They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
What d'ye think the motivations are for this now constant 'it's much, much closer than ya think' narrative being pushed? I can see filthy libs wanting to keep their base on its toes but lots of it also from the right. Just morale?
Facts, if it was a Biden landslide we were heading for he should be at least 5 to 10%+ ahead in the battleground states, not just 1% ahead
Depends what we're calling a landslide.
How much EC margin qualifies iyo?
150 EC votes or more as per 2008, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1972, 1964, 1956, 1952, 1944 etc
Aha - so that's bang on my current call. Trump to lose by about 150. Not much buffer for me there. If he loses but not quite by that I won't be able to call it a landslide. That would be irritating. But ok it's good to know the rules upfront.
Under 200 ECVs ? My guess (FWIW) is a bit over 200 - and I only have pin money on that.
To be stupidly precise I have Trump's centre of gravity right now at 210. Up from 195 a few days ago and 185 when I started it as a daily exercise last month. Goes without saying that he's TOAST of course but I've lost a modicum of supreme confidence in the burnt to a crisp landslide. I still judge it quite likely though.
Labour praising the last Labour Government, can't have that!
Is DfiD that well regarded anyway?
I'd presumed that the aid was mistargeted, ineffectual, and expensive. (Much like Labour)
Labour has successfully triggered erstwhile Conservative cheerleaders into forgetting about the Cameron government's work on international development, including its .7% pledge.
The French police are just oafs and their treatment of immigrants in their country is illegal in many respects in that they are not complying with their international obligations but is it any surprise that the UK is thought to be a haven (and, more emotively, something of a soft touch)?
Don't these migrants know that the UK is crawling with racists and Brexiteers?
People have an absolute right not to be harassed but the problem is that the system is simply not delivering results. In the last week the Inner House produced this decision refusing an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review in respect of a Chinese person claiming asylum because he is a member of Falun Gong religion and he fears persecution if he is returned to China. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Paragraph 3 of the decision notes: "In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003. He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
I don't think Britainfirst were chapping on doors so they could show solidarity with that unfortunate Chinese person.
No they weren't. They were asking why people who have been determined to be illegal immigrants are still here at our expense. It's a legitimate question notwithstanding their vigilante approach.
The vigilante approach is what condemns them. They should be questioning the powers to be about why this is the case not doorstepping individuals. We wouldn't think it correct for any other type of crime. For example people going knocking on the doors of those convicted of theft to ask them how dare they broke the law.
I completely agree. It's just we would hear a lot less from deeply unpleasant people like that if we didn't give them such obvious targets.
Quite true but I admit I have no idea why they aren't taken straight from court after a failed appeal and put on a plane. Presumably there is some reason for it and would be curious to know what.
One reason is that the Courts have judged that it's not safe to return people to the countries they have come from. For many people the limbo is caused by the refusal to grant refugee status for bureaucratic reasons. It's a Kafkaesque nightmare.
Is not it being unsafe to return a prime case for refugee status? I would have thought that would be the only criteria
Well yes, you would think so, but the Home Office who make the decisions do not.
Their overwhelming priority is to reject as many cases as possible, as quickly as possible, for any reason at all.
There’s a plausible and worrying scenario that plays out in that case:
Trump is the clear winner on the night, but Biden doesn’t concede. Over the next few days, as the counts complete including postall votes, Biden becomes the winner and Trump doesn’t concede. Trump accuses certain States and Dem governors of making up the numbers/stuffing ballot boxes with postal votes/other cheating. The whole damn mess ends up in several court cases heading into December, and Bush v Gore starts to look like a little administrative difficulty.
Those of an anarchist turn of mind could easily plunge the states in limbo I would have thought with only a few hundred activists. A campaign of firebombing post boxes in swing states and then sit back with popcorn.
Both sides proclaim they were the real winner if it wasn't for activists from the other team engaging in arson attacks on their voters postal ballots. Years of court case fun
There’s a plausible and worrying scenario that plays out in that case:
Trump is the clear winner on the night, but Biden doesn’t concede. Over the next few days, as the counts complete including postall votes, Biden becomes the winner and Trump doesn’t concede. Trump accuses certain States and Dem governors of making up the numbers/stuffing ballot boxes with postal votes/other cheating. The whole damn mess ends up in several court cases heading into December, and Bush v Gore starts to look like a little administrative difficulty.
As Uncle Joe (no, not that one, the effective one) pointed out: ""It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes." Trump seems well aware of this.
There’s a plausible and worrying scenario that plays out in that case:
Trump is the clear winner on the night, but Biden doesn’t concede. Over the next few days, as the counts complete including postall votes, Biden becomes the winner and Trump doesn’t concede. Trump accuses certain States and Dem governors of making up the numbers/stuffing ballot boxes with postal votes/other cheating. The whole damn mess ends up in several court cases heading into December, and Bush v Gore starts to look like a little administrative difficulty.
Trump would also try to use the courts to stop the counting of postal votes, to run down the clock. Then you might end up with states unable to certify a result, or forced to declare one on the basis of a partial count only. That's one way the election could end up in the House.
I believe in 2000 the Supreme Court didn't rule that the count in Florida was accurate, but that the recounts had to end because the result had to be certified by a certain time. So delaying the count is good enough for Trump.
Labour praising the last Labour Government, can't have that!
Is DfiD that well regarded anyway?
I'd presumed that the aid was mistargeted, ineffectual, and expensive. (Much like Labour)
I expect it's one of those things where it depends on who you meet and what papers you read. But I've always heard that DfID was exceptionally well-regarded, because it resists the temptation to slant aid to suit foreign policy and tries (not always successfully) to make evidence based decisions on targeting. See
for some corroboration. (I'm not arguing that Labour Ministers were all wonderful - the Home Office, for example, was regarded as a permanent mess.)
I remember the debate when Hilary Benn was DfID SoS on whether we should cut aid to a country where the current government was regarded as particularly effective at honest delivery but had recently started jailing opponents. There was a serious debate on it in which both sides impressed me by their serious dedication to doing the right thing (Benn decided in the end to switch aid from the Government to local NGOs who aid workers had found to be efficient and non-corrupt).
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
What d'ye think the motivations are for this now constant 'it's much, much closer than ya think' narrative being pushed? I can see filthy libs wanting to keep their base on its toes but lots of it also from the right. Just morale?
Facts, if it was a Biden landslide we were heading for he should be at least 5 to 10%+ ahead in the battleground states, not just 1% ahead
Depends what we're calling a landslide.
How much EC margin qualifies iyo?
150 EC votes or more as per 2008, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1972, 1964, 1956, 1952, 1944 etc
Aha - so that's bang on my current call. Trump to lose by about 150. Not much buffer for me there. If he loses but not quite by that I won't be able to call it a landslide. That would be irritating. But ok it's good to know the rules upfront.
Under 200 ECVs ? My guess (FWIW) is a bit over 200 - and I only have pin money on that.
To be stupidly precise I have Trump's centre of gravity right now at 210. Up from 195 a few days ago and 185 when I started it as a daily exercise last month. Goes without saying that he's TOAST of course but I've lost a modicum of supreme confidence in the burnt to a crisp landslide. I still judge it quite likely though.
Except in reality, it isn't a gradual slide of a few EC votes here and there every few days. It's no movement at all - then a bloody great change as a state shifts all its EC votes.....
The French police are just oafs and their treatment of immigrants in their country is illegal in many respects in that they are not complying with their international obligations but is it any surprise that the UK is thought to be a haven (and, more emotively, something of a soft touch)?
Don't these migrants know that the UK is crawling with racists and Brexiteers?
British racists and Brexiteers or French Gendarmes. Not a particularly difficult choice, it turns out.
There’s a plausible and worrying scenario that plays out in that case:
Trump is the clear winner on the night, but Biden doesn’t concede. Over the next few days, as the counts complete including postall votes, Biden becomes the winner and Trump doesn’t concede. Trump accuses certain States and Dem governors of making up the numbers/stuffing ballot boxes with postal votes/other cheating. The whole damn mess ends up in several court cases heading into December, and Bush v Gore starts to look like a little administrative difficulty.
Trump would also try to use the courts to stop the counting of postal votes, to run down the clock. Then you might end up with states unable to certify a result, or forced to declare one on the basis of a partial count only. That's one way the election could end up in the House.
I believe in 2000 the Supreme Court didn't rule that the count in Florida was accurate, but that the recounts had to end because the result had to be certified by a certain time. So delaying the count is good enough for Trump.
The 2000 decision ordered the partial recount to cease on the basis of Equal Protection.
A ruling so far away from Conservative orthodoxy on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment that they made the decision non binding.
I think people who don't want to admit voting for Trump say things like "won't vote" or "don't know" or "undecided". Because, if you go back to the big 1992 polling miss in the UK, that's what people said when they were actually going to vote for the Conservatives rather than Labour.
But here's the thing. The number of undecideds this time around is really low. And with a 51% polling average at the end of August, Biden is doing better that any Presidential candidate bar Reagan in '84 at this point.
If Trump pulls this around, and he absolutely can, it will be because he has changed the narrative and managed to cast doubt on Biden's ability to deal with the US's challenges as well as he can. Or events. It just takes one big event to move things Trumps way.
But. 51% in the poll of polls is genuinely unprecedented. It takes more than a few shy Trumpsters to overcome that kind of lead.
The French police are just oafs and their treatment of immigrants in their country is illegal in many respects in that they are not complying with their international obligations but is it any surprise that the UK is thought to be a haven (and, more emotively, something of a soft touch)?
Don't these migrants know that the UK is crawling with racists and Brexiteers?
British racists and Brexiteers or French Gendarmes. Not a particularly difficult choice, it turns out.
Most choose the French Gendarmes. Would you credit it?
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
What d'ye think the motivations are for this now constant 'it's much, much closer than ya think' narrative being pushed? I can see filthy libs wanting to keep their base on its toes but lots of it also from the right. Just morale?
Facts, if it was a Biden landslide we were heading for he should be at least 5 to 10%+ ahead in the battleground states, not just 1% ahead
Depends what we're calling a landslide.
How much EC margin qualifies iyo?
150 EC votes or more as per 2008, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1972, 1964, 1956, 1952, 1944 etc
Aha - so that's bang on my current call. Trump to lose by about 150. Not much buffer for me there. If he loses but not quite by that I won't be able to call it a landslide. That would be irritating. But ok it's good to know the rules upfront.
Under 200 ECVs ? My guess (FWIW) is a bit over 200 - and I only have pin money on that.
To be stupidly precise I have Trump's centre of gravity right now at 210. Up from 195 a few days ago and 185 when I started it as a daily exercise last month. Goes without saying that he's TOAST of course but I've lost a modicum of supreme confidence in the burnt to a crisp landslide. I still judge it quite likely though.
Except in reality, it isn't a gradual slide of a few EC votes here and there every few days. It's no movement at all - then a bloody great change as a state shifts all its EC votes.....
Yes, I don't tinker. Only changed it twice. But I do give it a polish each and every day for a few minutes. What I'm hoping - and increasingly expecting - is that I'm a good 40 or so below the herd when the SPIN spreads open.
Then ... BOOM.
I sell at (say) 250 for crazy money. I set myself up for Nov 4th to be either the best or worst day of my life - nothing in between - intellectually, emotionally, financially, philosophically, and above all spiritually.
Or even better they're simply playing hardball, just like Barnier.
The headline is comply wrong. The UK hasn't "re-opened" anything. EU designations are preserved under the withdrawal treaty which is not and cannot be a precedent for the deal which is designed to replace it.
Or even better they're simply playing hardball, just like Barnier.
The headline is comply wrong. The UK hasn't "re-opened" anything. EU designations are preserved under the withdrawal treaty which is not and cannot be a precedent for the deal which is designed to replace it.
It's very unclear what exactly flabbered Barnier's gast, but the clue might be in this paragraph:
A UK government official said the British proposal on specialty foods was “in line with the withdrawal agreement” and would provide protection for existing and future GIs for both sides “as is standard” across the EU’s free-trade agreements. “The UK proposal would allow existing EU GIs that meet the requirements of the UK’s new domestic regime to be protected in the UK,” the official said.
If that means that not all GIs would continue to be protected, then it is very much a case of the UK attempting to re-open the question, and it would also not have a snowflake's chance in hell of being agreed by the EU. Nor should they agree it, the GIs are the most unambiguously successful achievement of the EU, with great benefits all round and not a single downside.
The French police are just oafs and their treatment of immigrants in their country is illegal in many respects in that they are not complying with their international obligations but is it any surprise that the UK is thought to be a haven (and, more emotively, something of a soft touch)?
Don't these migrants know that the UK is crawling with racists and Brexiteers?
British racists and Brexiteers or French Gendarmes. Not a particularly difficult choice, it turns out.
Most choose the French Gendarmes. Would you credit it?
That doesn't show that. It simply shows where they were first registered. I am very doubtful that gives an accurate representation of where they end up.
The Withdrawal Agreement doesn't sound like as good a deal for the UK as Johnson made out. Funny that.
It was primarily an interim deal designed to last us through 2020. For that its been as good a deal as one could expect.
The GI proviso explicitly says it lasts until a new deal is agreed. Frost seeking to agree the new deal seems entirely reasonable and in line with what negotiations are meant to be for.
If the EU wants to negotiate to keep GIs as they are they can propose that on their side of the negotiations.
Allowing for one or two anomalies (the Corby cluster appears alarming but it's actually a handful of cases in an unusually small lower tier authority,) the last significant area of concern seems to be East Lancs/West Yorks. Even the Leicester outbreak looks like it may finally be on its way out.
Labour praising the last Labour Government, can't have that!
Is DfiD that well regarded anyway?
I'd presumed that the aid was mistargeted, ineffectual, and expensive. (Much like Labour)
I expect it's one of those things where it depends on who you meet and what papers you read. But I've always heard that DfID was exceptionally well-regarded, because it resists the temptation to slant aid to suit foreign policy and tries (not always successfully) to make evidence based decisions on targeting. See
for some corroboration. (I'm not arguing that Labour Ministers were all wonderful - the Home Office, for example, was regarded as a permanent mess.)
I remember the debate when Hilary Benn was DfID SoS on whether we should cut aid to a country where the current government was regarded as particularly effective at honest delivery but had recently started jailing opponents. There was a serious debate on it in which both sides impressed me by their serious dedication to doing the right thing (Benn decided in the end to switch aid from the Government to local NGOs who aid workers had found to be efficient and non-corrupt).
It's reassuring that you think the money isn't totally misspent. No criticism of Labour at all in this (my jibe excepted) - it turns out it's fantastically hard to give money away.
I associate DfiD in part with Claire Short - I think she's rather great, but I've also never agreed with a word she's said, and I wouldn't put her in charge of an ice-cream-van.
Hilary Benn is a person I want to trust. However he's dodged and evaded for many years. If he came out as a Tory it'd all make sense.
I don't think we should be throwing money overseas in the way we do. I do think that we should be able to help out in a big way when it really will work. The year-on-year aid budgets are simply going to be raped.
The Withdrawal Agreement doesn't sound like as good a deal for the UK as Johnson made out. Funny that.
It was primarily an interim deal designed to last us through 2020. For that its been as good a deal as one could expect.
The GI proviso explicitly says it lasts until a new deal is agreed. Frost seeking to agree the new deal seems entirely reasonable and in line with what negotiations are meant to be for.
If the EU wants to negotiate to keep GIs as they are they can propose that on their side of the negotiations.
If it's such a bad deal, why did Johnson agree to it and then say it was a great deal
Allowing for one or two anomalies (the Corby cluster appears alarming but it's actually a handful of cases in an unusually small lower tier authority,) the last significant area of concern seems to be East Lancs/West Yorks. Even the Leicester outbreak looks like it may finally be on its way out.
Some of the geographical outbreaks seem strange, where neighbouring areas even conjoined ones have totally different figures.
EG Preston in Lancashire has quite a few cases without being lots and is under a local lockdown, but South Ribble (which has much of Preston in it) has nothing at all virtually.
There’s a plausible and worrying scenario that plays out in that case:
Trump is the clear winner on the night, but Biden doesn’t concede. Over the next few days, as the counts complete including postall votes, Biden becomes the winner and Trump doesn’t concede. Trump accuses certain States and Dem governors of making up the numbers/stuffing ballot boxes with postal votes/other cheating. The whole damn mess ends up in several court cases heading into December, and Bush v Gore starts to look like a little administrative difficulty.
Well let's hope not.
Watched the Moore clip, thanks for posting. Yes, eloquent and prescient. And a very romantic notion of why candidate Donald Trump appealed to the WWC in 2016. It reminded me of Owen Jones's video predicting Leave would win the EU Ref. Owen is also prone to romanticizing the working class. But at least he has never come over as a Brexit fan. Moore sounds there like a Trumpster. Sounds like he was buying it and selling it. And perhaps he was in 2016. Certainly he was right to predict that many would be swayed in the Rust Belt. But this is 2020 and imo the actual experience of Trump in office for 4 years means that fewer will fall for the Trump con this time. Course I could be doing what I keep pointing out you are doing - projecting - but I really do expect a clear loss for him this time and right now the evidence supports this view.
The Withdrawal Agreement doesn't sound like as good a deal for the UK as Johnson made out. Funny that.
It was primarily an interim deal designed to last us through 2020. For that its been as good a deal as one could expect.
The GI proviso explicitly says it lasts until a new deal is agreed. Frost seeking to agree the new deal seems entirely reasonable and in line with what negotiations are meant to be for.
If the EU wants to negotiate to keep GIs as they are they can propose that on their side of the negotiations.
If it's such a bad deal, why did Johnson agree to it and then say it was a great deal
I didn't say it was a bad deal. For what it was, it was a good deal.
Having met a number of barristers, many do appear to regard themselves as a race apart from other lawyers. And indeed humans.
What is the difference between a barrister and God? etc...
But apparently they take home an average of only £27k a year.
IIRC it is a profession that works, a bit like Hollywood -
A tiny number of high flyers take home most of the money, leaving a hungry mob of aspirants on not very much, to be used and abused by the winners.
I believe legal aid has been frozen since the 80s or something ridiculous like that? No sane aspiring barrister would go into criminal law. It's a massive problem really.
The Withdrawal Agreement doesn't sound like as good a deal for the UK as Johnson made out. Funny that.
It was primarily an interim deal designed to last us through 2020. For that its been as good a deal as one could expect.
The GI proviso explicitly says it lasts until a new deal is agreed. Frost seeking to agree the new deal seems entirely reasonable and in line with what negotiations are meant to be for.
If the EU wants to negotiate to keep GIs as they are they can propose that on their side of the negotiations.
If it's such a bad deal, why did Johnson agree to it and then say it was a great deal
I didn't say it was a bad deal. For what it was, it was a good deal.
The Withdrawal Agreement doesn't sound like as good a deal for the UK as Johnson made out. Funny that.
It was primarily an interim deal designed to last us through 2020. For that its been as good a deal as one could expect.
The GI proviso explicitly says it lasts until a new deal is agreed. Frost seeking to agree the new deal seems entirely reasonable and in line with what negotiations are meant to be for.
If the EU wants to negotiate to keep GIs as they are they can propose that on their side of the negotiations.
If it's such a bad deal, why did Johnson agree to it and then say it was a great deal
I didn't say it was a bad deal. For what it was, it was a good deal.
With a border down the Irish Sea, brilliant
I have said time and again I am 100% content with the devolved arrangements for Stormont.
Simply banging on about "border down the Irish Sea" - who cares? Not me.
There’s a plausible and worrying scenario that plays out in that case:
Trump is the clear winner on the night, but Biden doesn’t concede. Over the next few days, as the counts complete including postall votes, Biden becomes the winner and Trump doesn’t concede. Trump accuses certain States and Dem governors of making up the numbers/stuffing ballot boxes with postal votes/other cheating. The whole damn mess ends up in several court cases heading into December, and Bush v Gore starts to look like a little administrative difficulty.
Well let's hope not.
Watched the Moore clip, thanks for posting. Yes, eloquent and prescient. And a very romantic notion of why candidate Donald Trump appealed to the WWC in 2016. It reminded me of Owen Jones's video predicting Leave would win the EU Ref. Owen is also prone to romanticizing the working class. But at least he has never come over as a Brexit fan. Moore sounds there like a Trumpster. Sounds like he was buying the crap. And perhaps he was in 2016. Certainly he was right to predict that many would in the Rust Belt. But this is 2020 and imo the actual experience of Trump in office for 4 years means that fewer will fall for the con this time. Course I could be doing what I keep pointing out you are doing - projecting - but I really do expect a clear loss for Trump this time and right now the evidence supports this view.
There’s actually a bit of context to the clip, it was five minutes of a much longer programme, where he does come out forcefully and unequivocally for a Clinton victory.
I think too many Biden supporters know they’re going to win because the other guy is evil, and are working backwards from there. I’m trying to read more widely around the election and point out things that might not appear obvious from the narrative.
There’s a plausible and worrying scenario that plays out in that case:
Trump is the clear winner on the night, but Biden doesn’t concede. Over the next few days, as the counts complete including postall votes, Biden becomes the winner and Trump doesn’t concede. Trump accuses certain States and Dem governors of making up the numbers/stuffing ballot boxes with postal votes/other cheating. The whole damn mess ends up in several court cases heading into December, and Bush v Gore starts to look like a little administrative difficulty.
Well let's hope not.
Watched the Moore clip, thanks for posting. Yes, eloquent and prescient. And a very romantic notion of why candidate Donald Trump appealed to the WWC in 2016. It reminded me of Owen Jones's video predicting Leave would win the EU Ref. Owen is also prone to romanticizing the working class. But at least he has never come over as a Brexit fan. Moore sounds there like a Trumpster. Sounds like he was buying it and selling it. And perhaps he was in 2016. Certainly he was right to predict that many would be swayed in the Rust Belt. But this is 2020 and imo the actual experience of Trump in office for 4 years means that fewer will fall for the Trump con this time. Course I could be doing what I keep pointing out you are doing - projecting - but I really do expect a clear loss for him this time and right now the evidence supports this view.
Owen Jones wrote an article in 2015 saying that the left should campaign to leave the EU.
The Withdrawal Agreement doesn't sound like as good a deal for the UK as Johnson made out. Funny that.
It was primarily an interim deal designed to last us through 2020. For that its been as good a deal as one could expect.
The GI proviso explicitly says it lasts until a new deal is agreed. Frost seeking to agree the new deal seems entirely reasonable and in line with what negotiations are meant to be for.
If the EU wants to negotiate to keep GIs as they are they can propose that on their side of the negotiations.
If it's such a bad deal, why did Johnson agree to it and then say it was a great deal
I didn't say it was a bad deal. For what it was, it was a good deal.
With a border down the Irish Sea, brilliant
I have said time and again I am 100% content with the devolved arrangements for Stormont.
Simply banging on about "border down the Irish Sea" - who cares? Not me.
But you do acknowledge it's a border down the Irish Sea, which Johnson said no PM could ever sign up to
Having met a number of barristers, many do appear to regard themselves as a race apart from other lawyers. And indeed humans.
What is the difference between a barrister and God? etc...
But apparently they take home an average of only £27k a year.
Criminal legal aid barristers, particularly those handling the shoplifting in Uxbridge Magistrates Court, earn very little money, especially as payments from the government have to cover all expenses.
Having met a number of barristers, many do appear to regard themselves as a race apart from other lawyers. And indeed humans.
What is the difference between a barrister and God? etc...
But apparently they take home an average of only £27k a year.
Criminal legal aid barristers, particularly those handling the shoplifting in Uxbridge Magistrates Court, earn very little money, especially as payments from the government have to cover all expenses.
Is this the source of the plague of migrant lawyers we heard about earlier?
I think too many Biden supporters know they’re going to win because the other guy is evil, and are working backwards from there.
Kinabalu is a prime example of this, he refuses to even consider any alternative.
I am hopeful Trump will lose but am taking nothing for granted.
Funny to see you saying this after your blinkered views on London and transport.
I didn't say anything blinkered?
The only blinkered thing is saying passengers have no alternative, when the passenger numbers say otherwise and show a 300% variance in numbers.
You literally said I should E-bike 47 miles to work
No I said it was one option of many if someone was fit and healthy (and it is within range of ebikes) that would reduce travelling costs by thousands of pounds per annum but that realistically it was more of an option for people with shorter commutes. Trains aren't only used by people with long commutes.
Incidentally someone replied to say they had previously done a comparable commute on a pedal bike - which is much tougher to do than with a modern ebike.
Faced with doubt that it is a good idea to return to places of work, we are now supposed to be convinced because Grant Shapps tells us it's perfectly safe. I am curious about the thought process in the spin doctor's mind that this would be a compelling change-their-minds strategy.
In fact there is evidence from France and elsewhere that places of work are a significant infection risk. I do believe governments (not just the English one) need to work out their priorities. Is the priority, say, getting children back to school and if that means closing workplaces and pubs to keep the infections from getting out of control, so be it? Or do they prioritise all three and let the epidemic rip? These are choices and I don't hear governments talking about how to live with the virus in the medium term.
I think too many Biden supporters know they’re going to win because the other guy is evil, and are working backwards from there.
Kinabalu is a prime example of this, he refuses to even consider any alternative.
I am hopeful Trump will lose but am taking nothing for granted.
Funny to see you saying this after your blinkered views on London and transport.
I didn't say anything blinkered?
The only blinkered thing is saying passengers have no alternative, when the passenger numbers say otherwise and show a 300% variance in numbers.
You literally said I should E-bike 47 miles to work
No I said it was one option of many if someone was fit and healthy (and it is within range of ebikes) that would reduce travelling costs by thousands of pounds per annum but that realistically it was more of an option for people with shorter commutes. Trains aren't only used by people with long commutes.
Incidentally someone replied to say they had previously done a comparable commute on a pedal bike - which is much tougher to do than with a modern ebike.
You don't seriously believe 47 miles to work and 47 miles back on an E-bike, every day, is an alternative to taking the train. Please Philip, seek help!
Completely ceased to function from here. It was creaking and wheezing like a nonagenarian climbing the Eiffel Tower yesterday, so I assume that it's some variant of the same problem.
Brady, who chairs the powerful Tory backbench 1922 committee, told the Telegraph he had contacted DHSC after being “unpersuaded” by the council’s reasons for extending lockdown.
“I understand that DHSC offered a choice of ending restrictions on the wards with the lowest infection rates, or ending restrictions for the whole borough, and the council chose the latter,” he said.
“It is worth noting that 19 of 21 wards had between zero and five cases in the last week, with 11 wards have no cases or a single case... Making it illegal for people to see their families seems like an extreme measure in these circumstances.”
The Withdrawal Agreement doesn't sound like as good a deal for the UK as Johnson made out. Funny that.
It was primarily an interim deal designed to last us through 2020. For that its been as good a deal as one could expect.
The GI proviso explicitly says it lasts until a new deal is agreed. Frost seeking to agree the new deal seems entirely reasonable and in line with what negotiations are meant to be for.
If the EU wants to negotiate to keep GIs as they are they can propose that on their side of the negotiations.
If it's such a bad deal, why did Johnson agree to it and then say it was a great deal
I didn't say it was a bad deal. For what it was, it was a good deal.
That's like saying a mandrill isn't completely hairy. Especially as the bits in question are (a) blatant and (b) embarrassing.
Allowing for one or two anomalies (the Corby cluster appears alarming but it's actually a handful of cases in an unusually small lower tier authority,) the last significant area of concern seems to be East Lancs/West Yorks. Even the Leicester outbreak looks like it may finally be on its way out.
Some of the geographical outbreaks seem strange, where neighbouring areas even conjoined ones have totally different figures.
EG Preston in Lancashire has quite a few cases without being lots and is under a local lockdown, but South Ribble (which has much of Preston in it) has nothing at all virtually.
Wonder if it's another example of "area placed in special measures, testing teams descend, a couple of dozen extra asymptomatic cases identified"? If it were possible to test bomb the country then you'd find them, to a greater or lesser degree, everywhere.
Having met a number of barristers, many do appear to regard themselves as a race apart from other lawyers. And indeed humans.
What is the difference between a barrister and God? etc...
But apparently they take home an average of only £27k a year.
Criminal legal aid barristers, particularly those handling the shoplifting in Uxbridge Magistrates Court, earn very little money, especially as payments from the government have to cover all expenses.
Is this simply a way to keep the hoi polloi out? Make entry into the profession the reserve of the elite by making entry level jobs unattractive without family money and keep the big payoff for the privileged to enjoy later.
I think too many Biden supporters know they’re going to win because the other guy is evil, and are working backwards from there.
Kinabalu is a prime example of this, he refuses to even consider any alternative.
I am hopeful Trump will lose but am taking nothing for granted.
Funny to see you saying this after your blinkered views on London and transport.
I didn't say anything blinkered?
The only blinkered thing is saying passengers have no alternative, when the passenger numbers say otherwise and show a 300% variance in numbers.
You literally said I should E-bike 47 miles to work
No I said it was one option of many if someone was fit and healthy (and it is within range of ebikes) that would reduce travelling costs by thousands of pounds per annum but that realistically it was more of an option for people with shorter commutes. Trains aren't only used by people with long commutes.
Incidentally someone replied to say they had previously done a comparable commute on a pedal bike - which is much tougher to do than with a modern ebike.
You don't seriously believe 47 miles to work and 47 miles back on an E-bike, every day, is an alternative to taking the train. Please Philip, seek help!
It is doable yes, but not what I was suggesting at 47 miles each way no, I thought you'd said 47 mile round trip which certainly is more feasible.
However the average commute is a quarter of that. If someone's commute is say 3 miles each way and they are fit and healthy then do you think an ebike is a viable alternative to a train?
There’s a plausible and worrying scenario that plays out in that case:
Trump is the clear winner on the night, but Biden doesn’t concede. Over the next few days, as the counts complete including postall votes, Biden becomes the winner and Trump doesn’t concede. Trump accuses certain States and Dem governors of making up the numbers/stuffing ballot boxes with postal votes/other cheating. The whole damn mess ends up in several court cases heading into December, and Bush v Gore starts to look like a little administrative difficulty.
Well let's hope not.
Watched the Moore clip, thanks for posting. Yes, eloquent and prescient. And a very romantic notion of why candidate Donald Trump appealed to the WWC in 2016. It reminded me of Owen Jones's video predicting Leave would win the EU Ref. Owen is also prone to romanticizing the working class. But at least he has never come over as a Brexit fan. Moore sounds there like a Trumpster. Sounds like he was buying the crap. And perhaps he was in 2016. Certainly he was right to predict that many would in the Rust Belt. But this is 2020 and imo the actual experience of Trump in office for 4 years means that fewer will fall for the con this time. Course I could be doing what I keep pointing out you are doing - projecting - but I really do expect a clear loss for Trump this time and right now the evidence supports this view.
There’s actually a bit of context to the clip, it was five minutes of a much longer programme, where he does come out forcefully and unequivocally for a Clinton victory.
I think too many Biden supporters know they’re going to win because the other guy is evil, and are working backwards from there. I’m trying to read more widely around the election and point out things that might not appear obvious from the narrative.
I think too many Biden supporters know they’re going to win because the other guy is evil, and are working backwards from there.
Kinabalu is a prime example of this, he refuses to even consider any alternative.
I am hopeful Trump will lose but am taking nothing for granted.
Funny to see you saying this after your blinkered views on London and transport.
I didn't say anything blinkered?
The only blinkered thing is saying passengers have no alternative, when the passenger numbers say otherwise and show a 300% variance in numbers.
You literally said I should E-bike 47 miles to work
No I said it was one option of many if someone was fit and healthy (and it is within range of ebikes) that would reduce travelling costs by thousands of pounds per annum but that realistically it was more of an option for people with shorter commutes. Trains aren't only used by people with long commutes.
Incidentally someone replied to say they had previously done a comparable commute on a pedal bike - which is much tougher to do than with a modern ebike.
You don't seriously believe 47 miles to work and 47 miles back on an E-bike, every day, is an alternative to taking the train. Please Philip, seek help!
It is doable yes, but not what I was suggesting at 47 miles each way no, I thought you'd said 47 mile round trip which certainly is more feasible.
However the average commute is a quarter of that. If someone's commute is say 3 miles each way and they are fit and healthy then do you think an ebike is a viable alternative to a train?
No, no let's talk about me for a bit.
So instead of a £14,000 season ticket (as would be the result of your reforms to remove subsidies), what else do you propose?
I think too many Biden supporters know they’re going to win because the other guy is evil, and are working backwards from there.
Kinabalu is a prime example of this, he refuses to even consider any alternative.
I am hopeful Trump will lose but am taking nothing for granted.
Funny to see you saying this after your blinkered views on London and transport.
I didn't say anything blinkered?
The only blinkered thing is saying passengers have no alternative, when the passenger numbers say otherwise and show a 300% variance in numbers.
You literally said I should E-bike 47 miles to work
No I said it was one option of many if someone was fit and healthy (and it is within range of ebikes) that would reduce travelling costs by thousands of pounds per annum but that realistically it was more of an option for people with shorter commutes. Trains aren't only used by people with long commutes.
Incidentally someone replied to say they had previously done a comparable commute on a pedal bike - which is much tougher to do than with a modern ebike.
You don't seriously believe 47 miles to work and 47 miles back on an E-bike, every day, is an alternative to taking the train. Please Philip, seek help!
It is doable yes, but not what I was suggesting at 47 miles each way no, I thought you'd said 47 mile round trip which certainly is more feasible.
However the average commute is a quarter of that. If someone's commute is say 3 miles each way and they are fit and healthy then do you think an ebike is a viable alternative to a train?
If its 3 miles they could walk or run, and the tube/train/bus costs would be low anyway. Thats not what was being discussed.
I think too many Biden supporters know they’re going to win because the other guy is evil, and are working backwards from there.
Kinabalu is a prime example of this, he refuses to even consider any alternative.
I am hopeful Trump will lose but am taking nothing for granted.
Funny to see you saying this after your blinkered views on London and transport.
I didn't say anything blinkered?
The only blinkered thing is saying passengers have no alternative, when the passenger numbers say otherwise and show a 300% variance in numbers.
You literally said I should E-bike 47 miles to work
No I said it was one option of many if someone was fit and healthy (and it is within range of ebikes) that would reduce travelling costs by thousands of pounds per annum but that realistically it was more of an option for people with shorter commutes. Trains aren't only used by people with long commutes.
Incidentally someone replied to say they had previously done a comparable commute on a pedal bike - which is much tougher to do than with a modern ebike.
You don't seriously believe 47 miles to work and 47 miles back on an E-bike, every day, is an alternative to taking the train. Please Philip, seek help!
It is doable yes, but not what I was suggesting at 47 miles each way no, I thought you'd said 47 mile round trip which certainly is more feasible.
However the average commute is a quarter of that. If someone's commute is say 3 miles each way and they are fit and healthy then do you think an ebike is a viable alternative to a train?
No, no let's talk about me for a bit.
So instead of a £14,000 season ticket (as would be the result of your reforms to remove subsidies), what else do you propose?
I think too many Biden supporters know they’re going to win because the other guy is evil, and are working backwards from there.
Kinabalu is a prime example of this, he refuses to even consider any alternative.
I am hopeful Trump will lose but am taking nothing for granted.
Funny to see you saying this after your blinkered views on London and transport.
I didn't say anything blinkered?
The only blinkered thing is saying passengers have no alternative, when the passenger numbers say otherwise and show a 300% variance in numbers.
You literally said I should E-bike 47 miles to work
No I said it was one option of many if someone was fit and healthy (and it is within range of ebikes) that would reduce travelling costs by thousands of pounds per annum but that realistically it was more of an option for people with shorter commutes. Trains aren't only used by people with long commutes.
Incidentally someone replied to say they had previously done a comparable commute on a pedal bike - which is much tougher to do than with a modern ebike.
You don't seriously believe 47 miles to work and 47 miles back on an E-bike, every day, is an alternative to taking the train. Please Philip, seek help!
It is doable yes, but not what I was suggesting at 47 miles each way no, I thought you'd said 47 mile round trip which certainly is more feasible.
However the average commute is a quarter of that. If someone's commute is say 3 miles each way and they are fit and healthy then do you think an ebike is a viable alternative to a train?
No, no let's talk about me for a bit.
So instead of a £14,000 season ticket (as would be the result of your reforms to remove subsidies), what else do you propose?
Drive to Central London every day?
It wouldn't cost £14,000.
Alright, £10,000 then, so drive to Central London every day?
They've made barmy decisions in Calderdale, letting areas with increasing infections come out of the extra measures. The idea of lockdown on a micro scale is stupid, as people move between these areas to work, gather etc, and are not fixed to one spot. Only large scale areas like a council area make sense.
Having met a number of barristers, many do appear to regard themselves as a race apart from other lawyers. And indeed humans.
What is the difference between a barrister and God? etc...
But apparently they take home an average of only £27k a year.
Criminal legal aid barristers, particularly those handling the shoplifting in Uxbridge Magistrates Court, earn very little money, especially as payments from the government have to cover all expenses.
Barristers work in magistrates’ courts? I thought was the duty solicitor.
I think too many Biden supporters know they’re going to win because the other guy is evil, and are working backwards from there.
Kinabalu is a prime example of this, he refuses to even consider any alternative.
I am hopeful Trump will lose but am taking nothing for granted.
Funny to see you saying this after your blinkered views on London and transport.
I didn't say anything blinkered?
The only blinkered thing is saying passengers have no alternative, when the passenger numbers say otherwise and show a 300% variance in numbers.
You literally said I should E-bike 47 miles to work
No I said it was one option of many if someone was fit and healthy (and it is within range of ebikes) that would reduce travelling costs by thousands of pounds per annum but that realistically it was more of an option for people with shorter commutes. Trains aren't only used by people with long commutes.
Incidentally someone replied to say they had previously done a comparable commute on a pedal bike - which is much tougher to do than with a modern ebike.
You don't seriously believe 47 miles to work and 47 miles back on an E-bike, every day, is an alternative to taking the train. Please Philip, seek help!
It is doable yes, but not what I was suggesting at 47 miles each way no, I thought you'd said 47 mile round trip which certainly is more feasible.
However the average commute is a quarter of that. If someone's commute is say 3 miles each way and they are fit and healthy then do you think an ebike is a viable alternative to a train?
No, no let's talk about me for a bit.
So instead of a £14,000 season ticket (as would be the result of your reforms to remove subsidies), what else do you propose?
Drive to Central London every day?
The free market will make sure that One Canada Square is demolished and turned into a multi-storey car park.
There’s a plausible and worrying scenario that plays out in that case:
Trump is the clear winner on the night, but Biden doesn’t concede. Over the next few days, as the counts complete including postall votes, Biden becomes the winner and Trump doesn’t concede. Trump accuses certain States and Dem governors of making up the numbers/stuffing ballot boxes with postal votes/other cheating. The whole damn mess ends up in several court cases heading into December, and Bush v Gore starts to look like a little administrative difficulty.
Well let's hope not.
Watched the Moore clip, thanks for posting. Yes, eloquent and prescient. And a very romantic notion of why candidate Donald Trump appealed to the WWC in 2016. It reminded me of Owen Jones's video predicting Leave would win the EU Ref. Owen is also prone to romanticizing the working class. But at least he has never come over as a Brexit fan. Moore sounds there like a Trumpster. Sounds like he was buying the crap. And perhaps he was in 2016. Certainly he was right to predict that many would in the Rust Belt. But this is 2020 and imo the actual experience of Trump in office for 4 years means that fewer will fall for the con this time. Course I could be doing what I keep pointing out you are doing - projecting - but I really do expect a clear loss for Trump this time and right now the evidence supports this view.
There’s actually a bit of context to the clip, it was five minutes of a much longer programme, where he does come out forcefully and unequivocally for a Clinton victory.
I think too many Biden supporters know they’re going to win because the other guy is evil, and are working backwards from there. I’m trying to read more widely around the election and point out things that might not appear obvious from the narrative.
Yeah, except the polling from Wisconsin says that more than 50% of Wisconsonites disapprove of Trump's handling of the protests.
The "logic" behind:
Lots more riots under Trump presidency Riots not being dealt with effectively under Trump presidency Lets vote to keep Trump in because we dont like the riots
is even harder to understand than the "logic" behind Brexit.
I think too many Biden supporters know they’re going to win because the other guy is evil, and are working backwards from there.
Kinabalu is a prime example of this, he refuses to even consider any alternative.
I am hopeful Trump will lose but am taking nothing for granted.
Funny to see you saying this after your blinkered views on London and transport.
I didn't say anything blinkered?
The only blinkered thing is saying passengers have no alternative, when the passenger numbers say otherwise and show a 300% variance in numbers.
You literally said I should E-bike 47 miles to work
No I said it was one option of many if someone was fit and healthy (and it is within range of ebikes) that would reduce travelling costs by thousands of pounds per annum but that realistically it was more of an option for people with shorter commutes. Trains aren't only used by people with long commutes.
Incidentally someone replied to say they had previously done a comparable commute on a pedal bike - which is much tougher to do than with a modern ebike.
You don't seriously believe 47 miles to work and 47 miles back on an E-bike, every day, is an alternative to taking the train. Please Philip, seek help!
It is doable yes, but not what I was suggesting at 47 miles each way no, I thought you'd said 47 mile round trip which certainly is more feasible.
However the average commute is a quarter of that. If someone's commute is say 3 miles each way and they are fit and healthy then do you think an ebike is a viable alternative to a train?
No, no let's talk about me for a bit.
So instead of a £14,000 season ticket (as would be the result of your reforms to remove subsidies), what else do you propose?
Drive to Central London every day?
It wouldn't cost £14,000.
Alright, £10,000 then, so drive to Central London every day?
Well you can pay that, or get a bus, or work from home, or drive, or get an ebike or any other solution you can come up with.
I think too many Biden supporters know they’re going to win because the other guy is evil, and are working backwards from there.
Kinabalu is a prime example of this, he refuses to even consider any alternative.
I am hopeful Trump will lose but am taking nothing for granted.
Funny to see you saying this after your blinkered views on London and transport.
I didn't say anything blinkered?
The only blinkered thing is saying passengers have no alternative, when the passenger numbers say otherwise and show a 300% variance in numbers.
You literally said I should E-bike 47 miles to work
No I said it was one option of many if someone was fit and healthy (and it is within range of ebikes) that would reduce travelling costs by thousands of pounds per annum but that realistically it was more of an option for people with shorter commutes. Trains aren't only used by people with long commutes.
Incidentally someone replied to say they had previously done a comparable commute on a pedal bike - which is much tougher to do than with a modern ebike.
You don't seriously believe 47 miles to work and 47 miles back on an E-bike, every day, is an alternative to taking the train. Please Philip, seek help!
It is doable yes, but not what I was suggesting at 47 miles each way no, I thought you'd said 47 mile round trip which certainly is more feasible.
However the average commute is a quarter of that. If someone's commute is say 3 miles each way and they are fit and healthy then do you think an ebike is a viable alternative to a train?
No, no let's talk about me for a bit.
So instead of a £14,000 season ticket (as would be the result of your reforms to remove subsidies), what else do you propose?
Drive to Central London every day?
It wouldn't cost £14,000.
Alright, £10,000 then, so drive to Central London every day?
Well you can pay that, or get a bus, or work from home, or drive, or get an ebike or any other solution you can come up with.
I wasn't aware any buses went all the way to London?
Brady, who chairs the powerful Tory backbench 1922 committee, told the Telegraph he had contacted DHSC after being “unpersuaded” by the council’s reasons for extending lockdown.
“I understand that DHSC offered a choice of ending restrictions on the wards with the lowest infection rates, or ending restrictions for the whole borough, and the council chose the latter,” he said.
“It is worth noting that 19 of 21 wards had between zero and five cases in the last week, with 11 wards have no cases or a single case... Making it illegal for people to see their families seems like an extreme measure in these circumstances.”
Family gatherings will prove to be the main driver of increased infection followed by meeting with friends then young people. Just because you are related to someone doesn’t mean you don’t need to socially distanced when you meet. Take the safe route meet on the same terms at home as you would out, socially distanced and if you can’t wear a mask.
Having met a number of barristers, many do appear to regard themselves as a race apart from other lawyers. And indeed humans.
What is the difference between a barrister and God? etc...
But apparently they take home an average of only £27k a year.
IIRC it is a profession that works, a bit like Hollywood -
A tiny number of high flyers take home most of the money, leaving a hungry mob of aspirants on not very much, to be used and abused by the winners.
There are 20,000 barristers, there's enough work for 10,000, and there are 5,000 actually doing it. Or thereabouts.
Why are there so many delays with court cases?
Primarily because half the courts have been closed in the cuts since 2010, and by the sounds of it, the remaining courts are run awfully.
I follow a number of barristers on Twitter (non famous ones) and they are continually complaining about sh*te administration and sh*te management. Prompt access to justice is a fundamental part of the rule of law and by all accounts it's currently pathetic.
I think too many Biden supporters know they’re going to win because the other guy is evil, and are working backwards from there.
Kinabalu is a prime example of this, he refuses to even consider any alternative.
I am hopeful Trump will lose but am taking nothing for granted.
Funny to see you saying this after your blinkered views on London and transport.
I didn't say anything blinkered?
The only blinkered thing is saying passengers have no alternative, when the passenger numbers say otherwise and show a 300% variance in numbers.
You literally said I should E-bike 47 miles to work
No I said it was one option of many if someone was fit and healthy (and it is within range of ebikes) that would reduce travelling costs by thousands of pounds per annum but that realistically it was more of an option for people with shorter commutes. Trains aren't only used by people with long commutes.
Incidentally someone replied to say they had previously done a comparable commute on a pedal bike - which is much tougher to do than with a modern ebike.
You don't seriously believe 47 miles to work and 47 miles back on an E-bike, every day, is an alternative to taking the train. Please Philip, seek help!
It is doable yes, but not what I was suggesting at 47 miles each way no, I thought you'd said 47 mile round trip which certainly is more feasible.
However the average commute is a quarter of that. If someone's commute is say 3 miles each way and they are fit and healthy then do you think an ebike is a viable alternative to a train?
No, no let's talk about me for a bit.
So instead of a £14,000 season ticket (as would be the result of your reforms to remove subsidies), what else do you propose?
Drive to Central London every day?
The free market will make sure that One Canada Square is demolished and turned into a multi-storey car park.
We can even say the current cost if you'd prefer, please do tell me my alternatives.
Aircraft perhaps?
Off the top of my head
Pay the going rate for train fare
Work from home and not commute at all
Drive
Get a taxi/UBER
Bus
Ebike
Find work closer to home
Find a home closer to work
Pick of those choices, or find a different one. If working from home is a viable option then why should we be subsidising people to take spots on the train they don't need to take instead?
I think too many Biden supporters know they’re going to win because the other guy is evil, and are working backwards from there.
Kinabalu is a prime example of this, he refuses to even consider any alternative.
I am hopeful Trump will lose but am taking nothing for granted.
Funny to see you saying this after your blinkered views on London and transport.
I didn't say anything blinkered?
The only blinkered thing is saying passengers have no alternative, when the passenger numbers say otherwise and show a 300% variance in numbers.
You literally said I should E-bike 47 miles to work
No I said it was one option of many if someone was fit and healthy (and it is within range of ebikes) that would reduce travelling costs by thousands of pounds per annum but that realistically it was more of an option for people with shorter commutes. Trains aren't only used by people with long commutes.
Incidentally someone replied to say they had previously done a comparable commute on a pedal bike - which is much tougher to do than with a modern ebike.
You don't seriously believe 47 miles to work and 47 miles back on an E-bike, every day, is an alternative to taking the train. Please Philip, seek help!
It is doable yes, but not what I was suggesting at 47 miles each way no, I thought you'd said 47 mile round trip which certainly is more feasible.
However the average commute is a quarter of that. If someone's commute is say 3 miles each way and they are fit and healthy then do you think an ebike is a viable alternative to a train?
No, no let's talk about me for a bit.
So instead of a £14,000 season ticket (as would be the result of your reforms to remove subsidies), what else do you propose?
Drive to Central London every day?
The free market will make sure that One Canada Square is demolished and turned into a multi-storey car park.
If it fails there's no reason to want to park there.
We can even say the current cost if you'd prefer, please do tell me my alternatives.
Aircraft perhaps?
Off the top of my head
Pay the going rate for train fare
Work from home and not commute at all
Drive
Get a taxi/UBER
Bus
Ebike
Find work closer to home
Find a home closer to work
Pick of those choices, or find a different one. If working from home is a viable option then why should we be subsidising people to take spots on the train they don't need to take instead?
But you said the free market would provide transport options, finding a new place to work isn't the free market providing transport options.
Drive to Central London? Where will I park?
Get a taxi to Central London? Are you mad?
I don't know of any bus services that go to Central London from me.
E-bike 47 miles? You mad?
So yes, it's peak PB again: move, or pay the train fare you London scum (I am joking)
Comments
Their overwhelming priority is to reject as many cases as possible, as quickly as possible, for any reason at all.
Both sides proclaim they were the real winner if it wasn't for activists from the other team engaging in arson attacks on their voters postal ballots. Years of court case fun
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-trumps-racist-appeals-might-be-less-effective-in-2020-than-they-were-in-2016/
To put into Christopher Hitchens book title speak -
The Racist Dog Whistling of Donald Trump:
No more dogs to whistle to.
I believe in 2000 the Supreme Court didn't rule that the count in Florida was accurate, but that the recounts had to end because the result had to be certified by a certain time. So delaying the count is good enough for Trump.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/jan/16/losing-dfid-would-be-a-disaster-for-the-worlds-poor-and-for-britain
for some corroboration. (I'm not arguing that Labour Ministers were all wonderful - the Home Office, for example, was regarded as a permanent mess.)
I remember the debate when Hilary Benn was DfID SoS on whether we should cut aid to a country where the current government was regarded as particularly effective at honest delivery but had recently started jailing opponents. There was a serious debate on it in which both sides impressed me by their serious dedication to doing the right thing (Benn decided in the end to switch aid from the Government to local NGOs who aid workers had found to be efficient and non-corrupt).
A ruling so far away from Conservative orthodoxy on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment that they made the decision non binding.
What is the difference between a barrister and God? etc...
They're going for No Deal on purpose
But here's why I don't think it's likely.
I think people who don't want to admit voting for Trump say things like "won't vote" or "don't know" or "undecided". Because, if you go back to the big 1992 polling miss in the UK, that's what people said when they were actually going to vote for the Conservatives rather than Labour.
But here's the thing. The number of undecideds this time around is really low. And with a 51% polling average at the end of August, Biden is doing better that any Presidential candidate bar Reagan in '84 at this point.
If Trump pulls this around, and he absolutely can, it will be because he has changed the narrative and managed to cast doubt on Biden's ability to deal with the US's challenges as well as he can. Or events. It just takes one big event to move things Trumps way.
But. 51% in the poll of polls is genuinely unprecedented. It takes more than a few shy Trumpsters to overcome that kind of lead.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Number_of_first-time_asylum_applicants_(non-EU-27_citizens),_2018_and_2019_(thousands).png
Good.
https://www.wral.com/durham-police-officers-accused-of-pulling-guns-on-boys-playing-tag/19257516/
Then ... BOOM.
I sell at (say) 250 for crazy money. I set myself up for Nov 4th to be either the best or worst day of my life - nothing in between - intellectually, emotionally, financially, philosophically, and above all spiritually.
Or even better they're simply playing hardball, just like Barnier.
It's posturing pre the inevitable deal with close alignment.
https://twitter.com/jillongovt/status/1299384428091899904?s=20
A UK government official said the British proposal on specialty foods was “in line with the withdrawal agreement” and would provide protection for existing and future GIs for both sides “as is standard” across the EU’s free-trade agreements. “The UK proposal would allow existing EU GIs that meet the requirements of the UK’s new domestic regime to be protected in the UK,” the official said.
If that means that not all GIs would continue to be protected, then it is very much a case of the UK attempting to re-open the question, and it would also not have a snowflake's chance in hell of being agreed by the EU. Nor should they agree it, the GIs are the most unambiguously successful achievement of the EU, with great benefits all round and not a single downside.
The GI proviso explicitly says it lasts until a new deal is agreed. Frost seeking to agree the new deal seems entirely reasonable and in line with what negotiations are meant to be for.
If the EU wants to negotiate to keep GIs as they are they can propose that on their side of the negotiations.
I associate DfiD in part with Claire Short - I think she's rather great, but I've also never agreed with a word she's said, and I wouldn't put her in charge of an ice-cream-van.
Hilary Benn is a person I want to trust. However he's dodged and evaded for many years. If he came out as a Tory it'd all make sense.
I don't think we should be throwing money overseas in the way we do. I do think that we should be able to help out in a big way when it really will work. The year-on-year aid budgets are simply going to be raped.
EG Preston in Lancashire has quite a few cases without being lots and is under a local lockdown, but South Ribble (which has much of Preston in it) has nothing at all virtually.
Watched the Moore clip, thanks for posting. Yes, eloquent and prescient. And a very romantic notion of why candidate Donald Trump appealed to the WWC in 2016. It reminded me of Owen Jones's video predicting Leave would win the EU Ref. Owen is also prone to romanticizing the working class. But at least he has never come over as a Brexit fan. Moore sounds there like a Trumpster. Sounds like he was buying it and selling it. And perhaps he was in 2016. Certainly he was right to predict that many would be swayed in the Rust Belt. But this is 2020 and imo the actual experience of Trump in office for 4 years means that fewer will fall for the Trump con this time. Course I could be doing what I keep pointing out you are doing - projecting - but I really do expect a clear loss for him this time and right now the evidence supports this view.
A tiny number of high flyers take home most of the money, leaving a hungry mob of aspirants on not very much, to be used and abused by the winners.
Simply banging on about "border down the Irish Sea" - who cares? Not me.
I think too many Biden supporters know they’re going to win because the other guy is evil, and are working backwards from there. I’m trying to read more widely around the election and point out things that might not appear obvious from the narrative.
Even Dan Hodges agreed with me this morning.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1299257518833758208
Dodds visits Edinburgh
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/14/left-reject-eu-greece-eurosceptic
I am hopeful Trump will lose but am taking nothing for granted.
https://twitter.com/singharj/status/1299372381702676481?s=20
The only blinkered thing is saying passengers have no alternative, when the passenger numbers say otherwise and show a 300% variance in numbers.
I note that our council was opposed to this for some reason. A Labour council.
Anyway, Wor Lass has just phoned her mum to let her know that she'll be able to visit her again from Wednesday. Which is nice.
Incidentally someone replied to say they had previously done a comparable commute on a pedal bike - which is much tougher to do than with a modern ebike.
In fact there is evidence from France and elsewhere that places of work are a significant infection risk. I do believe governments (not just the English one) need to work out their priorities. Is the priority, say, getting children back to school and if that means closing workplaces and pubs to keep the infections from getting out of control, so be it? Or do they prioritise all three and let the epidemic rip? These are choices and I don't hear governments talking about how to live with the virus in the medium term.
Brady, who chairs the powerful Tory backbench 1922 committee, told the Telegraph he had contacted DHSC after being “unpersuaded” by the council’s reasons for extending lockdown.
“I understand that DHSC offered a choice of ending restrictions on the wards with the lowest infection rates, or ending restrictions for the whole borough, and the council chose the latter,” he said.
“It is worth noting that 19 of 21 wards had between zero and five cases in the last week, with 11 wards have no cases or a single case... Making it illegal for people to see their families seems like an extreme measure in these circumstances.”
You could say I got the London look
However the average commute is a quarter of that. If someone's commute is say 3 miles each way and they are fit and healthy then do you think an ebike is a viable alternative to a train?
https://www.redbull.com/gb-en/marathon-to-work-james-williams-world-record
As part of training for a world record attempt for running the length of the UK, TV worker James Williams ran 30 miles to the office every day.
So instead of a £14,000 season ticket (as would be the result of your reforms to remove subsidies), what else do you propose?
Drive to Central London every day?
Aircraft perhaps?
Lots more riots under Trump presidency
Riots not being dealt with effectively under Trump presidency
Lets vote to keep Trump in because we dont like the riots
is even harder to understand than the "logic" behind Brexit.
E-bike 47 miles, this again?
Drive to Central London? Where will I park?
I follow a number of barristers on Twitter (non famous ones) and they are continually complaining about sh*te administration and sh*te management. Prompt access to justice is a fundamental part of the rule of law and by all accounts it's currently pathetic.
- Pay the going rate for train fare
- Work from home and not commute at all
- Drive
- Get a taxi/UBER
- Bus
- Ebike
- Find work closer to home
- Find a home closer to work
Pick of those choices, or find a different one. If working from home is a viable option then why should we be subsidising people to take spots on the train they don't need to take instead?Drive to Central London? Where will I park?
Get a taxi to Central London? Are you mad?
I don't know of any bus services that go to Central London from me.
E-bike 47 miles? You mad?
So yes, it's peak PB again: move, or pay the train fare you London scum (I am joking)