I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The US death toll is still staggeringly high, running at well over a thousand per day on week days compared to the UK in single digits since we fixed the methodology.
On a deaths per capita basis the USA is fast catching up with France and on current trends will overtake the UK on deaths per capita soon.
Which is remarkable when you think how socially distanced the USA is. England has a population density of about 440 per square km, the USA has a population density of 35.7 per sq km. But the USA is likely to end up with more deaths per capita by the end of this.
Its because the USA is so large that covid took longer to spread around the country.
So states which weren't affected in April were in the summer.
The population density only matters where people live - if you compare the population density of where 80% of the English population lives compared to the population density of where 80% of the US population lives you will get much closer numbers.
Yes this crisis has taught us that there must be a better measure of population density. One for the mathematicians but perhaps something like average distance to nearest household is more useful than people/land mass.
If the UK took over Greenland, 99% of peoples density is in reality unchanged but our national number would look completely different.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
I posted some yesterday. Case numbers are dropping, but still very high compared to us, and there are indications that the return to college is causing local spikes.
USC/Dornsife is out, this is the 7-day tracker, so only 1/7 of the sample is new. Still two parallel straight lines: https://election.usc.edu/
Biden 53, Trump 40.5, up 0.5 for Trump and down 0.5 for Biden (back to where they were the day before yesterday).
I'm suspicious of a tracker that doesn't move. The LATimes tracker from 2016 was wrong but it moves around in a believable manner.
IDK though, it kind of seems consistent with the rest of the polling this cycle which moves, but almost entirely within its margin of error, consistent with the possibility that nobody ever changes their mind. If that's what's happening then they've basically got two samples of 3000 respondents, with a pretty low margin of error, instead of reporting them as two polls they blend them into each other.
In 2018 to 2019 the government is forecast to spend £222 billion on the social security system in the UK, £2 billion lower in real terms than in 2017 to 2018.
£119 billion is forecast to be within the welfare cap, and £103 billion outside the welfare cap. In 2017 to 2018 £122 billion of expenditure was within the welfare cap, and £102 billion was outside.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the government should be spending on social security payments.
And where the extra money should come from.
Lol - I have no idea how much they should pay or where they are getting any of this money from. Remember that they spent years insisting Labour had bankrupted the UK and that Byrne was factually correct with his "comedy" note that there is no money left. Yet they keep finding another trillion to spend and yet normal folk out there are going to be in deep deep financial trouble.
The government could - and you are the kind of poster who won't get this as a problem - just keep telling people how much £ they have spent that UC is fair and they should go find a job. That may have worked when the mass jobless were non-Tory voting working people. Now the jobless will increasingly be middle class Tory leaning people who believed your message about the largesse of the social security system.
People tend to pay more attention when it impacts them rather than other people.
I signed on in the 1980s and again in the early 1990s. The system was never generous, but I don't remember it being punitive in the way it is now. A lot of people who do not consider themselves feckless, workshy, spongers - and who aren't - are set for a huge shock.
I have, mercifully, almost no experience of claiming out of work benefits, but I am assuming that anybody who finds themselves trying to obtain them is going to have to jump through the following hoops:
1. Handing over all their bank account details to be picked over by a stranger. If they've more than about tuppence ha'penny in savings then they will presumably be told to fuck off until they've burnt through it all before coming back. 2. Filling out a couple of hundred pages of forms detailing their entire life history, then waiting two or three months in absolute poverty whilst the claim chugs its way through the system. 3. They will then receive a pittance, in return for which they will have to file paperwork proving that they have spent forty hours each week searching and applying for jobs (of which there are precious few to be had, and those that are around will attract several thousand applicants each.) Failure to provide evidence that whoever assesses it deems adequate results in immediate withdrawal of payments.
Or something very like that, anyway. As you said, a lot of previously well-to-do and self-reliant middle-class types are about to find themselves being treated like dirt in exchange for a weekly purse of loose change. There will be an immense chorus of agonized wailing - and then, next year or the one after (I don't know the precise mechanics of the system,) old people will get something like a 15% pension uplift because nobody dared to touch the triple lock. Good luck to Boris and Rishi with explaining all that away.
What a snide comment about pensions. Thatcher almost privatised the system out of existence. (Other developed countries incl the USA retain a state earnings-related pension system.)
The result in the UK is that 35-40% of over-65s live on £6,700 per yr if born before 1951, £8,800 if born later. The former can raise it to £8,800 by demeaning themselves and claiming Pension Credit. Many don't.
I challenge any PB user to live on that derisory sum. The triple lock is slowly increasing the basic pension to just about what a person needs to live on (excluding housing costs).
The average pensioner has the same post tax and housing income as the average worker. Why should the pensioners get a 15% state pension boost next year at the expense of the workers?
But that ignores those on the minimum state pension.
Happy for those pensioners on low incomes to get more money if the same applies to non pensioners on low incomes. The way to do that would be benefit increases based on income rather than age.
Afaik it doesnt ignore them, they are included in the average just like NMW and ZHC employees are included in the earnings numbers.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
That didn't happen.
And likewise the reports of US data have ceased.
The US peak may have been April but that's not how it has been on a state by state basis.
Georgia
Arizona
Indeed.
As some of us have said the USA hasn't had a second wave but rather its first wave took months to roll around the country.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
That didn't happen.
And likewise the reports of US data have ceased.
I can't comment on what others have said and I don't know how the predictions are calculated, but what I do know is they have been consistently under predicting. Now look at the prediction for later in the year. Also note that the prediction for now was flat/slight dip following the increase from 500 to 1000 per day.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
That didn't happen.
And likewise the reports of US data have ceased.
I can't comment on what others have said and I don't know how the predictions are calculated, but what I do know is they have been consistently under predicting. Now look at the prediction for later in the year. Also note that the prediction for now was flat/slight dip following the increase from 500 to 1000 per day.
I can't comment on predictions which you are providing no link to.
In 2018 to 2019 the government is forecast to spend £222 billion on the social security system in the UK, £2 billion lower in real terms than in 2017 to 2018.
£119 billion is forecast to be within the welfare cap, and £103 billion outside the welfare cap. In 2017 to 2018 £122 billion of expenditure was within the welfare cap, and £102 billion was outside.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the government should be spending on social security payments.
And where the extra money should come from.
Lol - I have no idea how much they should pay or where they are getting any of this money from. Remember that they spent years insisting Labour had bankrupted the UK and that Byrne was factually correct with his "comedy" note that there is no money left. Yet they keep finding another trillion to spend and yet normal folk out there are going to be in deep deep financial trouble.
The government could - and you are the kind of poster who won't get this as a problem - just keep telling people how much £ they have spent that UC is fair and they should go find a job. That may have worked when the mass jobless were non-Tory voting working people. Now the jobless will increasingly be middle class Tory leaning people who believed your message about the largesse of the social security system.
People tend to pay more attention when it impacts them rather than other people.
I signed on in the 1980s and again in the early 1990s. The system was never generous, but I don't remember it being punitive in the way it is now. A lot of people who do not consider themselves feckless, workshy, spongers - and who aren't - are set for a huge shock.
I have, mercifully, almost no experience of claiming out of work benefits, but I am assuming that anybody who finds themselves trying to obtain them is going to have to jump through the following hoops:
1. Handing over all their bank account details to be picked over by a stranger. If they've more than about tuppence ha'penny in savings then they will presumably be told to fuck off until they've burnt through it all before coming back. 2. Filling out a couple of hundred pages of forms detailing their entire life history, then waiting two or three months in absolute poverty whilst the claim chugs its way through the system. 3. They will then receive a pittance, in return for which they will have to file paperwork proving that they have spent forty hours each week searching and applying for jobs (of which there are precious few to be had, and those that are around will attract several thousand applicants each.) Failure to provide evidence that whoever assesses it deems adequate results in immediate withdrawal of payments.
Or something very like that, anyway. As you said, a lot of previously well-to-do and self-reliant middle-class types are about to find themselves being treated like dirt in exchange for a weekly purse of loose change. There will be an immense chorus of agonized wailing - and then, next year or the one after (I don't know the precise mechanics of the system,) old people will get something like a 15% pension uplift because nobody dared to touch the triple lock. Good luck to Boris and Rishi with explaining all that away.
What a snide comment about pensions. Thatcher almost privatised the system out of existence. (Other developed countries incl the USA retain a state earnings-related pension system.)
The result in the UK is that 35-40% of over-65s live on £6,700 per yr if born before 1951, £8,800 if born later. The former can raise it to £8,800 by demeaning themselves and claiming Pension Credit. Many don't.
I challenge any PB user to live on that derisory sum. The triple lock is slowly increasing the basic pension to just about what a person needs to live on (excluding housing costs).
The average pensioner has the same post tax and housing income as the average worker. Why should the pensioners get a 15% state pension boost next year at the expense of the workers?
But that ignores those on the minimum state pension.
Happy for those pensioners on low incomes to get more money if the same applies to non pensioners on low incomes. The way to do that would be benefit increases based on income rather than age.
Afaik it doesnt ignore them, they are included in the average just like NMW and ZHC employees are included in the earnings numbers.
I meant it ignores the fact that those on pension minimums are not comfortable, as you sat neither are those on minimum working wages.
This place really is a Biden echo chamber. Criticise the democrat campaign at your peril.
That's provably incorrect given the number of people who are definitively anti-Trump but who have expressed worries about Biden's age and gaffes, with many a 'how could the Democrats end up with him as their candidate' style comments.
This place is certainly very anti-Trump, but it isn't exactly dropping its panties for Biden as an individual, or even overflowing with optimists that Trump has no chance.
I don't see how that equals an echo chamber.
"Biden's campaign is making some serious mistakes that might threaten his ability to win in November."
"No, he isn't! Look at this tweet!! The mask has slipped: you Trump supporter."
Some people saying such a thing doesn't make the entire place a Biden echo chamber, whereas the presence of plenty of critical comments against Biden despite being anti-Trump does prove it isn't a Biden echo chamber. A Biden echo chamber would not abide any critical comments against Biden, which there definitely have been.
If people want to whinge about an echo chamber it needs more than having been criticised to justify it - an echo chamber is not merely that someone, somewhere, was critical, it speaks to an overwhelming level of bias in favour of something.
Desperately sad article on the dangers inherent with the second wave and the complacency which allowed it to happen in Spain. Should be compulsory reading the in the UK.
Id have thought reopening schools and universities makes a second spike in autumn more likely than not.
Id suggest a one week planned lockdown every couple of months, maybe around half terms. Everyone knows its coming, can stock up for it in advance, would know its only for a week, and businesses can also manage staff hours and stock around it.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
That didn't happen.
And likewise the reports of US data have ceased.
I can't comment on what others have said and I don't know how the predictions are calculated, but what I do know is they have been consistently under predicting. Now look at the prediction for later in the year. Also note that the prediction for now was flat/slight dip following the increase from 500 to 1000 per day.
I can't comment on predictions which you are providing no link to.
In 2018 to 2019 the government is forecast to spend £222 billion on the social security system in the UK, £2 billion lower in real terms than in 2017 to 2018.
£119 billion is forecast to be within the welfare cap, and £103 billion outside the welfare cap. In 2017 to 2018 £122 billion of expenditure was within the welfare cap, and £102 billion was outside.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the government should be spending on social security payments.
And where the extra money should come from.
Lol - I have no idea how much they should pay or where they are getting any of this money from. Remember that they spent years insisting Labour had bankrupted the UK and that Byrne was factually correct with his "comedy" note that there is no money left. Yet they keep finding another trillion to spend and yet normal folk out there are going to be in deep deep financial trouble.
The government could - and you are the kind of poster who won't get this as a problem - just keep telling people how much £ they have spent that UC is fair and they should go find a job. That may have worked when the mass jobless were non-Tory voting working people. Now the jobless will increasingly be middle class Tory leaning people who believed your message about the largesse of the social security system.
People tend to pay more attention when it impacts them rather than other people.
I signed on in the 1980s and again in the early 1990s. The system was never generous, but I don't remember it being punitive in the way it is now. A lot of people who do not consider themselves feckless, workshy, spongers - and who aren't - are set for a huge shock.
I have, mercifully, almost no experience of claiming out of work benefits, but I am assuming that anybody who finds themselves trying to obtain them is going to have to jump through the following hoops:
1. Handing over all their bank account details to be picked over by a stranger. If they've more than about tuppence ha'penny in savings then they will presumably be told to fuck off until they've burnt through it all before coming back. 2. Filling out a couple of hundred pages of forms detailing their entire life history, then waiting two or three months in absolute poverty whilst the claim chugs its way through the system. 3. They will then receive a pittance, in return for which they will have to file paperwork proving that they have spent forty hours each week searching and applying for jobs (of which there are precious few to be had, and those that are around will attract several thousand applicants each.) Failure to provide evidence that whoever assesses it deems adequate results in immediate withdrawal of payments.
Or something very like that, anyway. As you said, a lot of previously well-to-do and self-reliant middle-class types are about to find themselves being treated like dirt in exchange for a weekly purse of loose change. There will be an immense chorus of agonized wailing - and then, next year or the one after (I don't know the precise mechanics of the system,) old people will get something like a 15% pension uplift because nobody dared to touch the triple lock. Good luck to Boris and Rishi with explaining all that away.
What a snide comment about pensions. Thatcher almost privatised the system out of existence. (Other developed countries incl the USA retain a state earnings-related pension system.)
The result in the UK is that 35-40% of over-65s live on £6,700 per yr if born before 1951, £8,800 if born later. The former can raise it to £8,800 by demeaning themselves and claiming Pension Credit. Many don't.
I challenge any PB user to live on that derisory sum. The triple lock is slowly increasing the basic pension to just about what a person needs to live on (excluding housing costs).
The average pensioner has the same post tax and housing income as the average worker. Why should the pensioners get a 15% state pension boost next year at the expense of the workers?
But that ignores those on the minimum state pension.
Happy for those pensioners on low incomes to get more money if the same applies to non pensioners on low incomes. The way to do that would be benefit increases based on income rather than age.
Afaik it doesnt ignore them, they are included in the average just like NMW and ZHC employees are included in the earnings numbers.
I meant it ignores the fact that those on pension minimums are not comfortable, as you sat neither are those on minimum working wages.
Yes but the answer to that is to boost those who are not comfortable regardless of age, rather than to boost all those over 65 regardless of how comfortable they are.
Can people in the "Biden must condemn" camp reword the tweet so that it condemns in the way they wish it to?
Not massively interested in US politics aside from betting on it . I do think we (As a nation) obsess too much about the USA generally . However I do really wonder how on earth the democrats have missed the opportunity to nail this election by picking almost anyone other than Joe Biden
The picked Joe Biden because in primaries, old people have votes, and Joe Biden is popular with old people, and not just because he is himself an old person. I think this may turn out well for them because old people also have votes in the general election, and current polling is suggesting that the strategy is going to work, but obviously a lot can change between now and then.
I don't like Biden, but he is a 'safe pair of hands' compared to many other candidates. Certainly better than having gone for Sanders.
I agree, but you're wrong to answer critique of him (in my view) by saying "where is Trump doing this?"
We know Trump is a cynical arsehole deeply unfit for office. The issue is what's the most effective electoral strategy to eject him.
My contention is that Biden needs to come out explicitly against rioters and looters - who believe they have the cause of righteousness on their side -and back law & order in a clear address, and not just either be neutral ("I condemn all forms of violence") or just send out tweets supporting BLM protests.
It's about winning over the swing voters in the swing states, where his leads are far narrower and protecting himself against a dangerous narrative developing in the campaign.
He has explicitly come out against the rioters and looters repeatedly. I don't see how condemning the other violence that is also happening is "neutral", it is anti-violence.
There is violence on all sides currently and has been all year. It needs to stop. I think the President of the United States of America should be someone who can use the Oval Office to try and stop the violence on all sides and bring Americans together. Do you agree with that?
Yes, but on the cold-blooded campaign issue I think Casino is correct - the balance of risk is clearly against appearing to be neutral between law-enforcement officials and rioters. There are plentiful horrible examples of law-enforcement officials flagrantly breaking the law, but you don't have to be very right-wing to feel that ultimately riots are a bad thing and the police should stop them.
Trump made a widely-criticised mistake in saying "There were good people on both sides" when racists killed someone, and Biden needs to cover his flank by being ostentatiously anti-riot. Democrats need to be hard-headed, even cynical, in working out the voting impact in this situation. Nobody is going to vote Trump because Biden is seen as a bit too pro-law enforcement.
Thanks Nick. I appreciate that. That's precisely my point.
It's good that someone of such a different political position can see that
It’s a fair point, but I think your ‘Biden is losing the election’ posts are hyperbolic.
Desperately sad article on the dangers inherent with the second wave and the complacency which allowed it to happen in Spain. Should be compulsory reading the in the UK.
Id have thought reopening schools and universities makes a second spike in autumn more likely than not.
Id suggest a one week planned lockdown every couple of months, maybe around half terms. Everyone knows its coming, can stock up for it in advance, would know its only for a week, and businesses can also manage staff hours and stock around it.
The key is testing resource, they have made a start with 2000 military personnel drafted, but many more needed, also a wider awareness that life can’t just go back to normal because the sun is shinning,A lot of the british immigrants are as bad as the Spanish, they want there bingo, quiz night and karaoke along with themed gatherings just like they were And won’t stick to the rules in bars despite owners pulling their hair out. The problem seems to be unless people are dying in the street in front of you it’s not your problem. The UK will have exactly the same problems.
Regarding the end of summer and the end of financial support. Unfortunately the pox hasn't gone away, is already surging back and that's before we send the school super spreaders to work. The government needs to try and at least throttle the vast sums being spent supporting the economy, but its seems clear enough that the result in doing so will be a surge in unemployment.
For a right wing free marketeer that shouldn't provide a concern and didn't in the 80s when economic reform and modernisation required the mass unemployment of working people across the midlands and north. These people didn't vote Tory and didn't matter. But now? One of the successes of the Tories has been the demonisation of state aid. If you are taking support from the government you must be some kind of scrounger, shirker, failure. Universal Credit, Food Banks, Bedroom Taxes - these are all things that happen to other people and besides its exaggerated.
Until now. The people being dumped onto UC are increasingly the people told UC was for dossers who live it large on your tax dollars. They are finding the opposite is true, and the "is that all I can get" conversations with the likes of Citizens Advice I am assured are eye-opening. As the middle class increasingly find themselves dumped onto a system that treats them like dirt and provides farthings, whilst at the same time the government issues increasingly patronising messages featuring someone like Ester McVeigh pretenting to drive off to her "staycation" I cannot see how the Tories avoid the political calamity this will bring.
And just as the pain from their people gets the most acute, we exit from transition with no deal. The borders gum shut, we get mass shortages and what there is costs money that their people don't have. Whilst IDS pops up cheering the glorious future we have now started. No wonder Shagger is looking to step off the stage.
In 2018 to 2019 the government is forecast to spend £222 billion on the social security system in the UK, £2 billion lower in real terms than in 2017 to 2018.
£119 billion is forecast to be within the welfare cap, and £103 billion outside the welfare cap. In 2017 to 2018 £122 billion of expenditure was within the welfare cap, and £102 billion was outside.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the government should be spending on social security payments.
And where the extra money should come from.
A lot of that none welfare cap money is housing benefit paid to private landlords.
If HMRC and the government wish to really cut costs I can save them billions there and yes some people landlords would scream but investment conditions and change and investments will go up and down.
HB for Private Rentals is not normally outside the benefit cap, according to the CAB:
The Benefit Cap is a limit to the total amount of money you can get from benefits. The Benefit Cap will only apply if you get Housing Benefit or Universal Credit.
Nobody is going to vote Trump because Biden is seen as a bit too pro-law enforcement.
Yes, they are, Tankies! It doesn't have to make sense.
But more importantly, neither black nor left turnout is guaranteed.
This is why Biden is positioned at: 1) Oppose looting and rioting 2) Oppose white nationalist violence (doh) 3) Oppose police violence, believe police racism is a problem and reform the police 4) Increase police funding
The polling seems to say that this is a very popular set of positions, *including (3)*. So if the suggestion is that he should stop saying (3) to underline his support for (1), I doubt it's a good idea.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
That didn't happen.
And likewise the reports of US data have ceased.
The US peak may have been April but that's not how it has been on a state by state basis.
Georgia
Arizona
Indeed.
As some of us have said the USA hasn't had a second wave but rather its first wave took months to roll around the country.
The Georgia graph above looks like at least a two hump first wave. The maxima are three months apart.
Regarding the end of summer and the end of financial support. Unfortunately the pox hasn't gone away, is already surging back and that's before we send the school super spreaders to work. The government needs to try and at least throttle the vast sums being spent supporting the economy, but its seems clear enough that the result in doing so will be a surge in unemployment.
For a right wing free marketeer that shouldn't provide a concern and didn't in the 80s when economic reform and modernisation required the mass unemployment of working people across the midlands and north. These people didn't vote Tory and didn't matter. But now? One of the successes of the Tories has been the demonisation of state aid. If you are taking support from the government you must be some kind of scrounger, shirker, failure. Universal Credit, Food Banks, Bedroom Taxes - these are all things that happen to other people and besides its exaggerated.
Until now. The people being dumped onto UC are increasingly the people told UC was for dossers who live it large on your tax dollars. They are finding the opposite is true, and the "is that all I can get" conversations with the likes of Citizens Advice I am assured are eye-opening. As the middle class increasingly find themselves dumped onto a system that treats them like dirt and provides farthings, whilst at the same time the government issues increasingly patronising messages featuring someone like Ester McVeigh pretenting to drive off to her "staycation" I cannot see how the Tories avoid the political calamity this will bring.
And just as the pain from their people gets the most acute, we exit from transition with no deal. The borders gum shut, we get mass shortages and what there is costs money that their people don't have. Whilst IDS pops up cheering the glorious future we have now started. No wonder Shagger is looking to step off the stage.
In 2018 to 2019 the government is forecast to spend £222 billion on the social security system in the UK, £2 billion lower in real terms than in 2017 to 2018.
£119 billion is forecast to be within the welfare cap, and £103 billion outside the welfare cap. In 2017 to 2018 £122 billion of expenditure was within the welfare cap, and £102 billion was outside.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the government should be spending on social security payments.
And where the extra money should come from.
The extra money will have to be found as there is no way the Tories can treat their voters the same way they have treated those who do not vote for them.
Unemployment seems likely to hit the young and urban hardest.
It has in the past which must be a great relief to you and Mr Johnson.
This time around it will be a problem for all comers irrespective of stripe. Now that should worry you and Mr Johnson.
I’m not hedging my view – Trump is unelectable and thus Toast – but I do have a couple of nagging concerns about the election and I don’t see why I shouldn’t share them. They are as follows –
(1) Kamala Harris
She’s a woman. Not only that, she’s assertive and blasian too. So that’s a little bit of a scary package. Let’s not pretend that racism and misogyny is absent from American life. If it was, Donald Trump could never have become president and now be the incumbent. Misogyny was a factor in HRC’s defeat in 2016. So was racism in the form of a backlash against having a black president foisted on them for 8 years prior. Trump exploited both sentiments ruthlessly and will try to do so again. No ticket with a woman on it has ever won. And this time, Biden being the age he is, the woman is quasi running for the top job. And, I repeat, she’s an assertive liberal female who is not even white.
(2) Donald Trump
He’s Donald Trump. Never before has there been a president who is all about supplying controversy and drama for the masses to consume through their TVs, phones and laptops. And say what you like about him he is very very good at this. You are likely to be good at what turns you on and so it is here. Many hate it. They think he is demeaning his office and undermining democracy. But regardless, the fact is that he has wormed his way into everybody’s heads and become an integral part of the culture itself. In addition to his supporters there will be people – apolitical types - who find themselves now addicted to the show. “Bit of a dick but, you know what, I’ll miss him if he goes.” This sentiment. The electoral success of “Boris” here is partly down to this - it’s a real thing - and the “Trump” brand is on a different scale to his.
Regarding the end of summer and the end of financial support. Unfortunately the pox hasn't gone away, is already surging back and that's before we send the school super spreaders to work. The government needs to try and at least throttle the vast sums being spent supporting the economy, but its seems clear enough that the result in doing so will be a surge in unemployment.
For a right wing free marketeer that shouldn't provide a concern and didn't in the 80s when economic reform and modernisation required the mass unemployment of working people across the midlands and north. These people didn't vote Tory and didn't matter. But now? One of the successes of the Tories has been the demonisation of state aid. If you are taking support from the government you must be some kind of scrounger, shirker, failure. Universal Credit, Food Banks, Bedroom Taxes - these are all things that happen to other people and besides its exaggerated.
Until now. The people being dumped onto UC are increasingly the people told UC was for dossers who live it large on your tax dollars. They are finding the opposite is true, and the "is that all I can get" conversations with the likes of Citizens Advice I am assured are eye-opening. As the middle class increasingly find themselves dumped onto a system that treats them like dirt and provides farthings, whilst at the same time the government issues increasingly patronising messages featuring someone like Ester McVeigh pretenting to drive off to her "staycation" I cannot see how the Tories avoid the political calamity this will bring.
And just as the pain from their people gets the most acute, we exit from transition with no deal. The borders gum shut, we get mass shortages and what there is costs money that their people don't have. Whilst IDS pops up cheering the glorious future we have now started. No wonder Shagger is looking to step off the stage.
In 2018 to 2019 the government is forecast to spend £222 billion on the social security system in the UK, £2 billion lower in real terms than in 2017 to 2018.
£119 billion is forecast to be within the welfare cap, and £103 billion outside the welfare cap. In 2017 to 2018 £122 billion of expenditure was within the welfare cap, and £102 billion was outside.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the government should be spending on social security payments.
And where the extra money should come from.
A lot of that none welfare cap money is housing benefit paid to private landlords.
If HMRC and the government wish to really cut costs I can save them billions there and yes some people landlords would scream but investment conditions and change and investments will go up and down.
HB for Private Rentals is not normally outside the benefit cap, according to the CAB:
The Benefit Cap is a limit to the total amount of money you can get from benefits. The Benefit Cap will only apply if you get Housing Benefit or Universal Credit.
That is not a "Lot" out of £102bn, or £600 billion for that matter.
Isn't it time we move on from these silly (and sometimes fake) kneejerk arguments targeted on the Private Rental Sector?
It says we spend £5000 on average to 4.6m people. If we halved that, to £2500 average, what would happen to the houses and flats the landlords own? Surely they would just rent them out for approx £2500 less to broadly the same people, or sell them to other landlords (who again have to accept the lower rent) or to the people renting.
What else can they do with the properties that would make them more money?
Indirectly it would also bring down other private rents for those not on housing benefit, who in turn would spend more into the wider economy more efficiently than they do through rent.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
That didn't happen.
And likewise the reports of US data have ceased.
I can't comment on what others have said and I don't know how the predictions are calculated, but what I do know is they have been consistently under predicting. Now look at the prediction for later in the year. Also note that the prediction for now was flat/slight dip following the increase from 500 to 1000 per day.
Well we may not be much of a sample but I recall having a discussion about this with LadyG a couple of months back and he reckoned US deaths would hit a max of 175,000. I predicted 200,000. The figure currently stands at 187,227, so it seems even I was a bit on the low side. Quarter of a million by Christmas, I should think, even without a second wave.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
That didn't happen.
And likewise the reports of US data have ceased.
The US peak may have been April but that's not how it has been on a state by state basis.
Georgia
Arizona
Indeed.
As some of us have said the USA hasn't had a second wave but rather its first wave took months to roll around the country.
The Georgia graph above looks like at least a two hump first wave. The maxima are three months apart.
Georgia is unequivocally a double peak. The Line on the graph just before the start of May is when they stopped their lockdown and moved pretty much back to fully open.
I’m not hedging my view – Trump is unelectable and thus Toast – but I do have a couple of nagging concerns about the election and I don’t see why I shouldn’t share them. They are as follows –
(1) Kamala Harris
She’s a woman. Not only that, she’s assertive and blasian too. So that’s a little bit of a scary package. Let’s not pretend that racism and misogyny is absent from American life. If it was, Donald Trump could never have become president and now be the incumbent. Misogyny was a factor in HRC’s defeat in 2016. So was racism in the form of a backlash against having a black president foisted on them for 8 years prior. Trump exploited both sentiments ruthlessly and will try to do so again. No ticket with a woman on it has ever won. And this time, Biden being the age he is, the woman is quasi running for the top job. And, I repeat, she’s an assertive liberal female who is not even white.
(2) Donald Trump
He’s Donald Trump. Never before has there been a president who is all about supplying controversy and drama for the masses to consume through their TVs, phones and laptops. And say what you like about him he is very very good at this. You are likely to be good at what turns you on and so it is here. Many hate it. They think he is demeaning his office and undermining democracy. But regardless, the fact is that he has wormed his way into everybody’s heads and become an integral part of the culture itself. In addition to his supporters there will be people – apolitical types - who find themselves now addicted to the show. “Bit of a dick but, you know what, I’ll miss him if he goes.” This sentiment. The electoral success of “Boris” here is partly down to this - it’s a real thing - and the “Trump” brand is on a different scale to his.
You're worrying me now. I'm following you on Trump. If he wins it will be the biggest betting loss I've ever had.
In addition to his supporters there will be people – apolitical types - who find themselves now addicted to the show. “Bit of a dick but, you know what, I’ll miss him if he goes.” This sentiment. The electoral success of “Boris” here is partly down to this - it’s a real thing - and the “Trump” brand is on a different scale to his.
This is also why I diverge from the US punditry take on violence in the streets being good for Trump. Trump definitely provides entertainment, and only his die-hard supporters now think he provides good governance, so he does better in an environment where you don't need good governance, and you only need entertainment. That's mostly where we were in 2016: The economy was OK, there were no serious wars foreign or domestic, life wasn't always great but where it wasn't it didn't look like the government was going to do much about it.
Generally the rona should be enough to demonstrate the need for good governance, but it's not quite impossible that there will be a vaccine out by then, in which case it's possible there will be an emergent party mood.
Nobody is going to vote Trump because Biden is seen as a bit too pro-law enforcement.
Yes, they are, Tankies! It doesn't have to make sense.
But more importantly, neither black nor left turnout is guaranteed.
This is why Biden is positioned at: 1) Oppose looting and rioting 2) Oppose white nationalist violence (doh) 3) Oppose police violence, believe police racism is a problem and reform the police 4) Increase police funding
The polling seems to say that this is a very popular set of positions, *including (3)*. So if the suggestion is that he should stop saying (3) to underline his support for (1), I doubt it's a good idea.
I think Philip and Casino are talking past each other. Both are making reasonable points on their own terms.
Philip is saying what ought to happen to deal with the riots. Biden is doing it. Trump isn't. That's his point.
Casino is saying what ought to happen if you want to win the election. Biden isn't doing enough. Trump is. That's his point.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
That didn't happen.
And likewise the reports of US data have ceased.
I can't comment on what others have said and I don't know how the predictions are calculated, but what I do know is they have been consistently under predicting. Now look at the prediction for later in the year. Also note that the prediction for now was flat/slight dip following the increase from 500 to 1000 per day.
Well we may not be much of a sample but I recall having a discussion about this with LadyG a couple of months back and he reckoned US deaths would hit a max of 175,000. I predicted 200,000. The figure currently stands at 187,227, so it seems even I was a bit on the low side. Quarter of a million by Christmas, I should think, even without a second wave.
Worldometer are predicting 317K by 30/11/20 and they have been consistently under-predicting, but the chart does show a big increase in deaths towards the end of that period and I haven't seen an explanation of that.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
That didn't happen.
And likewise the reports of US data have ceased.
I can't comment on what others have said and I don't know how the predictions are calculated, but what I do know is they have been consistently under predicting. Now look at the prediction for later in the year. Also note that the prediction for now was flat/slight dip following the increase from 500 to 1000 per day.
I can't comment on predictions which you are providing no link to.
Sorry - Worldometers.
Those predictions seem to be rather lacking to me.
Now if you take the new cases data and extrapolate the falls which have been happening for the last month that will give a rapid reduction in the death rate.
As happened in western Europe or in New York.
That's not to say that will happen but it has a little more logic than merely extrapolating the current death rate continuously.
One thing you can absolutely guarantee is safe in the forthcoming SDSR is the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. Fuck SEAD or EW capability, we need to keep 8 x Spitfires and Hurricanes flying.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
That didn't happen.
And likewise the reports of US data have ceased.
The US peak may have been April but that's not how it has been on a state by state basis.
Georgia
Arizona
Indeed.
As some of us have said the USA hasn't had a second wave but rather its first wave took months to roll around the country.
The Georgia graph above looks like at least a two hump first wave. The maxima are three months apart.
It looks like a first wave which was partially and temporarily suppressed but which leaped back up after restrictions were removed too early.
Nobody is going to vote Trump because Biden is seen as a bit too pro-law enforcement.
Yes, they are, Tankies! It doesn't have to make sense.
But more importantly, neither black nor left turnout is guaranteed.
This is why Biden is positioned at: 1) Oppose looting and rioting 2) Oppose white nationalist violence (doh) 3) Oppose police violence, believe police racism is a problem and reform the police 4) Increase police funding
The polling seems to say that this is a very popular set of positions, *including (3)*. So if the suggestion is that he should stop saying (3) to underline his support for (1), I doubt it's a good idea.
I think Philip and Casino are talking past each other. Both are making reasonable points on their own terms.
Philip is saying what ought to happen to deal with the riots. Biden is doing it. Trump isn't. That's his point.
Casino is saying what ought to happen if you want to win the election. Biden isn't doing enough. Trump is. That's his point.
Both are good points.
Casino has not laid out what Biden should actually be doing.
He says Biden must condemn the rioting. He has been shown now dozens of instances of Biden condemning the rioting. At no point has he said why this is insufficient or what kind of statement would satisfy him. Just called everyone posting evidence of Biden condemning the rioting twats and idiots.
Nobody is going to vote Trump because Biden is seen as a bit too pro-law enforcement.
Yes, they are, Tankies! It doesn't have to make sense.
But more importantly, neither black nor left turnout is guaranteed.
This is why Biden is positioned at: 1) Oppose looting and rioting 2) Oppose white nationalist violence (doh) 3) Oppose police violence, believe police racism is a problem and reform the police 4) Increase police funding
The polling seems to say that this is a very popular set of positions, *including (3)*. So if the suggestion is that he should stop saying (3) to underline his support for (1), I doubt it's a good idea.
I think Philip and Casino are talking past each other. Both are making reasonable points on their own terms.
Philip is saying what ought to happen to deal with the riots. Biden is doing it. Trump isn't. That's his point.
Casino is saying what ought to happen if you want to win the election. Biden isn't doing enough. Trump is. That's his point.
Both are good points.
Yes, I think you're right about how they're talking past each other. But I'm taking issue with
what ought to happen if you want to win the election. Biden isn't doing enough. Trump is. That's his point.
...because although it would have perfectly matched my priors if you'd asked me a year ago, it doesn't seem to fit the available data.
BLM didn't used to be very popular, but now it is. Most white people probably didn't used to believe the police are often violent and racist, but now they do. And stoking up violence to create a wedge between white people and black people then winning because there are more white people sounds like a terrifying, evil, successful strategy, but when Trump has tried it it seems to be more unpopular than pretty much anything else he's done.
Didn't get the whole thing because of the paywall but the subtitle says Biden should condemn violence unequivocally, which he already has.
Repeatedly.
Unequivocally.
This is apparently not enough. In fact, it is never enough. Biden has to do something, never actually stated, more. Which he can never do because no one defines what that more is.
The quote today was something like “I condemn all violence on both sides”
Which comes across as as equivocating - a bit like a Gerry Adams evasion when asked to condemn the latest murder of a soldier
No its not equivocating, it is unequivocal. The violence on both sides has to stop.
Where is Trump condemning the violence from the right? He is stoking and encouraging it.
Trump is a grade A* shit (pre-grade inflation). I hope he loses badly. And then I hope the Democrats ignore him as he fulminates under a rock somewhere.
To me, Biden comes across as insincere and mealy-mouthed. And you can bet if that’s what I think there’s a lot of Americans who think the same.
I don’t have a vote so what I think dies t matter. But there’s a lot of cheerleading from otherwise sensible posters
That's a reasonable suggestion . About the first from either the tories or labour or lib dems since covid-19 began
It may sound it to the uninitiated, but it isn't. There wouldn't be time to hold exams in July and release the results before about mid-September - too late for sixth form colleges and universities. So if you are going down that route, you are again accepting predicted grades from teachers as the basis of next year's university entry.
The smart move - and it really would be a smart move - would be to put the university start date to January and pay every lecturer to have a six month sabbatical doing lots of lovely research. That would not only buy time in this emergency situation so the exams could be moved later if necessary, but would mean from hereon in universities would work from real grades not predicted grades (sixth forms could be fudged).
But that would require some intelligence and fortitude from the DfE so is as likely as Nicola Sturgeon declaring staying in the UK is the correct course of action for Scotland.
Do they not get enough holidays without another 6 months.
Well, academics actually don't get many holidays. They're meant to have a month. The rest of the time they should be doing research.
Doesn't always work that way in practice, of course, which is why I suggested making it clear this break really IS to do research.
surely as children get 17 weeks a year then teachers get same give or take a few days
Much longer working week than average though, given all the preparation and marking time.
OKC, I work plenty hours and only get 10 weeks holidays ( incl public ), but take your point, tough job away from primary school and not one I would want to attempt if I was younger.
Regarding the end of summer and the end of financial support. Unfortunately the pox hasn't gone away, is already surging back and that's before we send the school super spreaders to work. The government needs to try and at least throttle the vast sums being spent supporting the economy, but its seems clear enough that the result in doing so will be a surge in unemployment.
For a right wing free marketeer that shouldn't provide a concern and didn't in the 80s when economic reform and modernisation required the mass unemployment of working people across the midlands and north. These people didn't vote Tory and didn't matter. But now? One of the successes of the Tories has been the demonisation of state aid. If you are taking support from the government you must be some kind of scrounger, shirker, failure. Universal Credit, Food Banks, Bedroom Taxes - these are all things that happen to other people and besides its exaggerated.
Until now. The people being dumped onto UC are increasingly the people told UC was for dossers who live it large on your tax dollars. They are finding the opposite is true, and the "is that all I can get" conversations with the likes of Citizens Advice I am assured are eye-opening. As the middle class increasingly find themselves dumped onto a system that treats them like dirt and provides farthings, whilst at the same time the government issues increasingly patronising messages featuring someone like Ester McVeigh pretenting to drive off to her "staycation" I cannot see how the Tories avoid the political calamity this will bring.
And just as the pain from their people gets the most acute, we exit from transition with no deal. The borders gum shut, we get mass shortages and what there is costs money that their people don't have. Whilst IDS pops up cheering the glorious future we have now started. No wonder Shagger is looking to step off the stage.
In 2018 to 2019 the government is forecast to spend £222 billion on the social security system in the UK, £2 billion lower in real terms than in 2017 to 2018.
£119 billion is forecast to be within the welfare cap, and £103 billion outside the welfare cap. In 2017 to 2018 £122 billion of expenditure was within the welfare cap, and £102 billion was outside.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the government should be spending on social security payments.
And where the extra money should come from.
The extra money will have to be found as there is no way the Tories can treat their voters the same way they have treated those who do not vote for them.
Unemployment seems likely to hit the young and urban hardest.
It has in the past which must be a great relief to you and Mr Johnson.
This time around it will be a problem for all comers irrespective of stripe. Now that should worry you and Mr Johnson.
Unemployment is always a problem for many different people.
People in their fifties who struggle to find work after being made redundant for example.
But still the people who will be hit hardest seem likely to be the young and urban.
I’m not hedging my view – Trump is unelectable and thus Toast – but I do have a couple of nagging concerns about the election and I don’t see why I shouldn’t share them. They are as follows –
(1) Kamala Harris
She’s a woman. Not only that, she’s assertive and blasian too. So that’s a little bit of a scary package. Let’s not pretend that racism and misogyny is absent from American life. If it was, Donald Trump could never have become president and now be the incumbent. Misogyny was a factor in HRC’s defeat in 2016. So was racism in the form of a backlash against having a black president foisted on them for 8 years prior. Trump exploited both sentiments ruthlessly and will try to do so again. No ticket with a woman on it has ever won. And this time, Biden being the age he is, the woman is quasi running for the top job. And, I repeat, she’s an assertive liberal female who is not even white.
(2) Donald Trump
He’s Donald Trump. Never before has there been a president who is all about supplying controversy and drama for the masses to consume through their TVs, phones and laptops. And say what you like about him he is very very good at this. You are likely to be good at what turns you on and so it is here. Many hate it. They think he is demeaning his office and undermining democracy. But regardless, the fact is that he has wormed his way into everybody’s heads and become an integral part of the culture itself. In addition to his supporters there will be people – apolitical types - who find themselves now addicted to the show. “Bit of a dick but, you know what, I’ll miss him if he goes.” This sentiment. The electoral success of “Boris” here is partly down to this - it’s a real thing - and the “Trump” brand is on a different scale to his.
You're worrying me now. I'm following you on Trump. If he wins it will be the biggest betting loss I've ever had.
Well I think taking a bit of worry into the day of reckoning is good because it will only add spice to the biggest betting WIN of your life.
Still very confident. That was just kind of me "in the analyst's chair" sharing my deepest darkest - and not wholly rational - fears.
Casino has not laid out what Biden should actually be doing.
He says Biden must condemn the rioting. He has been shown now dozens of instances of Biden condemning the rioting. At no point has he said why this is insufficient or what kind of statement would satisfy him. Just called everyone posting evidence of Biden condemning the rioting twats and idiots.
TBF I think s/he's proposed something, which is that Biden should condemn the rioting, *without condemning anybody else*, because if you say that police racism needs to be fixed in the same speech as you condemn the rioting it sounds like you're not fully committed to the part where you condemned the rioting.
This is definitely a possible approach and there are probably some voters who it would attract, but I think the idea fails to appreciate just how fast moderate opinion has moved in favour of BLM.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
That didn't happen.
And likewise the reports of US data have ceased.
I can't comment on what others have said and I don't know how the predictions are calculated, but what I do know is they have been consistently under predicting. Now look at the prediction for later in the year. Also note that the prediction for now was flat/slight dip following the increase from 500 to 1000 per day.
Well we may not be much of a sample but I recall having a discussion about this with LadyG a couple of months back and he reckoned US deaths would hit a max of 175,000. I predicted 200,000. The figure currently stands at 187,227, so it seems even I was a bit on the low side. Quarter of a million by Christmas, I should think, even without a second wave.
Congratulations nevertheless, for experiencing the first ever instance of Mr Lady ever having underpredicted anything.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
That didn't happen.
And likewise the reports of US data have ceased.
I can't comment on what others have said and I don't know how the predictions are calculated, but what I do know is they have been consistently under predicting. Now look at the prediction for later in the year. Also note that the prediction for now was flat/slight dip following the increase from 500 to 1000 per day.
Well we may not be much of a sample but I recall having a discussion about this with LadyG a couple of months back and he reckoned US deaths would hit a max of 175,000. I predicted 200,000. The figure currently stands at 187,227, so it seems even I was a bit on the low side. Quarter of a million by Christmas, I should think, even without a second wave.
Worldometer are predicting 317K by 30/11/20 and they have been consistently under-predicting, but the chart does show a big increase in deaths towards the end of that period and I haven't seen an explanation of that.
That's nearly 1k dead per million population and would put them well above anything seen in Europe.
A scary thought but it looks entirely plausible. It would put America's death toll almost up that of WWII.
Plus, the UK had a couple of weeks more notice of what was going on. A couple of weeks warning of what could go wrong.
We didn't use that advantage well.
How did that happen? Did the internet go down in Germany for a couple of weeks?
What seems to have happened was that the British had a plan for dealing with pandemics, and they'd worked jolly hard at it, and they weren't going to throw it away just because some foreigners had discovered that the pandemic they were dealing with wasn't like the one in the plan.
I agree that is what "seems" to have happened, listening to people on here and in real life. What actually happened though is the German lockdown started on 23 March and the UK lockdown started on 23 March.
The facepalm-inducing thing about the British response was the stubborn refusal to do any of the cheapish, reasonable low-disruption things that could have slowed the spread early on, followed eventually by a massively expensive and coercive lockdown.
It wasn't coercive.
Most of the stuff was Guidance (ie room for flexibility) not Regulations.
The number of police fines issued here was miniscule.
By late May in England there had been 15k fixed penalties issued. In Spain it was well over a *million*. In France they issued 350,000 fines in *one day*.
Nobody is going to vote Trump because Biden is seen as a bit too pro-law enforcement.
Yes, they are, Tankies! It doesn't have to make sense.
But more importantly, neither black nor left turnout is guaranteed.
This is why Biden is positioned at: 1) Oppose looting and rioting 2) Oppose white nationalist violence (doh) 3) Oppose police violence, believe police racism is a problem and reform the police 4) Increase police funding
The polling seems to say that this is a very popular set of positions, *including (3)*. So if the suggestion is that he should stop saying (3) to underline his support for (1), I doubt it's a good idea.
I think Philip and Casino are talking past each other. Both are making reasonable points on their own terms.
Philip is saying what ought to happen to deal with the riots. Biden is doing it. Trump isn't. That's his point.
Casino is saying what ought to happen if you want to win the election. Biden isn't doing enough. Trump is. That's his point.
Both are good points.
Casino has not laid out what Biden should actually be doing.
He says Biden must condemn the rioting. He has been shown now dozens of instances of Biden condemning the rioting. At no point has he said why this is insufficient or what kind of statement would satisfy him. Just called everyone posting evidence of Biden condemning the rioting twats and idiots.
I don't think he's called them twats and idiots. But you make a fair point on the lack of practical suggestions from Casino on what Biden should actually be doing beyond this.
OT will WFH mean a decline in formal clothing, with tailors and tie-retailers next to go bust?
I’m wearing a suit for the first time in months (board meeting for a vaccine company)
I went for an interview last week - felt very weird indeed getting dressed up to go out, after months of t-shirts and shorts!
I have worn a tie once in the past five months. Dinner in London with a friend. Felt strange but great to be out, frankly, even if the temperature check on arrival was a teeny bit strange. Plus they brought out the knives, forks, etc only once we were sitting down.
In addition to his supporters there will be people – apolitical types - who find themselves now addicted to the show. “Bit of a dick but, you know what, I’ll miss him if he goes.” This sentiment. The electoral success of “Boris” here is partly down to this - it’s a real thing - and the “Trump” brand is on a different scale to his.
This is also why I diverge from the US punditry take on violence in the streets being good for Trump. Trump definitely provides entertainment, and only his die-hard supporters now think he provides good governance, so he does better in an environment where you don't need good governance, and you only need entertainment. That's mostly where we were in 2016: The economy was OK, there were no serious wars foreign or domestic, life wasn't always great but where it wasn't it didn't look like the government was going to do much about it.
Generally the rona should be enough to demonstrate the need for good governance, but it's not quite impossible that there will be a vaccine out by then, in which case it's possible there will be an emergent party mood.
Yes. Of these 2 sentiments among apoliticals -
(i) Ooo he is awful but I kinda like him. Puts on one hell of a show.
(ii) Ok enough of this now. We need to calm down, wise up and sober up.
I think (ii) will prevail. But I do think (i) is a thing.
Portland will soon find out precisely the effects of failing to do any policing for 90+ days.
Cold. Blooded. Murder.
If the Portland police actually arrested the Nazi's who came to town every weekend rather than colaborating with them the world would be a better place.
So they don’t have the right to protest because you disagree with them?
Do you think the Portland police should have been feeding real time information to the head of the Proud Boys as to the location of antifa protests? Do you think the Portland Police should have been giving the proud boys advice on how one of their members could avoid being arrested?
This is all documented in official communications.
No. But they shouldn’t arrest them either just because you disagree with them.
But you agree the police should arrest people with outstanding warrants rather than facilitating their escape right?
Of course.
But that wasn’t what you said.
Stop evading the point. You’re rather unpleasant instinctive reaction to opponents marching was to call them Nazis and wish they were arrested.
All the backpedaling in the works won’t change that
Portland will soon find out precisely the effects of failing to do any policing for 90+ days.
Cold. Blooded. Murder.
If the Portland police actually arrested the Nazi's who came to town every weekend rather than colaborating with them the world would be a better place.
So they don’t have the right to protest because you disagree with them?
Do you think the Portland police should have been feeding real time information to the head of the Proud Boys as to the location of antifa protests? Do you think the Portland Police should have been giving the proud boys advice on how one of their members could avoid being arrested?
This is all documented in official communications.
No. But they shouldn’t arrest them either just because you disagree with them.
But you agree the police should arrest people with outstanding warrants rather than facilitating their escape right?
Of course.
But that wasn’t what you said.
Stop evading the point. You’re rather unpleasant instinctive reaction to opponents marching was to call them Nazis and wish they were arrested.
All the backpedaling in the works won’t change that
I was literally talking about the actual Nazi's the Portland police were collaborating with.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
I notice that PBers are no longer providing the US covid data.
I assume that this is because the predicted surge in deaths didn't happen.
What?
Not that I have provided the data, but I have been following it. The predicted death toll to 30/11/20 has been increasing regularly still. It is now predicted to be 317,000 and has always been upwards.
What is also noticeable is that as the prediction becomes out of date you can compare the actual to the prediction up to the current date. The prediction has always been under performing the actual (hence the regular increase in the prediction). Yesterday's actual is already 4000 ahead of the last prediction for yesterday.
The peak in US deaths happened in April.
Now on PB we were regularly showed data which suggested a huge increase in deaths was imminent.
That didn't happen.
And likewise the reports of US data have ceased.
I can't comment on what others have said and I don't know how the predictions are calculated, but what I do know is they have been consistently under predicting. Now look at the prediction for later in the year. Also note that the prediction for now was flat/slight dip following the increase from 500 to 1000 per day.
I can't comment on predictions which you are providing no link to.
Sorry - Worldometers.
Those predictions seem to be rather lacking to me.
Now if you take the new cases data and extrapolate the falls which have been happening for the last month that will give a rapid reduction in the death rate.
As happened in western Europe or in New York.
That's not to say that will happen but it has a little more logic than merely extrapolating the current death rate continuously.
As I said I don't know how they calculated these predictions, all I can say is they have consistently under predicated. Very consistently so.
One thing you can absolutely guarantee is safe in the forthcoming SDSR is the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. Fuck SEAD or EW capability, we need to keep 8 x Spitfires and Hurricanes flying.
Sausages at £5.37 a lb, damn right it'll be The Few.
Portland will soon find out precisely the effects of failing to do any policing for 90+ days.
Cold. Blooded. Murder.
If the Portland police actually arrested the Nazi's who came to town every weekend rather than colaborating with them the world would be a better place.
So they don’t have the right to protest because you disagree with them?
Do you think the Portland police should have been feeding real time information to the head of the Proud Boys as to the location of antifa protests? Do you think the Portland Police should have been giving the proud boys advice on how one of their members could avoid being arrested?
This is all documented in official communications.
No. But they shouldn’t arrest them either just because you disagree with them.
But you agree the police should arrest people with outstanding warrants rather than facilitating their escape right?
Of course.
But that wasn’t what you said.
Stop evading the point. You’re rather unpleasant instinctive reaction to opponents marching was to call them Nazis and wish they were arrested.
All the backpedaling in the works won’t change that
What do you call people who fly the swastika when they march?
Portland will soon find out precisely the effects of failing to do any policing for 90+ days.
Cold. Blooded. Murder.
If the Portland police actually arrested the Nazi's who came to town every weekend rather than colaborating with them the world would be a better place.
So they don’t have the right to protest because you disagree with them?
Do you think the Portland police should have been feeding real time information to the head of the Proud Boys as to the location of antifa protests? Do you think the Portland Police should have been giving the proud boys advice on how one of their members could avoid being arrested?
This is all documented in official communications.
No. But they shouldn’t arrest them either just because you disagree with them.
But you agree the police should arrest people with outstanding warrants rather than facilitating their escape right?
Of course.
But that wasn’t what you said.
Stop evading the point. You’re rather unpleasant instinctive reaction to opponents marching was to call them Nazis and wish they were arrested.
All the backpedaling in the works won’t change that
I was literally talking about the actual Nazi's the Portland police were collaborating with.
The subtle reframing of 'don't call me a Nazi just 'cos I have legitimate concerns about immigration and the EU' to 'don't call me a Nazi just 'cos I like marching under a Hakenkreuz' is quite the thing. A lesser man than me might be tempted to call it gaslighting.
(i) Ooo he is awful but I kinda like him. Puts on one hell of a show.
(ii) Ok enough of this now. We need to calm down, wise up and sober up.
I think (ii) will prevail. But I do think (i) is a thing.
There is no real policy difference between Trump and Biden; they are both establishment figures who serve the needs of capital above all others. So, while we wait for the revolution, we might as well have the shit posting mentally ill monster and his freakish family for the lolz.
In addition to his supporters there will be people – apolitical types - who find themselves now addicted to the show. “Bit of a dick but, you know what, I’ll miss him if he goes.” This sentiment. The electoral success of “Boris” here is partly down to this - it’s a real thing - and the “Trump” brand is on a different scale to his.
This is also why I diverge from the US punditry take on violence in the streets being good for Trump. Trump definitely provides entertainment, and only his die-hard supporters now think he provides good governance, so he does better in an environment where you don't need good governance, and you only need entertainment. That's mostly where we were in 2016: The economy was OK, there were no serious wars foreign or domestic, life wasn't always great but where it wasn't it didn't look like the government was going to do much about it.
Generally the rona should be enough to demonstrate the need for good governance, but it's not quite impossible that there will be a vaccine out by then, in which case it's possible there will be an emergent party mood.
Yes. Of these 2 sentiments among apoliticals -
(i) Ooo he is awful but I kinda like him. Puts on one hell of a show.
(ii) Ok enough of this now. We need to calm down, wise up and sober up.
I think (ii) will prevail. But I do think (i) is a thing.
I assumed you were referring to the PM when I first read your comment. I don't think it is any the less relevant for that.
Portland will soon find out precisely the effects of failing to do any policing for 90+ days.
Cold. Blooded. Murder.
If the Portland police actually arrested the Nazi's who came to town every weekend rather than colaborating with them the world would be a better place.
So they don’t have the right to protest because you disagree with them?
Do you think the Portland police should have been feeding real time information to the head of the Proud Boys as to the location of antifa protests? Do you think the Portland Police should have been giving the proud boys advice on how one of their members could avoid being arrested?
This is all documented in official communications.
No. But they shouldn’t arrest them either just because you disagree with them.
But you agree the police should arrest people with outstanding warrants rather than facilitating their escape right?
Of course.
But that wasn’t what you said.
Stop evading the point. You’re rather unpleasant instinctive reaction to opponents marching was to call them Nazis and wish they were arrested.
All the backpedaling in the works won’t change that
What do you call people who fly the swastika when they march?
"Some very fine people" according to the "leader of the free world".
Portland will soon find out precisely the effects of failing to do any policing for 90+ days.
Cold. Blooded. Murder.
If the Portland police actually arrested the Nazi's who came to town every weekend rather than colaborating with them the world would be a better place.
So they don’t have the right to protest because you disagree with them?
Do you think the Portland police should have been feeding real time information to the head of the Proud Boys as to the location of antifa protests? Do you think the Portland Police should have been giving the proud boys advice on how one of their members could avoid being arrested?
This is all documented in official communications.
No. But they shouldn’t arrest them either just because you disagree with them.
But you agree the police should arrest people with outstanding warrants rather than facilitating their escape right?
Of course.
But that wasn’t what you said.
Stop evading the point. You’re rather unpleasant instinctive reaction to opponents marching was to call them Nazis and wish they were arrested.
All the backpedaling in the works won’t change that
What do you call people who fly the swastika when they march?
I think Charles has got confused and thinks I called all the right wingers who turned up Nazis.
I was not, I was referencing the documented instances when the Portland police have collaborated with specific named far right individuals and groups.
That's a reasonable suggestion . About the first from either the tories or labour or lib dems since covid-19 began
It may sound it to the uninitiated, but it isn't. There wouldn't be time to hold exams in July and release the results before about mid-September - too late for sixth form colleges and universities. So if you are going down that route, you are again accepting predicted grades from teachers as the basis of next year's university entry.
The smart move - and it really would be a smart move - would be to put the university start date to January and pay every lecturer to have a six month sabbatical doing lots of lovely research. That would not only buy time in this emergency situation so the exams could be moved later if necessary, but would mean from hereon in universities would work from real grades not predicted grades (sixth forms could be fudged).
But that would require some intelligence and fortitude from the DfE so is as likely as Nicola Sturgeon declaring staying in the UK is the correct course of action for Scotland.
Do they not get enough holidays without another 6 months.
Well, academics actually don't get many holidays. They're meant to have a month. The rest of the time they should be doing research.
Doesn't always work that way in practice, of course, which is why I suggested making it clear this break really IS to do research.
surely as children get 17 weeks a year then teachers get same give or take a few days
Children get twelve weeks, teachers 11 (although personally I've been pretty busy rewriting lessons). But that's not what I was talking about. Academia is a very different beast from school teaching.
One thing you can absolutely guarantee is safe in the forthcoming SDSR is the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. Fuck SEAD or EW capability, we need to keep 8 x Spitfires and Hurricanes flying.
Sausages at £5.37 a lb, damn right it'll be The Few.
Artisan sausages at a normal artisan sausage price, with 10% donated to support the Battle of Britain Memorial.
What's not to like?
Loving the still-to-be-recovering remainers on that thread who can't look at the world through any other lens. Quite funny.
Comments
More essential reading for the UK on how to prevent or manage a second wave better than Spain.
If the UK took over Greenland, 99% of peoples density is in reality unchanged but our national number would look completely different.
Case numbers are dropping, but still very high compared to us, and there are indications that the return to college is causing local spikes.
Afaik it doesnt ignore them, they are included in the average just like NMW and ZHC employees are included in the earnings numbers.
As some of us have said the USA hasn't had a second wave but rather its first wave took months to roll around the country.
If people want to whinge about an echo chamber it needs more than having been criticised to justify it - an echo chamber is not merely that someone, somewhere, was critical, it speaks to an overwhelming level of bias in favour of something.
Id suggest a one week planned lockdown every couple of months, maybe around half terms. Everyone knows its coming, can stock up for it in advance, would know its only for a week, and businesses can also manage staff hours and stock around it.
The Benefit Cap is a limit to the total amount of money you can get from benefits. The Benefit Cap will only apply if you get Housing Benefit or Universal Credit.
Your benefits will be reduced if you get more than the limit that applies for your circumstances - this means you'll get less Housing Benefit or Universal Credit.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/check-if-the-benefit-cap-applies-to-you/
According to the OBR, the total spending outside the welfare cap on Housing Benefit is around £ 2bn a year, which covers both Private and Public Rented sectors.
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/welfare-spending-housing-benefit/
That is not a "Lot" out of £102bn, or £600 billion for that matter.
Isn't it time we move on from these silly (and sometimes fake) kneejerk arguments targeted on the Private Rental Sector?
But more importantly, neither black nor left turnout is guaranteed.
This is why Biden is positioned at:
1) Oppose looting and rioting
2) Oppose white nationalist violence (doh)
3) Oppose police violence, believe police racism is a problem and reform the police
4) Increase police funding
The polling seems to say that this is a very popular set of positions, *including (3)*. So if the suggestion is that he should stop saying (3) to underline his support for (1), I doubt it's a good idea.
https://twitter.com/Scientits/status/1300367240013979651?s=20
This time around it will be a problem for all comers irrespective of stripe. Now that should worry you and Mr Johnson.
(1) Kamala Harris
She’s a woman. Not only that, she’s assertive and blasian too. So that’s a little bit of a scary package. Let’s not pretend that racism and misogyny is absent from American life. If it was, Donald Trump could never have become president and now be the incumbent. Misogyny was a factor in HRC’s defeat in 2016. So was racism in the form of a backlash against having a black president foisted on them for 8 years prior. Trump exploited both sentiments ruthlessly and will try to do so again. No ticket with a woman on it has ever won. And this time, Biden being the age he is, the woman is quasi running for the top job. And, I repeat, she’s an assertive liberal female who is not even white.
(2) Donald Trump
He’s Donald Trump. Never before has there been a president who is all about supplying controversy and drama for the masses to consume through their TVs, phones and laptops. And say what you like about him he is very very good at this. You are likely to be good at what turns you on and so it is here. Many hate it. They think he is demeaning his office and undermining democracy. But regardless, the fact is that he has wormed his way into everybody’s heads and become an integral part of the culture itself. In addition to his supporters there will be people – apolitical types - who find themselves now addicted to the show. “Bit of a dick but, you know what, I’ll miss him if he goes.” This sentiment. The electoral success of “Boris” here is partly down to this - it’s a real thing - and the “Trump” brand is on a different scale to his.
What else can they do with the properties that would make them more money?
Indirectly it would also bring down other private rents for those not on housing benefit, who in turn would spend more into the wider economy more efficiently than they do through rent.
I'm following you on Trump. If he wins it will be the biggest betting loss I've ever had.
Generally the rona should be enough to demonstrate the need for good governance, but it's not quite impossible that there will be a vaccine out by then, in which case it's possible there will be an emergent party mood.
WHY WON'T BIDEN CONDEMN THE VIOLENCE!!!
Philip is saying what ought to happen to deal with the riots. Biden is doing it. Trump isn't. That's his point.
Casino is saying what ought to happen if you want to win the election. Biden isn't doing enough. Trump is. That's his point.
Both are good points.
Now if you take the new cases data and extrapolate the falls which have been happening for the last month that will give a rapid reduction in the death rate.
As happened in western Europe or in New York.
That's not to say that will happen but it has a little more logic than merely extrapolating the current death rate continuously.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/31/china-covid-19-vaccine-first-401636
One thing you can absolutely guarantee is safe in the forthcoming SDSR is the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. Fuck SEAD or EW capability, we need to keep 8 x Spitfires and Hurricanes flying.
https://twitter.com/PortlandDSA/status/1288278965954592769
He says Biden must condemn the rioting. He has been shown now dozens of instances of Biden condemning the rioting. At no point has he said why this is insufficient or what kind of statement would satisfy him. Just called everyone posting evidence of Biden condemning the rioting twats and idiots.
what ought to happen if you want to win the election. Biden isn't doing enough. Trump is. That's his point.
...because although it would have perfectly matched my priors if you'd asked me a year ago, it doesn't seem to fit the available data.
BLM didn't used to be very popular, but now it is. Most white people probably didn't used to believe the police are often violent and racist, but now they do. And stoking up violence to create a wedge between white people and black people then winning because there are more white people sounds like a terrifying, evil, successful strategy, but when Trump has tried it it seems to be more unpopular than pretty much anything else he's done.
To me, Biden comes across as insincere and mealy-mouthed. And you can bet if that’s what I think there’s a lot of Americans who think the same.
I don’t have a vote so what I think dies t matter. But there’s a lot of cheerleading from otherwise sensible posters
People in their fifties who struggle to find work after being made redundant for example.
But still the people who will be hit hardest seem likely to be the young and urban.
Still very confident. That was just kind of me "in the analyst's chair" sharing my deepest darkest - and not wholly rational - fears.
This is definitely a possible approach and there are probably some voters who it would attract, but I think the idea fails to appreciate just how fast moderate opinion has moved in favour of BLM.
Congratulations nevertheless, for experiencing the first ever instance of Mr Lady ever having underpredicted anything.
A scary thought but it looks entirely plausible. It would put America's death toll almost up that of WWII.
Tough on riots, tough on the causes of riots.
Most of the stuff was Guidance (ie room for flexibility) not Regulations.
The number of police fines issued here was miniscule.
By late May in England there had been 15k fixed penalties issued. In Spain it was well over a *million*. In France they issued 350,000 fines in *one day*.
(i) Ooo he is awful but I kinda like him. Puts on one hell of a show.
(ii) Ok enough of this now. We need to calm down, wise up and sober up.
I think (ii) will prevail. But I do think (i) is a thing.
Biden is, as of yesterday, 6.9 points ahead - after 3 months of a continual non-stop orgy of rioting and looting which plays badly with swing voters.
But that wasn’t what you said.
Stop evading the point. You’re rather unpleasant instinctive reaction to opponents marching was to call them Nazis and wish they were arrested.
All the backpedaling in the works won’t change that
I was not, I was referencing the documented instances when the Portland police have collaborated with specific named far right individuals and groups.
What's not to like?
Loving the still-to-be-recovering remainers on that thread who can't look at the world through any other lens. Quite funny.
https://twitter.com/weegingerdug/status/1300438426047713281