Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The betting markets continue to rate Trump’s re-election chanc

12467

Comments

  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.

    But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
    I think there are some people on this site who are extremist moderates. And then there are others who are moderate in all things, bar one.

    I'm sorry to say that I was missed from the list of extremists. I would be sad to think I had left that behind. But there are only some lost battles that I cannot resist fighting here.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    F1: markets taking a while to wake up.

    Unlikely to bet unless Bottas has silly odds. Could be lots of teams tripping up over one another in ridiculous traffics jams.

    Just checked Bottas 3 for pole and 5 for the win.
  • A solicitor has launched a crowdfund campaign for a case against the Government over the mess that is the quarantine policy. No scientific evidence that the arbitrary way it is being applied justifies it.

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/end-the-quarantine/
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I am half-inclined to go for this role - https://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/appointment/the-independent-office-for-police-conduct/.

    But know that I would not stand a chance the minute anyone on the panel reads what I have written about the police.

    Were it an elected post, you’d have my vote.

    That is very kind.

    I do have a Certificate of Achievement from the City of London police. Perhaps if I mention that prominently they may overlook everything else?

    It does sound like a potentially interesting role and one from which one could learn as well as contribute.

    One for a rainy day afternoon .....

  • Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Hard to disagree with any of David’s analysis.

    And yet....

    Trump fluked 2016. Can he fiddle 2020? I am not sure that America has a strong claim to be a functioning democracy anymore and those in charge don’t seem to care.

    Imagine saying such a thing 7 or 10 years ago. It’s a measure of how quickly even a long-established democracy can degrade. And a warning to us here.
    The US 'democracy' was going badly awry in 2000. Remember the Florida chads? And there were plenty of reports of gerrymandering Congressional districts, too.

    One thing that worries me here is that nearly every time Johnson refers to the UK and it's systems he adds a few words of praise...... compare the 'world-beating' test and trace systems. Or 'this incredible country'.
    I don't see why being proud or setting high standards should be considered worrying?

    Our test and trace system is being demonstrated in real time to be world beating as it stands. We have learnt from those who dealt with the first stage well - Germany, Singapore, South Korea etc - and built out own test and trace system that is now amongst the best in the world.
    Banging on about 'our excellence' or equivalent, at every available opportunity, isn't, I suggest, in accordance with traditional British values.
    And our test and take system is better than it was, but it's no better than others, and not as good, perhaps, as it could be, due to insistence on new systems, rather than building on Public Health's existing systems.
    The evidence shows that our Test and Trace program is better than any comparable country in the world that struggled with the virus previously.

    Name one country in the world please that previously had a major outbreak, is comparable to the UK and has a lower positivity rate amongst it's testing than the UK does?

    We are running hundreds of thousands of tests per day and Malmesbury has the figures and charts but the ONS data shows we are now identifying half the cases happening in this country which given asymptomatic spread is a remarkable achievement by Test and Trace.

    It is IMO the reason the virus is under control in this country unlike in France, Spain etc

    PS building a new system is entirely appropriate when we could see that PHEs existing system was terrible compared to the systems in Germany, South Korea, Singapore etc. We have built a new system based upon what works from the best in the world not PHE.
    After a very slow start back in March and April, the U.K. testing rate is now one of the best in the world.

    No country larger than the U.K. has more tests per capita according to Worldometers, we are level with USA and Russia, and well ahead of all the large European countries. We have roughly 20% more tests per capita than Portugal, 25% more than Spain, 60% more than Italy and nearly double the rate in France.
    Absolutely.

    Was the UK's testing capacity at the start of the pandemic good enough? No, of course not.

    Has it been identified as a priority and been built up? Yes, absolutely.

    I can absolutely acknowledge what went wrong in the past. It is a shame people are too partisan to acknowledge when we get things right. I suppose it's easier just to complain than give credit where it is due.
  • Cyclefree said:

    I am half-inclined to go for this role - https://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/appointment/the-independent-office-for-police-conduct/.

    But know that I would not stand a chance the minute anyone on the panel reads what I have written about the police.

    Are you a misfit or weirdo? That seems to be the main criteria at the moment.

    Or Australian.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849
    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.

    But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
    I am extreme in my moderation.
    Raving loony centrist - like @ydoethur. :smiley:

    No but seriously (and answering Philip's point) -

    Moderate here doesn't mean apolitical or exact centre ground or the dreaded "pragmatic not ideological". It just means occupies a place in the spectrum bounded by the Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism.
  • Mr. Sandpit, those aren't too tempting for me.

    Just going to wait and see if Ladbrokes has anything, but I suspect not.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited September 2020
    alex_ said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    Is HYUFD in a category all of his own?
    Well I voted Remain and never voted for Corbyn Labour or UKIP or the Brexit Party so my voting record is pretty moderate however I do accept I am a partisan conservative
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Here we go: Michel Barnier to be Sidelined by EU Leaders in Bid to Break Brexit Deadlock.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/04/exclusive-michel-barnier-sidelined-eu-leaders-bid-break-brexit/
    Representatives of the bloc’s 27 member states expect Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, to pave the way for heads of state and government to intervene in the deadlocked talks in a September 16 flagship speech.

    Maybe a deal is possible afterall?
    Let’s hope so, a good deal will be better than no deal.
    Absolutely.

    Good deal > No Deal > Bad deal.
    No. Algaebraic error.

    Good Deal > Bad Deal > No Deal.

    And the 1st is not happening thus -

    Bad Deal > No Deal.

    And No Deal is not happening thus -

    Bad Deal.

    To be sold as Good Deal by Muscles.
    If a bad deal was better than no deal it wouldn't be that bad of a deal. But no there is no reason to think a bad deal is better than no deal, only a zealot like yourself would think that.

    My algebra is the algebra of a moderate. Zealots would say either that no deal is always best or always worst.
    No deal (which isn't happening) would be VERY bad. Thus a merely bad deal beats it. This really is just algebra.
    No deal isn't that bad.

    A bad deal would be worse.

    Let's say we agreed a deal with no more market access than we get from No Deal but paying billions of pounds a year to them for it and being forced to keep rules aligned without a say. Would that be better or worse than no deal?
    Falls at the first. Cannot be rescued by absurd hypothetical which follows.
  • kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.

    But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
    I am extreme in my moderation.
    Raving loony centrist - like @ydoethur. :smiley:

    No but seriously (and answering Philip's point) -

    Moderate here doesn't mean apolitical or exact centre ground or the dreaded "pragmatic not ideological". It just means occupies a place in the spectrum bounded by the Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism.
    Cons ex ERG aren't all moderates and I say that as a Conservative. I'm not ERG and I would have never classed myself as moderate, even when I used to back Remain.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Here we go: Michel Barnier to be Sidelined by EU Leaders in Bid to Break Brexit Deadlock.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/04/exclusive-michel-barnier-sidelined-eu-leaders-bid-break-brexit/
    Representatives of the bloc’s 27 member states expect Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, to pave the way for heads of state and government to intervene in the deadlocked talks in a September 16 flagship speech.

    Maybe a deal is possible afterall?
    Let’s hope so, a good deal will be better than no deal.
    Absolutely.

    Good deal > No Deal > Bad deal.
    No. Algaebraic error.

    Good Deal > Bad Deal > No Deal.

    And the 1st is not happening thus -

    Bad Deal > No Deal.

    And No Deal is not happening thus -

    Bad Deal.

    To be sold as Good Deal by Muscles.
    If a bad deal was better than no deal it wouldn't be that bad of a deal. But no there is no reason to think a bad deal is better than no deal, only a zealot like yourself would think that.

    My algebra is the algebra of a moderate. Zealots would say either that no deal is always best or always worst.
    No deal (which isn't happening) would be VERY bad. Thus a merely bad deal beats it. This really is just algebra.
    No deal isn't that bad.

    A bad deal would be worse.

    Let's say we agreed a deal with no more market access than we get from No Deal but paying billions of pounds a year to them for it and being forced to keep rules aligned without a say. Would that be better or worse than no deal?
    Falls at the first. Cannot be rescued by absurd hypothetical which follows.
    What's so bad about no deal? Go on then.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    I am half-inclined to go for this role - https://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/appointment/the-independent-office-for-police-conduct/.

    But know that I would not stand a chance the minute anyone on the panel reads what I have written about the police.

    Are you a misfit or weirdo? That seems to be the main criteria at the moment.

    Or Australian.
    I will leave you to answer the first question.

    I am not Australian. Never even been and, naughty me, not frankly very interested in going.

    There is one journey I would like to make and that is round all the sites of the old Roman Empire: Tunisia, Libya - Leptis Magna, Syria, Turkey etc as well as all the obvious places in Greece, Sicily, Italy, Spain etc. Well, that’s not going to happen any time soon.

    Plus I’d love to explore Iran. Again, unlikely.

    Damn.

    Unless there’s a vaccine for Covid, I may never leave this remote Cumbrian hillside ever again.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849
    edited September 2020
    alex_ said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    Is HYUFD in a category all of his own?
    He is a Con loyalist and deep down quite moderate. He would prefer his party to be moderate but will stick with them regardless.

    But I did omit @BluestBlue and that was unforgivable. No moderate he.

    It was unforgivable but I do ask forgiveness. It's hard keeping track sometimes, especially for me with all the various lists that I keep.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    For anyone into “stadium rock” I highly recommend the new Killers album - “Imploding the Mirage”. It is a masterpiece.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited September 2020
    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:
    So articulate. So pleasant.

    Why the hell couldn’t the US have had candidates like these to choose from instead of the senile old tossers they now have?
    Joe Biden is older than is ideal for a candidate for US president but he is not senile. He's 77 and acts like it.

    Would we be diagnosing any other elderly man who fails to look and speak like somebody much younger as senile? I don't think so.
    Absolutely people would, without question.

    If the candidates are very old compared to the average there will be comments about their wits, if they are younger there will be comments their experience or maturity even if they are in the prime of life.
    Some people would, yes. But most of us wouldn't.
    And most of us don't suggest Biden has dementia, just that he is indeed old. So what's the problem? Most don't, some do.
    Cyclefree did suggest it. I duly objected and she has gracefully retracted because she didn't mean it.

    Is that Ok with you?
    Of course it is, I still don't know what your issue is. You asked would people be making such comments about any other elderly man, and I answered that people would. Are you ok with that? Since it is the truth. Yet you seem to be getting very upset about me saying that even though I have not made any such comments.

    I've not said it and wouldn't say it, and I don't care what cyclefree said or meant. I answered your question whether people would say it, then you changed tack to saying most people wouldn't, and I agreed, but that wasn't your original point.

    Your question was if people would, and they do and did, about both Biden and Trump as it happens, and have for years. I'm sorry if that upsets you, and I would not encourage people to say it, but you asked and don't appear to like the truthful answer.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Here we go: Michel Barnier to be Sidelined by EU Leaders in Bid to Break Brexit Deadlock.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/04/exclusive-michel-barnier-sidelined-eu-leaders-bid-break-brexit/
    Representatives of the bloc’s 27 member states expect Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, to pave the way for heads of state and government to intervene in the deadlocked talks in a September 16 flagship speech.

    Maybe a deal is possible afterall?
    Let’s hope so, a good deal will be better than no deal.
    Absolutely.

    Good deal > No Deal > Bad deal.
    No. Algaebraic error.

    Good Deal > Bad Deal > No Deal.

    And the 1st is not happening thus -

    Bad Deal > No Deal.

    And No Deal is not happening thus -

    Bad Deal.

    To be sold as Good Deal by Muscles.
    If a bad deal was better than no deal it wouldn't be that bad of a deal. But no there is no reason to think a bad deal is better than no deal, only a zealot like yourself would think that.

    My algebra is the algebra of a moderate. Zealots would say either that no deal is always best or always worst.
    No deal (which isn't happening) would be VERY bad. Thus a merely bad deal beats it. This really is just algebra.
    No deal isn't that bad.

    A bad deal would be worse.

    Let's say we agreed a deal with no more market access than we get from No Deal but paying billions of pounds a year to them for it and being forced to keep rules aligned without a say. Would that be better or worse than no deal?
    Falls at the first. Cannot be rescued by absurd hypothetical which follows.
    What's so bad about no deal? Go on then.
    What is so bad about moving from frictionless trade with our largest and nearest market to trading with them on basic WTO terms?

    You do ask some killer questions sometimes.

    My head is hurting.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    edited September 2020
    kinabalu said:

    alex_ said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    Is HYUFD in a category all of his own?
    He is a Con loyalist and deep down quite moderate. He would prefer his party to be moderate but will stick with them regardless.

    But I did omit @BluestBlue and that was unforgivable. No moderate he.

    It was unforgivable but I do ask forgiveness. It's hard keeping track sometimes, especially for me with all the various lists that I keep.
    And here I was thinking you were deliberately trying to rile me by implying that I was a moderate...

    p.s. The funny thing is that I actually AM a moderate in my voting. Almost always Tory (usually wets), Lib Dem once (tactically), Green on the council level a couple of times on a specific local issue. And Remain, of course!

    Clearly the hallmarks of one beyond the pale.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.

    But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
    I am extreme in my moderation.
    Raving loony centrist - like @ydoethur. :smiley:

    No but seriously (and answering Philip's point) -

    Moderate here doesn't mean apolitical or exact centre ground or the dreaded "pragmatic not ideological". It just means occupies a place in the spectrum bounded by the Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism.
    Cons ex ERG aren't all moderates and I say that as a Conservative. I'm not ERG and I would have never classed myself as moderate, even when I used to back Remain.
    Yes, fair comment. You are not ERG and yet are an extremist. And there will be other exceptions. It was just a broadbrush scoping but it does have value, I think. It will catch most genuine moderates.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    A solicitor has launched a crowdfund campaign for a case against the Government over the mess that is the quarantine policy. No scientific evidence that the arbitrary way it is being applied justifies it.

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/end-the-quarantine/

    Interesting. Not that I like arbitrary government decisions, but are governments legally not allowed to be arbitary at times. There are times they have to take various things into account, or depending on the issue consult on it or so on, but I feel like a lot of government decisions are based on half cocked presumptions without being unlawful, so not sure when a more rigorous approach and basis is required.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Cyclefree said:

    I am half-inclined to go for this role - https://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/appointment/the-independent-office-for-police-conduct/.

    But know that I would not stand a chance the minute anyone on the panel reads what I have written about the police.

    It's possible to be a bit too independent even for an independent office, no doubt.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Dura_Ace said:

    kinabalu said:


    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.

    I prefer to think of myself as completely orthogonal to the moderation - extremism spectrum.

    Nous ne sommes rien, soyons tout.
    You are definitely sui generis.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Isn't there a party in Scandanavia which is the Moderate Party? I wouldn't know if they are truly moderate though (plenty of Liberal parties in the world which are conservative), but perhaps they are the home for all the raging moderates here.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    Disappointed not to be on your list of extremists, especially given our bet on Trump. Has ruined my day.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Hard to disagree with any of David’s analysis.

    And yet....

    Trump fluked 2016. Can he fiddle 2020? I am not sure that America has a strong claim to be a functioning democracy anymore and those in charge don’t seem to care.

    Imagine saying such a thing 7 or 10 years ago. It’s a measure of how quickly even a long-established democracy can degrade. And a warning to us here.
    The US 'democracy' was going badly awry in 2000. Remember the Florida chads? And there were plenty of reports of gerrymandering Congressional districts, too.

    One thing that worries me here is that nearly every time Johnson refers to the UK and it's systems he adds a few words of praise...... compare the 'world-beating' test and trace systems. Or 'this incredible country'.
    It's called pandering, and not sure that can be cut out. See any politicians from any party on the NHS.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    kinabalu said:

    alex_ said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    Is HYUFD in a category all of his own?
    He is a Con loyalist and deep down quite moderate. He would prefer his party to be moderate but will stick with them regardless.

    But I did omit @BluestBlue and that was unforgivable. No moderate he.

    It was unforgivable but I do ask forgiveness. It's hard keeping track sometimes, especially for me with all the various lists that I keep.
    I would say I was probably in the centre of the Conservative Party pre 2019 but probably slightly to the left of the party now but yes I am a Tory loyalist
  • Just popping in to note that I am reassured that eco-authoritarianism and advocating the extinction of Humankind is considered to be a moderate viewpoint on PB.

    Laters...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,056
    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.

    But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
    I am extreme in my moderation.
    I am only moderate in my extremism, I occupy the safe centre ground between anarcho-syndacalism and bourgeois democracy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited September 2020

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.

    But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
    I am extreme in my moderation.
    Raving loony centrist - like @ydoethur. :smiley:

    No but seriously (and answering Philip's point) -

    Moderate here doesn't mean apolitical or exact centre ground or the dreaded "pragmatic not ideological". It just means occupies a place in the spectrum bounded by the Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism.
    Cons ex ERG aren't all moderates and I say that as a Conservative. I'm not ERG and I would have never classed myself as moderate, even when I used to back Remain.
    If you really wanted the ultimate moderate voter it would probably be someone who voted for Labour under Blair then Tory under Cameron or LD under Clegg then Tory under May and for Boris or the LDs in 2019 and is now voting for Labour again under Starmer or LD under Davey.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    "Coronavirus: Civil servants 'must get back to offices quickly'"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54035770
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    nichomar said:

    Just a reminder, Spain had the same level of infections as the UK had yesterday on July 21st outbreaks were being managed on an individual basis ‘whack a mole’ style the escalation was, as it is in France, dramatic and rapid.

    So we've gone from being told the UK is only two weeks behind Spain to being told that the UK is six weeks behind Spain.
    Well, time will tell, we shall see by October whether we are genuinely better, or merely on a different part of the roller coaster.

    Hubris can be brutal.
    If you do not mind me asking, as a Doctor Foxy, do you agree with the idea that given the positivity rate of Spain was over 6% that Spain would have been missing a lot more of its asymptomatc cases and allowing them to spread than the UK is at 0.6%?
    Yes, probably so, though would depend on how well targetted testing was there. A lot here is of assymptomatic people without history of contact so would expect very low positives.

    I see upward trends here though, and the returning sunseekers combined with schools and unis going back*, the overcrowded Rishi meal deal restaurants all look like a risk that we emulate France and Spain. Our Covid-19 inpatients in Leicester went up last week for the first time in months, for example.

    *I entirely support education restarting, but clearly a risk, as seen in America.

    https://twitter.com/yellingatwind/status/1301700119419432960?s=19

    Physicists didn't realise young people socialise?
    That's a surprise.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited September 2020
    kle4 said:

    Isn't there a party in Scandanavia which is the Moderate Party? I wouldn't know if they are truly moderate though (plenty of Liberal parties in the world which are conservative), but perhaps they are the home for all the raging moderates here.

    Yes, in Sweden the Social Democrats are the centre left party and the Moderates are the centre right party, if they went any further right than that they would not get elected in Sweden (though the Swedish Democrats get about 10 to 20% on the populist right)
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849
    Dura_Ace said:

    kinabalu said:


    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.

    I prefer to think of myself as completely orthogonal to the moderation - extremism spectrum.

    Nous ne sommes rien, soyons tout.
    Well indeed. :smile:

    And while I'm tidying up -

    @Theuniondivvie should have gone on there. The Sindy is mixed with Left.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,056
    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Hard to disagree with any of David’s analysis.

    And yet....

    Trump fluked 2016. Can he fiddle 2020? I am not sure that America has a strong claim to be a functioning democracy anymore and those in charge don’t seem to care.

    Imagine saying such a thing 7 or 10 years ago. It’s a measure of how quickly even a long-established democracy can degrade. And a warning to us here.
    The US 'democracy' was going badly awry in 2000. Remember the Florida chads? And there were plenty of reports of gerrymandering Congressional districts, too.

    One thing that worries me here is that nearly every time Johnson refers to the UK and it's systems he adds a few words of praise...... compare the 'world-beating' test and trace systems. Or 'this incredible country'.
    I don't see why being proud or setting high standards should be considered worrying?

    Our test and trace system is being demonstrated in real time to be world beating as it stands. We have learnt from those who dealt with the first stage well - Germany, Singapore, South Korea etc - and built out own test and trace system that is now amongst the best in the world.
    Banging on about 'our excellence' or equivalent, at every available opportunity, isn't, I suggest, in accordance with traditional British values.
    And our test and take system is better than it was, but it's no better than others, and not as good, perhaps, as it could be, due to insistence on new systems, rather than building on Public Health's existing systems.
    The evidence shows that our Test and Trace program is better than any comparable country in the world that struggled with the virus previously.

    Name one country in the world please that previously had a major outbreak, is comparable to the UK and has a lower positivity rate amongst it's testing than the UK does?

    We are running hundreds of thousands of tests per day and Malmesbury has the figures and charts but the ONS data shows we are now identifying half the cases happening in this country which given asymptomatic spread is a remarkable achievement by Test and Trace.

    It is IMO the reason the virus is under control in this country unlike in France, Spain etc

    PS building a new system is entirely appropriate when we could see that PHEs existing system was terrible compared to the systems in Germany, South Korea, Singapore etc. We have built a new system based upon what works from the best in the world not PHE.
    After a very slow start back in March and April, the U.K. testing rate is now one of the best in the world.

    No country larger than the U.K. has more tests per capita according to Worldometers, we are level with USA and Russia, and well ahead of all the large European countries. We have roughly 20% more tests per capita than Portugal, 25% more than Spain, 60% more than Italy and nearly double the rate in France.
    Testing is not an end in itself.

    The effectiveness of a programme rests on whether we are testing the right people, getting the results to the right people in a timely manner and taking appropriate action on the results.

    Nonetheless it is far better than the pisspoor testing that we had in the first wave.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    kle4 said:

    A solicitor has launched a crowdfund campaign for a case against the Government over the mess that is the quarantine policy. No scientific evidence that the arbitrary way it is being applied justifies it.

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/end-the-quarantine/

    Interesting. Not that I like arbitrary government decisions, but are governments legally not allowed to be arbitary at times. There are times they have to take various things into account, or depending on the issue consult on it or so on, but I feel like a lot of government decisions are based on half cocked presumptions without being unlawful, so not sure when a more rigorous approach and basis is required.
    There was a chap on the radio this morning from I think it was the HPS in Scotland. He was asked "why hasn't England followed Scotland's lead on quarantining Portugal?" He explained that it's not just the rate of infections* in the country people are coming from but also who is coming back from travelling and where they are going when they get back. So as the countries of the UK have different geography, demographics, employment and so on, you would expect them to make different decisions, even when they are applying essentially the same rules to the same data. Which is of course the exact opposite of what the media and opposition have been squawking about over the last few days when they criticise any difference in policy.

    * He also made the point that they have MANY other bits of data to consider, the infection rate is only a small part of it.
  • kle4 said:

    A solicitor has launched a crowdfund campaign for a case against the Government over the mess that is the quarantine policy. No scientific evidence that the arbitrary way it is being applied justifies it.

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/end-the-quarantine/

    Interesting. Not that I like arbitrary government decisions, but are governments legally not allowed to be arbitary at times. There are times they have to take various things into account, or depending on the issue consult on it or so on, but I feel like a lot of government decisions are based on half cocked presumptions without being unlawful, so not sure when a more rigorous approach and basis is required.
    Partly being brought on human rights grounds:

    "Indiscriminate quarantine is a violation of the right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and does not fall within limited exceptions as not every person returning from an affected country is infected or potentially infected;"
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,056
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.

    But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
    I am extreme in my moderation.
    Raving loony centrist - like @ydoethur. :smiley:

    No but seriously (and answering Philip's point) -

    Moderate here doesn't mean apolitical or exact centre ground or the dreaded "pragmatic not ideological". It just means occupies a place in the spectrum bounded by the Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism.
    Cons ex ERG aren't all moderates and I say that as a Conservative. I'm not ERG and I would have never classed myself as moderate, even when I used to back Remain.
    If you really wanted the ultimate moderate voter it would probably be someone who voted for Labour under Blair then Tory under Cameron or LD under Clegg then Tory under May and for Boris or the LDs in 2019 and is now voting for Labour again under Starmer or LD under Davey.

    thats me (apart from voting Farron in 2017).
  • Foxy said:

    nichomar said:

    Just a reminder, Spain had the same level of infections as the UK had yesterday on July 21st outbreaks were being managed on an individual basis ‘whack a mole’ style the escalation was, as it is in France, dramatic and rapid.

    So we've gone from being told the UK is only two weeks behind Spain to being told that the UK is six weeks behind Spain.
    Well, time will tell, we shall see by October whether we are genuinely better, or merely on a different part of the roller coaster.

    Hubris can be brutal.
    I don't think there's much hubris at the moment.

    But we've had four months of scaremongering as people repeatedly predict second waves.

    Its the failure of those predictions which can lead to complacency.
  • glw said:

    kle4 said:

    A solicitor has launched a crowdfund campaign for a case against the Government over the mess that is the quarantine policy. No scientific evidence that the arbitrary way it is being applied justifies it.

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/end-the-quarantine/

    Interesting. Not that I like arbitrary government decisions, but are governments legally not allowed to be arbitary at times. There are times they have to take various things into account, or depending on the issue consult on it or so on, but I feel like a lot of government decisions are based on half cocked presumptions without being unlawful, so not sure when a more rigorous approach and basis is required.
    There was a chap on the radio this morning from I think it was the HPS in Scotland. He was asked "why hasn't England followed Scotland's lead on quarantining Portugal?" He explained that it's not just the rate of infections* in the country people are coming from but also who is coming back from travelling and where they are going when they get back. So as the countries of the UK have different geography, demographics, employment and so on, you would expect them to make different decisions, even when they are applying essentially the same rules to the same data. Which is of course the exact opposite of what the media and opposition have been squawking about over the last few days when they criticise any difference in policy.

    * He also made the point that they have MANY other bits of data to consider, the infection rate is only a small part of it.
    The other issue is what I keep harping on about, the positivity rate.

    Portugal's positivity rate while worse than ours is better than almost all of the rest of Europe.

    That means that yes Portugal are identifying cases (so that means cases are there), but it also means that actually they are identifying cases (they are testing and tracing them).

    That is why Portugal is not as bad as many other countries.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849

    Just popping in to note that I am reassured that eco-authoritarianism and advocating the extinction of Humankind is considered to be a moderate viewpoint on PB.

    Laters...

    Sorry Sandy. You're on then. I was overly influenced by your ardent dislike of the Corbyn project.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849
    MrEd said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    Disappointed not to be on your list of extremists, especially given our bet on Trump. Has ruined my day.
    OMG I deserve a slap. You're on.

    Anybody rooting for Trump for other than betting reasons is not in any way shape or form a moderate.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Re Contrarian’s point earlier about US polling being skewed by what the newspapers want to hear, I think it is a factor to bear in mind when deciding to place your trust in polling.

    I think some of what Contrarian says goes on (and there is no doubt that polling has become politicised). A bigger issue though is that, for many newspapers, polling is a very good source of click bait to get people to go to their sites and so the quality of the polling becomes less important than the headline grabbing nature of the poll finding. The New York Times readily admits Trump has been a major factor in their successful turnaround story.

  • kle4 said:

    A solicitor has launched a crowdfund campaign for a case against the Government over the mess that is the quarantine policy. No scientific evidence that the arbitrary way it is being applied justifies it.

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/end-the-quarantine/

    Interesting. Not that I like arbitrary government decisions, but are governments legally not allowed to be arbitary at times. There are times they have to take various things into account, or depending on the issue consult on it or so on, but I feel like a lot of government decisions are based on half cocked presumptions without being unlawful, so not sure when a more rigorous approach and basis is required.
    Partly being brought on human rights grounds:

    "Indiscriminate quarantine is a violation of the right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and does not fall within limited exceptions as not every person returning from an affected country is infected or potentially infected;"
    That's absolute nonsense.

    Every person returning is potentially infected, we don't know who is or isn't and that is the purpose of a quarantine. Countries all over the globe are having quarantines and they explicitly fall under the healthcare exemption.
  • “America has gone to hell on my watch, so you must re-elect me” isn’t the greatest campaign pitch I can think of.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/opinion/trump-democrats-cities.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,056

    Foxy said:

    nichomar said:

    Just a reminder, Spain had the same level of infections as the UK had yesterday on July 21st outbreaks were being managed on an individual basis ‘whack a mole’ style the escalation was, as it is in France, dramatic and rapid.

    So we've gone from being told the UK is only two weeks behind Spain to being told that the UK is six weeks behind Spain.
    Well, time will tell, we shall see by October whether we are genuinely better, or merely on a different part of the roller coaster.

    Hubris can be brutal.
    I don't think there's much hubris at the moment.

    But we've had four months of scaremongering as people repeatedly predict second waves.

    Its the failure of those predictions which can lead to complacency.
    I haven't been predicting a second wave, and am still not convinced that we will get one, but think there are a number of more ominous signs than there were a month ago.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Here we go: Michel Barnier to be Sidelined by EU Leaders in Bid to Break Brexit Deadlock.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/04/exclusive-michel-barnier-sidelined-eu-leaders-bid-break-brexit/
    Representatives of the bloc’s 27 member states expect Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, to pave the way for heads of state and government to intervene in the deadlocked talks in a September 16 flagship speech.

    Maybe a deal is possible afterall?
    Let’s hope so, a good deal will be better than no deal.
    Absolutely.

    Good deal > No Deal > Bad deal.
    No. Algaebraic error.

    Good Deal > Bad Deal > No Deal.

    And the 1st is not happening thus -

    Bad Deal > No Deal.

    And No Deal is not happening thus -

    Bad Deal.

    To be sold as Good Deal by Muscles.
    If a bad deal was better than no deal it wouldn't be that bad of a deal. But no there is no reason to think a bad deal is better than no deal, only a zealot like yourself would think that.

    My algebra is the algebra of a moderate. Zealots would say either that no deal is always best or always worst.
    No deal (which isn't happening) would be VERY bad. Thus a merely bad deal beats it. This really is just algebra.
    No deal isn't that bad.

    A bad deal would be worse.

    Let's say we agreed a deal with no more market access than we get from No Deal but paying billions of pounds a year to them for it and being forced to keep rules aligned without a say. Would that be better or worse than no deal?
    Falls at the first. Cannot be rescued by absurd hypothetical which follows.
    What's so bad about no deal? Go on then.
    What is so bad about moving from frictionless trade with our largest and nearest market to trading with them on basic WTO terms?

    You do ask some killer questions sometimes.

    My head is hurting.
    Yes serious question. What is so bad about moving from frictionless* trade to trading with them with an average 2% tariff?

    Our currency fluctuates by more than 2%. Our currency fluctuates by more than tariffs.

    * It was never frictionless.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849

    kinabalu said:

    alex_ said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    Is HYUFD in a category all of his own?
    He is a Con loyalist and deep down quite moderate. He would prefer his party to be moderate but will stick with them regardless.

    But I did omit @BluestBlue and that was unforgivable. No moderate he.

    It was unforgivable but I do ask forgiveness. It's hard keeping track sometimes, especially for me with all the various lists that I keep.
    And here I was thinking you were deliberately trying to rile me by implying that I was a moderate...

    p.s. The funny thing is that I actually AM a moderate in my voting. Almost always Tory (usually wets), Lib Dem once (tactically), Green on the council level a couple of times on a specific local issue. And Remain, of course!

    Clearly the hallmarks of one beyond the pale.
    Bark worse than your bite, I sense, with you.

    But we're going by rhetoric here - so extreme (albeit not "hard") right is the call.
  • kle4 said:

    A solicitor has launched a crowdfund campaign for a case against the Government over the mess that is the quarantine policy. No scientific evidence that the arbitrary way it is being applied justifies it.

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/end-the-quarantine/

    Interesting. Not that I like arbitrary government decisions, but are governments legally not allowed to be arbitary at times. There are times they have to take various things into account, or depending on the issue consult on it or so on, but I feel like a lot of government decisions are based on half cocked presumptions without being unlawful, so not sure when a more rigorous approach and basis is required.
    Partly being brought on human rights grounds:

    "Indiscriminate quarantine is a violation of the right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and does not fall within limited exceptions as not every person returning from an affected country is infected or potentially infected;"
    That's absolute nonsense.

    Every person returning is potentially infected, we don't know who is or isn't and that is the purpose of a quarantine. Countries all over the globe are having quarantines and they explicitly fall under the healthcare exemption.
    Doubt it will get very far. They are asking for an urgent case before the High Court.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835

    kle4 said:

    A solicitor has launched a crowdfund campaign for a case against the Government over the mess that is the quarantine policy. No scientific evidence that the arbitrary way it is being applied justifies it.

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/end-the-quarantine/

    Interesting. Not that I like arbitrary government decisions, but are governments legally not allowed to be arbitary at times. There are times they have to take various things into account, or depending on the issue consult on it or so on, but I feel like a lot of government decisions are based on half cocked presumptions without being unlawful, so not sure when a more rigorous approach and basis is required.
    Partly being brought on human rights grounds:

    "Indiscriminate quarantine is a violation of the right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and does not fall within limited exceptions as not every person returning from an affected country is infected or potentially infected;"
    That's absolute nonsense.

    Every person returning is potentially infected, we don't know who is or isn't and that is the purpose of a quarantine. Countries all over the globe are having quarantines and they explicitly fall under the healthcare exemption.
    Indeed. One may actually say every single person in the world is potentially infected what with days of infectiousness before symptoms. And asymptomatics.
    That is why we have social distancing FFS.
    Pay the lawyers and jog on.
  • dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    A solicitor has launched a crowdfund campaign for a case against the Government over the mess that is the quarantine policy. No scientific evidence that the arbitrary way it is being applied justifies it.

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/end-the-quarantine/

    Interesting. Not that I like arbitrary government decisions, but are governments legally not allowed to be arbitary at times. There are times they have to take various things into account, or depending on the issue consult on it or so on, but I feel like a lot of government decisions are based on half cocked presumptions without being unlawful, so not sure when a more rigorous approach and basis is required.
    Partly being brought on human rights grounds:

    "Indiscriminate quarantine is a violation of the right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and does not fall within limited exceptions as not every person returning from an affected country is infected or potentially infected;"
    That's absolute nonsense.

    Every person returning is potentially infected, we don't know who is or isn't and that is the purpose of a quarantine. Countries all over the globe are having quarantines and they explicitly fall under the healthcare exemption.
    Indeed. One may actually say every single person in the world is potentially infected what with days of infectiousness before symptoms. And asymptomatics.
    That is why we have social distancing FFS.
    Pay the lawyers and jog on.
    Exactly. It's the same reason we need to wear masks, we don't know who is infectious and who isn't.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    I will think of myself as moderate in your eyes rather than overlooked. I think I have a moderate sensibility but I am aware that a lot of my views put me at the extreme end of public opinion (a libertarian socialist apparently, although I think of myself as a centrist dad). Immoderate views, moderately expressed perhaps.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    edited September 2020

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Here we go: Michel Barnier to be Sidelined by EU Leaders in Bid to Break Brexit Deadlock.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/04/exclusive-michel-barnier-sidelined-eu-leaders-bid-break-brexit/
    Representatives of the bloc’s 27 member states expect Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, to pave the way for heads of state and government to intervene in the deadlocked talks in a September 16 flagship speech.

    Maybe a deal is possible afterall?
    Let’s hope so, a good deal will be better than no deal.
    Absolutely.

    Good deal > No Deal > Bad deal.
    No. Algaebraic error.

    Good Deal > Bad Deal > No Deal.

    And the 1st is not happening thus -

    Bad Deal > No Deal.

    And No Deal is not happening thus -

    Bad Deal.

    To be sold as Good Deal by Muscles.
    If a bad deal was better than no deal it wouldn't be that bad of a deal. But no there is no reason to think a bad deal is better than no deal, only a zealot like yourself would think that.

    My algebra is the algebra of a moderate. Zealots would say either that no deal is always best or always worst.
    No deal (which isn't happening) would be VERY bad. Thus a merely bad deal beats it. This really is just algebra.
    No deal isn't that bad.

    A bad deal would be worse.

    Let's say we agreed a deal with no more market access than we get from No Deal but paying billions of pounds a year to them for it and being forced to keep rules aligned without a say. Would that be better or worse than no deal?
    Falls at the first. Cannot be rescued by absurd hypothetical which follows.
    What's so bad about no deal? Go on then.
    What is so bad about moving from frictionless trade with our largest and nearest market to trading with them on basic WTO terms?

    You do ask some killer questions sometimes.

    My head is hurting.
    Yes serious question. What is so bad about moving from frictionless* trade to trading with them with an average 2% tariff?

    Our currency fluctuates by more than 2%. Our currency fluctuates by more than tariffs.

    * It was never frictionless.
    "Frictionless" trade is about more than tariffs.

    There is also the issue of preparation...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849
    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:
    So articulate. So pleasant.

    Why the hell couldn’t the US have had candidates like these to choose from instead of the senile old tossers they now have?
    Joe Biden is older than is ideal for a candidate for US president but he is not senile. He's 77 and acts like it.

    Would we be diagnosing any other elderly man who fails to look and speak like somebody much younger as senile? I don't think so.
    Absolutely people would, without question.

    If the candidates are very old compared to the average there will be comments about their wits, if they are younger there will be comments their experience or maturity even if they are in the prime of life.
    Some people would, yes. But most of us wouldn't.
    And most of us don't suggest Biden has dementia, just that he is indeed old. So what's the problem? Most don't, some do.
    Cyclefree did suggest it. I duly objected and she has gracefully retracted because she didn't mean it.

    Is that Ok with you?
    Of course it is, I still don't know what your issue is. You asked would people be making such comments about any other elderly man, and I answered that people would. Are you ok with that? Since it is the truth. Yet you seem to be getting very upset about me saying that even though I have not made any such comments.

    I've not said it and wouldn't say it, and I don't care what cyclefree said or meant. I answered your question whether people would say it, then you changed tack to saying most people wouldn't, and I agreed, but that wasn't your original point.

    Your question was if people would, and they do and did, about both Biden and Trump as it happens, and have for years. I'm sorry if that upsets you, and I would not encourage people to say it, but you asked and don't appear to like the truthful answer.
    Not upset, kl, just slightly irritated. :smile:

    Revolves around language as so often. As follows -

    My initial "we" when talking to cyclefree was meant to mean "people like us". People like me and her and most on here. Reasonable people. You then replied talking about "people" in a broader sense. And I replied dragging it back to my sense of "we". The one above. But this time I switched to "us".

    So yes, some "people" as per your meaning will throw around accusations of senile at perfectly normal old people. But "people" as per my meaning will not - and thus should not with Biden. C'est ca.

    If you read the thread back you will see that this is an accurate and fair summary.
  • alex_ said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Here we go: Michel Barnier to be Sidelined by EU Leaders in Bid to Break Brexit Deadlock.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/04/exclusive-michel-barnier-sidelined-eu-leaders-bid-break-brexit/
    Representatives of the bloc’s 27 member states expect Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, to pave the way for heads of state and government to intervene in the deadlocked talks in a September 16 flagship speech.

    Maybe a deal is possible afterall?
    Let’s hope so, a good deal will be better than no deal.
    Absolutely.

    Good deal > No Deal > Bad deal.
    No. Algaebraic error.

    Good Deal > Bad Deal > No Deal.

    And the 1st is not happening thus -

    Bad Deal > No Deal.

    And No Deal is not happening thus -

    Bad Deal.

    To be sold as Good Deal by Muscles.
    If a bad deal was better than no deal it wouldn't be that bad of a deal. But no there is no reason to think a bad deal is better than no deal, only a zealot like yourself would think that.

    My algebra is the algebra of a moderate. Zealots would say either that no deal is always best or always worst.
    No deal (which isn't happening) would be VERY bad. Thus a merely bad deal beats it. This really is just algebra.
    No deal isn't that bad.

    A bad deal would be worse.

    Let's say we agreed a deal with no more market access than we get from No Deal but paying billions of pounds a year to them for it and being forced to keep rules aligned without a say. Would that be better or worse than no deal?
    Falls at the first. Cannot be rescued by absurd hypothetical which follows.
    What's so bad about no deal? Go on then.
    What is so bad about moving from frictionless trade with our largest and nearest market to trading with them on basic WTO terms?

    You do ask some killer questions sometimes.

    My head is hurting.
    Yes serious question. What is so bad about moving from frictionless* trade to trading with them with an average 2% tariff?

    Our currency fluctuates by more than 2%. Our currency fluctuates by more than tariffs.

    * It was never frictionless.
    "Frictionless" trade is about more than tariffs.

    There is also the issue of preparation...
    Of course it is but countries and companies export past non tariff barriers all the time already.

    A deal would be nice to have but not having one isn't horrific.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.

    But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
    I am extreme in my moderation.
    Raving loony centrist - like @ydoethur. :smiley:

    No but seriously (and answering Philip's point) -

    Moderate here doesn't mean apolitical or exact centre ground or the dreaded "pragmatic not ideological". It just means occupies a place in the spectrum bounded by the Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism.
    Cons ex ERG aren't all moderates and I say that as a Conservative. I'm not ERG and I would have never classed myself as moderate, even when I used to back Remain.
    If you really wanted the ultimate moderate voter it would probably be someone who voted for Labour under Blair then Tory under Cameron or LD under Clegg then Tory under May and for Boris or the LDs in 2019 and is now voting for Labour again under Starmer or LD under Davey.
    What a wuss.
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    nichomar said:

    Just a reminder, Spain had the same level of infections as the UK had yesterday on July 21st outbreaks were being managed on an individual basis ‘whack a mole’ style the escalation was, as it is in France, dramatic and rapid.

    So we've gone from being told the UK is only two weeks behind Spain to being told that the UK is six weeks behind Spain.
    Well, time will tell, we shall see by October whether we are genuinely better, or merely on a different part of the roller coaster.

    Hubris can be brutal.
    I don't think there's much hubris at the moment.

    But we've had four months of scaremongering as people repeatedly predict second waves.

    Its the failure of those predictions which can lead to complacency.
    I haven't been predicting a second wave, and am still not convinced that we will get one, but think there are a number of more ominous signs than there were a month ago.
    There are some ominous signs and caution is required.

    And that is why the scaremongering has been so irresponsible.

    There is no perfect or one-size-fits-all response - everything is a trade off on health and social and economic grounds.
  • dixiedean said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    nichomar said:

    Just a reminder, Spain had the same level of infections as the UK had yesterday on July 21st outbreaks were being managed on an individual basis ‘whack a mole’ style the escalation was, as it is in France, dramatic and rapid.

    So we've gone from being told the UK is only two weeks behind Spain to being told that the UK is six weeks behind Spain.
    Well, time will tell, we shall see by October whether we are genuinely better, or merely on a different part of the roller coaster.

    Hubris can be brutal.
    If you do not mind me asking, as a Doctor Foxy, do you agree with the idea that given the positivity rate of Spain was over 6% that Spain would have been missing a lot more of its asymptomatc cases and allowing them to spread than the UK is at 0.6%?
    Yes, probably so, though would depend on how well targetted testing was there. A lot here is of assymptomatic people without history of contact so would expect very low positives.

    I see upward trends here though, and the returning sunseekers combined with schools and unis going back*, the overcrowded Rishi meal deal restaurants all look like a risk that we emulate France and Spain. Our Covid-19 inpatients in Leicester went up last week for the first time in months, for example.

    *I entirely support education restarting, but clearly a risk, as seen in America.

    https://twitter.com/yellingatwind/status/1301700119419432960?s=19

    Physicists didn't realise young people socialise?
    That's a surprise.
    This is a wider problem with physicists (and I am one).

    We're very good at making things simple enough to solve, usually by chopping off messy bits that add more complexity than value.

    That makes us look very clever, and genuinely makes us useful. Right up to the moment we chop off something critical from the model.

    This is why city quants caused so much trouble around the 2008 financial crisis, and why I have massive heebie-jeebies about the current government's keenness to get physicists to optimise everything.
    Economists are exactly the same.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    For the purpose of information I'm putting together a plausible "Biden nightmare" spreadsheet together. Where he wins the popular vote by his current 538 score (50.4/43.0) yet Trump wins the EC and even takes Minnesota into the bargain.
  • dixiedean said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    nichomar said:

    Just a reminder, Spain had the same level of infections as the UK had yesterday on July 21st outbreaks were being managed on an individual basis ‘whack a mole’ style the escalation was, as it is in France, dramatic and rapid.

    So we've gone from being told the UK is only two weeks behind Spain to being told that the UK is six weeks behind Spain.
    Well, time will tell, we shall see by October whether we are genuinely better, or merely on a different part of the roller coaster.

    Hubris can be brutal.
    If you do not mind me asking, as a Doctor Foxy, do you agree with the idea that given the positivity rate of Spain was over 6% that Spain would have been missing a lot more of its asymptomatc cases and allowing them to spread than the UK is at 0.6%?
    Yes, probably so, though would depend on how well targetted testing was there. A lot here is of assymptomatic people without history of contact so would expect very low positives.

    I see upward trends here though, and the returning sunseekers combined with schools and unis going back*, the overcrowded Rishi meal deal restaurants all look like a risk that we emulate France and Spain. Our Covid-19 inpatients in Leicester went up last week for the first time in months, for example.

    *I entirely support education restarting, but clearly a risk, as seen in America.

    https://twitter.com/yellingatwind/status/1301700119419432960?s=19

    Physicists didn't realise young people socialise?
    That's a surprise.
    This is a wider problem with physicists (and I am one).

    We're very good at making things simple enough to solve, usually by chopping off messy bits that add more complexity than value.

    That makes us look very clever, and genuinely makes us useful. Right up to the moment we chop off something critical from the model.

    This is why city quants caused so much trouble around the 2008 financial crisis, and why I have massive heebie-jeebies about the current government's keenness to get physicists to optimise everything.
    Economists are exactly the same.
    True, but there's a certain kind of physicist who is very good at persuading themselves and others that every problem can be solved physics-style.

    Most of us remain charming and humble and remember that nature is cleverer than we are.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.

    But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
    I am extreme in my moderation.
    Raving loony centrist - like @ydoethur. :smiley:

    No but seriously (and answering Philip's point) -

    Moderate here doesn't mean apolitical or exact centre ground or the dreaded "pragmatic not ideological". It just means occupies a place in the spectrum bounded by the Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism.
    Cons ex ERG aren't all moderates and I say that as a Conservative. I'm not ERG and I would have never classed myself as moderate, even when I used to back Remain.
    If you really wanted the ultimate moderate voter it would probably be someone who voted for Labour under Blair then Tory under Cameron or LD under Clegg then Tory under May and for Boris or the LDs in 2019 and is now voting for Labour again under Starmer or LD under Davey.
    What a wuss.
    I’ve voted Lib Lib Dem since my first vote in 1974, my 2019 vote will possibly be my last unless we return to the UK or they change the law.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.

    But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
    I am extreme in my moderation.
    Raving loony centrist - like @ydoethur. :smiley:

    No but seriously (and answering Philip's point) -

    Moderate here doesn't mean apolitical or exact centre ground or the dreaded "pragmatic not ideological". It just means occupies a place in the spectrum bounded by the Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism.
    Cons ex ERG aren't all moderates and I say that as a Conservative. I'm not ERG and I would have never classed myself as moderate, even when I used to back Remain.
    If you really wanted the ultimate moderate voter it would probably be someone who voted for Labour under Blair then Tory under Cameron or LD under Clegg then Tory under May and for Boris or the LDs in 2019 and is now voting for Labour again under Starmer or LD under Davey.
    What a wuss.
    Indeed. Less a weathercock and more just a plain cock.
  • This is a wider problem with physicists (and I am one).

    We're very good at making things simple enough to solve, usually by chopping off messy bits that add more complexity than value.

    That makes us look very clever, and genuinely makes us useful. Right up to the moment we chop off something critical from the model.

    This is why city quants caused so much trouble around the 2008 financial crisis, and why I have massive heebie-jeebies about the current government's keenness to get physicists to optimise everything.

    Economists are exactly the same.
    So are Computer Modellers...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849
    edited September 2020

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    I will think of myself as moderate in your eyes rather than overlooked. I think I have a moderate sensibility but I am aware that a lot of my views put me at the extreme end of public opinion (a libertarian socialist apparently, although I think of myself as a centrist dad). Immoderate views, moderately expressed perhaps.
    In fact I nearly listed you but it was such an edge case that I thought it better to err on the side of moderation. Literally. :smile:

    Your last sentence puts it well, I think.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    I will think of myself as moderate in your eyes rather than overlooked. I think I have a moderate sensibility but I am aware that a lot of my views put me at the extreme end of public opinion (a libertarian socialist apparently, although I think of myself as a centrist dad). Immoderate views, moderately expressed perhaps.
    In fact I nearly listed you but it was such an edge case that I thought it better to err on the side of moderation. Literally. :smile:

    Your last sentence puts it well, I think.
    Thanks, I like the idea of being on the cusp of dangerous radicalism.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,138
    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    kinabalu said:


    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.

    I prefer to think of myself as completely orthogonal to the moderation - extremism spectrum.

    Nous ne sommes rien, soyons tout.
    Well indeed. :smile:

    And while I'm tidying up -

    @Theuniondivvie should have gone on there. The Sindy is mixed with Left.
    Oh,. that's not fair on TUD, unless I mistake him. Look at Political Compass. The SNP is as close to centrist dad as you can get. (The Scottish Greens and Tommy Sheridan's mob are/were rather more to the left, of course.)
  • I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
  • kinabalu said:

    MrEd said:

    kinabalu said:


    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?

    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    Disappointed not to be on your list of extremists, especially given our bet on Trump. Has ruined my day.
    OMG I deserve a slap. You're on.

    Anybody rooting for Trump for other than betting reasons is not in any way shape or form a moderate.
    Surely I should be on your list?

    (As an aside, I do not support Trump, but I expect the Democrats to balls something up and allow the Marmalade Monster another 4 years. I hope otherwise...)
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849
    @Alanbrooke is not very moderate either.

    And @another_richard can be a bit fruity with the "globalist" and "liberal elite" talk.

    Think that's it.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.

    That used to be the Conservatives
  • nichomar said:

    I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.

    That used to be the Conservatives
    It is Conservatives at their worst.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849

    kinabalu said:

    MrEd said:

    kinabalu said:


    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?

    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    Disappointed not to be on your list of extremists, especially given our bet on Trump. Has ruined my day.
    OMG I deserve a slap. You're on.

    Anybody rooting for Trump for other than betting reasons is not in any way shape or form a moderate.
    Surely I should be on your list?

    (As an aside, I do not support Trump, but I expect the Democrats to balls something up and allow the Marmalade Monster another 4 years. I hope otherwise...)
    We're listing NOT moderates, Beverley. Posters whose politics are a bit dodgy.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,451
    edited September 2020

    I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.

    Isnt that traditionally a conservative?

    There is definitely a problem where moderate is understood differently:

    centrist
    agnostic about party politics
    not having strong opinions

    Perhaps a true moderate needs all three qualities, which will be a pretty small group.

    I am guilty on the first two, but not the last. I want significant change, have strong views on what those changes should be, but couldn't care less which party brings it about, or whether right or left wing policies are suitable for a particular time and problem.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849

    I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.

    Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.

    That's definitely it now.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793

    dixiedean said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    nichomar said:

    Just a reminder, Spain had the same level of infections as the UK had yesterday on July 21st outbreaks were being managed on an individual basis ‘whack a mole’ style the escalation was, as it is in France, dramatic and rapid.

    So we've gone from being told the UK is only two weeks behind Spain to being told that the UK is six weeks behind Spain.
    Well, time will tell, we shall see by October whether we are genuinely better, or merely on a different part of the roller coaster.

    Hubris can be brutal.
    If you do not mind me asking, as a Doctor Foxy, do you agree with the idea that given the positivity rate of Spain was over 6% that Spain would have been missing a lot more of its asymptomatc cases and allowing them to spread than the UK is at 0.6%?
    Yes, probably so, though would depend on how well targetted testing was there. A lot here is of assymptomatic people without history of contact so would expect very low positives.

    I see upward trends here though, and the returning sunseekers combined with schools and unis going back*, the overcrowded Rishi meal deal restaurants all look like a risk that we emulate France and Spain. Our Covid-19 inpatients in Leicester went up last week for the first time in months, for example.

    *I entirely support education restarting, but clearly a risk, as seen in America.

    https://twitter.com/yellingatwind/status/1301700119419432960?s=19

    Physicists didn't realise young people socialise?
    That's a surprise.
    This is a wider problem with physicists (and I am one).

    We're very good at making things simple enough to solve, usually by chopping off messy bits that add more complexity than value.

    That makes us look very clever, and genuinely makes us useful. Right up to the moment we chop off something critical from the model.

    This is why city quants caused so much trouble around the 2008 financial crisis, and why I have massive heebie-jeebies about the current government's keenness to get physicists to optimise everything.
    Indeed. Their model would have worked for frictionless students in a vacuum.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849
    nichomar said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.

    But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
    I am extreme in my moderation.
    Raving loony centrist - like @ydoethur. :smiley:

    No but seriously (and answering Philip's point) -

    Moderate here doesn't mean apolitical or exact centre ground or the dreaded "pragmatic not ideological". It just means occupies a place in the spectrum bounded by the Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism.
    Cons ex ERG aren't all moderates and I say that as a Conservative. I'm not ERG and I would have never classed myself as moderate, even when I used to back Remain.
    If you really wanted the ultimate moderate voter it would probably be someone who voted for Labour under Blair then Tory under Cameron or LD under Clegg then Tory under May and for Boris or the LDs in 2019 and is now voting for Labour again under Starmer or LD under Davey.
    What a wuss.
    I’ve voted Lib Lib Dem since my first vote in 1974, my 2019 vote will possibly be my last unless we return to the UK or they change the law.
    Disenfranchized by Brexit. No small matter.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849
    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    kinabalu said:


    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.

    I prefer to think of myself as completely orthogonal to the moderation - extremism spectrum.

    Nous ne sommes rien, soyons tout.
    Well indeed. :smile:

    And while I'm tidying up -

    @Theuniondivvie should have gone on there. The Sindy is mixed with Left.
    Oh,. that's not fair on TUD, unless I mistake him. Look at Political Compass. The SNP is as close to centrist dad as you can get. (The Scottish Greens and Tommy Sheridan's mob are/were rather more to the left, of course.)
    Well it was meant positively actually. I'm on the list after all.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    kinabalu said:

    nichomar said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.

    But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
    I am extreme in my moderation.
    Raving loony centrist - like @ydoethur. :smiley:

    No but seriously (and answering Philip's point) -

    Moderate here doesn't mean apolitical or exact centre ground or the dreaded "pragmatic not ideological". It just means occupies a place in the spectrum bounded by the Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism.
    Cons ex ERG aren't all moderates and I say that as a Conservative. I'm not ERG and I would have never classed myself as moderate, even when I used to back Remain.
    If you really wanted the ultimate moderate voter it would probably be someone who voted for Labour under Blair then Tory under Cameron or LD under Clegg then Tory under May and for Boris or the LDs in 2019 and is now voting for Labour again under Starmer or LD under Davey.
    What a wuss.
    I’ve voted Lib Lib Dem since my first vote in 1974, my 2019 vote will possibly be my last unless we return to the UK or they change the law.
    Disenfranchized by Brexit. No small matter.
    No, disenfranchised by the 15 year rule.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MrEd said:

    kinabalu said:


    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?

    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    Disappointed not to be on your list of extremists, especially given our bet on Trump. Has ruined my day.
    OMG I deserve a slap. You're on.

    Anybody rooting for Trump for other than betting reasons is not in any way shape or form a moderate.
    Surely I should be on your list?

    (As an aside, I do not support Trump, but I expect the Democrats to balls something up and allow the Marmalade Monster another 4 years. I hope otherwise...)
    We're listing NOT moderates, Beverley. Posters whose politics are a bit dodgy.
    There's nothing dodgy about having strong political beliefs and you've missed out many people who could be on your list too like Alastair Meeks.
  • nichomar said:

    I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.

    That used to be the Conservatives
    Well they probably didn't want to change so much when the country was run in a more conservative manner.

    Things like small government and personal freedom and responsibility have gradually been eroded so it would take a lot of "extreme" change to get things back how they were before.
  • kinabalu said:

    I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.

    Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.

    That's definitely it now.
    On here I probably am, but the range of acceptable opinions on here is really rather narrow I'd say.
  • kinabalu said:

    I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.

    Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.

    That's definitely it now.
    It will never be it until you've named everyone.

    Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MrEd said:

    kinabalu said:


    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?

    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    Disappointed not to be on your list of extremists, especially given our bet on Trump. Has ruined my day.
    OMG I deserve a slap. You're on.

    Anybody rooting for Trump for other than betting reasons is not in any way shape or form a moderate.
    Surely I should be on your list?

    (As an aside, I do not support Trump, but I expect the Democrats to balls something up and allow the Marmalade Monster another 4 years. I hope otherwise...)
    We're listing NOT moderates, Beverley. Posters whose politics are a bit dodgy.
    There's nothing dodgy about having strong political beliefs and you've missed out many people who could be on your list too like Alastair Meeks.
    Just joshing. And Mr Meeks? No, moderate on all but you know what.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    Not much good trying to identify "moderates" unless you have an agreed definition of what it means.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981
    edited September 2020
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MrEd said:

    kinabalu said:


    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?

    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    Disappointed not to be on your list of extremists, especially given our bet on Trump. Has ruined my day.
    OMG I deserve a slap. You're on.

    Anybody rooting for Trump for other than betting reasons is not in any way shape or form a moderate.
    Surely I should be on your list?

    (As an aside, I do not support Trump, but I expect the Democrats to balls something up and allow the Marmalade Monster another 4 years. I hope otherwise...)
    We're listing NOT moderates, Beverley. Posters whose politics are a bit dodgy.
    I know. I used to be a moderate.

    My politics have become rather dodgy thanks to the Bluekip Govt we have and the raving Marxists infecting the Labour Party. I have moved towards the Guido Fawkes position (the original gunpowder one, not the blogger).

    I did not mention the LibDems because they no longer (effectively) exist.
  • Just been to Costco for the first sally of Operation No Deal Stock Up. The first of several trips between now and Xmas. I’ll also be investing in loads of lamps, batteries, candles and a camping stove with plenty of gas bottles.

    I sincerely hope my preparations are all, ultimately, pointless. But I would hate to be kicking myself in January if everything goes tits up and I didn’t prepare.

    I’m fortunate, I’ve got plenty of room to store stuff and all the tinned and dried food will get eaten eventually anyway.

    Also getting loads of long life milk and shit paper.

    Brexit my arse.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MrEd said:

    kinabalu said:


    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?

    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    Disappointed not to be on your list of extremists, especially given our bet on Trump. Has ruined my day.
    OMG I deserve a slap. You're on.

    Anybody rooting for Trump for other than betting reasons is not in any way shape or form a moderate.
    Surely I should be on your list?

    (As an aside, I do not support Trump, but I expect the Democrats to balls something up and allow the Marmalade Monster another 4 years. I hope otherwise...)
    We're listing NOT moderates, Beverley. Posters whose politics are a bit dodgy.
    There's nothing dodgy about having strong political beliefs and you've missed out many people who could be on your list too like Alastair Meeks.
    Just joshing. And Mr Meeks? No, moderate on all but you know what.
    If Mr Meeks is a moderate then so is everyone else. Come off it.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    edited September 2020
    alex_ said:

    Not much good trying to identify "moderates" unless you have an agreed definition of what it means.

    "Everybody that thinks just like me."
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849
    edited September 2020
    nichomar said:

    kinabalu said:

    nichomar said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?

    That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention

    You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
    This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.

    Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.

    After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.

    But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
    The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.

    It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.

    After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
    Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
    If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
    Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
    Yes it was not moderate.

    That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
    It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
    Which moderate thought it was moderate?

    If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
    All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.

    Ask them.
    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.

    But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
    I am extreme in my moderation.
    Raving loony centrist - like @ydoethur. :smiley:

    No but seriously (and answering Philip's point) -

    Moderate here doesn't mean apolitical or exact centre ground or the dreaded "pragmatic not ideological". It just means occupies a place in the spectrum bounded by the Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism.
    Cons ex ERG aren't all moderates and I say that as a Conservative. I'm not ERG and I would have never classed myself as moderate, even when I used to back Remain.
    If you really wanted the ultimate moderate voter it would probably be someone who voted for Labour under Blair then Tory under Cameron or LD under Clegg then Tory under May and for Boris or the LDs in 2019 and is now voting for Labour again under Starmer or LD under Davey.
    What a wuss.
    I’ve voted Lib Lib Dem since my first vote in 1974, my 2019 vote will possibly be my last unless we return to the UK or they change the law.
    Disenfranchized by Brexit. No small matter.
    No, disenfranchised by the 15 year rule.
    Ah, right. Cannot for a change rightfully blame Brexit for this one then.

    Not worth a special trip, I don't suppose. Not even for the keenest politico.
  • kinabalu said:

    I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.

    Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.

    That's definitely it now.
    It will never be it until you've named everyone.

    Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
    Are they on or off the list?
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MrEd said:

    kinabalu said:


    Who is a moderate here in your eyes?

    Easier to list who isn't -

    Me
    You
    Contra
    Ave It
    Owls
    Mark
    Sandpit
    Ace
    Paris
    Charles
    Isam

    Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
    Disappointed not to be on your list of extremists, especially given our bet on Trump. Has ruined my day.
    OMG I deserve a slap. You're on.

    Anybody rooting for Trump for other than betting reasons is not in any way shape or form a moderate.
    Surely I should be on your list?

    (As an aside, I do not support Trump, but I expect the Democrats to balls something up and allow the Marmalade Monster another 4 years. I hope otherwise...)
    We're listing NOT moderates, Beverley. Posters whose politics are a bit dodgy.
    I know. I used to be a moderate.

    My politics have become rather dodgy thanks to the Bluekip Govt we have and the raving Marxists infecting the Labour Party. I have moved towards the Guido Fawkes position (the original gunpowder one, not the blogger).

    I did not mention the LibDems because they no longer (effectively) exist.
    They will make 100’s of gains in May, not bad for not existing.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    kinabalu said:

    I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.

    Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.

    That's definitely it now.
    It will never be it until you've named everyone.

    Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
    You think I’m scared to change?
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    Just been to Costco for the first sally of Operation No Deal Stock Up. The first of several trips between now and Xmas. I’ll also be investing in loads of lamps, batteries, candles and a camping stove with plenty of gas bottles.

    I sincerely hope my preparations are all, ultimately, pointless. But I would hate to be kicking myself in January if everything goes tits up and I didn’t prepare.

    I’m fortunate, I’ve got plenty of room to store stuff and all the tinned and dried food will get eaten eventually anyway.

    Also getting loads of long life milk and shit paper.

    Brexit my arse.

    Are you going to ‘brexit your arse’ with the shit paper?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849
    alex_ said:

    Not much good trying to identify "moderates" unless you have an agreed definition of what it means.

    I floated one. Occupies a space between Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism. Then appeals and exceptions processed ad hoc. Think it's working Ok.
  • kinabalu said:

    I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.

    Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.

    That's definitely it now.
    It will never be it until you've named everyone.

    Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
    Are they on or off the list?
    They're all not moderate on at least one issue. Everyone is that's the point. There is no such thing as a moderate.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849

    kinabalu said:

    I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.

    Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.

    That's definitely it now.
    It will never be it until you've named everyone.

    Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
    They are all moderates.

    But we must draw the line or else gum up the entire thread and prevent discussions which have greater value.
  • Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.

    Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.

    That's definitely it now.
    It will never be it until you've named everyone.

    Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
    You think I’m scared to change?
    No! The polar opposite!

    I think you have very strong opinions on issues you care about. I respect that, it's a compliment.
This discussion has been closed.