Of course the Evening Standard has a financial incentive to get people back on the Tube. That's how they get the bulk of their readership. They're not a disinterested party here, nor are they serving their readers, they're putting themselves first. Ignore them.
Very good point. Some huge percentage of their print circulation is handed out at Waterloo and Paddington.
Its a great idea to let some ISIS nutter know that people at the top of our Government travel on the tube.
Couldn't they reconstruct a tube scene on a move set like they did in Darkest Hour? That would be some meta shit, a fake film starring Churchill's biggest fanboi, echoing a dramatisation of a made up historical event.
Oh and as for amputations I am not a doctor but my understanding was they're only done if necessary and if they are necessary then delaying them is not normally a good idea.
Delaying the end of transition serves no purpose whatsoever it just drags out any so called pain and makes it worse. Get on with it and get over with it already.
Yet the surgeon has to be sure that the patient can cope with the shock of the amputation in the current situation - which covers matters such as infectious disease, etc.
For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Not only that but the pandemic makes delaying even more fruitless than it ever was.
If there is going to be a disruption then getting it over and done with while we are already disrupted is entirely logical. If there's going to be issues at the border then doing it while the border is quiet is logical.
What is the purpose of delay? If there's still going to be disruption anyway what purpose does it serve to get through COVID19, get border traffic back up to normal and THEN to have the disruption? It's illogical.
You lot are funny. I am about to have open heart surgery so while I'm in there I might as well have a liver transplant and my right leg amputated.
If you need a heart and liver transplant then they can happen simultaneously. It's very rare but combined transplants do indeed happen.
What about the amputation?
I mean listen to yourself.
We're about to go through an event which will cause a world of pain so let's put ourselves through two events which will cause a world of pain. Do you think we will still only get one set of world of pain?
It's like those investors who forget that just because a stock has gone down by 90% doesn't mean it can't go down by another 90%.
Listen to yourself first. What is the purpose of delaying this so called world of pain?
What you really mean is you want to cancel it. You don't want it in the first place. But you're not saying that, so you're talking of delay instead.
What advantage does delaying, not cancelling, your so called world of pain serve? How are people best served by going through not just one but two disruptions?
Be honest and say you want Brexit cancelled even though that debate is lost. Delaying is absolutely pointless. It would make the pain dragged out and worse not better.
I don't really know how to say this without seeming to be offensive, but actuall, nope there is no way.
Philip, you are a moron.
Soz but sometimes you just have to call it as it is.
I don't want to cancel Brexit. I didn't want it in the first place but you know, democracy and all that, so we have Brexited (don't forget).
What I do think is lunacy of the first order is the absurd fixation on this date or that. Can you remember or do you know the month that we joined? No of course you don't because we were reaching a settlement which was to stand for the next several decades. It's the same thing now. This settlement will set us up for the next generation or five. But no. It has to be done by January. Why not a six or 12-month delay? What on earth is the rush?
Fixed dates are artificial, but to argue that there is no cost to delay is also nonsense. Uncertainty costs hugely in terms of investment and adaptation. The longer it is prolonged, the greater the cost.
Presumably you can admit that much, and we can agree that there should be urgency, even if we abandon artificial deadlines.
The problem, with both sides playing chicken, how do we generate that urgency without deadlines which people take seriously?
Of course the Evening Standard has a financial incentive to get people back on the Tube. That's how they get the bulk of their readership. They're not a disinterested party here, nor are they serving their readers, they're putting themselves first. Ignore them.
Very good point. Some huge percentage of their print circulation is handed out at Waterloo and Paddington.
Its a great idea to let some ISIS nutter know that people at the top of our Government travel on the tube.
Couldn't they reconstruct a tube scene on a move set like they did in Darkest Hour? That would be some meta shit, a fake film echoing a dramatisation of a made up historical event, starring Churchill's biggest fanboi.
The logical consequence would be Isles of Todday-style reconstructed on film sets for Mr J's next Scottish holiday, complete with amiably subservient "locals" who won't do a porridge factory on him, but notably lacking midges.
Fixed dates are artificial, but to argue that there is no cost to delay is also nonsense. Uncertainty costs hugely in terms of investment and adaptation. The longer it is prolonged, the greater the cost.
Presumably you can admit that much, and we can agree that there should be urgency, even if we abandon artificial deadlines.
The problem, with both sides playing chicken, how do we generate that urgency without deadlines which people take seriously?
Take out Covid and, despite huge reservations about the preparedness of the UK govt as described by @Richard_Nabavi earlier, then of course, no point in delaying unnecessarily.
But Covid.
We are going through one epochal exogenous shock to our system. So let's have another one along for the ride. Madness. Let us get back to steady state/trend growth or at least put some distance between the Covid fallout, and then yes, get on with it.
I want to use them, but I neither like nor trust them.
I've never had any problems with them, but there are alternatives: I expect SpreadEx will also put up markets soon, and there's also Star Spreads, although I've only used them once.
Fat chance of them giving up the chauffeur driven limos
Besides which, this presupposes that terror of the Tube is the main problem here and that this can be solved by politicians doing photo-ops on it. In point of fact, you would've thought that commuting was being held back by the fact that so many people like working from home much or all of the time, that they don't want to hand their money over to TfL or shitty commuter train operators, that socially distanced offices can only handle a fraction of their former capacity, and that if everyone tried to get back on public transport again then they'd have to queue for hours and hours to do each leg of the journey, again because social distancing.
Oh, and FWIW, I reckon people being jammed in like sardines on these horrible disgusting trains was probably the single biggest source of transmission in the early phase of the pandemic, which goes a long way to explaining why London got clobbered so hard. Turning the clock back would therefore seem to be the pinnacle of stupidity.
A huge number of people in politics and media, most of whom probably live in Kensington or Islington, seem to think that people living further out enjoy the commute, and can’t wait to lose three or four hours out of their day compared to working from home.
Meanwhile, those actually working from home are quite happy to set their alarm for 8:30, and not pay out a four-figure sum every month on travel, food and drinks. Their employers are happy enough not paying a four-figure sum every month for an expensive office desk and all the infrastructure that goes around it.
Yet again we are tending to the all or nothing.
The nine-to-five is dead.
The office is certainly not dead.
Blended working will become the new normal, eventually.
Yes, the likely end point is a combination of home working and team working. The team working doesn’t necessarily take place in central London though.
Of course the Evening Standard has a financial incentive to get people back on the Tube. That's how they get the bulk of their readership. They're not a disinterested party here, nor are they serving their readers, they're putting themselves first. Ignore them.
Very good point. Some huge percentage of their print circulation is handed out at Waterloo and Paddington.
Its a great idea to let some ISIS nutter know that people at the top of our Government travel on the tube.
Couldn't they reconstruct a tube scene on a move set like they did in Darkest Hour? That would be some meta shit, a fake film echoing a dramatisation of a made up historical event, starring Churchill's biggest fanboi.
The logical consequence would be Isles of Todday-style reconstructed on film sets for Mr J's next Scottish holiday, complete with amiably subservient "locals" who won't do a porridge factory on him, but notably lacking midges.
Grizzled local, possibly played by an aged up Lozza Fox.
'Well mo ghràidh, we're all proud Hebrideans here, but we're also proud Britons and we think you're doing a chust marvellous chob!'
He did this yesterday over HS2 in PMQs as well. He bends to the slightest criticism as he can't stand the idea he might make an unpopular decision and that someone might not like Boris.
That's not what being a PM is about.
Hes adaptable which is good, but without some spine it can easily become a bad thing and adaptability becomes never sticking to anything. There needs to be a better balance between idiot stubbornness and idiot capriciousness.
For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Not only that but the pandemic makes delaying even more fruitless than it ever was.
If there is going to be a disruption then getting it over and done with while we are already disrupted is entirely logical. If there's going to be issues at the border then doing it while the border is quiet is logical.
What is the purpose of delay? If there's still going to be disruption anyway what purpose does it serve to get through COVID19, get border traffic back up to normal and THEN to have the disruption? It's illogical.
You lot are funny. I am about to have open heart surgery so while I'm in there I might as well have a liver transplant and my right leg amputated.
If you need a heart and liver transplant then they can happen simultaneously. It's very rare but combined transplants do indeed happen.
What about the amputation?
I mean listen to yourself.
We're about to go through an event which will cause a world of pain so let's put ourselves through two events which will cause a world of pain. Do you think we will still only get one set of world of pain?
It's like those investors who forget that just because a stock has gone down by 90% doesn't mean it can't go down by another 90%.
Listen to yourself first. What is the purpose of delaying this so called world of pain?
What you really mean is you want to cancel it. You don't want it in the first place. But you're not saying that, so you're talking of delay instead.
What advantage does delaying, not cancelling, your so called world of pain serve? How are people best served by going through not just one but two disruptions?
Be honest and say you want Brexit cancelled even though that debate is lost. Delaying is absolutely pointless. It would make the pain dragged out and worse not better.
I don't really know how to say this without seeming to be offensive, but actuall, nope there is no way.
Philip, you are a moron.
Soz but sometimes you just have to call it as it is.
I don't want to cancel Brexit. I didn't want it in the first place but you know, democracy and all that, so we have Brexited (don't forget).
What I do think is lunacy of the first order is the absurd fixation on this date or that. Can you remember or do you know the month that we joined? No of course you don't because we were reaching a settlement which was to stand for the next several decades. It's the same thing now. This settlement will set us up for the next generation or five. But no. It has to be done by January. Why not a six or 12-month delay? What on earth is the rush?
Fixed dates are artificial, but to argue that there is no cost to delay is also nonsense. Uncertainty costs hugely in terms of investment and adaptation. The longer it is prolonged, the greater the cost.
Presumably you can admit that much, and we can agree that there should be urgency, even if we abandon artificial deadlines.
The problem, with both sides playing chicken, how do we generate that urgency without deadlines which people take seriously?
Having the admin and logistical systems in place (you know, the ones the UK needs even if it gets the kind of deal it wants) seems like a good place to start.
Otherwise the UK government looks like a bunch of clueless chancers who might well have to fold at the last minute because (short of becoming Pirate Island) they are don't have the practical capability for stepping out into a glorious new future, even if they want to.
Fat chance of them giving up the chauffeur driven limos
Besides which, this presupposes that terror of the Tube is the main problem here and that this can be solved by politicians doing photo-ops on it. In point of fact, you would've thought that commuting was being held back by the fact that so many people like working from home much or all of the time, that they don't want to hand their money over to TfL or shitty commuter train operators, that socially distanced offices can only handle a fraction of their former capacity, and that if everyone tried to get back on public transport again then they'd have to queue for hours and hours to do each leg of the journey, again because social distancing.
Oh, and FWIW, I reckon people being jammed in like sardines on these horrible disgusting trains was probably the single biggest source of transmission in the early phase of the pandemic, which goes a long way to explaining why London got clobbered so hard. Turning the clock back would therefore seem to be the pinnacle of stupidity.
A huge number of people in politics and media, most of whom probably live in Kensington or Islington, seem to think that people living further out enjoy the commute, and can’t wait to lose three or four hours out of their day compared to working from home.
Meanwhile, those actually working from home are quite happy to set their alarm for 8:30, and not pay out a four-figure sum every month on travel, food and drinks. Their employers are happy enough not paying a four-figure sum every month for an expensive office desk and all the infrastructure that goes around it.
Yet again we are tending to the all or nothing.
The nine-to-five is dead.
The office is certainly not dead.
Blended working will become the new normal, eventually.
Yes, the likely end point is a combination of home working and team working. The team working doesn’t necessarily take place in central London though.
It should be part of the training for everyone in Whitehall, that if the guy across the road has a camera that looks like this, he’s not a tourist looking at the scenery.
For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Not only that but the pandemic makes delaying even more fruitless than it ever was.
If there is going to be a disruption then getting it over and done with while we are already disrupted is entirely logical. If there's going to be issues at the border then doing it while the border is quiet is logical.
What is the purpose of delay? If there's still going to be disruption anyway what purpose does it serve to get through COVID19, get border traffic back up to normal and THEN to have the disruption? It's illogical.
You lot are funny. I am about to have open heart surgery so while I'm in there I might as well have a liver transplant and my right leg amputated.
If you need a heart and liver transplant then they can happen simultaneously. It's very rare but combined transplants do indeed happen.
What about the amputation?
I mean listen to yourself.
We're about to go through an event which will cause a world of pain so let's put ourselves through two events which will cause a world of pain. Do you think we will still only get one set of world of pain?
It's like those investors who forget that just because a stock has gone down by 90% doesn't mean it can't go down by another 90%.
Listen to yourself first. What is the purpose of delaying this so called world of pain?
What you really mean is you want to cancel it. You don't want it in the first place. But you're not saying that, so you're talking of delay instead.
What advantage does delaying, not cancelling, your so called world of pain serve? How are people best served by going through not just one but two disruptions?
Be honest and say you want Brexit cancelled even though that debate is lost. Delaying is absolutely pointless. It would make the pain dragged out and worse not better.
I don't really know how to say this without seeming to be offensive, but actuall, nope there is no way.
Philip, you are a moron.
Soz but sometimes you just have to call it as it is.
I don't want to cancel Brexit. I didn't want it in the first place but you know, democracy and all that, so we have Brexited (don't forget).
What I do think is lunacy of the first order is the absurd fixation on this date or that. Can you remember or do you know the month that we joined? No of course you don't because we were reaching a settlement which was to stand for the next several decades. It's the same thing now. This settlement will set us up for the next generation or five. But no. It has to be done by January. Why not a six or 12-month delay? What on earth is the rush?
Fixed dates are artificial, but to argue that there is no cost to delay is also nonsense. Uncertainty costs hugely in terms of investment and adaptation. The longer it is prolonged, the greater the cost.
Presumably you can admit that much, and we can agree that there should be urgency, even if we abandon artificial deadlines.
The problem, with both sides playing chicken, how do we generate that urgency without deadlines which people take seriously?
Having the admin and logistical systems in place (you know, the ones the UK needs even if it gets the kind of deal it wants) seems like a good place to start.
Otherwise the UK government looks like a bunch of clueless chancers who might well have to fold at the last minute because (short of becoming Pirate Island) they are don't have the practical capability for stepping out into a glorious new future, even if they want to.
It should be part of the training for everyone in Whitehall, that if the guy across the road has a camera that looks like this, he’s not a tourist looking at the scenery.
He wouldn't get enough steadiness to get typeface without at least a monopod on that lens....
For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Alternatively, he has no choice. He can't afford to be the apostate, the weakling who Betrayed Brexit By Blinking Before Barnier.
How does the proverb about riding a tiger go?
The man who would ride anything discovers it's the tiger who does the riding?
It's always extremely informative, illuminating and convincing to see a discussion between three people who have exactly the same view on the topic.
For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Alternatively, he has no choice. He can't afford to be the apostate, the weakling who Betrayed Brexit By Blinking Before Barnier.
How does the proverb about riding a tiger go?
The man who would ride anything discovers it's the tiger who does the riding?
It's always extremely informative, illuminating and convincing to see a discussion between three people who have exactly the same view on the topic.
But do you not see the question is what the tiger actually is from Mr Johnson's point of view? It's not as if something nasty would objectively happen to him if he fell off.
It should be part of the training for everyone in Whitehall, that if the guy across the road has a camera that looks like this, he’s not a tourist looking at the scenery.
He wouldn't get enough steadiness to get typeface without at least a monopod on that lens....
My rule of thumb is that the shutter speed needs to be faster than the focal length of the lens but yes a monopod would be something of an advantage even with a L-series IS lens.
Look at what’s outside Downing St on a daily basis, most of these will be zoom L-series lenses like 100-400mm, able to get both a 3/4 shot of a minister or a closeup of their papers.
So we can either take this as a Republican-biased outlier or...
It's an internal poll. I treat this with the same contempt I treat internal Dem polls.
Minnesota definitely looks to be leaning republican, I expect Biden will hold mind. At any rate team Joe knows it needs to play defense here unlike Wisconsin 2016, ignored by the Clinton campaign.
Out of a sudden bout of nervousness induced by finding out the Robby fucking Mook is heading the DNC Congressional campaign strategy I have started looking up who the senior staff on the Biden campaign are.
I have been greatly relaxed by finding it is basically the Obama "battle ground" leadership team promoted up a notch.
It should be part of the training for everyone in Whitehall, that if the guy across the road has a camera that looks like this, he’s not a tourist looking at the scenery.
He wouldn't get enough steadiness to get typeface without at least a monopod on that lens....
My rule of thumb is that the shutter speed needs to be faster than the focal length of the lens but yes a monopod would be something of an advantage even with a L-series IS lens.
Look at what’s outside Downing St on a daily basis, most of these will be zoom L-series lenses like 100-400mm, able to get both a 3/4 shot of a minister or a closeup of their papers.
The technical term for this type of lens is "Big Doobry".
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Not only that but the pandemic makes delaying even more fruitless than it ever was.
If there is going to be a disruption then getting it over and done with while we are already disrupted is entirely logical. If there's going to be issues at the border then doing it while the border is quiet is logical.
What is the purpose of delay? If there's still going to be disruption anyway what purpose does it serve to get through COVID19, get border traffic back up to normal and THEN to have the disruption? It's illogical.
You lot are funny. I am about to have open heart surgery so while I'm in there I might as well have a liver transplant and my right leg amputated.
If you need a heart and liver transplant then they can happen simultaneously. It's very rare but combined transplants do indeed happen.
What about the amputation?
I mean listen to yourself.
We're about to go through an event which will cause a world of pain so let's put ourselves through two events which will cause a world of pain. Do you think we will still only get one set of world of pain?
It's like those investors who forget that just because a stock has gone down by 90% doesn't mean it can't go down by another 90%.
Listen to yourself first. What is the purpose of delaying this so called world of pain?
What you really mean is you want to cancel it. You don't want it in the first place. But you're not saying that, so you're talking of delay instead.
What advantage does delaying, not cancelling, your so called world of pain serve? How are people best served by going through not just one but two disruptions?
Be honest and say you want Brexit cancelled even though that debate is lost. Delaying is absolutely pointless. It would make the pain dragged out and worse not better.
I don't really know how to say this without seeming to be offensive, but actuall, nope there is no way.
Philip, you are a moron.
Soz but sometimes you just have to call it as it is.
I don't want to cancel Brexit. I didn't want it in the first place but you know, democracy and all that, so we have Brexited (don't forget).
What I do think is lunacy of the first order is the absurd fixation on this date or that. Can you remember or do you know the month that we joined? No of course you don't because we were reaching a settlement which was to stand for the next several decades. It's the same thing now. This settlement will set us up for the next generation or five. But no. It has to be done by January. Why not a six or 12-month delay? What on earth is the rush?
I'm sorry to say this, but I'm not a moron - you have missed the point entirely. The point has gone over your head.
You seem to think the issue is the date. It isn't. The date is irrelevant. I could not care less about the date. To be absolutely unambiguous if there is a good reason to have a delay then lets have one. But if there is not, then a delay only drags out the harm and uncertainty and makes matters worse.
So your asking why not delay is the wrong question. You're asking me to prove a negative. The issue isn't why not delay, the issue is why delay? To which not good answer has been provided.
A good reason to delay would be if Barnier and Frost said something along the lines of "talks are going well, we've reached compromises on key areas, but we need more time to finalise the agreement and get it ratified". If they said that then 100% I would support an extension.
But instead the reality is talks are stalled not because of time but because of a failure to compromise. Delaying doesn't resolve that issue, it just gives both parties an excuse to drag this out and entrench their positions further. If an agreement can be reached there is no excuse not to compromise now and reach it.
For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Not only that but the pandemic makes delaying even more fruitless than it ever was.
If there is going to be a disruption then getting it over and done with while we are already disrupted is entirely logical. If there's going to be issues at the border then doing it while the border is quiet is logical.
What is the purpose of delay? If there's still going to be disruption anyway what purpose does it serve to get through COVID19, get border traffic back up to normal and THEN to have the disruption? It's illogical.
You lot are funny. I am about to have open heart surgery so while I'm in there I might as well have a liver transplant and my right leg amputated.
If you need a heart and liver transplant then they can happen simultaneously. It's very rare but combined transplants do indeed happen.
What about the amputation?
I mean listen to yourself.
We're about to go through an event which will cause a world of pain so let's put ourselves through two events which will cause a world of pain. Do you think we will still only get one set of world of pain?
It's like those investors who forget that just because a stock has gone down by 90% doesn't mean it can't go down by another 90%.
Listen to yourself first. What is the purpose of delaying this so called world of pain?
What you really mean is you want to cancel it. You don't want it in the first place. But you're not saying that, so you're talking of delay instead.
What advantage does delaying, not cancelling, your so called world of pain serve? How are people best served by going through not just one but two disruptions?
Be honest and say you want Brexit cancelled even though that debate is lost. Delaying is absolutely pointless. It would make the pain dragged out and worse not better.
I don't really know how to say this without seeming to be offensive, but actuall, nope there is no way.
Philip, you are a moron.
Soz but sometimes you just have to call it as it is.
I don't want to cancel Brexit. I didn't want it in the first place but you know, democracy and all that, so we have Brexited (don't forget).
What I do think is lunacy of the first order is the absurd fixation on this date or that. Can you remember or do you know the month that we joined? No of course you don't because we were reaching a settlement which was to stand for the next several decades. It's the same thing now. This settlement will set us up for the next generation or five. But no. It has to be done by January. Why not a six or 12-month delay? What on earth is the rush?
Fixed dates are artificial, but to argue that there is no cost to delay is also nonsense. Uncertainty costs hugely in terms of investment and adaptation. The longer it is prolonged, the greater the cost.
Presumably you can admit that much, and we can agree that there should be urgency, even if we abandon artificial deadlines.
The problem, with both sides playing chicken, how do we generate that urgency without deadlines which people take seriously?
Having the admin and logistical systems in place (you know, the ones the UK needs even if it gets the kind of deal it wants) seems like a good place to start.
Otherwise the UK government looks like a bunch of clueless chancers who might well have to fold at the last minute because (short of becoming Pirate Island) they are don't have the practical capability for stepping out into a glorious new future, even if they want to.
For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Not only that but the pandemic makes delaying even more fruitless than it ever was.
If there is going to be a disruption then getting it over and done with while we are already disrupted is entirely logical. If there's going to be issues at the border then doing it while the border is quiet is logical.
What is the purpose of delay? If there's still going to be disruption anyway what purpose does it serve to get through COVID19, get border traffic back up to normal and THEN to have the disruption? It's illogical.
You lot are funny. I am about to have open heart surgery so while I'm in there I might as well have a liver transplant and my right leg amputated.
If you need a heart and liver transplant then they can happen simultaneously. It's very rare but combined transplants do indeed happen.
What about the amputation?
I mean listen to yourself.
We're about to go through an event which will cause a world of pain so let's put ourselves through two events which will cause a world of pain. Do you think we will still only get one set of world of pain?
It's like those investors who forget that just because a stock has gone down by 90% doesn't mean it can't go down by another 90%.
Listen to yourself first. What is the purpose of delaying this so called world of pain?
What you really mean is you want to cancel it. You don't want it in the first place. But you're not saying that, so you're talking of delay instead.
What advantage does delaying, not cancelling, your so called world of pain serve? How are people best served by going through not just one but two disruptions?
Be honest and say you want Brexit cancelled even though that debate is lost. Delaying is absolutely pointless. It would make the pain dragged out and worse not better.
I don't really know how to say this without seeming to be offensive, but actuall, nope there is no way.
Philip, you are a moron.
Soz but sometimes you just have to call it as it is.
I don't want to cancel Brexit. I didn't want it in the first place but you know, democracy and all that, so we have Brexited (don't forget).
What I do think is lunacy of the first order is the absurd fixation on this date or that. Can you remember or do you know the month that we joined? No of course you don't because we were reaching a settlement which was to stand for the next several decades. It's the same thing now. This settlement will set us up for the next generation or five. But no. It has to be done by January. Why not a six or 12-month delay? What on earth is the rush?
I'm sorry to say this, but I'm not a moron - you have missed the point entirely. The point has gone over your head.
You seem to think the issue is the date. It isn't. The date is irrelevant. I could not care less about the date. To be absolutely unambiguous if there is a good reason to have a delay then lets have one. But if there is not, then a delay only drags out the harm and uncertainty and makes matters worse.
So your asking why not delay is the wrong question. You're asking me to prove a negative. The issue isn't why not delay, the issue is why delay? To which not good answer has been provided.
A good reason to delay would be if Barnier and Frost said something along the lines of "talks are going well, we've reached compromises on key areas, but we need more time to finalise the agreement and get it ratified". If they said that then 100% I would support an extension.
But instead the reality is talks are stalled not because of time but because of a failure to compromise. Delaying doesn't resolve that issue, it just gives both parties an excuse to drag this out and entrench their positions further. If an agreement can be reached there is no excuse not to compromise now and reach it.
So you don't think that Covid is or should be a factor in the timings at all?
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona takes Biden to a tie, Nebraska 2nd congressional district becomes the tiebreaker in that scenario if no other states are taken.
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
It has more of the type of voters that Trump appeals to. "Left behind" voters. I think it'll be the state that decides the election overall.
Both the Economist model and the fivethirtyeight model allow you to download the results. With a bit of data munging you can get the probability which the model assigns to each possible ECV total. As at now, and assuming I've done my calculations correctly, fair values for the Biden ECV total according to the two models are:
Economist: 334 538: 318
Probability of Biden's total being less than the current Buy price of 284:
Economist: 18% 538: 36%
So, a clear buy if you trust the models, with a reasonable margin.
I'm on!
This is not investment advice. Do your own research. Spread betting is very risky. You might lose your shirt etc etc.
The latest update on the total number of remaining Covid patients in hospital in the UK is 799. It's beginning to look like the number may be levelling off rather than continuing its gradual decline, although I would add that (a) some strange things went on with the reporting over the Bank Holiday period, so perhaps now we've got that out of the way the trend could yet resume; and (b) the Scottish number, as a proportion of the total, remains improbably high.
On the latter point, the latest possible explanation I've read is that the Scottish hospital statistics may be suffering from the same quirk that previously applied to the English death statistics - i.e. that anybody admitted to hospital in Scotland who has ever been tested positive for Covid-19 is being reported as a Covid patient, regardless of whether or not they're actually suffering from the disease when they arrive. This would certainly help to explain why Scotland accounts for about 8% of the general population but 33% of all the remaining Covid patients!
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
It has more of the type of voters that Trump appeals to. "Left behind" voters. I think it'll be the state that decides the election overall.
It was close last time though. If a few more previously disenchanted Dems turn out, that could be that.
For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Not only that but the pandemic makes delaying even more fruitless than it ever was.
If there is going to be a disruption then getting it over and done with while we are already disrupted is entirely logical. If there's going to be issues at the border then doing it while the border is quiet is logical.
What is the purpose of delay? If there's still going to be disruption anyway what purpose does it serve to get through COVID19, get border traffic back up to normal and THEN to have the disruption? It's illogical.
You lot are funny. I am about to have open heart surgery so while I'm in there I might as well have a liver transplant and my right leg amputated.
If you need a heart and liver transplant then they can happen simultaneously. It's very rare but combined transplants do indeed happen.
What about the amputation?
I mean listen to yourself.
We're about to go through an event which will cause a world of pain so let's put ourselves through two events which will cause a world of pain. Do you think we will still only get one set of world of pain?
It's like those investors who forget that just because a stock has gone down by 90% doesn't mean it can't go down by another 90%.
Listen to yourself first. What is the purpose of delaying this so called world of pain?
What you really mean is you want to cancel it. You don't want it in the first place. But you're not saying that, so you're talking of delay instead.
What advantage does delaying, not cancelling, your so called world of pain serve? How are people best served by going through not just one but two disruptions?
Be honest and say you want Brexit cancelled even though that debate is lost. Delaying is absolutely pointless. It would make the pain dragged out and worse not better.
I don't really know how to say this without seeming to be offensive, but actuall, nope there is no way.
Philip, you are a moron.
Soz but sometimes you just have to call it as it is.
I don't want to cancel Brexit. I didn't want it in the first place but you know, democracy and all that, so we have Brexited (don't forget).
What I do think is lunacy of the first order is the absurd fixation on this date or that. Can you remember or do you know the month that we joined? No of course you don't because we were reaching a settlement which was to stand for the next several decades. It's the same thing now. This settlement will set us up for the next generation or five. But no. It has to be done by January. Why not a six or 12-month delay? What on earth is the rush?
I'm sorry to say this, but I'm not a moron - you have missed the point entirely. The point has gone over your head.
You seem to think the issue is the date. It isn't. The date is irrelevant. I could not care less about the date. To be absolutely unambiguous if there is a good reason to have a delay then lets have one. But if there is not, then a delay only drags out the harm and uncertainty and makes matters worse.
So your asking why not delay is the wrong question. You're asking me to prove a negative. The issue isn't why not delay, the issue is why delay? To which not good answer has been provided.
A good reason to delay would be if Barnier and Frost said something along the lines of "talks are going well, we've reached compromises on key areas, but we need more time to finalise the agreement and get it ratified". If they said that then 100% I would support an extension.
But instead the reality is talks are stalled not because of time but because of a failure to compromise. Delaying doesn't resolve that issue, it just gives both parties an excuse to drag this out and entrench their positions further. If an agreement can be reached there is no excuse not to compromise now and reach it.
So you don't think that Covid is or should be a factor in the timings at all?
It should be a factor yes. Its an extra reason not to do a pointless and harmful delay dragging out the pain and uncertainty.
If it was a case of COVID had meant talks hadn't occurred and Frost wanted more time then yes, of course delay. But the talks have continued throughout and have long since reached an impasse. The impasse isn't because of COVID, it is because of a failure to compromise and that is not a good enough reason to delay.
Fat chance of them giving up the chauffeur driven limos
Besides which, this presupposes that terror of the Tube is the main problem here and that this can be solved by politicians doing photo-ops on it. In point of fact, you would've thought that commuting was being held back by the fact that so many people like working from home much or all of the time, that they don't want to hand their money over to TfL or shitty commuter train operators, that socially distanced offices can only handle a fraction of their former capacity, and that if everyone tried to get back on public transport again then they'd have to queue for hours and hours to do each leg of the journey, again because social distancing.
Oh, and FWIW, I reckon people being jammed in like sardines on these horrible disgusting trains was probably the single biggest source of transmission in the early phase of the pandemic, which goes a long way to explaining why London got clobbered so hard. Turning the clock back would therefore seem to be the pinnacle of stupidity.
A huge number of people in politics and media, most of whom probably live in Kensington or Islington, seem to think that people living further out enjoy the commute, and can’t wait to lose three or four hours out of their day compared to working from home.
Meanwhile, those actually working from home are quite happy to set their alarm for 8:30, and not pay out a four-figure sum every month on travel, food and drinks. Their employers are happy enough not paying a four-figure sum every month for an expensive office desk and all the infrastructure that goes around it.
Who would still be sleeping at 8:30, think I have done so about 1 day in last 10 years maximum. Up in the morning is the game and no alarms needed.
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona takes Biden to a tie, Nebraska 2nd congressional district becomes the tiebreaker in that scenario if no other states are taken.
Yes that is one possibility, and the little polling there has been in NE-2 looks quite good for Biden, but I'd be much happier if he was hitting 8% ahead in the Pennsylvania polling average like he was a few weeks ago.
For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Not only that but the pandemic makes delaying even more fruitless than it ever was.
If there is going to be a disruption then getting it over and done with while we are already disrupted is entirely logical. If there's going to be issues at the border then doing it while the border is quiet is logical.
What is the purpose of delay? If there's still going to be disruption anyway what purpose does it serve to get through COVID19, get border traffic back up to normal and THEN to have the disruption? It's illogical.
You lot are funny. I am about to have open heart surgery so while I'm in there I might as well have a liver transplant and my right leg amputated.
If you need a heart and liver transplant then they can happen simultaneously. It's very rare but combined transplants do indeed happen.
What about the amputation?
I mean listen to yourself.
We're about to go through an event which will cause a world of pain so let's put ourselves through two events which will cause a world of pain. Do you think we will still only get one set of world of pain?
It's like those investors who forget that just because a stock has gone down by 90% doesn't mean it can't go down by another 90%.
Listen to yourself first. What is the purpose of delaying this so called world of pain?
What you really mean is you want to cancel it. You don't want it in the first place. But you're not saying that, so you're talking of delay instead.
What advantage does delaying, not cancelling, your so called world of pain serve? How are people best served by going through not just one but two disruptions?
Be honest and say you want Brexit cancelled even though that debate is lost. Delaying is absolutely pointless. It would make the pain dragged out and worse not better.
I don't really know how to say this without seeming to be offensive, but actuall, nope there is no way.
Philip, you are a moron.
Soz but sometimes you just have to call it as it is.
I don't want to cancel Brexit. I didn't want it in the first place but you know, democracy and all that, so we have Brexited (don't forget).
What I do think is lunacy of the first order is the absurd fixation on this date or that. Can you remember or do you know the month that we joined? No of course you don't because we were reaching a settlement which was to stand for the next several decades. It's the same thing now. This settlement will set us up for the next generation or five. But no. It has to be done by January. Why not a six or 12-month delay? What on earth is the rush?
Fixed dates are artificial, but to argue that there is no cost to delay is also nonsense. Uncertainty costs hugely in terms of investment and adaptation. The longer it is prolonged, the greater the cost.
Presumably you can admit that much, and we can agree that there should be urgency, even if we abandon artificial deadlines.
The problem, with both sides playing chicken, how do we generate that urgency without deadlines which people take seriously?
Having the admin and logistical systems in place (you know, the ones the UK needs even if it gets the kind of deal it wants) seems like a good place to start.
Otherwise the UK government looks like a bunch of clueless chancers who might well have to fold at the last minute because (short of becoming Pirate Island) they are don't have the practical capability for stepping out into a glorious new future, even if they want to.
For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Not only that but the pandemic makes delaying even more fruitless than it ever was.
If there is going to be a disruption then getting it over and done with while we are already disrupted is entirely logical. If there's going to be issues at the border then doing it while the border is quiet is logical.
What is the purpose of delay? If there's still going to be disruption anyway what purpose does it serve to get through COVID19, get border traffic back up to normal and THEN to have the disruption? It's illogical.
You lot are funny. I am about to have open heart surgery so while I'm in there I might as well have a liver transplant and my right leg amputated.
If you need a heart and liver transplant then they can happen simultaneously. It's very rare but combined transplants do indeed happen.
What about the amputation?
I mean listen to yourself.
We're about to go through an event which will cause a world of pain so let's put ourselves through two events which will cause a world of pain. Do you think we will still only get one set of world of pain?
It's like those investors who forget that just because a stock has gone down by 90% doesn't mean it can't go down by another 90%.
Listen to yourself first. What is the purpose of delaying this so called world of pain?
What you really mean is you want to cancel it. You don't want it in the first place. But you're not saying that, so you're talking of delay instead.
What advantage does delaying, not cancelling, your so called world of pain serve? How are people best served by going through not just one but two disruptions?
Be honest and say you want Brexit cancelled even though that debate is lost. Delaying is absolutely pointless. It would make the pain dragged out and worse not better.
I don't really know how to say this without seeming to be offensive, but actuall, nope there is no way.
Philip, you are a moron.
Soz but sometimes you just have to call it as it is.
I don't want to cancel Brexit. I didn't want it in the first place but you know, democracy and all that, so we have Brexited (don't forget).
What I do think is lunacy of the first order is the absurd fixation on this date or that. Can you remember or do you know the month that we joined? No of course you don't because we were reaching a settlement which was to stand for the next several decades. It's the same thing now. This settlement will set us up for the next generation or five. But no. It has to be done by January. Why not a six or 12-month delay? What on earth is the rush?
I'm sorry to say this, but I'm not a moron - you have missed the point entirely. The point has gone over your head.
You seem to think the issue is the date. It isn't. The date is irrelevant. I could not care less about the date. To be absolutely unambiguous if there is a good reason to have a delay then lets have one. But if there is not, then a delay only drags out the harm and uncertainty and makes matters worse.
So your asking why not delay is the wrong question. You're asking me to prove a negative. The issue isn't why not delay, the issue is why delay? To which not good answer has been provided.
A good reason to delay would be if Barnier and Frost said something along the lines of "talks are going well, we've reached compromises on key areas, but we need more time to finalise the agreement and get it ratified". If they said that then 100% I would support an extension.
But instead the reality is talks are stalled not because of time but because of a failure to compromise. Delaying doesn't resolve that issue, it just gives both parties an excuse to drag this out and entrench their positions further. If an agreement can be reached there is no excuse not to compromise now and reach it.
So you don't think that Covid is or should be a factor in the timings at all?
It should be a factor yes. Its an extra reason not to do a pointless and harmful delay dragging out the pain and uncertainty.
If it was a case of COVID had meant talks hadn't occurred and Frost wanted more time then yes, of course delay. But the talks have continued throughout and have long since reached an impasse. The impasse isn't because of COVID, it is because of a failure to compromise and that is not a good enough reason to delay.
They have reached an impasse it seems in which case it is possible that if we were to hold to our Jan deadline then that would entail some economic disruption and damage. Covid is already imposing economic disruption and damage.
So the only reason I can see for you not to want to delay is because you believe neither not being prepared for January, nor Covid will impose any kind of economic disruption or damage on us.
It's an interesting call. Wrong, obvs, but interesting and I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona takes Biden to a tie, Nebraska 2nd congressional district becomes the tiebreaker in that scenario if no other states are taken.
Yes that is one possibility, and the little polling there has been in NE-2 looks quite good for Biden, but I'd be much happier if he was hitting 8% ahead in the Pennsylvania polling average like he was a few weeks ago.
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
It has more of the type of voters that Trump appeals to. "Left behind" voters. I think it'll be the state that decides the election overall.
My feeling at the moment is that FL is easier to win than PA – precisely for the reasons you describe.
Fixed dates are artificial, but to argue that there is no cost to delay is also nonsense. Uncertainty costs hugely in terms of investment and adaptation. The longer it is prolonged, the greater the cost.
Presumably you can admit that much, and we can agree that there should be urgency, even if we abandon artificial deadlines.
The problem, with both sides playing chicken, how do we generate that urgency without deadlines which people take seriously?
Take out Covid and, despite huge reservations about the preparedness of the UK govt as described by @Richard_Nabavi earlier, then of course, no point in delaying unnecessarily.
But Covid.
We are going through one epochal exogenous shock to our system. So let's have another one along for the ride. Madness. Let us get back to steady state/trend growth or at least put some distance between the Covid fallout, and then yes, get on with it.
You've not explained why going through this shock, leaving a humongous cloud of uncertainty over businesses influencing their ability to recover, then having another shock is better than lifting the uncertainty now and getting through it all at the same time.
Businesses are already disrupted, the border is quieter. If there's ever a time to have disruptions at the border it is right now to be frank. And if there is ever a time to reach a deal and get this over and done with it is right now too.
If a deal can be reached then kicking the can down the road for another six to twelve months time is frankly irresponsible. Just compromise now and get it over with.
If a deal can't be reached then kicking the can down the road just to leave it hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles and delaying the inevitable is also frankly irresponsible.
You're phrasing "another one" as if it is a choice of having another one or not. It isn't, the other one is happening no matter what. So the only question to answer is if that other one happens now or later.
The latest update on the total number of remaining Covid patients in hospital in the UK is 799. It's beginning to look like the number may be levelling off rather than continuing its gradual decline, although I would add that (a) some strange things went on with the reporting over the Bank Holiday period, so perhaps now we've got that out of the way the trend could yet resume; and (b) the Scottish number, as a proportion of the total, remains improbably high.
On the latter point, the latest possible explanation I've read is that the Scottish hospital statistics may be suffering from the same quirk that previously applied to the English death statistics - i.e. that anybody admitted to hospital in Scotland who has ever been tested positive for Covid-19 is being reported as a Covid patient, regardless of whether or not they're actually suffering from the disease when they arrive. This would certainly help to explain why Scotland accounts for about 8% of the general population but 33% of all the remaining Covid patients!
Indeed. A former covidian who has fallen off his bike into a Glasgow gutter full of broken glass counts as a CV-19 hospitalisation in Scotland.
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
It has more of the type of voters that Trump appeals to. "Left behind" voters. I think it'll be the state that decides the election overall.
Yes but why has Biden's lead fallen more recently in Pennsylvania than elsewhere?
Both the Economist model and the fivethirtyeight model allow you to download the results. With a bit of data munging you can get the probability which the model assigns to each possible ECV total. As at now, and assuming I've done my calculations correctly, fair values for the Biden ECV total according to the two models are:
Economist: 334 538: 318
Probability of Biden's total being less than the current Buy price of 284:
Economist: 18% 538: 36%
So, a clear buy if you trust the models, with a reasonable margin.
I'm on!
This is not investment advice. Do your own research. Spread betting is very risky. You might lose your shirt etc etc.
The Economist puts Biden's chances at 86% compared to 69% according to 538. That's a pretty large gap. Personally I think 538 is more reliable.
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
It has more of the type of voters that Trump appeals to. "Left behind" voters. I think it'll be the state that decides the election overall.
My feeling at the moment is that FL is easier to win than PA – precisely for the reasons you describe.
I've checked the 2016 polling for PA, Rasmussen didn't actually do state polling in that cycle.
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Alternatively, he has no choice. He can't afford to be the apostate, the weakling who Betrayed Brexit By Blinking Before Barnier.
How does the proverb about riding a tiger go?
The man who would ride anything discovers it's the tiger who does the riding?
It's always extremely informative, illuminating and convincing to see a discussion between three people who have exactly the same view on the topic.
I don't think anyone is trying to convince you of anything...
Fixed dates are artificial, but to argue that there is no cost to delay is also nonsense. Uncertainty costs hugely in terms of investment and adaptation. The longer it is prolonged, the greater the cost.
Presumably you can admit that much, and we can agree that there should be urgency, even if we abandon artificial deadlines.
The problem, with both sides playing chicken, how do we generate that urgency without deadlines which people take seriously?
Take out Covid and, despite huge reservations about the preparedness of the UK govt as described by @Richard_Nabavi earlier, then of course, no point in delaying unnecessarily.
But Covid.
We are going through one epochal exogenous shock to our system. So let's have another one along for the ride. Madness. Let us get back to steady state/trend growth or at least put some distance between the Covid fallout, and then yes, get on with it.
You've not explained why going through this shock, leaving a humongous cloud of uncertainty over businesses influencing their ability to recover, then having another shock is better than lifting the uncertainty now and getting through it all at the same time.
Businesses are already disrupted, the border is quieter. If there's ever a time to have disruptions at the border it is right now to be frank. And if there is ever a time to reach a deal and get this over and done with it is right now too.
If a deal can be reached then kicking the can down the road for another six to twelve months time is frankly irresponsible. Just compromise now and get it over with.
If a deal can't be reached then kicking the can down the road just to leave it hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles and delaying the inevitable is also frankly irresponsible.
You're phrasing "another one" as if it is a choice of having another one or not. It isn't, the other one is happening no matter what. So the only question to answer is if that other one happens now or later.
The only way your view makes sense is if you think neither Covid nor being unprepared in Jan, or even being prepared in Jan for that matter, given the changes, will have no economic disruption.
You are treating both those events as simply trivial obstacles and if you can leap over two trivial obstacles with one bound then why on earth wouldn't you.
For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Not only that but the pandemic makes delaying even more fruitless than it ever was.
If there is going to be a disruption then getting it over and done with while we are already disrupted is entirely logical. If there's going to be issues at the border then doing it while the border is quiet is logical.
What is the purpose of delay? If there's still going to be disruption anyway what purpose does it serve to get through COVID19, get border traffic back up to normal and THEN to have the disruption? It's illogical.
You lot are funny. I am about to have open heart surgery so while I'm in there I might as well have a liver transplant and my right leg amputated.
If you need a heart and liver transplant then they can happen simultaneously. It's very rare but combined transplants do indeed happen.
What about the amputation?
I mean listen to yourself.
We're about to go through an event which will cause a world of pain so let's put ourselves through two events which will cause a world of pain. Do you think we will still only get one set of world of pain?
It's like those investors who forget that just because a stock has gone down by 90% doesn't mean it can't go down by another 90%.
Listen to yourself first. What is the purpose of delaying this so called world of pain?
What you really mean is you want to cancel it. You don't want it in the first place. But you're not saying that, so you're talking of delay instead.
What advantage does delaying, not cancelling, your so called world of pain serve? How are people best served by going through not just one but two disruptions?
Be honest and say you want Brexit cancelled even though that debate is lost. Delaying is absolutely pointless. It would make the pain dragged out and worse not better.
I don't really know how to say this without seeming to be offensive, but actuall, nope there is no way.
Philip, you are a moron.
Soz but sometimes you just have to call it as it is.
I don't want to cancel Brexit. I didn't want it in the first place but you know, democracy and all that, so we have Brexited (don't forget).
What I do think is lunacy of the first order is the absurd fixation on this date or that. Can you remember or do you know the month that we joined? No of course you don't because we were reaching a settlement which was to stand for the next several decades. It's the same thing now. This settlement will set us up for the next generation or five. But no. It has to be done by January. Why not a six or 12-month delay? What on earth is the rush?
I'm sorry to say this, but I'm not a moron - you have missed the point entirely. The point has gone over your head.
You seem to think the issue is the date. It isn't. The date is irrelevant. I could not care less about the date. To be absolutely unambiguous if there is a good reason to have a delay then lets have one. But if there is not, then a delay only drags out the harm and uncertainty and makes matters worse.
So your asking why not delay is the wrong question. You're asking me to prove a negative. The issue isn't why not delay, the issue is why delay? To which not good answer has been provided.
A good reason to delay would be if Barnier and Frost said something along the lines of "talks are going well, we've reached compromises on key areas, but we need more time to finalise the agreement and get it ratified". If they said that then 100% I would support an extension.
But instead the reality is talks are stalled not because of time but because of a failure to compromise. Delaying doesn't resolve that issue, it just gives both parties an excuse to drag this out and entrench their positions further. If an agreement can be reached there is no excuse not to compromise now and reach it.
So you don't think that Covid is or should be a factor in the timings at all?
It should be a factor yes. Its an extra reason not to do a pointless and harmful delay dragging out the pain and uncertainty.
If it was a case of COVID had meant talks hadn't occurred and Frost wanted more time then yes, of course delay. But the talks have continued throughout and have long since reached an impasse. The impasse isn't because of COVID, it is because of a failure to compromise and that is not a good enough reason to delay.
They have reached an impasse it seems in which case it is possible that if we were to hold to our Jan deadline then that would entail some economic disruption and damage. Covid is already imposing economic disruption and damage.
So the only reason I can see for you not to want to delay is because you believe neither not being prepared for January, nor Covid will impose any kind of economic disruption or damage on us.
It's an interesting call. Wrong, obvs, but interesting and I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.
That's not what I said.
COVID of course is creating disruption now. Ending transition will of course create disruption too.
Having the end of transition disruption during the COVID disruption clears the way for an economic recovery and a removal of uncertainty.
Delaying the inevitable only prolongs the uncertainty, prolongs the harm and keeps boulders in the path of an economic recovery.
The question is not either COVID or ending transition, both have to happen. COVID is happening no matter what. Ending transition is happening no matter what. Getting both done now keeps disruption to a minimum and allows us to move on, kicking the can down the road irresponsibly just means we're in a state of limbo until transition ends.
If by the end of this year we have a vaccine on the way and Brexit is over and done with we can spend next year growing and building for the future. The hard decisions will have been made.
If we delay transition by twelve months we will instead have companies uncertain how or where to invest. We will have businesses not knowing whether they're coming or going, right at the time we are trying to rebuild. That is not wise it is totally irresponsible.
Fixed dates are artificial, but to argue that there is no cost to delay is also nonsense. Uncertainty costs hugely in terms of investment and adaptation. The longer it is prolonged, the greater the cost.
Presumably you can admit that much, and we can agree that there should be urgency, even if we abandon artificial deadlines.
The problem, with both sides playing chicken, how do we generate that urgency without deadlines which people take seriously?
Take out Covid and, despite huge reservations about the preparedness of the UK govt as described by @Richard_Nabavi earlier, then of course, no point in delaying unnecessarily.
But Covid.
We are going through one epochal exogenous shock to our system. So let's have another one along for the ride. Madness. Let us get back to steady state/trend growth or at least put some distance between the Covid fallout, and then yes, get on with it.
You've not explained why going through this shock, leaving a humongous cloud of uncertainty over businesses influencing their ability to recover, then having another shock is better than lifting the uncertainty now and getting through it all at the same time.
Businesses are already disrupted, the border is quieter. If there's ever a time to have disruptions at the border it is right now to be frank. And if there is ever a time to reach a deal and get this over and done with it is right now too.
If a deal can be reached then kicking the can down the road for another six to twelve months time is frankly irresponsible. Just compromise now and get it over with.
If a deal can't be reached then kicking the can down the road just to leave it hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles and delaying the inevitable is also frankly irresponsible.
You're phrasing "another one" as if it is a choice of having another one or not. It isn't, the other one is happening no matter what. So the only question to answer is if that other one happens now or later.
The only way your view makes sense is if you think neither Covid nor being unprepared in Jan, or even being prepared in Jan for that matter, given the changes, will have no economic disruption.
You are treating both those events as simply trivial obstacles and if you can leap over two trivial obstacles with one bound then why on earth wouldn't you.
As I said that is a very interesting view.
It is the "interesting view" of someone who still blindly supports Boris Johnson; a man who by any objective comparison is the most incompetent and ridiculous PM in my lifetime and probably the history of these islands. Any opinion a supporter, nay admirer, of Johnson utters needs to be put into that context.
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
This election is bound to end up in the courts, it could end up with Trump being given the presidency in a split decision with the deciding vote by a judge appointed by Donald Trump. And then the USA leaves the Paris Climate Agreement and we can kiss the future of human civilisation goodbye.
Fixed dates are artificial, but to argue that there is no cost to delay is also nonsense. Uncertainty costs hugely in terms of investment and adaptation. The longer it is prolonged, the greater the cost.
Presumably you can admit that much, and we can agree that there should be urgency, even if we abandon artificial deadlines.
The problem, with both sides playing chicken, how do we generate that urgency without deadlines which people take seriously?
Take out Covid and, despite huge reservations about the preparedness of the UK govt as described by @Richard_Nabavi earlier, then of course, no point in delaying unnecessarily.
But Covid.
We are going through one epochal exogenous shock to our system. So let's have another one along for the ride. Madness. Let us get back to steady state/trend growth or at least put some distance between the Covid fallout, and then yes, get on with it.
You've not explained why going through this shock, leaving a humongous cloud of uncertainty over businesses influencing their ability to recover, then having another shock is better than lifting the uncertainty now and getting through it all at the same time.
Businesses are already disrupted, the border is quieter. If there's ever a time to have disruptions at the border it is right now to be frank. And if there is ever a time to reach a deal and get this over and done with it is right now too.
If a deal can be reached then kicking the can down the road for another six to twelve months time is frankly irresponsible. Just compromise now and get it over with.
If a deal can't be reached then kicking the can down the road just to leave it hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles and delaying the inevitable is also frankly irresponsible.
You're phrasing "another one" as if it is a choice of having another one or not. It isn't, the other one is happening no matter what. So the only question to answer is if that other one happens now or later.
The only way your view makes sense is if you think neither Covid nor being unprepared in Jan, or even being prepared in Jan for that matter, given the changes, will have no economic disruption.
You are treating both those events as simply trivial obstacles and if you can leap over two trivial obstacles with one bound then why on earth wouldn't you.
As I said that is a very interesting view.
It is the "interesting view" of someone who still blindly supports Boris Johnson; a man who by any objective comparison is the most incompetent and ridiculous PM in my lifetime and probably the history of these islands. Any opinion a supporter, nay admirer, of Johnson utters needs to be put into that context.
Both the Economist model and the fivethirtyeight model allow you to download the results. With a bit of data munging you can get the probability which the model assigns to each possible ECV total. As at now, and assuming I've done my calculations correctly, fair values for the Biden ECV total according to the two models are:
Economist: 334 538: 318
Probability of Biden's total being less than the current Buy price of 284:
Economist: 18% 538: 36%
So, a clear buy if you trust the models, with a reasonable margin.
I'm on!
This is not investment advice. Do your own research. Spread betting is very risky. You might lose your shirt etc etc.
The Economist puts Biden's chances at 86% compared to 69% according to 538. That's a pretty large gap. Personally I think 538 is more reliable.
The difference is mainly that 538 imposes a higher degree of uncertainty, so that the tails of the probability distribution (in both directions) are much larger in 538's case. For example:
Probability that Biden gets 200 or fewer ECVs: 0.9% Economist, 8.4% 538 Probability that Biden gets over 420 ECVs: 3.2% Economist, 12.1% 538
There was an interesting Twitter exchange between Nate Silver and G. Elliott Morris on this; I have to say that I thought that Elliott Morris, arrogant though he is, came off better in the exchange. Nate Silver seems to be adding a subjective additional uncertainty to the model, beyond that justified by historical changes from polling as at today to the final election result.
My personal preference is to rely on the models to give a base probability distribution computed entirely from the polling, and leave it to the reader to make a subjective adjustment depending on the view taken on the likelihood that political developments will move things more this year than has been the historic experience.
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
This election is bound to end up in the courts, it could end up with Trump being given the presidency in a split decision with the deciding vote by a judge appointed by Donald Trump. And then the USA leaves the Paris Climate Agreement and we can kiss the future of human civilisation goodbye.
We should run a PB sweepstake on which State is the first to put a case before the Supreme Court regarding the election result.
A serving President advising voters to try and vote twice is a new low, even for Trump.
I think what Trump is doing is creating a situation where the result of the election will be determined by the Courts, rather than the voting itself. By discrediting the whole process he creates the situation where there is no agreed fact of the result of the election.
Then what matters will be rulings by various judges on what ballots should be counted, what results certified, etc. This is obviously easier to pull off if he's not too far behind, but he has appointed a lot of judges, and the administration of elections in the US is poor.
I don't think Democrats are prepared for this. I think they're going to end up being rolled over and they'll console themself with self-recriminations. BLM scared centrists, or Biden was too old and boring to inspire the young.
They have to be mentally and organizationally prepared for Trump to steal the election to prevent it. It's not enough to be outraged by Trump. They have to have effective countermeasures.
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona takes Biden to a tie, Nebraska 2nd congressional district becomes the tiebreaker in that scenario if no other states are taken.
Rasmussen's new poll has Trump/Biden in a tie in Pennsylvania. 46/46
COVID of course is creating disruption now. Ending transition will of course create disruption too.
Having the end of transition disruption during the COVID disruption clears the way for an economic recovery and a removal of uncertainty.
Delaying the inevitable only prolongs the uncertainty, prolongs the harm and keeps boulders in the path of an economic recovery.
The question is not either COVID or ending transition, both have to happen. COVID is happening no matter what. Ending transition is happening no matter what. Getting both done now keeps disruption to a minimum and allows us to move on, kicking the can down the road irresponsibly just means we're in a state of limbo until transition ends.
If by the end of this year we have a vaccine on the way and Brexit is over and done with we can spend next year growing and building for the future. The hard decisions will have been made.
If we delay transition by twelve months we will instead have companies uncertain how or where to invest. We will have businesses not knowing whether they're coming or going, right at the time we are trying to rebuild. That is not wise it is totally irresponsible.
The key flaw in your argument is contained in the line: "Getting both done keeps disruption to a minimum".
Let's say that Covid will cause five units of disruption; let's say that ending transition will also cause five units of disruption. Why do you think they are dependent events? They are not, they are independent. We are likely to get 10 units of disruption if we do both at the same time. And let's say the country can only tolerate six or seven units of disruption before serious damage?
And given that they are independent events, how is doing both Covid and ending transition at the same time "keep[ing] disruption to a minimum"?
On topic, some comments from ConHome (a site that has been blocking anyone making persistent anti-Tory comments from being able to log in) on the PM’s performance:
- Boris was useless. So useless that I wonder if he has lost his marbles. Anyway, it does not matter why he is so awful, he just has to go.
- Yes, Johnson was embarrassingly bad. He should resign at the end of the transition period
- He can't look forward to this experience every week, perhaps he will wilt under the pressure and just go.
- The failure to prepare and the number of U-turns is getting quite depressing. It indicates a slipshod and careless attitude to governing
- For conservatives, things are going to get much, much worse before they get better
- It's instructive to read the comments on this site from a year ago whereby those who warned that Johnson wasn't up to the job were shouted down. The reason he doesn't prepare for PMQs is that he doesn't care enough to do so. Johnson's ambition was always to become Prime Minister, rather than to be Prime Minister, and it shows.
- BJ was awful today and I think he will have to go in the New Year
- As PM, he won't answer the questions because he doesn't have any answers that don't show up his inadequacies as PM.
- We are reaching the point where trust is becoming a serious issue. Do we trust Mr Johnson to lead us through the many difficulties that we will face over the next year or so?
- I believe that there probably is talent in the conservative party but it seems that all is constrained by the prime minister. That must be intensely frustrating.
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
This election is bound to end up in the courts, it could end up with Trump being given the presidency in a split decision with the deciding vote by a judge appointed by Donald Trump. And then the USA leaves the Paris Climate Agreement and we can kiss the future of human civilisation goodbye.
To leave the Paris Climate Agreement in full it needs a Senate majority to reject its ratification, Trump can issue executive orders on it but given Obama signed it already its fate is technically up to the Senate not the President
For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Not only that but the pandemic makes delaying even more fruitless than it ever was.
If there is going to be a disruption then getting it over and done with while we are already disrupted is entirely logical. If there's going to be issues at the border then doing it while the border is quiet is logical.
What is the purpose of delay? If there's still going to be disruption anyway what purpose does it serve to get through COVID19, get border traffic back up to normal and THEN to have the disruption? It's illogical.
You lot are funny. I am about to have open heart surgery so while I'm in there I might as well have a liver transplant and my right leg amputated.
If you need a heart and liver transplant then they can happen simultaneously. It's very rare but combined transplants do indeed happen.
What about the amputation?
I mean listen to yourself.
We're about to go through an event which will cause a world of pain so let's put ourselves through two events which will cause a world of pain. Do you think we will still only get one set of world of pain?
It's like those investors who forget that just because a stock has gone down by 90% doesn't mean it can't go down by another 90%.
Listen to yourself first. What is the purpose of delaying this so called world of pain?
What you really mean is you want to cancel it. You don't want it in the first place. But you're not saying that, so you're talking of delay instead.
What advantage does delaying, not cancelling, your so called world of pain serve? How are people best served by going through not just one but two disruptions?
Be honest and say you want Brexit cancelled even though that debate is lost. Delaying is absolutely pointless. It would make the pain dragged out and worse not better.
I don't really know how to say this without seeming to be offensive, but actuall, nope there is no way.
Philip, you are a moron.
Soz but sometimes you just have to call it as it is.
I don't want to cancel Brexit. I didn't want it in the first place but you know, democracy and all that, so we have Brexited (don't forget).
What I do think is lunacy of the first order is the absurd fixation on this date or that. Can you remember or do you know the month that we joined? No of course you don't because we were reaching a settlement which was to stand for the next several decades. It's the same thing now. This settlement will set us up for the next generation or five. But no. It has to be done by January. Why not a six or 12-month delay? What on earth is the rush?
I'm actually somewhere between both of you.
I don't want to delay it (we need a practical deal this year) but, I'm perfectly happy with practical mechanisms to fade the new systems in (and the old ones out) over 6-18 months if that helps a smooth transition and avoids massive disruption.
COVID of course is creating disruption now. Ending transition will of course create disruption too.
Having the end of transition disruption during the COVID disruption clears the way for an economic recovery and a removal of uncertainty.
Delaying the inevitable only prolongs the uncertainty, prolongs the harm and keeps boulders in the path of an economic recovery.
The question is not either COVID or ending transition, both have to happen. COVID is happening no matter what. Ending transition is happening no matter what. Getting both done now keeps disruption to a minimum and allows us to move on, kicking the can down the road irresponsibly just means we're in a state of limbo until transition ends.
If by the end of this year we have a vaccine on the way and Brexit is over and done with we can spend next year growing and building for the future. The hard decisions will have been made.
If we delay transition by twelve months we will instead have companies uncertain how or where to invest. We will have businesses not knowing whether they're coming or going, right at the time we are trying to rebuild. That is not wise it is totally irresponsible.
The key flaw in your argument is contained in the line: "Getting both done keeps disruption to a minimum".
Let's say that Covid will cause five units of disruption; let's say that ending transition will also cause five units of disruption. Why do you think they are dependent events? They are not, they are independent. We are likely to get 10 units of disruption if we do both at the same time. And let's say the country can only tolerate six or seven units of disruption before serious damage?
And given that they are independent events, how is doing both Covid and ending transition at the same time "keep[ing] disruption to a minimum"?
Indeed the independent events may well not just be additive, they may well by synergistic.
COVID of course is creating disruption now. Ending transition will of course create disruption too.
Having the end of transition disruption during the COVID disruption clears the way for an economic recovery and a removal of uncertainty.
Delaying the inevitable only prolongs the uncertainty, prolongs the harm and keeps boulders in the path of an economic recovery.
The question is not either COVID or ending transition, both have to happen. COVID is happening no matter what. Ending transition is happening no matter what. Getting both done now keeps disruption to a minimum and allows us to move on, kicking the can down the road irresponsibly just means we're in a state of limbo until transition ends.
If by the end of this year we have a vaccine on the way and Brexit is over and done with we can spend next year growing and building for the future. The hard decisions will have been made.
If we delay transition by twelve months we will instead have companies uncertain how or where to invest. We will have businesses not knowing whether they're coming or going, right at the time we are trying to rebuild. That is not wise it is totally irresponsible.
The key flaw in your argument is contained in the line: "Getting both done keeps disruption to a minimum".
Let's say that Covid will cause five units of disruption; let's say that ending transition will also cause five units of disruption. Why do you think they are dependent events? They are not, they are independent.
And given that they are independent events, how is doing both Covid and ending transition at the same time "keep[ing] disruption to a minimum"?
They are dependent because everything in the economy is dependent. They don't exist in isolation. If something is already disrupted, then having it disrupted a different way could either make matters worse, better or no difference. Whereas having it disrupted, recover then disrupted again simply means it is disrupted twice.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
The latest update on the total number of remaining Covid patients in hospital in the UK is 799. It's beginning to look like the number may be levelling off rather than continuing its gradual decline, although I would add that (a) some strange things went on with the reporting over the Bank Holiday period, so perhaps now we've got that out of the way the trend could yet resume; and (b) the Scottish number, as a proportion of the total, remains improbably high.
On the latter point, the latest possible explanation I've read is that the Scottish hospital statistics may be suffering from the same quirk that previously applied to the English death statistics - i.e. that anybody admitted to hospital in Scotland who has ever been tested positive for Covid-19 is being reported as a Covid patient, regardless of whether or not they're actually suffering from the disease when they arrive. This would certainly help to explain why Scotland accounts for about 8% of the general population but 33% of all the remaining Covid patients!
Indeed. A former covidian who has fallen off his bike into a Glasgow gutter full of broken glass counts as a CV-19 hospitalisation in Scotland.
It works both ways.
I rent a small office/studio from a couple of brothers who have a flooring company in the east end. Their dad was in his seventies and I used to see hm about the place quite frequently. He came down with the Covid (as did one of the brothers) & went into hospital in April. According to him he was told to say goodbye to his family then. He got really sick and the doc told him that they could put him on a ventilator but the prognosis wasn't good. They advised (again according to him) to stay on oxygen and that they'd keep his temperature really low, which he went for. He pulled through and got home at the start of July.
He went out for a family meal 2 weeks ago and had his first couple of pints since being in hospital, was found dead in front of the telly at 3am the following morning. I assume that since it was longer than 28 days since he left hospital and he hadn't gone back in, that would be counted as a non Covid death, but the chances of it not being related to a recent near death experience seem pretty slim to me.
A responsible and intelligent Government would make us join EEA, understanding times have changed and we now need to save as much of the economy as possible from further damage.
For sheer, unbridled incompetence, the Johnson government is now well set to outperform even Attlee's Tanganyika groundnut scheme, previously the gold standard. They are taking us into a massive mess on 1st January, whereby 80,000 trucks a day carrying four-fifths of our food imports will be expected to comply with a bureaucratic nightmare of customs declarations using no less than ten brand-new computer systems, none of which has been tested, and - wait for it, this is the best bit - three of which are still in the design phase. Yes, you read that right: in just four months, our food supplies will depend on computer systems which don't yet exist.
Note that this is all true irrespective of whether there is a last-minute trade deal with the EU.
This really is utterly staggering, but it's not a surprise. Experts have been warning about it for many months. To have any chance of avoiding chaos, by now we should have been months into large-scale testing by the haulage industry. Instead the systems aren't yet written.
How on earth did we end up with a government - a Conservative government, for heaven's sake - so utterly out with the fairies?
What's really inexplicable is that a pandemic is the perfect excuse for a delay. Boris could even plausibly say he didn't want a delay but the pandemic made it impossible to leave just yet. It baffles me, only a tiny fringe of Brexiteers are really going to worry about us taking a bit more time given the circumstances.
I am sure Johnson believes his own rhetoric that Brexit will set Britain free. If it's such a good thing, why delay?
Not only that but the pandemic makes delaying even more fruitless than it ever was.
If there is going to be a disruption then getting it over and done with while we are already disrupted is entirely logical. If there's going to be issues at the border then doing it while the border is quiet is logical.
What is the purpose of delay? If there's still going to be disruption anyway what purpose does it serve to get through COVID19, get border traffic back up to normal and THEN to have the disruption? It's illogical.
You lot are funny. I am about to have open heart surgery so while I'm in there I might as well have a liver transplant and my right leg amputated.
If you need a heart and liver transplant then they can happen simultaneously. It's very rare but combined transplants do indeed happen.
What about the amputation?
I mean listen to yourself.
We're about to go through an event which will cause a world of pain so let's put ourselves through two events which will cause a world of pain. Do you think we will still only get one set of world of pain?
It's like those investors who forget that just because a stock has gone down by 90% doesn't mean it can't go down by another 90%.
Listen to yourself first. What is the purpose of delaying this so called world of pain?
What you really mean is you want to cancel it. You don't want it in the first place. But you're not saying that, so you're talking of delay instead.
What advantage does delaying, not cancelling, your so called world of pain serve? How are people best served by going through not just one but two disruptions?
Be honest and say you want Brexit cancelled even though that debate is lost. Delaying is absolutely pointless. It would make the pain dragged out and worse not better.
I don't really know how to say this without seeming to be offensive, but actuall, nope there is no way.
Philip, you are a moron.
Soz but sometimes you just have to call it as it is.
I don't want to cancel Brexit. I didn't want it in the first place but you know, democracy and all that, so we have Brexited (don't forget).
What I do think is lunacy of the first order is the absurd fixation on this date or that. Can you remember or do you know the month that we joined? No of course you don't because we were reaching a settlement which was to stand for the next several decades. It's the same thing now. This settlement will set us up for the next generation or five. But no. It has to be done by January. Why not a six or 12-month delay? What on earth is the rush?
I'm actually somewhere between both of you.
I don't want to delay it (we need a practical deal this year) but, I'm perfectly happy with practical mechanisms to fade the new systems in (and the old ones out) over 6-18 months if that helps a smooth transition and avoids massive disruption.
That's not somewhere between the both of us. As I understand it, Philip wants Jan to be a hard date.
Your desire is just about what I think is most sensible under the circs. Let the transition continue for 6-18 months or thereabouts until we have the systems and processes in place and until the disruptions caused by Covid have worked themselves through the economy.
COVID of course is creating disruption now. Ending transition will of course create disruption too.
Having the end of transition disruption during the COVID disruption clears the way for an economic recovery and a removal of uncertainty.
Delaying the inevitable only prolongs the uncertainty, prolongs the harm and keeps boulders in the path of an economic recovery.
The question is not either COVID or ending transition, both have to happen. COVID is happening no matter what. Ending transition is happening no matter what. Getting both done now keeps disruption to a minimum and allows us to move on, kicking the can down the road irresponsibly just means we're in a state of limbo until transition ends.
If by the end of this year we have a vaccine on the way and Brexit is over and done with we can spend next year growing and building for the future. The hard decisions will have been made.
If we delay transition by twelve months we will instead have companies uncertain how or where to invest. We will have businesses not knowing whether they're coming or going, right at the time we are trying to rebuild. That is not wise it is totally irresponsible.
The key flaw in your argument is contained in the line: "Getting both done keeps disruption to a minimum".
Let's say that Covid will cause five units of disruption; let's say that ending transition will also cause five units of disruption. Why do you think they are dependent events? They are not, they are independent.
And given that they are independent events, how is doing both Covid and ending transition at the same time "keep[ing] disruption to a minimum"?
Well thats exactly it, isn't it? The assumption that disruption is a single unit and not composed of additive levels is crazy. Ultimately systems, such as supply chains or sophisticated multi-secotor economies say, have a certain amount of give in them to cope with disruption. The upheaval from Covid and leaving the EU is additive, systems that might have coped with one or the other will not necessarily cope with both.
However even getting a deal isn't going to make mich dfference thanks to the very thin trade deal negotiated so far:
So there will be border disruption from 1 January 2021 whatever the outcome of the negotiations, the main choice is whether food prices go up lots without a deal or only a bit with one.
Questions about industry are now settled - friction means industry in the UK contracting and that is the case either way. All the cards may or may not have been held at some point: either way they have been torched now along with the hands holding them.
Biden has slipped to 3.4% lead in Pennsylvania 538 average. He's now doing better in Florida (4.1%) and Arizona (4.6%)
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
This election is bound to end up in the courts....
Well, Trump is clearly doing his utmost to ensure that it does.
There is no expectation, in either law or derived from previous ballots, that all votes will or should be received and counted by November 3rd, or 4th for that matter.
The process has always allowed a month for disputes to be resolved, and any recounts; the deadline is actually December 8th. The 'electors' don't cast their electoral college votes until December 14th, and don't have to be received by the Senate until the 23rd: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-electoral-college.aspx
There are certain to be court cases within states (there always are). The wild card is whether Trump attempts to abuse his executive powers, with the collaboration of his placeman in the Justice Department, to sabotage a fair count of votes.
I once raised some (mild) Brexit concerns with a junior minister who, in response, just raised his voice and lectured me.
It views questions or challenges about Brexit as heresy. I had to remind him I wanted to see it succeed, and addressing my concerns was instrumental to that.
On topic, some comments from ConHome (a site that has been blocking anyone making persistent anti-Tory comments from being able to log in) on the PM’s performance:
- Boris was useless. So useless that I wonder if he has lost his marbles. Anyway, it does not matter why he is so awful, he just has to go.
- Yes, Johnson was embarrassingly bad. He should resign at the end of the transition period
- He can't look forward to this experience every week, perhaps he will wilt under the pressure and just go.
- The failure to prepare and the number of U-turns is getting quite depressing. It indicates a slipshod and careless attitude to governing
- For conservatives, things are going to get much, much worse before they get better
- It's instructive to read the comments on this site from a year ago whereby those who warned that Johnson wasn't up to the job were shouted down. The reason he doesn't prepare for PMQs is that he doesn't care enough to do so. Johnson's ambition was always to become Prime Minister, rather than to be Prime Minister, and it shows.
- BJ was awful today and I think he will have to go in the New Year
- As PM, he won't answer the questions because he doesn't have any answers that don't show up his inadequacies as PM.
- We are reaching the point where trust is becoming a serious issue. Do we trust Mr Johnson to lead us through the many difficulties that we will face over the next year or so?
- I believe that there probably is talent in the conservative party but it seems that all is constrained by the prime minister. That must be intensely frustrating.
Comments
As in:
"First, the improvement of the dexterity of the workman....
"Secondly, the advantage which is gained by saving the time...
"Thirdly, and lastly, every body must be sensible..."
If it's good enough for Adam Smith it's good enough for me.
Presumably you can admit that much, and we can agree that there should be urgency, even if we abandon artificial deadlines.
The problem, with both sides playing chicken, how do we generate that urgency without deadlines which people take seriously?
AZ 49/40
WI 50/42
NC 50/46
https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-biden-tops-trump-among-likely-voters-in-key-states
I want to use them, but I neither like nor trust them.
But Covid.
We are going through one epochal exogenous shock to our system. So let's have another one along for the ride. Madness. Let us get back to steady state/trend growth or at least put some distance between the Covid fallout, and then yes, get on with it.
'Well mo ghràidh, we're all proud Hebrideans here, but we're also proud Britons and we think you're doing a chust marvellous chob!'
Otherwise the UK government looks like a bunch of clueless chancers who might well have to fold at the last minute because (short of becoming Pirate Island) they are don't have the practical capability for stepping out into a glorious new future, even if they want to.
Some will, some won't.
Again, nonbinary.
Look at what’s outside Downing St on a daily basis, most of these will be zoom L-series lenses like 100-400mm, able to get both a 3/4 shot of a minister or a closeup of their papers.
Out of a sudden bout of nervousness induced by finding out the Robby fucking Mook is heading the DNC Congressional campaign strategy I have started looking up who the senior staff on the Biden campaign are.
I have been greatly relaxed by finding it is basically the Obama "battle ground" leadership team promoted up a notch.
I have a feeling Arizona will be a Biden pickup, but doubtful about Florida. Unfortunately Arizona by itself isn't enough to make up for Pennsylvania. Anyone know what's going on in Pennsylvania?
You seem to think the issue is the date. It isn't. The date is irrelevant. I could not care less about the date. To be absolutely unambiguous if there is a good reason to have a delay then lets have one. But if there is not, then a delay only drags out the harm and uncertainty and makes matters worse.
So your asking why not delay is the wrong question. You're asking me to prove a negative. The issue isn't why not delay, the issue is why delay? To which not good answer has been provided.
A good reason to delay would be if Barnier and Frost said something along the lines of "talks are going well, we've reached compromises on key areas, but we need more time to finalise the agreement and get it ratified". If they said that then 100% I would support an extension.
But instead the reality is talks are stalled not because of time but because of a failure to compromise. Delaying doesn't resolve that issue, it just gives both parties an excuse to drag this out and entrench their positions further. If an agreement can be reached there is no excuse not to compromise now and reach it.
Both the Economist model and the fivethirtyeight model allow you to download the results. With a bit of data munging you can get the probability which the model assigns to each possible ECV total. As at now, and assuming I've done my calculations correctly, fair values for the Biden ECV total according to the two models are:
Economist: 334
538: 318
Probability of Biden's total being less than the current Buy price of 284:
Economist: 18%
538: 36%
So, a clear buy if you trust the models, with a reasonable margin.
I'm on!
This is not investment advice. Do your own research. Spread betting is very risky. You might lose your shirt etc etc.
On the latter point, the latest possible explanation I've read is that the Scottish hospital statistics may be suffering from the same quirk that previously applied to the English death statistics - i.e. that anybody admitted to hospital in Scotland who has ever been tested positive for Covid-19 is being reported as a Covid patient, regardless of whether or not they're actually suffering from the disease when they arrive. This would certainly help to explain why Scotland accounts for about 8% of the general population but 33% of all the remaining Covid patients!
If it was a case of COVID had meant talks hadn't occurred and Frost wanted more time then yes, of course delay. But the talks have continued throughout and have long since reached an impasse. The impasse isn't because of COVID, it is because of a failure to compromise and that is not a good enough reason to delay.
So the only reason I can see for you not to want to delay is because you believe neither not being prepared for January, nor Covid will impose any kind of economic disruption or damage on us.
It's an interesting call. Wrong, obvs, but interesting and I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.
Businesses are already disrupted, the border is quieter. If there's ever a time to have disruptions at the border it is right now to be frank. And if there is ever a time to reach a deal and get this over and done with it is right now too.
If a deal can be reached then kicking the can down the road for another six to twelve months time is frankly irresponsible. Just compromise now and get it over with.
If a deal can't be reached then kicking the can down the road just to leave it hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles and delaying the inevitable is also frankly irresponsible.
You're phrasing "another one" as if it is a choice of having another one or not. It isn't, the other one is happening no matter what. So the only question to answer is if that other one happens now or later.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/03/pennsylvania-democrats-election-day-408147
You are treating both those events as simply trivial obstacles and if you can leap over two trivial obstacles with one bound then why on earth wouldn't you.
As I said that is a very interesting view.
Maybe you should declare the political intention of groups who are suffering severe BDS
COVID of course is creating disruption now.
Ending transition will of course create disruption too.
Having the end of transition disruption during the COVID disruption clears the way for an economic recovery and a removal of uncertainty.
Delaying the inevitable only prolongs the uncertainty, prolongs the harm and keeps boulders in the path of an economic recovery.
The question is not either COVID or ending transition, both have to happen. COVID is happening no matter what. Ending transition is happening no matter what. Getting both done now keeps disruption to a minimum and allows us to move on, kicking the can down the road irresponsibly just means we're in a state of limbo until transition ends.
If by the end of this year we have a vaccine on the way and Brexit is over and done with we can spend next year growing and building for the future. The hard decisions will have been made.
If we delay transition by twelve months we will instead have companies uncertain how or where to invest. We will have businesses not knowing whether they're coming or going, right at the time we are trying to rebuild. That is not wise it is totally irresponsible.
Probability that Biden gets 200 or fewer ECVs: 0.9% Economist, 8.4% 538
Probability that Biden gets over 420 ECVs: 3.2% Economist, 12.1% 538
There was an interesting Twitter exchange between Nate Silver and G. Elliott Morris on this; I have to say that I thought that Elliott Morris, arrogant though he is, came off better in the exchange. Nate Silver seems to be adding a subjective additional uncertainty to the model, beyond that justified by historical changes from polling as at today to the final election result.
My personal preference is to rely on the models to give a base probability distribution computed entirely from the polling, and leave it to the reader to make a subjective adjustment depending on the view taken on the likelihood that political developments will move things more this year than has been the historic experience.
Then what matters will be rulings by various judges on what ballots should be counted, what results certified, etc. This is obviously easier to pull off if he's not too far behind, but he has appointed a lot of judges, and the administration of elections in the US is poor.
I don't think Democrats are prepared for this. I think they're going to end up being rolled over and they'll console themself with self-recriminations. BLM scared centrists, or Biden was too old and boring to inspire the young.
They have to be mentally and organizationally prepared for Trump to steal the election to prevent it. It's not enough to be outraged by Trump. They have to have effective countermeasures.
Let's say that Covid will cause five units of disruption; let's say that ending transition will also cause five units of disruption. Why do you think they are dependent events? They are not, they are independent. We are likely to get 10 units of disruption if we do both at the same time. And let's say the country can only tolerate six or seven units of disruption before serious damage?
And given that they are independent events, how is doing both Covid and ending transition at the same time "keep[ing] disruption to a minimum"?
- Boris was useless. So useless that I wonder if he has lost his marbles. Anyway, it does not matter why he is so awful, he just has to go.
- Yes, Johnson was embarrassingly bad. He should resign at the end of the transition period
- He can't look forward to this experience every week, perhaps he will wilt under the pressure and just go.
- The failure to prepare and the number of U-turns is getting quite depressing. It indicates a slipshod and careless attitude to governing
- For conservatives, things are going to get much, much worse before they get better
- It's instructive to read the comments on this site from a year ago whereby those who warned that Johnson wasn't up to the job were shouted down. The reason he doesn't prepare for PMQs is that he doesn't care enough to do so. Johnson's ambition was always to become Prime Minister, rather than to be Prime Minister, and it shows.
- BJ was awful today and I think he will have to go in the New Year
- As PM, he won't answer the questions because he doesn't have any answers that don't show up his inadequacies as PM.
- We are reaching the point where trust is becoming a serious issue. Do we trust Mr Johnson to lead us through the many difficulties that we will face over the next year or so?
- I believe that there probably is talent in the conservative party but it seems that all is constrained by the prime minister. That must be intensely frustrating.
- What an embarrassment Johnson is
- Let’s face it, Boris is so dreadful
- Let's face it: Johnson is not up to the job
I don't want to delay it (we need a practical deal this year) but, I'm perfectly happy with practical mechanisms to fade the new systems in (and the old ones out) over 6-18 months if that helps a smooth transition and avoids massive disruption.
Lets take one very obvious example: the border and custom at Kent. One of the most shouted about concerns people have had is that Brexit/ending transition would cause delays at the border that could possibly last days or weeks. Capacity at the border would be reduced. COVID is also disrupting the border, its disruption is that there are reduced volumes of traffic crossing the border.
Now is having reduced capacity at the border at the same time as there is reduced volumes at the border better, worse or indifferent to having full capacity when there are reduced volumes followed by later on having reduced capacity when there are full volumes?
Everything is life is dependent. And the biggest issue is uncertainty. Following COVID there will be lots of people unemployed and growth businesses of the future will need to grow so that people can be hired. If because of transition and uncertainty companies put off investments then that leaves people languishing unemployed and that is unacceptable.
I rent a small office/studio from a couple of brothers who have a flooring company in the east end. Their dad was in his seventies and I used to see hm about the place quite frequently. He came down with the Covid (as did one of the brothers) & went into hospital in April. According to him he was told to say goodbye to his family then. He got really sick and the doc told him that they could put him on a ventilator but the prognosis wasn't good. They advised (again according to him) to stay on oxygen and that they'd keep his temperature really low, which he went for. He pulled through and got home at the start of July.
He went out for a family meal 2 weeks ago and had his first couple of pints since being in hospital, was found dead in front of the telly at 3am the following morning. I assume that since it was longer than 28 days since he left hospital and he hadn't gone back in, that would be counted as a non Covid death, but the chances of it not being related to a recent near death experience seem pretty slim to me.
But Boris Johnson, so...
Your desire is just about what I think is most sensible under the circs. Let the transition continue for 6-18 months or thereabouts until we have the systems and processes in place and until the disruptions caused by Covid have worked themselves through the economy.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1301537288242036738?s=20
However even getting a deal isn't going to make mich dfference thanks to the very thin trade deal negotiated so far:
https://www.ft.com/content/49af99f3-4669-4654-a444-4e5e9635791c
So there will be border disruption from 1 January 2021 whatever the outcome of the negotiations, the main choice is whether food prices go up lots without a deal or only a bit with one.
Questions about industry are now settled - friction means industry in the UK contracting and that is the case either way. All the cards may or may not have been held at some point: either way they have been torched now along with the hands holding them.
There is no expectation, in either law or derived from previous ballots, that all votes will or should be received and counted by November 3rd, or 4th for that matter.
The process has always allowed a month for disputes to be resolved, and any recounts; the deadline is actually December 8th. The 'electors' don't cast their electoral college votes until December 14th, and don't have to be received by the Senate until the 23rd:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-electoral-college.aspx
There are certain to be court cases within states (there always are). The wild card is whether Trump attempts to abuse his executive powers, with the collaboration of his placeman in the Justice Department, to sabotage a fair count of votes.
I once raised some (mild) Brexit concerns with a junior minister who, in response, just raised his voice and lectured me.
It views questions or challenges about Brexit as heresy. I had to remind him I wanted to see it succeed, and addressing my concerns was instrumental to that.