Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Will tonight see the first poll since GE2019 with LAB ahead?

2456

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,598

    If you're not watching the Liverpool v. Leeds match then you should be.

    Absolutely bonkers, both sides can attack but neither of them can defend.

    3-2 in 38 minutes but Sky doesn't think that there are any highlights to recap yet.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,649
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    What is the difference between the acceptable certification given on 31st December and the unacceptable certification on 1st January when our legislation is clear that the current regulations remain in place until it is changed? They know we meet their standards. What else could they reasonably require and if there is anything why aren't they requiring it right now?

    You are missing the point. The stuff on Jan 1st will OK and so will Jan 2nd and Jan 3rd, but Jan 31st? June 17th?

    If they simply accept stuff from us and we decide to let standards slide and import US stuff then it acts as a pipeline - stuff they normally refuse gets in.

    There has to be a formal process for managing and certifying stuff. Jan 1st 2021 is not the problem.
    With respect I am not. Because I acknowledge that the EU has legitimate rights to ensure that any product which has access to the SM complies with their standards. So long as our standards are their standards there is no issue. If we vary them there is an issue, at least for the products affected. But that arises if and when such a step is taken.
    And without an agreed process in place, how are they supposed to know? What guarantees/processes have we put in place to tell them?

    None.

    That is why there is a problem.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,598

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    What is the difference between the acceptable certification given on 31st December and the unacceptable certification on 1st January when our legislation is clear that the current regulations remain in place until it is changed? They know we meet their standards. What else could they reasonably require and if there is anything why aren't they requiring it right now?

    You are missing the point. The stuff on Jan 1st will OK and so will Jan 2nd and Jan 3rd, but Jan 31st? June 17th?

    If they simply accept stuff from us and we decide to let standards slide and import US stuff then it acts as a pipeline - stuff they normally refuse gets in.

    There has to be a formal process for managing and certifying stuff. Jan 1st 2021 is not the problem.
    With respect I am not. Because I acknowledge that the EU has legitimate rights to ensure that any product which has access to the SM complies with their standards. So long as our standards are their standards there is no issue. If we vary them there is an issue, at least for the products affected. But that arises if and when such a step is taken.
    And without an agreed process in place, how are they supposed to know? What guarantees/processes have we put in place to tell them?

    None.

    That is why there is a problem.
    We publish our laws. Do you think that they wouldn't notice if we allowed chlorinated chicken to be imported? I think the Guardian would mention it, at least in passing.
  • HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    I suspect the Govt will be boosted, ironically, by the row. Blaming everything on the EU tends to go down well.

    Separately, some not so great state polls for Biden today - he’s only up +2 in Arizona, +3 in New Hampshire and +4 Nevada (Wisconsin a bit better). Probably too close for comfort at this stage.

    Yet the national polls from today and yesterday, from Ipsos, YouGov and USC, range from Biden +9 to Biden +15.

    Now, it's quite possible that it is the national polls which are incorrect, and the state level polls which are correct. It's also possible that President Trump manages a staggering level of vote efficiency, losing the popular vote by five points or more and still holding on (although I fear for America in that case).

    But in 2016, the national polls were broadly correct, only overstating Clinton by 1% on average. That's a similar error level to 2008, 2004 and 2000 - only in 2012, when they understated Obama, was the error level more than about a percent.

    My view is watch Trump's share in the national polls. He needs to get the lead down to four points or less by election night, where his better vote efficiency (and possibly some understatement) gives him a good chance. Right now, that hasn't happened. Right now, Biden's share is stable and above 50%, and President Trump has not yet begun gaining ground.
    Depends which national polls you look at.

    The latest Rasmussen national poll for example from 3 days ago is Biden 48% Trump 46% ie a 2 point Biden lead unchanged from Hillary's national popular vote lead in 2016.
    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_sep09

    Rasmussen's final 2016 poll was Clinton 45% and Trump 43% so in terms of Clinton's final lead was spot on
    Well yes you can cherry-pick your way to a Trump win if you like but the RCP average puts him 7.5 pts down and if that's remains the case on Election Day I would rate his chances at less than 10%.

    Rasmussen is not a bad pollster but if I were going to back one firm and one only to get it right it wouldn't be them.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934

    DavidL said:

    What is the difference between the acceptable certification given on 31st December and the unacceptable certification on 1st January when our legislation is clear that the current regulations remain in place until it is changed? They know we meet their standards. What else could they reasonably require and if there is anything why aren't they requiring it right now?

    You are missing the point. The stuff on Jan 1st will OK and so will Jan 2nd and Jan 3rd, but Jan 31st? June 17th?

    If they simply accept stuff from us and we decide to let standards slide and import US stuff then it acts as a pipeline - stuff they normally refuse gets in.

    There has to be a formal process for managing and certifying stuff. Jan 1st 2021 is not the problem.
    No, the problem is much earlier when EU importers start getting jittery that UK will not be certified on Jan 1st and start changing their supply chains in advance.

    It's astonishing how many people take literally this belief that "all EU deals are done at the last minute" and therefore expect a deal to be done on 31st December 2020. The reality is that internal EU deals are often done at the last minute, against often manufactured deadlines because they usually just require informal agreement of leaders to become official.

    We are now an external country. Deals with the EU cannot be done at the very last minute to become reality the next day. They will require legislation, parliamentary approvals etc etc. Thanks to the Government legislating against the possibility of an extension to the transition, they can't even arrange a last minute extension (legal under the Withdrawal Agreement so fine with the EU, but illegal under UK law).

    And because of this individuals and business need to start preparing for the worst months before the final deadline. Once the plug is pulled in October and we head for no deal the media and newspapers are going to have to start reporting the actual reality of no deal. A large section of the UK public is going to be in for a shock. Especially if many of the side issues remain unresolved as well - although i imagine there will be a mad rush to come to some agreement on these, which will probably be possible without the same sort of legislative approvals.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,598

    Dirty Leeds are 30s on Betfair to win this match.

    Take it!

    My guess is 5-3 Liverpool. Leeds are still in the mindset when they dominated possession and didn't need to worry too much about defending. That won't work in the EPL.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,336

    If you're not watching the Liverpool v. Leeds match then you should be.

    Absolutely bonkers, both sides can attack but neither of them can defend.

    Wait what, Fantasy Football have Aubameyang as a midfielder this season!
  • rcs1000 said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    Nice graphic below. I didn`t realise Scotland is so badly affected at this point in time:

    https://covid.joinzoe.com/data

    Stocky said:

    Nice graphic below. I didn`t realise Scotland is so badly affected at this point in time:

    https://covid.joinzoe.com/data

    The problem with that graphic, I think, is that it falls into the old problem for geographic data for Scotland - large areas do not equal large numbers of people....

    image
    Yes but it`s based on rate of infections per million of population
    Then you get this (scaled to 100k population)

    image
    So what you're saying is that the people of Dunbartonshire are paying the price for evicting Jo Swinson?
    Yes - like the Men of the Mountains in the Lord of the Rings. In the hour of need their hearts failed them.....
    They were obviously unwilling to bear the burden of having the UK pm as their MP.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934
    edited September 12
    DavidL said:

    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    It makes it legal (at least domestically). It certainly doesn't make it wise. But if they are seriously proposing that we would not be able to "export" food to NI...
    Apart from anything else, even if this was a possibility, there is a clause in the Withdrawal Agreement which would allow the UK to act unilaterally to prevent this.

    Which makes the row that the government has manufactured even more inexplicable really. But that sort of crap is what gives lawyers a bad name. What on earth does that mean in practice?

    Who decides what is "serious"?
    Who decides what is "strictly necessary"?
    Who determines whether the proposal will "least disturb the functioning of this Protocol?
    Who determines what are "proportionate rebalancing measures"?

    I mean, if I drafted a contract or minute of agreement as vague and woolly as that I would be putting my insurers on notice.
    It was probably the EU expecting future trouble ahead from the UK and including some fudges to avoid that becoming a major problem. You would have thought an eminently sensible precaution. But all for nought when the UK Govt are desperate and really need to rile up their political base...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,498
    edited September 12

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    I suspect the Govt will be boosted, ironically, by the row. Blaming everything on the EU tends to go down well.

    Separately, some not so great state polls for Biden today - he’s only up +2 in Arizona, +3 in New Hampshire and +4 Nevada (Wisconsin a bit better). Probably too close for comfort at this stage.

    Yet the national polls from today and yesterday, from Ipsos, YouGov and USC, range from Biden +9 to Biden +15.

    Now, it's quite possible that it is the national polls which are incorrect, and the state level polls which are correct. It's also possible that President Trump manages a staggering level of vote efficiency, losing the popular vote by five points or more and still holding on (although I fear for America in that case).

    But in 2016, the national polls were broadly correct, only overstating Clinton by 1% on average. That's a similar error level to 2008, 2004 and 2000 - only in 2012, when they understated Obama, was the error level more than about a percent.

    My view is watch Trump's share in the national polls. He needs to get the lead down to four points or less by election night, where his better vote efficiency (and possibly some understatement) gives him a good chance. Right now, that hasn't happened. Right now, Biden's share is stable and above 50%, and President Trump has not yet begun gaining ground.
    Depends which national polls you look at.

    The latest Rasmussen national poll for example from 3 days ago is Biden 48% Trump 46% ie a 2 point Biden lead unchanged from Hillary's national popular vote lead in 2016.
    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_sep09

    Rasmussen's final 2016 poll was Clinton 45% and Trump 43% so in terms of Clinton's final lead was spot on
    Well yes you can cherry-pick your way to a Trump win if you like but the RCP average puts him 7.5 pts down and if that's remains the case on Election Day I would rate his chances at less than 10%.

    Rasmussen is not a bad pollster but if I were going to back one firm and one only to get it right it wouldn't be them.
    In 2016 almost every poll underestimated Trump's national voteshare, just not as much as they underestimated his voteshare in the Midwest and rustbelt swing states, they may be doing so again.

    The Biden share of 48% is not so far out of line from Rasmussen, HarrisX has Biden on 47% for example, Change Research has Biden on 49% as does Emerson and as does IBID/TIPP. The difference is Rasmussen has Trump higher than other polls on 46%.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 19,608

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    So if the EU are threatening not to accept food imports from the UK, then if the IM Act goes through does that mean they'll bar food trade from NI to the Republic?

    PT, this is about certification of UK food full stop. If the UK don't provide the necessary information to enable this process to happen the the EU won't be barring trade from just NI to the Republic. They will be barring all UK food exports. That is just reality. It's shocking that the UK hasn't provided the necessary documentation for this month's ago.
    You seem convinced that it is the UK that is dragging it's heels on this one. Why?

    There's been numerous reports that the UK has been trying to get areas of simple agreement cleared up with the EU but the EU is not willing to sign off areas even where we agree until the disagreements are resolved.

    If the EU is refusing to sign off British food, as a weapon to try to get us to accept EU demands on state aid or fishing waters, then that's not the UK dragging its feet.
    It's no more in the EU's interests to prevent/disrupt UK food exports than it is ours. Countries like the Republic of Ireland are not about to jeopardise the security of their food supply from the UK for the sake of bartering it for other trade issues. It's not relevant to trade negotiation at all. The tariffs on the food maybe, but not the actual ability to sell.

    Deal or no deal we will need to be certified to sell food into the EU market. That is the reality of being a third party. But it can't just be put through on the nod. The UK still needs to provide the necessary details and clarifications to allow the certification to happen. And we haven't yet done that.

    Of course you are free to accept that the UK have fulfilled all their responsibilities in this area and the EU are explicitly trying to manufacture reasons why they will refuse certification as a bargaining chip. But i don't believe that for a minute. And if they did then we would obviously do the same which would obviously be damaging to them.

    So no, i favour the line of UK intransigence. And the only plausible explanation i can come up for this (beyond the malign) is that it's something to do with proposed US trade talks.
    You miss the simplest possibility- that the UK government doesn't have the project management ability to recognise that the paperwork is needed and get it completed in a timely way.
    I agree, incompetence and lack of preparation is characteristic of our governent.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 34,014
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    I suspect the Govt will be boosted, ironically, by the row. Blaming everything on the EU tends to go down well.

    Separately, some not so great state polls for Biden today - he’s only up +2 in Arizona, +3 in New Hampshire and +4 Nevada (Wisconsin a bit better). Probably too close for comfort at this stage.

    Yet the national polls from today and yesterday, from Ipsos, YouGov and USC, range from Biden +9 to Biden +15.

    Now, it's quite possible that it is the national polls which are incorrect, and the state level polls which are correct. It's also possible that President Trump manages a staggering level of vote efficiency, losing the popular vote by five points or more and still holding on (although I fear for America in that case).

    But in 2016, the national polls were broadly correct, only overstating Clinton by 1% on average. That's a similar error level to 2008, 2004 and 2000 - only in 2012, when they understated Obama, was the error level more than about a percent.

    My view is watch Trump's share in the national polls. He needs to get the lead down to four points or less by election night, where his better vote efficiency (and possibly some understatement) gives him a good chance. Right now, that hasn't happened. Right now, Biden's share is stable and above 50%, and President Trump has not yet begun gaining ground.
    Depends which national polls you look at.

    The latest Rasmussen national poll for example from 3 days ago is Biden 48% Trump 46% ie a 2 point Biden lead unchanged from Hillary's national popular vote lead in 2016.
    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_sep09

    Rasmussen's final 2016 poll was Clinton 45% and Trump 43% so in terms of Clinton's final lead was spot on
    Just as a matter of interest how predictive do you think a pollster's success in one election is?

    So, if a pollster was spot on in 2012, how predictive was that in 2016? And if a pollster was right on the money in 2008, how predictive was it in 2012?
  • Wasn't Israel another one that initially was praised for their response? What changed?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,598
    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    It makes it legal (at least domestically). It certainly doesn't make it wise. But if they are seriously proposing that we would not be able to "export" food to NI...
    Apart from anything else, even if this was a possibility, there is a clause in the Withdrawal Agreement which would allow the UK to act unilaterally to prevent this.

    Which makes the row that the government has manufactured even more inexplicable really. But that sort of crap is what gives lawyers a bad name. What on earth does that mean in practice?

    Who decides what is "serious"?
    Who decides what is "strictly necessary"?
    Who determines whether the proposal will "least disturb the functioning of this Protocol?
    Who determines what are "proportionate rebalancing measures"?

    I mean, if I drafted a contract or minute of agreement as vague and woolly as that I would be putting my insurers on notice.
    It was probably the EU expecting future trouble ahead from the UK and including some fudges to avoid that becoming a major problem. You would have thought an eminently sensible precaution. But all for nought when the UK Govt are desperate and really need to rile up their political base...
    We have picked a fight on unhelpful terrain for no obvious reason. #confused.
  • alex_ said:

    How aware are UK food exporters that because the Government is dragging its feet the question of tariffs, paperwork and queues at Dover may not apply come Jan 1st? It may be that the UK may not be allowed to export food to the EU AT ALL! And if it's not sorted soon then EU food businesses supplied by the UK are going to be forced to put in place measures to source their produce from elsewhere. We could be literally weeks away for the entire EU market for UK food disappearing overnight. And once gone, will it ever come back?

    My company imports a lot of ingredients from the EU and has two major EU export markets for finished foodstuffs. We are very aware of the mess as are the retailer customers. In Ireland the buying team are clear that they are making no commitments to buy UK produced stuff (its all in their own retail brand BTW, its not like we're pushing it onto them) until there is clarity as to how things will work.

    Come November my new role represents an EU foodstuff manufacturer wanting to sell in the UK. Happily imports are all frozen so we aren't going to have to worry about delays making food go off like so many importers / retailers are.
  • alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    What is the difference between the acceptable certification given on 31st December and the unacceptable certification on 1st January when our legislation is clear that the current regulations remain in place until it is changed? They know we meet their standards. What else could they reasonably require and if there is anything why aren't they requiring it right now?

    You are missing the point. The stuff on Jan 1st will OK and so will Jan 2nd and Jan 3rd, but Jan 31st? June 17th?

    If they simply accept stuff from us and we decide to let standards slide and import US stuff then it acts as a pipeline - stuff they normally refuse gets in.

    There has to be a formal process for managing and certifying stuff. Jan 1st 2021 is not the problem.
    No, the problem is much earlier when EU importers start getting jittery that UK will not be certified on Jan 1st and start changing their supply chains in advance.

    It's astonishing how many people take literally this belief that "all EU deals are done at the last minute" and therefore expect a deal to be done on 31st December 2020. The reality is that internal EU deals are often done at the last minute, against often manufactured deadlines because they usually just require informal agreement of leaders to become official.

    We are now an external country. Deals with the EU cannot be done at the very last minute to become reality the next day. They will require legislation, parliamentary approvals etc etc. Thanks to the Government legislating against the possibility of an extension to the transition, they can't even arrange a last minute extension (legal under the Withdrawal Agreement so fine with the EU, but illegal under UK law).

    And because of this individuals and business need to start preparing for the worst months before the final deadline. Once the plug is pulled in October and we head for no deal the media and newspapers are going to have to start reporting the actual reality of no deal. A large section of the UK public is going to be in for a shock. Especially if many of the side issues remain unresolved as well - although i imagine there will be a mad rush to come to some agreement on these, which will probably be possible without the same sort of legislative approvals.
    It can be done at the last minute. Under both EU and WTO rules a deal can be applied on an interim basis pending later Parliamentary approval.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 86,873
    edited September 12

    Wasn't Israel another one that initially was praised for their response? What changed?

    Religion and just for Nerys Hughes

    Israeli officials row over country's surging COVID-19 infection rate.

    Mayors representing the ultra-orthodox Jewish community have accused Israel's PM of turning them into a "national punching bag"....

    ..At the start of the coronavirus pandemic, Israel was seen as a beacon of how to contain the illness. A strict lockdown was imposed early; people complied and it appeared to work.

    But the lockdown was reduced as fast as it was imposed. Few people wore masks properly and social distancing was almost entirely absent.


    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-israeli-officials-row-over-countrys-surging-covid-19-infection-rate-12065366
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 34,014

    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    What is the difference between the acceptable certification given on 31st December and the unacceptable certification on 1st January when our legislation is clear that the current regulations remain in place until it is changed? They know we meet their standards. What else could they reasonably require and if there is anything why aren't they requiring it right now?

    You are missing the point. The stuff on Jan 1st will OK and so will Jan 2nd and Jan 3rd, but Jan 31st? June 17th?

    If they simply accept stuff from us and we decide to let standards slide and import US stuff then it acts as a pipeline - stuff they normally refuse gets in.

    There has to be a formal process for managing and certifying stuff. Jan 1st 2021 is not the problem.
    No, the problem is much earlier when EU importers start getting jittery that UK will not be certified on Jan 1st and start changing their supply chains in advance.

    It's astonishing how many people take literally this belief that "all EU deals are done at the last minute" and therefore expect a deal to be done on 31st December 2020. The reality is that internal EU deals are often done at the last minute, against often manufactured deadlines because they usually just require informal agreement of leaders to become official.

    We are now an external country. Deals with the EU cannot be done at the very last minute to become reality the next day. They will require legislation, parliamentary approvals etc etc. Thanks to the Government legislating against the possibility of an extension to the transition, they can't even arrange a last minute extension (legal under the Withdrawal Agreement so fine with the EU, but illegal under UK law).

    And because of this individuals and business need to start preparing for the worst months before the final deadline. Once the plug is pulled in October and we head for no deal the media and newspapers are going to have to start reporting the actual reality of no deal. A large section of the UK public is going to be in for a shock. Especially if many of the side issues remain unresolved as well - although i imagine there will be a mad rush to come to some agreement on these, which will probably be possible without the same sort of legislative approvals.
    It can be done at the last minute. Under both EU and WTO rules a deal can be applied on an interim basis pending later Parliamentary approval.
    That's absolutely correct.
  • I see the yellow vest larpers were back out on the streets in Paris...head, desk, thud.
  • HYUFD said:

    There was nothing in the 2019 Tory manifesto about creating a hard border between NI and GB.

    The 2019 Tory manifesto did however promise to regain control over UK fishing waters and end EU sovereignty over the UK, both of which the EU have refused to agree for a trade deal.

    In that case the Tory manifesto also promised to end the implementation period in December 2020

    It wasn't explicit in the manifesto because Shagger had no idea that the Withdraw Agreement he signed had such a border. The WA though was not just in the manifesto but was the entire reason there was an election.

    You can't weasel out of this one Mr Essicks - Shagger signed a shit deal he didn't understand and put it to the people who backed it in large numbers. Implementation of the WA - HIS WA is the literal will of the people.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934

    alex_ said:

    How aware are UK food exporters that because the Government is dragging its feet the question of tariffs, paperwork and queues at Dover may not apply come Jan 1st? It may be that the UK may not be allowed to export food to the EU AT ALL! And if it's not sorted soon then EU food businesses supplied by the UK are going to be forced to put in place measures to source their produce from elsewhere. We could be literally weeks away for the entire EU market for UK food disappearing overnight. And once gone, will it ever come back?

    My company imports a lot of ingredients from the EU and has two major EU export markets for finished foodstuffs. We are very aware of the mess as are the retailer customers. In Ireland the buying team are clear that they are making no commitments to buy UK produced stuff (its all in their own retail brand BTW, its not like we're pushing it onto them) until there is clarity as to how things will work.

    Come November my new role represents an EU foodstuff manufacturer wanting to sell in the UK. Happily imports are all frozen so we aren't going to have to worry about delays making food go off like so many importers / retailers are.
    Thanks RP. Can i ask what the general view is as to why this isn't being resolved? Is it because it is being caught up within trade negotiations? Or little to do directly with the trade negotiations? Because one side or the other is playing silly buggers? (which one?) Failings in the UK Govt processes to provide necessary assurances? Something else?

    There's been speculation on this thread. But little real insight.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    I suspect the Govt will be boosted, ironically, by the row. Blaming everything on the EU tends to go down well.

    Separately, some not so great state polls for Biden today - he’s only up +2 in Arizona, +3 in New Hampshire and +4 Nevada (Wisconsin a bit better). Probably too close for comfort at this stage.

    Yet the national polls from today and yesterday, from Ipsos, YouGov and USC, range from Biden +9 to Biden +15.

    Now, it's quite possible that it is the national polls which are incorrect, and the state level polls which are correct. It's also possible that President Trump manages a staggering level of vote efficiency, losing the popular vote by five points or more and still holding on (although I fear for America in that case).

    But in 2016, the national polls were broadly correct, only overstating Clinton by 1% on average. That's a similar error level to 2008, 2004 and 2000 - only in 2012, when they understated Obama, was the error level more than about a percent.

    My view is watch Trump's share in the national polls. He needs to get the lead down to four points or less by election night, where his better vote efficiency (and possibly some understatement) gives him a good chance. Right now, that hasn't happened. Right now, Biden's share is stable and above 50%, and President Trump has not yet begun gaining ground.
    Depends which national polls you look at.

    The latest Rasmussen national poll for example from 3 days ago is Biden 48% Trump 46% ie a 2 point Biden lead unchanged from Hillary's national popular vote lead in 2016.
    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_sep09

    Rasmussen's final 2016 poll was Clinton 45% and Trump 43% so in terms of Clinton's final lead was spot on
    Well yes you can cherry-pick your way to a Trump win if you like but the RCP average puts him 7.5 pts down and if that's remains the case on Election Day I would rate his chances at less than 10%.

    Rasmussen is not a bad pollster but if I were going to back one firm and one only to get it right it wouldn't be them.
    In 2016 almost every poll underestimated Trump's national voteshare, just not as much as they underestimated his voteshare in the Midwest and rustbelt swing states, they may be doing so again.

    The Biden share of 48% is not so far out of line from Rasmussen, HarrisX has Biden on 47% for example, Change Research has Biden on 49% as does Emerson and as does IBID/TIPP. The difference is Rasmussen has Trump higher than other polls on 46%.

    Of course they may be doing so again. Equally they may have learned from their mistakes; or they may be out again but in a different direction. We won't know until the race is over.

    All I'm saying is that if the Nationals don't shift then on the day Trump should be a 10/1 shot at best. Currently Nate Silver rates him a 3/1 shot, which obviously allows ample room for developments over the coming weeks. I'd say he's got it about right, although others tend to rate Biden's chances higher.

    If Nate and the gang have got this right, Biden is a stonking good bet at 5/6 but I've been hammering this point for a while now and I'm begining to bore myself.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,498
    edited September 12
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    I suspect the Govt will be boosted, ironically, by the row. Blaming everything on the EU tends to go down well.

    Separately, some not so great state polls for Biden today - he’s only up +2 in Arizona, +3 in New Hampshire and +4 Nevada (Wisconsin a bit better). Probably too close for comfort at this stage.

    Yet the national polls from today and yesterday, from Ipsos, YouGov and USC, range from Biden +9 to Biden +15.

    Now, it's quite possible that it is the national polls which are incorrect, and the state level polls which are correct. It's also possible that President Trump manages a staggering level of vote efficiency, losing the popular vote by five points or more and still holding on (although I fear for America in that case).

    But in 2016, the national polls were broadly correct, only overstating Clinton by 1% on average. That's a similar error level to 2008, 2004 and 2000 - only in 2012, when they understated Obama, was the error level more than about a percent.

    My view is watch Trump's share in the national polls. He needs to get the lead down to four points or less by election night, where his better vote efficiency (and possibly some understatement) gives him a good chance. Right now, that hasn't happened. Right now, Biden's share is stable and above 50%, and President Trump has not yet begun gaining ground.
    Depends which national polls you look at.

    The latest Rasmussen national poll for example from 3 days ago is Biden 48% Trump 46% ie a 2 point Biden lead unchanged from Hillary's national popular vote lead in 2016.
    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_sep09

    Rasmussen's final 2016 poll was Clinton 45% and Trump 43% so in terms of Clinton's final lead was spot on
    Just as a matter of interest how predictive do you think a pollster's success in one election is?

    So, if a pollster was spot on in 2012, how predictive was that in 2016? And if a pollster was right on the money in 2008, how predictive was it in 2012?
    Quite likely especially if one of the main candidates is the same eg Survation was spot on in 2017 with a final 2% Tory lead and spot on in 2019 too with a final 11% Tory lead.

    Rasmussen's presidential polling is also generally pretty good. As well as correctly predicting a 2% lead for Hillary in 2016:

    In 2004 its final poll was Bush 50.2% and Kerry 48.5%.
    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2004

    In 2008 its final poll was Obama 52% McCain 46%.
    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2008/2008_presidential_election/final_rasmussen_poll_results_presidential_election

    The one it got wrong was 2012 when its final poll was Romney 49% and Obama 48% but that was because it greatly underestimated black turnout for Obama that year.
    https://www.businessinsider.com/obama-vs-romney-rasmussen-poll-final-results-election-day-2012-11?r=US&IR=T

    However polling shows if anything Biden's share of the black vote is lower than Hillary's marginally
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934

    HYUFD said:

    There was nothing in the 2019 Tory manifesto about creating a hard border between NI and GB.

    The 2019 Tory manifesto did however promise to regain control over UK fishing waters and end EU sovereignty over the UK, both of which the EU have refused to agree for a trade deal.

    In that case the Tory manifesto also promised to end the implementation period in December 2020

    It wasn't explicit in the manifesto because Shagger had no idea that the Withdraw Agreement he signed had such a border. The WA though was not just in the manifesto but was the entire reason there was an election.

    You can't weasel out of this one Mr Essicks - Shagger signed a shit deal he didn't understand and put it to the people who backed it in large numbers. Implementation of the WA - HIS WA is the literal will of the people.
    Of course he knew (or had no excuse for not doing so). Enough people told him. If he cared he would have at least tried to clarify the situation for himself. So if it wasn't in the manifesto it was a deliberate omission (knowing that it was covered indirectly by "we will ratify the WA")
  • HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    I suspect the Govt will be boosted, ironically, by the row. Blaming everything on the EU tends to go down well.

    Separately, some not so great state polls for Biden today - he’s only up +2 in Arizona, +3 in New Hampshire and +4 Nevada (Wisconsin a bit better). Probably too close for comfort at this stage.

    Yet the national polls from today and yesterday, from Ipsos, YouGov and USC, range from Biden +9 to Biden +15.

    Now, it's quite possible that it is the national polls which are incorrect, and the state level polls which are correct. It's also possible that President Trump manages a staggering level of vote efficiency, losing the popular vote by five points or more and still holding on (although I fear for America in that case).

    But in 2016, the national polls were broadly correct, only overstating Clinton by 1% on average. That's a similar error level to 2008, 2004 and 2000 - only in 2012, when they understated Obama, was the error level more than about a percent.

    My view is watch Trump's share in the national polls. He needs to get the lead down to four points or less by election night, where his better vote efficiency (and possibly some understatement) gives him a good chance. Right now, that hasn't happened. Right now, Biden's share is stable and above 50%, and President Trump has not yet begun gaining ground.
    Depends which national polls you look at.

    The latest Rasmussen national poll for example from 3 days ago is Biden 48% Trump 46% ie a 2 point Biden lead unchanged from Hillary's national popular vote lead in 2016.
    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_sep09

    Rasmussen's final 2016 poll was Clinton 45% and Trump 43% so in terms of Clinton's final lead was spot on
    Just as a matter of interest how predictive do you think a pollster's success in one election is?

    So, if a pollster was spot on in 2012, how predictive was that in 2016? And if a pollster was right on the money in 2008, how predictive was it in 2012?
    Quite likely especially if one of the main candidates is the same eg Survation was spot on in 2017 with a final 2% Tory lead and spot on in 2019 too with a final 11% Tory lead.

    Rasmussen's presidential polling is also generally pretty good. As well as correctly predicting a 2% lead for Hillary in 2016:

    In 2004 its final poll was Bush 50.2% and Kerry 48.5%.
    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2004

    In 2008 its final poll was Obama 52% McCain 46%.
    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2008/2008_presidential_election/final_rasmussen_poll_results_presidential_election

    The one it got wrong was 2012 when its final poll was Romney 49% and Obama 48% but that was because it greatly underestimated black turnout for Obama that year.
    https://www.businessinsider.com/obama-vs-romney-rasmussen-poll-final-results-election-day-2012-11?r=US&IR=T

    However polling shows if anything Biden's share of the black vote is lower than Hillary's marginally
    Yes, 2012 was embarrassingly bad for them but they obviously learned from their mistakes and restored their reputation. No reason why other pollsters who got 2016 wrong shouldn't do the same.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934
    rcs1000 said:

    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    What is the difference between the acceptable certification given on 31st December and the unacceptable certification on 1st January when our legislation is clear that the current regulations remain in place until it is changed? They know we meet their standards. What else could they reasonably require and if there is anything why aren't they requiring it right now?

    You are missing the point. The stuff on Jan 1st will OK and so will Jan 2nd and Jan 3rd, but Jan 31st? June 17th?

    If they simply accept stuff from us and we decide to let standards slide and import US stuff then it acts as a pipeline - stuff they normally refuse gets in.

    There has to be a formal process for managing and certifying stuff. Jan 1st 2021 is not the problem.
    No, the problem is much earlier when EU importers start getting jittery that UK will not be certified on Jan 1st and start changing their supply chains in advance.

    It's astonishing how many people take literally this belief that "all EU deals are done at the last minute" and therefore expect a deal to be done on 31st December 2020. The reality is that internal EU deals are often done at the last minute, against often manufactured deadlines because they usually just require informal agreement of leaders to become official.

    We are now an external country. Deals with the EU cannot be done at the very last minute to become reality the next day. They will require legislation, parliamentary approvals etc etc. Thanks to the Government legislating against the possibility of an extension to the transition, they can't even arrange a last minute extension (legal under the Withdrawal Agreement so fine with the EU, but illegal under UK law).

    And because of this individuals and business need to start preparing for the worst months before the final deadline. Once the plug is pulled in October and we head for no deal the media and newspapers are going to have to start reporting the actual reality of no deal. A large section of the UK public is going to be in for a shock. Especially if many of the side issues remain unresolved as well - although i imagine there will be a mad rush to come to some agreement on these, which will probably be possible without the same sort of legislative approvals.
    It can be done at the last minute. Under both EU and WTO rules a deal can be applied on an interim basis pending later Parliamentary approval.
    That's absolutely correct.
    Any time limit on that? Could a deal just exist and operate indefinitely on the basis that it would eventually be ratified? What would happen if at some future date a Wallonia local parliament rejected it? Would the deal collapse the next day? Be retrospectively illegal?

  • glwglw Posts: 6,775

    Wasn't Israel another one that initially was praised for their response? What changed?

    Yes, and Israel is the country where the public health authorities have the mobile signalling data for doing contact tracing, so they effectively have 100% adoption of their geolocation approach. If THAT doesn't work then using flakey Bluetooth advertisments to perform proximity measurement for contact tracing doesn't look like it is going to prove effective to me.
  • alex_ said:

    HYUFD said:

    There was nothing in the 2019 Tory manifesto about creating a hard border between NI and GB.

    The 2019 Tory manifesto did however promise to regain control over UK fishing waters and end EU sovereignty over the UK, both of which the EU have refused to agree for a trade deal.

    In that case the Tory manifesto also promised to end the implementation period in December 2020

    It wasn't explicit in the manifesto because Shagger had no idea that the Withdraw Agreement he signed had such a border. The WA though was not just in the manifesto but was the entire reason there was an election.

    You can't weasel out of this one Mr Essicks - Shagger signed a shit deal he didn't understand and put it to the people who backed it in large numbers. Implementation of the WA - HIS WA is the literal will of the people.
    Of course he knew (or had no excuse for not doing so). Enough people told him. If he cared he would have at least tried to clarify the situation for himself. So if it wasn't in the manifesto it was a deliberate omission (knowing that it was covered indirectly by "we will ratify the WA")
    I suspect it was a case of win the GE at whatever the cost and deal with the fallout from any duplicity later. But an appalling attitude if true.
  • rcs1000 said:

    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    What is the difference between the acceptable certification given on 31st December and the unacceptable certification on 1st January when our legislation is clear that the current regulations remain in place until it is changed? They know we meet their standards. What else could they reasonably require and if there is anything why aren't they requiring it right now?

    You are missing the point. The stuff on Jan 1st will OK and so will Jan 2nd and Jan 3rd, but Jan 31st? June 17th?

    If they simply accept stuff from us and we decide to let standards slide and import US stuff then it acts as a pipeline - stuff they normally refuse gets in.

    There has to be a formal process for managing and certifying stuff. Jan 1st 2021 is not the problem.
    No, the problem is much earlier when EU importers start getting jittery that UK will not be certified on Jan 1st and start changing their supply chains in advance.

    It's astonishing how many people take literally this belief that "all EU deals are done at the last minute" and therefore expect a deal to be done on 31st December 2020. The reality is that internal EU deals are often done at the last minute, against often manufactured deadlines because they usually just require informal agreement of leaders to become official.

    We are now an external country. Deals with the EU cannot be done at the very last minute to become reality the next day. They will require legislation, parliamentary approvals etc etc. Thanks to the Government legislating against the possibility of an extension to the transition, they can't even arrange a last minute extension (legal under the Withdrawal Agreement so fine with the EU, but illegal under UK law).

    And because of this individuals and business need to start preparing for the worst months before the final deadline. Once the plug is pulled in October and we head for no deal the media and newspapers are going to have to start reporting the actual reality of no deal. A large section of the UK public is going to be in for a shock. Especially if many of the side issues remain unresolved as well - although i imagine there will be a mad rush to come to some agreement on these, which will probably be possible without the same sort of legislative approvals.
    It can be done at the last minute. Under both EU and WTO rules a deal can be applied on an interim basis pending later Parliamentary approval.
    That's absolutely correct.
    Is it? The decision point isn't 31st December, its very soon. We get through the next EU summit and both sides are still saying fuck you, industry will start pulling plugs out of the wall to protect itself from the coming shock. If the shock is avoided at the very last minute the damage has already been done.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934
    Watching the football - has VAR abandoned the dodgy line for Offside decisions?

    Or just not involving decisions which help Liverpool?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934
    edited September 12

    rcs1000 said:

    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    What is the difference between the acceptable certification given on 31st December and the unacceptable certification on 1st January when our legislation is clear that the current regulations remain in place until it is changed? They know we meet their standards. What else could they reasonably require and if there is anything why aren't they requiring it right now?

    You are missing the point. The stuff on Jan 1st will OK and so will Jan 2nd and Jan 3rd, but Jan 31st? June 17th?

    If they simply accept stuff from us and we decide to let standards slide and import US stuff then it acts as a pipeline - stuff they normally refuse gets in.

    There has to be a formal process for managing and certifying stuff. Jan 1st 2021 is not the problem.
    No, the problem is much earlier when EU importers start getting jittery that UK will not be certified on Jan 1st and start changing their supply chains in advance.

    It's astonishing how many people take literally this belief that "all EU deals are done at the last minute" and therefore expect a deal to be done on 31st December 2020. The reality is that internal EU deals are often done at the last minute, against often manufactured deadlines because they usually just require informal agreement of leaders to become official.

    We are now an external country. Deals with the EU cannot be done at the very last minute to become reality the next day. They will require legislation, parliamentary approvals etc etc. Thanks to the Government legislating against the possibility of an extension to the transition, they can't even arrange a last minute extension (legal under the Withdrawal Agreement so fine with the EU, but illegal under UK law).

    And because of this individuals and business need to start preparing for the worst months before the final deadline. Once the plug is pulled in October and we head for no deal the media and newspapers are going to have to start reporting the actual reality of no deal. A large section of the UK public is going to be in for a shock. Especially if many of the side issues remain unresolved as well - although i imagine there will be a mad rush to come to some agreement on these, which will probably be possible without the same sort of legislative approvals.
    It can be done at the last minute. Under both EU and WTO rules a deal can be applied on an interim basis pending later Parliamentary approval.
    That's absolutely correct.
    Is it? The decision point isn't 31st December, its very soon. We get through the next EU summit and both sides are still saying fuck you, industry will start pulling plugs out of the wall to protect itself from the coming shock. If the shock is avoided at the very last minute the damage has already been done.
    Although to be fair - we have been here before in that respect. Twice. The only difference is that there might be less confidence that the UK Govt will be desperate to stop it, or that there are others with the power to stop them.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,598
    alex_ said:

    Watching the football - has VAR abandoned the dodgy line for Offside decisions?

    Or just not involving decisions which help Liverpool?

    Liverpool look like they have their shirts on back to front with a V at the back and straight across at the front. Looks weird.
  • alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    How aware are UK food exporters that because the Government is dragging its feet the question of tariffs, paperwork and queues at Dover may not apply come Jan 1st? It may be that the UK may not be allowed to export food to the EU AT ALL! And if it's not sorted soon then EU food businesses supplied by the UK are going to be forced to put in place measures to source their produce from elsewhere. We could be literally weeks away for the entire EU market for UK food disappearing overnight. And once gone, will it ever come back?

    My company imports a lot of ingredients from the EU and has two major EU export markets for finished foodstuffs. We are very aware of the mess as are the retailer customers. In Ireland the buying team are clear that they are making no commitments to buy UK produced stuff (its all in their own retail brand BTW, its not like we're pushing it onto them) until there is clarity as to how things will work.

    Come November my new role represents an EU foodstuff manufacturer wanting to sell in the UK. Happily imports are all frozen so we aren't going to have to worry about delays making food go off like so many importers / retailers are.
    Thanks RP. Can i ask what the general view is as to why this isn't being resolved? Is it because it is being caught up within trade negotiations? Or little to do directly with the trade negotiations? Because one side or the other is playing silly buggers? (which one?) Failings in the UK Govt processes to provide necessary assurances? Something else?

    There's been speculation on this thread. But little real insight.
    The food industry has been talking about this for years. All of the issues were understood at the beginning because the rules for EU - 3rd Country trade were clear and visible. Even a deal means delays, huge costs and chaos because a deal means an orderly exchange of a fuckton of paperwork. As happens at every other EU - 3rd country border or even EU - Switzerland.

    So the best case scenario adds cost and delays for no gain for the industry. Cost and delays which imperil the basic viability of things like logistics. No deal at all - the crash imposition of said fuckton of paperwork with no preparation will according to the ports, hauliers, wholesalers and HMRC gum the entire system up almost immediately. As ALL scenarios now depend on the workings of the Goods Vehicle Movement Service - which doesn't exist - to properly and efficiently process millions of documents from 1st January, lets just say the industry has gone from warnings to "ha ha ha you're fucked, don't blame us".
  • Evening
  • Wow. Boris and Dom won't like that one bit. Surely the whip will soon be gone.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 9,317
    @TSE 30-1 looking more on.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934
    Was he one of the pre-election rebels who regained the whip? How many of them are left in the House of Commons?
  • alex_ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    What is the difference between the acceptable certification given on 31st December and the unacceptable certification on 1st January when our legislation is clear that the current regulations remain in place until it is changed? They know we meet their standards. What else could they reasonably require and if there is anything why aren't they requiring it right now?

    You are missing the point. The stuff on Jan 1st will OK and so will Jan 2nd and Jan 3rd, but Jan 31st? June 17th?

    If they simply accept stuff from us and we decide to let standards slide and import US stuff then it acts as a pipeline - stuff they normally refuse gets in.

    There has to be a formal process for managing and certifying stuff. Jan 1st 2021 is not the problem.
    No, the problem is much earlier when EU importers start getting jittery that UK will not be certified on Jan 1st and start changing their supply chains in advance.

    It's astonishing how many people take literally this belief that "all EU deals are done at the last minute" and therefore expect a deal to be done on 31st December 2020. The reality is that internal EU deals are often done at the last minute, against often manufactured deadlines because they usually just require informal agreement of leaders to become official.

    We are now an external country. Deals with the EU cannot be done at the very last minute to become reality the next day. They will require legislation, parliamentary approvals etc etc. Thanks to the Government legislating against the possibility of an extension to the transition, they can't even arrange a last minute extension (legal under the Withdrawal Agreement so fine with the EU, but illegal under UK law).

    And because of this individuals and business need to start preparing for the worst months before the final deadline. Once the plug is pulled in October and we head for no deal the media and newspapers are going to have to start reporting the actual reality of no deal. A large section of the UK public is going to be in for a shock. Especially if many of the side issues remain unresolved as well - although i imagine there will be a mad rush to come to some agreement on these, which will probably be possible without the same sort of legislative approvals.
    It can be done at the last minute. Under both EU and WTO rules a deal can be applied on an interim basis pending later Parliamentary approval.
    That's absolutely correct.
    Is it? The decision point isn't 31st December, its very soon. We get through the next EU summit and both sides are still saying fuck you, industry will start pulling plugs out of the wall to protect itself from the coming shock. If the shock is avoided at the very last minute the damage has already been done.
    Although to be fair - we have been here before in that respect. Twice. The only difference is that there might be less confidence that the UK Govt will be desperate to stop it, or that there are others with the power to stop them.
    Given that the government said "no border down the Irish Sea" then signed a deal to create one and declared victory over the EU demand for one, I had assumed they would copy and paste. Agree a trade deal that continues the status quo. We have the right to have babies even if the foetus would have to gestate in a box. We just aren't going to use those rights for the moment. With the government declaring victory again.

    That was then. Now that the WA is being torn up? It will be no surrender. This country is going to literally stop functioning. Then the government will capitulate. Quote how it will then paint said capitulation as a victory I don't know. To be fair they don't know either as they still assume that the experts are wrong and Steve Baker is right.
  • alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    What is the difference between the acceptable certification given on 31st December and the unacceptable certification on 1st January when our legislation is clear that the current regulations remain in place until it is changed? They know we meet their standards. What else could they reasonably require and if there is anything why aren't they requiring it right now?

    You are missing the point. The stuff on Jan 1st will OK and so will Jan 2nd and Jan 3rd, but Jan 31st? June 17th?

    If they simply accept stuff from us and we decide to let standards slide and import US stuff then it acts as a pipeline - stuff they normally refuse gets in.

    There has to be a formal process for managing and certifying stuff. Jan 1st 2021 is not the problem.
    No, the problem is much earlier when EU importers start getting jittery that UK will not be certified on Jan 1st and start changing their supply chains in advance.

    It's astonishing how many people take literally this belief that "all EU deals are done at the last minute" and therefore expect a deal to be done on 31st December 2020. The reality is that internal EU deals are often done at the last minute, against often manufactured deadlines because they usually just require informal agreement of leaders to become official.

    We are now an external country. Deals with the EU cannot be done at the very last minute to become reality the next day. They will require legislation, parliamentary approvals etc etc. Thanks to the Government legislating against the possibility of an extension to the transition, they can't even arrange a last minute extension (legal under the Withdrawal Agreement so fine with the EU, but illegal under UK law).

    And because of this individuals and business need to start preparing for the worst months before the final deadline. Once the plug is pulled in October and we head for no deal the media and newspapers are going to have to start reporting the actual reality of no deal. A large section of the UK public is going to be in for a shock. Especially if many of the side issues remain unresolved as well - although i imagine there will be a mad rush to come to some agreement on these, which will probably be possible without the same sort of legislative approvals.
    Yup. Regardless of what will become increasingly hysterical attempts to blame it on the bloody foreigners, the impacts will be really bad, self inflicted and utterly avoidable.

    What will be the worst effect for government is that Brexit was presented as the ultimate Moon on a Stick vote. You don't like the darkies? Vote Brexit! You want money for the NHS? Vote Brexit! You hate Cameron and the Tories? Vote Brexit! You want a better future for you and yours? Vote Brexit! You don't really care one way or the other but your newspaper tells you something you don't know or care about is Bad so lets show them? Vote Brexit!

    And then we get Brexit. The darkies stay here because they aren't from the EU. The NHS gets less cash because the Tories dislike the NHS anyway. Cameron who? etc etc etc. No brighter future. No stick it to the man. Just the man sticking it to you and telling you its your fault. Because the Tories absolutely will attack their new voters in the red wall. They wanted their vote, but don't have a clue how they live and don't care either.
    Precisely. Excellent post.
  • Anyway, it seems futile arguing about it - we will soon know. I just find it amusing that otherwise intelligent posters seem so determined to insist that the moon is really made of cheese...
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    How aware are UK food exporters that because the Government is dragging its feet the question of tariffs, paperwork and queues at Dover may not apply come Jan 1st? It may be that the UK may not be allowed to export food to the EU AT ALL! And if it's not sorted soon then EU food businesses supplied by the UK are going to be forced to put in place measures to source their produce from elsewhere. We could be literally weeks away for the entire EU market for UK food disappearing overnight. And once gone, will it ever come back?

    My company imports a lot of ingredients from the EU and has two major EU export markets for finished foodstuffs. We are very aware of the mess as are the retailer customers. In Ireland the buying team are clear that they are making no commitments to buy UK produced stuff (its all in their own retail brand BTW, its not like we're pushing it onto them) until there is clarity as to how things will work.

    Come November my new role represents an EU foodstuff manufacturer wanting to sell in the UK. Happily imports are all frozen so we aren't going to have to worry about delays making food go off like so many importers / retailers are.
    Thanks RP. Can i ask what the general view is as to why this isn't being resolved? Is it because it is being caught up within trade negotiations? Or little to do directly with the trade negotiations? Because one side or the other is playing silly buggers? (which one?) Failings in the UK Govt processes to provide necessary assurances? Something else?

    There's been speculation on this thread. But little real insight.
    The food industry has been talking about this for years. All of the issues were understood at the beginning because the rules for EU - 3rd Country trade were clear and visible. Even a deal means delays, huge costs and chaos because a deal means an orderly exchange of a fuckton of paperwork. As happens at every other EU - 3rd country border or even EU - Switzerland.

    So the best case scenario adds cost and delays for no gain for the industry. Cost and delays which imperil the basic viability of things like logistics. No deal at all - the crash imposition of said fuckton of paperwork with no preparation will according to the ports, hauliers, wholesalers and HMRC gum the entire system up almost immediately. As ALL scenarios now depend on the workings of the Goods Vehicle Movement Service - which doesn't exist - to properly and efficiently process millions of documents from 1st January, lets just say the industry has gone from warnings to "ha ha ha you're fucked, don't blame us".
    So maybe the UK Government have concluded it would be better for everyone, and resolve a lot of issues, if exports and imports of food just couldn't legally happen, period? ;)
  • Tory lead again
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,649
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    What is the difference between the acceptable certification given on 31st December and the unacceptable certification on 1st January when our legislation is clear that the current regulations remain in place until it is changed? They know we meet their standards. What else could they reasonably require and if there is anything why aren't they requiring it right now?

    You are missing the point. The stuff on Jan 1st will OK and so will Jan 2nd and Jan 3rd, but Jan 31st? June 17th?

    If they simply accept stuff from us and we decide to let standards slide and import US stuff then it acts as a pipeline - stuff they normally refuse gets in.

    There has to be a formal process for managing and certifying stuff. Jan 1st 2021 is not the problem.
    With respect I am not. Because I acknowledge that the EU has legitimate rights to ensure that any product which has access to the SM complies with their standards. So long as our standards are their standards there is no issue. If we vary them there is an issue, at least for the products affected. But that arises if and when such a step is taken.
    And without an agreed process in place, how are they supposed to know? What guarantees/processes have we put in place to tell them?

    None.

    That is why there is a problem.
    We publish our laws. Do you think that they wouldn't notice if we allowed chlorinated chicken to be imported? I think the Guardian would mention it, at least in passing.
    When did you start believing everything you read in the papers? Especially UK papers... :D:D
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,777

    Tory lead again

    Confirmed, or just your considered opinion? I agree. A bit early yet. A second wave and no deal Brexit are needed for Johnson to fall below 40 and without Scotland Labour's best hope is very, very early forties.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    What is the difference between the acceptable certification given on 31st December and the unacceptable certification on 1st January when our legislation is clear that the current regulations remain in place until it is changed? They know we meet their standards. What else could they reasonably require and if there is anything why aren't they requiring it right now?

    You are missing the point. The stuff on Jan 1st will OK and so will Jan 2nd and Jan 3rd, but Jan 31st? June 17th?

    If they simply accept stuff from us and we decide to let standards slide and import US stuff then it acts as a pipeline - stuff they normally refuse gets in.

    There has to be a formal process for managing and certifying stuff. Jan 1st 2021 is not the problem.
    With respect I am not. Because I acknowledge that the EU has legitimate rights to ensure that any product which has access to the SM complies with their standards. So long as our standards are their standards there is no issue. If we vary them there is an issue, at least for the products affected. But that arises if and when such a step is taken.
    And without an agreed process in place, how are they supposed to know? What guarantees/processes have we put in place to tell them?

    None.

    That is why there is a problem.
    We publish our laws. Do you think that they wouldn't notice if we allowed chlorinated chicken to be imported? I think the Guardian would mention it, at least in passing.
    When did you start believing everything you read in the papers? Especially UK papers... :D:D
    Quite. The Guardian will claim it is happening, even if it isn't!
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,649

    Anyway, it seems futile arguing about it - we will soon know. I just find it amusing that otherwise intelligent posters seem so determined to insist that the moon is really made of cheese...

    Is Moon Cheese covered by the WA?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    What is the difference between the acceptable certification given on 31st December and the unacceptable certification on 1st January when our legislation is clear that the current regulations remain in place until it is changed? They know we meet their standards. What else could they reasonably require and if there is anything why aren't they requiring it right now?

    You are missing the point. The stuff on Jan 1st will OK and so will Jan 2nd and Jan 3rd, but Jan 31st? June 17th?

    If they simply accept stuff from us and we decide to let standards slide and import US stuff then it acts as a pipeline - stuff they normally refuse gets in.

    There has to be a formal process for managing and certifying stuff. Jan 1st 2021 is not the problem.
    With respect I am not. Because I acknowledge that the EU has legitimate rights to ensure that any product which has access to the SM complies with their standards. So long as our standards are their standards there is no issue. If we vary them there is an issue, at least for the products affected. But that arises if and when such a step is taken.
    And without an agreed process in place, how are they supposed to know? What guarantees/processes have we put in place to tell them?

    None.

    That is why there is a problem.
    We publish our laws. Do you think that they wouldn't notice if we allowed chlorinated chicken to be imported? I think the Guardian would mention it, at least in passing.
    Speaking of which - have the new "Rule of Six" laws been published yet? ;)

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,598

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    What is the difference between the acceptable certification given on 31st December and the unacceptable certification on 1st January when our legislation is clear that the current regulations remain in place until it is changed? They know we meet their standards. What else could they reasonably require and if there is anything why aren't they requiring it right now?

    You are missing the point. The stuff on Jan 1st will OK and so will Jan 2nd and Jan 3rd, but Jan 31st? June 17th?

    If they simply accept stuff from us and we decide to let standards slide and import US stuff then it acts as a pipeline - stuff they normally refuse gets in.

    There has to be a formal process for managing and certifying stuff. Jan 1st 2021 is not the problem.
    With respect I am not. Because I acknowledge that the EU has legitimate rights to ensure that any product which has access to the SM complies with their standards. So long as our standards are their standards there is no issue. If we vary them there is an issue, at least for the products affected. But that arises if and when such a step is taken.
    And without an agreed process in place, how are they supposed to know? What guarantees/processes have we put in place to tell them?

    None.

    That is why there is a problem.
    We publish our laws. Do you think that they wouldn't notice if we allowed chlorinated chicken to be imported? I think the Guardian would mention it, at least in passing.
    When did you start believing everything you read in the papers? Especially UK papers... :D:D
    A fair point!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,777
    alex_ said:

    Was he one of the pre-election rebels who regained the whip? How many of them are left in the House of Commons?
    Gale is an oddball. A Eurosceptic who opposed Brexit and is an enthusiastic hanger and flogger. Not your usual Heathite Tory by any means.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 12,522

    Anyway, it seems futile arguing about it - we will soon know. I just find it amusing that otherwise intelligent posters seem so determined to insist that the moon is really made of cheese...

    Shhhhh! You'll upset The Truss if she thinks we are importing cheese from the Moon.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,649
    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    How aware are UK food exporters that because the Government is dragging its feet the question of tariffs, paperwork and queues at Dover may not apply come Jan 1st? It may be that the UK may not be allowed to export food to the EU AT ALL! And if it's not sorted soon then EU food businesses supplied by the UK are going to be forced to put in place measures to source their produce from elsewhere. We could be literally weeks away for the entire EU market for UK food disappearing overnight. And once gone, will it ever come back?

    My company imports a lot of ingredients from the EU and has two major EU export markets for finished foodstuffs. We are very aware of the mess as are the retailer customers. In Ireland the buying team are clear that they are making no commitments to buy UK produced stuff (its all in their own retail brand BTW, its not like we're pushing it onto them) until there is clarity as to how things will work.

    Come November my new role represents an EU foodstuff manufacturer wanting to sell in the UK. Happily imports are all frozen so we aren't going to have to worry about delays making food go off like so many importers / retailers are.
    Thanks RP. Can i ask what the general view is as to why this isn't being resolved? Is it because it is being caught up within trade negotiations? Or little to do directly with the trade negotiations? Because one side or the other is playing silly buggers? (which one?) Failings in the UK Govt processes to provide necessary assurances? Something else?

    There's been speculation on this thread. But little real insight.
    The food industry has been talking about this for years. All of the issues were understood at the beginning because the rules for EU - 3rd Country trade were clear and visible. Even a deal means delays, huge costs and chaos because a deal means an orderly exchange of a fuckton of paperwork. As happens at every other EU - 3rd country border or even EU - Switzerland.

    So the best case scenario adds cost and delays for no gain for the industry. Cost and delays which imperil the basic viability of things like logistics. No deal at all - the crash imposition of said fuckton of paperwork with no preparation will according to the ports, hauliers, wholesalers and HMRC gum the entire system up almost immediately. As ALL scenarios now depend on the workings of the Goods Vehicle Movement Service - which doesn't exist - to properly and efficiently process millions of documents from 1st January, lets just say the industry has gone from warnings to "ha ha ha you're fucked, don't blame us".
    So maybe the UK Government have concluded it would be better for everyone, and resolve a lot of issues, if exports and imports of food just couldn't legally happen, period? ;)
    And when you factor in that the UK has not been able to grow enough food to feed itself since the middle of the 19th Century....????
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,598
    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    What is the difference between the acceptable certification given on 31st December and the unacceptable certification on 1st January when our legislation is clear that the current regulations remain in place until it is changed? They know we meet their standards. What else could they reasonably require and if there is anything why aren't they requiring it right now?

    You are missing the point. The stuff on Jan 1st will OK and so will Jan 2nd and Jan 3rd, but Jan 31st? June 17th?

    If they simply accept stuff from us and we decide to let standards slide and import US stuff then it acts as a pipeline - stuff they normally refuse gets in.

    There has to be a formal process for managing and certifying stuff. Jan 1st 2021 is not the problem.
    With respect I am not. Because I acknowledge that the EU has legitimate rights to ensure that any product which has access to the SM complies with their standards. So long as our standards are their standards there is no issue. If we vary them there is an issue, at least for the products affected. But that arises if and when such a step is taken.
    And without an agreed process in place, how are they supposed to know? What guarantees/processes have we put in place to tell them?

    None.

    That is why there is a problem.
    We publish our laws. Do you think that they wouldn't notice if we allowed chlorinated chicken to be imported? I think the Guardian would mention it, at least in passing.
    Speaking of which - have the new "Rule of Six" laws been published yet? ;)

    They don't come into force until tomorrow. What's the rush?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    How aware are UK food exporters that because the Government is dragging its feet the question of tariffs, paperwork and queues at Dover may not apply come Jan 1st? It may be that the UK may not be allowed to export food to the EU AT ALL! And if it's not sorted soon then EU food businesses supplied by the UK are going to be forced to put in place measures to source their produce from elsewhere. We could be literally weeks away for the entire EU market for UK food disappearing overnight. And once gone, will it ever come back?

    My company imports a lot of ingredients from the EU and has two major EU export markets for finished foodstuffs. We are very aware of the mess as are the retailer customers. In Ireland the buying team are clear that they are making no commitments to buy UK produced stuff (its all in their own retail brand BTW, its not like we're pushing it onto them) until there is clarity as to how things will work.

    Come November my new role represents an EU foodstuff manufacturer wanting to sell in the UK. Happily imports are all frozen so we aren't going to have to worry about delays making food go off like so many importers / retailers are.
    Thanks RP. Can i ask what the general view is as to why this isn't being resolved? Is it because it is being caught up within trade negotiations? Or little to do directly with the trade negotiations? Because one side or the other is playing silly buggers? (which one?) Failings in the UK Govt processes to provide necessary assurances? Something else?

    There's been speculation on this thread. But little real insight.
    The food industry has been talking about this for years. All of the issues were understood at the beginning because the rules for EU - 3rd Country trade were clear and visible. Even a deal means delays, huge costs and chaos because a deal means an orderly exchange of a fuckton of paperwork. As happens at every other EU - 3rd country border or even EU - Switzerland.

    So the best case scenario adds cost and delays for no gain for the industry. Cost and delays which imperil the basic viability of things like logistics. No deal at all - the crash imposition of said fuckton of paperwork with no preparation will according to the ports, hauliers, wholesalers and HMRC gum the entire system up almost immediately. As ALL scenarios now depend on the workings of the Goods Vehicle Movement Service - which doesn't exist - to properly and efficiently process millions of documents from 1st January, lets just say the industry has gone from warnings to "ha ha ha you're fucked, don't blame us".
    So maybe the UK Government have concluded it would be better for everyone, and resolve a lot of issues, if exports and imports of food just couldn't legally happen, period? ;)
    And when you factor in that the UK has not been able to grow enough food to feed itself since the middle of the 19th Century....????
    Dig for victory!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,336
    I think the GOP don't like the early numbers out of NC.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,777

    Anyway, it seems futile arguing about it - we will soon know. I just find it amusing that otherwise intelligent posters seem so determined to insist that the moon is really made of cheese...

    Is Moon Cheese covered by the WA?
    Are you referring to Johnson's "bark at the moon" project or whatever it is called, or are you making reference to the Japanese cars for cheese deal signed earlier in the week?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934
    edited September 12
    Alistair said:

    I think the GOP don't like the early numbers out of NC.

    Something about what he is telling them to do sounds dodgy there? Or is it a cunning wheeze to ensure that all the early voting Democrats try to vote in polling stations and find themselves breaking the law and their votes (both of them) declared invalid?
  • alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    How aware are UK food exporters that because the Government is dragging its feet the question of tariffs, paperwork and queues at Dover may not apply come Jan 1st? It may be that the UK may not be allowed to export food to the EU AT ALL! And if it's not sorted soon then EU food businesses supplied by the UK are going to be forced to put in place measures to source their produce from elsewhere. We could be literally weeks away for the entire EU market for UK food disappearing overnight. And once gone, will it ever come back?

    My company imports a lot of ingredients from the EU and has two major EU export markets for finished foodstuffs. We are very aware of the mess as are the retailer customers. In Ireland the buying team are clear that they are making no commitments to buy UK produced stuff (its all in their own retail brand BTW, its not like we're pushing it onto them) until there is clarity as to how things will work.

    Come November my new role represents an EU foodstuff manufacturer wanting to sell in the UK. Happily imports are all frozen so we aren't going to have to worry about delays making food go off like so many importers / retailers are.
    Thanks RP. Can i ask what the general view is as to why this isn't being resolved? Is it because it is being caught up within trade negotiations? Or little to do directly with the trade negotiations? Because one side or the other is playing silly buggers? (which one?) Failings in the UK Govt processes to provide necessary assurances? Something else?

    There's been speculation on this thread. But little real insight.
    The food industry has been talking about this for years. All of the issues were understood at the beginning because the rules for EU - 3rd Country trade were clear and visible. Even a deal means delays, huge costs and chaos because a deal means an orderly exchange of a fuckton of paperwork. As happens at every other EU - 3rd country border or even EU - Switzerland.

    So the best case scenario adds cost and delays for no gain for the industry. Cost and delays which imperil the basic viability of things like logistics. No deal at all - the crash imposition of said fuckton of paperwork with no preparation will according to the ports, hauliers, wholesalers and HMRC gum the entire system up almost immediately. As ALL scenarios now depend on the workings of the Goods Vehicle Movement Service - which doesn't exist - to properly and efficiently process millions of documents from 1st January, lets just say the industry has gone from warnings to "ha ha ha you're fucked, don't blame us".
    So maybe the UK Government have concluded it would be better for everyone, and resolve a lot of issues, if exports and imports of food just couldn't legally happen, period? ;)
    And when you factor in that the UK has not been able to grow enough food to feed itself since the middle of the 19th Century....????
    Dig for victory!
    Designate pigeons and sea gulls as game birds.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 44,383
    edited September 12
    alex_ said:

    Alistair said:

    I think the GOP don't like the early numbers out of NC.

    Something about what he is telling them to do sounds dodgy there?
    Vote early, vote twice?
  • Salah!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,598
    Very soft penalty. No way that trailing leg actually tripped him or brought him down. Feel a bit sorry for Leeds (words I never thought I would say). Still got to concede 1 more too.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934

    Anyway, it seems futile arguing about it - we will soon know. I just find it amusing that otherwise intelligent posters seem so determined to insist that the moon is really made of cheese...

    Is Moon Cheese covered by the WA?
    Are you referring to Johnson's "bark at the moon" project or whatever it is called, or are you making reference to the Japanese cars for cheese deal signed earlier in the week?
    I love the implication that we've signed a multi billion deal to sell cheese to the lactose intolerant Japanese.
  • What a first game of the season. Incredible.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934

    Tory lead again

    Confirmed, or just your considered opinion? I agree. A bit early yet. A second wave and no deal Brexit are needed for Johnson to fall below 40 and without Scotland Labour's best hope is very, very early forties.
    Rule of Six quite popular. Even though the opposition is being led by Tory backbenchers.
  • alex_ said:

    Anyway, it seems futile arguing about it - we will soon know. I just find it amusing that otherwise intelligent posters seem so determined to insist that the moon is really made of cheese...

    Is Moon Cheese covered by the WA?
    Are you referring to Johnson's "bark at the moon" project or whatever it is called, or are you making reference to the Japanese cars for cheese deal signed earlier in the week?
    I love the implication that we've signed a multi billion deal to sell cheese to the lactose intolerant Japanese.
    From the sounds of it the data and services element of the deal sounds more interesting and significant, but its not something people want to talk about.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 19,608
    DavidL said:

    Very soft penalty. No way that trailing leg actually tripped him or brought him down. Feel a bit sorry for Leeds (words I never thought I would say). Still got to concede 1 more too.

    Leeds certainly look an exciting addition to the PL, though didn’t Norwich give Liverpool a scare first game last season?

    It seems ages ago, but on March 16th I think that I went to the last PL game of the year with a crowd.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 35,083
    edited September 12
    Absentee ballot forms are apparently being sent out with Trump branding.

  • DavidL said:

    Very soft penalty. No way that trailing leg actually tripped him or brought him down. Feel a bit sorry for Leeds (words I never thought I would say). Still got to concede 1 more too.

    Come off it, not even the Dirty Leeds players objected to the penalty.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 9,317
    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    What is the difference between the acceptable certification given on 31st December and the unacceptable certification on 1st January when our legislation is clear that the current regulations remain in place until it is changed? They know we meet their standards. What else could they reasonably require and if there is anything why aren't they requiring it right now?

    You are missing the point. The stuff on Jan 1st will OK and so will Jan 2nd and Jan 3rd, but Jan 31st? June 17th?

    If they simply accept stuff from us and we decide to let standards slide and import US stuff then it acts as a pipeline - stuff they normally refuse gets in.

    There has to be a formal process for managing and certifying stuff. Jan 1st 2021 is not the problem.
    With respect I am not. Because I acknowledge that the EU has legitimate rights to ensure that any product which has access to the SM complies with their standards. So long as our standards are their standards there is no issue. If we vary them there is an issue, at least for the products affected. But that arises if and when such a step is taken.
    And without an agreed process in place, how are they supposed to know? What guarantees/processes have we put in place to tell them?

    None.

    That is why there is a problem.
    We publish our laws. Do you think that they wouldn't notice if we allowed chlorinated chicken to be imported? I think the Guardian would mention it, at least in passing.
    Speaking of which - have the new "Rule of Six" laws been published yet? ;)

    Have the Covid Marshalls been funded, recruited, trained, kitted out, got their DBS, deployed and rostered?
    Still 29 hours I suppose.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,598

    DavidL said:

    Very soft penalty. No way that trailing leg actually tripped him or brought him down. Feel a bit sorry for Leeds (words I never thought I would say). Still got to concede 1 more too.

    Come off it, not even the Dirty Leeds players objected to the penalty.
    Oh it was a penalty. A tired mind on the part of the defender I think.
  • Blockade France.

    France confirmed 10,561 new coronavirus cases on Saturday - the highest daily number since the pandemic began.

    This is the first time that COVID-19 infections have topped 10,000 in a single day.

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-france-reports-highest-number-of-daily-covid-cases-since-pandemic-began-12070399
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,777
    alex_ said:

    Tory lead again

    Confirmed, or just your considered opinion? I agree. A bit early yet. A second wave and no deal Brexit are needed for Johnson to fall below 40 and without Scotland Labour's best hope is very, very early forties.
    Rule of Six quite popular. Even though the opposition is being led by Tory backbenchers.
    I don't see crossover yet.
  • That was one of the great trading bets of the season.
  • glw said:

    Wasn't Israel another one that initially was praised for their response? What changed?

    Yes, and Israel is the country where the public health authorities have the mobile signalling data for doing contact tracing, so they effectively have 100% adoption of their geolocation approach. If THAT doesn't work then using flakey Bluetooth advertisments to perform proximity measurement for contact tracing doesn't look like it is going to prove effective to me.
    I thought they had to turn off their spy app? Public became very concerned about just how invasive it was.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,598

    Absentee ballot forms are apparently being sent out with Trump branding.

    Not a functioning democracy. But we know that.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Very soft penalty. No way that trailing leg actually tripped him or brought him down. Feel a bit sorry for Leeds (words I never thought I would say). Still got to concede 1 more too.

    Come off it, not even the Dirty Leeds players objected to the penalty.
    Oh it was a penalty. A tired mind on the part of the defender I think.
    It was a tackle made by the striker who had been on the pitch 20 mins.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 9,317

    Blockade France.

    France confirmed 10,561 new coronavirus cases on Saturday - the highest daily number since the pandemic began.

    This is the first time that COVID-19 infections have topped 10,000 in a single day.

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-france-reports-highest-number-of-daily-covid-cases-since-pandemic-began-12070399

    Put the Tour de France highlights on ITV4 right now and you'll see part of the reason why.
  • Blockade France.

    France confirmed 10,561 new coronavirus cases on Saturday - the highest daily number since the pandemic began.

    This is the first time that COVID-19 infections have topped 10,000 in a single day.

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-france-reports-highest-number-of-daily-covid-cases-since-pandemic-began-12070399

    Good job they have banned mass gatherings...oh wait they have bloody 1000s of spectators for the Tour de France this afternoon, while in Paris the Larpers were out in force in their yellow vests.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,777
    alex_ said:

    Anyway, it seems futile arguing about it - we will soon know. I just find it amusing that otherwise intelligent posters seem so determined to insist that the moon is really made of cheese...

    Is Moon Cheese covered by the WA?
    Are you referring to Johnson's "bark at the moon" project or whatever it is called, or are you making reference to the Japanese cars for cheese deal signed earlier in the week?
    I love the implication that we've signed a multi billion deal to sell cheese to the lactose intolerant Japanese.
    How many pounds of Cathedral City do we need to sell to the lactose intolerant Japanese for one Lexus UX self charging hybrid?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 51,283
    edited September 12

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Very soft penalty. No way that trailing leg actually tripped him or brought him down. Feel a bit sorry for Leeds (words I never thought I would say). Still got to concede 1 more too.

    Come off it, not even the Dirty Leeds players objected to the penalty.
    Oh it was a penalty. A tired mind on the part of the defender I think.
    It was a tackle made by the striker who had been on the pitch 20 mins.
    Bloody Johnny Foreigners giving away penalties.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,949
    Everyone is missing the point on Israel.

    If that disease gets into Gaza...
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934

    Absentee ballot forms are apparently being sent out with Trump branding.

    If you read the responses this is apparently not true. It's the US equivalent of a LibDem "local newspaper".
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 44,383
    edited September 12

    Absentee ballot forms are apparently being sent out with Trump branding.

    No they're not, that's a Trump advert that includes an absentee ballot request form, its not the actual absentee ballot form.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/16/politics/postal-service-trump-absentee-ballot-request-mail-usps/index.html
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 4,442
    edited September 12

    Absentee ballot forms are apparently being sent out with Trump branding.

    Is there a sequel where she shows her displeasure by taking even more of her kit off? I'd watch that.
  • felixfelix Posts: 11,181
    ydoethur said:

    Everyone is missing the point on Israel.

    If that disease gets into Gaza...

    I dare you to explain what you mean by that.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,336
    edited September 12
    NYT times battleground polling


    And demographics


    If Biden is leading like this with over 65s I don't see how he loses Florida

    Disclaimer: I am on Trump in Florida.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,934
    dixiedean said:

    Blockade France.

    France confirmed 10,561 new coronavirus cases on Saturday - the highest daily number since the pandemic began.

    This is the first time that COVID-19 infections have topped 10,000 in a single day.

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-france-reports-highest-number-of-daily-covid-cases-since-pandemic-began-12070399

    Put the Tour de France highlights on ITV4 right now and you'll see part of the reason why.
    What's been going on at the Tour de France has been absolutely astonishing (and i say that even as a bit of a COVID sceptic). I've watched mountain finishes where all the usual stuff has been going on absolutely as normal. Spectators running alongside the riders without masks, literally screaming encouragement into their faces and pushing them along. I'm astonished so few of the riders have failed tests and been pulled out. (maybe they have and it's been covered up).

    And that's even before you address the issue of the mixing crowds.
  • DavidL said:

    Absentee ballot forms are apparently being sent out with Trump branding.

    Not a functioning democracy. But we know that.
    What she's missing is that if her state is handing out ballots that look like Trump marketing, if she votes Biden the Team Trump officials who are also running the state election will simply not count her vote.

    I like election counts in the UK. They are non-partisan open and transparent. The idea that the people counting the ballots should also be partisan is utterly bonkers.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,777
    IshmaelZ said:

    Absentee ballot forms are apparently being sent out with Trump branding.

    Is there a sequel where she shows her displeasure by taking even more of her kit off? I'd watch that.
    You must have a more sophisticated phone than me to see anything racy, unless at my age I don't notice these things any more
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,598

    Absentee ballot forms are apparently being sent out with Trump branding.

    No they're not, that's a Trump advert that includes an absentee ballot request form, its not the actual absentee ballot form.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/16/politics/postal-service-trump-absentee-ballot-request-mail-usps/index.html
    Her position is not that this is her absentee ballot but the response to her request for one. It may be a coincidence I suppose.
This discussion has been closed.