French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
That isn't the choice, though. The choice is between the interests of different groups.
Now I accept deep sea fishermen would win from a No Deal. They can catch considerably more fish and be able to sell enough of it even with EU tariffs to come out ahead.
Deep sea fishermen are a minority albeit a high profile one within the UK fishing industry. The rest of the industry loses out if there is No Deal. You would be compromising their interest for those of Deep Sea fishermen. Which is a reasonable thing to do but that is the choice you are making.
If there is No Deal that has negative consequences for almost everyone else outside fishing. You would be compromising the interest of the vast majority for that of a tiny minority. Again you can choose to do this, but I suggest it is getting increasingly difficult to justify.
Thank goodness for someone sensible.
I think that's a tad gamey from someone who supports Scottish independence. The thought leaders of the indy movement are very much pushing a 'rip the plaster off', 'long term gain for (implied) short term pain' argument to support independence. It's hard to agree with that but argue that proponents of a no deal Brexit have lost their senses.
I support neither Brexit nor Scottish independence, but your logic is totally wrong. It isn't in the slightest bit difficult to argue for "short term pain, long term gain" in one but not the other.
You can either argue that there is no long term gain in one of the two, or that the short term pain is avoidable, or both.
Curious that that list only has Labour and Conservative MPs (Williams was Labour/SDP and LD). The question would be a lot more interesting if it was opened up to all British citizens. Any suggestions as to who?
I thought the question was based on credible leadership contenders who were in parliament?
I think if you fully opened it up you'd get Jeremy Clarkson, Martin Lewis and David Attenborough type stuff.
Yes. Lewis is loved across the divide. He would walk it. Meaningless though as you say.
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear. It does this by not only asking respondents how they plan to vote but also how they thought their neighbors might vote
Oh I see. That malarkey. Too clever by half some of these polling firms.
Given how good, easy and local testing is currently supposed to be I just went to see how close my nearest open test centre is - It's 51 miles away and the earliest date is Tuesday.
No drive ins listed for me, but there is a walk-in half a mile away with slots in the city centre.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Curious that that list only has Labour and Conservative MPs (Williams was Labour/SDP and LD). The question would be a lot more interesting if it was opened up to all British citizens. Any suggestions as to who?
I thought the question was based on credible leadership contenders who were in parliament?
I think if you fully opened it up you'd get Jeremy Clarkson, Martin Lewis and David Attenborough type stuff.
Ant and Dec would win, joint premiership for next twenty years.
Firstly, they wouldn't take the pay cut required
Secondly, they would probably do a better job then those who want the job. I know it was Goucho Marks who said "He wouldn't want to be a member of any club who would have it as a member", but can't remember who said "Anyone who wants the job should be instantly disqualified"
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Explain?
Yes, sorry. The outlier. The one against the head. The nugget of cheer floating on an ocean of shit.
Wouldn't really be against the head as Putney was for Labour, though, as he did win Florida in 2016 whereas Putney was the one Labour gain.
I suppose Trump could do better than average in Florida (GOP did in midterms). But I'd not conclude that based on a Trafalgar poll. Trafalgar are unusually optimistic for Trump everywhere - if they are right then he'll win the election with a bit to spare across just about all the key states. If they're wrong, then he'll probably lose Florida as well as similarly tight states.
Further, at the current rate, with a very few days, the case numbers will reach the levels of the estimated infection rate. That is, we will be finding the vast majority of *all* infections occurring.
I'm damn near certain there will still be lots of stories about how terrible testing is.
Any human interaction with a system on a scale of 100Ks per day will generate bad stories.
I was listening to the radio whilst cooking dinner yesterday, and there were lots of listeners texting in with comments about how convenient and fast the testing had been for them, in opposition to the story that was running about how bad testing was.
Obivously the testing goes wrong some times, but on average it seems to be quite effective now. The convergence between the testing figures and the ONS estimates suggest to me that the targetting and prioritisation is working well, even if it does mean that some people in certain areas are inconvenienced and waiting longer.
I expect that the new range of tests coming in over the next month or two will kick off another round of negative stories, even as it makes testing faster, more widely available, and brings it right into the highest priority locations.
I used to work by Waterloo.
One day, I was out for a coffee on a hot afternoon.
At the foot of the steps to pedestrian footbridge, a TV crew was stopping passers by for interviews. After a few words, they would dismiss them and setup for another try.
When I got closer, it turned out they were trying to get a certain viewpoint on camera. One that 90% of the public didn't seem to agree with.
I started to film this, with my camera - a very early smart phone. The journalist became angry when this was observed and came over to tell me to stop filming. Or the police would be called, for harassing them....
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
That isn't the choice, though. The choice is between the interests of different groups.
Now I accept deep sea fishermen would win from a No Deal. They can catch considerably more fish and be able to sell enough of it even with EU tariffs to come out ahead.
Deep sea fishermen are a minority albeit a high profile one within the UK fishing industry. The rest of the industry loses out if there is No Deal. You would be compromising their interest for those of Deep Sea fishermen. Which is a reasonable thing to do but that is the choice you are making.
If there is No Deal that has negative consequences for almost everyone else outside fishing. You would be compromising the interest of the vast majority for that of a tiny minority. Again you can choose to do this, but I suggest it is getting increasingly difficult to justify.
Thank goodness for someone sensible.
I think that's a tad gamey from someone who supports Scottish independence. The thought leaders of the indy movement are very much pushing a 'rip the plaster off', 'long term gain for (implied) short term pain' argument to support independence. It's hard to agree with that but argue that proponents of a no deal Brexit have lost their senses.
I support neither Brexit nor Scottish independence, but your logic is totally wrong. It isn't in the slightest bit difficult to argue for "short term pain, long term gain" in one but not the other.
You can either argue that there is no long term gain in one of the two, or that the short term pain is avoidable, or both.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
I think Abbott really is a classic bubble story.
This isn't like Cummings in Durham or the exam grading fiasco which cut through to people who aren't already very interested in politics.
Also, while Abbott very obviously isn't my cup of tea politically at all, it's not like appointing Toby Young to the board of the Office for Students for example, where you question the sanity of those involved in the decision. Abbott is a serious figure, even if I think he's seriously wrong on some issues.
Given how good, easy and local testing is currently supposed to be I just went to see how close my nearest open test centre is - It's 51 miles away and the earliest date is Tuesday.
No drive ins listed for me, but there is a walk-in half a mile away with slots in the city centre.
The above matches the statements that they are targeting testing capacity on hotspots, such as Leicester.
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Explain?
Yes, sorry. The outlier. The one against the head. The nugget of cheer floating on an ocean of shit.
Wouldn't really be against the head as Putney was for Labour, though, as he did win Florida in 2016 whereas Putney was the one Labour gain.
I suppose Trump could do better than average in Florida (GOP did in midterms). But I'd not conclude that based on a Trafalgar poll. Trafalgar are unusually optimistic for Trump everywhere - if they are right then he'll win the election with a bit to spare across just about all the key states. If they're wrong, then he'll probably lose Florida as well as similarly tight states.
On the latest Trafalgar Group polling Trump leads in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona but Biden leads in Minnesota and Pennsylvania
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
That isn't the choice, though. The choice is between the interests of different groups.
Now I accept deep sea fishermen would win from a No Deal. They can catch considerably more fish and be able to sell enough of it even with EU tariffs to come out ahead.
Deep sea fishermen are a minority albeit a high profile one within the UK fishing industry. The rest of the industry loses out if there is No Deal. You would be compromising their interest for those of Deep Sea fishermen. Which is a reasonable thing to do but that is the choice you are making.
If there is No Deal that has negative consequences for almost everyone else outside fishing. You would be compromising the interest of the vast majority for that of a tiny minority. Again you can choose to do this, but I suggest it is getting increasingly difficult to justify.
Thank goodness for someone sensible.
I think that's a tad gamey from someone who supports Scottish independence. The thought leaders of the indy movement are very much pushing a 'rip the plaster off', 'long term gain for (implied) short term pain' argument to support independence. It's hard to agree with that but argue that proponents of a no deal Brexit have lost their senses.
I support neither Brexit nor Scottish independence, but your logic is totally wrong. It isn't in the slightest bit difficult to argue for "short term pain, long term gain" in one but not the other.
You can either argue that there is no long term gain in one of the two, or that the short term pain is avoidable, or both.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear. It does this by not only asking respondents how they plan to vote but also how they thought their neighbors might vote
Oh I see. That malarkey. Too clever by half some of these polling firms.
Makes sense I think. 'I wouldn't dream of voting Trump, but I have to report a groundswell of opinion in his favour in my neck of the woods' = Trump.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
It's not though, is it? There are lots of people who objected to Corbyn, e.g. Nick Cohen, who did so in part because he'd excuse horrific things from those who were his political chums, and they thought it would be a shocking way to run a government. They now have the same objection to Abbott as it's exactly the same behaviour on the right.
Here we have someone who is not a particular expert on trade (he didn't negotiate any trade deals while PM), let alone the UK economy, who has been roundly rejected *in Australia* for views even they now find antediluvian, and who more often than not rubs people up the wrong way because he doesn't know when to keep his gob shut and not think out loud.
It would be a disastrous appointment, up there with Corbyn deciding Ken Livingstone would make a good defence adviser. But it'd almost be worth seeing them go through with it for the inevitable debacle in six months when he says something Brexit voters find terrible.
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Explain?
Yes, sorry. The outlier. The one against the head. The nugget of cheer floating on an ocean of shit.
Wouldn't really be against the head as Putney was for Labour, though, as he did win Florida in 2016 whereas Putney was the one Labour gain.
I suppose Trump could do better than average in Florida (GOP did in midterms). But I'd not conclude that based on a Trafalgar poll. Trafalgar are unusually optimistic for Trump everywhere - if they are right then he'll win the election with a bit to spare across just about all the key states. If they're wrong, then he'll probably lose Florida as well as similarly tight states.
On the latest Trafalgar Group polling Trump leads in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona but Biden leads in Minnesota and Pennsylvania
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Explain?
Yes, sorry. The outlier. The one against the head. The nugget of cheer floating on an ocean of shit.
Wouldn't really be against the head as Putney was for Labour, though, as he did win Florida in 2016 whereas Putney was the one Labour gain.
I suppose Trump could do better than average in Florida (GOP did in midterms). But I'd not conclude that based on a Trafalgar poll. Trafalgar are unusually optimistic for Trump everywhere - if they are right then he'll win the election with a bit to spare across just about all the key states. If they're wrong, then he'll probably lose Florida as well as similarly tight states.
On the latest Trafalgar Group polling Trump leads in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona but Biden leads in Minnesota and Pennsylvania
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
That isn't the choice, though. The choice is between the interests of different groups.
Now I accept deep sea fishermen would win from a No Deal. They can catch considerably more fish and be able to sell enough of it even with EU tariffs to come out ahead.
Deep sea fishermen are a minority albeit a high profile one within the UK fishing industry. The rest of the industry loses out if there is No Deal. You would be compromising their interest for those of Deep Sea fishermen. Which is a reasonable thing to do but that is the choice you are making.
If there is No Deal that has negative consequences for almost everyone else outside fishing. You would be compromising the interest of the vast majority for that of a tiny minority. Again you can choose to do this, but I suggest it is getting increasingly difficult to justify.
Thank goodness for someone sensible.
I think that's a tad gamey from someone who supports Scottish independence. The thought leaders of the indy movement are very much pushing a 'rip the plaster off', 'long term gain for (implied) short term pain' argument to support independence. It's hard to agree with that but argue that proponents of a no deal Brexit have lost their senses.
I support neither Brexit nor Scottish independence, but your logic is totally wrong. It isn't in the slightest bit difficult to argue for "short term pain, long term gain" in one but not the other.
You can either argue that there is no long term gain in one of the two, or that the short term pain is avoidable, or both.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
Brexit ends free movement and regains fishing rights and creates trade deals as voted for, even No Deal still only affects the less than half UK exports which go to the EU.
Scottish independence after the UK leaves the single market however means tariffs on all Scottish exports to England where over 70% of Scottish exports go while EU membership for an independent Scotland probably with the Euro replacing the Scottish pound means it is also less sovereign than a post Brexit England and Wales
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Explain?
Yes, sorry. The outlier. The one against the head. The nugget of cheer floating on an ocean of shit.
Wouldn't really be against the head as Putney was for Labour, though, as he did win Florida in 2016 whereas Putney was the one Labour gain.
I suppose Trump could do better than average in Florida (GOP did in midterms). But I'd not conclude that based on a Trafalgar poll. Trafalgar are unusually optimistic for Trump everywhere - if they are right then he'll win the election with a bit to spare across just about all the key states. If they're wrong, then he'll probably lose Florida as well as similarly tight states.
On the latest Trafalgar Group polling Trump leads in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona but Biden leads in Minnesota and Pennsylvania
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
That isn't the choice, though. The choice is between the interests of different groups.
Now I accept deep sea fishermen would win from a No Deal. They can catch considerably more fish and be able to sell enough of it even with EU tariffs to come out ahead.
Deep sea fishermen are a minority albeit a high profile one within the UK fishing industry. The rest of the industry loses out if there is No Deal. You would be compromising their interest for those of Deep Sea fishermen. Which is a reasonable thing to do but that is the choice you are making.
If there is No Deal that has negative consequences for almost everyone else outside fishing. You would be compromising the interest of the vast majority for that of a tiny minority. Again you can choose to do this, but I suggest it is getting increasingly difficult to justify.
Thank goodness for someone sensible.
I think that's a tad gamey from someone who supports Scottish independence. The thought leaders of the indy movement are very much pushing a 'rip the plaster off', 'long term gain for (implied) short term pain' argument to support independence. It's hard to agree with that but argue that proponents of a no deal Brexit have lost their senses.
I support neither Brexit nor Scottish independence, but your logic is totally wrong. It isn't in the slightest bit difficult to argue for "short term pain, long term gain" in one but not the other.
You can either argue that there is no long term gain in one of the two, or that the short term pain is avoidable, or both.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
So that is the real plan.
Scottish independence, join EU. Northern Ireland gets fed up with its half in/half out status and there is Irish unification. England and Wales decideds to rejoin EU as it is now surrounded. Overall the old UK has now more influence in the EU as two countries and a significant presence in a third. This assumes that Scotland does not hate E&W's guts and votes against E&W rejoining.
Given how good, easy and local testing is currently supposed to be I just went to see how close my nearest open test centre is - It's 51 miles away and the earliest date is Tuesday.
No drive ins listed for me, but there is a walk-in half a mile away with slots in the city centre.
The above matches the statements that they are targeting testing capacity on hotspots, such as Leicester.
There seems to be this view that everybody should get an identical response, but that would not be the best way of using resources. I've already heard this approach to testing described as a postcode lottery, but that's the wrong interpretation. It is instead postcode targetting, and it's the right thing to do. Now obviously you don't want to deny anyone a test, but that doesn't meant that capacity and priority should be the same for the whole country.
The mocking photographs taken at his funeral were a nice touch.
That case is absolutely horrific.
It is; that the perpetrators haven't faced the consequences still more so.
What is unclear (to me at least) is the extent to which extreme police violence has increased under Trump, if indeed it has. No doubt it has been going on for many years, but we are seeing many more detailed reports like this than was the case say five years ago. Is that because there are many more such incidents happening, or is it simply that with mobile phone footage, body cameras, and perhaps more media focus, we are now finding out the true extent of a horrific problem which has existed for years? No doubt the latter is part of the explanation, but I don't know if it's the whole explanation.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
That isn't the choice, though. The choice is between the interests of different groups.
Now I accept deep sea fishermen would win from a No Deal. They can catch considerably more fish and be able to sell enough of it even with EU tariffs to come out ahead.
Deep sea fishermen are a minority albeit a high profile one within the UK fishing industry. The rest of the industry loses out if there is No Deal. You would be compromising their interest for those of Deep Sea fishermen. Which is a reasonable thing to do but that is the choice you are making.
If there is No Deal that has negative consequences for almost everyone else outside fishing. You would be compromising the interest of the vast majority for that of a tiny minority. Again you can choose to do this, but I suggest it is getting increasingly difficult to justify.
Thank goodness for someone sensible.
I think that's a tad gamey from someone who supports Scottish independence. The thought leaders of the indy movement are very much pushing a 'rip the plaster off', 'long term gain for (implied) short term pain' argument to support independence. It's hard to agree with that but argue that proponents of a no deal Brexit have lost their senses.
I support neither Brexit nor Scottish independence, but your logic is totally wrong. It isn't in the slightest bit difficult to argue for "short term pain, long term gain" in one but not the other.
You can either argue that there is no long term gain in one of the two, or that the short term pain is avoidable, or both.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear. It does this by not only asking respondents how they plan to vote but also how they thought their neighbors might vote
Oh I see. That malarkey. Too clever by half some of these polling firms.
Makes sense I think. 'I wouldn't dream of voting Trump, but I have to report a groundswell of opinion in his favour in my neck of the woods' = Trump.
But the poll is meant to pick up that groundswell of support not intuit it.
it reads like the lad was on the autistic spectrum. The story is heartbreaking.
My 23 year old son is on the spectrum. He looks perfectly normal, however his reaction to being stopped by the police would be one of absolute fear. He would be confused, and although he would try to be compliant, in doing so his reactions might appear odd, that might spook a poorly trained police officer. Fortunately he lives in South Wales and not Colorado.
Trump has exacerbated deep rooted problems in society. He needs to be ejected from office. How the handful of Trump cheerleaders posting on here, from the safety of Great Britain can reach the conclusion that he is the right man to lead the free world is verging on the immoral.
I think that says more about the Lincoln project than it says about the Trump presidency.
It reflects the report in The Atlantic pretty well. "In a separate conversation, it is alleged that the president branded US marines who lost their lives at the Battle of Belleau Wood in the First World War as "suckers". The Atlantic said it had spoken to four people with first-hand knowledge of the discussion about the cemetery visit, while the Associated Press news agency said a senior defence department official had confirmed some of the remarks, including the 2018 cemetery comments." https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-denies-calling-dead-us-soldiers-losers-and-suckers-12063179
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
That isn't the choice, though. The choice is between the interests of different groups.
Now I accept deep sea fishermen would win from a No Deal. They can catch considerably more fish and be able to sell enough of it even with EU tariffs to come out ahead.
Deep sea fishermen are a minority albeit a high profile one within the UK fishing industry. The rest of the industry loses out if there is No Deal. You would be compromising their interest for those of Deep Sea fishermen. Which is a reasonable thing to do but that is the choice you are making.
If there is No Deal that has negative consequences for almost everyone else outside fishing. You would be compromising the interest of the vast majority for that of a tiny minority. Again you can choose to do this, but I suggest it is getting increasingly difficult to justify.
Thank goodness for someone sensible.
I think that's a tad gamey from someone who supports Scottish independence. The thought leaders of the indy movement are very much pushing a 'rip the plaster off', 'long term gain for (implied) short term pain' argument to support independence. It's hard to agree with that but argue that proponents of a no deal Brexit have lost their senses.
I support neither Brexit nor Scottish independence, but your logic is totally wrong. It isn't in the slightest bit difficult to argue for "short term pain, long term gain" in one but not the other.
You can either argue that there is no long term gain in one of the two, or that the short term pain is avoidable, or both.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
So that is the real plan.
Scottish independence, join EU. Northern Ireland gets fed up with its half in/half out status and there is Irish unification. England and Wales decideds to rejoin EU as it is now surrounded. Overall the old UK has now more influence in the EU as two countries and a significant presence in a third. This assumes that Scotland does not hate E&W's guts and votes against E&W rejoining.
Not in an independent Sc otland's interests to do that (veto rejoining).
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear. It does this by not only asking respondents how they plan to vote but also how they thought their neighbors might vote
Oh I see. That malarkey. Too clever by half some of these polling firms.
Makes sense I think. 'I wouldn't dream of voting Trump, but I have to report a groundswell of opinion in his favour in my neck of the woods' = Trump.
But the poll is meant to pick up that groundswell of support not intuit it.
I didn't make my meaning clear. What I'm trying to say, is that anyone who would say that, is probably a shy Trumper. That question gives them a valve to vent their Trumpiness in a socially acceptable way. Of course, they could be wrong to do so but I suspect it's quite accurate.
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Explain?
Yes, sorry. The outlier. The one against the head. The nugget of cheer floating on an ocean of shit.
Wouldn't really be against the head as Putney was for Labour, though, as he did win Florida in 2016 whereas Putney was the one Labour gain.
I suppose Trump could do better than average in Florida (GOP did in midterms). But I'd not conclude that based on a Trafalgar poll. Trafalgar are unusually optimistic for Trump everywhere - if they are right then he'll win the election with a bit to spare across just about all the key states. If they're wrong, then he'll probably lose Florida as well as similarly tight states.
On the latest Trafalgar Group polling Trump leads in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona but Biden leads in Minnesota and Pennsylvania
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Explain?
Yes, sorry. The outlier. The one against the head. The nugget of cheer floating on an ocean of shit.
Wouldn't really be against the head as Putney was for Labour, though, as he did win Florida in 2016 whereas Putney was the one Labour gain.
I suppose Trump could do better than average in Florida (GOP did in midterms). But I'd not conclude that based on a Trafalgar poll. Trafalgar are unusually optimistic for Trump everywhere - if they are right then he'll win the election with a bit to spare across just about all the key states. If they're wrong, then he'll probably lose Florida as well as similarly tight states.
On the latest Trafalgar Group polling Trump leads in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona but Biden leads in Minnesota and Pennsylvania
This is what you're going with, isn't it? Trafalgar.
Well they were the only pollster who predicted Trump would win the EC in 2016
but did not do well 2 years later in 2018 whilst many other polls did.
Trump was not on the ballot in 2018 so that is irrelevant, there was no shy Trump voter factor unlike 2016 and they did still correctly predict DeSantis would be re elected Florida governor unlike most pollsters and forecast Stabenow would win in Michigan
What is unclear (to me at least) is the extent to which extreme police violence has increased under Trump, if indeed it has. No doubt it has been going on for many years, but we are seeing many more detailed reports like this than was the case say five years ago. Is that because there are many more such incidents happening, or is it simply that with mobile phone footage, body cameras, and perhaps more media focus, we are now finding out the true extent of a horrific problem which has existed for years? No doubt the latter is part of the explanation, but I don't know if it's the whole explanation.
I think it is most of the explanation. What used to be anecdotes are now recordings people can watch. You only have to read about policing in the US in the past to realise that police dishing out beatings or worse to minority groups were at least as common events as they are now.
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear. It does this by not only asking respondents how they plan to vote but also how they thought their neighbors might vote
Oh I see. That malarkey. Too clever by half some of these polling firms.
Makes sense I think. 'I wouldn't dream of voting Trump, but I have to report a groundswell of opinion in his favour in my neck of the woods' = Trump.
But the poll is meant to pick up that groundswell of support not intuit it.
I didn't make my meaning clear. What I'm trying to say, is that anyone who would say that, is probably a shy Trumper. That question gives them a valve to vent their Trumpiness in a socially acceptable way. Of course, they could be wrong to do so but I suspect it's quite accurate.
Admitting to being a Trump supporter in a lot of suburban areas is probably like admitting to being a Tory supporter in the 1990s. Something you try to avoid.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
That isn't the choice, though. The choice is between the interests of different groups.
Now I accept deep sea fishermen would win from a No Deal. They can catch considerably more fish and be able to sell enough of it even with EU tariffs to come out ahead.
Deep sea fishermen are a minority albeit a high profile one within the UK fishing industry. The rest of the industry loses out if there is No Deal. You would be compromising their interest for those of Deep Sea fishermen. Which is a reasonable thing to do but that is the choice you are making.
If there is No Deal that has negative consequences for almost everyone else outside fishing. You would be compromising the interest of the vast majority for that of a tiny minority. Again you can choose to do this, but I suggest it is getting increasingly difficult to justify.
Thank goodness for someone sensible.
I think that's a tad gamey from someone who supports Scottish independence. The thought leaders of the indy movement are very much pushing a 'rip the plaster off', 'long term gain for (implied) short term pain' argument to support independence. It's hard to agree with that but argue that proponents of a no deal Brexit have lost their senses.
I support neither Brexit nor Scottish independence, but your logic is totally wrong. It isn't in the slightest bit difficult to argue for "short term pain, long term gain" in one but not the other.
You can either argue that there is no long term gain in one of the two, or that the short term pain is avoidable, or both.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear. It does this by not only asking respondents how they plan to vote but also how they thought their neighbors might vote
Oh I see. That malarkey. Too clever by half some of these polling firms.
Makes sense I think. 'I wouldn't dream of voting Trump, but I have to report a groundswell of opinion in his favour in my neck of the woods' = Trump.
But the poll is meant to pick up that groundswell of support not intuit it.
I didn't make my meaning clear. What I'm trying to say, is that anyone who would say that, is probably a shy Trumper. That question gives them a valve to vent their Trumpiness in a socially acceptable way. Of course, they could be wrong to do so but I suspect it's quite accurate.
I get that. However, speaking personally, I suspect that my neighbours on one side for sure, and possibly the other, are likely Tory voters. I have no idea as it has never been discussed, but if I had to bet, this is how I would go from their location, age, occupations, attitudes and my gut intuition. This is in no way a sign of my shy Toriness. Merely my best guess if pushed.
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear. It does this by not only asking respondents how they plan to vote but also how they thought their neighbors might vote
Oh I see. That malarkey. Too clever by half some of these polling firms.
Makes sense I think. 'I wouldn't dream of voting Trump, but I have to report a groundswell of opinion in his favour in my neck of the woods' = Trump.
But the poll is meant to pick up that groundswell of support not intuit it.
I didn't make my meaning clear. What I'm trying to say, is that anyone who would say that, is probably a shy Trumper. That question gives them a valve to vent their Trumpiness in a socially acceptable way. Of course, they could be wrong to do so but I suspect it's quite accurate.
Admitting to being a Trump supporter in a lot of suburban areas is probably like admitting to being a Tory supporter in the 1990s. Something you try to avoid.
Or even worse.
I feel like I'm playing devil's advocate here. I have no idea if he'll win. I don't think I could bring myself to vote for him if I were American - I think I'd cringe every time he began a speech. However, this question seems a clever and expedient innovation.
Summer has ended and Boris Johnson’s Downing Street gang has got back to doing what it does best: centralising power in an ever-decreasing number of people’s hands, no matter how many times those people prove they can’t wield the power they already have without diurnal U-turns and/or broken promises. Is it too much to expect a government of superforecasters to make predictions even Mystic Meg could manage? “Luck wears blue stripes while Pluto challenges finances, but appointing Tony Abbott is going to be an unmitigated shitshow.”
Even so, there does seem to be a strong cargo cult element to it all. Perhaps if Cummings builds some vaguely inspired-by version of Nasa mission control, this government will seem even vaguely in control of its mission.
Yet reports that the walls will be covered in screens showing real-time data suggest more of a stage set where the production designer has been charged with creating a “mission control-type room”. As has been pointed out, the whole screens-on-the-wall look dates back to the time when people didn’t have a variety of personal screens everywhere from their desk to their pocket. Hold on to your hats, because I am told that in the future, a gaggle of brilliant men in shirtsleeves and tie clips will not actually have to gather round a big telly and think laterally about how to get their government’s off-course agenda back down to Earth.
One day, I was out for a coffee on a hot afternoon.
At the foot of the steps to pedestrian footbridge, a TV crew was stopping passers by for interviews. After a few words, they would dismiss them and setup for another try.
When I got closer, it turned out they were trying to get a certain viewpoint on camera. One that 90% of the public didn't seem to agree with.
I started to film this, with my camera - a very early smart phone. The journalist became angry when this was observed and came over to tell me to stop filming. Or the police would be called, for harassing them....
I'm not surprised. The journalistic wish to have a "theme" to an article drives a lot of interview selection. I've told the story here before about a BBC programme doing a two-hour interview with me and using half a sentence that happened to fit the point they were trying to make (that middle-class voters were supposedly terrified of possible tax rises under Blair), even though I'd disagreed with their thesis throughout.
It *does* undoubtedly make an article or TV piece more coherent if everyone is pulling in the same direction - "we investigated this scandal and here are four people telling us awful it was", not "here's someone who said it was awful, and here's someone else who says it wasn't". But it misleads the viewer/reader, and only makes sense if one sees journalism as art and entertainment rather than accurate and nuanced portrayal of the reality.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
Tbf his advice to Trump to start behaving more like Lukashenko seems to have had some effect. He's obviously a bloke with influence.
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear. It does this by not only asking respondents how they plan to vote but also how they thought their neighbors might vote
Oh I see. That malarkey. Too clever by half some of these polling firms.
Makes sense I think. 'I wouldn't dream of voting Trump, but I have to report a groundswell of opinion in his favour in my neck of the woods' = Trump.
But the poll is meant to pick up that groundswell of support not intuit it.
I didn't make my meaning clear. What I'm trying to say, is that anyone who would say that, is probably a shy Trumper. That question gives them a valve to vent their Trumpiness in a socially acceptable way. Of course, they could be wrong to do so but I suspect it's quite accurate.
I get that. However, speaking personally, I suspect that my neighbours on one side for sure, and possibly the other, are likely Tory voters. I have no idea as it has never been discussed, but if I had to bet, this is how I would go from their location, age, occupations, attitudes and my gut intuition. This is in no way a sign of my shy Toriness. Merely my best guess if pushed.
Yes, I suppose some people would play it with a straight bat. There might be a better proxy question, like - 'Has your enthusiasm for *insert voting choice here* increased or decreased in the past month?'. If I had reluctantly gone for the 'socially acceptable' choice here, I'd damn them as much as possible in subsequent questions I think.
I think that Hunt, Osborne and Ed Miliband are under-rated here, but Benn, Duncan-Smith and Powell are over-rated.
I wonder what the PM we wish we had never had would throw up. Mrs T has her detractors, but also many people (myself included) who thought she was, on balance, a very effective PM. Here would be my order of PMs, with the first three very much in the "wish we never had" category and the rest in descending order (obviously the further down the list one goes they become the ones I think, on balance, made good leaders):
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - the worst by a country mile Gordon Brown Theresa May James Callahan Edward Heath Harold Wilson Tony Blair John Major Margaret Thatcher
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear. It does this by not only asking respondents how they plan to vote but also how they thought their neighbors might vote
Oh I see. That malarkey. Too clever by half some of these polling firms.
Makes sense I think. 'I wouldn't dream of voting Trump, but I have to report a groundswell of opinion in his favour in my neck of the woods' = Trump.
But the poll is meant to pick up that groundswell of support not intuit it.
I didn't make my meaning clear. What I'm trying to say, is that anyone who would say that, is probably a shy Trumper. That question gives them a valve to vent their Trumpiness in a socially acceptable way. Of course, they could be wrong to do so but I suspect it's quite accurate.
Hmm. Seems a stretch.
Although I do have a nagging fear that there are people - apolitical shallow types - who are addicted to the Trump show and might vote on that basis. You wouldn't admit to that.
OTOH if you're voting for him because you're a bigot I doubt you would feel shy about that. Trump has made that acceptable in "his" states. Desirable even.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
That isn't the choice, though. The choice is between the interests of different groups.
Now I accept deep sea fishermen would win from a No Deal. They can catch considerably more fish and be able to sell enough of it even with EU tariffs to come out ahead.
Deep sea fishermen are a minority albeit a high profile one within the UK fishing industry. The rest of the industry loses out if there is No Deal. You would be compromising their interest for those of Deep Sea fishermen. Which is a reasonable thing to do but that is the choice you are making.
If there is No Deal that has negative consequences for almost everyone else outside fishing. You would be compromising the interest of the vast majority for that of a tiny minority. Again you can choose to do this, but I suggest it is getting increasingly difficult to justify.
Thank goodness for someone sensible.
I think that's a tad gamey from someone who supports Scottish independence. The thought leaders of the indy movement are very much pushing a 'rip the plaster off', 'long term gain for (implied) short term pain' argument to support independence. It's hard to agree with that but argue that proponents of a no deal Brexit have lost their senses.
I support neither Brexit nor Scottish independence, but your logic is totally wrong. It isn't in the slightest bit difficult to argue for "short term pain, long term gain" in one but not the other.
You can either argue that there is no long term gain in one of the two, or that the short term pain is avoidable, or both.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
Not sure directing pique at those who support both the Union and Remain is a great strategy for Brexity Unionists, but please do carry on.
I remember @HYUFD being mocked on here for suggesting some Tory MPs might vote against it.
As he should be.
He was mocked for suggesting that some Tory MPs might vote down the budget and not lose the whip . . . and for saying that voting down the budget is not a "Confidence and Supply" issue.
He never did get around to explaining what he thought "and Supply" meant.
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear. It does this by not only asking respondents how they plan to vote but also how they thought their neighbors might vote
Oh I see. That malarkey. Too clever by half some of these polling firms.
Makes sense I think. 'I wouldn't dream of voting Trump, but I have to report a groundswell of opinion in his favour in my neck of the woods' = Trump.
But the poll is meant to pick up that groundswell of support not intuit it.
I didn't make my meaning clear. What I'm trying to say, is that anyone who would say that, is probably a shy Trumper. That question gives them a valve to vent their Trumpiness in a socially acceptable way. Of course, they could be wrong to do so but I suspect it's quite accurate.
I get that. However, speaking personally, I suspect that my neighbours on one side for sure, and possibly the other, are likely Tory voters. I have no idea as it has never been discussed, but if I had to bet, this is how I would go from their location, age, occupations, attitudes and my gut intuition. This is in no way a sign of my shy Toriness. Merely my best guess if pushed.
That's fair enough, but Trafalgar Group aren't as extreme as to suggest that what you say about your neighbour's intentions are MORE accurate than what you say about your own intentions.
This is merely about weightings. So they'd they'd not ignore your response if you say you're Biden but your neighbours are Trump rather than that you and your neighbours are all Biden, but they'd reduce the weight a bit on the basis there is some chance (albeit not a big chance) you're shy Trump.
I am a bit dubious about the "projection" logic of it. It seems equally possible that people who feel under most social pressure are those who say that they and their neighbours vote the same way - the housewife who privately dislikes Trump but would never admit it on the phone due to her MAGA hubby and neighbours, or the black factory worker who nods along when Trump is called a racist, but quietly votes for him as he's more likely to stand up to China on trade.
One day, I was out for a coffee on a hot afternoon.
At the foot of the steps to pedestrian footbridge, a TV crew was stopping passers by for interviews. After a few words, they would dismiss them and setup for another try.
When I got closer, it turned out they were trying to get a certain viewpoint on camera. One that 90% of the public didn't seem to agree with.
I started to film this, with my camera - a very early smart phone. The journalist became angry when this was observed and came over to tell me to stop filming. Or the police would be called, for harassing them....
I'm not surprised. The journalistic wish to have a "theme" to an article drives a lot of interview selection. I've told the story here before about a BBC programme doing a two-hour interview with me and using half a sentence that happened to fit the point they were trying to make (that middle-class voters were supposedly terrified of possible tax rises under Blair), even though I'd disagreed with their thesis throughout.
It *does* undoubtedly make an article or TV piece more coherent if everyone is pulling in the same direction - "we investigated this scandal and here are four people telling us awful it was", not "here's someone who said it was awful, and here's someone else who says it wasn't". But it misleads the viewer/reader, and only makes sense if one sees journalism as art and entertainment rather than accurate and nuanced portrayal of the reality.
If the new BBC guy wanted to make an actual good change he'd ban vox pops.
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Explain?
Yes, sorry. The outlier. The one against the head. The nugget of cheer floating on an ocean of shit.
Wouldn't really be against the head as Putney was for Labour, though, as he did win Florida in 2016 whereas Putney was the one Labour gain.
I suppose Trump could do better than average in Florida (GOP did in midterms). But I'd not conclude that based on a Trafalgar poll. Trafalgar are unusually optimistic for Trump everywhere - if they are right then he'll win the election with a bit to spare across just about all the key states. If they're wrong, then he'll probably lose Florida as well as similarly tight states.
On the latest Trafalgar Group polling Trump leads in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona but Biden leads in Minnesota and Pennsylvania
This is what you're going with, isn't it? Trafalgar.
Well they were the only pollster who predicted Trump would win the EC in 2016
but did not do well 2 years later in 2018 whilst many other polls did.
Trump was not on the ballot in 2018 so that is irrelevant, there was no shy Trump voter factor unlike 2016 and they did correctly predict Scott would be re elected Florida governor unlike most pollsters and forecast Stabenow would win in Michigan
Thats some hoop jumping to promote 1 pollster over all others. They were on the right side of the line but other pollsters were as close or closer, it was won by 0.4%.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
Fakest of fake news. It was the student newspaper revealing Young's attendence of the secret eugenics conference that cause him to reconsider his position.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
That isn't the choice, though. The choice is between the interests of different groups.
Now I accept deep sea fishermen would win from a No Deal. They can catch considerably more fish and be able to sell enough of it even with EU tariffs to come out ahead.
Deep sea fishermen are a minority albeit a high profile one within the UK fishing industry. The rest of the industry loses out if there is No Deal. You would be compromising their interest for those of Deep Sea fishermen. Which is a reasonable thing to do but that is the choice you are making.
If there is No Deal that has negative consequences for almost everyone else outside fishing. You would be compromising the interest of the vast majority for that of a tiny minority. Again you can choose to do this, but I suggest it is getting increasingly difficult to justify.
Thank goodness for someone sensible.
I think that's a tad gamey from someone who supports Scottish independence. The thought leaders of the indy movement are very much pushing a 'rip the plaster off', 'long term gain for (implied) short term pain' argument to support independence. It's hard to agree with that but argue that proponents of a no deal Brexit have lost their senses.
I support neither Brexit nor Scottish independence, but your logic is totally wrong. It isn't in the slightest bit difficult to argue for "short term pain, long term gain" in one but not the other.
You can either argue that there is no long term gain in one of the two, or that the short term pain is avoidable, or both.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
Not sure directing pique at those who support both the Union and Remain is a great strategy for Brexity Unionists, but please do carry on.
Thanks for the tip - for my part if I was an independence-supporting Scot, I'm not sure how delighted I'd be to have gained a new cohort of English cheerleaders for whom I was the cannon-fodder in their Brexit revenge fantasy.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
Fakest of fake news. It was the student newspaper revealing Young's attendence of the secret eugenics conference that cause him to reconsider his position.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
That isn't the choice, though. The choice is between the interests of different groups.
Now I accept deep sea fishermen would win from a No Deal. They can catch considerably more fish and be able to sell enough of it even with EU tariffs to come out ahead.
Deep sea fishermen are a minority albeit a high profile one within the UK fishing industry. The rest of the industry loses out if there is No Deal. You would be compromising their interest for those of Deep Sea fishermen. Which is a reasonable thing to do but that is the choice you are making.
If there is No Deal that has negative consequences for almost everyone else outside fishing. You would be compromising the interest of the vast majority for that of a tiny minority. Again you can choose to do this, but I suggest it is getting increasingly difficult to justify.
Thank goodness for someone sensible.
I think that's a tad gamey from someone who supports Scottish independence. The thought leaders of the indy movement are very much pushing a 'rip the plaster off', 'long term gain for (implied) short term pain' argument to support independence. It's hard to agree with that but argue that proponents of a no deal Brexit have lost their senses.
I support neither Brexit nor Scottish independence, but your logic is totally wrong. It isn't in the slightest bit difficult to argue for "short term pain, long term gain" in one but not the other.
You can either argue that there is no long term gain in one of the two, or that the short term pain is avoidable, or both.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
Not sure directing pique at those who support both the Union and Remain is a great strategy for Brexity Unionists, but please do carry on.
Thanks for the tip - for my part if I was an independence-supporting Scot, I'm not sure how delighted I'd be to have gained a new cohort of English cheerleaders for whom I was the cannon-fodder in their Brexit revenge fantasy.
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear. It does this by not only asking respondents how they plan to vote but also how they thought their neighbors might vote
Oh I see. That malarkey. Too clever by half some of these polling firms.
Makes sense I think. 'I wouldn't dream of voting Trump, but I have to report a groundswell of opinion in his favour in my neck of the woods' = Trump.
But the poll is meant to pick up that groundswell of support not intuit it.
I didn't make my meaning clear. What I'm trying to say, is that anyone who would say that, is probably a shy Trumper. That question gives them a valve to vent their Trumpiness in a socially acceptable way. Of course, they could be wrong to do so but I suspect it's quite accurate.
Admitting to being a Trump supporter in a lot of suburban areas is probably like admitting to being a Tory supporter in the 1990s. Something you try to avoid.
I think that's actually the opposite of the Trafalgar logic.
They say you project onto your neighbours - i.e. that someone saying "I'm for Biden but most people around here are Trump supporters" is more likely to be a shy Trump supporter than someone who says "I'm Biden, as are my neighbours".
The situation I think you're describing is one where the person thinks their neighbours are all Labour so says Labour to the pollster to fit in, but really voted for Major. So you'd be suggesting the person who says "I'm Biden, as are my neighbours" is actually the more likely shy Trumper.
I think that Hunt, Osborne and Ed Miliband are under-rated here, but Benn, Duncan-Smith and Powell are over-rated.
I wonder what the PM we wish we had never had would throw up. Mrs T has her detractors, but also many people (myself included) who thought she was, on balance, a very effective PM. Here would be my order of PMs, with the first three very much in the "wish we never had" category and the rest in descending order (obviously the further down the list one goes they become the ones I think, on balance, made good leaders):
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - the worst by a country mile Gordon Brown Theresa May James Callahan Edward Heath Harold Wilson Tony Blair John Major Margaret Thatcher
I'd have Sunny Jim and John Major close to Johnson than they are. Harold would be my top dog!
Anyway an excellent day's campaigning for Mr Johnson in Solihull with a hi-viz and a shovel. Are you sure you haven't got your list the wrong way around?
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear. It does this by not only asking respondents how they plan to vote but also how they thought their neighbors might vote
Oh I see. That malarkey. Too clever by half some of these polling firms.
Makes sense I think. 'I wouldn't dream of voting Trump, but I have to report a groundswell of opinion in his favour in my neck of the woods' = Trump.
But the poll is meant to pick up that groundswell of support not intuit it.
I didn't make my meaning clear. What I'm trying to say, is that anyone who would say that, is probably a shy Trumper. That question gives them a valve to vent their Trumpiness in a socially acceptable way. Of course, they could be wrong to do so but I suspect it's quite accurate.
Hmm. Seems a stretch.
Although I do have a nagging fear that there are people - apolitical shallow types - who are addicted to the Trump show and might vote on that basis. You wouldn't admit to that.
OTOH if you're voting for him because you're a bigot I doubt you would feel shy about that. Trump has made that acceptable in "his" states. Desirable even.
Your need to condemn people for voting for Trump makes it pretty hard for you to understand them.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
Fakest of fake news. It was the student newspaper revealing Young's attendence of the secret eugenics conference that cause him to reconsider his position.
Journalist attends conference. What a shocker.
Yet somehow have his attendence of the secret eugenics conference that absolute massive crank racists like Emil Kirkengaard attend was enough to make him resign.
One day, I was out for a coffee on a hot afternoon.
At the foot of the steps to pedestrian footbridge, a TV crew was stopping passers by for interviews. After a few words, they would dismiss them and setup for another try.
When I got closer, it turned out they were trying to get a certain viewpoint on camera. One that 90% of the public didn't seem to agree with.
I started to film this, with my camera - a very early smart phone. The journalist became angry when this was observed and came over to tell me to stop filming. Or the police would be called, for harassing them....
I'm not surprised. The journalistic wish to have a "theme" to an article drives a lot of interview selection. I've told the story here before about a BBC programme doing a two-hour interview with me and using half a sentence that happened to fit the point they were trying to make (that middle-class voters were supposedly terrified of possible tax rises under Blair), even though I'd disagreed with their thesis throughout.
It *does* undoubtedly make an article or TV piece more coherent if everyone is pulling in the same direction - "we investigated this scandal and here are four people telling us awful it was", not "here's someone who said it was awful, and here's someone else who says it wasn't". But it misleads the viewer/reader, and only makes sense if one sees journalism as art and entertainment rather than accurate and nuanced portrayal of the reality.
If the new BBC guy wanted to make an actual good change he'd ban vox pops.
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear. It does this by not only asking respondents how they plan to vote but also how they thought their neighbors might vote
Oh I see. That malarkey. Too clever by half some of these polling firms.
Makes sense I think. 'I wouldn't dream of voting Trump, but I have to report a groundswell of opinion in his favour in my neck of the woods' = Trump.
But the poll is meant to pick up that groundswell of support not intuit it.
I didn't make my meaning clear. What I'm trying to say, is that anyone who would say that, is probably a shy Trumper. That question gives them a valve to vent their Trumpiness in a socially acceptable way. Of course, they could be wrong to do so but I suspect it's quite accurate.
Hmm. Seems a stretch.
Although I do have a nagging fear that there are people - apolitical shallow types - who are addicted to the Trump show and might vote on that basis. You wouldn't admit to that.
OTOH if you're voting for him because you're a bigot I doubt you would feel shy about that. Trump has made that acceptable in "his" states. Desirable even.
Your need to condemn people for voting for Trump makes it pretty hard for you to understand them.
This sort of thing is an indication of how in some ways we've become less tolerant as a nation over the last 20 to 30 years in my opinion. If the same thing had happened back then, most people would have been more sympathetic towards these people.
Comments
You can either argue that there is no long term gain in one of the two, or that the short term pain is avoidable, or both.
Morons.
Secondly, they would probably do a better job then those who want the job. I know it was Goucho Marks who said "He wouldn't want to be a member of any club who would have it as a member", but can't remember who said "Anyone who wants the job should be instantly disqualified"
I suppose Trump could do better than average in Florida (GOP did in midterms). But I'd not conclude that based on a Trafalgar poll. Trafalgar are unusually optimistic for Trump everywhere - if they are right then he'll win the election with a bit to spare across just about all the key states. If they're wrong, then he'll probably lose Florida as well as similarly tight states.
One day, I was out for a coffee on a hot afternoon.
At the foot of the steps to pedestrian footbridge, a TV crew was stopping passers by for interviews. After a few words, they would dismiss them and setup for another try.
When I got closer, it turned out they were trying to get a certain viewpoint on camera. One that 90% of the public didn't seem to agree with.
I started to film this, with my camera - a very early smart phone. The journalist became angry when this was observed and came over to tell me to stop filming. Or the police would be called, for harassing them....
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
"Boris, what's polling well in the Red Wall is free fish and chips every Friday."
"Ooo er. Ok! I'll get Ricky to announce it."
Next day -
"Boris. Problem. We forgot the mushy peas."
"Arghh. Call a press conference. No not for later. NOW."
This isn't like Cummings in Durham or the exam grading fiasco which cut through to people who aren't already very interested in politics.
Also, while Abbott very obviously isn't my cup of tea politically at all, it's not like appointing Toby Young to the board of the Office for Students for example, where you question the sanity of those involved in the decision. Abbott is a serious figure, even if I think he's seriously wrong on some issues.
They are missing five new national polls today.
It's becoming unusable.
538 seems far quicker.
People: don't mess with hairdressers
It does seem as if Colorado makes use of forcible injection of Ketamine in subduing suspects on a fairly regular basis.
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1300761611553124353?s=09
In the ones you can see the "who do you think your neighbour would vote for" overstates Trump every time.
https://twitter.com/DHBJones/status/1275770034506403840
https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/506039-poll-finds-biden-leading-trump-by-five-points-in-pennsylvania
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
Here we have someone who is not a particular expert on trade (he didn't negotiate any trade deals while PM), let alone the UK economy, who has been roundly rejected *in Australia* for views even they now find antediluvian, and who more often than not rubs people up the wrong way because he doesn't know when to keep his gob shut and not think out loud.
It would be a disastrous appointment, up there with Corbyn deciding Ken Livingstone would make a good defence adviser. But it'd almost be worth seeing them go through with it for the inevitable debacle in six months when he says something Brexit voters find terrible.
Scottish independence after the UK leaves the single market however means tariffs on all Scottish exports to England where over 70% of Scottish exports go while EU membership for an independent Scotland probably with the Euro replacing the Scottish pound means it is also less sovereign than a post Brexit England and Wales
Now trading at USD 111. A drop in nominal value of about 400 Billion USD in 48 hours.
Maybe that US stock bubble is popping
https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1301514924913561603
Scottish independence, join EU. Northern Ireland gets fed up with its half in/half out status and there is Irish unification. England and Wales decideds to rejoin EU as it is now surrounded. Overall the old UK has now more influence in the EU as two countries and a significant presence in a third. This assumes that Scotland does not hate E&W's guts and votes against E&W rejoining.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/nebraska/
My 23 year old son is on the spectrum. He looks perfectly normal, however his reaction to being stopped by the police would be one of absolute fear. He would be confused, and although he would try to be compliant, in doing so his reactions might appear odd, that might spook a poorly trained police officer. Fortunately he lives in South Wales and not Colorado.
Trump has exacerbated deep rooted problems in society. He needs to be ejected from office. How the handful of Trump cheerleaders posting on here, from the safety of Great Britain can reach the conclusion that he is the right man to lead the free world is verging on the immoral.
"In a separate conversation, it is alleged that the president branded US marines who lost their lives at the Battle of Belleau Wood in the First World War as "suckers".
The Atlantic said it had spoken to four people with first-hand knowledge of the discussion about the cemetery visit, while the Associated Press news agency said a senior defence department official had confirmed some of the remarks, including the 2018 cemetery comments."
https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-denies-calling-dead-us-soldiers-losers-and-suckers-12063179
That's more important than a night's betting.
I want Trump not just gone, but comprehensively defeated, humiliated and ground into the dust like Corbyn 2019.
All's fair in love and war and removing Donald Trump.
He is a despicable human being and a disgrace to the US
I have no idea as it has never been discussed, but if I had to bet, this is how I would go from their location, age, occupations, attitudes and my gut intuition.
This is in no way a sign of my shy Toriness. Merely my best guess if pushed.
I feel like I'm playing devil's advocate here. I have no idea if he'll win. I don't think I could bring myself to vote for him if I were American - I think I'd cringe every time he began a speech. However, this question seems a clever and expedient innovation.
Even so, there does seem to be a strong cargo cult element to it all. Perhaps if Cummings builds some vaguely inspired-by version of Nasa mission control, this government will seem even vaguely in control of its mission.
Yet reports that the walls will be covered in screens showing real-time data suggest more of a stage set where the production designer has been charged with creating a “mission control-type room”. As has been pointed out, the whole screens-on-the-wall look dates back to the time when people didn’t have a variety of personal screens everywhere from their desk to their pocket. Hold on to your hats, because I am told that in the future, a gaggle of brilliant men in shirtsleeves and tie clips will not actually have to gather round a big telly and think laterally about how to get their government’s off-course agenda back down to Earth.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/04/mission-control-dominic-cummings-nasa-mission-control-mistakes-space
It *does* undoubtedly make an article or TV piece more coherent if everyone is pulling in the same direction - "we investigated this scandal and here are four people telling us awful it was", not "here's someone who said it was awful, and here's someone else who says it wasn't". But it misleads the viewer/reader, and only makes sense if one sees journalism as art and entertainment rather than accurate and nuanced portrayal of the reality.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1301897621661986818?s=09
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - the worst by a country mile
Gordon Brown
Theresa May
James Callahan
Edward Heath
Harold Wilson
Tony Blair
John Major
Margaret Thatcher
Although I do have a nagging fear that there are people - apolitical shallow types - who are addicted to the Trump show and might vote on that basis. You wouldn't admit to that.
OTOH if you're voting for him because you're a bigot I doubt you would feel shy about that. Trump has made that acceptable in "his" states. Desirable even.
He was mocked for suggesting that some Tory MPs might vote down the budget and not lose the whip . . . and for saying that voting down the budget is not a "Confidence and Supply" issue.
He never did get around to explaining what he thought "and Supply" meant.
This is merely about weightings. So they'd they'd not ignore your response if you say you're Biden but your neighbours are Trump rather than that you and your neighbours are all Biden, but they'd reduce the weight a bit on the basis there is some chance (albeit not a big chance) you're shy Trump.
I am a bit dubious about the "projection" logic of it. It seems equally possible that people who feel under most social pressure are those who say that they and their neighbours vote the same way - the housewife who privately dislikes Trump but would never admit it on the phone due to her MAGA hubby and neighbours, or the black factory worker who nods along when Trump is called a racist, but quietly votes for him as he's more likely to stand up to China on trade.
They are a load of manufactured shite.
They say you project onto your neighbours - i.e. that someone saying "I'm for Biden but most people around here are Trump supporters" is more likely to be a shy Trump supporter than someone who says "I'm Biden, as are my neighbours".
The situation I think you're describing is one where the person thinks their neighbours are all Labour so says Labour to the pollster to fit in, but really voted for Major. So you'd be suggesting the person who says "I'm Biden, as are my neighbours" is actually the more likely shy Trumper.
Anyway an excellent day's campaigning for Mr Johnson in Solihull with a hi-viz and a shovel. Are you sure you haven't got your list the wrong way around?
You'd have solid evidence one way or another from Florida and a media over-emphasising the uncertainty in the slower-reporting states.
I think the one leads to the other.