Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you want to bet that the WH2020 polls are wrong you need lo

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 10 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you want to bet that the WH2020 polls are wrong you need longer odds than currently available

A former PB regular has been in touch with me to say that we’ve got it all wrong over the betting on the American election. He argues that Trump is in a much better position than several of the recent posts on the site have suggested and there are reasons to believe that the US polling is is not correct.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533
    FPT
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm considering exiting the Presidential market.

    I believe the polls will tighten but not enough for Trump to win. Unlike 2016 I want to take my profit before the night, not let it ride.

    When the polls tighten the betting markets are going to massively over react in the direction of Trump.

    I will not be able to exit at a profit before election night.

    Ergo I should cash out now.

    Latest RCP Numbers

    Nationally Biden is up by 7.5% on average.

    However in the swing states it is much closer.

    In Florida Biden leads by 1.2% on average, in North Carolina by 1.5%, in Pennsylvania by 4.3%, in Michigan by 3.2%, in Wisconsin by 6.4%, in Minnesota by 5%, in Ohio by 2.4% and in Nevada by 4% and in Arizona by 5.4%.

    Trump leads by 1.7% in Iowa, by 1.3% in Georgia and by 3.5% in Texas.

    So it only takes a 2% swing nationally to Trump after the debates for example and it would be neck and neck in the EC even if Biden would still be ahead by 3.5% in the popular vote nationally

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
    RCP used to be a great site back in the day but you really don't want to be quoting numbers like this from there any more. For instance, you quote a 3.2% lead in Michigan, but they only get that by leaving out most of the Michigan polls, much of the smallness of the lead is down to a poll from a month ago.

    Don't waste pixels on it, just use the 538 numbers. Whatever you think of their projections, they at least know how to type a poll into Excel.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_biden-6761.html
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/michigan/
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533
    On topic is the former pb regular Stuart Truth, it would be great to have him back.
  • FPT
    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Removing a border between GB and NI will actually appease Unionists while the UK government will still keep no hard border with the Republic of Ireland to appease Nationalists
    Indeed. There are 5 not 3 options for the NI border.
    1. Risk a return to violence
    2. A hard border between GB and NI
    3. A hard border between NI and the Republic
    4. Erase the border between the UK and the EU by alignment
    5. Compromise the integrity of the border between the EU and the UK
    Once you've eliminated the impossible we have the outcome. Without either side being willing to compromise there is only one viable option.
    It' actually a choice between priorities. Do you prioritise Brexit and the ability to diverge from the European Union? Or do you prioritise the viability of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom?

    The Brexit Party (Conservative Party Holdings), CEO after takeover: B Johnson, chooses Brexit and divergence from the European Union over the interests of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom.

    None of us should be surprised that they make this choice, but let's be clear they are doing so.
    They say they are doing so. But even they, even they would not be as absolutely insane actually to be doing so.

    But we shall see. I have a crisp fiver ready to back up my views, if only @Philip_Thompson would respond on the matter.

    We get a deal, it will be a deal which will be a(nother) cave, and it will be spun as something completely different.

    = no hard border anywhere.
    It was always my expectation that the people running the UK would eventually give up on the Brexit contradiction of wanting control but being controlled, and then lapse into a version of the Vassal State because it's less tiring.

    This lot seem adamant however.
    There is no contradiction, we will not be controlled and we will have control.

    What kind of perverted twisted world do you think this is that free countries can be "controlled"? Do you think we will be subjected to the "EU Empire"? 🙄
    Us breaking the law is precisely because the "EU Empire" (not my term by the way) has controls on us that we as enthusiastic or press-ganged Brexiteers don't like, on principle. This will happen again and again.
    Us "breaking the law" is precisely because the EU lacks any controls on us so we can walk away. If the EU had control it would ensure we couldn't "break the law".
    You live by Mafia rules. Just saying...

    And if we do go down that route, the big guys always take out the little guys.
    Pirate code, I think ?
    If we are talking about Buccaneers' code, I don't this is it. Buccaneers are semi-official outfits that states could plausibly deny but were tolerated as long as they prey on other countries' ships and do various useful things for the home state.

    Philip is talking about doing away with the rule of law (or rather he doesn't think it's a thing anyway)
    I am absolutely not. I am saying deal with the law in a realistic manner.

    Most taxes are actually dealt with by some form of self-assessment and self-reporting. Even if you're on PAYE then your employer will be self-assessing what taxes need paying and sending that information to HMRC. Actual inspections are rare and for fraud and carry criminal penalties.

    There is no reason the Irish border can't be dealt with the same way. If we have a free trade deal with the EU there won't be many customs to deal with anyway and just rely on self-assessment and self-reporting rather than customs posts.

    The law is there, the infrastructure is not. It risks some smuggling but then if anyone is caught smuggling they can face criminal sanctions - same as any other law breaker.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,060
    Biden up to a 74% chance on 538 this morning, reflecting polls nudging his way. Equal to the highest he's been since the beginning of July.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 21,970
    edited September 10
    A former PB regular? If it's *** ****** they may be worth paying attention to, if it's *****, not so much.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 2,589
    If Trump does very well then he might sweep a fe dems states.

    I was half tempted by the 9/2 on Colorado.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 24,520
    It would be good to see the former PB regular's workings.

    As it stands, all we can assume is that whoever it might be is more convincing the HYUFD. Which is not the highest of bars.
  • A former PB regular? If it's *** ****** they may be worth paying attention to, if it's *****, not so much.

    *** ****** would be great to have back if he could just avoid talking about *** *********.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,060

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm considering exiting the Presidential market.

    I believe the polls will tighten but not enough for Trump to win. Unlike 2016 I want to take my profit before the night, not let it ride.

    When the polls tighten the betting markets are going to massively over react in the direction of Trump.

    I will not be able to exit at a profit before election night.

    Ergo I should cash out now.

    Latest RCP Numbers

    Nationally Biden is up by 7.5% on average.

    However in the swing states it is much closer.

    In Florida Biden leads by 1.2% on average, in North Carolina by 1.5%, in Pennsylvania by 4.3%, in Michigan by 3.2%, in Wisconsin by 6.4%, in Minnesota by 5%, in Ohio by 2.4% and in Nevada by 4% and in Arizona by 5.4%.

    Trump leads by 1.7% in Iowa, by 1.3% in Georgia and by 3.5% in Texas.

    So it only takes a 2% swing nationally to Trump after the debates for example and it would be neck and neck in the EC even if Biden would still be ahead by 3.5% in the popular vote nationally

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
    RCP used to be a great site back in the day but you really don't want to be quoting numbers like this from there any more. For instance, you quote a 3.2% lead in Michigan, but they only get that by leaving out most of the Michigan polls, much of the smallness of the lead is down to a poll from a month ago.

    Don't waste pixels on it, just use the 538 numbers. Whatever you think of their projections, they at least know how to type a poll into Excel.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_biden-6761.html
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/michigan/
    Indeed, 538 currently have Biden 7.5% ahead in Michigan.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,396
    edited September 10

    FPT

    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Removing a border between GB and NI will actually appease Unionists while the UK government will still keep no hard border with the Republic of Ireland to appease Nationalists
    Indeed. There are 5 not 3 options for the NI border.
    1. Risk a return to violence
    2. A hard border between GB and NI
    3. A hard border between NI and the Republic
    4. Erase the border between the UK and the EU by alignment
    5. Compromise the integrity of the border between the EU and the UK
    Once you've eliminated the impossible we have the outcome. Without either side being willing to compromise there is only one viable option.
    It' actually a choice between priorities. Do you prioritise Brexit and the ability to diverge from the European Union? Or do you prioritise the viability of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom?

    The Brexit Party (Conservative Party Holdings), CEO after takeover: B Johnson, chooses Brexit and divergence from the European Union over the interests of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom.

    None of us should be surprised that they make this choice, but let's be clear they are doing so.
    They say they are doing so. But even they, even they would not be as absolutely insane actually to be doing so.

    But we shall see. I have a crisp fiver ready to back up my views, if only @Philip_Thompson would respond on the matter.

    We get a deal, it will be a deal which will be a(nother) cave, and it will be spun as something completely different.

    = no hard border anywhere.
    It was always my expectation that the people running the UK would eventually give up on the Brexit contradiction of wanting control but being controlled, and then lapse into a version of the Vassal State because it's less tiring.

    This lot seem adamant however.
    There is no contradiction, we will not be controlled and we will have control.

    What kind of perverted twisted world do you think this is that free countries can be "controlled"? Do you think we will be subjected to the "EU Empire"? 🙄
    Us breaking the law is precisely because the "EU Empire" (not my term by the way) has controls on us that we as enthusiastic or press-ganged Brexiteers don't like, on principle. This will happen again and again.
    Us "breaking the law" is precisely because the EU lacks any controls on us so we can walk away. If the EU had control it would ensure we couldn't "break the law".
    You live by Mafia rules. Just saying...

    And if we do go down that route, the big guys always take out the little guys.
    Pirate code, I think ?
    If we are talking about Buccaneers' code, I don't this is it. Buccaneers are semi-official outfits that states could plausibly deny but were tolerated as long as they prey on other countries' ships and do various useful things for the home state.

    Philip is talking about doing away with the rule of law (or rather he doesn't think it's a thing anyway)
    I am absolutely not. I am saying deal with the law in a realistic manner.

    Most taxes are actually dealt with by some form of self-assessment and self-reporting. Even if you're on PAYE then your employer will be self-assessing what taxes need paying and sending that information to HMRC. Actual inspections are rare and for fraud and carry criminal penalties.

    There is no reason the Irish border can't be dealt with the same way. If we have a free trade deal with the EU there won't be many customs to deal with anyway and just rely on self-assessment and self-reporting rather than customs posts.

    The law is there, the infrastructure is not. It risks some smuggling but then if anyone is caught smuggling they can face criminal sanctions - same as any other law breaker.
    We speak for ourselves so happy to be corrected. If you think rule of law is a thing, why did you claim on the previous thread:

    The whole world lives by those [Mafia] rules and no the "big guys" do not always win. Organised and small works better than sclerotic and spread out.

    This is in the context of the UK government explicitly breaking international law.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,198
    If the polls are right and Trump gets a good shellacking, like Brexit, would it be the fault of Remosners?

    To work!
  • On topic is the former pb regular Stuart Truth, it would be great to have him back.

    Nah, it’s Cromwell.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 24,520
    FPT
    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Removing a border between GB and NI will actually appease Unionists while the UK government will still keep no hard border with the Republic of Ireland to appease Nationalists
    Indeed. There are 5 not 3 options for the NI border.
    1. Risk a return to violence
    2. A hard border between GB and NI
    3. A hard border between NI and the Republic
    4. Erase the border between the UK and the EU by alignment
    5. Compromise the integrity of the border between the EU and the UK
    Once you've eliminated the impossible we have the outcome. Without either side being willing to compromise there is only one viable option.
    It' actually a choice between priorities. Do you prioritise Brexit and the ability to diverge from the European Union? Or do you prioritise the viability of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom?

    The Brexit Party (Conservative Party Holdings), CEO after takeover: B Johnson, chooses Brexit and divergence from the European Union over the interests of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom.

    None of us should be surprised that they make this choice, but let's be clear they are doing so.
    They say they are doing so. But even they, even they would not be as absolutely insane actually to be doing so.

    But we shall see. I have a crisp fiver ready to back up my views, if only @Philip_Thompson would respond on the matter.

    We get a deal, it will be a deal which will be a(nother) cave, and it will be spun as something completely different.

    = no hard border anywhere.
    It was always my expectation that the people running the UK would eventually give up on the Brexit contradiction of wanting control but being controlled, and then lapse into a version of the Vassal State because it's less tiring.

    This lot seem adamant however.
    There is no contradiction, we will not be controlled and we will have control.

    What kind of perverted twisted world do you think this is that free countries can be "controlled"? Do you think we will be subjected to the "EU Empire"? 🙄
    Us breaking the law is precisely because the "EU Empire" (not my term by the way) has controls on us that we as enthusiastic or press-ganged Brexiteers don't like, on principle. This will happen again and again.
    Us "breaking the law" is precisely because the EU lacks any controls on us so we can walk away. If the EU had control it would ensure we couldn't "break the law".
    You live by Mafia rules. Just saying...

    And if we do go down that route, the big guys always take out the little guys.
    Pirate code, I think ?
    If we are talking about Buccaneers' code, I don't this is it. Buccaneers are semi-official outfits that states could plausibly deny but were tolerated as long as they prey on other countries' ships and do various useful things for the home state...
    No, it was just a reference to Philip's strange fascination with Pirates of the Caribbean as an analogue for international law.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,198

    If the polls are right and Trump gets a good shellacking, like Brexit, would it be the fault of Remosners?

    To work!

    Remoaners!
  • FF43 said:

    FPT

    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Removing a border between GB and NI will actually appease Unionists while the UK government will still keep no hard border with the Republic of Ireland to appease Nationalists
    Indeed. There are 5 not 3 options for the NI border.
    1. Risk a return to violence
    2. A hard border between GB and NI
    3. A hard border between NI and the Republic
    4. Erase the border between the UK and the EU by alignment
    5. Compromise the integrity of the border between the EU and the UK
    Once you've eliminated the impossible we have the outcome. Without either side being willing to compromise there is only one viable option.
    It' actually a choice between priorities. Do you prioritise Brexit and the ability to diverge from the European Union? Or do you prioritise the viability of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom?

    The Brexit Party (Conservative Party Holdings), CEO after takeover: B Johnson, chooses Brexit and divergence from the European Union over the interests of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom.

    None of us should be surprised that they make this choice, but let's be clear they are doing so.
    They say they are doing so. But even they, even they would not be as absolutely insane actually to be doing so.

    But we shall see. I have a crisp fiver ready to back up my views, if only @Philip_Thompson would respond on the matter.

    We get a deal, it will be a deal which will be a(nother) cave, and it will be spun as something completely different.

    = no hard border anywhere.
    It was always my expectation that the people running the UK would eventually give up on the Brexit contradiction of wanting control but being controlled, and then lapse into a version of the Vassal State because it's less tiring.

    This lot seem adamant however.
    There is no contradiction, we will not be controlled and we will have control.

    What kind of perverted twisted world do you think this is that free countries can be "controlled"? Do you think we will be subjected to the "EU Empire"? 🙄
    Us breaking the law is precisely because the "EU Empire" (not my term by the way) has controls on us that we as enthusiastic or press-ganged Brexiteers don't like, on principle. This will happen again and again.
    Us "breaking the law" is precisely because the EU lacks any controls on us so we can walk away. If the EU had control it would ensure we couldn't "break the law".
    You live by Mafia rules. Just saying...

    And if we do go down that route, the big guys always take out the little guys.
    Pirate code, I think ?
    If we are talking about Buccaneers' code, I don't this is it. Buccaneers are semi-official outfits that states could plausibly deny but were tolerated as long as they prey on other countries' ships and do various useful things for the home state.

    Philip is talking about doing away with the rule of law (or rather he doesn't think it's a thing anyway)
    I am absolutely not. I am saying deal with the law in a realistic manner.

    Most taxes are actually dealt with by some form of self-assessment and self-reporting. Even if you're on PAYE then your employer will be self-assessing what taxes need paying and sending that information to HMRC. Actual inspections are rare and for fraud and carry criminal penalties.

    There is no reason the Irish border can't be dealt with the same way. If we have a free trade deal with the EU there won't be many customs to deal with anyway and just rely on self-assessment and self-reporting rather than customs posts.

    The law is there, the infrastructure is not. It risks some smuggling but then if anyone is caught smuggling they can face criminal sanctions - same as any other law breaker.
    We speak for ourselves so happy to be corrected. If you think rule of law is a thing, why did you claim on the previous thread:

    The whole world lives by those [Mafia] rules and no the "big guys" do not always win. Organised and small works better than sclerotic and spread out.
    I was talking about realpolitik which is how the world has always operated. Countries look after themselves and so should we too.
  • Barnesian said:


    chuckle.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 2,589
    Rasmussen's reasons for the polls being out are that many are small samples and Trump voters are once again 'shy'

    The thread header doesn't actually mention the former PBer's reasons.

    Rasmussen's own 2,500 poll had Trump just two behind Biden nationally.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,659
    Scaramucci just really trashed Trump on Sky.
  • I still can’t get my head around the possibility of Trump winning and the GOP losing the Senate.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,389
    My only GOP bet is 4-1 Republicans take the House.
    There was a chunky national vote bias to the GOP there in both 2016 and 2018, so they could possibly take it at D+4 in the generic ballot according to my calculations.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,558

    Rasmussen's reasons for the polls being out are that many are small samples and Trump voters are once again 'shy'

    The thread header doesn't actually mention the former PBer's reasons.

    Rasmussen's own 2,500 poll had Trump just two behind Biden nationally.

    "Once again"?

    I thought the reason for the polling errors in 2016 was undersampling of non-college educated white voters - a defect that has been fixed by the polling companies.

    So we would require something new to be wrong with the polls to repeat the polling error. This is certainly possible, but I'm struggling to think what it might be.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,396

    FF43 said:

    FPT

    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Removing a border between GB and NI will actually appease Unionists while the UK government will still keep no hard border with the Republic of Ireland to appease Nationalists
    Indeed. There are 5 not 3 options for the NI border.
    1. Risk a return to violence
    2. A hard border between GB and NI
    3. A hard border between NI and the Republic
    4. Erase the border between the UK and the EU by alignment
    5. Compromise the integrity of the border between the EU and the UK
    Once you've eliminated the impossible we have the outcome. Without either side being willing to compromise there is only one viable option.
    It' actually a choice between priorities. Do you prioritise Brexit and the ability to diverge from the European Union? Or do you prioritise the viability of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom?

    The Brexit Party (Conservative Party Holdings), CEO after takeover: B Johnson, chooses Brexit and divergence from the European Union over the interests of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom.

    None of us should be surprised that they make this choice, but let's be clear they are doing so.
    They say they are doing so. But even they, even they would not be as absolutely insane actually to be doing so.

    But we shall see. I have a crisp fiver ready to back up my views, if only @Philip_Thompson would respond on the matter.

    We get a deal, it will be a deal which will be a(nother) cave, and it will be spun as something completely different.

    = no hard border anywhere.
    It was always my expectation that the people running the UK would eventually give up on the Brexit contradiction of wanting control but being controlled, and then lapse into a version of the Vassal State because it's less tiring.

    This lot seem adamant however.
    There is no contradiction, we will not be controlled and we will have control.

    What kind of perverted twisted world do you think this is that free countries can be "controlled"? Do you think we will be subjected to the "EU Empire"? 🙄
    Us breaking the law is precisely because the "EU Empire" (not my term by the way) has controls on us that we as enthusiastic or press-ganged Brexiteers don't like, on principle. This will happen again and again.
    Us "breaking the law" is precisely because the EU lacks any controls on us so we can walk away. If the EU had control it would ensure we couldn't "break the law".
    You live by Mafia rules. Just saying...

    And if we do go down that route, the big guys always take out the little guys.
    Pirate code, I think ?
    If we are talking about Buccaneers' code, I don't this is it. Buccaneers are semi-official outfits that states could plausibly deny but were tolerated as long as they prey on other countries' ships and do various useful things for the home state.

    Philip is talking about doing away with the rule of law (or rather he doesn't think it's a thing anyway)
    I am absolutely not. I am saying deal with the law in a realistic manner.

    Most taxes are actually dealt with by some form of self-assessment and self-reporting. Even if you're on PAYE then your employer will be self-assessing what taxes need paying and sending that information to HMRC. Actual inspections are rare and for fraud and carry criminal penalties.

    There is no reason the Irish border can't be dealt with the same way. If we have a free trade deal with the EU there won't be many customs to deal with anyway and just rely on self-assessment and self-reporting rather than customs posts.

    The law is there, the infrastructure is not. It risks some smuggling but then if anyone is caught smuggling they can face criminal sanctions - same as any other law breaker.
    We speak for ourselves so happy to be corrected. If you think rule of law is a thing, why did you claim on the previous thread:

    The whole world lives by those [Mafia] rules and no the "big guys" do not always win. Organised and small works better than sclerotic and spread out.
    I was talking about realpolitik which is how the world has always operated. Countries look after themselves and so should we too.
    OK.

    The dictionary definition of realpolitik is this. It doesn't have to be, and normally isn't, incompatible with the rule of law. Incidentally Brexit is highly ideological and is the opposite of realpolitik.

    a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
  • If Biden loses, he has nobody but himself and his campaign to blame. Having Trump brief against himself on the record is almost an unfair advantage.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 2,589
    edited September 10

    Rasmussen's reasons for the polls being out are that many are small samples and Trump voters are once again 'shy'

    The thread header doesn't actually mention the former PBer's reasons.

    Rasmussen's own 2,500 poll had Trump just two behind Biden nationally.

    "Once again"?

    I thought the reason for the polling errors in 2016 was undersampling of non-college educated white voters - a defect that has been fixed by the polling companies.

    So we would require something new to be wrong with the polls to repeat the polling error. This is certainly possible, but I'm struggling to think what it might be.
    Well you would think adjustments would have been made, indeed.

    But as I say, the thread header does not actually mention the reasons the former PBer gave for the polls overstating Biden.

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,558

    I still can’t get my head around the possibility of Trump winning and the GOP losing the Senate.

    The scenario where the voters want to elect Trump and also have Congress impeach and convict him to remove him from office?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 24,520
    Cohen: 'I guarantee that it's not going to go well for whoever' set up Woodward interview
    https://thehill.com/homenews/media/515793-cohen-i-guarantee-that-its-not-going-to-go-well-for-whoever-set-up-woodward
  • FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FPT

    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Removing a border between GB and NI will actually appease Unionists while the UK government will still keep no hard border with the Republic of Ireland to appease Nationalists
    Indeed. There are 5 not 3 options for the NI border.
    1. Risk a return to violence
    2. A hard border between GB and NI
    3. A hard border between NI and the Republic
    4. Erase the border between the UK and the EU by alignment
    5. Compromise the integrity of the border between the EU and the UK
    Once you've eliminated the impossible we have the outcome. Without either side being willing to compromise there is only one viable option.
    It' actually a choice between priorities. Do you prioritise Brexit and the ability to diverge from the European Union? Or do you prioritise the viability of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom?

    The Brexit Party (Conservative Party Holdings), CEO after takeover: B Johnson, chooses Brexit and divergence from the European Union over the interests of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom.

    None of us should be surprised that they make this choice, but let's be clear they are doing so.
    They say they are doing so. But even they, even they would not be as absolutely insane actually to be doing so.

    But we shall see. I have a crisp fiver ready to back up my views, if only @Philip_Thompson would respond on the matter.

    We get a deal, it will be a deal which will be a(nother) cave, and it will be spun as something completely different.

    = no hard border anywhere.
    It was always my expectation that the people running the UK would eventually give up on the Brexit contradiction of wanting control but being controlled, and then lapse into a version of the Vassal State because it's less tiring.

    This lot seem adamant however.
    There is no contradiction, we will not be controlled and we will have control.

    What kind of perverted twisted world do you think this is that free countries can be "controlled"? Do you think we will be subjected to the "EU Empire"? 🙄
    Us breaking the law is precisely because the "EU Empire" (not my term by the way) has controls on us that we as enthusiastic or press-ganged Brexiteers don't like, on principle. This will happen again and again.
    Us "breaking the law" is precisely because the EU lacks any controls on us so we can walk away. If the EU had control it would ensure we couldn't "break the law".
    You live by Mafia rules. Just saying...

    And if we do go down that route, the big guys always take out the little guys.
    Pirate code, I think ?
    If we are talking about Buccaneers' code, I don't this is it. Buccaneers are semi-official outfits that states could plausibly deny but were tolerated as long as they prey on other countries' ships and do various useful things for the home state.

    Philip is talking about doing away with the rule of law (or rather he doesn't think it's a thing anyway)
    I am absolutely not. I am saying deal with the law in a realistic manner.

    Most taxes are actually dealt with by some form of self-assessment and self-reporting. Even if you're on PAYE then your employer will be self-assessing what taxes need paying and sending that information to HMRC. Actual inspections are rare and for fraud and carry criminal penalties.

    There is no reason the Irish border can't be dealt with the same way. If we have a free trade deal with the EU there won't be many customs to deal with anyway and just rely on self-assessment and self-reporting rather than customs posts.

    The law is there, the infrastructure is not. It risks some smuggling but then if anyone is caught smuggling they can face criminal sanctions - same as any other law breaker.
    We speak for ourselves so happy to be corrected. If you think rule of law is a thing, why did you claim on the previous thread:

    The whole world lives by those [Mafia] rules and no the "big guys" do not always win. Organised and small works better than sclerotic and spread out.
    I was talking about realpolitik which is how the world has always operated. Countries look after themselves and so should we too.
    OK.

    The dictionary definition of realpolitik is this. It doesn't have to be, and normally isn't, incompatible with the rule of law. Incidentally Brexit is highly ideological and is the opposite of realpolitik.

    a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
    Since the UK being able to set its own laws is practically in the UK's interests then that is realpolitik.

    My solution to get NI peaceful by relying on self-assessment and trust rather than border posts is more practical than the highly ideological obsession about "integrity of the Single Market"
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 2,415
    People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.

    Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:

    (raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).

    It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):


  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 2,589
    edited September 10

    If Biden loses, he has nobody but himself and his campaign to blame. Having Trump brief against himself on the record is almost an unfair advantage.

    COVID also gave Biden an enormous advantage.

    Without it, Trump could have told a decent economic story (debt notwithstanding).
  • I still can’t get my head around the possibility of Trump winning and the GOP losing the Senate.

    The scenario where the voters want to elect Trump and also have Congress impeach and convict him to remove him from office?
    You think the Democrats are going to have 67 Senators?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,389
    edited September 10
    The reasoning for Trump winning is a combination of the following.

    i) Incumbents tend to win
    ii) Sitting presidents tend to slightly outperform polling *
    iii) Sitting presidents tend to lose when the economy is in the shitter. Now the current economy might be a debt fuelled mirage, but it's still going relatively well.+
    iv) The protests and so forth are leading to a larger shy Trump factor than normal as people don't want to give the socially unacceptable 'Trump' answer.


    * I think this one is true. Was in 2012 at any rate https://www.pollingreport.com/wh12gen.htm
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election
    Needs further checking though.

    + Well the stock markets are. Is main Street though ? In the rust belt ? More difficult to check than the stock market.

    All that said, I think the market is still overstating Trump's chances. But it's not impossible he wins. Personally I'm staying long Biden for now.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 24,520
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FPT

    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Removing a border between GB and NI will actually appease Unionists while the UK government will still keep no hard border with the Republic of Ireland to appease Nationalists
    Indeed. There are 5 not 3 options for the NI border.
    1. Risk a return to violence
    2. A hard border between GB and NI
    3. A hard border between NI and the Republic
    4. Erase the border between the UK and the EU by alignment
    5. Compromise the integrity of the border between the EU and the UK
    Once you've eliminated the impossible we have the outcome. Without either side being willing to compromise there is only one viable option.
    It' actually a choice between priorities. Do you prioritise Brexit and the ability to diverge from the European Union? Or do you prioritise the viability of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom?

    The Brexit Party (Conservative Party Holdings), CEO after takeover: B Johnson, chooses Brexit and divergence from the European Union over the interests of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom.

    None of us should be surprised that they make this choice, but let's be clear they are doing so.
    They say they are doing so. But even they, even they would not be as absolutely insane actually to be doing so.

    But we shall see. I have a crisp fiver ready to back up my views, if only @Philip_Thompson would respond on the matter.

    We get a deal, it will be a deal which will be a(nother) cave, and it will be spun as something completely different.

    = no hard border anywhere.
    It was always my expectation that the people running the UK would eventually give up on the Brexit contradiction of wanting control but being controlled, and then lapse into a version of the Vassal State because it's less tiring.

    This lot seem adamant however.
    There is no contradiction, we will not be controlled and we will have control.

    What kind of perverted twisted world do you think this is that free countries can be "controlled"? Do you think we will be subjected to the "EU Empire"? 🙄
    Us breaking the law is precisely because the "EU Empire" (not my term by the way) has controls on us that we as enthusiastic or press-ganged Brexiteers don't like, on principle. This will happen again and again.
    Us "breaking the law" is precisely because the EU lacks any controls on us so we can walk away. If the EU had control it would ensure we couldn't "break the law".
    You live by Mafia rules. Just saying...

    And if we do go down that route, the big guys always take out the little guys.
    Pirate code, I think ?
    If we are talking about Buccaneers' code, I don't this is it. Buccaneers are semi-official outfits that states could plausibly deny but were tolerated as long as they prey on other countries' ships and do various useful things for the home state.

    Philip is talking about doing away with the rule of law (or rather he doesn't think it's a thing anyway)
    I am absolutely not. I am saying deal with the law in a realistic manner.

    Most taxes are actually dealt with by some form of self-assessment and self-reporting. Even if you're on PAYE then your employer will be self-assessing what taxes need paying and sending that information to HMRC. Actual inspections are rare and for fraud and carry criminal penalties.

    There is no reason the Irish border can't be dealt with the same way. If we have a free trade deal with the EU there won't be many customs to deal with anyway and just rely on self-assessment and self-reporting rather than customs posts.

    The law is there, the infrastructure is not. It risks some smuggling but then if anyone is caught smuggling they can face criminal sanctions - same as any other law breaker.
    We speak for ourselves so happy to be corrected. If you think rule of law is a thing, why did you claim on the previous thread:

    The whole world lives by those [Mafia] rules and no the "big guys" do not always win. Organised and small works better than sclerotic and spread out.
    I was talking about realpolitik which is how the world has always operated. Countries look after themselves and so should we too.
    OK.

    The dictionary definition of realpolitik is this. It doesn't have to be, and normally isn't, incompatible with the rule of law. Incidentally Brexit is highly ideological and is the opposite of realpolitik.

    a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
    Indeed.
    Practical considerations would generally lead to complying with an international rules based system, and maintaining your reputation for doing so.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,558

    I still can’t get my head around the possibility of Trump winning and the GOP losing the Senate.

    The scenario where the voters want to elect Trump and also have Congress impeach and convict him to remove him from office?
    You think the Democrats are going to have 67 Senators?
    I decided the joke was worth not quibbling about the details.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 3,302

    People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.

    Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:

    (raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).

    It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):


    From a peak of over 3000 in April the figures are still very low - and at this stage we cannot be certain that the recent rise in hospitalisaton from a low base is something that should generate a panicky response.
  • Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FPT

    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Removing a border between GB and NI will actually appease Unionists while the UK government will still keep no hard border with the Republic of Ireland to appease Nationalists
    Indeed. There are 5 not 3 options for the NI border.
    1. Risk a return to violence
    2. A hard border between GB and NI
    3. A hard border between NI and the Republic
    4. Erase the border between the UK and the EU by alignment
    5. Compromise the integrity of the border between the EU and the UK
    Once you've eliminated the impossible we have the outcome. Without either side being willing to compromise there is only one viable option.
    It' actually a choice between priorities. Do you prioritise Brexit and the ability to diverge from the European Union? Or do you prioritise the viability of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom?

    The Brexit Party (Conservative Party Holdings), CEO after takeover: B Johnson, chooses Brexit and divergence from the European Union over the interests of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom.

    None of us should be surprised that they make this choice, but let's be clear they are doing so.
    They say they are doing so. But even they, even they would not be as absolutely insane actually to be doing so.

    But we shall see. I have a crisp fiver ready to back up my views, if only @Philip_Thompson would respond on the matter.

    We get a deal, it will be a deal which will be a(nother) cave, and it will be spun as something completely different.

    = no hard border anywhere.
    It was always my expectation that the people running the UK would eventually give up on the Brexit contradiction of wanting control but being controlled, and then lapse into a version of the Vassal State because it's less tiring.

    This lot seem adamant however.
    There is no contradiction, we will not be controlled and we will have control.

    What kind of perverted twisted world do you think this is that free countries can be "controlled"? Do you think we will be subjected to the "EU Empire"? 🙄
    Us breaking the law is precisely because the "EU Empire" (not my term by the way) has controls on us that we as enthusiastic or press-ganged Brexiteers don't like, on principle. This will happen again and again.
    Us "breaking the law" is precisely because the EU lacks any controls on us so we can walk away. If the EU had control it would ensure we couldn't "break the law".
    You live by Mafia rules. Just saying...

    And if we do go down that route, the big guys always take out the little guys.
    Pirate code, I think ?
    If we are talking about Buccaneers' code, I don't this is it. Buccaneers are semi-official outfits that states could plausibly deny but were tolerated as long as they prey on other countries' ships and do various useful things for the home state.

    Philip is talking about doing away with the rule of law (or rather he doesn't think it's a thing anyway)
    I am absolutely not. I am saying deal with the law in a realistic manner.

    Most taxes are actually dealt with by some form of self-assessment and self-reporting. Even if you're on PAYE then your employer will be self-assessing what taxes need paying and sending that information to HMRC. Actual inspections are rare and for fraud and carry criminal penalties.

    There is no reason the Irish border can't be dealt with the same way. If we have a free trade deal with the EU there won't be many customs to deal with anyway and just rely on self-assessment and self-reporting rather than customs posts.

    The law is there, the infrastructure is not. It risks some smuggling but then if anyone is caught smuggling they can face criminal sanctions - same as any other law breaker.
    We speak for ourselves so happy to be corrected. If you think rule of law is a thing, why did you claim on the previous thread:

    The whole world lives by those [Mafia] rules and no the "big guys" do not always win. Organised and small works better than sclerotic and spread out.
    I was talking about realpolitik which is how the world has always operated. Countries look after themselves and so should we too.
    OK.

    The dictionary definition of realpolitik is this. It doesn't have to be, and normally isn't, incompatible with the rule of law. Incidentally Brexit is highly ideological and is the opposite of realpolitik.

    a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
    Indeed.
    Practical considerations would generally lead to complying with an international rules based system, and maintaining your reputation for doing so.
    Like how the French refused to allow beef exports against the rules?
    Like how the Australians stopped illegal boat migration?
    Like how the UK went to war with Iraq?
    Like how the UK refuses to give prisoners the vote?

    Sometimes the right thing to do is to break the rules.
  • Funny how many Remainers who are outraged at the idea of the UK not 100% adhering to the rules are the same people who were ok with Merkel junking the rules when she encouraged illegal migration by accepting people rather than following the Dublin Agreement.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 2,415
    Stocky said:

    People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.

    Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:

    (raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).

    It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):


    From a peak of over 3000 in April the figures are still very low - and at this stage we cannot be certain that the recent rise in hospitalisaton from a low base is something that should generate a panicky response.
    Oh, definitely.

    It is, though, another indicator on the dashboard that's blinking as if in warning.

    The cases number is up - which could be an artefact of increased testing. We'd expect positivity rates to be up if there's a real growth.
    The positivity rates are up - which could be an artefact of the concentration of testing in hotspots. We'd expect hospitalisation rates to be up if there's a burgeoning problem
    Hospitalisation rates are up - but that's from a low base and still rather limited.

    With all three indicators swinging upwards, and aware that this thing can bloom fast if not watched carefully and that hospitalisations are a driving-by-the-rear-view-mirror sort of thing, you can see why the Government are getting cautious.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 1,254
    A good thread, concise and convincing.

    Incidentally, I was walking down Trump Street in the City of London the other day. It is outrageous that there is no Biden Street to balance it. Still, the fact that it turns into Russia Row makes me feel that the Corporation has a mischievous sense of humour after all.
  • Stocky said:

    People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.

    Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:

    (raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).

    It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):


    From a peak of over 3000 in April the figures are still very low - and at this stage we cannot be certain that the recent rise in hospitalisaton from a low base is something that should generate a panicky response.
    We haven't got panic yet. I think we are trying to avoid panic.

    Wouldn't panic be closing pubs, restaurants, schools etc?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 3,302
    edited September 10

    Stocky said:

    People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.

    Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:

    (raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).

    It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):


    From a peak of over 3000 in April the figures are still very low - and at this stage we cannot be certain that the recent rise in hospitalisaton from a low base is something that should generate a panicky response.
    Oh, definitely.

    It is, though, another indicator on the dashboard that's blinking as if in warning.

    The cases number is up - which could be an artefact of increased testing. We'd expect positivity rates to be up if there's a real growth.
    The positivity rates are up - which could be an artefact of the concentration of testing in hotspots. We'd expect hospitalisation rates to be up if there's a burgeoning problem
    Hospitalisation rates are up - but that's from a low base and still rather limited.

    With all three indicators swinging upwards, and aware that this thing can bloom fast if not watched carefully and that hospitalisations are a driving-by-the-rear-view-mirror sort of thing, you can see why the Government are getting cautious.
    Good post. The Government is also getting cautious cus it`s covering its arse.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,493
    I am actually more kindly disposed toward Trump since the Cohen revelations. I like how he publicly disparaged DeeJayTeeJay for his wildlife murdering proclivities.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 2,589

    Stocky said:

    People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.

    Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:

    (raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).

    It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):


    From a peak of over 3000 in April the figures are still very low - and at this stage we cannot be certain that the recent rise in hospitalisaton from a low base is something that should generate a panicky response.
    We haven't got panic yet. I think we are trying to avoid panic.

    Wouldn't panic be closing pubs, restaurants, schools etc?
    Curfewing people? encouraging neighbours to rat on each other? COVID Marshalls sneaking around shopping citizens? Giving the police powers to break up gatherings of more than six people? Moonshots?

    Come on.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533

    Funny how many Remainers who are outraged at the idea of the UK not 100% adhering to the rules are the same people who were ok with Merkel junking the rules when she encouraged illegal migration by accepting people rather than following the Dublin Agreement.

    What rule do you think they junked?

    It appears they were allowed to accept people they weren't obliged to by the regulation, or are you thinking of something else?
    http://www.asylumineurope.org/news/24-08-2015/germany-halt-dublin-procedures-syrians
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 10
    The key for Trump is Biden leads by about half the margin in the battleground states he does nationally, so it only needs a small swing to Trump nationally and the EC is tied.

    On the Senate I agree it is 50 50 as the states up were last up in 2014 when the GOP won a landslide so most of them are Republican held with many Democratic targets.

    The House though will likely see GOP pick ups as it was last up in 2018 when the Democrats got a big swing to them to take control of the chamber
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    Nigelb said:

    It would be good to see the former PB regular's workings.

    As it stands, all we can assume is that whoever it might be is more convincing the HYUFD. Which is not the highest of bars.

    My own prediction is Trump wins 274 to 264 but Biden wins the popular vote by 3-4%, we will see who is right on election night (or later on current trends)
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533
    HYUFD said:

    The key for Trump is Biden leads by about half the margin in the battleground states he does nationally, so it only needs a small swing to Trump nationally and the EC is tied.

    There's a difference but it's not that big (unless you deliberately use a source that ignores most of the polling for some of the states, see upthread).

    National: 7.7
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/

    Tipping point state (PA): 5.1
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/pennsylvania/
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 1,224
    Stocky said:

    People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.

    Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:

    (raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).

    It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):


    From a peak of over 3000 in April the figures are still very low - and at this stage we cannot be certain that the recent rise in hospitalisaton from a low base is something that should generate a panicky response.
    Especially as most hospitals remain empty
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    edited September 10

    HYUFD said:

    The key for Trump is Biden leads by about half the margin in the battleground states he does nationally, so it only needs a small swing to Trump nationally and the EC is tied.

    There's a difference but it's not that big (unless you deliberately use a source that ignores most of the polling for some of the states, see upthread).

    National: 7.7
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/

    Tipping point state (PA): 5.1
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/pennsylvania/
    I think Biden will win PA, Trafalgar group has him ahead there but Trump still ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin and in 2016 it was Trafalgar right in the rustbelt, not the poll averages.

    In 2016 538 called Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for Hillary, Trafalgar called Michigan and Pennsylvania for Trump, Trafalgar was correct
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,389

    HYUFD said:

    The key for Trump is Biden leads by about half the margin in the battleground states he does nationally, so it only needs a small swing to Trump nationally and the EC is tied.

    There's a difference but it's not that big (unless you deliberately use a source that ignores most of the polling for some of the states, see upthread).

    National: 7.7
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/

    Tipping point state (PA): 5.1
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/pennsylvania/
    The 2012 polling was more favourable to Romney than it should have been, can't work out if it's bias of pollsters like Rasmussen to the GOP or general presidential outperformance though. Rasmussen's polls were definitely too good for Romney in 2012 though.
  • Hilary had a 99% chance of winning....
  • FishingFishing Posts: 1,254

    Funny how many Remainers who are outraged at the idea of the UK not 100% adhering to the rules are the same people who were ok with Merkel junking the rules when she encouraged illegal migration by accepting people rather than following the Dublin Agreement.

    EU countries routinely ignore laws and regulations that don't suit them. See Sweden, for instance, which in theory is committed to joining the euro, but in practice has done everything possible to avoid it. Or Germany and France, who broke the stability pact, but had no action taken against them. Or the EU itself, which ignores the principle of subsidiarity all the time.

    The difference is, because we have a more legalistic and accountable government, we signal in advance what we're going to do, rather than breaching it, then presenting Brussels with a fait accompli, then bargaining to avoid penalties. I once had to deal with the EU when we had infringed the letter of European rules in a minor way, though overall, we were about the only country in Europe who was working to comply with the spirit - the rest were just prevaricating. It was fascinating to see the difference in approach between us and the other countries.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 26,705
    edited September 10
    Pulpstar said:

    The reasoning for Trump winning is a combination of the following.

    i) Incumbents tend to win
    ii) Sitting presidents tend to slightly outperform polling *
    iii) Sitting presidents tend to lose when the economy is in the shitter. Now the current economy might be a debt fuelled mirage, but it's still going relatively well.+
    iv) The protests and so forth are leading to a larger shy Trump factor than normal as people don't want to give the socially unacceptable 'Trump' answer.


    * I think this one is true. Was in 2012 at any rate https://www.pollingreport.com/wh12gen.htm
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election
    Needs further checking though.

    + Well the stock markets are. Is main Street though ? In the rust belt ? More difficult to check than the stock market.

    All that said, I think the market is still overstating Trump's chances. But it's not impossible he wins. Personally I'm staying long Biden for now.

    The first three of your suggested reasons are already factored into the 538 and Economist models (and I think into the Decsion Desk HQ and New Statesman models as well), so they are not really reasons for backing Trump given that the betting odds are already much more bullish on Trump than the polling-based models.

    The fourth is possible but there's not really any consistent evidence for it.

    To my mind the only real reason for backing Trump is that 'stuff happens' and a lot more stuff seems to be happening this year than usual, which means it might be reasonable to factor in more uncertainty this year than compared with the historic experience on which the models are based. It's a judgement, obviously, but the betting markets are already adding a chunk of extra Trump-friendly uncertainty.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 3,302

    Stocky said:

    People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.

    Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:

    (raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).

    It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):


    From a peak of over 3000 in April the figures are still very low - and at this stage we cannot be certain that the recent rise in hospitalisaton from a low base is something that should generate a panicky response.
    Especially as most hospitals remain empty
    We are well past the time when authoritarian measures were justified on a "protect the NHS" basis. We`ve slipped into something different. We`re now in a hole we can`t get out of until herd immunity is achieved (probably - hopefully - via a vaccine).
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,279
    Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.

    In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,558

    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FPT

    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Removing a border between GB and NI will actually appease Unionists while the UK government will still keep no hard border with the Republic of Ireland to appease Nationalists
    Indeed. There are 5 not 3 options for the NI border.
    1. Risk a return to violence
    2. A hard border between GB and NI
    3. A hard border between NI and the Republic
    4. Erase the border between the UK and the EU by alignment
    5. Compromise the integrity of the border between the EU and the UK
    Once you've eliminated the impossible we have the outcome. Without either side being willing to compromise there is only one viable option.
    It' actually a choice between priorities. Do you prioritise Brexit and the ability to diverge from the European Union? Or do you prioritise the viability of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom?

    The Brexit Party (Conservative Party Holdings), CEO after takeover: B Johnson, chooses Brexit and divergence from the European Union over the interests of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom.

    None of us should be surprised that they make this choice, but let's be clear they are doing so.
    They say they are doing so. But even they, even they would not be as absolutely insane actually to be doing so.

    But we shall see. I have a crisp fiver ready to back up my views, if only @Philip_Thompson would respond on the matter.

    We get a deal, it will be a deal which will be a(nother) cave, and it will be spun as something completely different.

    = no hard border anywhere.
    It was always my expectation that the people running the UK would eventually give up on the Brexit contradiction of wanting control but being controlled, and then lapse into a version of the Vassal State because it's less tiring.

    This lot seem adamant however.
    There is no contradiction, we will not be controlled and we will have control.

    What kind of perverted twisted world do you think this is that free countries can be "controlled"? Do you think we will be subjected to the "EU Empire"? 🙄
    Us breaking the law is precisely because the "EU Empire" (not my term by the way) has controls on us that we as enthusiastic or press-ganged Brexiteers don't like, on principle. This will happen again and again.
    Us "breaking the law" is precisely because the EU lacks any controls on us so we can walk away. If the EU had control it would ensure we couldn't "break the law".
    You live by Mafia rules. Just saying...

    And if we do go down that route, the big guys always take out the little guys.
    Pirate code, I think ?
    If we are talking about Buccaneers' code, I don't this is it. Buccaneers are semi-official outfits that states could plausibly deny but were tolerated as long as they prey on other countries' ships and do various useful things for the home state.

    Philip is talking about doing away with the rule of law (or rather he doesn't think it's a thing anyway)
    I am absolutely not. I am saying deal with the law in a realistic manner.

    Most taxes are actually dealt with by some form of self-assessment and self-reporting. Even if you're on PAYE then your employer will be self-assessing what taxes need paying and sending that information to HMRC. Actual inspections are rare and for fraud and carry criminal penalties.

    There is no reason the Irish border can't be dealt with the same way. If we have a free trade deal with the EU there won't be many customs to deal with anyway and just rely on self-assessment and self-reporting rather than customs posts.

    The law is there, the infrastructure is not. It risks some smuggling but then if anyone is caught smuggling they can face criminal sanctions - same as any other law breaker.
    We speak for ourselves so happy to be corrected. If you think rule of law is a thing, why did you claim on the previous thread:

    The whole world lives by those [Mafia] rules and no the "big guys" do not always win. Organised and small works better than sclerotic and spread out.
    I was talking about realpolitik which is how the world has always operated. Countries look after themselves and so should we too.
    OK.

    The dictionary definition of realpolitik is this. It doesn't have to be, and normally isn't, incompatible with the rule of law. Incidentally Brexit is highly ideological and is the opposite of realpolitik.

    a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
    Indeed.
    Practical considerations would generally lead to complying with an international rules based system, and maintaining your reputation for doing so.
    Like how the French refused to allow beef exports against the rules?
    Like how the Australians stopped illegal boat migration?
    Like how the UK went to war with Iraq?
    Like how the UK refuses to give prisoners the vote?

    Sometimes the right thing to do is to break the rules.
    Let's take each of your examples in turn.

    France - There would seem to be an obvious public health justification for the French action, and as we've seen with Covid, public health is a legal justification for temporarily suspending normal rules. So I think this was not contrary to law.

    Australia - If the migration is illegal then it isn't contrary to law to stop it. You seem confused. In any case, I do think the Australian government is in the wrong and it does affect my opinion of them.

    Iraq - The justification given by the British government was that the invasion was legal in international law due to an impending humanitarian catastrophe. While I didn't agree with that interpretation, that sort of defence is very different to "we are breaking international law and we don't care."

    Prisoners voting rights - I think the government is wrong with that one, so I don't see the point you are making. They've also wilfully misrepresented the judgment against them for political gain, so I do also see that as undermining the rule of law.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,389

    Hilary had a 99% chance of winning....

    She really didn't.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 9,702

    Stocky said:

    People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.

    Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:

    (raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).

    It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):


    From a peak of over 3000 in April the figures are still very low - and at this stage we cannot be certain that the recent rise in hospitalisaton from a low base is something that should generate a panicky response.
    Especially as most hospitals remain empty
    I’m currently in hospital and it certainly isn’t empty.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,279

    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FPT

    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    TOPPING said:

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Removing a border between GB and NI will actually appease Unionists while the UK government will still keep no hard border with the Republic of Ireland to appease Nationalists
    Indeed. There are 5 not 3 options for the NI border.
    1. Risk a return to violence
    2. A hard border between GB and NI
    3. A hard border between NI and the Republic
    4. Erase the border between the UK and the EU by alignment
    5. Compromise the integrity of the border between the EU and the UK
    Once you've eliminated the impossible we have the outcome. Without either side being willing to compromise there is only one viable option.
    It' actually a choice between priorities. Do you prioritise Brexit and the ability to diverge from the European Union? Or do you prioritise the viability of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom?

    The Brexit Party (Conservative Party Holdings), CEO after takeover: B Johnson, chooses Brexit and divergence from the European Union over the interests of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the United Kingdom.

    None of us should be surprised that they make this choice, but let's be clear they are doing so.
    They say they are doing so. But even they, even they would not be as absolutely insane actually to be doing so.

    But we shall see. I have a crisp fiver ready to back up my views, if only @Philip_Thompson would respond on the matter.

    We get a deal, it will be a deal which will be a(nother) cave, and it will be spun as something completely different.

    = no hard border anywhere.
    It was always my expectation that the people running the UK would eventually give up on the Brexit contradiction of wanting control but being controlled, and then lapse into a version of the Vassal State because it's less tiring.

    This lot seem adamant however.
    There is no contradiction, we will not be controlled and we will have control.

    What kind of perverted twisted world do you think this is that free countries can be "controlled"? Do you think we will be subjected to the "EU Empire"? 🙄
    Us breaking the law is precisely because the "EU Empire" (not my term by the way) has controls on us that we as enthusiastic or press-ganged Brexiteers don't like, on principle. This will happen again and again.
    Us "breaking the law" is precisely because the EU lacks any controls on us so we can walk away. If the EU had control it would ensure we couldn't "break the law".
    You live by Mafia rules. Just saying...

    And if we do go down that route, the big guys always take out the little guys.
    Pirate code, I think ?
    If we are talking about Buccaneers' code, I don't this is it. Buccaneers are semi-official outfits that states could plausibly deny but were tolerated as long as they prey on other countries' ships and do various useful things for the home state.

    Philip is talking about doing away with the rule of law (or rather he doesn't think it's a thing anyway)
    I am absolutely not. I am saying deal with the law in a realistic manner.

    Most taxes are actually dealt with by some form of self-assessment and self-reporting. Even if you're on PAYE then your employer will be self-assessing what taxes need paying and sending that information to HMRC. Actual inspections are rare and for fraud and carry criminal penalties.

    There is no reason the Irish border can't be dealt with the same way. If we have a free trade deal with the EU there won't be many customs to deal with anyway and just rely on self-assessment and self-reporting rather than customs posts.

    The law is there, the infrastructure is not. It risks some smuggling but then if anyone is caught smuggling they can face criminal sanctions - same as any other law breaker.
    We speak for ourselves so happy to be corrected. If you think rule of law is a thing, why did you claim on the previous thread:

    The whole world lives by those [Mafia] rules and no the "big guys" do not always win. Organised and small works better than sclerotic and spread out.
    I was talking about realpolitik which is how the world has always operated. Countries look after themselves and so should we too.
    OK.

    The dictionary definition of realpolitik is this. It doesn't have to be, and normally isn't, incompatible with the rule of law. Incidentally Brexit is highly ideological and is the opposite of realpolitik.

    a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
    Indeed.
    Practical considerations would generally lead to complying with an international rules based system, and maintaining your reputation for doing so.
    Like how the French refused to allow beef exports against the rules?
    Like how the Australians stopped illegal boat migration?
    Like how the UK went to war with Iraq?
    Like how the UK refuses to give prisoners the vote?

    Sometimes the right thing to do is to break the rules.
    Ah yes Iraq. The right thing to do...
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 9,702
    alex_ said:

    Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.

    In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...

    There’s no cut-through with the public with this stuff. As far as they are concerned Brexit is done. This is all bubble stuff.
  • Hilary had a 99% chance of winning....

    Who said that?
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 2,589

    alex_ said:

    Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.

    In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...

    There’s no cut-through with the public with this stuff. As far as they are concerned Brexit is done. This is all bubble stuff.
    correct. 100%
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    The key for Trump is Biden leads by about half the margin in the battleground states he does nationally, so it only needs a small swing to Trump nationally and the EC is tied.

    There's a difference but it's not that big (unless you deliberately use a source that ignores most of the polling for some of the states, see upthread).

    National: 7.7
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/

    Tipping point state (PA): 5.1
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/pennsylvania/
    The 2012 polling was more favourable to Romney than it should have been, can't work out if it's bias of pollsters like Rasmussen to the GOP or general presidential outperformance though. Rasmussen's polls were definitely too good for Romney in 2012 though.
    It was a huge black turnout that won it by more than expected for Obama in 2012, Romney got the biggest share of the white vote for any candidate since Bush Snr in 1988.

    Will Biden and Harris match Obama's turnout with blacks? If anything polls show a slight swing amongst black voters to Trump since 2016
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,953
    HYUFD said:
    HYUFD - That tweet is critical of the govt! Are you feeling OK?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 16,372

    On topic is the former pb regular Stuart Truth, it would be great to have him back.

    Nah, it’s Cromwell.
    Oooh, get you Mr "I fancy Scott Walker for the Nomination"

    Still cannot believe he was favourite at one point, @4.2 - just unelievable.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The key for Trump is Biden leads by about half the margin in the battleground states he does nationally, so it only needs a small swing to Trump nationally and the EC is tied.

    There's a difference but it's not that big (unless you deliberately use a source that ignores most of the polling for some of the states, see upthread).

    National: 7.7
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/

    Tipping point state (PA): 5.1
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/pennsylvania/
    I think Biden will win PA, Trafalgar group has him ahead there but Trump still ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin and in 2016 it was Trafalgar right in the rustbelt, not the poll averages.

    In 2016 538 called Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for Hillary, Trafalgar called Michigan and Pennsylvania for Trump, Trafalgar was correct
    538 did not 'call' Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for Hillary. It gave a probability which gave Hillary a modestly better chance of winning than of Trump winning.

    The crucial point which people seem to have trouble understanding is that, if a forecast says the favourite has (say) a 75% chance of winning, then not only is it not at all surprising if the favourite doesn't win, but for the forecast to be accurate the favourite shouldn't win in one out of four such forecasts.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The key for Trump is Biden leads by about half the margin in the battleground states he does nationally, so it only needs a small swing to Trump nationally and the EC is tied.

    There's a difference but it's not that big (unless you deliberately use a source that ignores most of the polling for some of the states, see upthread).

    National: 7.7
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/

    Tipping point state (PA): 5.1
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/pennsylvania/
    I think Biden will win PA, Trafalgar group has him ahead there but Trump still ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin and in 2016 it was Trafalgar right in the rustbelt, not the poll averages.

    In 2016 538 called Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for Hillary, Trafalgar called Michigan and Pennsylvania for Trump, Trafalgar was correct
    You can have your favourite pollsters if you like but when you say things like "Biden leads by about half the margin in the battleground states he does nationally" it sounds like you're talking about something objective.
  • alex_ said:

    Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.

    In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...

    Agreed. It would appear that there would be no opportunity to take Judicial Review proceedings against the Executive decisions.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 24,520

    Funny how many Remainers who are outraged at the idea of the UK not 100% adhering to the rules are the same people who were ok with Merkel junking the rules when she encouraged illegal migration by accepting people rather than following the Dublin Agreement.

    The characterisation of the abandonment of an international agreement (signed within the last year, on the basis of which Tories enthusiastically campaigned and won the last election), via legislation which grants ministers a general fiat power to set aside any rules of international arbitration, as "not 100% adhering to the rules" is simply risible.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 13,980

    Hilary had a 99% chance of winning....

    Who said that?
    Just Hank the Plank.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 2,589
    James Forsyth's latest article says a new party of the right is definitely coming and Farage's associates are growing impatient over whether he is going to lead the charge or not.

    Interestingly Nige attacked the governments latest moves on COVID as too authoritarian.

    When this happens they will definitely take points out of Johnson. There are just too many tory voter gripes right now for them not to.

    And that's why, for me, Johnson goes next year. And Cummings with him.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,279
    edited September 10

    alex_ said:

    Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.

    In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...

    There’s no cut-through with the public with this stuff. As far as they are concerned Brexit is done. This is all bubble stuff.
    Didn’t say there was. Doesn’t mean it’s not important. Ignoring what the Government is doing because “the public aren’t interested” is the fast track to authoritarian dictatorship.

    We’re now in a scary situation where the Official opposition is cowed against questioning issues of huge national and constitutional importance because “the public don’t care”, or even worse “will react negatively to the raising of these issues”.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 24,520
    Dura_Ace said:

    I am actually more kindly disposed toward Trump since the Cohen revelations. I like how he publicly disparaged DeeJayTeeJay for his wildlife murdering proclivities.

    Don't think it will pick him up many PETA votes, though...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 4,302
    edited September 10

    Stocky said:

    People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.

    Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:

    (raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).

    It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):


    From a peak of over 3000 in April the figures are still very low - and at this stage we cannot be certain that the recent rise in hospitalisaton from a low base is something that should generate a panicky response.
    Especially as most hospitals remain empty
    I’m currently in hospital and it certainly isn’t empty.
    I hope you are being well looked after, and doing OK.

    I had my latest set of blood tests last week post July's Lukemia-treatment, and that is good news - haemoglobin and white cells are back to the lower end of "normal" levels, and the platelets and the other one are going back up but not there yet.

    So officially back from shielding to cautious. And now on a periodic 3 then 6 month test regime.

    Which is all to the good. Now I need to start getting some proper exercise and strength back. I did, however, manage to land on my Rs on the oak floor this week, so a touch sore around the rear end.
  • isam said:

    Interesting thread by Charlotte Alter on twitter. I have long thought this, and wrote about it, (getting the wrong end of the stick with the YouGov's & accidentally proving my point), in 2017






    Brilliant
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 2,589
    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.

    In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...

    There’s no cut-through with the public with this stuff. As far as they are concerned Brexit is done. This is all bubble stuff.
    Didn’t say there was. Doesn’t mean it’s not important. Ignoring what the Government is doing because “the public aren’t interested” is the fast track to authoritarian dictatorship.
    That's wrong. The media are obsessed with brexit, and completely missing the real authoritarianism of the latest COVID restrictions.

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,558
    Scott_xP said:

    witter.com/carlgardner/status/1303988237413888000

    At least a Falklands War metaphor makes a change from the WWII ones.
  • alex_ said:

    Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.

    In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...

    There’s no cut-through with the public with this stuff. As far as they are concerned Brexit is done. This is all bubble stuff.
    I agree, but with one caveat. Quite often, stuff that initially seems quite esoteric and dry will have implications for stuff the public does care about, and so at some point there will suddenly be massive cut-through. One example is phone-hacking, which was an absolutely massive scandal but was a lonely crusade by the Guardian and Max Moseley until the Millie Dowler revelations when the whole thing exploded and brought down the NotW.
    In other words, sometimes the public doesn't realise something is important at first, but if it really is important they will realise eventually. Is this a likely example of that? I suspect it is, but as for what the trigger will be for the silent majority to get it, that I don't know.
  • alex_ said:

    Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.

    In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...

    There’s no cut-through with the public with this stuff. As far as they are concerned Brexit is done. This is all bubble stuff.
    I was miffed with Boris reneging on international treaties yesterday but, having slept on it, I now realize it was just a clumsy attempt by Boris and Dom to reopen the Brexit culture war and paint Sir Keir into a corner. Once the noise has died down I suspect Boris will row back as he always does. No point getting stressed out by all this.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,953

    alex_ said:

    Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.

    In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...

    There’s no cut-through with the public with this stuff. As far as they are concerned Brexit is done. This is all bubble stuff.
    There appears to be cut-through with MPs and the HoL though...
  • Scott_xP said:
    If you have enough kids eventually your chance of catching Covid approaches 100%.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 6,817

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.

    In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...

    There’s no cut-through with the public with this stuff. As far as they are concerned Brexit is done. This is all bubble stuff.
    Didn’t say there was. Doesn’t mean it’s not important. Ignoring what the Government is doing because “the public aren’t interested” is the fast track to authoritarian dictatorship.
    That's wrong. The media are obsessed with brexit, and completely missing the real authoritarianism of the latest COVID restrictions.

    So have you an alternative plan? It has to include safeguarding care homes and providing safe options for the vulnerable which isn’t lock yourself away. I’ve yet to see anyone with a solution although the UK government think they have one.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 422

    HYUFD said:
    HYUFD - That tweet is critical of the govt! Are you feeling OK?
    I think our HY is beginning to see that his idol has feet of clay.....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 24,520
    edited September 10
    isam said:

    Interesting thread by Charlotte Alter on twitter. I have long thought this, and wrote about it, (getting the wrong end of the stick with the YouGov's & accidentally proving my point), in 2017



    Agreed; I posted that quote in the last week.

    However, there is plenty of evidence, for example, to suggest that the proposition "Trump insults women, therefore women will dislike Trump" is not entirely untrue.
  • Tiny movement towards Biden on the SI spreads this morning.
  • MangoMango Posts: 749

    alex_ said:

    Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.

    In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...

    Agreed. It would appear that there would be no opportunity to take Judicial Review proceedings against the Executive decisions.
    As an act, it is lovely and enabling.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,558
    edited September 10
    isam said:

    Interesting thread by Charlotte Alter on twitter. I have long thought this, and wrote about it, (getting the wrong end of the stick with the YouGov's & accidentally proving my point), in 2017

    http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-problem-with-opinion-polls-polls.html

    witter.com/CharlotteAlter/status/1301712700867842049?s=20

    I agree with her on the importance of listening and that there isn't enough of that happening.

    I would add one caveat, though. Sometimes people misunderstand listening to mean "agreeing with what they're told." I think it's perfectly fine to listen to people, try to understand them, but then use that understanding to try and change their minds.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 6,817
    MattW said:

    Stocky said:

    People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.

    Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:

    (raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).

    It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):


    From a peak of over 3000 in April the figures are still very low - and at this stage we cannot be certain that the recent rise in hospitalisaton from a low base is something that should generate a panicky response.
    Especially as most hospitals remain empty
    I’m currently in hospital and it certainly isn’t empty.
    I hope you are being well looked after, and doing OK.

    I had my latest set of blood tests last week post July's Lukemia-treatment, and that is good news - haemoglobin and white cells are back to the lower end of "normal" levels, and the platelets and the other one are going back up but not there yet.

    So officially back from shielding to cautious. And now on a periodic 3 then 6 month test regime.

    Which is all to the good. Now I need to start getting some proper exercise and strength back. I did, however, manage to land on my Rs on the oak floor this week, so a touch sore around the rear end.
    Get my scan results tomorrow, best outcome Would be no further spread or growth of existing tumors. So fingers crossed, best wishes to all in similar situations
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,704

    alex_ said:

    Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.

    In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...

    There’s no cut-through with the public with this stuff. As far as they are concerned Brexit is done. This is all bubble stuff.
    I was miffed with Boris reneging on international treaties yesterday but, having slept on it, I now realize it was just a clumsy attempt by Boris and Dom to reopen the Brexit culture war and paint Sir Keir into a corner. Once the noise has died down I suspect Boris will row back as he always does. No point getting stressed out by all this.
    He will row back of course he will and we will have a deal in advance of the cut off.

    100%.

    The only uncertainty is how he will spin it and what @Philip_Thompson will say it is and why he thinks it is such a masterstroke.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 76,595
    ClippP said:

    HYUFD said:
    HYUFD - That tweet is critical of the govt! Are you feeling OK?
    I think our HY is beginning to see that his idol has feet of clay.....
    I post tweets of interest, not necessarily because I agree with them
  • kjhkjh Posts: 2,002
    It makes me smile that the Bob Woodwood revelation, re Trump playing down the seriousness of the virus to prevent panic, just for once shows that Trump had a logical thought and was making a moral decision (whether right or wrong) and he has to deny it (and as usual even though the evidence is there for us all to hear).

    What a place we have arrived at in politics.
This discussion has been closed.