Just had a call from a nurse that I work with to say she won't be in tommorow as temperature and sore throat. Doesn't sound like the bug, but ought to be tested.
Nearest drive through is Ebbw Vale (110 miles) no walk in listed at all, despite Leicester still being a supposed hotspot. Not impressed, will ring again tommorow...
This has the potential to bugger up the T20 blast.
Gloucestershire's Bob Willis Trophy game with Northamptonshire has been abandoned after a Northants squad member tested positive for Covid-19.
The player was not part of the group that travelled to Bristol but had been in contact with other squad members within 48 hours of developing symptoms.
A statement issued by both clubs said the decision had been taken "in the interests of player welfare".
It’s bloody good news for Glos in the context of the match though given they were 66/6 at the time.
I would have thought that it will be OK as long as all players in direct contact with the unnamed player isolate. But, then, we don’t know where we are with this. I was told today that Birmingham health trusts have increased their orders of PPE by 150% in the last month over fears there will be a spike now schools have gone back.
On the face of it this New Mexico poll should be good news for Biden, a 15% lead.
However delve deeper and there are some concerns for him, first the Trump share of 39% is almost identical to the 40% he got in New Mexico in 2016.
Second while Biden's share is up from the 48% Hillary got to 54% almost all of that comes from the Gary Johnson vote, Johnson got 9% in New Mexico in 2016, the highest share he got in any state as the leading third party candidate.
If Biden's popular vote lead is higher than Hillary's therefore that suggests as Emerson has it is mainly coming from Johnson who got most of his votes in the West where Hillary won most states anyway in 2016. Now Biden could pick up Arizona on that where Johnson got 4% last time and as some polling suggests but no other state is likely for him to pick up there.
However, in the Midwest and Florida Johnson generally polled below his national average, which would suggest in those key swing states there is barely any swing from 2016 at all
So Trump is down and his opponent is up and claiming third party votes too.
If there's a direct swing from Trump to his opponent plus his opponent carries third party votes then Trump is going to struggle.
Look at Pennsylvania. Trump won by just 0.71%. Plus nearly 5% voted third party.
If your logic is right then Trump would struggle to be competitive in PA.
If there is still underestimation of the Trump vote by 1 to 2% as there was in 2016 and if Emerson is correct and Trump is picking up slightly more Hillary voters than Biden is picking up Trump voters then even if Biden does pick up third party votes in the MidWest it may not be enough for him to win Michigan, Wisconsin or even Pennsylvania given the third party vote was below the national average in the MidWest in 2016
Yesterday, you accused me of setting a bar at 1.1%. Today, you have turned 1.1% into "1 to 2%".
If the underestimation is 2%, then that is almost twice the underestimation of 2016.
Not in Michigan where the RCP underestimation was 3.3%, not in Pennsylvania where where the RCP underestimation was 2.8%, not in Wisconsin where the RCP underestimation was a huge 7.2%.
Hillary won the popular vote anyway but it was those 3 states which won Trump the EC and the presidency
We don't disagree. Although I can't help find it amusing that at the same time you slam 2016's state level polls for being inaccurate (which they were), you insist on relying on them rather than the very much more accurate national polls for 2020.
You posted a Nate Silver tweet yesterday: once Biden gets to a 3.5% national lead, then his chance of winning the electoral college moves to around 75%. On current polls, even if the polling error is twice 2016's (i.e. 2.2%), then Biden is extremely unlikely to lose.
To win, and it is far from impossible this happens, President Trump needs to see either:
(a) The polls moving in his favour. (Which they're not. Biden is back up to 50.5% in the 538 poll of polls.)
or
(b) A polling error of not twice 2016 (which would be quite significant in itself), but maybe four times (which would extraordinary, and which hasn't happened in living memory).
If the election were held tomorrow, I would reckon it would be an 88-92% chance of a Biden victory. But it's not. It's held in 58 days time. And Trump needs to see Biden's share start to drop, because right now, it's looking dangerously steady.
US elections are not determined though as we agree on the popular vote, if they were Hillary would be running for re election not Trump.
As Nate Silver says if Biden's lead is less than 5% in the national popular vote Trump can still win the EC and if Biden's lead is 2% or less Trump is odds on to win the EC.
So unless Biden has a national popular vote lead of 5% or more and he is only just above that threshold on average now (though Emerson and Rasmussen have his lead below that, with Emerson with just the 2% danger level Biden lead) then the popular vote polls are of moral interest only, it is the state polls in the swing states which matter.
As the Mail suggests, this is likely in response to Boris attacking Starmer's record after being handed his arse at PMQs. Again.
Does Starmer really want to invite interviewers to question other decisions he made whilst he was DPP?
Does Johnson want Starmer to raise in Parliament his three sackings for lying and his chat about getting a journalist beaten up? Boris’s CV vs Starmer’s - hmmm?
The point I'm making is that I don't see much upside to Starmer having been DPP. He got some terrorists locked up - so what? Why didn't he prosecute Jimmy Savile?
A spokesperson for the Labour party said they could not comment on individual cases, but insisted Mr Starmer “put victims at the heart of the judicial system” during his time as DPP, including improving support for victims of sexual and domestic violence and introducing a right for victims to challenge CPS decisions.
The question to be asked is why the police did not investigate Jimmy Savile. It was their failure to do so which meant that there was no evidence on which a prosecution could be brought. As you know, it is not the DPP who determines what investigations are started.
And then there might be awkward questions about which political party knighted Saville and which one gave him a formal role on the Board of Broadmoor Hospital.
The Tories would be ill-advised to go down this route. Starmer may not have been the most brilliant DPP there has ever been but he tried to do his job in compliance with the law. Whereas Johnson’s approach to compliance with the law is, well, a bit more complicated.
Plenty of blame to go round, but the CPS had the chance to prosecute and they didn't. And it isn't the Tories going down this route, it's Labour. Starmer was DPP at the time this was a live issue. Boris wasn't PM.
As the Mail suggests, this is likely in response to Boris attacking Starmer's record after being handed his arse at PMQs. Again.
Does Starmer really want to invite interviewers to question other decisions he made whilst he was DPP?
Does Johnson want Starmer to raise in Parliament his three sackings for lying and his chat about getting a journalist beaten up? Boris’s CV vs Starmer’s - hmmm?
The point I'm making is that I don't see much upside to Starmer having been DPP. He got some terrorists locked up - so what? Why didn't he prosecute Jimmy Savile?
A spokesperson for the Labour party said they could not comment on individual cases, but insisted Mr Starmer “put victims at the heart of the judicial system” during his time as DPP, including improving support for victims of sexual and domestic violence and introducing a right for victims to challenge CPS decisions.
The question to be asked is why the police did not investigate Jimmy Savile. It was their failure to do so which meant that there was no evidence on which a prosecution could be brought. As you know, it is not the DPP who determines what investigations are started.
And then there might be awkward questions about which political party knighted Saville and which one gave him a formal role on the Board of Broadmoor Hospital.
The Tories would be ill-advised to go down this route. Starmer may not have been the most brilliant DPP there has ever been but he tried to do his job in compliance with the law. Whereas Johnson’s approach to compliance with the law is, well, a bit more complicated.
When we discussed this a few months back, wasn’t the ultimate conclusion that yes, he sucked as DPP but he sucked rather less than any of his predecessors?
Is there a polling threshold above which that line would become untenable? What if 70% support independence?
Very unlikely given 38% of Scots voted Leave but no 2014 was 'once in a generation' and from a Tory perspective that must be respected regardless of what the polling shows
I haven't posted to much recently but your arrogant nonsense still continues to feature on domestic politics
The demand for a second referendum post a successful SNP ballot next spring will make it impossible to avoid and you really do not understand that the best way to win for the union is to argue in favour in a properly agreed vote
I expect that sometime next year Starmer will back the call and I also expect some conservatives to support a vote
You also assume Boris will be in place next year and on his present performances there is a big question mark over that
You seem to swing one day BigG from accepting Boris will veto indyref2, which we know he has said he will, to the next going back to your position an SNP win next year means indyref2 must happen.
However whether you, Starmer or even a handful of Tories backs it is irrelevant, provided Boris as UK PM vetoes it and over 326 Tory MPs vote it down ie a majority of the Commons, Westminster will block it. It will then only happen if Starmer becomes PM in 2024.
Also even if Boris goes do not expect Sunak to risk an indyref2 and going down in history as a 21st century Lord North who lost the Union unless he has shifted to a soft EEA style Brexit, in which case there will be less for the SNP to complain about and less chance of a Yes vote anyway, instead the eruption of anger will come from Farage and the Brexit Party and the Tory right on the backbenches
Just had a call from a nurse that I work with to say she won't be in tommorow as temperature and sore throat. Doesn't sound like the bug, but ought to be tested.
Nearest drive through is Ebbw Vale (110 miles) no walk in listed at all, despite Leicester still being a supposed hotspot. Not impressed, will ring again tommorow...
Same issue in Greater Manchester.
Something is definitely up with testing/track and trace, @Nigelb said something similar was happening in the North East.
Also even if Boris goes do not expect Sunak to risk an indyref2 unless he has shifted to a soft EEA style Brexit, in which case there will be less for the SNP to complain about and less chance of a Yes vote anyway, instead the eruption of anger will come from Farage and the Brexit Party and the Tory right on the backbenches
So you admit that your government's policy is giving the SNP a legitimate grievance and increasing the chance of a Yes vote?
Just had a call from a nurse that I work with to say she won't be in tommorow as temperature and sore throat. Doesn't sound like the bug, but ought to be tested.
Nearest drive through is Ebbw Vale (110 miles) no walk in listed at all, despite Leicester still being a supposed hotspot. Not impressed, will ring again tommorow...
Same issue in Greater Manchester.
Something is definitely up with testing/track and trace, @Nigelb said something similar was happening in the North East.
Are we back to inability to work out how to setup.a testing site in the car park of a stadium or supermarket without 3 weeks.planning?
The Tories do seem to lose their shit when it comes to Sir Keir Starmer's stint as DPP.
Remember a health minister did this during the middle of the pandemic.
Health minister Nadine Dorries has been criticised for praising a “doctored video” posted by a “far-right account” which attacked Sir Keir Starmer.
The Tory MP has since deleted her tweet after being accused of “shameful” behaviour and helping spread “fake news” about the Labour leader.
Two of her Conservative colleagues in Parliament, Lucy Allan and Maria Caulfield, also posted supportively about the video, which made a series of claims about Sir Keir’s actions while Director of Public Prosecutions.
The clip, which had been viewed thousands of times before being taken down, was a highly-edited version of an interview the Labour leader gave in 2013 about changes to the guidelines on prosecuting sexual abuse.
Ms Dorries said it was “revealing”, but the minister for patient safety was forced to take it down, after a Labour source said: "This is a doctored video tweeted by far-right social media account.
Is there a polling threshold above which that line would become untenable? What if 70% support independence?
Very unlikely given 38% of Scots voted Leave but no 2014 was 'once in a generation' and from a Tory perspective that must be respected regardless of what the polling shows
I haven't posted to much recently but your arrogant nonsense still continues to feature on domestic politics
The demand for a second referendum post a successful SNP ballot next spring will make it impossible to avoid and you really do not understand that the best way to win for the union is to argue in favour in a properly agreed vote
I expect that sometime next year Starmer will back the call and I also expect some conservatives to support a vote
You also assume Boris will be in place next year and on his present performances there is a big question mark over that
You seem to swing one day BigG from accepting Boris will veto indyref2, which we know he has said he will, to the next going back to your position an SNP win next year means indyref2 must happen.
However whether you, Starmer or even a handful of Tories backs it is irrelevant, provided Boris as UK PM vetoes it and over 326 Tory MPs vote it down ie a majority of the Commons, Westminster will block it. It will then only happen if Starmer becomes PM in 2024.
Also even if Boris goes do not expect Sunak to risk an indyref2 and going down in history as a 21st century Lord North who lost the Union unless he has shifted to a soft EEA style Brexit, in which case there will be less for the SNP to complain about and less chance of a Yes vote anyway, instead the eruption of anger will come from Farage and the Brexit Party and the Tory right on the backbenches
Events will spiral out of control if the SNP win next year and Boris refuses to discuss a referendum, assuming Boris is still PM
You parrot the same dogmatic line with no recognisation that politics is an ever changing reality and you are going to be very embarrassed when fantasy collides with political reality
I expect a referendum sometime between 2022 and 2023 unless the SNP have an unexpected collapse in popularity
On topic, I think there is too much risk for either candidate to make a screw up to bet confidently one way or another. Plus, a lot depends on viewers’ bias towards their favoured candidate (this probably favours Biden I would imagine)
FPT - @TheScreamingEagles would I get excised if Trump lies? Yes, if he did call dead servicemen suckers then he is being grossly disrespectful. I still think the story is a put up job - my main question would be why this has appeared now when it took place a while back and, given the number of people who don’t like Trump, I don’t see how it would have remained silent for so long.
My question was though would people condemn it if it did turn out to be false.
Also even if Boris goes do not expect Sunak to risk an indyref2 unless he has shifted to a soft EEA style Brexit, in which case there will be less for the SNP to complain about and less chance of a Yes vote anyway, instead the eruption of anger will come from Farage and the Brexit Party and the Tory right on the backbenches
So you admit that your government's policy is giving the SNP a legitimate grievance and increasing the chance of a Yes vote?
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EU or EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
Just had a call from a nurse that I work with to say she won't be in tommorow as temperature and sore throat. Doesn't sound like the bug, but ought to be tested.
Nearest drive through is Ebbw Vale (110 miles) no walk in listed at all, despite Leicester still being a supposed hotspot. Not impressed, will ring again tommorow...
Same issue in Greater Manchester.
Something is definitely up with testing/track and trace, @Nigelb said something similar was happening in the North East.
Are we back to inability to work out how to setup.a testing site in the car park of a stadium or supermarket without 3 weeks.planning?
It's more that the government says we've got sufficient capacity to deal with all tests needed in hotspots like Greater Manchester but when people want a test close to them they are only getting slots in Wales and Sheffield whilst the test centres in Greater Manchester appear to be very not busy.
Just had a call from a nurse that I work with to say she won't be in tommorow as temperature and sore throat. Doesn't sound like the bug, but ought to be tested.
Nearest drive through is Ebbw Vale (110 miles) no walk in listed at all, despite Leicester still being a supposed hotspot. Not impressed, will ring again tommorow...
Same issue in Greater Manchester.
Something is definitely up with testing/track and trace, @Nigelb said something similar was happening in the North East.
I think capacity is being expanded again and new test types are being integrated, but as with everything in the public sector its slow and bureaucratic.
Meanwhile in the wild and wacky world of polls, CBS/YouGov has a large lead for Biden (52-42).
Fortunately, we have some crosstabs with which to work.
Poll size is 2,404 which is larger than many - it's Registered Voters and the split is 40.5% Democrat, 30.4% Republican and 29.1% Independent. Not sure about that - Independents look a little under-sampled.
With men it's 47-46 to Biden but among women it's 56-38 which explains the lead.
95% of Democrats backing Biden, 91% of Republicans backing Trump while Independents split 47-40 to Trump so if they've been undersampled that could be a worry for Biden but less so if Republicans have been over-sampled.
Trump leads 51-43 among whites (a group he won 58-37 in 2016 so that's a 6.5% swing to Biden).
Once again, worth stressing only 3% are Not Sure at this stage which is extraordinary. The truth is the US electorate is highly polarised with entrenched views and it seems improbable debates will shift large numbers at this time.
As for the State polls, in Wisconsin Biden is up 50-44 which would be a 3% swing from 2016 which is what I've been saying for a while. In Texas, Trump leads 48-46 so that's a 3.5% swing to Biden which is about what I'm expecting. I think Biden will do disproportionately well in some of the Republican strongholds but I don't think he will quite make it in Texas unless the Trump vote gives up and stays at home and I consider that unlikely.
Also even if Boris goes do not expect Sunak to risk an indyref2 unless he has shifted to a soft EEA style Brexit, in which case there will be less for the SNP to complain about and less chance of a Yes vote anyway, instead the eruption of anger will come from Farage and the Brexit Party and the Tory right on the backbenches
So you admit that your government's policy is giving the SNP a legitimate grievance and increasing the chance of a Yes vote?
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
If you'd prefer to avoid it, why do you support policies that make it more likely?
Just had a call from a nurse that I work with to say she won't be in tommorow as temperature and sore throat. Doesn't sound like the bug, but ought to be tested.
Nearest drive through is Ebbw Vale (110 miles) no walk in listed at all, despite Leicester still being a supposed hotspot. Not impressed, will ring again tommorow...
Same issue in Greater Manchester.
Something is definitely up with testing/track and trace, @Nigelb said something similar was happening in the North East.
The testing data hasn't been updated on the daily summary since the 2nd:
On the face of it this New Mexico poll should be good news for Biden, a 15% lead.
However delve deeper and there are some concerns for him, first the Trump share of 39% is almost identical to the 40% he got in New Mexico in 2016.
Second while Biden's share is up from the 48% Hillary got to 54% almost all of that comes from the Gary Johnson vote, Johnson got 9% in New Mexico in 2016, the highest share he got in any state as the leading third party candidate.
If Biden's popular vote lead is higher than Hillary's therefore that suggests as Emerson has it is mainly coming from Johnson who got most of his votes in the West where Hillary won most states anyway in 2016. Now Biden could pick up Arizona on that where Johnson got 4% last time and as some polling suggests but no other state is likely for him to pick up there.
However, in the Midwest and Florida Johnson generally polled below his national average, which would suggest in those key swing states there is barely any swing from 2016 at all
So Trump is down and his opponent is up and claiming third party votes too.
If there's a direct swing from Trump to his opponent plus his opponent carries third party votes then Trump is going to struggle.
Look at Pennsylvania. Trump won by just 0.71%. Plus nearly 5% voted third party.
If your logic is right then Trump would struggle to be competitive in PA.
If there is still underestimation of the Trump vote by 1 to 2% as there was in 2016 and if Emerson is correct and Trump is picking up slightly more Hillary voters than Biden is picking up Trump voters then even if Biden does pick up third party votes in the MidWest it may not be enough for him to win Michigan, Wisconsin or even Pennsylvania given the third party vote was below the national average in the MidWest in 2016
Yesterday, you accused me of setting a bar at 1.1%. Today, you have turned 1.1% into "1 to 2%".
If the underestimation is 2%, then that is almost twice the underestimation of 2016.
Not in Michigan where the RCP underestimation was 3.3%, not in Pennsylvania where where the RCP underestimation was 2.8%, not in Wisconsin where the RCP underestimation was a huge 7.2%.
Hillary won the popular vote anyway but it was those 3 states which won Trump the EC and the presidency
We don't disagree. Although I can't help find it amusing that at the same time you slam 2016's state level polls for being inaccurate (which they were), you insist on relying on them rather than the very much more accurate national polls for 2020.
You posted a Nate Silver tweet yesterday: once Biden gets to a 3.5% national lead, then his chance of winning the electoral college moves to around 75%. On current polls, even if the polling error is twice 2016's (i.e. 2.2%), then Biden is extremely unlikely to lose.
To win, and it is far from impossible this happens, President Trump needs to see either:
(a) The polls moving in his favour. (Which they're not. Biden is back up to 50.5% in the 538 poll of polls.)
or
(b) A polling error of not twice 2016 (which would be quite significant in itself), but maybe four times (which would extraordinary, and which hasn't happened in living memory).
If the election were held tomorrow, I would reckon it would be an 88-92% chance of a Biden victory. But it's not. It's held in 58 days time. And Trump needs to see Biden's share start to drop, because right now, it's looking dangerously steady.
US elections are not determined though as we agree on the popular vote, if they were Hillary would be running for re election not Trump.
As Nate Silver says if Biden's lead is less than 5% in the national popular vote Trump can still win the EC and if Biden's lead is 2% or less Trump is odds on to win the EC.
So unless Biden has a national popular vote lead of 5% or more and he is only just above that threshold on average now (though Emerson and Rasmussen have his lead below that, with Emerson with just the 2% danger level Biden lead) then the popular vote polls are of moral interest only, it is the state polls in the swing states which matter.
"if Biden's lead is less than 5% in the national popular vote Trump can still win the EC"
Sure. But on that basis (and using the same tweet) Biden *can* win the Presidency on a 0-1% lead in the popular vote.
What's your threshold for likely? I'm going for 75%. On that basis, Trump becomes President with a deficit of two percent or less, and Biden with a lead of four percent or more.
If you want to say 90%, that's fine, but that cuts both ways. Then Trump wins "for sure" with a deficit of one percent or less, and Biden with a lead of five percent or more.
As the Mail suggests, this is likely in response to Boris attacking Starmer's record after being handed his arse at PMQs. Again.
Does Starmer really want to invite interviewers to question other decisions he made whilst he was DPP?
Does Johnson want Starmer to raise in Parliament his three sackings for lying and his chat about getting a journalist beaten up? Boris’s CV vs Starmer’s - hmmm?
The point I'm making is that I don't see much upside to Starmer having been DPP. He got some terrorists locked up - so what? Why didn't he prosecute Jimmy Savile?
A spokesperson for the Labour party said they could not comment on individual cases, but insisted Mr Starmer “put victims at the heart of the judicial system” during his time as DPP, including improving support for victims of sexual and domestic violence and introducing a right for victims to challenge CPS decisions.
The question to be asked is why the police did not investigate Jimmy Savile. It was their failure to do so which meant that there was no evidence on which a prosecution could be brought. As you know, it is not the DPP who determines what investigations are started.
And then there might be awkward questions about which political party knighted Saville and which one gave him a formal role on the Board of Broadmoor Hospital.
The Tories would be ill-advised to go down this route. Starmer may not have been the most brilliant DPP there has ever been but he tried to do his job in compliance with the law. Whereas Johnson’s approach to compliance with the law is, well, a bit more complicated.
Whereas if the Tories don't go down this route, will the volume of tedious moralizing thrown at them diminish one iota? No? Then they might as well go ahead full throttle.
It really is Nicola Sturgeon and the seven dwarves in Scottish politics right now. Leonard to be replaced with another irrelevance most likely.
I wonder if the decline of Labour and Tory in Scotland is like that of the Windies in cricket. Nobody of talent wants to get into them anymore. They choose other things instead. Which then feeds the decline until it becomes terminal. But some good signs recently for the Windies so if I'm right there is still hope for these grand old political parties north of the border.
I would say Ruth Davidson is pretty talented, after all in 2017 she got the Tories in Scotland to their highest voteshare north of the border since 1979 and she is now back as interim Scottish Tory leader
Yes but that rather makes the point. She dwarfed the party and even now they can't replace her.
She will stay as Scottish Conservative leader at Holyrood until election day next year, Ross will only take over after, assuming he wins his MSP seat on polling day
Like the other losers he will slink in on the list losers seats.
It really is Nicola Sturgeon and the seven dwarves in Scottish politics right now. Leonard to be replaced with another irrelevance most likely.
I wonder if the decline of Labour and Tory in Scotland is like that of the Windies in cricket. Nobody of talent wants to get into them anymore. They choose other things instead. Which then feeds the decline until it becomes terminal. But some good signs recently for the Windies so if I'm right there is still hope for these grand old political parties north of the border.
LOL , there is no Scottish Labour party , it is only UK labour and Tories are lttle better , just cyphers who do as ordered.
Also even if Boris goes do not expect Sunak to risk an indyref2 unless he has shifted to a soft EEA style Brexit, in which case there will be less for the SNP to complain about and less chance of a Yes vote anyway, instead the eruption of anger will come from Farage and the Brexit Party and the Tory right on the backbenches
So you admit that your government's policy is giving the SNP a legitimate grievance and increasing the chance of a Yes vote?
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
If you'd prefer to avoid it, why do you support policies that make it more likely?
I support respecting the Brexit result but preferably with a FTA with the EU, however if the EU refuse to budge on fishing within UK waters (I would accept some compromise on state aid) then WTO terms Brexit looks inevitable
Is there a polling threshold above which that line would become untenable? What if 70% support independence?
Very unlikely given 38% of Scots voted Leave but no 2014 was 'once in a generation' and from a Tory perspective that must be respected regardless of what the polling shows
I haven't posted to much recently but your arrogant nonsense still continues to feature on domestic politics
The demand for a second referendum post a successful SNP ballot next spring will make it impossible to avoid and you really do not understand that the best way to win for the union is to argue in favour in a properly agreed vote
I expect that sometime next year Starmer will back the call and I also expect some conservatives to support a vote
You also assume Boris will be in place next year and on his present performances there is a big question mark over that
You seem to swing one day BigG from accepting Boris will veto indyref2, which we know he has said he will, to the next going back to your position an SNP win next year means indyref2 must happen.
However whether you, Starmer or even a handful of Tories backs it is irrelevant, provided Boris as UK PM vetoes it and over 326 Tory MPs vote it down ie a majority of the Commons, Westminster will block it. It will then only happen if Starmer becomes PM in 2024.
Also even if Boris goes do not expect Sunak to risk an indyref2 and going down in history as a 21st century Lord North who lost the Union unless he has shifted to a soft EEA style Brexit, in which case there will be less for the SNP to complain about and less chance of a Yes vote anyway, instead the eruption of anger will come from Farage and the Brexit Party and the Tory right on the backbenches
Not everyone, indeed virtually no one, regards Scotland as a possession of England to be lost, or not lost, like a colony. It won't be lost, it'll still be there. Top of the M6.
Meanwhile in the wild and wacky world of polls, CBS/YouGov has a large lead for Biden (52-42).
Fortunately, we have some crosstabs with which to work.
Poll size is 2,404 which is larger than many - it's Registered Voters and the split is 40.5% Democrat, 30.4% Republican and 29.1% Independent. Not sure about that - Independents look a little under-sampled.
With men it's 47-46 to Biden but among women it's 56-38 which explains the lead.
95% of Democrats backing Biden, 91% of Republicans backing Trump while Independents split 47-40 to Trump so if they've been undersampled that could be a worry for Biden but less so if Republicans have been over-sampled.
Trump leads 51-43 among whites (a group he won 58-37 in 2016 so that's a 6.5% swing to Biden).
Once again, worth stressing only 3% are Not Sure at this stage which is extraordinary. The truth is the US electorate is highly polarised with entrenched views and it seems improbable debates will shift large numbers at this time.
As for the State polls, in Wisconsin Biden is up 50-44 which would be a 3% swing from 2016 which is what I've been saying for a while. In Texas, Trump leads 48-46 so that's a 3.5% swing to Biden which is about what I'm expecting. I think Biden will do disproportionately well in some of the Republican strongholds but I don't think he will quite make it in Texas unless the Trump vote gives up and stays at home and I consider that unlikely.
Those party splits almost exactly match voter registration in 2016. Since then, Republicans have drifted down a couple of points, and independents have increased by a similar amount.
That being said, I expect those Republicans that remain to be enthused, and I wouldn't be surprised if they made up 32-33% of voters on the day. I'd expect Democrats to underperform that number, and come in at perhaps 38%, with independents coming in just under 30%.
The big worry for the Republicans is the female split. Remember that US Presidential elections normally see far more women than men voting (c 55-45). If Biden wins women handily, then he's in great shape. (Clinton lost white women by two points in 2016. Biden is forecast to win them handily.)
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Is there a polling threshold above which that line would become untenable? What if 70% support independence?
Very unlikely given 38% of Scots voted Leave but no 2014 was 'once in a generation' and from a Tory perspective that must be respected regardless of what the polling shows
I haven't posted to much recently but your arrogant nonsense still continues to feature on domestic politics
The demand for a second referendum post a successful SNP ballot next spring will make it impossible to avoid and you really do not understand that the best way to win for the union is to argue in favour in a properly agreed vote
I expect that sometime next year Starmer will back the call and I also expect some conservatives to support a vote
You also assume Boris will be in place next year and on his present performances there is a big question mark over that
You seem to swing one day BigG from accepting Boris will veto indyref2, which we know he has said he will, to the next going back to your position an SNP win next year means indyref2 must happen.
However whether you, Starmer or even a handful of Tories backs it is irrelevant, provided Boris as UK PM vetoes it and over 326 Tory MPs vote it down ie a majority of the Commons, Westminster will block it. It will then only happen if Starmer becomes PM in 2024.
Also even if Boris goes do not expect Sunak to risk an indyref2 and going down in history as a 21st century Lord North who lost the Union unless he has shifted to a soft EEA style Brexit, in which case there will be less for the SNP to complain about and less chance of a Yes vote anyway, instead the eruption of anger will come from Farage and the Brexit Party and the Tory right on the backbenches
Not everyone, indeed virtually no one, regards Scotland as a possession of England to be lost, or not lost, like a colony. It won't be lost, it'll still be there. Top of the M6.
With border posts and customs guards to get into it after an indyref2 granted and leading to a Yes vote following a WTO terms Brexit
Is there a polling threshold above which that line would become untenable? What if 70% support independence?
Very unlikely given 38% of Scots voted Leave but no 2014 was 'once in a generation' and from a Tory perspective that must be respected regardless of what the polling shows
I haven't posted to much recently but your arrogant nonsense still continues to feature on domestic politics
The demand for a second referendum post a successful SNP ballot next spring will make it impossible to avoid and you really do not understand that the best way to win for the union is to argue in favour in a properly agreed vote
I expect that sometime next year Starmer will back the call and I also expect some conservatives to support a vote
You also assume Boris will be in place next year and on his present performances there is a big question mark over that
You seem to swing one day BigG from accepting Boris will veto indyref2, which we know he has said he will, to the next going back to your position an SNP win next year means indyref2 must happen.
However whether you, Starmer or even a handful of Tories backs it is irrelevant, provided Boris as UK PM vetoes it and over 326 Tory MPs vote it down ie a majority of the Commons, Westminster will block it. It will then only happen if Starmer becomes PM in 2024.
Also even if Boris goes do not expect Sunak to risk an indyref2 and going down in history as a 21st century Lord North who lost the Union unless he has shifted to a soft EEA style Brexit, in which case there will be less for the SNP to complain about and less chance of a Yes vote anyway, instead the eruption of anger will come from Farage and the Brexit Party and the Tory right on the backbenches
Not everyone, indeed virtually no one, regards Scotland as a possession of England to be lost, or not lost, like a colony. It won't be lost, it'll still be there. Top of the M6.
The ones running the show think that , so it kind of spoils your point a bit.
On topic, I think there is too much risk for either candidate to make a screw up to bet confidently one way or another. Plus, a lot depends on viewers’ bias towards their favoured candidate (this probably favours Biden I would imagine)
FPT - @TheScreamingEagles would I get excised if Trump lies? Yes, if he did call dead servicemen suckers then he is being grossly disrespectful. I still think the story is a put up job - my main question would be why this has appeared now when it took place a while back and, given the number of people who don’t like Trump, I don’t see how it would have remained silent for so long.
My question was though would people condemn it if it did turn out to be false.
Because these debates are "virtual", the candidates will have massively more help than in normal times. We can expect both of them to have staffers holding up cue cards for them to read out.
The only possibility of excitement, then, comes if Trump decides that his staff are useless and decides to go completely ad lib.
F1 - it also looks like Racing Point haven't got a clue about developing the base package. I think they'll keep going backwards this season and be further behind next season.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
Those party splits almost exactly match voter registration in 2016. Since then, Republicans have drifted down a couple of points, and independents have increased by a similar amount.
That being said, I expect those Republicans that remain to be enthused, and I wouldn't be surprised if they made up 32-33% of voters on the day. I'd expect Democrats to underperform that number, and come in at perhaps 38%, with independents coming in just under 30%.
The big worry for the Republicans is the female split. Remember that US Presidential elections normally see far more women than men voting (c 55-45). If Biden wins women handily, then he's in great shape. (Clinton lost white women by two points in 2016. Biden is forecast to win them handily.)
Last time, Trump won the male vote (47% of the total) 52-41 so an 11-point advantage is now a 1-point deficit so a 6% swing to Biden. Women voted Clinton 54-41 so a 13-point lead is now a 22-point advantage so a 4.5% swing.
As the Mail suggests, this is likely in response to Boris attacking Starmer's record after being handed his arse at PMQs. Again.
Does Starmer really want to invite interviewers to question other decisions he made whilst he was DPP?
Does Johnson want Starmer to raise in Parliament his three sackings for lying and his chat about getting a journalist beaten up? Boris’s CV vs Starmer’s - hmmm?
The point I'm making is that I don't see much upside to Starmer having been DPP. He got some terrorists locked up - so what? Why didn't he prosecute Jimmy Savile?
A spokesperson for the Labour party said they could not comment on individual cases, but insisted Mr Starmer “put victims at the heart of the judicial system” during his time as DPP, including improving support for victims of sexual and domestic violence and introducing a right for victims to challenge CPS decisions.
The question to be asked is why the police did not investigate Jimmy Savile. It was their failure to do so which meant that there was no evidence on which a prosecution could be brought. As you know, it is not the DPP who determines what investigations are started.
And then there might be awkward questions about which political party knighted Saville and which one gave him a formal role on the Board of Broadmoor Hospital.
The Tories would be ill-advised to go down this route. Starmer may not have been the most brilliant DPP there has ever been but he tried to do his job in compliance with the law. Whereas Johnson’s approach to compliance with the law is, well, a bit more complicated.
When we discussed this a few months back, wasn’t the ultimate conclusion that yes, he sucked as DPP but he sucked rather less than any of his predecessors?
Parallels the US situation in a way.
Our friends across the Atlantic have a choice between someone doddery but decent and an obviously terrible human being.
We have the choice between someone dull but decent (I'm disappointed to discover that SKS wasn't the inspiration for Mark Darcy in Bridget Jones) and Johnson who is obvious...
Those party splits almost exactly match voter registration in 2016. Since then, Republicans have drifted down a couple of points, and independents have increased by a similar amount.
That being said, I expect those Republicans that remain to be enthused, and I wouldn't be surprised if they made up 32-33% of voters on the day. I'd expect Democrats to underperform that number, and come in at perhaps 38%, with independents coming in just under 30%.
The big worry for the Republicans is the female split. Remember that US Presidential elections normally see far more women than men voting (c 55-45). If Biden wins women handily, then he's in great shape. (Clinton lost white women by two points in 2016. Biden is forecast to win them handily.)
Last time, Trump won the male vote (47% of the total) 52-41 so an 11-point advantage is now a 1-point deficit so a 6% swing to Biden. Women voted Clinton 54-41 so a 13-point lead is now a 22-point advantage so a 4.5% swing.
Both those swings are larger than the overall swing from Clinton to Biden - i.e. a ten point lead from a three point one, which is 3.5% swing.
Is Trump doing particularly well among the transgender, do you think?
As the Mail suggests, this is likely in response to Boris attacking Starmer's record after being handed his arse at PMQs. Again.
Does Starmer really want to invite interviewers to question other decisions he made whilst he was DPP?
Does Johnson want Starmer to raise in Parliament his three sackings for lying and his chat about getting a journalist beaten up? Boris’s CV vs Starmer’s - hmmm?
The point I'm making is that I don't see much upside to Starmer having been DPP. He got some terrorists locked up - so what? Why didn't he prosecute Jimmy Savile?
A spokesperson for the Labour party said they could not comment on individual cases, but insisted Mr Starmer “put victims at the heart of the judicial system” during his time as DPP, including improving support for victims of sexual and domestic violence and introducing a right for victims to challenge CPS decisions.
The question to be asked is why the police did not investigate Jimmy Savile. It was their failure to do so which meant that there was no evidence on which a prosecution could be brought. As you know, it is not the DPP who determines what investigations are started.
And then there might be awkward questions about which political party knighted Saville and which one gave him a formal role on the Board of Broadmoor Hospital.
The Tories would be ill-advised to go down this route. Starmer may not have been the most brilliant DPP there has ever been but he tried to do his job in compliance with the law. Whereas Johnson’s approach to compliance with the law is, well, a bit more complicated.
When we discussed this a few months back, wasn’t the ultimate conclusion that yes, he sucked as DPP but he sucked rather less than any of his predecessors?
Parallels the US situation in a way.
Our friends across the Atlantic have a choice between someone doddery but decent and an obviously terrible human being.
We have the choice between someone dull but decent (I'm disappointed to discover that SKS wasn't the inspiration for Mark Darcy in Bridget Jones) and Johnson who is obvious...
In the UK we elect parties with policies not individuals.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
I'm sure Starmer will grant the SNP their vote on the condition of their support in Westminster and the recognition he will campaign for Scotland to remain in the Union.
I imagine the LDs will support that but as for the Conservatives, here's the thing - publicly they may stand four-square behind the Union but will they want to be on the same platform as Starmer and Labour and of course we all know IF Scotland leaves the Union, Conservative prospects in RUK will be much improved.
Let me ask you as an activist - if you were able, would you go to Scotland and campaign for the retention of the Union in a second referendum and would you campaign alongside Labour and Lib Dem activists if that were the case?
On a more serious note, I wonder what the new DG will think of this? Probably innocuous enough to claim it’s not political but it might be interpreted as such.
Conterfactual time. Suppose Obama hadn't run or won the nomination in 2008 or 2012 or indeed in 2016, and instead got the nomination this year. How might the polls have turned out?
I think 2008 Obama would be around 53% national average
On topic, I think there is too much risk for either candidate to make a screw up to bet confidently one way or another. Plus, a lot depends on viewers’ bias towards their favoured candidate (this probably favours Biden I would imagine)
FPT - @TheScreamingEagles would I get excised if Trump lies? Yes, if he did call dead servicemen suckers then he is being grossly disrespectful. I still think the story is a put up job - my main question would be why this has appeared now when it took place a while back and, given the number of people who don’t like Trump, I don’t see how it would have remained silent for so long.
My question was though would people condemn it if it did turn out to be false.
Because these debates are "virtual", the candidates will have massively more help than in normal times. We can expect both of them to have staffers holding up cue cards for them to read out.
The only possibility of excitement, then, comes if Trump decides that his staff are useless and decides to go completely ad lib.
I don’t think he will, I get the sense he realises he needs to be fairly disciplined.
I’d be more worried about Biden reading something like “next cue card says...”
On topic, I think there is too much risk for either candidate to make a screw up to bet confidently one way or another. Plus, a lot depends on viewers’ bias towards their favoured candidate (this probably favours Biden I would imagine)
FPT - @TheScreamingEagles would I get excised if Trump lies? Yes, if he did call dead servicemen suckers then he is being grossly disrespectful. I still think the story is a put up job - my main question would be why this has appeared now when it took place a while back and, given the number of people who don’t like Trump, I don’t see how it would have remained silent for so long.
My question was though would people condemn it if it did turn out to be false.
Because these debates are "virtual", the candidates will have massively more help than in normal times. We can expect both of them to have staffers holding up cue cards for them to read out.
The only possibility of excitement, then, comes if Trump decides that his staff are useless and decides to go completely ad lib.
I don’t think he will, I get the sense he realises he needs to be fairly disciplined.
I’d be more worried about Biden reading something like “next cue card says...”
Heh I'd agree with you on that one, Dem primary debates were always a hide behind the sofa event for Biden backers. But he did OK.
" According to Michael, a 29-year-old former Labour activist, Starmer’s election was enough to prompt him to leave the party. “The moment Keir Starmer became leader, I knew Labour was no longer a place for me,” he says. “I left within the hour of the leadership results being confirmed.”
“I fought so hard for so long to get a person I saw as a genuine, caring, thoughtful man in Number 10, and have his wildly popular manifesto pledges implemented,” "
" According to Michael, a 29-year-old former Labour activist, Starmer’s election was enough to prompt him to leave the party. “The moment Keir Starmer became leader, I knew Labour was no longer a place for me,” he says. “I left within the hour of the leadership results being confirmed.”
“I fought so hard for so long to get a person I saw as a genuine, caring, thoughtful man in Number 10, and have his wildly popular manifesto pledges implemented,” "
As the Mail suggests, this is likely in response to Boris attacking Starmer's record after being handed his arse at PMQs. Again.
Does Starmer really want to invite interviewers to question other decisions he made whilst he was DPP?
Does Johnson want Starmer to raise in Parliament his three sackings for lying and his chat about getting a journalist beaten up? Boris’s CV vs Starmer’s - hmmm?
The point I'm making is that I don't see much upside to Starmer having been DPP. He got some terrorists locked up - so what? Why didn't he prosecute Jimmy Savile?
A spokesperson for the Labour party said they could not comment on individual cases, but insisted Mr Starmer “put victims at the heart of the judicial system” during his time as DPP, including improving support for victims of sexual and domestic violence and introducing a right for victims to challenge CPS decisions.
The question to be asked is why the police did not investigate Jimmy Savile. It was their failure to do so which meant that there was no evidence on which a prosecution could be brought. As you know, it is not the DPP who determines what investigations are started.
And then there might be awkward questions about which political party knighted Saville and which one gave him a formal role on the Board of Broadmoor Hospital.
The Tories would be ill-advised to go down this route. Starmer may not have been the most brilliant DPP there has ever been but he tried to do his job in compliance with the law. Whereas Johnson’s approach to compliance with the law is, well, a bit more complicated.
When we discussed this a few months back, wasn’t the ultimate conclusion that yes, he sucked as DPP but he sucked rather less than any of his predecessors?
Parallels the US situation in a way.
Our friends across the Atlantic have a choice between someone doddery but decent and an obviously terrible human being.
We have the choice between someone dull but decent (I'm disappointed to discover that SKS wasn't the inspiration for Mark Darcy in Bridget Jones) and Johnson who is obvious...
In the UK we elect parties with policies not individuals.
Technically we elect individuals, though likely you won't be voting for either Starmer or Johnson.
On the SNP issue, I'm entirely relaxed about offering the SNP another referendum at the end of the next Parliamentary cycle (2029) in return for confidence and supply, and I think they'd settle for that. Would swing voters be terribly upset by this? It'll be 15 years after the previous one, and in the end I suppose we all accept that if Scots really want to leave they should be allowed to.
Yes, I know it'd potentially mess up Labour's chances in the 2030s if the referendum was won, though (a) we do sometimes win in England alone (b) over time, people tend to adjust to make the race even again and (c) actually that's not a reasonable argument for a constitutional issue anyway.
I see people complaining on Twitter that no description of the wanted man who stabbed several people in Birmingham has been released by police.
That can't be right surely?
Something slightly weird about the some reporting / plod response. An eye witness clearly describes one of the attacks and the attacker, but some media outlets have decided to censor this e.g.
The idea that there is no CCTV footage of these incidents, given clear views of the attacker is highly unlikely. Perhaps there is more going on than meets the eye.
Those party splits almost exactly match voter registration in 2016. Since then, Republicans have drifted down a couple of points, and independents have increased by a similar amount.
That being said, I expect those Republicans that remain to be enthused, and I wouldn't be surprised if they made up 32-33% of voters on the day. I'd expect Democrats to underperform that number, and come in at perhaps 38%, with independents coming in just under 30%.
The big worry for the Republicans is the female split. Remember that US Presidential elections normally see far more women than men voting (c 55-45). If Biden wins women handily, then he's in great shape. (Clinton lost white women by two points in 2016. Biden is forecast to win them handily.)
Last time, Trump won the male vote (47% of the total) 52-41 so an 11-point advantage is now a 1-point deficit so a 6% swing to Biden. Women voted Clinton 54-41 so a 13-point lead is now a 22-point advantage so a 4.5% swing.
Both those swings are larger than the overall swing from Clinton to Biden - i.e. a ten point lead from a three point one, which is 3.5% swing.
Is Trump doing particularly well among the transgender, do you think?
He might be. Leaked comments from him - quote below being set to hit the news tomorrow - show surprising empathy for that embattled minority.
"Ok, so it's hard for me to get my head around it but, you know, I'm no expert and I'm happy to go with those who are. Which means transgender - is that what they're called? transgender? - right so yeah, transgender people themselves, they're the experts on this one. No way I'm gonna impose some 1950s Happy Days type morality onto all this. It's all about their authentic lived experience and everything else is fake news as far as I'm concerned."
Trump haters will no doubt see a cynical attempt, with the Rust Belt and the South West sliding away from him, to bring California and its 55 EC votes into play.
I admit that a WTO terms Brexit makes a Yes vote a 50% chance if not more yes. Which is why I would still prefer a FTA with the EU.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
You have, however, frequently stated Boris Johnson will not offer a second independence referendum in Scotland in this Parliament so the issue is moot. Scotland will have to go along with whatever the UK Government get sor doesn't get from the negotiations with the EU.
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Yes which is why I think if the SNP win a majority next year at Holyrood they will have to wait for a Starmer premiership in 2024 to be granted an indyref2, though given Starmer would agree to an EEA style FTA with the EU unlike Boris and probably throw in devomax too that would make a Yes vote less likely anyway
If the Scots elect by a landslide the SNP on a mandate of having a referendum . . .
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Its like letting everybody go on foreign holidays and mixing with people from all across Europe, then returning with no checks might not be a great plan for keeping the plague at bay.
It really is Nicola Sturgeon and the seven dwarves in Scottish politics right now. Leonard to be replaced with another irrelevance most likely.
I wonder if the decline of Labour and Tory in Scotland is like that of the Windies in cricket. Nobody of talent wants to get into them anymore. They choose other things instead. Which then feeds the decline until it becomes terminal. But some good signs recently for the Windies so if I'm right there is still hope for these grand old political parties north of the border.
Correct. Talented people have been avoiding SCon, SLab and SLD for decades now, and boy does it show.
Failure is breeding failure. The next SLab leader is going to be just as big a flop as the last seven. All the likely candidates are complete duffers.
Its like letting everybody go on foreign holidays and mixing with people from all across Europe, then returning with no checks might not be a great plan for keeping the plague at bay.
Perhaps. I have said I thought everyone who travels abroad should be quarantined.
But also we are seeing via the ONS data no rise in infections. So it could be, as Malmesbury calculated, simply that Test and Trace are identifying the transmissions now.
What will be interesting is to see what happens now following the effective end of large scale foreign travel (as the August holidays are now over) and the reopening of schools instead.
On topic, I think there is too much risk for either candidate to make a screw up to bet confidently one way or another. Plus, a lot depends on viewers’ bias towards their favoured candidate (this probably favours Biden I would imagine)
FPT - @TheScreamingEagles would I get excised if Trump lies? Yes, if he did call dead servicemen suckers then he is being grossly disrespectful. I still think the story is a put up job - my main question would be why this has appeared now when it took place a while back and, given the number of people who don’t like Trump, I don’t see how it would have remained silent for so long.
My question was though would people condemn it if it did turn out to be false.
Because these debates are "virtual", the candidates will have massively more help than in normal times. We can expect both of them to have staffers holding up cue cards for them to read out.
The only possibility of excitement, then, comes if Trump decides that his staff are useless and decides to go completely ad lib.
I don’t think he will, I get the sense he realises he needs to be fairly disciplined.
I’d be more worried about Biden reading something like “next cue card says...”
Biden survived the Democratic debates unscathed, which involved getting no help at all, so I would imagine he'll be dull but fine.
On topic, I think there is too much risk for either candidate to make a screw up to bet confidently one way or another. Plus, a lot depends on viewers’ bias towards their favoured candidate (this probably favours Biden I would imagine)
FPT - @TheScreamingEagles would I get excised if Trump lies? Yes, if he did call dead servicemen suckers then he is being grossly disrespectful. I still think the story is a put up job - my main question would be why this has appeared now when it took place a while back and, given the number of people who don’t like Trump, I don’t see how it would have remained silent for so long.
My question was though would people condemn it if it did turn out to be false.
Because these debates are "virtual", the candidates will have massively more help than in normal times. We can expect both of them to have staffers holding up cue cards for them to read out.
The only possibility of excitement, then, comes if Trump decides that his staff are useless and decides to go completely ad lib.
I don’t think he will, I get the sense he realises he needs to be fairly disciplined.
I’d be more worried about Biden reading something like “next cue card says...”
Biden survived the Democratic debates unscathed, which involved getting no help at all, so I would imagine he'll be dull but fine.
The thing is even if he does drop a big howler, Trump will have talked 10x the amount of shit during the same period.
On topic, I think there is too much risk for either candidate to make a screw up to bet confidently one way or another. Plus, a lot depends on viewers’ bias towards their favoured candidate (this probably favours Biden I would imagine)
FPT - @TheScreamingEagles would I get excised if Trump lies? Yes, if he did call dead servicemen suckers then he is being grossly disrespectful. I still think the story is a put up job - my main question would be why this has appeared now when it took place a while back and, given the number of people who don’t like Trump, I don’t see how it would have remained silent for so long.
My question was though would people condemn it if it did turn out to be false.
Because these debates are "virtual", the candidates will have massively more help than in normal times. We can expect both of them to have staffers holding up cue cards for them to read out.
The only possibility of excitement, then, comes if Trump decides that his staff are useless and decides to go completely ad lib.
I don’t think he will, I get the sense he realises he needs to be fairly disciplined.
I’d be more worried about Biden reading something like “next cue card says...”
Biden survived the Democratic debates unscathed, which involved getting no help at all, so I would imagine he'll be dull but fine.
The thing is even if he does drop a big howler, Trump will have talked 10x the amount of shit during the same period. I doubt the debates will have much impact one way or another, the landscape is already so polarized and both candidates well known.
It isn't like Mayor Pete appearing from nowhere or even Obama, where most people will have never seen these people before in their lives before the campaign.
I've never doubted Buttler's limited overs talent, I do doubt his ability in the test formats, his keeping isn't good enough in the subcontinent especially, which is where we are headed this winter.
How many individual infections is that? Given that UK numbers treat multiple positive tests for a single individual as multiple numbers in the figures.
Oh and it's about time the media stopped using these ludicrous "highest since mid-may (or whenever)" phrases. Since everyone knows that there is no serious basis for comparison between the numbers before and the numbers now.
" According to Michael, a 29-year-old former Labour activist, Starmer’s election was enough to prompt him to leave the party. “The moment Keir Starmer became leader, I knew Labour was no longer a place for me,” he says. “I left within the hour of the leadership results being confirmed.”
“I fought so hard for so long to get a person I saw as a genuine, caring, thoughtful man in Number 10, and have his wildly popular manifesto pledges implemented,” "
Its like letting everybody go on foreign holidays and mixing with people from all across Europe, then returning with no checks might not be a great plan for keeping the plague at bay.
Perhaps. I have said I thought everyone who travels abroad should be quarantined.
But also we are seeing via the ONS data no rise in infections. So it could be, as Malmesbury calculated, simply that Test and Trace are identifying the transmissions now.
What will be interesting is to see what happens now following the effective end of large scale foreign travel (as the August holidays are now over) and the reopening of schools instead.
True on the ONS survey (which I agree is probably as Gold Standard as whichever pollster it is we approve of these days), but the JoinZoe app has picked up an increase this week:
It really is Nicola Sturgeon and the seven dwarves in Scottish politics right now. Leonard to be replaced with another irrelevance most likely.
I wonder if the decline of Labour and Tory in Scotland is like that of the Windies in cricket. Nobody of talent wants to get into them anymore. They choose other things instead. Which then feeds the decline until it becomes terminal. But some good signs recently for the Windies so if I'm right there is still hope for these grand old political parties north of the border.
Correct. Talented people have been avoiding SCon, SLab and SLD for decades now, and boy does it show.
Failure is breeding failure. The next SLab leader is going to be just as big a flop as the last seven. All the likely candidates are complete duffers.
I misread that as ‘tainted’ people, which I was about to object to on the grounds that there are many tainted politicians left in Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats.
But remember, it isn’t that long ago that the SNP has nobody of standing beyond Alex Salmond and as a result he had to keep doing a Farage and returning to the leadership he’d sworn to abandon for good.
Things can change fast when they have to. The real weakness of the Unionist parties is their total inability to exploit the SNP’s weaknesses on domestic policy, which tells me that they are all hypnotised by Sturgeon’s seeming ability to defy gravity.
On the face of it this New Mexico poll should be good news for Biden, a 15% lead.
However delve deeper and there are some concerns for him, first the Trump share of 39% is almost identical to the 40% he got in New Mexico in 2016.
Second while Biden's share is up from the 48% Hillary got to 54% almost all of that comes from the Gary Johnson vote, Johnson got 9% in New Mexico in 2016, the highest share he got in any state as the leading third party candidate.
If Biden's popular vote lead is higher than Hillary's therefore that suggests as Emerson has it is mainly coming from Johnson who got most of his votes in the West where Hillary won most states anyway in 2016. Now Biden could pick up Arizona on that where Johnson got 4% last time and as some polling suggests but no other state is likely for him to pick up there.
However, in the Midwest and Florida Johnson generally polled below his national average, which would suggest in those key swing states there is barely any swing from 2016 at all
So Trump is down and his opponent is up and claiming third party votes too.
If there's a direct swing from Trump to his opponent plus his opponent carries third party votes then Trump is going to struggle.
Look at Pennsylvania. Trump won by just 0.71%. Plus nearly 5% voted third party.
If your logic is right then Trump would struggle to be competitive in PA.
If there is still underestimation of the Trump vote by 1 to 2% as there was in 2016 and if Emerson is correct and Trump is picking up slightly more Hillary voters than Biden is picking up Trump voters then even if Biden does pick up third party votes in the MidWest it may not be enough for him to win Michigan, Wisconsin or even Pennsylvania given the third party vote was below the national average in the MidWest in 2016
Yesterday, you accused me of setting a bar at 1.1%. Today, you have turned 1.1% into "1 to 2%".
If the underestimation is 2%, then that is almost twice the underestimation of 2016.
Not in Michigan where the RCP underestimation was 3.3%, not in Pennsylvania where where the RCP underestimation was 2.8%, not in Wisconsin where the RCP underestimation was a huge 7.2%.
Hillary won the popular vote anyway but it was those 3 states which won Trump the EC and the presidency
We don't disagree. Although I can't help find it amusing that at the same time you slam 2016's state level polls for being inaccurate (which they were), you insist on relying on them rather than the very much more accurate national polls for 2020.
You posted a Nate Silver tweet yesterday: once Biden gets to a 3.5% national lead, then his chance of winning the electoral college moves to around 75%. On current polls, even if the polling error is twice 2016's (i.e. 2.2%), then Biden is extremely unlikely to lose.
To win, and it is far from impossible this happens, President Trump needs to see either:
(a) The polls moving in his favour. (Which they're not. Biden is back up to 50.5% in the 538 poll of polls.)
or
(b) A polling error of not twice 2016 (which would be quite significant in itself), but maybe four times (which would extraordinary, and which hasn't happened in living memory).
If the election were held tomorrow, I would reckon it would be an 88-92% chance of a Biden victory. But it's not. It's held in 58 days time. And Trump needs to see Biden's share start to drop, because right now, it's looking dangerously steady.
US elections are not determined though as we agree on the popular vote, if they were Hillary would be running for re election not Trump.
As Nate Silver says if Biden's lead is less than 5% in the national popular vote Trump can still win the EC and if Biden's lead is 2% or less Trump is odds on to win the EC.
So unless Biden has a national popular vote lead of 5% or more and he is only just above that threshold on average now (though Emerson and Rasmussen have his lead below that, with Emerson with just the 2% danger level Biden lead) then the popular vote polls are of moral interest only, it is the state polls in the swing states which matter.
If Biden getting 5% more than Trump nationally, the probability that Trump wins the EC is not zero, but it is very close to zero. Trump would have to hold on to WI/MI/PA and not lose 37 EC votes in any other combination. Realistically that is not going to happen.
I see people complaining on Twitter that no description of the wanted man who stabbed several people in Birmingham has been released by police.
That can't be right surely?
People do complain on Twitter quite a lot so I'd be inclined to believe it.
Well yes, but in this case I was hoping they were wrong about the facts and now it seems like they are not.
The same thing happened in the Guildford train stabbing when the murderer was on the run and no description was issued by police.
That is what I am wondering about here. In the full clip of the interviewed eye witness he stated that one of the doormen chased the individual shouting I know who you are. Made it sounded like it was a known "face".
I've never doubted Buttler's limited overs talent, I do doubt his ability in the test formats, his keeping isn't good enough in the subcontinent especially, which is where we are headed this winter.
Anyone who can’t keep to a spinner can’t keep in Sri Lanka.
And what’s more baffling is that by any measure Foakes is a better batsman against the red ball than Buttler.
On topic, I think there is too much risk for either candidate to make a screw up to bet confidently one way or another. Plus, a lot depends on viewers’ bias towards their favoured candidate (this probably favours Biden I would imagine)
FPT - @TheScreamingEagles would I get excised if Trump lies? Yes, if he did call dead servicemen suckers then he is being grossly disrespectful. I still think the story is a put up job - my main question would be why this has appeared now when it took place a while back and, given the number of people who don’t like Trump, I don’t see how it would have remained silent for so long.
My question was though would people condemn it if it did turn out to be false.
Because these debates are "virtual", the candidates will have massively more help than in normal times. We can expect both of them to have staffers holding up cue cards for them to read out.
The only possibility of excitement, then, comes if Trump decides that his staff are useless and decides to go completely ad lib.
I see people complaining on Twitter that no description of the wanted man who stabbed several people in Birmingham has been released by police.
That can't be right surely?
Something slightly weird about the some reporting / plod response. An eye witness clearly describes one of the attacks and the attacker, but some media outlets have decided to censor this e.g.
The idea that there is no CCTV footage of these incidents, given clear views of the attacker is highly unlikely. Perhaps there is more going on than meets the eye.
Yes. That he's still at large. That where some of the attacks occurred would have comprehensive CCTV coverage.
Other thoughts:
The first reported attacks are very close to where I live (in fact, I was on Livery Street for other business this morning) - police were were more visible than normal.
There is a clear example of how stories get mangled up = the bar worker talking about fights (and there would be in that part of Brum) seems sincere in what she's saying.
It really is Nicola Sturgeon and the seven dwarves in Scottish politics right now. Leonard to be replaced with another irrelevance most likely.
I wonder if the decline of Labour and Tory in Scotland is like that of the Windies in cricket. Nobody of talent wants to get into them anymore. They choose other things instead. Which then feeds the decline until it becomes terminal. But some good signs recently for the Windies so if I'm right there is still hope for these grand old political parties north of the border.
I would say Ruth Davidson is pretty talented, after all in 2017 she got the Tories in Scotland to their highest voteshare north of the border since 1979 and she is now back as interim Scottish Tory leader
Yes but that rather makes the point. She dwarfed the party and even now they can't replace her.
She will stay as Scottish Conservative leader at Holyrood until election day next year, Ross will only take over after, assuming he wins his MSP seat on polling day
Like the other losers he will slink in on the list losers seats.
Like Nicola Sturgeon did during her first 2 parliamentary terms?
I see people complaining on Twitter that no description of the wanted man who stabbed several people in Birmingham has been released by police.
That can't be right surely?
People do complain on Twitter quite a lot so I'd be inclined to believe it.
Well yes, but in this case I was hoping they were wrong about the facts and now it seems like they are not.
The same thing happened in the Guildford train stabbing when the murderer was on the run and no description was issued by police.
That is what I am wondering about here. In the full clip of the interviewed eye witness he stated that one of the doormen chased the individual shouting I know who you are. Made it sounded like it was a known "face".
Maybe they were hoping said individual returned home not knowing the police were onto him...
Comments
Just had a call from a nurse that I work with to say she won't be in tommorow as temperature and sore throat. Doesn't sound like the bug, but ought to be tested.
Nearest drive through is Ebbw Vale (110 miles) no walk in listed at all, despite Leicester still being a supposed hotspot. Not impressed, will ring again tommorow...
I would have thought that it will be OK as long as all players in direct contact with the unnamed player isolate. But, then, we don’t know where we are with this. I was told today that Birmingham health trusts have increased their orders of PPE by 150% in the last month over fears there will be a spike now schools have gone back.
As Nate Silver says if Biden's lead is less than 5% in the national popular vote Trump can still win the EC and if Biden's lead is 2% or less Trump is odds on to win the EC.
So unless Biden has a national popular vote lead of 5% or more and he is only just above that threshold on average now (though Emerson and Rasmussen have his lead below that, with Emerson with just the 2% danger level Biden lead) then the popular vote polls are of moral interest only, it is the state polls in the swing states which matter.
4/6 and 11/10 - and yet bookmakers cry about losing money. Okay...
Of course, in America, you can't actually bet on the election or indeed any other form of political betting it seems:
https://bookies.com/news/interest-abounds-in-us-presidential-election-betting
However whether you, Starmer or even a handful of Tories backs it is irrelevant, provided Boris as UK PM vetoes it and over 326 Tory MPs vote it down ie a majority of the Commons, Westminster will block it. It will then only happen if Starmer becomes PM in 2024.
Also even if Boris goes do not expect Sunak to risk an indyref2 and going down in history as a 21st century Lord North who lost the Union unless he has shifted to a soft EEA style Brexit, in which case there will be less for the SNP to complain about and less chance of a Yes vote anyway, instead the eruption of anger will come from Farage and the Brexit Party and the Tory right on the backbenches
Something is definitely up with testing/track and trace, @Nigelb said something similar was happening in the North East.
Remember a health minister did this during the middle of the pandemic.
Health minister Nadine Dorries has been criticised for praising a “doctored video” posted by a “far-right account” which attacked Sir Keir Starmer.
The Tory MP has since deleted her tweet after being accused of “shameful” behaviour and helping spread “fake news” about the Labour leader.
Two of her Conservative colleagues in Parliament, Lucy Allan and Maria Caulfield, also posted supportively about the video, which made a series of claims about Sir Keir’s actions while Director of Public Prosecutions.
The clip, which had been viewed thousands of times before being taken down, was a highly-edited version of an interview the Labour leader gave in 2013 about changes to the guidelines on prosecuting sexual abuse.
Ms Dorries said it was “revealing”, but the minister for patient safety was forced to take it down, after a Labour source said: "This is a doctored video tweeted by far-right social media account.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/minister-nadine-dorries-criticised-for-tweeting-doctored-video-from-farright-account-attacking-keir-starmer
You parrot the same dogmatic line with no recognisation that politics is an ever changing reality and you are going to be very embarrassed when fantasy collides with political reality
I expect a referendum sometime between 2022 and 2023 unless the SNP have an unexpected collapse in popularity
FPT - @TheScreamingEagles would I get excised if Trump lies? Yes, if he did call dead servicemen suckers then he is being grossly disrespectful. I still think the story is a put up job - my main question would be why this has appeared now when it took place a while back and, given the number of people who don’t like Trump, I don’t see how it would have remained silent for so long.
My question was though would people condemn it if it did turn out to be false.
However if Boris did go to WTO terms Brexit then granted indyref2 and Yes won with the UK outside the EEA and CU and without even an EU FTA that means customs posts at the Scottish border, tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa, a surge of nationalism on both sides of the border and if Scotland rejoins the EU or EEA no prospect of free trade in GB for years unless there is a rUK EU agreement.
English and Scottish relations would be at their lowest since Bannockburn and Flodden, it is a nightmare and division within these islands I would prefer to avoid
Fortunately, we have some crosstabs with which to work.
Poll size is 2,404 which is larger than many - it's Registered Voters and the split is 40.5% Democrat, 30.4% Republican and 29.1% Independent. Not sure about that - Independents look a little under-sampled.
With men it's 47-46 to Biden but among women it's 56-38 which explains the lead.
95% of Democrats backing Biden, 91% of Republicans backing Trump while Independents split 47-40 to Trump so if they've been undersampled that could be a worry for Biden but less so if Republicans have been over-sampled.
Trump leads 51-43 among whites (a group he won 58-37 in 2016 so that's a 6.5% swing to Biden).
Once again, worth stressing only 3% are Not Sure at this stage which is extraordinary. The truth is the US electorate is highly polarised with entrenched views and it seems improbable debates will shift large numbers at this time.
As for the State polls, in Wisconsin Biden is up 50-44 which would be a 3% swing from 2016 which is what I've been saying for a while. In Texas, Trump leads 48-46 so that's a 3.5% swing to Biden which is about what I'm expecting. I think Biden will do disproportionately well in some of the Republican strongholds but I don't think he will quite make it in Texas unless the Trump vote gives up and stays at home and I consider that unlikely.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/testing
which may or may not be for some reason.
Sure. But on that basis (and using the same tweet) Biden *can* win the Presidency on a 0-1% lead in the popular vote.
What's your threshold for likely? I'm going for 75%. On that basis, Trump becomes President with a deficit of two percent or less, and Biden with a lead of four percent or more.
If you want to say 90%, that's fine, but that cuts both ways. Then Trump wins "for sure" with a deficit of one percent or less, and Biden with a lead of five percent or more.
Remember what Sandy said about Labour obsessing about the top 10% and bottom 10%.
That being said, I expect those Republicans that remain to be enthused, and I wouldn't be surprised if they made up 32-33% of voters on the day. I'd expect Democrats to underperform that number, and come in at perhaps 38%, with independents coming in just under 30%.
The big worry for the Republicans is the female split. Remember that US Presidential elections normally see far more women than men voting (c 55-45). If Biden wins women handily, then he's in great shape. (Clinton lost white women by two points in 2016. Biden is forecast to win them handily.)
The question then becomes IF we go to WTO and the economic impact is sub-optimal, how and in what ways will the voters express their displeasure?
Clearly, one option is to hand Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a thumping majority probably by ousting Tory MSPs and marginalising Unionist representation.
There are only six Scottish Conservative MPs at Westminster so they will be no great loss if ousted in 2024. That won't stop a Conservative majority in the RUK but were that not to be the case, I think we all know what the price of the SNP support for a minority Labour Government would be.
Its not a government but a political 'celebrity' reality show.
The only possibility of excitement, then, comes if Trump decides that his staff are useless and decides to go completely ad lib.
Our friends across the Atlantic have a choice between someone doddery but decent and an obviously terrible human being.
We have the choice between someone dull but decent (I'm disappointed to discover that SKS wasn't the inspiration for Mark Darcy in Bridget Jones) and Johnson who is obvious...
Is Trump doing particularly well among the transgender, do you think?
I imagine the LDs will support that but as for the Conservatives, here's the thing - publicly they may stand four-square behind the Union but will they want to be on the same platform as Starmer and Labour and of course we all know IF Scotland leaves the Union, Conservative prospects in RUK will be much improved.
Let me ask you as an activist - if you were able, would you go to Scotland and campaign for the retention of the Union in a second referendum and would you campaign alongside Labour and Lib Dem activists if that were the case?
I'll bet you £100 he won't literally explode, are you on?
I’m looking at Dominic Cummings and Brexit and feeling a bit doubtful.
I think you know that’s literally not what I meant
I’d be more worried about Biden reading something like “next cue card says...”
" According to Michael, a 29-year-old former Labour activist, Starmer’s election was enough to prompt him to leave the party. “The moment Keir Starmer became leader, I knew Labour was no longer a place for me,” he says. “I left within the hour of the leadership results being confirmed.”
“I fought so hard for so long to get a person I saw as a genuine, caring, thoughtful man in Number 10, and have his wildly popular manifesto pledges implemented,” "
https://novaramedia.com/2020/09/04/labour-is-hemorrhaging-leftwing-activists-will-it-survive/
https://twitter.com/Planet_F1/status/1170645924961574912
That can't be right surely?
https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/1302628569126965249?s=20
Yes, I know it'd potentially mess up Labour's chances in the 2030s if the referendum was won, though (a) we do sometimes win in England alone (b) over time, people tend to adjust to make the race even again and (c) actually that's not a reasonable argument for a constitutional issue anyway.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/sep/06/birmingham-stabbings-murder-inquiry-opened-after-man-killed
The idea that there is no CCTV footage of these incidents, given clear views of the attacker is highly unlikely. Perhaps there is more going on than meets the eye.
"Ok, so it's hard for me to get my head around it but, you know, I'm no expert and I'm happy to go with those who are. Which means transgender - is that what they're called? transgender? - right so yeah, transgender people themselves, they're the experts on this one. No way I'm gonna impose some 1950s Happy Days type morality onto all this. It's all about their authentic lived experience and everything else is fake news as far as I'm concerned."
Trump haters will no doubt see a cynical attempt, with the Rust Belt and the South West sliding away from him, to bring California and its 55 EC votes into play.
. . . and if the response by the Government is basically "f**k off no, you're not having a referendum, we don't care what you vote for" (as you want it to be) . . .
. . . then by the time Starmer is elected it won't matter what he does with regards to Devomax, EEA or anything else, it would all be too little, too late.
Failure is breeding failure. The next SLab leader is going to be just as big a flop as the last seven. All the likely candidates are complete duffers.
But also we are seeing via the ONS data no rise in infections. So it could be, as Malmesbury calculated, simply that Test and Trace are identifying the transmissions now.
What will be interesting is to see what happens now following the effective end of large scale foreign travel (as the August holidays are now over) and the reopening of schools instead.
What sanctions have been applied?
It isn't like Mayor Pete appearing from nowhere or even Obama, where most people will have never seen these people before in their lives before the campaign.
MrEd has a bit of a crush on the Trumps.
How many individual infections is that? Given that UK numbers treat multiple positive tests for a single individual as multiple numbers in the figures.
Oh and it's about time the media stopped using these ludicrous "highest since mid-may (or whenever)" phrases. Since everyone knows that there is no serious basis for comparison between the numbers before and the numbers now.
I can see why he had to leave. No place for Tory sleeper agents in Labour now that the mole in chief has been replaced.
https://twitter.com/amylaurajones/status/1301320123626729472
The rest of the that twitter thread is a bit of a culinary horror show.
https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/incidence-update-4-sep
Let's hope we're ready enough for what's to come.
The same thing happened in the Guildford train stabbing when the murderer was on the run and no description was issued by police.
But remember, it isn’t that long ago that the SNP has nobody of standing beyond Alex Salmond and as a result he had to keep doing a Farage and returning to the leadership he’d sworn to abandon for good.
Things can change fast when they have to. The real weakness of the Unionist parties is their total inability to exploit the SNP’s weaknesses on domestic policy, which tells me that they are all hypnotised by Sturgeon’s seeming ability to defy gravity.
If Biden getting 5% more than Trump nationally, the probability that Trump wins the EC is not zero, but it is very close to zero. Trump would have to hold on to WI/MI/PA and not lose 37 EC votes in any other combination. Realistically that is not going to happen.
And what’s more baffling is that by any measure Foakes is a better batsman against the red ball than Buttler.
Other thoughts:
The first reported attacks are very close to where I live (in fact, I was on Livery Street for other business this morning) - police were were more visible than normal.
There is a clear example of how stories get mangled up = the bar worker talking about fights (and there would be in that part of Brum) seems sincere in what she's saying.
Then again it works great on pizzas and burgers too, its a very versatile ingredient.