LOL, Williamson been sent back onto the airwaves to 'explain' the latest u-turn
..with the world's longest sentence
If (when) he loses his job, a future as a "Just a Minute" contestant awaits (apart from the deviation)
How can he explain it? Perhaps that its a fiasco, but less than the fiasco we were facing had we sent kids back to school like it was normality.
How is a fiasco?
The scientific advice on masks in schools changed, they're following the science. What is complicated or a fiasco about that?
What scientific advice? You can't hide behind the scientists any more since the government sidelined the advisors and proclaimed all this was now a political decision. "You will go back normally or we will fine you, it is safe " was almost immediately contradicted by government scientists who were ignored by ministers.
This is owned by that sacked liar Williamson and his sacked liar boss.
What are you wittering on about?
The scientific advice on facemasks in schools was changed over the weekend. The government immediately responded. What more do you expect? How is that a fiasco?
Mr Sharma was saying only yesterday that the English gmt was not going to review the matter, ie the matter was closed. That was well after the weekend, new evidence, etc. It was politics to make that decision or to go for the other option - or both.
Dominic Green in today's Daily Telegraph: "America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And the way they’re going, they will lose."
Dominic Green compares the Democrat campaign with Remain in the EU referendum:
America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And they way they’re going, they will lose.
Like Remain before the EU referendum, the Democrats are campaigning with every conceivable institutional advantage.
Like Remain before the referendum, the Democratic elite shows a barely concealed contempt for the undecided, let alone the opposition.
It’s interesting reading the comments below that article and others like it in places like the Mail. There seems to be an almost universal sense that Trump is unbeatable. Either because people like him and want him to win, or because they hate him and are resigned to him winning.
The truth is he only very narrowly won the first time round, when looking at his winning margin in the key states and the EC exaggerated the scale of his victory. I do wonder whether this twin psychological state from supporters / detractors is driving the betting odds towards it being almost a 50-50 election when in reality is nothing of the sort.
I think that is right, although with an important proviso. The polling is clear that if the election were held today, Biden would win in a landslide. November, though, is two months away so there is still time for Trump to turn it round, like Corbyn almost did in 2017.
I'd expect the big hitters to start playing in the last fortnight or so but right now there is a clear disparity between the betting odds and the polls.
Corbyn and Trump are very, very alike in a lot of ways and I think like in 2019 the betting markets are over-reacting to what happened last time. In 2016/17 Trump/Corbyn majorly outperformed the received wisdom and despite getting millions fewer votes overall was narrowly-elected/nearly became PM. Flash forward next time and the polls are even worse for Trump/Corbyn than last time, the public knows them better now too and views are more entrenched, but the betting markets are discounting the polls because of what happened last time.
I am very hopeful, as I was in December, the markets are overreacting.
Corbyn is nothing like Trump as a person or as a politician but other than that I green tick this analysis. The evidence says he will lose and he should be longer odds. The reason he isn't is that punters are fixated on what happened last time and it is clouding their thinking. The same thing happened with our GE. The evidence said Tory landslide. Tory landslide was nevertheless a minority opinion. Tory landslide duly happened. That was a great betting opportunity. So is WH2020. Lay Trump and back him to get less than 200 in the EC. You will be smiling on Nov 4th. Course you will be anyway if you are of sound mind and good character, since an individual who should never have been allowed anywhere near political power let alone the US presidency will be on his way out, but it never hurts to win a few quid too when the chance presents itself.
Nothing like?
One is someone who was never expected to become leader or taken seriously even within his party, an elderly man who had a lifetime not contributing to frontline politics, was dismissed even by his own side as a crank when he put his name forward, but got almost zealotry support from his supporters. Even after becoming leader has seen divisions within the party with former prominent supporters of the party suggesting to vote for the opposition because this leader was beyond the pale. Denounced as clearly racist by his opponents and many from the same party too and very popular with racists. Happy to share a platform with racists.
The other is President Trump/Jeremy Corbyn.
Boris is a far closer parallel to Trump, not least in that he actually won (ironically by lifting Corbyn's 2017 platform) as well as racism, disregard for rules and law, and alienation (and Stalinist purging) of longstanding party members.
LOL, Williamson been sent back onto the airwaves to 'explain' the latest u-turn
..with the world's longest sentence
If (when) he loses his job, a future as a "Just a Minute" contestant awaits (apart from the deviation)
How can he explain it? Perhaps that its a fiasco, but less than the fiasco we were facing had we sent kids back to school like it was normality.
How is a fiasco?
The scientific advice on masks in schools changed, they're following the science. What is complicated or a fiasco about that?
What scientific advice? You can't hide behind the scientists any more since the government sidelined the advisors and proclaimed all this was now a political decision. "You will go back normally or we will fine you, it is safe " was almost immediately contradicted by government scientists who were ignored by ministers.
This is owned by that sacked liar Williamson and his sacked liar boss.
What are you wittering on about?
The scientific advice on facemasks in schools was changed over the weekend. The government immediately responded. What more do you expect? How is that a fiasco?
Mr Sharma was saying only yesterday that the English gmt was not going to review the matter, ie the matter was closed. That was well after the weekend, new evidence, etc. It was politics to make that decision or to go for the other option - or both.
LOL, Williamson been sent back onto the airwaves to 'explain' the latest u-turn
..with the world's longest sentence
If (when) he loses his job, a future as a "Just a Minute" contestant awaits (apart from the deviation)
How can he explain it? Perhaps that its a fiasco, but less than the fiasco we were facing had we sent kids back to school like it was normality.
How is a fiasco?
The scientific advice on masks in schools changed, they're following the science. What is complicated or a fiasco about that?
What scientific advice? You can't hide behind the scientists any more since the government sidelined the advisors and proclaimed all this was now a political decision. "You will go back normally or we will fine you, it is safe " was almost immediately contradicted by government scientists who were ignored by ministers.
This is owned by that sacked liar Williamson and his sacked liar boss.
What are you wittering on about?
The scientific advice on facemasks in schools was changed over the weekend. The government immediately responded. What more do you expect? How is that a fiasco?
Mr Sharma was saying only yesterday that the English gmt was not going to review the matter, ie the matter was closed. That was well after the weekend, new evidence, etc. It was politics to make that decision or to go for the other option - or both.
Do you have a link for that? I’d like to know the context though if he said it yesterday then that was foolish of him, as the WHO advice had changed.
You don’t need a link take my word for it that’s exactly what Sharma said.
According to what carnyx has quoted it's not remotely what he said. Saying the government is following the science and keeping the issue under review is the polar opposite of saying the case is closed and it's not being reviewed.
LOL, Williamson been sent back onto the airwaves to 'explain' the latest u-turn
..with the world's longest sentence
If (when) he loses his job, a future as a "Just a Minute" contestant awaits (apart from the deviation)
How can he explain it? Perhaps that its a fiasco, but less than the fiasco we were facing had we sent kids back to school like it was normality.
How is a fiasco?
The scientific advice on masks in schools changed, they're following the science. What is complicated or a fiasco about that?
What scientific advice? You can't hide behind the scientists any more since the government sidelined the advisors and proclaimed all this was now a political decision. "You will go back normally or we will fine you, it is safe " was almost immediately contradicted by government scientists who were ignored by ministers.
This is owned by that sacked liar Williamson and his sacked liar boss.
What are you wittering on about?
The scientific advice on facemasks in schools was changed over the weekend. The government immediately responded. What more do you expect? How is that a fiasco?
Mr Sharma was saying only yesterday that the English gmt was not going to review the matter, ie the matter was closed. That was well after the weekend, new evidence, etc. It was politics to make that decision or to go for the other option - or both.
Do you have a link for that? I’d like to know the context though if he said it yesterday then that was foolish of him, as the WHO advice had changed.
I just checked my memory from this summary as I was so surprised by @Philip_Thompson 's statement in view of the apparent positive rejection involved of the scientific evidence :
But you're quite right to want more context and I should have dig deeper. Howeever, this seems clear enough - note that this is about 'current advice' and, incidentally, after the well-publicised news of likely change of advice elsewhere in the UK (eg the Scottish Gmt had the day before confirmed it was consulting with the unions etc before bringing in facemasks).
'Alok Sharma says pupils and staff will not be penalised for wearing masks in schools in England Alok Sharma, the business secretary, said school staff or young people would not be penalised for wearing facemasks when schools reopen, although the advice is that they are currently not necessary.
Speaking on the Radio 4 Today programme, Sharma said that the government has followed scientific and medical advice.
“Public Health England does not recommend at the moment [facemasks] in schools... We are always considering the latest advice and evidence but the current advice is that it is not recommended.”'
Thank you for that: it seems a little more nuanced than some of the original reports. “We are always considering latest advice” sounds like a statement designed to allow for a change of policy.
I still feel that under most circumstances this is something that heads are best placed to decide, like a temporary uniform change.
Surely the issue with America is wider than basic racism, its that it arms the racists and arms the people the racists are racist towards. "I shot him in self defense" is a nice shield is it not. Remove the guns and remove the problem. I know, it won't happen...
At the weekend, I caught a video of a man answering his door to the police who had had a noise disturbance reported at his house. The police yelled at him, and he was going to drop his gun. Before he could do so he was shot repeatedly dead. His obviously hysterical girlfriend was asked by the police why he had a gun. She replied it was dark and they had no idea who was at the door.
The police shot him because he had a gun at the door; he had a gun at the door because he feared whoever was at his door might have a gun (A good example of how holding a gun can make a circumstance more dangerous). The problem is absolubtely the mass prevalence of weaponry and consequently very jumpy police. And no wonder they're jumpy; there are plenty of videos floating round of people who go from behaving non violently one second to trying to kill officers the next (Very often after they've reached back into a car). Jerome Blake had escaped a taser and was being yelled at to stop/get down - if you're an officer in that situation - well better to be judged before 12 than carried by 6.
You've got to love the British electorate: one week they give the Tories a rap on the knuckles for reminding them that Gavin Williamson exists, the next they kiss it better!
LOL, Williamson been sent back onto the airwaves to 'explain' the latest u-turn
..with the world's longest sentence
If (when) he loses his job, a future as a "Just a Minute" contestant awaits (apart from the deviation)
How can he explain it? Perhaps that its a fiasco, but less than the fiasco we were facing had we sent kids back to school like it was normality.
How is a fiasco?
The scientific advice on masks in schools changed, they're following the science. What is complicated or a fiasco about that?
What scientific advice? You can't hide behind the scientists any more since the government sidelined the advisors and proclaimed all this was now a political decision. "You will go back normally or we will fine you, it is safe " was almost immediately contradicted by government scientists who were ignored by ministers.
This is owned by that sacked liar Williamson and his sacked liar boss.
What are you wittering on about?
The scientific advice on facemasks in schools was changed over the weekend. The government immediately responded. What more do you expect? How is that a fiasco?
Mr Sharma was saying only yesterday that the English gmt was not going to review the matter, ie the matter was closed. That was well after the weekend, new evidence, etc. It was politics to make that decision or to go for the other option - or both.
Dominic Green in today's Daily Telegraph: "America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And the way they’re going, they will lose."
Dominic Green compares the Democrat campaign with Remain in the EU referendum:
America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And they way they’re going, they will lose.
Like Remain before the EU referendum, the Democrats are campaigning with every conceivable institutional advantage.
Like Remain before the referendum, the Democratic elite shows a barely concealed contempt for the undecided, let alone the opposition.
It’s interesting reading the comments below that article and others like it in places like the Mail. There seems to be an almost universal sense that Trump is unbeatable. Either because people like him and want him to win, or because they hate him and are resigned to him winning.
The truth is he only very narrowly won the first time round, when looking at his winning margin in the key states and the EC exaggerated the scale of his victory. I do wonder whether this twin psychological state from supporters / detractors is driving the betting odds towards it being almost a 50-50 election when in reality is nothing of the sort.
I think that is right, although with an important proviso. The polling is clear that if the election were held today, Biden would win in a landslide. November, though, is two months away so there is still time for Trump to turn it round, like Corbyn almost did in 2017.
I'd expect the big hitters to start playing in the last fortnight or so but right now there is a clear disparity between the betting odds and the polls.
Corbyn and Trump are very, very alike in a lot of ways and I think like in 2019 the betting markets are over-reacting to what happened last time. In 2016/17 Trump/Corbyn majorly outperformed the received wisdom and despite getting millions fewer votes overall was narrowly-elected/nearly became PM. Flash forward next time and the polls are even worse for Trump/Corbyn than last time, the public knows them better now too and views are more entrenched, but the betting markets are discounting the polls because of what happened last time.
I am very hopeful, as I was in December, the markets are overreacting.
Corbyn is nothing like Trump as a person or as a politician but other than that I green tick this analysis. The evidence says he will lose and he should be longer odds. The reason he isn't is that punters are fixated on what happened last time and it is clouding their thinking. The same thing happened with our GE. The evidence said Tory landslide. Tory landslide was nevertheless a minority opinion. Tory landslide duly happened. That was a great betting opportunity. So is WH2020. Lay Trump and back him to get less than 200 in the EC. You will be smiling on Nov 4th. Course you will be anyway if you are of sound mind and good character, since an individual who should never have been allowed anywhere near political power let alone the US presidency will be on his way out, but it never hurts to win a few quid too when the chance presents itself.
Nothing like?
One is someone who was never expected to become leader or taken seriously even within his party, an elderly man who had a lifetime not contributing to frontline politics, was dismissed even by his own side as a crank when he put his name forward, but got almost zealotry support from his supporters. Even after becoming leader has seen divisions within the party with former prominent supporters of the party suggesting to vote for the opposition because this leader was beyond the pale. Denounced as clearly racist by his opponents and many from the same party too and very popular with racists. Happy to share a platform with racists.
The other is President Trump/Jeremy Corbyn.
Boris is a far closer parallel to Trump, not least in that he actually won (ironically by lifting Corbyn's 2017 platform) as well as racism, disregard for rules and law, and alienation (and Stalinist purging) of longstanding party members.
Boris is nothing like them. He is a mainstream Tory who had served as Mayor of the capital for eight years, served as Foreign Secretary under Prime Minister May one of the Great Offices of State and under David Cameron had been appointed to his political cabinet.
Neither Corbyn nor Trump had that level of experience.
Is there any evidence that shy Trump voters were a thing in 2016? The national polls were pretty close, and IIUC the polling failure in the mid-west is generally blamed on screwing up the sampling/weighting, specifically that if you want to poll for Trumpishness you really, really need your sample to be balanced by *education*, not just income/age/race.
I would be interested on people's views on the following topics assuming Trump loses:
1) What will happen to Trump (and his family)? Clearly a lot of stuff is going to flood out. It is difficult to think of all the actual and potential crimes he could be prosecuted for. Will he be spending the rest of his life in prison? Will members of his family and other members of his cabal also get prosecuted.
2) What will happen to the Republican party? Has it been permanently taken over or will it be reclaimed? Will it prosper or go into the wilderness for a decade?
Dominic Green in today's Daily Telegraph: "America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And the way they’re going, they will lose."
Dominic Green compares the Democrat campaign with Remain in the EU referendum:
America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And they way they’re going, they will lose.
Like Remain before the EU referendum, the Democrats are campaigning with every conceivable institutional advantage.
Like Remain before the referendum, the Democratic elite shows a barely concealed contempt for the undecided, let alone the opposition.
Yep. Can't help having a really bad feeling about all this. Biden just ahead in swing states, piling up votes in safe counties, the bien pensant sure that 2nd term Trump would be such a disaster nobody will vote for him etc etc. Here we go again.
Hope I am wrong.
I know I have been open on here saying Trump will win so it won't come as a surprise to say I think you are right.
We had a fair few on here claiming that the riots and disorder would not help Trump because it wasn't showing up in the polls. It looks like the penny is starting to drop.
What's the polling evidence for this? Biden's lead is now out to 9.3% on 538, which is almost exactly where it was at the start of July. I don't really see any evidence of 'the penny starting to drop'.
The RCP average is 7.6. 538 seems to be influenced by a slew of Morning Consult daily polls.
538 does take polls from many sources but uses machine learning to work out how strongly or weakly they should be weighted.
I'm certain that their method of weighting different sources of informtion is more accurate than your personal opinion.
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
USA election and the dog bear that has not yet barked.
If I were head of trolling at Moscow Centre, I'd be encouraging useful Democrat idiots to go overboard on BLM street protests, and then leak said direction a week before polling day. Though luckily the first seems to be happening anyway.
More seriously, it is unlikely Russia will remain on the sidelines.
Dominic Green in today's Daily Telegraph: "America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And the way they’re going, they will lose."
Dominic Green compares the Democrat campaign with Remain in the EU referendum:
America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And they way they’re going, they will lose.
Like Remain before the EU referendum, the Democrats are campaigning with every conceivable institutional advantage.
Like Remain before the referendum, the Democratic elite shows a barely concealed contempt for the undecided, let alone the opposition.
It’s interesting reading the comments below that article and others like it in places like the Mail. There seems to be an almost universal sense that Trump is unbeatable. Either because people like him and want him to win, or because they hate him and are resigned to him winning.
The truth is he only very narrowly won the first time round, when looking at his winning margin in the key states and the EC exaggerated the scale of his victory. I do wonder whether this twin psychological state from supporters / detractors is driving the betting odds towards it being almost a 50-50 election when in reality is nothing of the sort.
I think that is right, although with an important proviso. The polling is clear that if the election were held today, Biden would win in a landslide. November, though, is two months away so there is still time for Trump to turn it round, like Corbyn almost did in 2017.
I'd expect the big hitters to start playing in the last fortnight or so but right now there is a clear disparity between the betting odds and the polls.
Corbyn and Trump are very, very alike in a lot of ways and I think like in 2019 the betting markets are over-reacting to what happened last time. In 2016/17 Trump/Corbyn majorly outperformed the received wisdom and despite getting millions fewer votes overall was narrowly-elected/nearly became PM. Flash forward next time and the polls are even worse for Trump/Corbyn than last time, the public knows them better now too and views are more entrenched, but the betting markets are discounting the polls because of what happened last time.
I am very hopeful, as I was in December, the markets are overreacting.
Corbyn is nothing like Trump as a person or as a politician but other than that I green tick this analysis. The evidence says he will lose and he should be longer odds. The reason he isn't is that punters are fixated on what happened last time and it is clouding their thinking. The same thing happened with our GE. The evidence said Tory landslide. Tory landslide was nevertheless a minority opinion. Tory landslide duly happened. That was a great betting opportunity. So is WH2020. Lay Trump and back him to get less than 200 in the EC. You will be smiling on Nov 4th. Course you will be anyway if you are of sound mind and good character, since an individual who should never have been allowed anywhere near political power let alone the US presidency will be on his way out, but it never hurts to win a few quid too when the chance presents itself.
Nothing like?
One is someone who was never expected to become leader or taken seriously even within his party, an elderly man who had a lifetime not contributing to frontline politics, was dismissed even by his own side as a crank when he put his name forward, but got almost zealotry support from his supporters. Even after becoming leader has seen divisions within the party with former prominent supporters of the party suggesting to vote for the opposition because this leader was beyond the pale. Denounced as clearly racist by his opponents and many from the same party too and very popular with racists. Happy to share a platform with racists.
The other is President Trump/Jeremy Corbyn.
Boris is a far closer parallel to Trump, not least in that he actually won (ironically by lifting Corbyn's 2017 platform) as well as racism, disregard for rules and law, and alienation (and Stalinist purging) of longstanding party members.
Boris is nothing like them. He is a mainstream Tory who had served as Mayor of the capital for eight years, served as Foreign Secretary under Prime Minister May one of the Great Offices of State and under David Cameron had been appointed to his political cabinet.
Neither Corbyn nor Trump had that level of experience.
Give his record as Foreign Secretary I’d keep quiet about that bit of his CV when trying to extol his virtues.
Surely the issue with America is wider than basic racism, its that it arms the racists and arms the people the racists are racist towards. "I shot him in self defense" is a nice shield is it not. Remove the guns and remove the problem. I know, it won't happen...
At the weekend, I caught a video of a man answering his door to the police who had had a noise disturbance reported at his house. The police yelled at him, and he was going to drop his gun. Before he could do so he was shot repeatedly dead. His obviously hysterical girlfriend was asked by the police why he had a gun. She replied it was dark and they had no idea who was at the door.
Just to be clear the police officers stood so that they could not be seen from the door, the only way the man could see them was to step out. And when he stepped out they shone a powerful torch directly in his eyes.
Mike Pence and Kamala Harris will completely ignore each other and talk directly to their own bases. GOTV rather than persuasion or conversion will be the order of the day.
Dominic Green in today's Daily Telegraph: "America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And the way they’re going, they will lose."
Dominic Green compares the Democrat campaign with Remain in the EU referendum:
America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And they way they’re going, they will lose.
Like Remain before the EU referendum, the Democrats are campaigning with every conceivable institutional advantage.
Like Remain before the referendum, the Democratic elite shows a barely concealed contempt for the undecided, let alone the opposition.
It’s interesting reading the comments below that article and others like it in places like the Mail. There seems to be an almost universal sense that Trump is unbeatable. Either because people like him and want him to win, or because they hate him and are resigned to him winning.
The truth is he only very narrowly won the first time round, when looking at his winning margin in the key states and the EC exaggerated the scale of his victory. I do wonder whether this twin psychological state from supporters / detractors is driving the betting odds towards it being almost a 50-50 election when in reality is nothing of the sort.
I think that is right, although with an important proviso. The polling is clear that if the election were held today, Biden would win in a landslide. November, though, is two months away so there is still time for Trump to turn it round, like Corbyn almost did in 2017.
I'd expect the big hitters to start playing in the last fortnight or so but right now there is a clear disparity between the betting odds and the polls.
Corbyn and Trump are very, very alike in a lot of ways and I think like in 2019 the betting markets are over-reacting to what happened last time. In 2016/17 Trump/Corbyn majorly outperformed the received wisdom and despite getting millions fewer votes overall was narrowly-elected/nearly became PM. Flash forward next time and the polls are even worse for Trump/Corbyn than last time, the public knows them better now too and views are more entrenched, but the betting markets are discounting the polls because of what happened last time.
I am very hopeful, as I was in December, the markets are overreacting.
Corbyn is nothing like Trump as a person or as a politician but other than that I green tick this analysis. The evidence says he will lose and he should be longer odds. The reason he isn't is that punters are fixated on what happened last time and it is clouding their thinking. The same thing happened with our GE. The evidence said Tory landslide. Tory landslide was nevertheless a minority opinion. Tory landslide duly happened. That was a great betting opportunity. So is WH2020. Lay Trump and back him to get less than 200 in the EC. You will be smiling on Nov 4th. Course you will be anyway if you are of sound mind and good character, since an individual who should never have been allowed anywhere near political power let alone the US presidency will be on his way out, but it never hurts to win a few quid too when the chance presents itself.
Nothing like?
One is someone who was never expected to become leader or taken seriously even within his party, an elderly man who had a lifetime not contributing to frontline politics, was dismissed even by his own side as a crank when he put his name forward, but got almost zealotry support from his supporters. Even after becoming leader has seen divisions within the party with former prominent supporters of the party suggesting to vote for the opposition because this leader was beyond the pale. Denounced as clearly racist by his opponents and many from the same party too and very popular with racists. Happy to share a platform with racists.
The other is President Trump/Jeremy Corbyn.
Boris is a far closer parallel to Trump, not least in that he actually won (ironically by lifting Corbyn's 2017 platform) as well as racism, disregard for rules and law, and alienation (and Stalinist purging) of longstanding party members.
Boris is nothing like them. He is a mainstream Tory who had served as Mayor of the capital for eight years, served as Foreign Secretary under Prime Minister May one of the Great Offices of State and under David Cameron had been appointed to his political cabinet.
Neither Corbyn nor Trump had that level of experience.
Give his record as Foreign Secretary I’d keep quiet about that bit of his CV when trying to extol his virtues.
For that bit of his CV I have issues with May not him.
But the point is it's there. What Great Office of State, Cabinet, Shadow Cabinet etc had Corbyn served in? Or Trump?
You've got to love the British electorate: one week they give the Tories a rap on the knuckles for reminding them that Gavin Williamson exists, the next they kiss it better!
Or, much more likely, it's random noise on a slowly-moving situation. The actual lead is probably about 5 %. A bit less than in December, a lot less than at the Covid peak, not yet enough for Mrs Starmer to be measuring up for No 10 curtains.
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
The PCC elections are the only elections I have not voted in. I did not even want to spoil my ballot paper as it gets included in the total and I was keen that the turnout be pitiful.
Dominic Green in today's Daily Telegraph: "America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And the way they’re going, they will lose."
Dominic Green compares the Democrat campaign with Remain in the EU referendum:
America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And they way they’re going, they will lose.
Like Remain before the EU referendum, the Democrats are campaigning with every conceivable institutional advantage.
Like Remain before the referendum, the Democratic elite shows a barely concealed contempt for the undecided, let alone the opposition.
Apropos of feck all, I re-signed up to Amazon Prime again to watch The Bureau (it's pretty good, much superior to what I guess is the nearest equivalent, Spooks), and after 4 episodes they're telling me I need to pay £2.49 to watch any subsequent ones. Is this they way they do things on Prime now? From memory I previously had free access to everything except new release films. Connards!
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
Not a big democracy fan I take it. How strange for someone who posts on PB.
Dominic Green in today's Daily Telegraph: "America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And the way they’re going, they will lose."
Dominic Green compares the Democrat campaign with Remain in the EU referendum:
America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And they way they’re going, they will lose.
Like Remain before the EU referendum, the Democrats are campaigning with every conceivable institutional advantage.
Like Remain before the referendum, the Democratic elite shows a barely concealed contempt for the undecided, let alone the opposition.
Yep. Can't help having a really bad feeling about all this. Biden just ahead in swing states, piling up votes in safe counties, the bien pensant sure that 2nd term Trump would be such a disaster nobody will vote for him etc etc. Here we go again.
Hope I am wrong.
I know I have been open on here saying Trump will win so it won't come as a surprise to say I think you are right.
We had a fair few on here claiming that the riots and disorder would not help Trump because it wasn't showing up in the polls. It looks like the penny is starting to drop.
What's the polling evidence for this? Biden's lead is now out to 9.3% on 538, which is almost exactly where it was at the start of July. I don't really see any evidence of 'the penny starting to drop'.
If you are going to quote 538, the more meaningful figure is their chance to win, which is currently 73% to 27%. The national vote share is only indirectly maeaningful.
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
The PCC elections are the only elections I have not voted in. I did not even want to spoil my ballot paper as it gets included in the total and I was keen that the turnout be pitiful.
Why on earth would you not want to participate in local democracy?
That is a classic cut your nose to spite your face act.
Surely the issue with America is wider than basic racism, its that it arms the racists and arms the people the racists are racist towards. "I shot him in self defense" is a nice shield is it not. Remove the guns and remove the problem. I know, it won't happen...
At the weekend, I caught a video of a man answering his door to the police who had had a noise disturbance reported at his house. The police yelled at him, and he was going to drop his gun. Before he could do so he was shot repeatedly dead. His obviously hysterical girlfriend was asked by the police why he had a gun. She replied it was dark and they had no idea who was at the door.
The police shot him because he had a gun at the door; he had a gun at the door because he feared whoever was at his door might have a gun (A good example of how holding a gun can make a circumstance more dangerous). The problem is absolubtely the mass prevalence of weaponry and consequently very jumpy police. And no wonder they're jumpy; there are plenty of videos floating round of people who go from behaving non violently one second to trying to kill officers the next (Very often after they've reached back into a car). Jerome Blake had escaped a taser and was being yelled at to stop/get down - if you're an officer in that situation - well better to be judged before 12 than carried by 6.
I've read a couple of cases where police have carried out 'no knock' raids on homes, and seeing an intrusion without warning people have reached for their gun and shot the police dead.
In many states especially in the south, you're supposed to be protected if you kill and intruder under 'stand your ground' laws, so god knows if this law protects you if you kill a police officer who smashes the door down without any warning?!
The militarisation of society in the US is a complete nightmare, both cops and the general public.
LOL, Williamson been sent back onto the airwaves to 'explain' the latest u-turn
..with the world's longest sentence
If (when) he loses his job, a future as a "Just a Minute" contestant awaits (apart from the deviation)
How can he explain it? Perhaps that its a fiasco, but less than the fiasco we were facing had we sent kids back to school like it was normality.
How is a fiasco?
The scientific advice on masks in schools changed, they're following the science. What is complicated or a fiasco about that?
What scientific advice? You can't hide behind the scientists any more since the government sidelined the advisors and proclaimed all this was now a political decision. "You will go back normally or we will fine you, it is safe " was almost immediately contradicted by government scientists who were ignored by ministers.
This is owned by that sacked liar Williamson and his sacked liar boss.
What are you wittering on about?
The scientific advice on facemasks in schools was changed over the weekend. The government immediately responded. What more do you expect? How is that a fiasco?
Mr Sharma was saying only yesterday that the English gmt was not going to review the matter, ie the matter was closed. That was well after the weekend, new evidence, etc. It was politics to make that decision or to go for the other option - or both.
Do you have a link for that? I’d like to know the context though if he said it yesterday then that was foolish of him, as the WHO advice had changed.
You don’t need a link take my word for it that’s exactly what Sharma said.
According to what carnyx has quoted it's not remotely what he said. Saying the government is following the science and keeping the issue under review is the polar opposite of saying the case is closed and it's not being reviewed.
It was indeed more nuanced than the original reports, but Sharma's words were little more than the usual getout - no hint of active review of this specific point. it's also a matter of timing, when the schools are just on the point of going back. If other governments in the UK with much smaller organizations are announcing activelyu that they are likely to make the change - it was just the need to consult with the unions, LAs etc that held the Scots back a little from actually doing it - then the impression given was that PHE is at best rather slow and at worst the pols didn't want to know. Perhaps this is unfair, but it is reminiscent of the mess over the exams algorithm - the English administration doubled down even when the problems and one least worst solution were abundantly clear, and left it too late to chaneg their mind. At least they moved much more quickly this time.
Is there any evidence that shy Trump voters were a thing in 2016? The national polls were pretty close, and IIUC the polling failure in the mid-west is generally blamed on screwing up the sampling/weighting, specifically that if you want to poll for Trumpishness you really, really need your sample to be balanced by *education*, not just income/age/race.
"Late deciding" voters split heavily towards trump.
The national polls actual understated both Clinton and Trump, missing Trump by almost 4 points and Clinton by 2.5
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
The PCC elections are the only elections I have not voted in. I did not even want to spoil my ballot paper as it gets included in the total and I was keen that the turnout be pitiful.
Why on earth would you not want to participate in local democracy?
That is a classic cut your nose to spite your face act.
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
The PCC elections are the only elections I have not voted in. I did not even want to spoil my ballot paper as it gets included in the total and I was keen that the turnout be pitiful.
Why on earth would you not want to participate in local democracy?
That is a classic cut your nose to spite your face act.
Lunacy.
I would agree, the fact that you might disagree with the creation of the role is not a good reason to try and get, what you believe to be, the best person for the job.
You've got to love the British electorate: one week they give the Tories a rap on the knuckles for reminding them that Gavin Williamson exists, the next they kiss it better!
Dominic Green in today's Daily Telegraph: "America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And the way they’re going, they will lose."
Dominic Green compares the Democrat campaign with Remain in the EU referendum:
America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And they way they’re going, they will lose.
Like Remain before the EU referendum, the Democrats are campaigning with every conceivable institutional advantage.
Like Remain before the referendum, the Democratic elite shows a barely concealed contempt for the undecided, let alone the opposition.
It’s interesting reading the comments below that article and others like it in places like the Mail. There seems to be an almost universal sense that Trump is unbeatable. Either because people like him and want him to win, or because they hate him and are resigned to him winning.
The truth is he only very narrowly won the first time round, when looking at his winning margin in the key states and the EC exaggerated the scale of his victory. I do wonder whether this twin psychological state from supporters / detractors is driving the betting odds towards it being almost a 50-50 election when in reality is nothing of the sort.
I think that is right, although with an important proviso. The polling is clear that if the election were held today, Biden would win in a landslide. November, though, is two months away so there is still time for Trump to turn it round, like Corbyn almost did in 2017.
I'd expect the big hitters to start playing in the last fortnight or so but right now there is a clear disparity between the betting odds and the polls.
Corbyn and Trump are very, very alike in a lot of ways and I think like in 2019 the betting markets are over-reacting to what happened last time. In 2016/17 Trump/Corbyn majorly outperformed the received wisdom and despite getting millions fewer votes overall was narrowly-elected/nearly became PM. Flash forward next time and the polls are even worse for Trump/Corbyn than last time, the public knows them better now too and views are more entrenched, but the betting markets are discounting the polls because of what happened last time.
I am very hopeful, as I was in December, the markets are overreacting.
Corbyn is nothing like Trump as a person or as a politician but other than that I green tick this analysis. The evidence says he will lose and he should be longer odds. The reason he isn't is that punters are fixated on what happened last time and it is clouding their thinking. The same thing happened with our GE. The evidence said Tory landslide. Tory landslide was nevertheless a minority opinion. Tory landslide duly happened. That was a great betting opportunity. So is WH2020. Lay Trump and back him to get less than 200 in the EC. You will be smiling on Nov 4th. Course you will be anyway if you are of sound mind and good character, since an individual who should never have been allowed anywhere near political power let alone the US presidency will be on his way out, but it never hurts to win a few quid too when the chance presents itself.
Nothing like?
One is someone who was never expected to become leader or taken seriously even within his party, an elderly man who had a lifetime not contributing to frontline politics, was dismissed even by his own side as a crank when he put his name forward, but got almost zealotry support from his supporters. Even after becoming leader has seen divisions within the party with former prominent supporters of the party suggesting to vote for the opposition because this leader was beyond the pale. Denounced as clearly racist by his opponents and many from the same party too and very popular with racists. Happy to share a platform with racists.
The other is President Trump/Jeremy Corbyn.
One could construct a similar bit of nonsense for Trump/Johnson. Indeed with slightly more justification since there are real rather than fabricated similarities in the way they message and communicate. But the fact is that Trump is nothing like Johnson and he's nothing like Corbyn. He's no more like them than he is like Ed Davey. We have no meaningful equivalent. Thank goodness.
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
The PCC elections are the only elections I have not voted in. I did not even want to spoil my ballot paper as it gets included in the total and I was keen that the turnout be pitiful.
Why on earth would you not want to participate in local democracy?
That is a classic cut your nose to spite your face act.
Lunacy.
I do not believe PCC should be an elected post (many have the same view). My vote will make little difference to the actual outcome however the absence of my vote (which is clear by the lack of turnout when PCC elections are not held at the same time as other elections) show how little interest people have in this role. It is the only election I am aware of where people take an active interest in not voting (as opposed to apathy)
Dominic Green in today's Daily Telegraph: "America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And the way they’re going, they will lose."
Dominic Green compares the Democrat campaign with Remain in the EU referendum:
America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And they way they’re going, they will lose.
Like Remain before the EU referendum, the Democrats are campaigning with every conceivable institutional advantage.
Like Remain before the referendum, the Democratic elite shows a barely concealed contempt for the undecided, let alone the opposition.
It’s interesting reading the comments below that article and others like it in places like the Mail. There seems to be an almost universal sense that Trump is unbeatable. Either because people like him and want him to win, or because they hate him and are resigned to him winning.
The truth is he only very narrowly won the first time round, when looking at his winning margin in the key states and the EC exaggerated the scale of his victory. I do wonder whether this twin psychological state from supporters / detractors is driving the betting odds towards it being almost a 50-50 election when in reality is nothing of the sort.
I think that is right, although with an important proviso. The polling is clear that if the election were held today, Biden would win in a landslide. November, though, is two months away so there is still time for Trump to turn it round, like Corbyn almost did in 2017.
I'd expect the big hitters to start playing in the last fortnight or so but right now there is a clear disparity between the betting odds and the polls.
Corbyn and Trump are very, very alike in a lot of ways and I think like in 2019 the betting markets are over-reacting to what happened last time. In 2016/17 Trump/Corbyn majorly outperformed the received wisdom and despite getting millions fewer votes overall was narrowly-elected/nearly became PM. Flash forward next time and the polls are even worse for Trump/Corbyn than last time, the public knows them better now too and views are more entrenched, but the betting markets are discounting the polls because of what happened last time.
I am very hopeful, as I was in December, the markets are overreacting.
Corbyn is nothing like Trump as a person or as a politician but other than that I green tick this analysis. The evidence says he will lose and he should be longer odds. The reason he isn't is that punters are fixated on what happened last time and it is clouding their thinking. The same thing happened with our GE. The evidence said Tory landslide. Tory landslide was nevertheless a minority opinion. Tory landslide duly happened. That was a great betting opportunity. So is WH2020. Lay Trump and back him to get less than 200 in the EC. You will be smiling on Nov 4th. Course you will be anyway if you are of sound mind and good character, since an individual who should never have been allowed anywhere near political power let alone the US presidency will be on his way out, but it never hurts to win a few quid too when the chance presents itself.
Nothing like?
One is someone who was never expected to become leader or taken seriously even within his party, an elderly man who had a lifetime not contributing to frontline politics, was dismissed even by his own side as a crank when he put his name forward, but got almost zealotry support from his supporters. Even after becoming leader has seen divisions within the party with former prominent supporters of the party suggesting to vote for the opposition because this leader was beyond the pale. Denounced as clearly racist by his opponents and many from the same party too and very popular with racists. Happy to share a platform with racists.
The other is President Trump/Jeremy Corbyn.
One could construct a similar bit of nonsense for Trump/Johnson. Indeed with slightly more justification since there are real rather than fabricated similarities in the way they message and communicate. But the fact is that Trump is nothing like Johnson and he's nothing like Corbyn. He's no more like them than he is like Ed Davey. We have no meaningful equivalent. Thank goodness.
Perhaps the opinion of the great orange balloon should be taken notice of? I don't think he ever described Jezza as Britain Trump.
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
The PCC elections are the only elections I have not voted in. I did not even want to spoil my ballot paper as it gets included in the total and I was keen that the turnout be pitiful.
Why on earth would you not want to participate in local democracy?
That is a classic cut your nose to spite your face act.
Lunacy.
They are a total waste of time.
They are a way for the public to make their preferences known when it comes to policing. Why is that a waste of time?
Is there any evidence that shy Trump voters were a thing in 2016? The national polls were pretty close, and IIUC the polling failure in the mid-west is generally blamed on screwing up the sampling/weighting, specifically that if you want to poll for Trumpishness you really, really need your sample to be balanced by *education*, not just income/age/race.
"Late deciding" voters split heavily towards trump.
The national polls actual understated both Clinton and Trump, missing Trump by almost 4 points and Clinton by 2.5
Was this a movement away from other candidates, or the don't knows making their minds up? The don't knows splitting 8:5 is not a long way off from 50-50.
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
The PCC elections are the only elections I have not voted in. I did not even want to spoil my ballot paper as it gets included in the total and I was keen that the turnout be pitiful.
Why on earth would you not want to participate in local democracy?
That is a classic cut your nose to spite your face act.
Lunacy.
I do not believe PCC should be an elected post (many have the same view). My vote will make little difference to the actual outcome however the absence of my vote (which is clear by the lack of turnout when PCC elections are not held at the same time as other elections) show how little interest people have in this role. It is the only election I am aware of where people take an active interest in not voting (as opposed to apathy)
They provide accountability to the public and that is a good thing. Plenty of people don't vote ("don't vote it only encourages them", etc) on lots of things but there is no valid reason why any decision not to vote is a good one.
Something I didn't know: A feature of common colds is increased vascular permeability which, enhanced by kinins, results in increased plasma protein (albumin and immunoglobulin [Ig] G) levels in mucus, approaching the levels in serum... Which suggests that leaky vasculature, which is part of the problem on severe COVID, might be another aspect of the immune response gone too far in response to coronavirus infection ?
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
The PCC elections are the only elections I have not voted in. I did not even want to spoil my ballot paper as it gets included in the total and I was keen that the turnout be pitiful.
Why on earth would you not want to participate in local democracy?
That is a classic cut your nose to spite your face act.
Lunacy.
They are a total waste of time.
They are a way for the public to make their preferences known when it comes to policing. Why is that a waste of time?
I'm surprised Farage hasn't tried standing on a hang em' and flog em' ticket yet.
Dominic Green in today's Daily Telegraph: "America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And the way they’re going, they will lose."
Dominic Green compares the Democrat campaign with Remain in the EU referendum:
America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And they way they’re going, they will lose.
Like Remain before the EU referendum, the Democrats are campaigning with every conceivable institutional advantage.
Like Remain before the referendum, the Democratic elite shows a barely concealed contempt for the undecided, let alone the opposition.
It’s interesting reading the comments below that article and others like it in places like the Mail. There seems to be an almost universal sense that Trump is unbeatable. Either because people like him and want him to win, or because they hate him and are resigned to him winning.
The truth is he only very narrowly won the first time round, when looking at his winning margin in the key states and the EC exaggerated the scale of his victory. I do wonder whether this twin psychological state from supporters / detractors is driving the betting odds towards it being almost a 50-50 election when in reality is nothing of the sort.
I think that is right, although with an important proviso. The polling is clear that if the election were held today, Biden would win in a landslide. November, though, is two months away so there is still time for Trump to turn it round, like Corbyn almost did in 2017.
I'd expect the big hitters to start playing in the last fortnight or so but right now there is a clear disparity between the betting odds and the polls.
Corbyn and Trump are very, very alike in a lot of ways and I think like in 2019 the betting markets are over-reacting to what happened last time. In 2016/17 Trump/Corbyn majorly outperformed the received wisdom and despite getting millions fewer votes overall was narrowly-elected/nearly became PM. Flash forward next time and the polls are even worse for Trump/Corbyn than last time, the public knows them better now too and views are more entrenched, but the betting markets are discounting the polls because of what happened last time.
I am very hopeful, as I was in December, the markets are overreacting.
Corbyn is nothing like Trump as a person or as a politician but other than that I green tick this analysis. The evidence says he will lose and he should be longer odds. The reason he isn't is that punters are fixated on what happened last time and it is clouding their thinking. The same thing happened with our GE. The evidence said Tory landslide. Tory landslide was nevertheless a minority opinion. Tory landslide duly happened. That was a great betting opportunity. So is WH2020. Lay Trump and back him to get less than 200 in the EC. You will be smiling on Nov 4th. Course you will be anyway if you are of sound mind and good character, since an individual who should never have been allowed anywhere near political power let alone the US presidency will be on his way out, but it never hurts to win a few quid too when the chance presents itself.
Nothing like?
One is someone who was never expected to become leader or taken seriously even within his party, an elderly man who had a lifetime not contributing to frontline politics, was dismissed even by his own side as a crank when he put his name forward, but got almost zealotry support from his supporters. Even after becoming leader has seen divisions within the party with former prominent supporters of the party suggesting to vote for the opposition because this leader was beyond the pale. Denounced as clearly racist by his opponents and many from the same party too and very popular with racists. Happy to share a platform with racists.
The other is President Trump/Jeremy Corbyn.
Boris is a far closer parallel to Trump, not least in that he actually won (ironically by lifting Corbyn's 2017 platform) as well as racism, disregard for rules and law, and alienation (and Stalinist purging) of longstanding party members.
Boris is nothing like them. He is a mainstream Tory who had served as Mayor of the capital for eight years, served as Foreign Secretary under Prime Minister May one of the Great Offices of State and under David Cameron had been appointed to his political cabinet.
Neither Corbyn nor Trump had that level of experience.
Give his record as Foreign Secretary I’d keep quiet about that bit of his CV when trying to extol his virtues.
For that bit of his CV I have issues with May not him.
But the point is it's there. What Great Office of State, Cabinet, Shadow Cabinet etc had Corbyn served in? Or Trump?
Boris's only Cabinet experience was as Foreign Secretary during which he recited inappropriate poetry in India and got a British citizen banged up in Iran because he could not be bothered to read his brief or STFU. But you are right that is more experience than Corbyn or Cameron or Blair.
It does not alter the fact that Boris is a close parallel to Trump. If we are being silly, we might also observe both men were born in New York. Both are also hugely charismatic, have distinctive hair, and became famous through television work though both were already well-known. Then there are the lies, racism, Stalinism and so on. They are not identical, as you have observed, but the parallels are there.
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
The PCC elections are the only elections I have not voted in. I did not even want to spoil my ballot paper as it gets included in the total and I was keen that the turnout be pitiful.
Why on earth would you not want to participate in local democracy?
That is a classic cut your nose to spite your face act.
Lunacy.
They are a total waste of time.
They are a way for the public to make their preferences known when it comes to policing. Why is that a waste of time?
Because their “manifesto” is irrelevant. It’s just a Lab/Tory contest amongst 10-15% of the population.
I see the "Trump is going ot do really well with minorities" rampers are out again.
Can you give some actual concrete numbers? What percentage of the African American vote do you think Trump will get?
In percentage terms definately less that in 2016, when many African American Democrat leaners were unimpressed with the Democrat candidate and stayed at home.
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
The PCC elections are the only elections I have not voted in. I did not even want to spoil my ballot paper as it gets included in the total and I was keen that the turnout be pitiful.
Why on earth would you not want to participate in local democracy?
That is a classic cut your nose to spite your face act.
Lunacy.
They are a total waste of time.
They are a way for the public to make their preferences known when it comes to policing. Why is that a waste of time?
Because their “manifesto” is irrelevant. It’s just a Lab/Tory contest amongst 10-15% of the population.
Has any PCC anywhere actually done anything of note?
Is there any evidence that shy Trump voters were a thing in 2016? The national polls were pretty close, and IIUC the polling failure in the mid-west is generally blamed on screwing up the sampling/weighting, specifically that if you want to poll for Trumpishness you really, really need your sample to be balanced by *education*, not just income/age/race.
"Late deciding" voters split heavily towards trump.
The national polls actual understated both Clinton and Trump, missing Trump by almost 4 points and Clinton by 2.5
Was this a movement away from other candidates, or the don't knows making their minds up? The don't knows splitting 8:5 is not a long way off from 50-50.
There was a lot of different small movements, Clinton supporters switching to 3rd party or DNV (or Trump)
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
The PCC elections are the only elections I have not voted in. I did not even want to spoil my ballot paper as it gets included in the total and I was keen that the turnout be pitiful.
Why on earth would you not want to participate in local democracy?
That is a classic cut your nose to spite your face act.
Lunacy.
They are a total waste of time.
They are a way for the public to make their preferences known when it comes to policing. Why is that a waste of time?
Because their “manifesto” is irrelevant. It’s just a Lab/Tory contest amongst 10-15% of the population.
Has any PCC anywhere actually done anything of note?
The old Northumbria PCC resigned in a reasonably high-profile fashion. 🤷♂️
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
The PCC elections are the only elections I have not voted in. I did not even want to spoil my ballot paper as it gets included in the total and I was keen that the turnout be pitiful.
Why on earth would you not want to participate in local democracy?
That is a classic cut your nose to spite your face act.
Lunacy.
I do not believe PCC should be an elected post (many have the same view). My vote will make little difference to the actual outcome however the absence of my vote (which is clear by the lack of turnout when PCC elections are not held at the same time as other elections) show how little interest people have in this role. It is the only election I am aware of where people take an active interest in not voting (as opposed to apathy)
They provide accountability to the public and that is a good thing. Plenty of people don't vote ("don't vote it only encourages them", etc) on lots of things but there is no valid reason why any decision not to vote is a good one.
I disagree (and I can't think of anything I have disagreed with you on in the past - a first?).
There are scenarios where I may or may not approve of the role we are electing (eg elected mayors or cabinet - I prefer cabinet) but I will always vote, but for me this is so completely wrong and going down the line of elected judges, sheriffs and dog catchers who should be independent appointees.
I guess if a loony was likely to get elected I might vote to ensure s/he didn't or if there was an organised 'spoil ballot' campaign.
I don't want to add credence to the election and it is a toss up between not voting and spoilt ballot. I pick not voting because of the low turnout impact.
Apropos of feck all, I re-signed up to Amazon Prime again to watch The Bureau (it's pretty good, much superior to what I guess is the nearest equivalent, Spooks), and after 4 episodes they're telling me I need to pay £2.49 to watch any subsequent ones. Is this they way they do things on Prime now? From memory I previously had free access to everything except new release films. Connards!
There's quite a bit of that. Included with Prime isn't always everything thats on Prime...
Apropos of feck all, I re-signed up to Amazon Prime again to watch The Bureau (it's pretty good, much superior to what I guess is the nearest equivalent, Spooks), and after 4 episodes they're telling me I need to pay £2.49 to watch any subsequent ones. Is this they way they do things on Prime now? From memory I previously had free access to everything except new release films. Connards!
Saw a good review a couple of weeks ago and watched the first three episodes. Yeah, it's really good. It was flagged up as "leaving Amazon Prime in five days". Wife binge-watched the first two series just in time. It's fascinating how different countries make such series in characteristically different ways. But frankly it's a relief to be denied follow-ups - we'll wait for subsequent series to appear without extra charges.
Dominic Green in today's Daily Telegraph: "America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And the way they’re going, they will lose."
Dominic Green compares the Democrat campaign with Remain in the EU referendum:
America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And they way they’re going, they will lose.
Like Remain before the EU referendum, the Democrats are campaigning with every conceivable institutional advantage.
Like Remain before the referendum, the Democratic elite shows a barely concealed contempt for the undecided, let alone the opposition.
It’s interesting reading the comments below that article and others like it in places like the Mail. There seems to be an almost universal sense that Trump is unbeatable. Either because people like him and want him to win, or because they hate him and are resigned to him winning.
The truth is he only very narrowly won the first time round, when looking at his winning margin in the key states and the EC exaggerated the scale of his victory. I do wonder whether this twin psychological state from supporters / detractors is driving the betting odds towards it being almost a 50-50 election when in reality is nothing of the sort.
I think that is right, although with an important proviso. The polling is clear that if the election were held today, Biden would win in a landslide. November, though, is two months away so there is still time for Trump to turn it round, like Corbyn almost did in 2017.
I'd expect the big hitters to start playing in the last fortnight or so but right now there is a clear disparity between the betting odds and the polls.
Corbyn and Trump are very, very alike in a lot of ways and I think like in 2019 the betting markets are over-reacting to what happened last time. In 2016/17 Trump/Corbyn majorly outperformed the received wisdom and despite getting millions fewer votes overall was narrowly-elected/nearly became PM. Flash forward next time and the polls are even worse for Trump/Corbyn than last time, the public knows them better now too and views are more entrenched, but the betting markets are discounting the polls because of what happened last time.
I am very hopeful, as I was in December, the markets are overreacting.
Corbyn is nothing like Trump as a person or as a politician but other than that I green tick this analysis. The evidence says he will lose and he should be longer odds. The reason he isn't is that punters are fixated on what happened last time and it is clouding their thinking. The same thing happened with our GE. The evidence said Tory landslide. Tory landslide was nevertheless a minority opinion. Tory landslide duly happened. That was a great betting opportunity. So is WH2020. Lay Trump and back him to get less than 200 in the EC. You will be smiling on Nov 4th. Course you will be anyway if you are of sound mind and good character, since an individual who should never have been allowed anywhere near political power let alone the US presidency will be on his way out, but it never hurts to win a few quid too when the chance presents itself.
Nothing like?
One is someone who was never expected to become leader or taken seriously even within his party, an elderly man who had a lifetime not contributing to frontline politics, was dismissed even by his own side as a crank when he put his name forward, but got almost zealotry support from his supporters. Even after becoming leader has seen divisions within the party with former prominent supporters of the party suggesting to vote for the opposition because this leader was beyond the pale. Denounced as clearly racist by his opponents and many from the same party too and very popular with racists. Happy to share a platform with racists.
The other is President Trump/Jeremy Corbyn.
Boris is a far closer parallel to Trump, not least in that he actually won (ironically by lifting Corbyn's 2017 platform) as well as racism, disregard for rules and law, and alienation (and Stalinist purging) of longstanding party members.
Boris is nothing like them. He is a mainstream Tory who had served as Mayor of the capital for eight years, served as Foreign Secretary under Prime Minister May one of the Great Offices of State and under David Cameron had been appointed to his political cabinet.
Neither Corbyn nor Trump had that level of experience.
Give his record as Foreign Secretary I’d keep quiet about that bit of his CV when trying to extol his virtues.
For that bit of his CV I have issues with May not him.
But the point is it's there. What Great Office of State, Cabinet, Shadow Cabinet etc had Corbyn served in? Or Trump?
Boris's only Cabinet experience was as Foreign Secretary during which he recited inappropriate poetry in India and got a British citizen banged up in Iran because he could not be bothered to read his brief or STFU. But you are right that is more experience than Corbyn or Cameron or Blair.
It does not alter the fact that Boris is a close parallel to Trump. If we are being silly, we might also observe both men were born in New York. Both are also hugely charismatic, have distinctive hair, and became famous through television work though both were already well-known. Then there are the lies, racism, Stalinism and so on. They are not identical, as you have observed, but the parallels are there.
Even Margaret Thatcher had no experience in a "Great Office of State" before becoming PM.
Dominic Green in today's Daily Telegraph: "America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And the way they’re going, they will lose."
Dominic Green compares the Democrat campaign with Remain in the EU referendum:
America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And they way they’re going, they will lose.
Like Remain before the EU referendum, the Democrats are campaigning with every conceivable institutional advantage.
Like Remain before the referendum, the Democratic elite shows a barely concealed contempt for the undecided, let alone the opposition.
It’s interesting reading the comments below that article and others like it in places like the Mail. There seems to be an almost universal sense that Trump is unbeatable. Either because people like him and want him to win, or because they hate him and are resigned to him winning.
The truth is he only very narrowly won the first time round, when looking at his winning margin in the key states and the EC exaggerated the scale of his victory. I do wonder whether this twin psychological state from supporters / detractors is driving the betting odds towards it being almost a 50-50 election when in reality is nothing of the sort.
I think that is right, although with an important proviso. The polling is clear that if the election were held today, Biden would win in a landslide. November, though, is two months away so there is still time for Trump to turn it round, like Corbyn almost did in 2017.
I'd expect the big hitters to start playing in the last fortnight or so but right now there is a clear disparity between the betting odds and the polls.
Corbyn and Trump are very, very alike in a lot of ways and I think like in 2019 the betting markets are over-reacting to what happened last time. In 2016/17 Trump/Corbyn majorly outperformed the received wisdom and despite getting millions fewer votes overall was narrowly-elected/nearly became PM. Flash forward next time and the polls are even worse for Trump/Corbyn than last time, the public knows them better now too and views are more entrenched, but the betting markets are discounting the polls because of what happened last time.
I am very hopeful, as I was in December, the markets are overreacting.
Corbyn is nothing like Trump as a person or as a politician but other than that I green tick this analysis. The evidence says he will lose and he should be longer odds. The reason he isn't is that punters are fixated on what happened last time and it is clouding their thinking. The same thing happened with our GE. The evidence said Tory landslide. Tory landslide was nevertheless a minority opinion. Tory landslide duly happened. That was a great betting opportunity. So is WH2020. Lay Trump and back him to get less than 200 in the EC. You will be smiling on Nov 4th. Course you will be anyway if you are of sound mind and good character, since an individual who should never have been allowed anywhere near political power let alone the US presidency will be on his way out, but it never hurts to win a few quid too when the chance presents itself.
Nothing like?
One is someone who was never expected to become leader or taken seriously even within his party, an elderly man who had a lifetime not contributing to frontline politics, was dismissed even by his own side as a crank when he put his name forward, but got almost zealotry support from his supporters. Even after becoming leader has seen divisions within the party with former prominent supporters of the party suggesting to vote for the opposition because this leader was beyond the pale. Denounced as clearly racist by his opponents and many from the same party too and very popular with racists. Happy to share a platform with racists.
The other is President Trump/Jeremy Corbyn.
Boris is a far closer parallel to Trump, not least in that he actually won (ironically by lifting Corbyn's 2017 platform) as well as racism, disregard for rules and law, and alienation (and Stalinist purging) of longstanding party members.
Boris is nothing like them. He is a mainstream Tory who had served as Mayor of the capital for eight years, served as Foreign Secretary under Prime Minister May one of the Great Offices of State and under David Cameron had been appointed to his political cabinet.
Neither Corbyn nor Trump had that level of experience.
Give his record as Foreign Secretary I’d keep quiet about that bit of his CV when trying to extol his virtues.
For that bit of his CV I have issues with May not him.
But the point is it's there. What Great Office of State, Cabinet, Shadow Cabinet etc had Corbyn served in? Or Trump?
Boris's only Cabinet experience was as Foreign Secretary during which he recited inappropriate poetry in India and got a British citizen banged up in Iran because he could not be bothered to read his brief or STFU. But you are right that is more experience than Corbyn or Cameron or Blair.
It does not alter the fact that Boris is a close parallel to Trump. If we are being silly, we might also observe both men were born in New York. Both are also hugely charismatic, have distinctive hair, and became famous through television work though both were already well-known. Then there are the lies, racism, Stalinism and so on. They are not identical, as you have observed, but the parallels are there.
Even Margaret Thatcher had no experience in a "Great Office of State" before becoming PM.
Though she had rather famously been Education Secretary.
Has anyone other than Corbyn become leader of a main party without holding any position in the party's Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet first?
LOL, Williamson been sent back onto the airwaves to 'explain' the latest u-turn
..with the world's longest sentence
If (when) he loses his job, a future as a "Just a Minute" contestant awaits (apart from the deviation)
How can he explain it? Perhaps that its a fiasco, but less than the fiasco we were facing had we sent kids back to school like it was normality.
How is a fiasco?
The scientific advice on masks in schools changed, they're following the science. What is complicated or a fiasco about that?
What scientific advice? You can't hide behind the scientists any more since the government sidelined the advisors and proclaimed all this was now a political decision. "You will go back normally or we will fine you, it is safe " was almost immediately contradicted by government scientists who were ignored by ministers.
This is owned by that sacked liar Williamson and his sacked liar boss.
What are you wittering on about?
The scientific advice on facemasks in schools was changed over the weekend. The government immediately responded. What more do you expect? How is that a fiasco?
Mr Sharma was saying only yesterday that the English gmt was not going to review the matter, ie the matter was closed. That was well after the weekend, new evidence, etc. It was politics to make that decision or to go for the other option - or both.
Do you have a link for that? I’d like to know the context though if he said it yesterday then that was foolish of him, as the WHO advice had changed.
You don’t need a link take my word for it that’s exactly what Sharma said.
According to what carnyx has quoted it's not remotely what he said. Saying the government is following the science and keeping the issue under review is the polar opposite of saying the case is closed and it's not being reviewed.
It was indeed more nuanced than the original reports, but Sharma's words were little more than the usual getout - no hint of active review of this specific point. it's also a matter of timing, when the schools are just on the point of going back. If other governments in the UK with much smaller organizations are announcing activelyu that they are likely to make the change - it was just the need to consult with the unions, LAs etc that held the Scots back a little from actually doing it - then the impression given was that PHE is at best rather slow and at worst the pols didn't want to know. Perhaps this is unfair, but it is reminiscent of the mess over the exams algorithm - the English administration doubled down even when the problems and one least worst solution were abundantly clear, and left it too late to chaneg their mind. At least they moved much more quickly this time.
Why would Sharma hint at an active review? It isn't his department, he isn't responsible for PHE or involved with PHE's decision making. He said that its subject to review and it was reviewed that is the extent of his involvement.
Dominic Green in today's Daily Telegraph: "America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And the way they’re going, they will lose."
Dominic Green compares the Democrat campaign with Remain in the EU referendum:
America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And they way they’re going, they will lose.
Like Remain before the EU referendum, the Democrats are campaigning with every conceivable institutional advantage.
Like Remain before the referendum, the Democratic elite shows a barely concealed contempt for the undecided, let alone the opposition.
It’s interesting reading the comments below that article and others like it in places like the Mail. There seems to be an almost universal sense that Trump is unbeatable. Either because people like him and want him to win, or because they hate him and are resigned to him winning.
The truth is he only very narrowly won the first time round, when looking at his winning margin in the key states and the EC exaggerated the scale of his victory. I do wonder whether this twin psychological state from supporters / detractors is driving the betting odds towards it being almost a 50-50 election when in reality is nothing of the sort.
I think that is right, although with an important proviso. The polling is clear that if the election were held today, Biden would win in a landslide. November, though, is two months away so there is still time for Trump to turn it round, like Corbyn almost did in 2017.
I'd expect the big hitters to start playing in the last fortnight or so but right now there is a clear disparity between the betting odds and the polls.
Corbyn and Trump are very, very alike in a lot of ways and I think like in 2019 the betting markets are over-reacting to what happened last time. In 2016/17 Trump/Corbyn majorly outperformed the received wisdom and despite getting millions fewer votes overall was narrowly-elected/nearly became PM. Flash forward next time and the polls are even worse for Trump/Corbyn than last time, the public knows them better now too and views are more entrenched, but the betting markets are discounting the polls because of what happened last time.
I am very hopeful, as I was in December, the markets are overreacting.
Corbyn is nothing like Trump as a person or as a politician but other than that I green tick this analysis. The evidence says he will lose and he should be longer odds. The reason he isn't is that punters are fixated on what happened last time and it is clouding their thinking. The same thing happened with our GE. The evidence said Tory landslide. Tory landslide was nevertheless a minority opinion. Tory landslide duly happened. That was a great betting opportunity. So is WH2020. Lay Trump and back him to get less than 200 in the EC. You will be smiling on Nov 4th. Course you will be anyway if you are of sound mind and good character, since an individual who should never have been allowed anywhere near political power let alone the US presidency will be on his way out, but it never hurts to win a few quid too when the chance presents itself.
Nothing like?
One is someone who was never expected to become leader or taken seriously even within his party, an elderly man who had a lifetime not contributing to frontline politics, was dismissed even by his own side as a crank when he put his name forward, but got almost zealotry support from his supporters. Even after becoming leader has seen divisions within the party with former prominent supporters of the party suggesting to vote for the opposition because this leader was beyond the pale. Denounced as clearly racist by his opponents and many from the same party too and very popular with racists. Happy to share a platform with racists.
The other is President Trump/Jeremy Corbyn.
One could construct a similar bit of nonsense for Trump/Johnson. Indeed with slightly more justification since there are real rather than fabricated similarities in the way they message and communicate. But the fact is that Trump is nothing like Johnson and he's nothing like Corbyn. He's no more like them than he is like Ed Davey. We have no meaningful equivalent. Thank goodness.
Perhaps the opinion of the great orange balloon should be taken notice of? I don't think he ever described Jezza as Britain Trump.
He did too. I'd forgotten that. And Johnson's "ad hoc" intervention in the Proms the other day was a bit Trumpian.
"I have no truck with all this new fangled political correctness baloney. I'm just like you good salt of the earth indigenous people. Proud to be British and not ashamed to say so. What a country. Best empire ever. Half the globe red and then we let them go. Plus who stood alone and won the war? White cliffs. Never breached and never will be. Mine's a pint. Mine's a pie. Mine's a spitfire."
Is there any evidence that shy Trump voters were a thing in 2016? The national polls were pretty close, and IIUC the polling failure in the mid-west is generally blamed on screwing up the sampling/weighting, specifically that if you want to poll for Trumpishness you really, really need your sample to be balanced by *education*, not just income/age/race.
"Late deciding" voters split heavily towards trump.
The national polls actual understated both Clinton and Trump, missing Trump by almost 4 points and Clinton by 2.5
Was this a movement away from other candidates, or the don't knows making their minds up? The don't knows splitting 8:5 is not a long way off from 50-50.
There was a lot of different small movements, Clinton supporters switching to 3rd party or DNV (or Trump)
Thanks for the link. This does though seem to confirm my previous opinion that although a definite late move to Trump, it is not a surprising late move (I bet half of all WH elections have a similar late movement). Why it was important in 2016 is because that election was close in enough states to have a significant effect on the result, the movement being AWAY from the favourite. Had there been a late movement of this size towards Clinton, no one would be talking about it now.
Apropos of feck all, I re-signed up to Amazon Prime again to watch The Bureau (it's pretty good, much superior to what I guess is the nearest equivalent, Spooks), and after 4 episodes they're telling me I need to pay £2.49 to watch any subsequent ones. Is this they way they do things on Prime now? From memory I previously had free access to everything except new release films. Connards!
Saw a good review a couple of weeks ago and watched the first three episodes. Yeah, it's really good. It was flagged up as "leaving Amazon Prime in five days". Wife binge-watched the first two series just in time. It's fascinating how different countries make such series in characteristically different ways. But frankly it's a relief to be denied follow-ups - we'll wait for subsequent series to appear without extra charges.
Ah, so it's officially left Prime for the moment.
It sort of messed around with my cultural expectations, downbeat with lots of slow build up of characters and plot. The Bureau itself resembled a Gallic Wernham Hogg with shredders and coffee machines that didn't work. Spooks as I remember it was far fetched, melodramatic cliffhangers and an HQ that looked like a poncy architects' office.
Also apropos of nothijng much (except Mr Johnson's affiliation to SNP policies), can someone please point me to a source for the statement here recently by a PBer that there are 100, 000 commuters over the Anglo-Scottish border?
I'm either misremembering or missing something as this does not square with my knowledge of the Gretna or Berwick areas, still less between Sark and Coldstream.
The two populist antisemitic outsiders are two peas of the same pod. Thank goodness our Trump lost both his elections and hopefully their Corbyn will lose his second by a landslide.
Apropos of feck all, I re-signed up to Amazon Prime again to watch The Bureau (it's pretty good, much superior to what I guess is the nearest equivalent, Spooks), and after 4 episodes they're telling me I need to pay £2.49 to watch any subsequent ones. Is this they way they do things on Prime now? From memory I previously had free access to everything except new release films. Connards!
Saw a good review a couple of weeks ago and watched the first three episodes. Yeah, it's really good. It was flagged up as "leaving Amazon Prime in five days". Wife binge-watched the first two series just in time. It's fascinating how different countries make such series in characteristically different ways. But frankly it's a relief to be denied follow-ups - we'll wait for subsequent series to appear without extra charges.
Ah, so it's officially left Prime for the moment.
It sort of messed around with my cultural expectations, downbeat with lots of slow build up of characters and plot. The Bureau itself resembled a Gallic Wernham Hogg with shredders and coffee machines that didn't work. Spooks as I remember it was far fetched, melodramatic cliffhangers and an HQ that looked like a poncy architects' office.
It reminded me of Spiral in the types of characters and situations represented. That and a touch of Homeland.
The two populist antisemitic outsiders are two peas of the same pod. Thank goodness our Trump lost both his elections and hopefully their Corbyn will lose his second by a landslide.
Corbyn is nothing like Trump, he was a UK Bernie Sanders not Trump.
Dominic Green in today's Daily Telegraph: "America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And the way they’re going, they will lose."
Dominic Green compares the Democrat campaign with Remain in the EU referendum:
America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And they way they’re going, they will lose.
Like Remain before the EU referendum, the Democrats are campaigning with every conceivable institutional advantage.
Like Remain before the referendum, the Democratic elite shows a barely concealed contempt for the undecided, let alone the opposition.
It’s interesting reading the comments below that article and others like it in places like the Mail. There seems to be an almost universal sense that Trump is unbeatable. Either because people like him and want him to win, or because they hate him and are resigned to him winning.
The truth is he only very narrowly won the first time round, when looking at his winning margin in the key states and the EC exaggerated the scale of his victory. I do wonder whether this twin psychological state from supporters / detractors is driving the betting odds towards it being almost a 50-50 election when in reality is nothing of the sort.
I think that is right, although with an important proviso. The polling is clear that if the election were held today, Biden would win in a landslide. November, though, is two months away so there is still time for Trump to turn it round, like Corbyn almost did in 2017.
I'd expect the big hitters to start playing in the last fortnight or so but right now there is a clear disparity between the betting odds and the polls.
Corbyn and Trump are very, very alike in a lot of ways and I think like in 2019 the betting markets are over-reacting to what happened last time. In 2016/17 Trump/Corbyn majorly outperformed the received wisdom and despite getting millions fewer votes overall was narrowly-elected/nearly became PM. Flash forward next time and the polls are even worse for Trump/Corbyn than last time, the public knows them better now too and views are more entrenched, but the betting markets are discounting the polls because of what happened last time.
I am very hopeful, as I was in December, the markets are overreacting.
Corbyn is nothing like Trump as a person or as a politician but other than that I green tick this analysis. The evidence says he will lose and he should be longer odds. The reason he isn't is that punters are fixated on what happened last time and it is clouding their thinking. The same thing happened with our GE. The evidence said Tory landslide. Tory landslide was nevertheless a minority opinion. Tory landslide duly happened. That was a great betting opportunity. So is WH2020. Lay Trump and back him to get less than 200 in the EC. You will be smiling on Nov 4th. Course you will be anyway if you are of sound mind and good character, since an individual who should never have been allowed anywhere near political power let alone the US presidency will be on his way out, but it never hurts to win a few quid too when the chance presents itself.
Nothing like?
One is someone who was never expected to become leader or taken seriously even within his party, an elderly man who had a lifetime not contributing to frontline politics, was dismissed even by his own side as a crank when he put his name forward, but got almost zealotry support from his supporters. Even after becoming leader has seen divisions within the party with former prominent supporters of the party suggesting to vote for the opposition because this leader was beyond the pale. Denounced as clearly racist by his opponents and many from the same party too and very popular with racists. Happy to share a platform with racists.
The other is President Trump/Jeremy Corbyn.
Boris is a far closer parallel to Trump, not least in that he actually won (ironically by lifting Corbyn's 2017 platform) as well as racism, disregard for rules and law, and alienation (and Stalinist purging) of longstanding party members.
Boris is nothing like them. He is a mainstream Tory who had served as Mayor of the capital for eight years, served as Foreign Secretary under Prime Minister May one of the Great Offices of State and under David Cameron had been appointed to his political cabinet.
Neither Corbyn nor Trump had that level of experience.
Give his record as Foreign Secretary I’d keep quiet about that bit of his CV when trying to extol his virtues.
For that bit of his CV I have issues with May not him.
But the point is it's there. What Great Office of State, Cabinet, Shadow Cabinet etc had Corbyn served in? Or Trump?
Boris's only Cabinet experience was as Foreign Secretary during which he recited inappropriate poetry in India and got a British citizen banged up in Iran because he could not be bothered to read his brief or STFU. But you are right that is more experience than Corbyn or Cameron or Blair.
It does not alter the fact that Boris is a close parallel to Trump. If we are being silly, we might also observe both men were born in New York. Both are also hugely charismatic, have distinctive hair, and became famous through television work though both were already well-known. Then there are the lies, racism, Stalinism and so on. They are not identical, as you have observed, but the parallels are there.
Even Margaret Thatcher had no experience in a "Great Office of State" before becoming PM.
Nor did Blair, nor did Cameron, nor does Starmer. However all had experience in the Shadow Cabinet before becoming party leader and Thatcher also had Cabinet experience as Education Secretary too
The two populist antisemitic outsiders are two peas of the same pod. Thank goodness our Trump lost both his elections and hopefully their Corbyn will lose his second by a landslide.
Corbyn is nothing like Trump, he was a UK Bernie Sanders not Trump.
Farage is the UK Trump
Farage is also like Trump but he never came to lead one of the two UK Parties like Trump came to suddenly lead the GOP and Corbyn came to lead Labour.
I see the "Trump is going ot do really well with minorities" rampers are out again.
Can you give some actual concrete numbers? What percentage of the African American vote do you think Trump will get?
In percentage terms definately less that in 2016, when many African American Democrat leaners were unimpressed with the Democrat candidate and stayed at home.
As opposed to a candidate who says that, if you don't vote for the Democrats, "you ain't black"?
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
The PCC elections are the only elections I have not voted in. I did not even want to spoil my ballot paper as it gets included in the total and I was keen that the turnout be pitiful.
Why on earth would you not want to participate in local democracy?
That is a classic cut your nose to spite your face act.
Lunacy.
I do not believe PCC should be an elected post (many have the same view). My vote will make little difference to the actual outcome however the absence of my vote (which is clear by the lack of turnout when PCC elections are not held at the same time as other elections) show how little interest people have in this role. It is the only election I am aware of where people take an active interest in not voting (as opposed to apathy)
They provide accountability to the public and that is a good thing. Plenty of people don't vote ("don't vote it only encourages them", etc) on lots of things but there is no valid reason why any decision not to vote is a good one.
I disagree (and I can't think of anything I have disagreed with you on in the past - a first?).
There are scenarios where I may or may not approve of the role we are electing (eg elected mayors or cabinet - I prefer cabinet) but I will always vote, but for me this is so completely wrong and going down the line of elected judges, sheriffs and dog catchers who should be independent appointees.
I guess if a loony was likely to get elected I might vote to ensure s/he didn't or if there was an organised 'spoil ballot' campaign.
I don't want to add credence to the election and it is a toss up between not voting and spoilt ballot. I pick not voting because of the low turnout impact.
I could only find this:
"To be able to stand as a candidate at a Police and Crime Commissioner election in England (excluding London and Manchester) and Wales, you must be: - at least 18 years old on the day of your nomination - a British citizen, an eligible Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of a member state of the European Union, and - registered as a local government elector in a local council area that is within the police area in which you wish to stand, both at the time of your nomination and on polling day."
Dominic Green in today's Daily Telegraph: "America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And the way they’re going, they will lose."
Dominic Green compares the Democrat campaign with Remain in the EU referendum:
America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And they way they’re going, they will lose.
Like Remain before the EU referendum, the Democrats are campaigning with every conceivable institutional advantage.
Like Remain before the referendum, the Democratic elite shows a barely concealed contempt for the undecided, let alone the opposition.
It’s interesting reading the comments below that article and others like it in places like the Mail. There seems to be an almost universal sense that Trump is unbeatable. Either because people like him and want him to win, or because they hate him and are resigned to him winning.
The truth is he only very narrowly won the first time round, when looking at his winning margin in the key states and the EC exaggerated the scale of his victory. I do wonder whether this twin psychological state from supporters / detractors is driving the betting odds towards it being almost a 50-50 election when in reality is nothing of the sort.
I think that is right, although with an important proviso. The polling is clear that if the election were held today, Biden would win in a landslide. November, though, is two months away so there is still time for Trump to turn it round, like Corbyn almost did in 2017.
I'd expect the big hitters to start playing in the last fortnight or so but right now there is a clear disparity between the betting odds and the polls.
Corbyn and Trump are very, very alike in a lot of ways and I think like in 2019 the betting markets are over-reacting to what happened last time. In 2016/17 Trump/Corbyn majorly outperformed the received wisdom and despite getting millions fewer votes overall was narrowly-elected/nearly became PM. Flash forward next time and the polls are even worse for Trump/Corbyn than last time, the public knows them better now too and views are more entrenched, but the betting markets are discounting the polls because of what happened last time.
I am very hopeful, as I was in December, the markets are overreacting.
Corbyn is nothing like Trump as a person or as a politician but other than that I green tick this analysis. The evidence says he will lose and he should be longer odds. The reason he isn't is that punters are fixated on what happened last time and it is clouding their thinking. The same thing happened with our GE. The evidence said Tory landslide. Tory landslide was nevertheless a minority opinion. Tory landslide duly happened. That was a great betting opportunity. So is WH2020. Lay Trump and back him to get less than 200 in the EC. You will be smiling on Nov 4th. Course you will be anyway if you are of sound mind and good character, since an individual who should never have been allowed anywhere near political power let alone the US presidency will be on his way out, but it never hurts to win a few quid too when the chance presents itself.
Nothing like?
One is someone who was never expected to become leader or taken seriously even within his party, an elderly man who had a lifetime not contributing to frontline politics, was dismissed even by his own side as a crank when he put his name forward, but got almost zealotry support from his supporters. Even after becoming leader has seen divisions within the party with former prominent supporters of the party suggesting to vote for the opposition because this leader was beyond the pale. Denounced as clearly racist by his opponents and many from the same party too and very popular with racists. Happy to share a platform with racists.
The other is President Trump/Jeremy Corbyn.
Boris is a far closer parallel to Trump, not least in that he actually won (ironically by lifting Corbyn's 2017 platform) as well as racism, disregard for rules and law, and alienation (and Stalinist purging) of longstanding party members.
Boris is nothing like them. He is a mainstream Tory who had served as Mayor of the capital for eight years, served as Foreign Secretary under Prime Minister May one of the Great Offices of State and under David Cameron had been appointed to his political cabinet.
Neither Corbyn nor Trump had that level of experience.
Give his record as Foreign Secretary I’d keep quiet about that bit of his CV when trying to extol his virtues.
For that bit of his CV I have issues with May not him.
But the point is it's there. What Great Office of State, Cabinet, Shadow Cabinet etc had Corbyn served in? Or Trump?
Boris's only Cabinet experience was as Foreign Secretary during which he recited inappropriate poetry in India and got a British citizen banged up in Iran because he could not be bothered to read his brief or STFU. But you are right that is more experience than Corbyn or Cameron or Blair.
It does not alter the fact that Boris is a close parallel to Trump. If we are being silly, we might also observe both men were born in New York. Both are also hugely charismatic, have distinctive hair, and became famous through television work though both were already well-known. Then there are the lies, racism, Stalinism and so on. They are not identical, as you have observed, but the parallels are there.
Even Margaret Thatcher had no experience in a "Great Office of State" before becoming PM.
Though she had rather famously been Education Secretary.
I know "Boris's only Cabinet experience was as Foreign Secretary during which he recited inappropriate poetry in India and got a British citizen banged up in Iran because he could not be bothered to read his brief or STFU. But you are right that is more experience than Corbyn or Cameron or Blair." or Thatcher.
My point is, is that experience in Government is a pointless metric when applied to LOTO. Even applied to Corbyn it is a pointless metric because he was rubbish in many more important ways than membership of a shadow government.
The two populist antisemitic outsiders are two peas of the same pod. Thank goodness our Trump lost both his elections and hopefully their Corbyn will lose his second by a landslide.
And Boris was described as Britain's Trump by The Donald himself.
I'm honestly starting to worry that we're going to have to endure another 4 years of Trump.
Trafalgar Group got 2016 the closest at state level.
Their latest polls have Trump ahead in Wisconsin but Biden picking up Michigan and Pennsylvania and Florida tied with Trump ahead by less than 0.5%, which could lead to an EC tie 269-269 if Biden picks up Nebraska 02 where he is ahead in the polls there
Dominic Green in today's Daily Telegraph: "America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And the way they’re going, they will lose."
Dominic Green compares the Democrat campaign with Remain in the EU referendum:
America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And they way they’re going, they will lose.
Like Remain before the EU referendum, the Democrats are campaigning with every conceivable institutional advantage.
Like Remain before the referendum, the Democratic elite shows a barely concealed contempt for the undecided, let alone the opposition.
Yep. Can't help having a really bad feeling about all this. Biden just ahead in swing states, piling up votes in safe counties, the bien pensant sure that 2nd term Trump would be such a disaster nobody will vote for him etc etc. Here we go again.
Hope I am wrong.
I know I have been open on here saying Trump will win so it won't come as a surprise to say I think you are right.
We had a fair few on here claiming that the riots and disorder would not help Trump because it wasn't showing up in the polls. It looks like the penny is starting to drop.
What's the polling evidence for this? Biden's lead is now out to 9.3% on 538, which is almost exactly where it was at the start of July. I don't really see any evidence of 'the penny starting to drop'.
The RCP average is 7.6. 538 seems to be influenced by a slew of Morning Consult daily polls.
538 does take polls from many sources but uses machine learning to work out how strongly or weakly they should be weighted.
I'm certain that their method of weighting different sources of informtion is more accurate than your personal opinion.
Regardless of my personal opinion - and of what you are certain about - the point still stands there is a difference between the two.
Has Nate Silver ever disclosed his methodology for weighting the polls and how he comes up with his percentage outcome? A lot of people seem to treat him as God when it comes to polling but I'm slightly sceptical. His explanations seem self-serving. He trumpets he was closer to most of the forecasts in 2016 when he gave Trump a 30% chance but he forgot a few days before he was only forecasting a c. 15% chance and that he was predicting something like a 15% chance Trump would win Wisconsin. His explanation is that late voters jumped for Trump but I have never really seen any evidence of that and it would seem to go against the grain of undecideds voting the "safest" candidate
The two populist antisemitic outsiders are two peas of the same pod. Thank goodness our Trump lost both his elections and hopefully their Corbyn will lose his second by a landslide.
And Boris was described as Britain's Trump by The Donald himself.
The two populist antisemitic outsiders are two peas of the same pod. Thank goodness our Trump lost both his elections and hopefully their Corbyn will lose his second by a landslide.
And Boris was described as Britain's Trump by The Donald himself.
Yes but Britain is not as rightwing as the US so Boris is the Trump we would have, just as Berlusconi for example was the Italian Trump or Abbott the Australian Trump, Bolsonaro the Brazilian Trump or even Sarkozy the French Trump.
Ideologically though Farage is closer to Trump than Boris is, it was Farage who addressed a Trump rally in 2016, Boris was critical of Trump until Trump won
Dominic Green in today's Daily Telegraph: "America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And the way they’re going, they will lose."
Dominic Green compares the Democrat campaign with Remain in the EU referendum:
America’s next election, like its last one, is for the Democrats to lose. And they way they’re going, they will lose.
Like Remain before the EU referendum, the Democrats are campaigning with every conceivable institutional advantage.
Like Remain before the referendum, the Democratic elite shows a barely concealed contempt for the undecided, let alone the opposition.
It’s interesting reading the comments below that article and others like it in places like the Mail. There seems to be an almost universal sense that Trump is unbeatable. Either because people like him and want him to win, or because they hate him and are resigned to him winning.
The truth is he only very narrowly won the first time round, when looking at his winning margin in the key states and the EC exaggerated the scale of his victory. I do wonder whether this twin psychological state from supporters / detractors is driving the betting odds towards it being almost a 50-50 election when in reality is nothing of the sort.
I think that is right, although with an important proviso. The polling is clear that if the election were held today, Biden would win in a landslide. November, though, is two months away so there is still time for Trump to turn it round, like Corbyn almost did in 2017.
I'd expect the big hitters to start playing in the last fortnight or so but right now there is a clear disparity between the betting odds and the polls.
Corbyn and Trump are very, very alike in a lot of ways and I think like in 2019 the betting markets are over-reacting to what happened last time. In 2016/17 Trump/Corbyn majorly outperformed the received wisdom and despite getting millions fewer votes overall was narrowly-elected/nearly became PM. Flash forward next time and the polls are even worse for Trump/Corbyn than last time, the public knows them better now too and views are more entrenched, but the betting markets are discounting the polls because of what happened last time.
I am very hopeful, as I was in December, the markets are overreacting.
Corbyn is nothing like Trump as a person or as a politician but other than that I green tick this analysis. The evidence says he will lose and he should be longer odds. The reason he isn't is that punters are fixated on what happened last time and it is clouding their thinking. The same thing happened with our GE. The evidence said Tory landslide. Tory landslide was nevertheless a minority opinion. Tory landslide duly happened. That was a great betting opportunity. So is WH2020. Lay Trump and back him to get less than 200 in the EC. You will be smiling on Nov 4th. Course you will be anyway if you are of sound mind and good character, since an individual who should never have been allowed anywhere near political power let alone the US presidency will be on his way out, but it never hurts to win a few quid too when the chance presents itself.
Nothing like?
One is someone who was never expected to become leader or taken seriously even within his party, an elderly man who had a lifetime not contributing to frontline politics, was dismissed even by his own side as a crank when he put his name forward, but got almost zealotry support from his supporters. Even after becoming leader has seen divisions within the party with former prominent supporters of the party suggesting to vote for the opposition because this leader was beyond the pale. Denounced as clearly racist by his opponents and many from the same party too and very popular with racists. Happy to share a platform with racists.
The other is President Trump/Jeremy Corbyn.
Boris is a far closer parallel to Trump, not least in that he actually won (ironically by lifting Corbyn's 2017 platform) as well as racism, disregard for rules and law, and alienation (and Stalinist purging) of longstanding party members.
Boris is nothing like them. He is a mainstream Tory who had served as Mayor of the capital for eight years, served as Foreign Secretary under Prime Minister May one of the Great Offices of State and under David Cameron had been appointed to his political cabinet.
Neither Corbyn nor Trump had that level of experience.
Give his record as Foreign Secretary I’d keep quiet about that bit of his CV when trying to extol his virtues.
For that bit of his CV I have issues with May not him.
But the point is it's there. What Great Office of State, Cabinet, Shadow Cabinet etc had Corbyn served in? Or Trump?
Boris's only Cabinet experience was as Foreign Secretary during which he recited inappropriate poetry in India and got a British citizen banged up in Iran because he could not be bothered to read his brief or STFU. But you are right that is more experience than Corbyn or Cameron or Blair.
It does not alter the fact that Boris is a close parallel to Trump. If we are being silly, we might also observe both men were born in New York. Both are also hugely charismatic, have distinctive hair, and became famous through television work though both were already well-known. Then there are the lies, racism, Stalinism and so on. They are not identical, as you have observed, but the parallels are there.
Even Margaret Thatcher had no experience in a "Great Office of State" before becoming PM.
Though she had rather famously been Education Secretary.
Has anyone other than Corbyn become leader of a main party without holding any position in the party's Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet first?
Feel free to spend the rest of the day on Wikipedia. I'd have thought it not unlikely in the early days, assuming they even had Shadow Cabinets. Do let us know the answer.
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
The PCC elections are the only elections I have not voted in. I did not even want to spoil my ballot paper as it gets included in the total and I was keen that the turnout be pitiful.
Why on earth would you not want to participate in local democracy?
That is a classic cut your nose to spite your face act.
Lunacy.
I do not believe PCC should be an elected post (many have the same view). My vote will make little difference to the actual outcome however the absence of my vote (which is clear by the lack of turnout when PCC elections are not held at the same time as other elections) show how little interest people have in this role. It is the only election I am aware of where people take an active interest in not voting (as opposed to apathy)
They provide accountability to the public and that is a good thing. Plenty of people don't vote ("don't vote it only encourages them", etc) on lots of things but there is no valid reason why any decision not to vote is a good one.
I disagree (and I can't think of anything I have disagreed with you on in the past - a first?).
There are scenarios where I may or may not approve of the role we are electing (eg elected mayors or cabinet - I prefer cabinet) but I will always vote, but for me this is so completely wrong and going down the line of elected judges, sheriffs and dog catchers who should be independent appointees.
I guess if a loony was likely to get elected I might vote to ensure s/he didn't or if there was an organised 'spoil ballot' campaign.
I don't want to add credence to the election and it is a toss up between not voting and spoilt ballot. I pick not voting because of the low turnout impact.
I could only find this:
"To be able to stand as a candidate at a Police and Crime Commissioner election in England (excluding London and Manchester) and Wales, you must be: - at least 18 years old on the day of your nomination - a British citizen, an eligible Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of a member state of the European Union, and - registered as a local government elector in a local council area that is within the police area in which you wish to stand, both at the time of your nomination and on polling day."
So anyone can stand, just about. That it is not popular is not the fault of the idea.
I'm not quite sure of the point you are making Topping. I like many do not think a Police Commissioner should be an elected office. It should be appointed. It should be independent of politics and should be an administrative role, efficiently enforcing the laws passed by elected politicians.
I do not want to go down the road of us electing people who enforce the rules like policemen and judges.
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
The PCC elections are the only elections I have not voted in. I did not even want to spoil my ballot paper as it gets included in the total and I was keen that the turnout be pitiful.
Why on earth would you not want to participate in local democracy?
That is a classic cut your nose to spite your face act.
Lunacy.
I do not believe PCC should be an elected post (many have the same view). My vote will make little difference to the actual outcome however the absence of my vote (which is clear by the lack of turnout when PCC elections are not held at the same time as other elections) show how little interest people have in this role. It is the only election I am aware of where people take an active interest in not voting (as opposed to apathy)
They provide accountability to the public and that is a good thing. Plenty of people don't vote ("don't vote it only encourages them", etc) on lots of things but there is no valid reason why any decision not to vote is a good one.
I disagree (and I can't think of anything I have disagreed with you on in the past - a first?).
There are scenarios where I may or may not approve of the role we are electing (eg elected mayors or cabinet - I prefer cabinet) but I will always vote, but for me this is so completely wrong and going down the line of elected judges, sheriffs and dog catchers who should be independent appointees.
I guess if a loony was likely to get elected I might vote to ensure s/he didn't or if there was an organised 'spoil ballot' campaign.
I don't want to add credence to the election and it is a toss up between not voting and spoilt ballot. I pick not voting because of the low turnout impact.
I could only find this:
"To be able to stand as a candidate at a Police and Crime Commissioner election in England (excluding London and Manchester) and Wales, you must be: - at least 18 years old on the day of your nomination - a British citizen, an eligible Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of a member state of the European Union, and - registered as a local government elector in a local council area that is within the police area in which you wish to stand, both at the time of your nomination and on polling day."
So anyone can stand, just about. That it is not popular is not the fault of the idea.
I'm not quite sure of the point you are making Topping. I like many do not think a Police Commissioner should be an elected office. It should be appointed. It should be independent of politics and should be an administrative role, efficiently enforcing the laws passed by elected politicians.
I do not want to go down the road of us electing people who enforce the rules like policemen and judges.
My point is that we are supposed to have policing by consent and I think it has become relatively acknowledged that sometimes, often perhaps, the police have branched out into areas where perhaps people don't want them to branch out into or have established practices that are illogical and counterproductive.
Having local accountability is imo (as you have noted!) a better idea because it's us that are being policed.
Even that bloke (no, not the then Home Secretary!) who wrote that coruscating book into the police said that one way to avoid the administrative and absurd practices was to have elected and therefore accountable people at the head of the police.
The two populist antisemitic outsiders are two peas of the same pod. Thank goodness our Trump lost both his elections and hopefully their Corbyn will lose his second by a landslide.
And Boris was described as Britain's Trump by The Donald himself.
Yes Donald would want to associate himself with our brilliant PM rather than the double loser he is actually more like.
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
The PCC elections are the only elections I have not voted in. I did not even want to spoil my ballot paper as it gets included in the total and I was keen that the turnout be pitiful.
Why on earth would you not want to participate in local democracy?
That is a classic cut your nose to spite your face act.
Lunacy.
I do not believe PCC should be an elected post (many have the same view). My vote will make little difference to the actual outcome however the absence of my vote (which is clear by the lack of turnout when PCC elections are not held at the same time as other elections) show how little interest people have in this role. It is the only election I am aware of where people take an active interest in not voting (as opposed to apathy)
They provide accountability to the public and that is a good thing. Plenty of people don't vote ("don't vote it only encourages them", etc) on lots of things but there is no valid reason why any decision not to vote is a good one.
I disagree (and I can't think of anything I have disagreed with you on in the past - a first?).
There are scenarios where I may or may not approve of the role we are electing (eg elected mayors or cabinet - I prefer cabinet) but I will always vote, but for me this is so completely wrong and going down the line of elected judges, sheriffs and dog catchers who should be independent appointees.
I guess if a loony was likely to get elected I might vote to ensure s/he didn't or if there was an organised 'spoil ballot' campaign.
I don't want to add credence to the election and it is a toss up between not voting and spoilt ballot. I pick not voting because of the low turnout impact.
I could only find this:
"To be able to stand as a candidate at a Police and Crime Commissioner election in England (excluding London and Manchester) and Wales, you must be: - at least 18 years old on the day of your nomination - a British citizen, an eligible Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of a member state of the European Union, and - registered as a local government elector in a local council area that is within the police area in which you wish to stand, both at the time of your nomination and on polling day."
So anyone can stand, just about. That it is not popular is not the fault of the idea.
I'm not quite sure of the point you are making Topping. I like many do not think a Police Commissioner should be an elected office. It should be appointed. It should be independent of politics and should be an administrative role, efficiently enforcing the laws passed by elected politicians.
I do not want to go down the road of us electing people who enforce the rules like policemen and judges.
My point is that we are supposed to have policing by consent and I think it has become relatively acknowledged that sometimes, often perhaps, the police have branched out into areas where perhaps people don't want them to branch out into or have established practices that are illogical and counterproductive.
Having local accountability is imo (as you have noted!) a better idea because it's us that are being policed.
Even that bloke (no, not the then Home Secretary!) who wrote that coruscating book into the police said that one way to avoid the administrative and absurd practices was to have elected and therefore accountable people at the head of the police.
"I would start by getting rid of 25% of civilians and desk jockeys and using the money saved to bring in more frontline officers. I'd have them under the command of directly-elected Chief Constablies, responsible to their local electorate..."
The local elections next year at county and district level should be an opportunity for gains for the LDs in England, particularly continuing in opposition to new housing and going on Nimbyism and also seeking to make inroads into Tory Remain areas. Labour will be seeking to expand its lead in London at the Mayoral and Assembly elections and the SNP seeking to hold its Holyrood majority with the Greens and thus push for indyref2 while Welsh Labour will hope to hold on in Cardiff.
There will also be Police and Crime commissioner elections.
It should also be noted that in 2017 the Tories got 38% and Labour just 27% at the county elections compared to 42% and 40% at the general election while the LDs got 18% compared to just 7% at the general election. The LDs therefore did much better at county than national level and will seek to expand on that county council success next year, the Tories will seek to hold their seats and Labour to make gains too
PCC elections next year?
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
The PCC elections are the only elections I have not voted in. I did not even want to spoil my ballot paper as it gets included in the total and I was keen that the turnout be pitiful.
Why on earth would you not want to participate in local democracy?
That is a classic cut your nose to spite your face act.
Lunacy.
I do not believe PCC should be an elected post (many have the same view). My vote will make little difference to the actual outcome however the absence of my vote (which is clear by the lack of turnout when PCC elections are not held at the same time as other elections) show how little interest people have in this role. It is the only election I am aware of where people take an active interest in not voting (as opposed to apathy)
They provide accountability to the public and that is a good thing. Plenty of people don't vote ("don't vote it only encourages them", etc) on lots of things but there is no valid reason why any decision not to vote is a good one.
I disagree (and I can't think of anything I have disagreed with you on in the past - a first?).
There are scenarios where I may or may not approve of the role we are electing (eg elected mayors or cabinet - I prefer cabinet) but I will always vote, but for me this is so completely wrong and going down the line of elected judges, sheriffs and dog catchers who should be independent appointees.
I guess if a loony was likely to get elected I might vote to ensure s/he didn't or if there was an organised 'spoil ballot' campaign.
I don't want to add credence to the election and it is a toss up between not voting and spoilt ballot. I pick not voting because of the low turnout impact.
I could only find this:
"To be able to stand as a candidate at a Police and Crime Commissioner election in England (excluding London and Manchester) and Wales, you must be: - at least 18 years old on the day of your nomination - a British citizen, an eligible Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of a member state of the European Union, and - registered as a local government elector in a local council area that is within the police area in which you wish to stand, both at the time of your nomination and on polling day."
So anyone can stand, just about. That it is not popular is not the fault of the idea.
I'm not quite sure of the point you are making Topping. I like many do not think a Police Commissioner should be an elected office. It should be appointed. It should be independent of politics and should be an administrative role, efficiently enforcing the laws passed by elected politicians.
I do not want to go down the road of us electing people who enforce the rules like policemen and judges.
The reason for electing the Commissioners directly, is to allow the public to choose the policing priorities and then to hold them accountable - whether police should prioritise getting drug gangs off the streets, or people who were offended by things someone said on Twitter.
The two populist antisemitic outsiders are two peas of the same pod. Thank goodness our Trump lost both his elections and hopefully their Corbyn will lose his second by a landslide.
Like you I hope Trump loses. But I am by no means certain that he will.
In other news, Neil Coyle MP has sent out an intemperate late night Tweet insulting voters.
And, apparently, a former Australian PM is the only person suitable to do Britain’s post-Brexit trade deals. I wonder how long it will be before Ms Truss walks.
I see the "Trump is going ot do really well with minorities" rampers are out again.
Can you give some actual concrete numbers? What percentage of the African American vote do you think Trump will get?
I can't give you an exact number but I will say he will do - at least - several points better with African-Americans in 2016.
I also think he will do better with Hispanics overall this time as well. Julian Castro warned about this and there are signs of a slight shift to Trump in some of the polling.
The Scotland deficit figures are quite shocking, I don't see any way to make these a reality other than independence. While Scotland has England paying for everything and using its credit rating to borrow money Scotland will never be forced into fiscal responsibility and it's politics will never move on from this awful feedback loop of blaming England for everything that's bad and the SNP taking credit for living beyond Scotland's means with no real penalty.
Comments
I still feel that under most circumstances this is something that heads are best placed to decide, like a temporary uniform change.
Perhaps we will see masks in school colours?
The police shot him because he had a gun at the door; he had a gun at the door because he feared whoever was at his door might have a gun (A good example of how holding a gun can make a circumstance more dangerous). The problem is absolubtely the mass prevalence of weaponry and consequently very jumpy police. And no wonder they're jumpy; there are plenty of videos floating round of people who go from behaving non violently one second to trying to kill officers the next (Very often after they've reached back into a car). Jerome Blake had escaped a taser and was being yelled at to stop/get down - if you're an officer in that situation - well better to be judged before 12 than carried by 6.
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-takes-legal-action-to-shut-down-parody-headline-generator/
Neither Corbyn nor Trump had that level of experience.
1) What will happen to Trump (and his family)? Clearly a lot of stuff is going to flood out. It is difficult to think of all the actual and potential crimes he could be prosecuted for. Will he be spending the rest of his life in prison? Will members of his family and other members of his cabal also get prosecuted.
2) What will happen to the Republican party? Has it been permanently taken over or will it be reclaimed? Will it prosper or go into the wilderness for a decade?
I'm certain that their method of weighting different sources of informtion is more accurate than your personal opinion.
I predict a big swing to the cock & balls party.
I've spoilt my ballot in every PCC election so far and I'll do the same in May.
If I were head of trolling at Moscow Centre, I'd be encouraging useful Democrat idiots to go overboard on BLM street protests, and then leak said direction a week before polling day. Though luckily the first seems to be happening anyway.
More seriously, it is unlikely Russia will remain on the sidelines.
Can you give some actual concrete numbers? What percentage of the African American vote do you think Trump will get?
Mike Pence and Kamala Harris will completely ignore each other and talk directly to their own bases. GOTV rather than persuasion or conversion will be the order of the day.
But the point is it's there. What Great Office of State, Cabinet, Shadow Cabinet etc had Corbyn served in? Or Trump?
Stop frothing, everyone.
If you are going to quote 538, the more meaningful figure is their chance to win, which is currently 73% to 27%. The national vote share is only indirectly maeaningful.
That is a classic cut your nose to spite your face act.
Lunacy.
In many states especially in the south, you're supposed to be protected if you kill and intruder under 'stand your ground' laws, so god knows if this law protects you if you kill a police officer who smashes the door down without any warning?!
The militarisation of society in the US is a complete nightmare, both cops and the general public.
The national polls actual understated both Clinton and Trump, missing Trump by almost 4 points and Clinton by 2.5
https://medium.com/@theobertram/they-didnt-win-bury-d603abe083b0
random noise makes the unthinking randomly noisy.
Don't chase monthly figures.
There's an interesting (currently free to view) chapter on rhinoviruses (the most common virus causing the common cold) from a book on viral infection:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-7448-8_29
Something I didn't know:
A feature of common colds is increased vascular permeability which, enhanced by kinins, results in increased plasma protein (albumin and immunoglobulin [Ig] G) levels in mucus, approaching the levels in serum...
Which suggests that leaky vasculature, which is part of the problem on severe COVID, might be another aspect of the immune response gone too far in response to coronavirus infection ?
It does not alter the fact that Boris is a close parallel to Trump. If we are being silly, we might also observe both men were born in New York. Both are also hugely charismatic, have distinctive hair, and became famous through television work though both were already well-known. Then there are the lies, racism, Stalinism and so on. They are not identical, as you have observed, but the parallels are there.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-really-did-switch-to-trump-at-the-last-minute/
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1298358048726097920?s=20
Innovation or what.
There are scenarios where I may or may not approve of the role we are electing (eg elected mayors or cabinet - I prefer cabinet) but I will always vote, but for me this is so completely wrong and going down the line of elected judges, sheriffs and dog catchers who should be independent appointees.
I guess if a loony was likely to get elected I might vote to ensure s/he didn't or if there was an organised 'spoil ballot' campaign.
I don't want to add credence to the election and it is a toss up between not voting and spoilt ballot. I pick not voting because of the low turnout impact.
Has anyone other than Corbyn become leader of a main party without holding any position in the party's Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet first?
"I have no truck with all this new fangled political correctness baloney. I'm just like you good salt of the earth indigenous people. Proud to be British and not ashamed to say so. What a country. Best empire ever. Half the globe red and then we let them go. Plus who stood alone and won the war? White cliffs. Never breached and never will be. Mine's a pint. Mine's a pie. Mine's a spitfire."
It sort of messed around with my cultural expectations, downbeat with lots of slow build up of characters and plot. The Bureau itself resembled a Gallic Wernham Hogg with shredders and coffee machines that didn't work. Spooks as I remember it was far fetched, melodramatic cliffhangers and an HQ that looked like a poncy architects' office.
I'm either misremembering or missing something as this does not square with my knowledge of the Gretna or Berwick areas, still less between Sark and Coldstream.
Or here's the FT saying that Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trump are two of a kind, five years ago: https://www.ft.com/content/38ade0d0-3132-11e5-91ac-a5e17d9b4cff
Or how about "Why Jeremy Corbyn likes Donald Trump": https://www.politico.eu/article/why-jeremy-corbyn-likes-donald-trump/
The two populist antisemitic outsiders are two peas of the same pod. Thank goodness our Trump lost both his elections and hopefully their Corbyn will lose his second by a landslide.
Farage is the UK Trump
"To be able to stand as a candidate at a Police and Crime Commissioner election in England (excluding London and Manchester) and Wales, you must be:
- at least 18 years old on the day of your nomination
- a British citizen, an eligible Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of a member state of the European Union, and
- registered as a local government elector in a local council area that is within the police area in which you wish to stand, both at the time of your nomination and on polling day."
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-02/PCC Part 1 - Can you stand for election_0.pdf
So anyone can stand, just about. That it is not popular is not the fault of the idea.
"Boris's only Cabinet experience was as Foreign Secretary during which he recited inappropriate poetry in India and got a British citizen banged up in Iran because he could not be bothered to read his brief or STFU. But you are right that is more experience than Corbyn or Cameron or Blair."
or Thatcher.
My point is, is that experience in Government is a pointless metric when applied to LOTO. Even applied to Corbyn it is a pointless metric because he was rubbish in many more important ways than membership of a shadow government.
Their latest polls have Trump ahead in Wisconsin but Biden picking up Michigan and Pennsylvania and Florida tied with Trump ahead by less than 0.5%, which could lead to an EC tie 269-269 if Biden picks up Nebraska 02 where he is ahead in the polls there
Has Nate Silver ever disclosed his methodology for weighting the polls and how he comes up with his percentage outcome? A lot of people seem to treat him as God when it comes to polling but I'm slightly sceptical. His explanations seem self-serving. He trumpets he was closer to most of the forecasts in 2016 when he gave Trump a 30% chance but he forgot a few days before he was only forecasting a c. 15% chance and that he was predicting something like a 15% chance Trump would win Wisconsin. His explanation is that late voters jumped for Trump but I have never really seen any evidence of that and it would seem to go against the grain of undecideds voting the "safest" candidate
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/
Ideologically though Farage is closer to Trump than Boris is, it was Farage who addressed a Trump rally in 2016, Boris was critical of Trump until Trump won
I do not want to go down the road of us electing people who enforce the rules like policemen and judges.
Having local accountability is imo (as you have noted!) a better idea because it's us that are being policed.
Even that bloke (no, not the then Home Secretary!) who wrote that coruscating book into the police said that one way to avoid the administrative and absurd practices was to have elected and therefore accountable people at the head of the police.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wasting-Police-Time-Crazy-World/dp/0955285410
https://twitter.com/flaviblePolitic/status/1298554813723160577?s=20
This is what Boris had to say about Trump.
https://youtu.be/p4EAc0QFubs
"I would start by getting rid of 25% of civilians and desk jockeys and using the money saved to bring in more frontline officers. I'd have them under the command of directly-elected Chief Constablies, responsible to their local electorate..."
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wasting-Police-Time-Crazy-World/dp/0955285410
Con 42.7%
Lab 36.9%
LD 6.9%
Tory lead 5.8%
Tory majority 24 seats
Like you I hope Trump loses. But I am by no means certain that he will.
In other news, Neil Coyle MP has sent out an intemperate late night Tweet insulting voters.
And, apparently, a former Australian PM is the only person suitable to do Britain’s post-Brexit trade deals. I wonder how long it will be before Ms Truss walks.
I also think he will do better with Hispanics overall this time as well. Julian Castro warned about this and there are signs of a slight shift to Trump in some of the polling.