summer because there are more cases of sunstroke. What makes Corona so special? Its a disease that is gradually having its d8ck cut off.
Counterpoint: it's good news that treatment is getting better, and there's no reason to think that process won't continue for a while longer. So holding off infections until the survival odds are as good as they can reasonably be is a wise move.
Its a good point, but economically its now getting quite late in the day. At some juncture very soon people are going to have to live with the risk of corona or see their standards of living plummet permanently and their liberties shrink.
Its difficult to put the hit on the economy into a proper context because it is so much bigger than and different to anything we have experienced before. But its hyperbole to say we are risking living standards plummeting permanently.
If we produced literally nothing for a year, the impact over a lifetime is pretty trivial. Plenty of people are unemployed for a year or two during their career but end up very well off financially by retirement.
Id say we are likely to take a near permanent small hit after a sharp shock this year. The impact over a lifetime will almost certainly be below 5%, perhaps 2-3% assuming we get back to normal by end of 2021.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
The Southern states of the USA say a collective hi-y-all!
It is these states I am referring to. Who cares how many cases there are of a disease that is becoming less of a threat to human life by the week?
We don;t stop people going out in the summer because there are more cases of sunstroke. What makes Corona so special? Its a disease that is gradually having its d8ck cut off.
Counterpoint: it's good news that treatment is getting better, and there's no reason to think that process won't continue for a while longer. So holding off infections until the survival odds are as good as they can reasonably be is a wise move.
Its a good point, but economically its now getting quite late in the day. At some juncture very soon people are going to have to live with the risk of corona or see their standards of living plummet permanently and their liberties shrink.
Its difficult to put the hit on the economy into a proper context because it is so much bigger than and different to anything we have experienced before. But its hyperbole to say we are risking living standards plummeting permanently.
If we produced literally nothing for a year, the impact over a lifetime is pretty trivial. Plenty of people are unemployed for a year or two during their career but end up very well off financially by retirement.
Id say we are likely to take a near permanent small hit after a sharp shock this year. The impact over a lifetime will almost certainly be below 5%, perhaps 2-3% assuming we get back to normal by end of 2021.
Consider that the developed world managed Total War for five years in the 1940's. Consider the wealth that was literally blown up in that time.
"Never Had It So Good" was just over a decade later.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
The Southern states of the USA say a collective hi-y-all!
It is these states I am referring to. Who cares how many cases there are of a disease that is becoming less of a threat to human life by the week?
We don;t stop people going out in the summer because there are more cases of sunstroke. What makes Corona so special? Its a disease that is gradually having its d8ck cut off.
Counterpoint: it's good news that treatment is getting better, and there's no reason to think that process won't continue for a while longer. So holding off infections until the survival odds are as good as they can reasonably be is a wise move.
Its a good point, but economically its now getting quite late in the day. At some juncture very soon people are going to have to live with the risk of corona or see their standards of living plummet permanently and their liberties shrink.
Sure. At some point pretty soon, we need to move to a "new normal for a while" that keeps the infection rate low. We all know roughly what that looks like- masks, distancing where possible, keep superspreading events to a minimum and lots of tracking and testing. And wash your hands (thank you baked potato).
I suspect that the UK isn't quite there yet; slightly too many cases, not enough working contact tracing. A lot of that is because the UK response has been a bit too poor, albeit not as bad as (say) Florida or Texas. We're so close (2 -3 weeks?), though, that it's worth getting there and ending up on a European trajectory, rather than an American one.
Otherwise, we risk spoiling the ship for a ha'penny (even a few quid) of tar.
I am for from convinced new normal you describe will raise nearly enough revenues or provide anywhere near enough jobs to keep us going
Its not sustainable for a while. Its not sustainable at all.
As well as Trump's struggles against the English language, the transcript starting this thread demonstrates how urgently Trump needs a big idea.
Like them or not (and I certainly didn't), he had three big and memorable policy lines in 2016 - build the wall, tear up and aggressively renegotiate trade deals, and repeal Obamacare.
Mixed success on those - McCain had his revenge by destroying the third, and you can debate how far he's got on the other two.
But he can't just repeat them in 2020 and expect them to have the same resonance. He needs some pithy applause lines for the next few years - whether that's tearing up the international order (NATO, UN etc), abolishing federal income tax, or whatever.
That's particularly vital for a populist like Trump. He can't exactly campaign as a steady hand on the tiller in troubled times - he needs to provide fresh, red meat to those who aren't sold on him personally but who also don't like the established order because it doesn't feel like it works for them.
A military adventure could work.
To go well that requires: a) The USA to be attacked first or genuinely feel threatened, b) the US has to be seen to win and win quick
He could conquer St. Barts and put a Trump hotel on it to make a stand against European colonialism.
As well as Trump's struggles against the English language, the transcript starting this thread demonstrates how urgently Trump needs a big idea.
Like them or not (and I certainly didn't), he had three big and memorable policy lines in 2016 - build the wall, tear up and aggressively renegotiate trade deals, and repeal Obamacare.
Mixed success on those - McCain had his revenge by destroying the third, and you can debate how far he's got on the other two.
But he can't just repeat them in 2020 and expect them to have the same resonance. He needs some pithy applause lines for the next few years - whether that's tearing up the international order (NATO, UN etc), abolishing federal income tax, or whatever.
That's particularly vital for a populist like Trump. He can't exactly campaign as a steady hand on the tiller in troubled times - he needs to provide fresh, red meat to those who aren't sold on him personally but who also don't like the established order because it doesn't feel like it works for them.
A military adventure could work.
Trouble with that is he's been pretty critical of that sort of caper. Indeed, it's in the quote as a key criticism of Bolton (albeit one wonders how he didn't know Bolton was an ultra-hawkish neocon when he appointed him). So it'd be quite a reversal.
One thing I'd say for Trump, in fact, is that I think he is quite genuinely personally averse to dropping actual rather than metaphorical/rhetorical bombs. There's a (somewhat admirable) squeamishness there.
Had Keir majored on trial by jury instead of banging on about Jenrick he could have claimed a victory. Instead he's been banging on about this and the public don't care by your own survey!
You could have a survey ask if Bob Smith should resign from the government and a significant proportion would say yes.
In both RLB and Jenrick's polls the 41% and 50% don't knows are incredibly high
Maybe time to step out of the political bubble and realise the public have far more real worries and concerns about their lives
Jenrick (and Cummings) become symbolic if and when (ok when) the economy fails post Covid and people start to struggle. It becomes more focused when they understand that the billionaire who Jenrick saved from an almost £50m tax bill made his money from an activity some might see as morally questionable.
The Jenrick case is fascinating, in that it is a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. Stealing from the poor (the good burghers of Tower Hamlets) to give to a rich pornographer, who is not short of a bob or two.
Isn't he the owner of Mirror Group Newspapers ?
Formerly of the Express Group. Need I say more? I will though, he bought the Express on the back of a successful career as a purveyor of pornographic magazines. Nice!
Isn't it all part of the same group and wasn't the Mirror's editor in chief sat at the same table
I thought Trinity Mirror bought the Express titles from Desmond. They then changed the name to Reach.
Back in the 70s there was a man called Desmond who owned a title called "Men Only" which - I am told - featured the monthly horizontal jogging exploits of one Fiona Richmond. Is this related?
Wasn't it a bit like Autocar or Motor, only the vicar's daughter road tested men rather than cars.
What frightens a lot of politicians in western democracies is seeing their state health services overwhelmed. That's how they think. Contrarian is right in one way, if lots of people get it it probably isn't terrible as long as its not desperately visible and the vast majority don't die.
The US is a bit different because of the way the healthcare system works, its underlying culture or at least sizeable parts of it are different and it is very very deeply divided right now.
The US is also home to the great god that is the air conditioner which time may well prove to be a major contributor to closed space spread.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Kills less but just as many end up in ICU.
A trip to ICU is no joke. Possibly permanent impairment going forward.
Has anyone told this fool that 'No' is a complete sentence?
There are already quite enough Archbishops of Woke - they don't need any more.
Welby is actually being quite sensible on this, the fastest growth in the Anglican Church of which he is spiritual global head is in Africa, there are more Anglicans in Nigeria than in England for instance and a higher percentage of black British people attend Church of England services than white British, certainly amongst the younger generation.
The Church needs to be seen to be inclusive to its BAME community without getting too close to the far left either
Why include the words "to be seen to be"? Why not simply "the Church needs to be inclusive to its BAME community...."?
The issues which will blow the Anglican communion apart are nothing to do with the statues in Westminster Abbey, and everything to do with the huge gulf between the Western liberals and the (mostl) African evangelicals on issues such as gay bishops and transgenderism. Welby is on the losing side on this; Christianity is about believing in what the Bible clearly teaches, but Welby doesn't really believe in that anything apsolute - he's all vagueness and waffle. Historically liberalism dies out in little more than a generation from the point were it decouples from concrete beliefs, this process is going on pretty rapidly in the western liberal wing at present, meanwhile there is strong conservative evangelical growth in Africa (and in a UK context, the only bits which show any sign of growth are the conservative evangelicals).
The Anglican church is a broad church from Anglo Catholics, to liberal Anglicans to conservative evangelical Anglicans.
There is no reason why that can also not be reflected in a loose broad global umbrella but a distinct and separate ethos for Africa and say the UK and North America and Australia and New Zealand
I think there is about to be a huge drop in Membership too.
Where exactly did all this "biggest political party in Europe" or whatever it was get Labour?
They get membership subs, of course, which is nice but not a huge part of overall Labour funding. Some are activists (although a lot aren't) but a lot of that activity was pretty ineffective, consisting of earnestly telling people why they are wrong. And it turned out too many of the people they let in were liabilities due to wacky fringe views.
Lib Dems have also had a membership surge since 2016, and it contributed to a disastrous campaign targeted at zealous members rather than the public.
No leader wants to preside over declining membership, but within reason it's something a sensible one will live with if it means that they are focusing on the voting public rather than the zealots.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Kills less but just as many end up in ICU.
A trip to ICU is no joke. Possibly permanent impairment going forward.
The figures for hearing damage were frightening. Especvially as those were supposedly "asymptomatic" in the original study. That is no joke at all.
I posted on here over a month ago that Trump was finished and that Biden would have to kill a child for Trump to have a chance.
It is fair to say that the joy of the electoral college does give some opportunity where in a binary contest he won't have hope but I suspect come November his biggest problem is that enough of the GOP vote is done with him. They might not cast for Biden but they won't vote for him. Even if Biden outperforms Clinton which looks likely as it stands, too many of Trump voters in 2016 are going to, at the very least, sit it out. Biden has one great asset over Clinton, people don't dislike him. He will, as I have said before, offer a rather sunny contrast to Trump's narcissistic and generally grim shit tendencies.
The die hard base of Trump which sits at 42 or so percent is even at risk on current form.
What the people on the Hill are really looking at is whether Trump's presence will see them to defeat in both houses Congress in November. That's the major concern.
Until Biden gets well over 50% it is clear that just as in 2016 there are still a lot of silent Trump voters
What frightens a lot of politicians in western democracies is seeing their state health services overwhelmed. That's how they think. Contrarian is right in one way, if lots of people get it it probably isn't terrible as long as its not desperately visible and the vast majority don't die.
The US is a bit different because of the way the healthcare system works, its underlying culture or at least sizeable parts of it are different and it is very very deeply divided right now.
The US is also home to the great god that is the air conditioner which time may well prove to be a major contributor to closed space spread.
Aside from individualism, the US has been handicapped by air conditioning, a lot of between state air flights, and higher levels of church attendance.
As well as Trump's struggles against the English language, the transcript starting this thread demonstrates how urgently Trump needs a big idea.
Like them or not (and I certainly didn't), he had three big and memorable policy lines in 2016 - build the wall, tear up and aggressively renegotiate trade deals, and repeal Obamacare.
Mixed success on those - McCain had his revenge by destroying the third, and you can debate how far he's got on the other two.
But he can't just repeat them in 2020 and expect them to have the same resonance. He needs some pithy applause lines for the next few years - whether that's tearing up the international order (NATO, UN etc), abolishing federal income tax, or whatever.
That's particularly vital for a populist like Trump. He can't exactly campaign as a steady hand on the tiller in troubled times - he needs to provide fresh, red meat to those who aren't sold on him personally but who also don't like the established order because it doesn't feel like it works for them.
Any incumbent has to point to their record. Not even Trump can be an insurgent against himself. It was clear Trump was going to lead on job numbers for the election. Even now he tries to talk them up.
I don't agree with that.
Trump has very much continued (with some success) to rail against the system and the swamp as President.
Additionally, even more conventional incumbents can't afford to look as if they are out of energy and ideas. Look at Churchill... won a world war, and the voters immediately said, "yeah, but what are you doing for your next trick, grandpa?"
The whole Trump brand relies on inventing new dragons for him to slay. Saying, "things are pretty good" only wins his hardcore 35-40% - he has to make a bold offer to win over the rest.
The reason why I think Trump was intending to fight this campaign on his record - specifically jobs - is that he has been going on about that throughout his presidency. His presidency has been chaotic but his messaging has been somewhat consistent.
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
The Southern states of the USA say a collective hi-y-all!
It is these states I am referring to. Who cares how many cases there are of a disease that is becoming less of a threat to human life by the week?
We don;t stop people going out in the summer because there are more cases of sunstroke. What makes Corona so special? Its a disease that is gradually having its d8ck cut off.
Counterpoint: it's good news that treatment is getting better, and there's no reason to think that process won't continue for a while longer. So holding off infections until the survival odds are as good as they can reasonably be is a wise move.
Its a good point, but economically its now getting quite late in the day. At some juncture very soon people are going to have to live with the risk of corona or see their standards of living plummet permanently and their liberties shrink.
Its difficult to put the hit on the economy into a proper context because it is so much bigger than and different to anything we have experienced before. But its hyperbole to say we are risking living standards plummeting permanently.
If we produced literally nothing for a year, the impact over a lifetime is pretty trivial. Plenty of people are unemployed for a year or two during their career but end up very well off financially by retirement.
Id say we are likely to take a near permanent small hit after a sharp shock this year. The impact over a lifetime will almost certainly be below 5%, perhaps 2-3% assuming we get back to normal by end of 2021.
Consider that the developed world managed Total War for five years in the 1940's. Consider the wealth that was literally blown up in that time.
"Never Had It So Good" was just over a decade later.
Quite. And the Roaring Twenties immediately after a previous war on top of (by some measures worse than the current) pandemic.
If they were American 33% of British voters would vote for Biden, 13% for Trump, 5% for Jorgensen (the Libertarian candidate) and 5% for Hawkins (the Green candidate) and 27% Don't Know and 17% wouldn't vote
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
I think there is about to be a huge drop in Membership too.
I think he's doing a good job
He needs a huge drop in membership to convince a few million Tory voters that he has changed the party. He has a very long road, but a decent start.
Starmer's great challenge is going to be getting his lost Red Wall voters back without alienating Labour's existing core of young voters, metro left-libs, socialists and ethnic minorities. The more concessions he offers to the social conservative vote on, for example, immigration policy, policing and identity issues, the more he risks the core voters drifting off to the Greens, SNP/PC, minor Left parties and possibly the Lib Dems, or sitting on their hands.
The possible alternative - making a big play for wealthier social liberals in Southern England - is also deeply problematic. Many of them will need convincing of Labour's economic competence, some at least won't want to be pumped for extra taxes, and there are actually rather few Southern seats available to Labour on modest swings. Out of the top 50 Labour targets arranged by swing required to capture, only a dozen are down South:
There are only about another dozen Southern seats in the list from targets 51-100, so the Tories could afford to ship the lot and still get home with a decent majority, and these more distant targets require swings of 5% or more to capture. And then there's the matter of simultaneously trying to defend what's left of the Red Wall, where there are a fair number of surviving Labour MPs in the North and the West Midlands sitting on small majorities themselves.
So, we're back to how he appeals to enough of Labour's lost former core vote to get back into the game without losing his current supporters. This will not be easy.
As well as Trump's struggles against the English language, the transcript starting this thread demonstrates how urgently Trump needs a big idea.
Like them or not (and I certainly didn't), he had three big and memorable policy lines in 2016 - build the wall, tear up and aggressively renegotiate trade deals, and repeal Obamacare.
Mixed success on those - McCain had his revenge by destroying the third, and you can debate how far he's got on the other two.
But he can't just repeat them in 2020 and expect them to have the same resonance. He needs some pithy applause lines for the next few years - whether that's tearing up the international order (NATO, UN etc), abolishing federal income tax, or whatever.
That's particularly vital for a populist like Trump. He can't exactly campaign as a steady hand on the tiller in troubled times - he needs to provide fresh, red meat to those who aren't sold on him personally but who also don't like the established order because it doesn't feel like it works for them.
Any incumbent has to point to their record. Not even Trump can be an insurgent against himself. It was clear Trump was going to lead on job numbers for the election. Even now he tries to talk them up.
I don't agree with that.
Trump has very much continued (with some success) to rail against the system and the swamp as President.
Additionally, even more conventional incumbents can't afford to look as if they are out of energy and ideas. Look at Churchill... won a world war, and the voters immediately said, "yeah, but what are you doing for your next trick, grandpa?"
The whole Trump brand relies on inventing new dragons for him to slay. Saying, "things are pretty good" only wins his hardcore 35-40% - he has to make a bold offer to win over the rest.
The reason why I think Trump was intending to fight this campaign on his record - specifically jobs - is that he has been going on about that throughout his presidency. His presidency has been chaotic but his messaging has been somewhat consistent.
True. But, firstly, I think that was always more difficult ground for an iconoclastic populist. Secondly, circumstances mean "you never had it so good" isn't going to wash anyway, so he needs to pivot.
I think there is about to be a huge drop in Membership too.
I think he's doing a good job
He needs a huge drop in membership to convince a few million Tory voters that he has changed the party. He has a very long road, but a decent start.
Starmer's great challenge is going to be getting his lost Red Wall voters back without alienating Labour's existing core of young voters, metro left-libs, socialists and ethnic minorities. The more concessions he offers to the social conservative vote on, for example, immigration policy, policing and identity issues, the more he risks the core voters drifting off to the Greens, SNP/PC, minor Left parties and possibly the Lib Dems, or sitting on their hands.
The possible alternative - making a big play for wealthier social liberals in Southern England - is also deeply problematic. Many of them will need convincing of Labour's economic competence, some at least won't want to be pumped for extra taxes, and there are actually rather few Southern seats available to Labour on modest swings. Out of the top 50 Labour targets arranged by swing required to capture, only a dozen are down South:
There are only about another dozen Southern seats in the list from targets 51-100, so the Tories could afford to ship the lot and still get home with a decent majority, and these more distant targets require swings of 5% or more to capture. And then there's the matter of simultaneously trying to defend what's left of the Red Wall, where there are a fair number of surviving Labour MPs in the North and the West Midlands sitting on small majorities themselves.
So, we're back to how he appeals to enough of Labour's lost former core vote to get back into the game without losing his current supporters. This will not be easy.
Today's Survation sees a swing of 2.5% from Tory to Labour since 2019, enough to see Red Wall seats like Blyth Valley, Durham NW, Bury N and S and Bridgend and West Bromwich East go back to Labour, though the Tories would still win with a narrower majority
These people think the OneWeb satellites are useless for a UK GPS system. The whole thing is very vague, I have to say. My guess is that the government's stake in OneWeb is
(a) cover for a tactical retreat from a UK Galileo. They can pretend they are doing something while avoiding having to actually do it and pay for it;
(b) the government can choose sexy hi-tech "winners" for a Global Britain play. So far "Global Britain" has consisted of getting rid of DfID, painting union flags on aircraft and buying useless satellite companies.
It is quite shocking to discover that the State of Mississippi STILL has the Confederate emblem in its official flag (though maybe not for much longer)
I think there is about to be a huge drop in Membership too.
I think he's doing a good job
He needs a huge drop in membership to convince a few million Tory voters that he has changed the party. He has a very long road, but a decent start.
Starmer's great challenge is going to be getting his lost Red Wall voters back without alienating Labour's existing core of young voters, metro left-libs, socialists and ethnic minorities. The more concessions he offers to the social conservative vote on, for example, immigration policy, policing and identity issues, the more he risks the core voters drifting off to the Greens, SNP/PC, minor Left parties and possibly the Lib Dems, or sitting on their hands.
The possible alternative - making a big play for wealthier social liberals in Southern England - is also deeply problematic. Many of them will need convincing of Labour's economic competence, some at least won't want to be pumped for extra taxes, and there are actually rather few Southern seats available to Labour on modest swings. Out of the top 50 Labour targets arranged by swing required to capture, only a dozen are down South:
There are only about another dozen Southern seats in the list from targets 51-100, so the Tories could afford to ship the lot and still get home with a decent majority, and these more distant targets require swings of 5% or more to capture. And then there's the matter of simultaneously trying to defend what's left of the Red Wall, where there are a fair number of surviving Labour MPs in the North and the West Midlands sitting on small majorities themselves.
So, we're back to how he appeals to enough of Labour's lost former core vote to get back into the game without losing his current supporters. This will not be easy.
Today's Survation sees a swing of 2.5% from Tory to Labour since 2019, enough to see Red Wall seats like Blyth Valley, Durham NW, Bury N and S and Bridgend and West Bromwich East go back to Labour, though the Tories would still win with a narrower majority
I have no idea how uniform swing (or lack of) would play out but Labour would struggle to get more than 230-240 seats on today's polls I reckon. I'd only be be confident of Labour regaining seats like High Peak, Kensington, Keighley, Dewsbury, Bury N&S, Warrington S Keighley, Gedling, Bolton NE etc and a small no.of seats with a large LD vote to squeeze like Southport and possibly Watford.
As well as Trump's struggles against the English language, the transcript starting this thread demonstrates how urgently Trump needs a big idea.
Like them or not (and I certainly didn't), he had three big and memorable policy lines in 2016 - build the wall, tear up and aggressively renegotiate trade deals, and repeal Obamacare.
Mixed success on those - McCain had his revenge by destroying the third, and you can debate how far he's got on the other two.
But he can't just repeat them in 2020 and expect them to have the same resonance. He needs some pithy applause lines for the next few years - whether that's tearing up the international order (NATO, UN etc), abolishing federal income tax, or whatever.
That's particularly vital for a populist like Trump. He can't exactly campaign as a steady hand on the tiller in troubled times - he needs to provide fresh, red meat to those who aren't sold on him personally but who also don't like the established order because it doesn't feel like it works for them.
A military adventure could work.
To go well that requires: a) The USA to be attacked first or genuinely feel threatened, b) the US has to be seen to win and win quick
He could conquer St. Barts and put a Trump hotel on it to make a stand against European colonialism.
How about Elba, and a promise to stay there ?
But he still would not be able to say, "Able was I, ere I saw Elba"
If corona is killing fewer and fewer of the vulnerable people who get it due to better treatment, and given that most healthy people aren't vulnerable anyway, who gives a monkeys how many cases there are? we may as well control our lives by the number of cold/flu/clap etc cases.
Corona is now a tool to control us. See the threat from top medics today. Stop enjoying yourselves, or your kids don't go to school in September.
Its outrageous.
Yes, but hospital and ICU beds are filling up rapidly, which rather suggests that the death rate might be on the verge of shooting up.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Which makes you wonder if the billions we a spending on furlough would be better off being spent on enormous health facilities. So capacity is so large that spikes become meaningless and we all get on with our lives and generating the wealth to pay for them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
I'm not convinced that economic Armageddon would have been avoided without a lockdown. People aren't irrational, and will self lockdown if things seem dangerous. So, Sweden's economic performance is actually worse than Denmark's.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
NZ is more or less free, there being a few cases during quarantine of returnees, but still having economic problems. The Tourism industry for a start.
The direct and indirect contribution of tourism to New Zealand GDP is just a smidgen under 10%. That is effectively reduced to zero at the moment which is one hell of a hit.
It is quite shocking to discover that the State of Mississippi STILL has the Confederate emblem in its official flag (though maybe not for much longer)
It is quite shocking to discover that the State of Mississippi STILL has the Confederate emblem in its official flag (though maybe not for much longer)
If you are coming out to Spain ensure you carry a mask with you at all times and wear it whenever 1.5 m social distancing is not possible or in a shop, outside or in. This will remain in place Until a vaccine is available. Fines up to €1000
Comments
Classy!
We don;t stop people going out in the summer because there are more cases of sunstroke. What makes Corona so special? Its a disease that is gradually having its d8ck cut off.
Projected Tory majority (Electoral calculus) down from 80 to 26.
There is a consistent downwards movement for the Tories.
6 months gone. Another 54 months to go?
It is fair to say that the joy of the electoral college does give some opportunity where in a binary contest he won't have hope but I suspect come November his biggest problem is that enough of the GOP vote is done with him. They might not cast for Biden but they won't vote for him. Even if Biden outperforms Clinton which looks likely as it stands, too many of Trump voters in 2016 are going to, at the very least, sit it out. Biden has one great asset over Clinton, people don't dislike him. He will, as I have said before, offer a rather sunny contrast to Trump's narcissistic and generally grim shit tendencies.
The die hard base of Trump which sits at 42 or so percent is even at risk on current form.
What the people on the Hill are really looking at is whether Trump's presence will see them to defeat in both houses Congress in November. That's the major concern.
She clearly isn't. Just like she clearly isn't on top of the multitude of other incidents she is 'appalled by'. All the people she is giving stern talking tos are just laughing or doing the opposite. Either by design, accident or some other reason Patel appears to be toothless.
Patel talks tough but does nothing. She is vulnerable to getting replaced.
What planet is he on !
Who would have thought Campbell so classy too?
Like them or not (and I certainly didn't), he had three big and memorable policy lines in 2016 - build the wall, tear up and aggressively renegotiate trade deals, and repeal Obamacare.
Mixed success on those - McCain had his revenge by destroying the third, and you can debate how far he's got on the other two.
But he can't just repeat them in 2020 and expect them to have the same resonance. He needs some pithy applause lines for the next few years - whether that's tearing up the international order (NATO, UN etc), abolishing federal income tax, or whatever.
That's particularly vital for a populist like Trump. He can't exactly campaign as a steady hand on the tiller in troubled times - he needs to provide fresh, red meat to those who aren't sold on him personally but who also don't like the established order because it doesn't feel like it works for them.
Outdoor activities are low risk, especially if you're lolling about on a beach or in a park and not interacting socially with other family groups. You're probably not going to be touching contaminated hard surfaces and the whole environment is being constantly saturated with UV radiation. If a carrier of the disease gets anywhere near you then you're nevertheless unlikely to catch it from them unless they cough in your face, and prevalence of the illness amongst the general population is relatively low in any event.
I would imagine that quite a lot of people who have managed to acquire some knowledge of this virus would be a lot happier going to the beach than the supermarket, for example.
Beyond that, if you're young (and especially if you're not living with a vulnerable person) then you might take the view that you're so unlikely to suffer serious consequences if you catch the wretched thing that you might as well go out and enjoy yourself. Regardless of whether you regard this as to any degree selfish or not, it's certainly understandable.
The danger - as was seen in NYC and Milan and Wuhan - is that the virus gets out of control and overwhelms local healthcare.
Taking Georgia as an example, what this means is that so long as the incidence of the virus remains at - say 1,000 new cases a day or less - then everything is OK. The healthcare system can cope.
But if it goes to 3,000 or 5,000 cases a day, and 10% of them are hospitalised (which still seems to be about the rate), then you end up with 3-500 people a day turning up at hospitals without the capability to treat them.
Because as everybody will find soon enough, there is no other way to run things. Much more of this we are all gonna run out of money.
https://twitter.com/AnasSarwar/status/1276547417740115969?s=20
Wouldn't be surprised if he's next SLab leader, for better or worse.
Per White Rabbit's useful table, there are more than enough winning combos from states won by Trump by under 5% not to look far beyond that in terms of campaign resources. Biden might dip his toe into Georgia and Iowa because the Senate seats may just about be in play, it broadens his options further, and adds to the sense of momentum if he's seen fighting on unlikely ground. Possibly Ohio if the polls look really good (but no Senate race there). Texas is just too huge a media market.
Of course, if he wins a landslide, he possibly wins states he didn't do much in (like Labour winning some odd seats in 1997). But ultimately that's just a nice bonus, not in the strategy.
The other issue is the evidence that some people may be left with long term and even lifelong morbidity after apparently recovering from the virus. We don’t yet know how rare this is.
It seems to me that the places that have done best are either
(a) those, like Australia and New Zealand, that cut themselves off from the outside world immediately, and then had brief but severe lockdowns. (And are now essentially open again, and virus free)
or
(b) those who early shut down high risk activities (nightclubs, choirs, sporting events), and then enforced mask wearing for most other indoor activities and public transport. This doesn't eliminate the virus, but keeps R low.
I fear America has managed all the economic damage of lockdowns, without any of the actual "getting rid of the virus". And the fact that opening up in most states is far too liberal (b) is deeply worrying.
Trump has very much continued (with some success) to rail against the system and the swamp as President.
Additionally, even more conventional incumbents can't afford to look as if they are out of energy and ideas. Look at Churchill... won a world war, and the voters immediately said, "yeah, but what are you doing for your next trick, grandpa?"
The whole Trump brand relies on inventing new dragons for him to slay. Saying, "things are pretty good" only wins his hardcore 35-40% - he has to make a bold offer to win over the rest.
I suspect that the UK isn't quite there yet; slightly too many cases, not enough working contact tracing. A lot of that is because the UK response has been a bit too poor, albeit not as bad as (say) Florida or Texas.
We're so close (2 -3 weeks?), though, that it's worth getting there and ending up on a European trajectory, rather than an American one.
Otherwise, we risk spoiling the ship for a ha'penny (even a few quid) of tar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Richmond
If we produced literally nothing for a year, the impact over a lifetime is pretty trivial. Plenty of people are unemployed for a year or two during their career but end up very well off financially by retirement.
Id say we are likely to take a near permanent small hit after a sharp shock this year. The impact over a lifetime will almost certainly be below 5%, perhaps 2-3% assuming we get back to normal by end of 2021.
"Never Had It So Good" was just over a decade later.
Its not sustainable for a while. Its not sustainable at all.
We go back or we go broke
I think there is about to be a huge drop in Membership too.
One thing I'd say for Trump, in fact, is that I think he is quite genuinely personally averse to dropping actual rather than metaphorical/rhetorical bombs. There's a (somewhat admirable) squeamishness there.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8464245/Richard-Desmond-says-Sadiq-Khan-promised-fast-track-controversial-1bn-Westferry-development.html
What frightens a lot of politicians in western democracies is seeing their state health services overwhelmed. That's how they think. Contrarian is right in one way, if lots of people get it it probably isn't terrible as long as its not desperately visible and the vast majority don't die.
The US is a bit different because of the way the healthcare system works, its underlying culture or at least sizeable parts of it are different and it is very very deeply divided right now.
The US is also home to the great god that is the air conditioner which time may well prove to be a major contributor to closed space spread.
I'm lost with politics at the moment with everything that is going on.
A trip to ICU is no joke. Possibly permanent impairment going forward.
There is no reason why that can also not be reflected in a loose broad global umbrella but a distinct and separate ethos for Africa and say the UK and North America and Australia and New Zealand
They get membership subs, of course, which is nice but not a huge part of overall Labour funding. Some are activists (although a lot aren't) but a lot of that activity was pretty ineffective, consisting of earnestly telling people why they are wrong. And it turned out too many of the people they let in were liabilities due to wacky fringe views.
Lib Dems have also had a membership surge since 2016, and it contributed to a disastrous campaign targeted at zealous members rather than the public.
No leader wants to preside over declining membership, but within reason it's something a sensible one will live with if it means that they are focusing on the voting public rather than the zealots.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jun/26/satellite-experts-oneweb-investment-uk-galileo-brexit
You would not have expected any of that if you had been following PB
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1276535060733313024?s=20
It did come over as being decisive unlike Sturgeon and Drakeford
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1276524388817534977?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1276524394614075397?s=20
The possible alternative - making a big play for wealthier social liberals in Southern England - is also deeply problematic. Many of them will need convincing of Labour's economic competence, some at least won't want to be pumped for extra taxes, and there are actually rather few Southern seats available to Labour on modest swings. Out of the top 50 Labour targets arranged by swing required to capture, only a dozen are down South:
Kensington (2), Chipping Barnet (10), Chingford & Woodford Green (13), Peterborough (27), Stroud (29), Hastings & Rye (37), Watford (41), Hendon (42), Wycombe (43), Truro & Falmouth (44), Reading West (46), Southampton Itchen (50)
There are only about another dozen Southern seats in the list from targets 51-100, so the Tories could afford to ship the lot and still get home with a decent majority, and these more distant targets require swings of 5% or more to capture. And then there's the matter of simultaneously trying to defend what's left of the Red Wall, where there are a fair number of surviving Labour MPs in the North and the West Midlands sitting on small majorities themselves.
So, we're back to how he appeals to enough of Labour's lost former core vote to get back into the game without losing his current supporters. This will not be easy.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
(a) cover for a tactical retreat from a UK Galileo. They can pretend they are doing something while avoiding having to actually do it and pay for it;
(b) the government can choose sexy hi-tech "winners" for a Global Britain play. So far "Global Britain" has consisted of getting rid of DfID, painting union flags on aircraft and buying useless satellite companies.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jun/26/satellite-experts-oneweb-investment-uk-galileo-brexit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_United_Kingdom_general_election
It's yet another piece of evidence that the whole "heritage" and history defence is a load of bullshit.