I hate Trump but he got incredibly unlucky to have a pandemic in his final year
President Bush just texted me to say he had 9/11 at the start and the global financial crisis started by Gordon Brown at the end. And FDR's been on the ouija board moaning about some war or other.
I hate Trump but he got incredibly unlucky to have a pandemic in his final year
President Bush just texted me to say he had 9/11 at the start and the global financial crisis started by Gordon Brown at the end. And FDR's been on the ouija board moaning about some war or other.
Interesting that this is not made more of. The UK government has had a lot of flak, but they have navigated some choppy waters and we are not currently badly placed. Enjoyed a Rishi meal last night (service appalling, but that's not Boris's fault), food delicious.
It just shows the poor journalism in this country. Why would France have 5 times the number of people in hospital with Covid than the UK?
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Yep - all te polling shows that since Starmer became leader the Labour vote share has gone up. It could be by a bit or by a decent amount. What is less clear is whether the Tories are retaining all of their GE support or have lost a small part of it. What we do know is that they have lost support since the change of Labour leadership and Cummings went walkabout.
No we don't know that.
There was internationally in all countries a rally around the flag surge to government parties that has subsequently unwound in most countries.
The government is currently polling at or around the same levels as it was at the General Election, that doesn't look like any support has been lost, unless you considered for some bizarre and unforeseen reason the peak of a surge to be sustainable.
When the Tories are polling 44% you can't say the Tories have lost support.
The tories have lost support from the time that Starmer took over.
You can argue the toss over whether that is due to Starmer or due to the government's handling of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing the toss: there was a significant increase in tory support between the election and the first UK-Covid death. Also many other governments have so far held onto their Corona-Bounce but the the UK-Government has not.
Lets look at Survation as a polling series then, every single poll since the General Election.
I'm not seeing a statistically significant loss of support there. Looks like an outlier in April but otherwise a fairly flat and consistent series.
Boris secured an 80 seat majority. Past elections suggest that big winners tend to get a big poll boost - which is what happened this time too.
In 1997 Blair's lead went up in a similar fashion, and apart from the fuel protests, he held on to a lead for over 8 years.
Boris' post-victory boost has already unwound, and we're heading into perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen.
Starmer has turned around the leadership issue, but the rest of the Labour house is still on fire. As the old leadership drift into the background, he'll likely turn that around too.
We're clearly in a hugely unusual time, but I suspect the Tories are very depressed by the current polling.
Not really.
In 2001 the Tories got 30.7% at the election. The Tories had polled at or above 30% not just from the fuel protests onwards, but in virtually every single poll in 2000.
The opinion polls at the election were fairly accurate for the Tories too. The error in the polling in the 1997-2001 Parliament was because there was an immediate post-election and until the next election swing from the Lib Dems to Labour.
What's happened this time? A swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. Just the same as then and many previous Parliaments.
As long as the Tories are polling in the mid-40s I think they'd be quite happy with that.
The Lib Dem vote is almost exactly the same as it was in the month before Starmer took over - when the Tories had leads of over 20%. So, clearly a "swing from Lib Dems to Labour" isn't what's happened after the election, or what's happened since Starmer took over.
If you look at today and the day of the election, without anything in between then you might think a simple Lib Dem to Labour movement is what's happened, but it's "fingers in ears" time if you're pretending the Tories didn't have a huge post election boost (with 2019 Labour AND Lib Dem voters moving to the Tories) that they lost within weeks of Starmer taking over.
There was a surge in support to the Tories that nobody ever seriously thought would be sustained.
Do you seriously think the baseline for Tory support is 48%? Or over 50% in some pollsters?
Do not be ridiculous.
Nobody said that baseline Tory support is 50%. That is ridiculous, and nothing to do with the argument I made.
My argument is simple. A few months after a landslide election victory the Tories would expect to be riding high in the polls and they were. They're heading for a major recession, any honeymoon is lost, and the new Labour leader has clearly made a good first impression.
They may be relieved to still be ahead, but there's no way they'll be happy.
They are riding high in the polls. Since when was 44% not considered "high"?
Since they had a 20-25% lead just a few months ago. It's all relative.
If there was an election tomorrow, then they might be happy, but instead it's honeymoon over, and heading for a major recession, before they even got started.
"Look at the share not the lead"
The honeymoon isn't over until the Tory share starts going down.
The "share" was averaging over 50%, so it's gone down.
A honeymoon is supposed to be a highlight, not just "we haven't lost anything yet".
Again nobody seriously thinks 50% is the baseline. You make yourself look foolish pretending it is.
Losing share is what parties of government tend to do after their honeymoon period once tough decisions need to be taken. This government has been compelled to take many tough decisions in the past six months but still the share is 100% of the General Election share.
I specifically said that 50% wasn't a baseline - agreeing that was ridiculous.
You did however say that the honeymoon wasn't over, but in the very next post you're talking about "after their honeymoon".
I'm not suggesting that the Tories are polling badly - I'm saying they won't be happy to be heading towards a recession, with a new more popular Labour leader, with their honeymoon polling boost already long gone.
Yes the honeymoon isn't over because they've not gone down yet.
After the honeymoon is when they go down. That hasn't happened yet, they're still at 100% of what they started at.
So what was the 20%+ lead if not a honeymoon?
You sit on your sofa with your partner, then you get married, you go to Bali for your honeymoon, you return to the sofa.
Are we know redefining honeymoon so that it doesn't end till you get up from the sofa and trip over the cat?
It was a rally to the flag surge caused by coronavirus as was seen worldwide.
Though even were the honeymoon over - if the honeymoon is over and the Tories are polling exactly the same as they got at the election then I think they'd be very happy with that.
I hate Trump but he got incredibly unlucky to have a pandemic in his final year
President Bush just texted me to say he had 9/11 at the start and the global financial crisis started by Gordon Brown at the end. And FDR's been on the ouija board moaning about some war or other.
Bush was a one term president without 9/11
Not so very sure. He had some interesting projects....
One was Rumsfeld's plan for dealing with the massive overseas commitments in terms of troops and bases, after the Cold War.
With the first Gulf War as an example, lots of time and money had been spent on ideas on how to rush troops around the globe. This ran into the problem that armoured divisions are heavy - can't be sent by air, realistically.
Some suggested weird and wacky ideas such as the Boeing Pelican.
Rumsfeld's plan was simpler. And cheaper... Pre position warehouses of equipment in various theatres ready to go. Keep a maintenance crew there to keep them in condition. When needed, simply fly the soldiers to their equipment.
While this ment multiple sets of hardware, the equipment in question - lorries, tanks, APCs etc are relatively cheap.
The pitch was that large numbers of overseas troops would have been brought home. Which would have massively reduced the need for base closures in the US - very nice politically. Abroad, it would have combined keeping US presence, without too many troops to upset the locals.
Ironically, one of the first areas for this was the Middle East - reducing US troops in Saudi Arabia by 95%*.
Then 9/11 happened
*Osama Bin Ladin was upset by US troops in Saudi Arabia
I hate Trump but he got incredibly unlucky to have a pandemic in his final year
President Bush just texted me to say he had 9/11 at the start and the global financial crisis started by Gordon Brown at the end. And FDR's been on the ouija board moaning about some war or other.
Bush was a one term president without 9/11
Bush was a no-term president without a biased Supreme Court.
I hate Trump but he got incredibly unlucky to have a pandemic in his final year
President Bush just texted me to say he had 9/11 at the start and the global financial crisis started by Gordon Brown at the end. And FDR's been on the ouija board moaning about some war or other.
Johnson had some war or other in a place called Viet Nam to deal with.
I hate Trump but he got incredibly unlucky to have a pandemic in his final year
President Bush just texted me to say he had 9/11 at the start and the global financial crisis started by Gordon Brown at the end. And FDR's been on the ouija board moaning about some war or other.
Bush was a one term president without 9/11
Bush was a no-term president without a biased Supreme Court.
Or if Al Gore had been vaguely competent in filing his case.
Or, indeed, if he hadn’t run such a bad camapaign.
Nicola is also lying (again). A child such as mine who has been marked down a band as opposed to a grade has no right of appeal despite what she claims despite the fact that the banding is relevant to their University applications.
Interesting. Do you think we should add France to the quarantine list ?
It has been like this for the past 2 months yet they claim to have had far less deaths than us.
Maybe their ICU and hospital care is better.
Better?
I always thought good hospital care was that you got better and left hospital.
Do you not think having 5 times the number of people in hospital with Covid is a little odd given their case numbers and death figures?
France has lower obesity levels than the UK which help with clinical outcomes . Also France hospitalizes more cases than the UK due to the official advice which is to ring an ambulance if your condition worsens . In the UK you call 111 . That means less people end up in hospital in the UK.
Lol - at least pretend to cover polling that doesn't slavishly follow the pro-Starmer narrative
That's a +5 net surge for the Tories with the latest Survation, producing a 9-point lead!
Even the Survation poll continues the Starmer narrative. His own ratings improved in it, while Johnson's went down.
To me it seems to be a difference in the Tory voteshare that's making the difference, all polls show the gap has shrunk - considerably - over the last few months.
Yep - all te polling shows that since Starmer became leader the Labour vote share has gone up. It could be by a bit or by a decent amount. What is less clear is whether the Tories are retaining all of their GE support or have lost a small part of it. What we do know is that they have lost support since the change of Labour leadership and Cummings went walkabout.
No we don't know that.
There was internationally in all countries a rally around the flag surge to government parties that has subsequently unwound in most countries.
The government is currently polling at or around the same levels as it was at the General Election, that doesn't look like any support has been lost, unless you considered for some bizarre and unforeseen reason the peak of a surge to be sustainable.
When the Tories are polling 44% you can't say the Tories have lost support.
The tories have lost support from the time that Starmer took over.
You can argue the toss over whether that is due to Starmer or due to the government's handling of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing the toss: there was a significant increase in tory support between the election and the first UK-Covid death. Also many other governments have so far held onto their Corona-Bounce but the the UK-Government has not.
Lets look at Survation as a polling series then, every single poll since the General Election.
I'm not seeing a statistically significant loss of support there. Looks like an outlier in April but otherwise a fairly flat and consistent series.
Boris secured an 80 seat majority. Past elections suggest that big winners tend to get a big poll boost - which is what happened this time too.
In 1997 Blair's lead went up in a similar fashion, and apart from the fuel protests, he held on to a lead for over 8 years.
Boris' post-victory boost has already unwound, and we're heading into perhaps the worst recession any of us have ever seen.
Starmer has turned around the leadership issue, but the rest of the Labour house is still on fire. As the old leadership drift into the background, he'll likely turn that around too.
We're clearly in a hugely unusual time, but I suspect the Tories are very depressed by the current polling.
Not really.
In 2001 the Tories got 30.7% at the election. The Tories had polled at or above 30% not just from the fuel protests onwards, but in virtually every single poll in 2000.
The opinion polls at the election were fairly accurate for the Tories too. The error in the polling in the 1997-2001 Parliament was because there was an immediate post-election and until the next election swing from the Lib Dems to Labour.
What's happened this time? A swing from the Lib Dems to Labour. Just the same as then and many previous Parliaments.
As long as the Tories are polling in the mid-40s I think they'd be quite happy with that.
The Lib Dem vote is almost exactly the same as it was in the month before Starmer took over - when the Tories had leads of over 20%. So, clearly a "swing from Lib Dems to Labour" isn't what's happened after the election, or what's happened since Starmer took over.
If you look at today and the day of the election, without anything in between then you might think a simple Lib Dem to Labour movement is what's happened, but it's "fingers in ears" time if you're pretending the Tories didn't have a huge post election boost (with 2019 Labour AND Lib Dem voters moving to the Tories) that they lost within weeks of Starmer taking over.
There was a surge in support to the Tories that nobody ever seriously thought would be sustained.
Do you seriously think the baseline for Tory support is 48%? Or over 50% in some pollsters?
Do not be ridiculous.
Nobody said that baseline Tory support is 50%. That is ridiculous, and nothing to do with the argument I made.
My argument is simple. A few months after a landslide election victory the Tories would expect to be riding high in the polls and they were. They're heading for a major recession, any honeymoon is lost, and the new Labour leader has clearly made a good first impression.
They may be relieved to still be ahead, but there's no way they'll be happy.
They are riding high in the polls. Since when was 44% not considered "high"?
Since they had a 20-25% lead just a few months ago. It's all relative.
If there was an election tomorrow, then they might be happy, but instead it's honeymoon over, and heading for a major recession, before they even got started.
"Look at the share not the lead"
The honeymoon isn't over until the Tory share starts going down.
The "share" was averaging over 50%, so it's gone down.
A honeymoon is supposed to be a highlight, not just "we haven't lost anything yet".
Again nobody seriously thinks 50% is the baseline. You make yourself look foolish pretending it is.
Losing share is what parties of government tend to do after their honeymoon period once tough decisions need to be taken. This government has been compelled to take many tough decisions in the past six months but still the share is 100% of the General Election share.
I specifically said that 50% wasn't a baseline - agreeing that was ridiculous.
You did however say that the honeymoon wasn't over, but in the very next post you're talking about "after their honeymoon".
I'm not suggesting that the Tories are polling badly - I'm saying they won't be happy to be heading towards a recession, with a new more popular Labour leader, with their honeymoon polling boost already long gone.
Yes the honeymoon isn't over because they've not gone down yet.
After the honeymoon is when they go down. That hasn't happened yet, they're still at 100% of what they started at.
So what was the 20%+ lead if not a honeymoon?
You sit on your sofa with your partner, then you get married, you go to Bali for your honeymoon, you return to the sofa.
Are we know redefining honeymoon so that it doesn't end till you get up from the sofa and trip over the cat?
It was a rally to the flag surge caused by coronavirus as was seen worldwide.
Though even were the honeymoon over - if the honeymoon is over and the Tories are polling exactly the same as they got at the election then I think they'd be very happy with that.
Looks like a pretty smooth upward curve from the first polls after the election onwards to me. If the nation rallied, then they did it in a very orderly fashion, and with a large amount of foresight
Interesting. Do you think we should add France to the quarantine list ?
It has been like this for the past 2 months yet they claim to have had far less deaths than us.
Maybe their ICU and hospital care is better.
Better?
I always thought good hospital care was that you got better and left hospital.
Do you not think having 5 times the number of people in hospital with Covid is a little odd given their case numbers and death figures?
France has lower obesity levels than the UK which help with clinical outcomes . Also France hospitalizes more cases than the UK due to the official advice which is to ring an ambulance if your condition worsens . In the UK you call 111 . That means less people end up in hospital in the UK.
French hospitals might have a financial incentive to keep you in until they're 100% sure that you've totally recovered. It's also a fairly lavishly-funded healthcare system compared to the NHS, so you might expect that level of service.
The NHS is run on a bare minimum budget. Usually the medics. desperately want to use your bed for the next patient waiting in the queue.
Interesting. Do you think we should add France to the quarantine list ?
It has been like this for the past 2 months yet they claim to have had far less deaths than us.
Maybe their ICU and hospital care is better.
Do you not think having 5 times the number of people in hospital with Covid is a little odd given their case numbers and death figures?
Or it could be they admit cases with milder symptoms than we do. One hypothesis is that in order to "Protect the NHS" we admitted cases too late so that we had more deaths than we might have had otherwise with earlier intervention. A topic for the inquiry.
The guy has got it wrong, the circles are about 10 times too big!
Which circles?
The ones for Beirut look accurate with reports of damage and windows blown out 15 miles away and 300,000 people left homeless closer to he blast.
Edit: And the ones for London match as well. Epsom is 15 miles from central London as the crow flies.
Sorry, I was misreading it. I misread the 'damage' circle as meaning significant damage, not just windows. I don't think there was much damage out as far as 15 miles, judging by articles such as this one:
The extract you might have seen is the entirety of the comment, there is no out of context manipulation.
The mooth will be new Governor General as soon as she gets her gong. She will operate Douglas in the fight for takeover of Scotland as they try to rule the colony from ‘Queen Elizabeth House’
Interesting. Do you think we should add France to the quarantine list ?
It has been like this for the past 2 months yet they claim to have had far less deaths than us.
Maybe their ICU and hospital care is better.
Better?
I always thought good hospital care was that you got better and left hospital.
Do you not think having 5 times the number of people in hospital with Covid is a little odd given their case numbers and death figures?
France has lower obesity levels than the UK which help with clinical outcomes . Also France hospitalizes more cases than the UK due to the official advice which is to ring an ambulance if your condition worsens . In the UK you call 111 . That means less people end up in hospital in the UK.
I suspect it is not the whole story, but France may admit earlier, and also admit patients that are managed elsewhere for both regular beds and ICU.
Interesting. Do you think we should add France to the quarantine list ?
It has been like this for the past 2 months yet they claim to have had far less deaths than us.
Maybe their ICU and hospital care is better.
Do you not think having 5 times the number of people in hospital with Covid is a little odd given their case numbers and death figures?
Or it could be they admit cases with milder symptoms than we do. One hypothesis is that in order to "Protect the NHS" we admitted cases too late so that we had more deaths than we might have had otherwise with earlier intervention. A topic for the inquiry.
Indeed, that should be a major focus of an enquiry.
When the shit hit the fan in March, near every healthcare facility put up signs saying "got coronavirus symptoms? If so stay away" I see this as gross dereliction of duty by orders from upon high. It is like soldiers being ordered to let the enemy invade, so as to minimise casualties.
Comments
Using the last 3-5 days of data to make a point is the act of a self declared fool
Using the last 3-5 days of data to make a point is the act of a self declared fool
Using the last 3-5 days of data to make a point is the act of a self declared fool
727 patients in hospital
63 patients on ventilators
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare?areaType=nation&areaName=England
California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey
Wins you the presidency in the fewest possible states.
Using the last 3-5 days of data to make a point is the act of a self declared fool
Though even were the honeymoon over - if the honeymoon is over and the Tories are polling exactly the same as they got at the election then I think they'd be very happy with that.
One was Rumsfeld's plan for dealing with the massive overseas commitments in terms of troops and bases, after the Cold War.
With the first Gulf War as an example, lots of time and money had been spent on ideas on how to rush troops around the globe. This ran into the problem that armoured divisions are heavy - can't be sent by air, realistically.
Some suggested weird and wacky ideas such as the Boeing Pelican.
Rumsfeld's plan was simpler. And cheaper... Pre position warehouses of equipment in various theatres ready to go. Keep a maintenance crew there to keep them in condition. When needed, simply fly the soldiers to their equipment.
While this ment multiple sets of hardware, the equipment in question - lorries, tanks, APCs etc are relatively cheap.
The pitch was that large numbers of overseas troops would have been brought home. Which would have massively reduced the need for base closures in the US - very nice politically. Abroad, it would have combined keeping US presence, without too many troops to upset the locals.
Ironically, one of the first areas for this was the Middle East - reducing US troops in Saudi Arabia by 95%*.
Then 9/11 happened
*Osama Bin Ladin was upset by US troops in Saudi Arabia
I always thought good hospital care was that you got better and left hospital.
Do you not think having 5 times the number of people in hospital with Covid is a little odd given their case numbers and death figures?
Or, indeed, if he hadn’t run such a bad camapaign.
Italy seems to be the continental country so far dodging further outbreaks.
The ones for Beirut look accurate with reports of damage and windows blown out 15 miles away and 300,000 people left homeless closer to he blast.
Edit: And the ones for London match as well. Epsom is 15 miles from central London as the crow flies.
This thread has been veeped
Looks like a pretty smooth upward curve from the first polls after the election onwards to me. If the nation rallied, then they did it in a very orderly fashion, and with a large amount of foresight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Enjoy your evening
The NHS is run on a bare minimum budget. Usually the medics. desperately want to use your bed for the next patient waiting in the queue.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/05/visual-guide-how-explosion-caused-mass-casualties-and-devastation-across-beirut
Still, what is true is that the damage in central Beirut is very extensive.
When the shit hit the fan in March, near every healthcare facility put up signs saying "got coronavirus symptoms? If so stay away" I see this as gross dereliction of duty by orders from upon high. It is like soldiers being ordered to let the enemy invade, so as to minimise casualties.