It's taken me a very long time to make this connection: weren't the 2011 England riots basically an early (British) version of BLM?
I guess the difference there was it was effectively leaderless and unbranded, so it rapidly became about copycat rioting and looting with seemingly no purpose.
Similar yes, but also there's a difference in that the UK is not the USA. This issue is lasting in the USA not because it has effective leaders and branding but because the American cops keep harassing, beating up, shooting and killing black people. Again American is not like the UK.
If the cops stopped killing black people, the protests would stop too. The UK doesn't have the fuel to keep protests like these going, thank goodness.
If you read the studies about the UK riots you will learn that they are absolutely analagous to the US version. Perceived discrimination by the police which lead to flashpoints and then the riots.
I have posted these before; they are well worth a read:
It's taken me a very long time to make this connection: weren't the 2011 England riots basically an early (British) version of BLM?
I guess the difference there was it was effectively leaderless and unbranded, so it rapidly became about copycat rioting and looting with seemingly no purpose.
Similar yes, but also there's a difference in that the UK is not the USA. This issue is lasting in the USA not because it has effective leaders and branding but because the American cops keep harassing, beating up, shooting and killing black people. Again American is not like the UK.
If the cops stopped killing black people, the protests would stop too. The UK doesn't have the fuel to keep protests like these going, thank goodness.
If you read the studies about the UK riots you will learn that they are absolutely analagous to the US version. Perceived discrimination by the police which lead to flashpoints and then the riots.
I have posted these before; they are well worth a read:
The difference though is they became flashpoints that became riots and then stopped. In America the shooting and abuse doesn't stop. The discriminat and injustices within Britain are nothing remotely as serious as the systemic abuse and killings in America.
If black British people were getting shot and killed by the British cops every week then I think you'd see a lot more of that style of riot, but thankfully we're not America. It goes without saying but America is America. The fuel for the fire of the anger burns a lot more in America as a result.
I probably haven't been paying sufficient attention, but has anyone come up with a valid theory on why the 2016 POTUS betting market was a terrible predictor of the result but the 2020 is a good one?
People seeing this as an opportunity to bet on 2016 again. "OMG he's won!"
Bit like what happened with the betting on our GE.
Could be nonsense but I don’t have any better theory.
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
That's what I've been saying for a long time. Trump is America's Corbyn and people are making the same mistakes in logic now as they were in 2019.
The media were living in a bubble in 2016 and their response since then has been largely to continue living in the same bubble. People who tried to report from outside it, like Andrew Sullivan, have been excommunicated.
The bubble that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump?
Those who believe Trump will win, believe (rightly or wrongly) that Trump will pull some sort of unexpected stunt that will change the election. By definition that would not reflect the current polling.
It's taken me a very long time to make this connection: weren't the 2011 England riots basically an early (British) version of BLM?
I guess the difference there was it was effectively leaderless and unbranded, so it rapidly became about copycat rioting and looting with seemingly no purpose.
Similar yes, but also there's a difference in that the UK is not the USA. This issue is lasting in the USA not because it has effective leaders and branding but because the American cops keep harassing, beating up, shooting and killing black people. Again American is not like the UK.
If the cops stopped killing black people, the protests would stop too. The UK doesn't have the fuel to keep protests like these going, thank goodness.
If you read the studies about the UK riots you will learn that they are absolutely analagous to the US version. Perceived discrimination by the police which lead to flashpoints and then the riots.
I have posted these before; they are well worth a read:
The difference though is they became flashpoints that became riots and then stopped. In America the shooting and abuse doesn't stop. The discriminat and injustices within Britain are nothing remotely as serious as the systemic abuse and killings in America.
If black British people were getting shot and killed by the British cops every week then I think you'd see a lot more of that style of riot, but thankfully we're not America. It goes without saying but America is America. The fuel for the fire of the anger burns a lot more in America as a result.
I think recent anecdata (eg those athletes, etc) that show British police stopping black people driving nice cars show that there is still an issue over here. Where it is more low level and then simmers to an eventual explosion rather, as you say, than it boiling over constantly as in the US as the violence is on such a greater scale.
It's taken me a very long time to make this connection: weren't the 2011 England riots basically an early (British) version of BLM?
I guess the difference there was it was effectively leaderless and unbranded, so it rapidly became about copycat rioting and looting with seemingly no purpose.
Similar yes, but also there's a difference in that the UK is not the USA. This issue is lasting in the USA not because it has effective leaders and branding but because the American cops keep harassing, beating up, shooting and killing black people. Again American is not like the UK.
If the cops stopped killing black people, the protests would stop too. The UK doesn't have the fuel to keep protests like these going, thank goodness.
If you read the studies about the UK riots you will learn that they are absolutely analagous to the US version. Perceived discrimination by the police which lead to flashpoints and then the riots.
I have posted these before; they are well worth a read:
The difference though is they became flashpoints that became riots and then stopped. In America the shooting and abuse doesn't stop. The discriminat and injustices within Britain are nothing remotely as serious as the systemic abuse and killings in America.
If black British people were getting shot and killed by the British cops every week then I think you'd see a lot more of that style of riot, but thankfully we're not America. It goes without saying but America is America. The fuel for the fire of the anger burns a lot more in America as a result.
I think recent anecdata (eg those athletes, etc) that show British police stopping black people driving nice cars show that there is still an issue over here. Where it is more low level and then simmers to an eventual explosion rather, as you say, than it boiling over constantly as in the US as the violence is on such a greater scale.
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
That's what I've been saying for a long time. Trump is America's Corbyn and people are making the same mistakes in logic now as they were in 2019.
The media were living in a bubble in 2016 and their response since then has been largely to continue living in the same bubble. People who tried to report from outside it, like Andrew Sullivan, have been excommunicated.
The bubble that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump?
I kinda agree with that analysis but I can't help but remember the perceived wisdom before GE2015 that my boy Dave needed a lead of 10% in the popular vote to ensure a majority.
Some good news out of Iceland on COVID? "Of the 1797 persons who had recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1107 of the 1215 who were tested (91.1%) were seropositive; antiviral antibody titers assayed by two pan-Ig assays increased during 2 months after diagnosis by qPCR and remained on a plateau for the remainder of the study."
"CONCLUSIONS "Our results indicate that antiviral antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 did not decline within 4 months after diagnosis."
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
That's what I've been saying for a long time. Trump is America's Corbyn and people are making the same mistakes in logic now as they were in 2019.
The media were living in a bubble in 2016 and their response since then has been largely to continue living in the same bubble. People who tried to report from outside it, like Andrew Sullivan, have been excommunicated.
The bubble that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump?
There's absolutely no evidence that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump...oh.
For him to now be crying he had nothing to do with security implications is a bit of a stretch isn't it?
He got carried away and didn't think about the security implications perhaps. An apology would be more appropriate than doubling down or implying it was all Torcuil and nothing to do with him.
Blackford is an odious cnut who helped hound a far more able politician to his early death. He's an embarrassment to the SNP in Westminster, oh for the days of Angus Robertson - Johnson would then have two able opponents, not just one.
Like surely, if you think Trump is going to win but you want a bit of insurance Trump +48.5 EC votes @1.68 is a better bet that Trump @2.02?
No - I don`t believe in insurance. Biden is going to win. Full steam ahead.
Yay.
I have bought EC supremacy at 28 for enough to not tell the wife.
Good luck.
I've got a bet with HYUFD that essentially Biden will win by 74 or more electoral college votes. What do you think of that?
If you take the implied probabilities of the Betfair betting on each swing state times their ECVs you get: Trump 241 Biden 297 That's a EC supremacy of 18. (or is it 36?)
My overall reaction to these three sets of graphs is that the UK should be relatively pleased with where they are on COVID - deaths at really manageable levels (while recognizing each death is a tragedy and we would like there to be none), slowly rising infections showing perhaps very early signs of leveling off, and no parallels between the first wave and the current increase in terms of steepness or shape of curve.
I'd see it a reasonable vindication of policy (even admitting that reactions could've/should/ve been faster) and the the rate of opening up of the economy/society is about right.
I can imagine there are a lot of countries, the US not the least, who'd love to be in the UK's position at this point.
My overall reaction to these three sets of graphs is that the UK should be relatively pleased with where they are on COVID - deaths at really manageable levels (while recognizing each death is a tragedy and we would like there to be none), slowly rising infections showing perhaps very early signs of leveling off, and no parallels between the first wave and the current increase in terms of steepness or shape of curve.
I'd see it a reasonable vindication of policy (even admitting that reactions could've/should/ve been faster) and the the rate of opening up of the economy/society is about right.
I can imagine there are a lot of countries, the US not the least, who'd love to be in the UK's position at this point.
Thoughts?
Fair enough, though I do wonder how those would look on a logarithmic y-axis.
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
That's what I've been saying for a long time. Trump is America's Corbyn and people are making the same mistakes in logic now as they were in 2019.
Like surely, if you think Trump is going to win but you want a bit of insurance Trump +48.5 EC votes @1.68 is a better bet that Trump @2.02?
No - I don`t believe in insurance. Biden is going to win. Full steam ahead.
Yay.
I have bought EC supremacy at 28 for enough to not tell the wife.
Good luck.
I've got a bet with HYUFD that essentially Biden will win by 74 or more electoral college votes. What do you think of that?
I think you will win that bet. But you legged him over with 3/1 odds so you should be upright and offer to void it.
The current round of rioting is a complicating factor, increasing uncertainty of the outcome.
Certainly, Kenosha has enabled Trump to bash on about law and order with his base, and Trump is the only point of enthusiasm in this election.
But that is not a straightforward win for Trump - because for each uptick in enthusiasm he creates in his base, he causes a similar uptick in enthusiasm for voting against him, regardless of Biden being his opponent.
Personally, I expect - the Black vote to return to or even exceed the levels that Obama managed to turn out - the female vote to be extremely high, and more anti-Trump than ever - the Establishment GOP vote to be down or even turn Biden - Trump's core base to turn out big time.
This leads me to expect a big, but not perhaps huge, win for Biden, but with a high degree of uncertainty about that prediction. I think 70-100 EC win is about right.
It's taken me a very long time to make this connection: weren't the 2011 England riots basically an early (British) version of BLM?
I guess the difference there was it was effectively leaderless and unbranded, so it rapidly became about copycat rioting and looting with seemingly no purpose.
Similar yes, but also there's a difference in that the UK is not the USA. This issue is lasting in the USA not because it has effective leaders and branding but because the American cops keep harassing, beating up, shooting and killing black people. Again American is not like the UK.
If the cops stopped killing black people, the protests would stop too. The UK doesn't have the fuel to keep protests like these going, thank goodness.
But why has it resonated from the USA into the UK this year so strongly and sharply?
The only reason I can think of is Donald Trump, and it was a cause to champion to break lockdown and overspill frustration with endless Covid.
My overall reaction to these three sets of graphs is that the UK should be relatively pleased with where they are on COVID - deaths at really manageable levels (while recognizing each death is a tragedy and we would like there to be none), slowly rising infections showing perhaps very early signs of leveling off, and no parallels between the first wave and the current increase in terms of steepness or shape of curve.
I'd see it a reasonable vindication of policy (even admitting that reactions could've/should/ve been faster) and the the rate of opening up of the economy/society is about right.
I can imagine there are a lot of countries, the US not the least, who'd love to be in the UK's position at this point.
Thoughts?
Fair enough, though I do wonder how those would look on a logarithmic y-axis.
One thing you need to consider is that the cases around March and April are off by at least an order of magnitude from the real number of infections at the time, we are catching for more of the infections now than we were then. So whatever graph you plot is going to be misleading. As indeed are all the graphs you see about COVID-19, as nobody is detecting every infection.
It's taken me a very long time to make this connection: weren't the 2011 England riots basically an early (British) version of BLM?
I guess the difference there was it was effectively leaderless and unbranded, so it rapidly became about copycat rioting and looting with seemingly no purpose.
Similar yes, but also there's a difference in that the UK is not the USA. This issue is lasting in the USA not because it has effective leaders and branding but because the American cops keep harassing, beating up, shooting and killing black people. Again American is not like the UK.
If the cops stopped killing black people, the protests would stop too. The UK doesn't have the fuel to keep protests like these going, thank goodness.
If you read the studies about the UK riots you will learn that they are absolutely analagous to the US version. Perceived discrimination by the police which lead to flashpoints and then the riots.
I have posted these before; they are well worth a read:
Those who believe Trump will win, believe (rightly or wrongly) that Trump will pull some sort of unexpected stunt that will change the election. By definition that would not reflect the current polling.
My overall reaction to these three sets of graphs is that the UK should be relatively pleased with where they are on COVID - deaths at really manageable levels (while recognizing each death is a tragedy and we would like there to be none), slowly rising infections showing perhaps very early signs of leveling off, and no parallels between the first wave and the current increase in terms of steepness or shape of curve.
I'd see it a reasonable vindication of policy (even admitting that reactions could've/should/ve been faster) and the the rate of opening up of the economy/society is about right.
I can imagine there are a lot of countries, the US not the least, who'd love to be in the UK's position at this point.
Thoughts?
Fair enough, though I do wonder how those would look on a logarithmic y-axis.
We know from
that infections are stable. 2200 per day or so, for England.
What we are seeing in the cases numbers, is that we are finding more and more cases, as the testing and tracing gets better.
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
That's what I've been saying for a long time. Trump is America's Corbyn and people are making the same mistakes in logic now as they were in 2019.
The media were living in a bubble in 2016 and their response since then has been largely to continue living in the same bubble. People who tried to report from outside it, like Andrew Sullivan, have been excommunicated.
The bubble that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump?
There's absolutely no evidence that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump...oh.
I thought we'd got beyond the 'Clinton really won', shtick.
I mean, if we actually want Trump to lose this time..
My overall reaction to these three sets of graphs is that the UK should be relatively pleased with where they are on COVID - deaths at really manageable levels (while recognizing each death is a tragedy and we would like there to be none), slowly rising infections showing perhaps very early signs of leveling off, and no parallels between the first wave and the current increase in terms of steepness or shape of curve.
I'd see it a reasonable vindication of policy (even admitting that reactions could've/should/ve been faster) and the the rate of opening up of the economy/society is about right.
I can imagine there are a lot of countries, the US not the least, who'd love to be in the UK's position at this point.
Thoughts?
Fair enough, though I do wonder how those would look on a logarithmic y-axis.
We know from
that infections are stable. 2200 per day or so, for England.
What we are seeing in the cases numbers, is that we are finding more and more cases, as the testing and tracing gets better.
My overall reaction to these three sets of graphs is that the UK should be relatively pleased with where they are on COVID - deaths at really manageable levels (while recognizing each death is a tragedy and we would like there to be none), slowly rising infections showing perhaps very early signs of leveling off, and no parallels between the first wave and the current increase in terms of steepness or shape of curve.
I'd see it a reasonable vindication of policy (even admitting that reactions could've/should/ve been faster) and the the rate of opening up of the economy/society is about right.
I can imagine there are a lot of countries, the US not the least, who'd love to be in the UK's position at this point.
Thoughts?
Fair enough, though I do wonder how those would look on a logarithmic y-axis.
One thing you need to consider is that the cases around March and April are off by at least an order of magnitude from the real number of infections at the time, we are catching for more of the infections now than we were then. So whatever graph you plot is going to be misleading. As indeed are all the graphs you see about COVID-19, as nobody is detecting every infection.
Or, we may be catching a lot of people who have minor traces of the virus (enough to trigger a positive in one of the PCR tests (if you cycle around enough times).
Like surely, if you think Trump is going to win but you want a bit of insurance Trump +48.5 EC votes @1.68 is a better bet that Trump @2.02?
No - I don`t believe in insurance. Biden is going to win. Full steam ahead.
Yay.
I have bought EC supremacy at 28 for enough to not tell the wife.
Good luck.
I've got a bet with HYUFD that essentially Biden will win by 74 or more electoral college votes. What do you think of that?
I think you will win that bet. But you legged him over with 3/1 odds so you should be upright and offer to void it.
The current round of rioting is a complicating factor, increasing uncertainty of the outcome.
Certainly, Kenosha has enabled Trump to bash on about law and order with his base, and Trump is the only point of enthusiasm in this election.
But that is not a straightforward win for Trump - because for each uptick in enthusiasm he creates in his base, he causes a similar uptick in enthusiasm for voting against him, regardless of Biden being his opponent.
Personally, I expect - the Black vote to return to or even exceed the levels that Obama managed to turn out - the female vote to be extremely high, and more anti-Trump than ever - the Establishment GOP vote to be down or even turn Biden - Trump's core base to turn out big time.
This leads me to expect a big, but not perhaps huge, win for Biden, but with a high degree of uncertainty about that prediction. I think 70-100 EC win is about right.
Why do you think the Black vote is going to return to Obama levels or even exceed? There has been clear signs in the polls that Trump is picking up some support vs 2016. The murder rate has also gone up massively in a lot of the inner cities. Why is that going to make someone Black think "I must vote Biden"?
Re the Establishment GOP, they don't like Trump as much as ever but there is a fair few of them who were disgusted by the treatment of Kavanaugh. I suspect they will hold their noses.
I suspect there will be a lot more like this 2016 Trump voter:
"After losing two friends to COVID-19, Primus wishes the President would be a little more responsible about public health guidelines. (“Put a mask on in public appearances—just put it on!”) And she rolls her eyes at Trump’s penchant for outrageous statements. “Don’t compare this to golf, are you serious?” she says, referring to Trump’s comment that the officer who shot Blake “choked” like a golfer missing a tap-in putt. She shakes her head, as if she were scolding a dog who just can’t stop chewing on shoes.
Still, Primus says she will reluctantly vote for Trump again in November. She believes the Democrats have gone too far left, and opposes what she sees as the “anger” of the anti-Trump movement. “People didn’t like Trump getting elected, and they categorized anybody who voted for him, they called us racist and homophobic,” she says. “I feel like this campaign has been all about not liking Trump.”
Today’s polling does seem likely to shift the narrative somewhat.
Most likely, Trump did get a bit of a convention bounce (I am on record saying it was real), but it has proved to be the usual froth.
Interesting how the two polls today showing a big Biden lead are the Guardian and the Economist.
And some of the state polling goes against the national ones - Trump +7% in Georgia, +2 in North Carolina and Biden 3% ahead in PA. Not what you would expect if Biden's lead is widening.
My overall reaction to these three sets of graphs is that the UK should be relatively pleased with where they are on COVID - deaths at really manageable levels (while recognizing each death is a tragedy and we would like there to be none), slowly rising infections showing perhaps very early signs of leveling off, and no parallels between the first wave and the current increase in terms of steepness or shape of curve.
I'd see it a reasonable vindication of policy (even admitting that reactions could've/should/ve been faster) and the the rate of opening up of the economy/society is about right.
I can imagine there are a lot of countries, the US not the least, who'd love to be in the UK's position at this point.
Thoughts?
Fair enough, though I do wonder how those would look on a logarithmic y-axis.
We know from
that infections are stable. 2200 per day or so, for England.
What we are seeing in the cases numbers, is that we are finding more and more cases, as the testing and tracing gets better.
Oh good, thanks for that!
If the ONS plan to increase their weekly COVID survey to 1 in 400 of the population, or nearly 200 people per constituency, comes off, an extraordinary aim but in the hands of the ONS, why not?, that could be such an unbelievably useful final piece in the jigsaw to know almost exactly what is happening.
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
IIRC it was done that way by a Conservative government to secure special privileges for the City of London. But that was a bit before myt time.
It was also a convenient excuse fior overfishing/a whipping boy when conservation measures came in, eas it not?
And some of the fishermen had done their bit to share it out by selling their rights to non-UK nationals.
There's also the fact that fish swim around while oil stays put. This means that heavy fishing in one area can deplete the stocks in another, hence the need for a common fisheries policy.
Everyone (sensible anyway) agrees with the fact that there is a common interest in managing fish stocks
There are fundamental disagreements on how to do that
And the CFP is horribly adverse to U.K. interests - it was where Heath was legged over but accepted it as the price of getting a deal done on EC entry IIRC
CFP came later than the Heath deal. Mrs T was at the helm by then, see this take on the matter (which is not quite what is portrayed in Brexiter discourse)
I believe that when the U.K., Ireland, Denmark, and Norway applied to join the EU in the early 70’s the concept of the CFP was created toute suite by the original 6 as they eyed the vast waters that would now enter the EU. Norway voted not to join, partially as a consequence of what I’m sure they saw as a pretty naked grab for natural resources, that the four applicants had a lot of that the six didn’t.
Heath, swallowed it as the price of membership, and it has been a stone in the shoe ever since out of all proportion to the actual economic value (eg Mr Geldof and his meeting with fisher folk on the Thames a few days before the 2016 referendum as an example of how this whole thing as lingered like a bad smell ever since 1973).
If the EEC six had had an iota of sense they would’ve left well alone, but frankly they could resist.
Imagine if France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal were applying to join a Hanseatic league of Germany, Benelux, Denmark, and the U.K. and we dreamt up a common wine policy on the grounds the applicants had lots and we had very little, and proceeded to dish out the rights to the Loire Valley, Bordeaux, Rioja etc amongst us. I suspect that might’ve annoyed the French a tad for the past fifty years, and well beyond its monetary worth.
What goes around and all that....
Very well said.
And that is why Barnier in his still naked partisan attempt to cling on to what his forebears grabbed is on a hiding to nothing.
It is worth remembering too that if we do exit No Deal on 31/12 then that is it for the European fishermen he is negotiating on behalf. Their rights to fish in our waters expire overnight and like Iceland we would have exclusive rights to fish in our sovereign waters.
Today’s polling does seem likely to shift the narrative somewhat.
Most likely, Trump did get a bit of a convention bounce (I am on record saying it was real), but it has proved to be the usual froth.
Interesting how the two polls today showing a big Biden lead are the Guardian and the Economist.
And some of the state polling goes against the national ones - Trump +7% in Georgia, +2 in North Carolina and Biden 3% ahead in PA. Not what you would expect if Biden's lead is widening.
Biden's lead is definitely narrowing. But the narrowing is almost entirely the consequence of Trump picking up WNV/DKs. That's a trend that I would expect to see continue through to polling day.
However, unless the polls are not just understating Trump (which is a fair bet), but also over-estimating Biden, then it's still a very tough ask for Trump. Simply, if Biden clears 50% on the day, I simply can't see Trump winning.
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
That's what I've been saying for a long time. Trump is America's Corbyn and people are making the same mistakes in logic now as they were in 2019.
The media were living in a bubble in 2016 and their response since then has been largely to continue living in the same bubble. People who tried to report from outside it, like Andrew Sullivan, have been excommunicated.
The bubble that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump?
There's absolutely no evidence that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump...oh.
I thought we'd got beyond the 'Clinton really won', shtick.
I mean, if we actually want Trump to lose this time..
The point was about popularity. Would you say the 2016 vote indicated Clinton was more popular, less popular or about as popular as Trump in the USA?
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
That's what I've been saying for a long time. Trump is America's Corbyn and people are making the same mistakes in logic now as they were in 2019.
The media were living in a bubble in 2016 and their response since then has been largely to continue living in the same bubble. People who tried to report from outside it, like Andrew Sullivan, have been excommunicated.
The bubble that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump?
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
IIRC it was done that way by a Conservative government to secure special privileges for the City of London. But that was a bit before myt time.
It was also a convenient excuse fior overfishing/a whipping boy when conservation measures came in, eas it not?
And some of the fishermen had done their bit to share it out by selling their rights to non-UK nationals.
There's also the fact that fish swim around while oil stays put. This means that heavy fishing in one area can deplete the stocks in another, hence the need for a common fisheries policy.
Everyone (sensible anyway) agrees with the fact that there is a common interest in managing fish stocks
There are fundamental disagreements on how to do that
And the CFP is horribly adverse to U.K. interests - it was where Heath was legged over but accepted it as the price of getting a deal done on EC entry IIRC
CFP came later than the Heath deal. Mrs T was at the helm by then, see this take on the matter (which is not quite what is portrayed in Brexiter discourse)
I believe that when the U.K., Ireland, Denmark, and Norway applied to join the EU in the early 70’s the concept of the CFP was created toute suite by the original 6 as they eyed the vast waters that would now enter the EU. Norway voted not to join, partially as a consequence of what I’m sure they saw as a pretty naked grab for natural resources, that the four applicants had a lot of that the six didn’t.
Heath, swallowed it as the price of membership, and it has been a stone in the shoe ever since out of all proportion to the actual economic value (eg Mr Geldof and his meeting with fisher folk on the Thames a few days before the 2016 referendum as an example of how this whole thing as lingered like a bad smell ever since 1973).
If the EEC six had had an iota of sense they would’ve left well alone, but frankly they could resist.
Imagine if France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal were applying to join a Hanseatic league of Germany, Benelux, Denmark, and the U.K. and we dreamt up a common wine policy on the grounds the applicants had lots and we had very little, and proceeded to dish out the rights to the Loire Valley, Bordeaux, Rioja etc amongst us. I suspect that might’ve annoyed the French a tad for the past fifty years, and well beyond its monetary worth.
What goes around and all that....
Very well said.
And that is why Barnier in his still naked partisan attempt to cling on to what his forebears grabbed is on a hiding to nothing.
It is worth remembering too that if we do exit No Deal on 31/12 then that is it for the European fishermen he is negotiating on behalf. Their rights to fish in our waters expire overnight and like Iceland we would have exclusive rights to fish in our sovereign waters.
With no markets to sell them in...
Why? Are the EU going to become like North Korea and close themselves off from all world trade?
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
IIRC it was done that way by a Conservative government to secure special privileges for the City of London. But that was a bit before myt time.
It was also a convenient excuse fior overfishing/a whipping boy when conservation measures came in, eas it not?
And some of the fishermen had done their bit to share it out by selling their rights to non-UK nationals.
There's also the fact that fish swim around while oil stays put. This means that heavy fishing in one area can deplete the stocks in another, hence the need for a common fisheries policy.
Everyone (sensible anyway) agrees with the fact that there is a common interest in managing fish stocks
There are fundamental disagreements on how to do that
And the CFP is horribly adverse to U.K. interests - it was where Heath was legged over but accepted it as the price of getting a deal done on EC entry IIRC
CFP came later than the Heath deal. Mrs T was at the helm by then, see this take on the matter (which is not quite what is portrayed in Brexiter discourse)
I believe that when the U.K., Ireland, Denmark, and Norway applied to join the EU in the early 70’s the concept of the CFP was created toute suite by the original 6 as they eyed the vast waters that would now enter the EU. Norway voted not to join, partially as a consequence of what I’m sure they saw as a pretty naked grab for natural resources, that the four applicants had a lot of that the six didn’t.
Heath, swallowed it as the price of membership, and it has been a stone in the shoe ever since out of all proportion to the actual economic value (eg Mr Geldof and his meeting with fisher folk on the Thames a few days before the 2016 referendum as an example of how this whole thing as lingered like a bad smell ever since 1973).
If the EEC six had had an iota of sense they would’ve left well alone, but frankly they could resist.
Imagine if France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal were applying to join a Hanseatic league of Germany, Benelux, Denmark, and the U.K. and we dreamt up a common wine policy on the grounds the applicants had lots and we had very little, and proceeded to dish out the rights to the Loire Valley, Bordeaux, Rioja etc amongst us. I suspect that might’ve annoyed the French a tad for the past fifty years, and well beyond its monetary worth.
What goes around and all that....
Very well said.
And that is why Barnier in his still naked partisan attempt to cling on to what his forebears grabbed is on a hiding to nothing.
It is worth remembering too that if we do exit No Deal on 31/12 then that is it for the European fishermen he is negotiating on behalf. Their rights to fish in our waters expire overnight and like Iceland we would have exclusive rights to fish in our sovereign waters.
With no markets to sell them in...
Maybe a barter system, prosecco and Beemers for lobster tails?
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
That's what I've been saying for a long time. Trump is America's Corbyn and people are making the same mistakes in logic now as they were in 2019.
The media were living in a bubble in 2016 and their response since then has been largely to continue living in the same bubble. People who tried to report from outside it, like Andrew Sullivan, have been excommunicated.
The bubble that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump?
There's absolutely no evidence that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump...oh.
I thought we'd got beyond the 'Clinton really won', shtick.
I mean, if we actually want Trump to lose this time..
The point was about popularity. Would you say the 2016 vote indicated Clinton was more popular, less popular or about as popular as Trump in the USA?
Trump was leading the popular vote until California came in, so yes Clinton was more popular overall but it was mainly because of her popularity in the West where she held every Obama state, in the South and North East she lost 1 state in each that Obama won, in the MidWest she was loathed losing 4 states Obama won
Today’s polling does seem likely to shift the narrative somewhat.
Most likely, Trump did get a bit of a convention bounce (I am on record saying it was real), but it has proved to be the usual froth.
Interesting how the two polls today showing a big Biden lead are the Guardian and the Economist.
And some of the state polling goes against the national ones - Trump +7% in Georgia, +2 in North Carolina and Biden 3% ahead in PA. Not what you would expect if Biden's lead is widening.
Biden's lead is definitely narrowing. But the narrowing is almost entirely the consequence of Trump picking up WNV/DKs. That's a trend that I would expect to see continue through to polling day.
However, unless the polls are not just understating Trump (which is a fair bet), but also over-estimating Biden, then it's still a very tough ask for Trump. Simply, if Biden clears 50% on the day, I simply can't see Trump winning.
Huge Biden wins in New York, California and Illinois - and Trump only winning Texas by a small margin - still leaves a route open for Trump to be much closer in the battleground states. So, the election in a nutshell: the States that hate Trump REALLY hate Trump. Those where they are lukewarm might still go for him, over a weak Democrat candidate.
Putin to me resembles a gangster more than he does a politician. I just do not understand the attraction. These "Strongman" leaders who are all the rage these days, they seem to validate and celebrate everything that is worst in human nature. Possessiveness. Narcissism. Spite. Vengefulness. Primitive views on race and gender. You name it, they exhibit it and feed it. Such a downer that so many of them are prospering and fouling up the place. 3/11 will, I hope and expect, strike a much needed blow the other way.
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
That's what I've been saying for a long time. Trump is America's Corbyn and people are making the same mistakes in logic now as they were in 2019.
The media were living in a bubble in 2016 and their response since then has been largely to continue living in the same bubble. People who tried to report from outside it, like Andrew Sullivan, have been excommunicated.
The bubble that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump?
There's absolutely no evidence that Clinton was a more popular candidate than Trump...oh.
I thought we'd got beyond the 'Clinton really won', shtick.
I mean, if we actually want Trump to lose this time..
The point was about popularity. Would you say the 2016 vote indicated Clinton was more popular, less popular or about as popular as Trump in the USA?
Trump was leading the popular vote until California came in, so yes Clinton was more popular overall but it was mainly because of her popularity in the West where she held every Obama state, in the South and North East she lost 1 state in each that Obama won, in the MidWest she was loathed losing 4 states Obama won
So Clinton a more popular candidate than Trump in the USA? Thanks for confirming.
"And yet, this human cost was “market forces” when it was the provinces declining toward despair while the cities flourished. Globalisation has winners and losers, we were told; to make an omelette you have to break eggs. So you’d think there might be the odd voice arguing that shifting some of London’s talent and spending power out to live in the provinces is at least a plausible tradeoff."
Today’s polling does seem likely to shift the narrative somewhat.
Most likely, Trump did get a bit of a convention bounce (I am on record saying it was real), but it has proved to be the usual froth.
Interesting how the two polls today showing a big Biden lead are the Guardian and the Economist.
And some of the state polling goes against the national ones - Trump +7% in Georgia, +2 in North Carolina and Biden 3% ahead in PA. Not what you would expect if Biden's lead is widening.
*Biden's lead is definitely narrowing*. But the narrowing is almost entirely the consequence of Trump picking up WNV/DKs. That's a trend that I would expect to see continue through to polling day.
However, unless the polls are not just understating Trump (which is a fair bet), but also over-estimating Biden, then it's still a very tough ask for Trump. Simply, if Biden clears 50% on the day, I simply can't see Trump winning.
"I KNEW I'd seen the look before. It's every sniper movie you've ever seen - that mix of stone-cold desperation and murderous resolve the moment before said sniper gets his enemy in the crosshairs of a high-powered rifle and squeezes the trigger. And it was etched all over Boris's face today so rattled was he by Keir Starmer's cross-examination at Prime Minister's Questions. And with good reason. Starmer was at his lawyerly best. He is no Jeremy Corbyn, bungling and haphazard, whose only role at PMQs often seemed to be the add hitherto unsuspected levels of ridiculousness. No, Starmer is used to holding court in a very literal sense, of owning a room, and he used it to impressive effect today. He kicked off with what he correctly termed the “exams fiasco” grilling Boris on when exactly he knew the now infamous Ofqual algorithm wasn't fit for purpose. His point, and it was not an unreasonable one, was that the Prime Minister either knew about the exam shambles and did nothing about it or didn't know about the exam shambles. Neither of these positions are especially good for a PM. Boris shamelessly dodged the question with a mix of bluster and magician's feint – hoping we'd look elsewhere. (In fact the usually unflappable Lancastrian speaker Lyndsay Hoyle pulled the PM up on question dodging). No matter. Starmer was not to be conned and simply repeated the question, in textbook barrister style, to highlight the fact the accused was indeed failing to come up with an answer. The soundbites were easy and plentiful. Boris had a “tin ear” for criticism, this was the a “wasted Summer” of “serial incompetence” and the Labour leader even quoted one of Boris's own MP's as saying “it is mess after mess, god knows what's going on.” Boris could only glare furiously from across the despatch box. To give you some idea of just how rattled the Prime Minster was his ill-tempered response to Starmer's barbs was not jovial Boris knock-backs but a series of rambling and slightly incoherent accusations that the Labour leader was an EU-backing Remainer (true, but irrelevant) and that he was an IRA sympathiser. It came across as desperate stuff. Starmer spent five years in Northern Ireland prosecuting high-ranking members of the IRA... a fact he studiously, if slightly over-gleefully, pointed out."
Today’s polling does seem likely to shift the narrative somewhat.
Most likely, Trump did get a bit of a convention bounce (I am on record saying it was real), but it has proved to be the usual froth.
Interesting how the two polls today showing a big Biden lead are the Guardian and the Economist.
And some of the state polling goes against the national ones - Trump +7% in Georgia, +2 in North Carolina and Biden 3% ahead in PA. Not what you would expect if Biden's lead is widening.
*Biden's lead is definitely narrowing*. But the narrowing is almost entirely the consequence of Trump picking up WNV/DKs. That's a trend that I would expect to see continue through to polling day.
However, unless the polls are not just understating Trump (which is a fair bet), but also over-estimating Biden, then it's still a very tough ask for Trump. Simply, if Biden clears 50% on the day, I simply can't see Trump winning.
According to RCP, it's started widening again.
The RCP average today has Biden up 7.1% in the national popular vote 49.4% to 42.3% for Trump but Biden only ahead 2.5% in the key battleground states of Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Florida 48% to 45.5% for Trump
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
IIRC it was done that way by a Conservative government to secure special privileges for the City of London. But that was a bit before myt time.
It was also a convenient excuse fior overfishing/a whipping boy when conservation measures came in, eas it not?
And some of the fishermen had done their bit to share it out by selling their rights to non-UK nationals.
There's also the fact that fish swim around while oil stays put. This means that heavy fishing in one area can deplete the stocks in another, hence the need for a common fisheries policy.
Everyone (sensible anyway) agrees with the fact that there is a common interest in managing fish stocks
There are fundamental disagreements on how to do that
And the CFP is horribly adverse to U.K. interests - it was where Heath was legged over but accepted it as the price of getting a deal done on EC entry IIRC
CFP came later than the Heath deal. Mrs T was at the helm by then, see this take on the matter (which is not quite what is portrayed in Brexiter discourse)
I believe that when the U.K., Ireland, Denmark, and Norway applied to join the EU in the early 70’s the concept of the CFP was created toute suite by the original 6 as they eyed the vast waters that would now enter the EU. Norway voted not to join, partially as a consequence of what I’m sure they saw as a pretty naked grab for natural resources, that the four applicants had a lot of that the six didn’t.
Heath, swallowed it as the price of membership, and it has been a stone in the shoe ever since out of all proportion to the actual economic value (eg Mr Geldof and his meeting with fisher folk on the Thames a few days before the 2016 referendum as an example of how this whole thing as lingered like a bad smell ever since 1973).
If the EEC six had had an iota of sense they would’ve left well alone, but frankly they could resist.
Imagine if France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal were applying to join a Hanseatic league of Germany, Benelux, Denmark, and the U.K. and we dreamt up a common wine policy on the grounds the applicants had lots and we had very little, and proceeded to dish out the rights to the Loire Valley, Bordeaux, Rioja etc amongst us. I suspect that might’ve annoyed the French a tad for the past fifty years, and well beyond its monetary worth.
What goes around and all that....
Very well said.
And that is why Barnier in his still naked partisan attempt to cling on to what his forebears grabbed is on a hiding to nothing.
It is worth remembering too that if we do exit No Deal on 31/12 then that is it for the European fishermen he is negotiating on behalf. Their rights to fish in our waters expire overnight and like Iceland we would have exclusive rights to fish in our sovereign waters.
Today’s polling does seem likely to shift the narrative somewhat.
Most likely, Trump did get a bit of a convention bounce (I am on record saying it was real), but it has proved to be the usual froth.
Interesting how the two polls today showing a big Biden lead are the Guardian and the Economist.
And some of the state polling goes against the national ones - Trump +7% in Georgia, +2 in North Carolina and Biden 3% ahead in PA. Not what you would expect if Biden's lead is widening.
*Biden's lead is definitely narrowing*. But the narrowing is almost entirely the consequence of Trump picking up WNV/DKs. That's a trend that I would expect to see continue through to polling day.
However, unless the polls are not just understating Trump (which is a fair bet), but also over-estimating Biden, then it's still a very tough ask for Trump. Simply, if Biden clears 50% on the day, I simply can't see Trump winning.
According to RCP, it's started widening again.
The RCP average today has Biden up 7.1% in the national popular vote 49.4% to 42.3% for Trump but Biden only ahead 2.5% in the key battleground states of Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Florida 48% to 45.5% for Trump
It is worth remembering, however, that if you'd done "top battleground states" for 2016, you would have had Nevada, New Hampshire and Colorado in there - as those had been very close states in 2012. You wouldn't have had Wisconsin or Michigan.
So, it is dangerous to assume that the states that are vulnerable to flipping are just the ones that were very competitive last time around. It's possible - but unlikely - that Biden ends up losing the Midwest again, perhaps including Minnesota, but flips Texas and Arizona.
"I KNEW I'd seen the look before. It's every sniper movie you've ever seen - that mix of stone-cold desperation and murderous resolve the moment before said sniper gets his enemy in the crosshairs of a high-powered rifle and squeezes the trigger. And it was etched all over Boris's face today so rattled was he by Keir Starmer's cross-examination at Prime Minister's Questions. And with good reason. Starmer was at his lawyerly best. He is no Jeremy Corbyn, bungling and haphazard, whose only role at PMQs often seemed to be the add hitherto unsuspected levels of ridiculousness. No, Starmer is used to holding court in a very literal sense, of owning a room, and he used it to impressive effect today. He kicked off with what he correctly termed the “exams fiasco” grilling Boris on when exactly he knew the now infamous Ofqual algorithm wasn't fit for purpose. His point, and it was not an unreasonable one, was that the Prime Minister either knew about the exam shambles and did nothing about it or didn't know about the exam shambles. Neither of these positions are especially good for a PM. Boris shamelessly dodged the question with a mix of bluster and magician's feint – hoping we'd look elsewhere. (In fact the usually unflappable Lancastrian speaker Lyndsay Hoyle pulled the PM up on question dodging). No matter. Starmer was not to be conned and simply repeated the question, in textbook barrister style, to highlight the fact the accused was indeed failing to come up with an answer. The soundbites were easy and plentiful. Boris had a “tin ear” for criticism, this was the a “wasted Summer” of “serial incompetence” and the Labour leader even quoted one of Boris's own MP's as saying “it is mess after mess, god knows what's going on.” Boris could only glare furiously from across the despatch box. To give you some idea of just how rattled the Prime Minster was his ill-tempered response to Starmer's barbs was not jovial Boris knock-backs but a series of rambling and slightly incoherent accusations that the Labour leader was an EU-backing Remainer (true, but irrelevant) and that he was an IRA sympathiser. It came across as desperate stuff. Starmer spent five years in Northern Ireland prosecuting high-ranking members of the IRA... a fact he studiously, if slightly over-gleefully, pointed out."
Accurate description and it is now upto the backbenchers to start sending in their letters
Today’s polling does seem likely to shift the narrative somewhat.
Most likely, Trump did get a bit of a convention bounce (I am on record saying it was real), but it has proved to be the usual froth.
Interesting how the two polls today showing a big Biden lead are the Guardian and the Economist.
And some of the state polling goes against the national ones - Trump +7% in Georgia, +2 in North Carolina and Biden 3% ahead in PA. Not what you would expect if Biden's lead is widening.
*Biden's lead is definitely narrowing*. But the narrowing is almost entirely the consequence of Trump picking up WNV/DKs. That's a trend that I would expect to see continue through to polling day.
However, unless the polls are not just understating Trump (which is a fair bet), but also over-estimating Biden, then it's still a very tough ask for Trump. Simply, if Biden clears 50% on the day, I simply can't see Trump winning.
According to RCP, it's started widening again.
Bit early to say its widening just yet I would say. Another few days of polls might support or show this to be a slight bump for Biden. My gut is there has been a slight narrowing but the polls have been so steady for months its going to take something huge to make a clear break. As stated Biden's share is stable and generally very near or over 50% in national and battleground states. That is not great for Trump if the polls are right, he will need to persuade current Biden supporters to switch or stay home. With enthusiasm for Biden growing in the last few weeks (up to 48% from 28% since March, Trump on 65%) that might be a bit hard to achieve.
"I KNEW I'd seen the look before. It's every sniper movie you've ever seen - that mix of stone-cold desperation and murderous resolve the moment before said sniper gets his enemy in the crosshairs of a high-powered rifle and squeezes the trigger. And it was etched all over Boris's face today so rattled was he by Keir Starmer's cross-examination at Prime Minister's Questions. And with good reason. Starmer was at his lawyerly best. He is no Jeremy Corbyn, bungling and haphazard, whose only role at PMQs often seemed to be the add hitherto unsuspected levels of ridiculousness. No, Starmer is used to holding court in a very literal sense, of owning a room, and he used it to impressive effect today. He kicked off with what he correctly termed the “exams fiasco” grilling Boris on when exactly he knew the now infamous Ofqual algorithm wasn't fit for purpose. His point, and it was not an unreasonable one, was that the Prime Minister either knew about the exam shambles and did nothing about it or didn't know about the exam shambles. Neither of these positions are especially good for a PM. Boris shamelessly dodged the question with a mix of bluster and magician's feint – hoping we'd look elsewhere. (In fact the usually unflappable Lancastrian speaker Lyndsay Hoyle pulled the PM up on question dodging). No matter. Starmer was not to be conned and simply repeated the question, in textbook barrister style, to highlight the fact the accused was indeed failing to come up with an answer. The soundbites were easy and plentiful. Boris had a “tin ear” for criticism, this was the a “wasted Summer” of “serial incompetence” and the Labour leader even quoted one of Boris's own MP's as saying “it is mess after mess, god knows what's going on.” Boris could only glare furiously from across the despatch box. To give you some idea of just how rattled the Prime Minster was his ill-tempered response to Starmer's barbs was not jovial Boris knock-backs but a series of rambling and slightly incoherent accusations that the Labour leader was an EU-backing Remainer (true, but irrelevant) and that he was an IRA sympathiser. It came across as desperate stuff. Starmer spent five years in Northern Ireland prosecuting high-ranking members of the IRA... a fact he studiously, if slightly over-gleefully, pointed out."
"T his is a Leader of the Opposition,” squawked the Pri me Minister wildly, “who backed re maining in the EU!”
MPs looked at each other. No one had mentioned Brexit. The subject was education. There was an air of bemusement, even concern, as if the Prime Minister had just announced that he was the reincarnation of Rameses III, and intended to live on the moon with a sheep called Clive.
Gently the Speaker attempted to jog Mr Johnson’s memory. “There are questions being asked,” he explained. “We do need to try and answer them.”''
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
IIRC it was done that way by a Conservative government to secure special privileges for the City of London. But that was a bit before myt time.
It was also a convenient excuse fior overfishing/a whipping boy when conservation measures came in, eas it not?
And some of the fishermen had done their bit to share it out by selling their rights to non-UK nationals.
There's also the fact that fish swim around while oil stays put. This means that heavy fishing in one area can deplete the stocks in another, hence the need for a common fisheries policy.
Everyone (sensible anyway) agrees with the fact that there is a common interest in managing fish stocks
There are fundamental disagreements on how to do that
And the CFP is horribly adverse to U.K. interests - it was where Heath was legged over but accepted it as the price of getting a deal done on EC entry IIRC
CFP came later than the Heath deal. Mrs T was at the helm by then, see this take on the matter (which is not quite what is portrayed in Brexiter discourse)
I believe that when the U.K., Ireland, Denmark, and Norway applied to join the EU in the early 70’s the concept of the CFP was created toute suite by the original 6 as they eyed the vast waters that would now enter the EU. Norway voted not to join, partially as a consequence of what I’m sure they saw as a pretty naked grab for natural resources, that the four applicants had a lot of that the six didn’t.
Heath, swallowed it as the price of membership, and it has been a stone in the shoe ever since out of all proportion to the actual economic value (eg Mr Geldof and his meeting with fisher folk on the Thames a few days before the 2016 referendum as an example of how this whole thing as lingered like a bad smell ever since 1973).
If the EEC six had had an iota of sense they would’ve left well alone, but frankly they could resist.
Imagine if France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal were applying to join a Hanseatic league of Germany, Benelux, Denmark, and the U.K. and we dreamt up a common wine policy on the grounds the applicants had lots and we had very little, and proceeded to dish out the rights to the Loire Valley, Bordeaux, Rioja etc amongst us. I suspect that might’ve annoyed the French a tad for the past fifty years, and well beyond its monetary worth.
What goes around and all that....
Very well said.
And that is why Barnier in his still naked partisan attempt to cling on to what his forebears grabbed is on a hiding to nothing.
It is worth remembering too that if we do exit No Deal on 31/12 then that is it for the European fishermen he is negotiating on behalf. Their rights to fish in our waters expire overnight and like Iceland we would have exclusive rights to fish in our sovereign waters.
With no markets to sell them in...
No fleet to catch them with.
So you're saying there's a growth area of investment potential here? Potential new jobs and exports for our balance of trade?
Presumably you're all for it then?
You clearly aren't think through the garbage that you're writing.
Putin to me resembles a gangster more than he does a politician. I just do not understand the attraction. These "Strongman" leaders who are all the rage these days, they seem to validate and celebrate everything that is worst in human nature. Possessiveness. Narcissism. Spite. Vengefulness. Primitive views on race and gender. You name it, they exhibit it and feed it. Such a downer that so many of them are prospering and fouling up the place. 3/11 will, I hope and expect, strike a much needed blow the other way.
Today’s polling does seem likely to shift the narrative somewhat.
Most likely, Trump did get a bit of a convention bounce (I am on record saying it was real), but it has proved to be the usual froth.
Interesting how the two polls today showing a big Biden lead are the Guardian and the Economist.
And some of the state polling goes against the national ones - Trump +7% in Georgia, +2 in North Carolina and Biden 3% ahead in PA. Not what you would expect if Biden's lead is widening.
*Biden's lead is definitely narrowing*. But the narrowing is almost entirely the consequence of Trump picking up WNV/DKs. That's a trend that I would expect to see continue through to polling day.
However, unless the polls are not just understating Trump (which is a fair bet), but also over-estimating Biden, then it's still a very tough ask for Trump. Simply, if Biden clears 50% on the day, I simply can't see Trump winning.
According to RCP, it's started widening again.
The RCP average today has Biden up 7.1% in the national popular vote 49.4% to 42.3% for Trump but Biden only ahead 2.5% in the key battleground states of Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Florida 48% to 45.5% for Trump
It is worth remembering, however, that if you'd done "top battleground states" for 2016, you would have had Nevada, New Hampshire and Colorado in there - as those had been very close states in 2012. You wouldn't have had Wisconsin or Michigan.
So, it is dangerous to assume that the states that are vulnerable to flipping are just the ones that were very competitive last time around. It's possible - but unlikely - that Biden ends up losing the Midwest again, perhaps including Minnesota, but flips Texas and Arizona.
Equally, Biden doesn't need to be up by 5% in the battleground states, or even 2%. Just 0.1% on the poll that matters is enough. And he doesn't even need to achieve that in all of them.
Personally, I cannot see Nevada, NH, Colorado or Minnesota as being anywhere near competitive for Trump this time. If anything, I think they have shifted more into Biden's corner ...
I wonder if anyone had him in the pool? I'm surprised somewhat that's not been resolved yet, rather shows this hasn't been as bad a virus as some had feared.
Today’s polling does seem likely to shift the narrative somewhat.
Most likely, Trump did get a bit of a convention bounce (I am on record saying it was real), but it has proved to be the usual froth.
Interesting how the two polls today showing a big Biden lead are the Guardian and the Economist.
And some of the state polling goes against the national ones - Trump +7% in Georgia, +2 in North Carolina and Biden 3% ahead in PA. Not what you would expect if Biden's lead is widening.
*Biden's lead is definitely narrowing*. But the narrowing is almost entirely the consequence of Trump picking up WNV/DKs. That's a trend that I would expect to see continue through to polling day.
However, unless the polls are not just understating Trump (which is a fair bet), but also over-estimating Biden, then it's still a very tough ask for Trump. Simply, if Biden clears 50% on the day, I simply can't see Trump winning.
According to RCP, it's started widening again.
Bit early to say its widening just yet I would say. Another few days of polls might support or show this to be a slight bump for Biden. My gut is there has been a slight narrowing but the polls have been so steady for months its going to take something huge to make a clear break. As stated Biden's share is stable and generally very near or over 50% in national and battleground states. That is not great for Trump if the polls are right, he will need to persuade current Biden supporters to switch or stay home. With enthusiasm for Biden growing in the last few weeks (up to 48% from 28% since March, Trump on 65%) that might be a bit hard to achieve.
Sure, I was just challenging Robert's use of the word definitely. Seems overly emphatic seeing as RCP shows it widening in the near term.
"And yet, this human cost was “market forces” when it was the provinces declining toward despair while the cities flourished. Globalisation has winners and losers, we were told; to make an omelette you have to break eggs. So you’d think there might be the odd voice arguing that shifting some of London’s talent and spending power out to live in the provinces is at least a plausible tradeoff."
"And yet, this human cost was “market forces” when it was the provinces declining toward despair while the cities flourished. Globalisation has winners and losers, we were told; to make an omelette you have to break eggs. So you’d think there might be the odd voice arguing that shifting some of London’s talent and spending power out to live in the provinces is at least a plausible tradeoff."
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
IIRC it was done that way by a Conservative government to secure special privileges for the City of London. But that was a bit before myt time.
It was also a convenient excuse fior overfishing/a whipping boy when conservation measures came in, eas it not?
And some of the fishermen had done their bit to share it out by selling their rights to non-UK nationals.
There's also the fact that fish swim around while oil stays put. This means that heavy fishing in one area can deplete the stocks in another, hence the need for a common fisheries policy.
Everyone (sensible anyway) agrees with the fact that there is a common interest in managing fish stocks
There are fundamental disagreements on how to do that
And the CFP is horribly adverse to U.K. interests - it was where Heath was legged over but accepted it as the price of getting a deal done on EC entry IIRC
CFP came later than the Heath deal. Mrs T was at the helm by then, see this take on the matter (which is not quite what is portrayed in Brexiter discourse)
I believe that when the U.K., Ireland, Denmark, and Norway applied to join the EU in the early 70’s the concept of the CFP was created toute suite by the original 6 as they eyed the vast waters that would now enter the EU. Norway voted not to join, partially as a consequence of what I’m sure they saw as a pretty naked grab for natural resources, that the four applicants had a lot of that the six didn’t.
Heath, swallowed it as the price of membership, and it has been a stone in the shoe ever since out of all proportion to the actual economic value (eg Mr Geldof and his meeting with fisher folk on the Thames a few days before the 2016 referendum as an example of how this whole thing as lingered like a bad smell ever since 1973).
If the EEC six had had an iota of sense they would’ve left well alone, but frankly they could resist.
Imagine if France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal were applying to join a Hanseatic league of Germany, Benelux, Denmark, and the U.K. and we dreamt up a common wine policy on the grounds the applicants had lots and we had very little, and proceeded to dish out the rights to the Loire Valley, Bordeaux, Rioja etc amongst us. I suspect that might’ve annoyed the French a tad for the past fifty years, and well beyond its monetary worth.
What goes around and all that....
Very well said.
And that is why Barnier in his still naked partisan attempt to cling on to what his forebears grabbed is on a hiding to nothing.
It is worth remembering too that if we do exit No Deal on 31/12 then that is it for the European fishermen he is negotiating on behalf. Their rights to fish in our waters expire overnight and like Iceland we would have exclusive rights to fish in our sovereign waters.
With no markets to sell them in...
No fleet to catch them with.
So you're saying there's a growth area of investment potential here? Potential new jobs and exports for our balance of trade?
Presumably you're all for it then?
You clearly aren't think through the garbage that you're writing.
You seem a bit angry. I am sure we will have built the shipyards to build the ships to catch the fish by the time the queues at Dover have thinned out enough for us to send them to market. 2033, then. Good to see brexit in such competent hands, well done!
Comments
I have posted these before; they are well worth a read:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B006LLOCII/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o07?ie=UTF8&psc=1
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B006654U9U/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o08?ie=UTF8&psc=1
https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781137029355
I've got a bet with HYUFD that essentially Biden will win by 74 or more electoral college votes. What do you think of that?
Still chasing on what is happening with the low level Scottish data.
Still chasing on what is happening with the low level Scottish data.
The difference though is they became flashpoints that became riots and then stopped. In America the shooting and abuse doesn't stop. The discriminat and injustices within Britain are nothing remotely as serious as the systemic abuse and killings in America.
If black British people were getting shot and killed by the British cops every week then I think you'd see a lot more of that style of riot, but thankfully we're not America. It goes without saying but America is America. The fuel for the fire of the anger burns a lot more in America as a result.
Bit like what happened with the betting on our GE.
Could be nonsense but I don’t have any better theory.
Surely time for wise heads to clean up in this market?
"Of the 1797 persons who had recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1107 of the 1215 who were tested (91.1%) were seropositive; antiviral antibody titers assayed by two pan-Ig assays increased during 2 months after diagnosis by qPCR and remained on a plateau for the remainder of the study."
"CONCLUSIONS
"Our results indicate that antiviral antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 did not decline within 4 months after diagnosis."
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2026116
So essentially Trump's built-in EC advantage means that 3 points should be deducted from Biden's national lead to get the 'true' figure.
Basically, Biden needs to be 5% clear nationally to be safe:
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1301190941110341632?s=19
Trump 241
Biden 297
That's a EC supremacy of 18. (or is it 36?)
My overall reaction to these three sets of graphs is that the UK should be relatively pleased with where they are on COVID - deaths at really manageable levels (while recognizing each death is a tragedy and we would like there to be none), slowly rising infections showing perhaps very early signs of leveling off, and no parallels between the first wave and the current increase in terms of steepness or shape of curve.
I'd see it a reasonable vindication of policy (even admitting that reactions could've/should/ve been faster) and the the rate of opening up of the economy/society is about right.
I can imagine there are a lot of countries, the US not the least, who'd love to be in the UK's position at this point.
Thoughts?
Certainly, Kenosha has enabled Trump to bash on about law and order with his base, and Trump is the only point of enthusiasm in this election.
But that is not a straightforward win for Trump - because for each uptick in enthusiasm he creates in his base, he causes a similar uptick in enthusiasm for voting against him, regardless of Biden being his opponent.
Personally, I expect
- the Black vote to return to or even exceed the levels that Obama managed to turn out
- the female vote to be extremely high, and more anti-Trump than ever
- the Establishment GOP vote to be down or even turn Biden
- Trump's core base to turn out big time.
This leads me to expect a big, but not perhaps huge, win for Biden, but with a high degree of uncertainty about that prediction. I think 70-100 EC win is about right.
The only reason I can think of is Donald Trump, and it was a cause to champion to break lockdown and overspill frustration with endless Covid.
Most likely, Trump did get a bit of a convention bounce (I am on record saying it was real), but it has proved to be the usual froth.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1301146599834484742?s=20
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1301148844370153472?s=20
I wrote a thread header on here suggesting my own ideas.
that infections are stable. 2200 per day or so, for England.
What we are seeing in the cases numbers, is that we are finding more and more cases, as the testing and tracing gets better.
I mean, if we actually want Trump to lose this time..
https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/1301100414947987462
See: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/coronavirus-cases-are-mounting-but-deaths-remain-stable-why-
Re the Establishment GOP, they don't like Trump as much as ever but there is a fair few of them who were disgusted by the treatment of Kavanaugh. I suspect they will hold their noses.
Take a look at this:
https://time.com/5885442/kenosha-jacob-blake-donald-trump/
I suspect there will be a lot more like this 2016 Trump voter:
"After losing two friends to COVID-19, Primus wishes the President would be a little more responsible about public health guidelines. (“Put a mask on in public appearances—just put it on!”) And she rolls her eyes at Trump’s penchant for outrageous statements. “Don’t compare this to golf, are you serious?” she says, referring to Trump’s comment that the officer who shot Blake “choked” like a golfer missing a tap-in putt. She shakes her head, as if she were scolding a dog who just can’t stop chewing on shoes.
Still, Primus says she will reluctantly vote for Trump again in November. She believes the Democrats have gone too far left, and opposes what she sees as the “anger” of the anti-Trump movement. “People didn’t like Trump getting elected, and they categorized anybody who voted for him, they called us racist and homophobic,” she says. “I feel like this campaign has been all about not liking Trump.”
You are mistaking the client for the pollster.
However, unless the polls are not just understating Trump (which is a fair bet), but also over-estimating Biden, then it's still a very tough ask for Trump. Simply, if Biden clears 50% on the day, I simply can't see Trump winning.
Seems unlikely to me.
https://twitter.com/ExStrategist/status/1301151862960381954?s=20
Yes, on here too.
I don't hold out much hope.
"And yet, this human cost was “market forces” when it was the provinces declining toward despair while the cities flourished. Globalisation has winners and losers, we were told; to make an omelette you have to break eggs. So you’d think there might be the odd voice arguing that shifting some of London’s talent and spending power out to live in the provinces is at least a plausible tradeoff."
https://unherd.com/2020/09/the-commuters-are-revolting/
https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1301206632295215107?s=20
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02483-2
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1330470/prime-ministers-questions-PMQs-Boris-Johnson-keir-starmer-exams-brexit
"I KNEW I'd seen the look before. It's every sniper movie you've ever seen - that mix of stone-cold desperation and murderous resolve the moment before said sniper gets his enemy in the crosshairs of a high-powered rifle and squeezes the trigger. And it was etched all over Boris's face today so rattled was he by Keir Starmer's cross-examination at Prime Minister's Questions. And with good reason. Starmer was at his lawyerly best. He is no Jeremy Corbyn, bungling and haphazard, whose only role at PMQs often seemed to be the add hitherto unsuspected levels of ridiculousness. No, Starmer is used to holding court in a very literal sense, of owning a room, and he used it to impressive effect today.
He kicked off with what he correctly termed the “exams fiasco” grilling Boris on when exactly he knew the now infamous Ofqual algorithm wasn't fit for purpose.
His point, and it was not an unreasonable one, was that the Prime Minister either knew about the exam shambles and did nothing about it or didn't know about the exam shambles. Neither of these positions are especially good for a PM. Boris shamelessly dodged the question with a mix of bluster and magician's feint – hoping we'd look elsewhere. (In fact the usually unflappable Lancastrian speaker Lyndsay Hoyle pulled the PM up on question dodging). No matter. Starmer was not to be conned and simply repeated the question, in textbook barrister style, to highlight the fact the accused was indeed failing to come up with an answer. The soundbites were easy and plentiful. Boris had a “tin ear” for criticism, this was the a “wasted Summer” of “serial incompetence” and the Labour leader even quoted one of Boris's own MP's as saying “it is mess after mess, god knows what's going on.” Boris could only glare furiously from across the despatch box. To give you some idea of just how rattled the Prime Minster was his ill-tempered response to Starmer's barbs was not jovial Boris knock-backs but a series of rambling and slightly incoherent accusations that the Labour leader was an EU-backing Remainer (true, but irrelevant) and that he was an IRA sympathiser. It came across as desperate stuff. Starmer spent five years in Northern Ireland prosecuting high-ranking members of the IRA... a fact he studiously, if slightly over-gleefully, pointed out."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states/
So, it is dangerous to assume that the states that are vulnerable to flipping are just the ones that were very competitive last time around. It's possible - but unlikely - that Biden ends up losing the Midwest again, perhaps including Minnesota, but flips Texas and Arizona.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1301208407236587530?s=20
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1301209785262657536?s=20
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1301210877635559425?s=20
This cannot go on
As stated Biden's share is stable and generally very near or over 50% in national and battleground states. That is not great for Trump if the polls are right, he will need to persuade current Biden supporters to switch or stay home. With enthusiasm for Biden growing in the last few weeks (up to 48% from 28% since March, Trump on 65%) that might be a bit hard to achieve.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/02/boris-johnson-has-got-raise-game-pmqs-total-shamblies/
"T his is a Leader of the Opposition,” squawked the Pri me Minister wildly, “who backed re maining in the EU!”
MPs looked at each other. No one had mentioned Brexit. The subject was education. There was an air of bemusement, even concern, as if the Prime Minister had just announced that he was the reincarnation of Rameses III, and intended to live on the moon with a sheep called Clive.
Gently the Speaker attempted to jog Mr Johnson’s memory. “There are questions being asked,” he explained. “We do need to try and answer them.”''
The Express
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1330313/tory-leader-boris-johnson-next-conservative-party-leader-uk-coronavirus-a-levels
Presumably you're all for it then?
You clearly aren't think through the garbage that you're writing.
Personally, I cannot see Nevada, NH, Colorado or Minnesota as being anywhere near competitive for Trump this time. If anything, I think they have shifted more into Biden's corner ...
I can't think of anyone not saying that. Maybe Mr CHB?
NEW THREAD