The White House polling is fun, new polls from Emerson showing Biden +3, which might well be a Trump win, and Harris showing Biden +9, which is a Biden landslide. But compared to their last polls they're both showing exactly the same thing, which is that the race has narrowed by 2 points.
The irony here is that Starmer's price is lengthening because he's doing well - it increases the chance that the Tories will replace Johnson early. If Starmer was slumping then Johnson would be safe.
Yes. Spot on.
About a week ago I thought I had spotted a great political betting opportunity. Back Labour/Lay Tories to have most seats at the next General Election. My thinking was that this is probably the worst UK government in my living memory and that the awfulness of the governing party would be so self evident to the electorate that they would punish them severely at the next time of voting. The worst PM I can remember, presiding over the worst, most talentless, servile cabinet that I can recall. They nearly all owe their positions to loyalty alone. The Chancellor is the one exception.
But then I spotted a flaw. The betting opportunity only applies if Boris leads his shambolic government into the next General Election. But what if he resigns - on ill health or other grounds? And Rishi replaces him? And appoints an able team? There are plenty of talented Tory MPs in the current parliament, able for the task and hopelessly languishing on the back benches.
A Rishi led Tory party with a cabinet selected on ability could be highly effective and could easily be returned with most seats at the next General Election. So, until we know whether or not Boris and his motley crew will still form the government at the next election, I am not going to add to my current betting position.
This is why I think concerns about Trump refusing to leave if he loses the election are overblown; He just doesn't have the support from the security forces. Military rank-and-file are a mix of pro- and anti- Trump, top brass is probably mostly anti-Trump-GOP. Local cops are pretty Trumpish, but they're under the control of their states, not POTUS. Basically all he's got is a few weird federal agencies like ICE, but they don't have that many guys.
This is why I think concerns about Trump refusing to leave if he loses the election are overblown; He just doesn't have the support from the security forces. Military rank-and-file are a mix of pro- and anti- Trump, top brass is probably mostly anti-Trump-GOP. Local cops are pretty Trumpish, but they're under the control of their states, not POTUS. Basically all he's got is a few weird federal agencies like ICE, but they don't have that many guys.
On the other hand, if he can find a way to make the result ambiguous, do they have the leverage to force him out? It's one thing for them to uphold the constitution if he's clearly lost, but another to intervene in a contested situation.
This is why I think concerns about Trump refusing to leave if he loses the election are overblown; He just doesn't have the support from the security forces. Military rank-and-file are a mix of pro- and anti- Trump, top brass is probably mostly anti-Trump-GOP. Local cops are pretty Trumpish, but they're under the control of their states, not POTUS. Basically all he's got is a few weird federal agencies like ICE, but they don't have that many guys.
On the other hand, if he can find a way to make the result ambiguous, do they have the leverage to force him out? It's one thing for them to uphold the constitution if he's clearly lost, but another to intervene in a contested situation.
I don't think he can make the result ambiguous, the courts are still a thing.
He might be able to create enough dust around a close result to let SCOTUS give it to him if it's so inclined, but I don't think he can win it on the streets. Not in 2020 anyhow, it might work in 2024.
This is why I think concerns about Trump refusing to leave if he loses the election are overblown; He just doesn't have the support from the security forces. Military rank-and-file are a mix of pro- and anti- Trump, top brass is probably mostly anti-Trump-GOP. Local cops are pretty Trumpish, but they're under the control of their states, not POTUS. Basically all he's got is a few weird federal agencies like ICE, but they don't have that many guys.
On the other hand, if he can find a way to make the result ambiguous, do they have the leverage to force him out? It's one thing for them to uphold the constitution if he's clearly lost, but another to intervene in a contested situation.
They’ll support whoever is declared as having at least 270 electoral votes by Congress when they are counted on January 6th. And if that turns out to be no-one, whoever the new House elects in the contingent election.
At the moment you get the impression Johnson would be content to have 3 or 4 years as PM and then hand over to someone else so he doesn't have to fight another general election. Of course things might change if he magically discovers his previous energy and ambition.
I'm not sure why - it is well known that Type 2 is reversible by diet. The NHS used to put sufferers on a special diet back in the day, but have stopped doing this in favour of insulin in recent years - stupidly. I'm glad they are restoring diet to the equation (though to be honest, soup and shake doesn't appear to be the healthiest way to do it), and it bodes well for introducing diet as a greater consideration in medical treatment, but it isn't a new discovery.
There's a reason why type 2 diabetes hardly existed between 1940 and 1955.
Do you have the figures? I wouldn't be surprised if it went up after 55 but I would be surprised if it went down after 40.
It was very low before 1940 anyway AFAIK. I don't have the figures at the moment but I was told this by someone who's worked in that field for a long time.
I think figures that early are likely to be meaningless, as the two types of diabetes (I and II) were only distinguished in academic literature in 1936.
Literally ANY diet programme would be better than the NHS telling people they're obese and doing absolutely nothing to help them lose weight
No, the Newcastle diet (Roy Taylor's work) is very specific as to the amount you need to lose and the best way to do it. It is a diet for pre-diabetes and diabetes not a general diet for the overweight.
Many people would think it is madly brutal until they try it. Most GPs would actively recommend NOT to do what Taylor has found works - 800 cals a day. Rapid weight loss. Meals of shakes and soup. Fat stripped from liver, pancreas and other organs.
I think the pattern of the diet - shock treatment followed by a new normal - has been done, and there is history of medical diets being used (rightly or wrongly) more widely.
Interesting points - this is a firstfruit from many years of work, and is being started very small with 5000 people.
And it is only being applied to people in the first few years of Type II, initially.
I think it is a useful move opening things beyond the normal NHS "Healthy Eating" plate.
I have not checked whether the 'new normal' is lower carb as well as lower calorie.
Comments
https://twitter.com/gregmlarsen/status/1300298591051735040
UK 2
Sweden 5
Italy 6
Germany 7
Japan 15
Spain 28
France 29
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
About a week ago I thought I had spotted a great political betting opportunity. Back Labour/Lay Tories to have most seats at the next General Election. My thinking was that this is probably the worst UK government in my living memory and that the awfulness of the governing party would be so self evident to the electorate that they would punish them severely at the next time of voting. The worst PM I can remember, presiding over the worst, most talentless, servile cabinet that I can recall. They nearly all owe their positions to loyalty alone. The Chancellor is the one exception.
But then I spotted a flaw. The betting opportunity only applies if Boris leads his shambolic government into the next General Election. But what if he resigns - on ill health or other grounds? And Rishi replaces him? And appoints an able team? There are plenty of talented Tory MPs in the current parliament, able for the task and hopelessly languishing on the back benches.
A Rishi led Tory party with a cabinet selected on ability could be highly effective and could easily be returned with most seats at the next General Election. So, until we know whether or not Boris and his motley crew will still form the government at the next election, I am not going to add to my current betting position.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/08/31/as-trumps-popularity-slips-in-latest-military-times-poll-more-troops-say-theyll-vote-for-biden/
He might be able to create enough dust around a close result to let SCOTUS give it to him if it's so inclined, but I don't think he can win it on the streets. Not in 2020 anyhow, it might work in 2024.
And even that was as "insulin sensitive" and "insulin insensitive".
https://www.healthline.com/health/history-type-1-diabetes#2
ie Type I and 'not Type I'. IMO in response to the discovery of insulin in the 1920s.
These days Type II is sometimes broken down into several subcategories.
@Foxy will know more precisely if he has time.
Interesting points - this is a firstfruit from many years of work, and is being started very small with 5000 people.
And it is only being applied to people in the first few years of Type II, initially.
I think it is a useful move opening things beyond the normal NHS "Healthy Eating" plate.
I have not checked whether the 'new normal' is lower carb as well as lower calorie.