Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ladbrokes are offering 66/1 on a 269 electoral college tie, sh

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 13 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ladbrokes are offering 66/1 on a 269 electoral college tie, should I take this bet?

Ladbrokes are offering 66/1 on there being an electoral college tie, by comparison Paddy Power are offering 33/1, I regard the Ladbrokes politics team led by Matthew Shaddick are the shrewdest political bookies out there, so this discrepancy caught my attention.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 946
    First!
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,279
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

    I wonder what Republican law makers in Congress really make of all this talk? (just hoping it will all go away and not come to pass?). There have been problematic US presidential elections in the past (either as a result of general closeness or actual problems with vote-rigging) but in the end the party hierarchies have ultimately always prioritised the protection of the appearance of the respect of American democracy over all else, even when they might have actually had right on their side. The alternative and its implications for the democratic process which infuses almost every layer of US public administration and judiciary, has always been too awful to contemplate.

    But this time Trump (and potentially a lot of others) maybe just have too much to lose
  • alex_ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

    I wonder what Republican law makers in Congress really make of all this talk? (just hoping it will all go away and not come to pass?). There have been problematic US presidential elections in the past (either as a result of general closeness or actual problems with vote-rigging) but in the end the party hierarchies have ultimately always prioritised the protection of the appearance of the respect of American democracy over all else, even when they might have actually had right on their side. The alternative and its implications for the democratic process which infuses almost every layer of US public administration and judiciary, has always been too awful to contemplate.

    But this time Trump (and potentially a lot of others) maybe just have too much to lose

    What is new? Trump did not invent political lying: remember Bush's "truthiness"? Republicans shutting down government during Clinton's presidency, or impeaching him over sex after their extensive investigations failed to turn up evidence of corruption? Republicans blocking Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court?

    Trump might have taken things to extremes but the trends that were already there.
  • Is 66/1 value? I doubt it. The overround on that market is almost 160 per cent which is extortionate for a nine-runner race.

    The near symmetry of the bands and prices does make me wonder if Ladbrokes has made a rick somewhere but probably the overround (or margin) protects them from that. Perhaps the probability of a landslide should be considered by those in search of value, though perhaps the spread firms might be a more natural place to look. But I am too busy to "do my own research".
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,279

    alex_ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

    I wonder what Republican law makers in Congress really make of all this talk? (just hoping it will all go away and not come to pass?). There have been problematic US presidential elections in the past (either as a result of general closeness or actual problems with vote-rigging) but in the end the party hierarchies have ultimately always prioritised the protection of the appearance of the respect of American democracy over all else, even when they might have actually had right on their side. The alternative and its implications for the democratic process which infuses almost every layer of US public administration and judiciary, has always been too awful to contemplate.

    But this time Trump (and potentially a lot of others) maybe just have too much to lose

    What is new? Trump did not invent political lying: remember Bush's "truthiness"? Republicans shutting down government during Clinton's presidency, or impeaching him over sex after their extensive investigations failed to turn up evidence of corruption? Republicans blocking Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court?

    Trump might have taken things to extremes but the trends that were already there.
    I’m not denying all that. But ultimately failing to accept the result of a Presidential Election has always up to now been a red line which has not been crossed. Even if it has been required to take it to the Supreme Court first. Whether the “trends” have been taking it in that direction or not, it doesn’t not make it a “crossing the Rubicon” issue. The consequences for US “democracy” are immense. And, essentially, terminal.

    And Trump hasn’t done it yet.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533
    Do any of the models have a number for this? The Economist (which is quite Biden-optimistic) has it as "less than 1%" but it doesn't say how much less.
    https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,279
    edited September 13
    https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/Why-France-has-reduced-quarantine-to-7-days

    It appears that some countries in Europe are moving towards cutting quarantine limits, apparently primarily on the grounds of producing increasing levels of compliance and maintaining a functioning society. It doesn’t seem obvious that there’s much scientific evidence to justify this (ie. sufficiently reduced risk post 7 days, not necessarily that there will be greater public buy in/compliance)

    Posted without further comment.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,279
    Johnson-Trump.

    For all that comparisons are made between these two I find it interesting that there is a key wedge issue that they are on the opposite sides of and, possibly, their current political base.

    Namely response to COVID and implementation of authoritarian measures in response to it.

    Trump is very anti, Johnson is not. Trump’s base is very anti, Johnson’s as far as we can tell from polling I think (? - unless contradicted) is not. But there’s an interesting additional dynamic in that there is still a vociferous anti lockdown etc element on the right of the Tory Party, aligned with the likes of Nigel Farage. What’s not clear is if these elements are speaking largely for themselves, or whether they are representing a constituency aligned with Leave/pro Brexit voters.

    There’s no doubt a largely unrepresented anti mask/lockdown etc constituency in the country at the moment. But are the likes of Farage actually well placed to exploit them, or do they come from other areas of the pro/anti immigration, pro/anti Brexit spectrum?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 4,390
    edited September 13
    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

    I wonder what Republican law makers in Congress really make of all this talk? (just hoping it will all go away and not come to pass?). There have been problematic US presidential elections in the past (either as a result of general closeness or actual problems with vote-rigging) but in the end the party hierarchies have ultimately always prioritised the protection of the appearance of the respect of American democracy over all else, even when they might have actually had right on their side. The alternative and its implications for the democratic process which infuses almost every layer of US public administration and judiciary, has always been too awful to contemplate.

    But this time Trump (and potentially a lot of others) maybe just have too much to lose

    What is new? Trump did not invent political lying: remember Bush's "truthiness"? Republicans shutting down government during Clinton's presidency, or impeaching him over sex after their extensive investigations failed to turn up evidence of corruption? Republicans blocking Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court?

    Trump might have taken things to extremes but the trends that were already there.
    I’m not denying all that. But ultimately failing to accept the result of a Presidential Election has always up to now been a red line which has not been crossed. Even if it has been required to take it to the Supreme Court first. Whether the “trends” have been taking it in that direction or not, it doesn’t not make it a “crossing the Rubicon” issue. The consequences for US “democracy” are immense. And, essentially, terminal.

    And Trump hasn’t done it yet.

    I imagine that in the event of a close election, Trump will attempt to follow the Bush 2000 (hanging chads) playbook and try to suspend or delay the counting of votes; remember there is a mid-December deadline.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

    I wonder what Republican law makers in Congress really make of all this talk? (just hoping it will all go away and not come to pass?). There have been problematic US presidential elections in the past (either as a result of general closeness or actual problems with vote-rigging) but in the end the party hierarchies have ultimately always prioritised the protection of the appearance of the respect of American democracy over all else, even when they might have actually had right on their side. The alternative and its implications for the democratic process which infuses almost every layer of US public administration and judiciary, has always been too awful to contemplate.

    But this time Trump (and potentially a lot of others) maybe just have too much to lose

    What is new? Trump did not invent political lying: remember Bush's "truthiness"? Republicans shutting down government during Clinton's presidency, or impeaching him over sex after their extensive investigations failed to turn up evidence of corruption? Republicans blocking Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court?

    Trump might have taken things to extremes but the trends that were already there.
    I’m not denying all that. But ultimately failing to accept the result of a Presidential Election has always up to now been a red line which has not been crossed. Even if it has been required to take it to the Supreme Court first. Whether the “trends” have been taking it in that direction or not, it doesn’t not make it a “crossing the Rubicon” issue. The consequences for US “democracy” are immense. And, essentially, terminal.

    And Trump hasn’t done it yet.

    I imagine that in the event of a close election, Trump will attempt to follow the Bush 2000 (hanging chads) playbook and try to suspend or delay the counting of votes; remember there is a mid-December deadline.
    The state to watch is Wisconsin, they have a majority-GOP supreme court that's already futzing with things.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,180
    66-1 isn't good enough. A fun flutter at 250-1 but nothing shorter.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533
    edited September 13
    Just playing with the maps, the trick is how to get to an odd number.

    The conventional shortest path is to hold MN(10) and flip WI (10), MI(16), PA(20) which gets Biden 278. Miss WI or lose MN and that's 268, which is one short of a tie.

    One way to fix that is to add AZ(11) and lose either MN+WI or PA. This is fairly plausible: A good national vote share, combined with a slightly greater under-performance in the mid-West than current polling, just enough to lose PA.

    The other way to do it is to lose MN or WI but grab the Nebraska 2nd Congressional District (Omaha and suburbs). Losing WI looks quite plausible, what with its supreme court doing shady things. Obama won the district in 2008, Trump only won it by 2%, and the last two congressional races (2016 and 2018) were GOP holds but within 2%.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108
    edited September 13
    alex_ said:

    Johnson-Trump.

    For all that comparisons are made between these two I find it interesting that there is a key wedge issue that they are on the opposite sides of and, possibly, their current political base.

    Namely response to COVID and implementation of authoritarian measures in response to it.

    Trump is very anti, Johnson is not. Trump’s base is very anti, Johnson’s as far as we can tell from polling I think (? - unless contradicted) is not. But there’s an interesting additional dynamic in that there is still a vociferous anti lockdown etc element on the right of the Tory Party, aligned with the likes of Nigel Farage. What’s not clear is if these elements are speaking largely for themselves, or whether they are representing a constituency aligned with Leave/pro Brexit voters.

    There’s no doubt a largely unrepresented anti mask/lockdown etc constituency in the country at the moment. But are the likes of Farage actually well placed to exploit them, or do they come from other areas of the pro/anti immigration, pro/anti Brexit spectrum?

    Do we have lockdown any more? I mean in any meaningful way?

    Shops, bars and pubs are open. Religious services and sports are going ahead. Workplaces, schools and universities are all open.

    Yes, we have rules on social distancing, masks and the rule of six, but that is hardly lockdown. Indeed, such lesser public health measures are the alternative to lockdown.

    So how can anyone be anti-lockdown, when we haven't got it?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 35,146
    A tie would just be icing on the cake for 2020.....it's been that kind of year.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,428
    Before you do, check whether they pay out on votes pledged or votes cast.

    Because there could still be faithless electors even in that scenario.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,279
    edited September 13
    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Johnson-Trump.

    For all that comparisons are made between these two I find it interesting that there is a key wedge issue that they are on the opposite sides of and, possibly, their current political base.

    Namely response to COVID and implementation of authoritarian measures in response to it.

    Trump is very anti, Johnson is not. Trump’s base is very anti, Johnson’s as far as we can tell from polling I think (? - unless contradicted) is not. But there’s an interesting additional dynamic in that there is still a vociferous anti lockdown etc element on the right of the Tory Party, aligned with the likes of Nigel Farage. What’s not clear is if these elements are speaking largely for themselves, or whether they are representing a constituency aligned with Leave/pro Brexit voters.

    There’s no doubt a largely unrepresented anti mask/lockdown etc constituency in the country at the moment. But are the likes of Farage actually well placed to exploit them, or do they come from other areas of the pro/anti immigration, pro/anti Brexit spectrum?

    Do we have lockdown any more? I mean in any meaningful way?

    Shops, bars and pubs are open. Religious services and sports are going ahead. Workplaces, schools and universities are all open.

    Yes, we have rules on social distancing, masks and the rule of six, but that is hardly lockdown. Indeed, such lesser public health measures are the alternative to lockdown.

    So how can anyone be anti-lockdown, when we haven't got it?
    Foxy, i was using “anti-lockdown” as a proxy shorthand, not a literal term, for general Covid related restrictions/regulations (and yes, including masks, although clearly it is simplifying since taken as a group various measures are often a trade off against each other and many people recognise that).

    I suppose maybe a better way of thinking of it would be the extent to which individuals should be able to take their own choices, and take their own risks on behalf of themselves and others vs being mandated by the state to do so for their own and the general good. (of course in America it often goes a lot further where people often argue that individuals taking personal precautions (such as wearing masks) actually marks them out as “cowards” and impinges on their own liberties)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,428
    edited September 13

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

    I wonder what Republican law makers in Congress really make of all this talk? (just hoping it will all go away and not come to pass?). There have been problematic US presidential elections in the past (either as a result of general closeness or actual problems with vote-rigging) but in the end the party hierarchies have ultimately always prioritised the protection of the appearance of the respect of American democracy over all else, even when they might have actually had right on their side. The alternative and its implications for the democratic process which infuses almost every layer of US public administration and judiciary, has always been too awful to contemplate.

    But this time Trump (and potentially a lot of others) maybe just have too much to lose

    What is new? Trump did not invent political lying: remember Bush's "truthiness"? Republicans shutting down government during Clinton's presidency, or impeaching him over sex after their extensive investigations failed to turn up evidence of corruption? Republicans blocking Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court?

    Trump might have taken things to extremes but the trends that were already there.
    I’m not denying all that. But ultimately failing to accept the result of a Presidential Election has always up to now been a red line which has not been crossed. Even if it has been required to take it to the Supreme Court first. Whether the “trends” have been taking it in that direction or not, it doesn’t not make it a “crossing the Rubicon” issue. The consequences for US “democracy” are immense. And, essentially, terminal.

    And Trump hasn’t done it yet.

    I imagine that in the event of a close election, Trump will attempt to follow the Bush 2000 (hanging chads) playbook and try to suspend or delay the counting of votes; remember there is a mid-December deadline.
    That wouldn’t help him though, would it? He needs to be actually elected by the Electoral College, or the House in the event of a tie, or the Speaker becomes President.

    Edit - incidentally the person who tried to hold things up over hanging chads was Gore, not Bush.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 32,678

    Just playing with the maps, the trick is how to get to an odd number.

    The conventional shortest path is to hold MN(10) and flip WI (10), MI(16), PA(20) which gets Biden 278. Miss WI or lose MN and that's 268, which is one short of a tie.

    One way to fix that is to add AZ(11) and lose either MN+WI or PA. This is fairly plausible: A good national vote share, combined with a slightly greater under-performance in the mid-West than current polling, just enough to lose PA.

    The other way to do it is to lose MN or WI but grab the Nebraska 2nd Congressional District (Omaha and suburbs). Losing WI looks quite plausible, what with its supreme court doing shady things. Obama won the district in 2008, Trump only won it by 2%, and the last two congressional races (2016 and 2018) were GOP holds but within 2%.

    269-269 is only fun if the Dems grab the Senate.

    Then it becomes very interesting indeed. (Another McDonalds, Donald?)
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,279
    ydoethur said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

    I wonder what Republican law makers in Congress really make of all this talk? (just hoping it will all go away and not come to pass?). There have been problematic US presidential elections in the past (either as a result of general closeness or actual problems with vote-rigging) but in the end the party hierarchies have ultimately always prioritised the protection of the appearance of the respect of American democracy over all else, even when they might have actually had right on their side. The alternative and its implications for the democratic process which infuses almost every layer of US public administration and judiciary, has always been too awful to contemplate.

    But this time Trump (and potentially a lot of others) maybe just have too much to lose

    What is new? Trump did not invent political lying: remember Bush's "truthiness"? Republicans shutting down government during Clinton's presidency, or impeaching him over sex after their extensive investigations failed to turn up evidence of corruption? Republicans blocking Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court?

    Trump might have taken things to extremes but the trends that were already there.
    I’m not denying all that. But ultimately failing to accept the result of a Presidential Election has always up to now been a red line which has not been crossed. Even if it has been required to take it to the Supreme Court first. Whether the “trends” have been taking it in that direction or not, it doesn’t not make it a “crossing the Rubicon” issue. The consequences for US “democracy” are immense. And, essentially, terminal.

    And Trump hasn’t done it yet.

    I imagine that in the event of a close election, Trump will attempt to follow the Bush 2000 (hanging chads) playbook and try to suspend or delay the counting of votes; remember there is a mid-December deadline.
    That wouldn’t help him though, would it? He needs to be actually elected by the Electoral College, or the House in the event of a tie, or the Speaker becomes President.

    Edit - incidentally the person who tried to hold things up over hanging chads was Gore, not Bush.
    That’s not quite right, is it? Gore wanted to delay the declaration/certification of the result (since he was behind) not delay the counting of votes. Although the points at issue there related mainly to recounts not original counts I think.

    The play book envisaged (and the basis for comparison) is that Trump gets counting delayed, and then tries to convince that the votes actually counted form the basis for a certification in his favour. Or alternatively, if he’s behind, that the votes don’t get certified and or the members of the electoral college are nominated by the state legislatures instead, influenced by the political balance of said legislatures rather than on the basis of votes cast.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108
    alex_ said:

    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Johnson-Trump.

    For all that comparisons are made between these two I find it interesting that there is a key wedge issue that they are on the opposite sides of and, possibly, their current political base.

    Namely response to COVID and implementation of authoritarian measures in response to it.

    Trump is very anti, Johnson is not. Trump’s base is very anti, Johnson’s as far as we can tell from polling I think (? - unless contradicted) is not. But there’s an interesting additional dynamic in that there is still a vociferous anti lockdown etc element on the right of the Tory Party, aligned with the likes of Nigel Farage. What’s not clear is if these elements are speaking largely for themselves, or whether they are representing a constituency aligned with Leave/pro Brexit voters.

    There’s no doubt a largely unrepresented anti mask/lockdown etc constituency in the country at the moment. But are the likes of Farage actually well placed to exploit them, or do they come from other areas of the pro/anti immigration, pro/anti Brexit spectrum?

    Do we have lockdown any more? I mean in any meaningful way?

    Shops, bars and pubs are open. Religious services and sports are going ahead. Workplaces, schools and universities are all open.

    Yes, we have rules on social distancing, masks and the rule of six, but that is hardly lockdown. Indeed, such lesser public health measures are the alternative to lockdown.

    So how can anyone be anti-lockdown, when we haven't got it?
    Foxy, i was using “anti-lockdown” as a proxy shorthand, not a literal term, for general Covid related restrictions/regulations (and yes, including masks, although clearly it is simplifying since taken as a group various measures are often a trade off against each other and many people recognise that).

    I suppose maybe a better way of thinking of it would be the extent to which individuals should be able to take their own choices, and take their own risks on behalf of themselves and others vs being mandated by the state to do so for their own and the general good.
    Yes, I appreciate that some people do not want to abide by public health meaures that inconvenience them. I wouldn't use the term lockdown in that context though.

    The problem is that as soon as that dissident mixes with other people he (and it usually is a male of a certain age) impinges on other peoples right to mix, to shop, to ride public transport etc.

    So I do not think it reasonable for example to have a non mask wearer, refusing to socially distance from other patients in the outpatients waiting area or consultation room.

    I am not overly paranoid about the bug, having worked in a Covid rich environment for 6 months now, in a hospital and city with significant ongoing disease risk. Even so, I do carefully evaluate places. I will not go to situations where the absence of enforcement puts me at risk.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 53,971
    Betting Post

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: backed there to be under 16.5 classified finishers at 2.25 (2.3 with boost):
    https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2020/09/tuscany-pre-race-2020.html
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,279
    rcs1000 said:

    Just playing with the maps, the trick is how to get to an odd number.

    The conventional shortest path is to hold MN(10) and flip WI (10), MI(16), PA(20) which gets Biden 278. Miss WI or lose MN and that's 268, which is one short of a tie.

    One way to fix that is to add AZ(11) and lose either MN+WI or PA. This is fairly plausible: A good national vote share, combined with a slightly greater under-performance in the mid-West than current polling, just enough to lose PA.

    The other way to do it is to lose MN or WI but grab the Nebraska 2nd Congressional District (Omaha and suburbs). Losing WI looks quite plausible, what with its supreme court doing shady things. Obama won the district in 2008, Trump only won it by 2%, and the last two congressional races (2016 and 2018) were GOP holds but within 2%.

    269-269 is only fun if the Dems grab the Senate.

    Then it becomes very interesting indeed. (Another McDonalds, Donald?)

    But are such decisions taken by the old Senate or the new one?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,690
    alex_ said:

    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Johnson-Trump.

    For all that comparisons are made between these two I find it interesting that there is a key wedge issue that they are on the opposite sides of and, possibly, their current political base.

    Namely response to COVID and implementation of authoritarian measures in response to it.

    Trump is very anti, Johnson is not. Trump’s base is very anti, Johnson’s as far as we can tell from polling I think (? - unless contradicted) is not. But there’s an interesting additional dynamic in that there is still a vociferous anti lockdown etc element on the right of the Tory Party, aligned with the likes of Nigel Farage. What’s not clear is if these elements are speaking largely for themselves, or whether they are representing a constituency aligned with Leave/pro Brexit voters.

    There’s no doubt a largely unrepresented anti mask/lockdown etc constituency in the country at the moment. But are the likes of Farage actually well placed to exploit them, or do they come from other areas of the pro/anti immigration, pro/anti Brexit spectrum?

    Do we have lockdown any more? I mean in any meaningful way?

    Shops, bars and pubs are open. Religious services and sports are going ahead. Workplaces, schools and universities are all open.

    Yes, we have rules on social distancing, masks and the rule of six, but that is hardly lockdown. Indeed, such lesser public health measures are the alternative to lockdown.

    So how can anyone be anti-lockdown, when we haven't got it?
    Foxy, i was using “anti-lockdown” as a proxy shorthand, not a literal term, for general Covid related restrictions/regulations (and yes, including masks, although clearly it is simplifying since taken as a group various measures are often a trade off against each other and many people recognise that).

    I suppose maybe a better way of thinking of it would be the extent to which individuals should be able to take their own choices, and take their own risks on behalf of themselves and others vs being mandated by the state to do so for their own and the general good. (of course in America it often goes a lot further where people often argue that individuals taking personal precautions (such as wearing masks) actually marks them out as “cowards” and impinges on their own liberties)
    There's some sort of fête locally today, in aid of some local endeavour. It's outside, the forecast is excellent and there are some interesting looking stalls, so we'll put on masks and go. 'Twill be interesting to see how many masks are being worn, by whom and it what circumstances.
    Must admit I thought about going to watch the local (non-league) football team yesterday, but decided against it.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,279
    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Johnson-Trump.

    For all that comparisons are made between these two I find it interesting that there is a key wedge issue that they are on the opposite sides of and, possibly, their current political base.

    Namely response to COVID and implementation of authoritarian measures in response to it.

    Trump is very anti, Johnson is not. Trump’s base is very anti, Johnson’s as far as we can tell from polling I think (? - unless contradicted) is not. But there’s an interesting additional dynamic in that there is still a vociferous anti lockdown etc element on the right of the Tory Party, aligned with the likes of Nigel Farage. What’s not clear is if these elements are speaking largely for themselves, or whether they are representing a constituency aligned with Leave/pro Brexit voters.

    There’s no doubt a largely unrepresented anti mask/lockdown etc constituency in the country at the moment. But are the likes of Farage actually well placed to exploit them, or do they come from other areas of the pro/anti immigration, pro/anti Brexit spectrum?

    Do we have lockdown any more? I mean in any meaningful way?

    Shops, bars and pubs are open. Religious services and sports are going ahead. Workplaces, schools and universities are all open.

    Yes, we have rules on social distancing, masks and the rule of six, but that is hardly lockdown. Indeed, such lesser public health measures are the alternative to lockdown.

    So how can anyone be anti-lockdown, when we haven't got it?
    Foxy, i was using “anti-lockdown” as a proxy shorthand, not a literal term, for general Covid related restrictions/regulations (and yes, including masks, although clearly it is simplifying since taken as a group various measures are often a trade off against each other and many people recognise that).

    I suppose maybe a better way of thinking of it would be the extent to which individuals should be able to take their own choices, and take their own risks on behalf of themselves and others vs being mandated by the state to do so for their own and the general good.
    Yes, I appreciate that some people do not want to abide by public health meaures that inconvenience them. I wouldn't use the term lockdown in that context though.

    The problem is that as soon as that dissident mixes with other people he (and it usually is a male of a certain age) impinges on other peoples right to mix, to shop, to ride public transport etc.

    So I do not think it reasonable for example to have a non mask wearer, refusing to socially distance from other patients in the outpatients waiting area or consultation room.

    I am not overly paranoid about the bug, having worked in a Covid rich environment for 6 months now, in a hospital and city with significant ongoing disease risk. Even so, I do carefully evaluate places. I will not go to situations where the absence of enforcement puts me at risk.
    The point of my post wasn’t to address the merits either way, but to explore the underlying political dynamics - and differences on the issue between Trump’s and Johnson’s political base.
  • alex_ said:

    ydoethur said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

    I wonder what Republican law makers in Congress really make of all this talk? (just hoping it will all go away and not come to pass?). There have been problematic US presidential elections in the past (either as a result of general closeness or actual problems with vote-rigging) but in the end the party hierarchies have ultimately always prioritised the protection of the appearance of the respect of American democracy over all else, even when they might have actually had right on their side. The alternative and its implications for the democratic process which infuses almost every layer of US public administration and judiciary, has always been too awful to contemplate.

    But this time Trump (and potentially a lot of others) maybe just have too much to lose

    What is new? Trump did not invent political lying: remember Bush's "truthiness"? Republicans shutting down government during Clinton's presidency, or impeaching him over sex after their extensive investigations failed to turn up evidence of corruption? Republicans blocking Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court?

    Trump might have taken things to extremes but the trends that were already there.
    I’m not denying all that. But ultimately failing to accept the result of a Presidential Election has always up to now been a red line which has not been crossed. Even if it has been required to take it to the Supreme Court first. Whether the “trends” have been taking it in that direction or not, it doesn’t not make it a “crossing the Rubicon” issue. The consequences for US “democracy” are immense. And, essentially, terminal.

    And Trump hasn’t done it yet.

    I imagine that in the event of a close election, Trump will attempt to follow the Bush 2000 (hanging chads) playbook and try to suspend or delay the counting of votes; remember there is a mid-December deadline.
    That wouldn’t help him though, would it? He needs to be actually elected by the Electoral College, or the House in the event of a tie, or the Speaker becomes President.

    Edit - incidentally the person who tried to hold things up over hanging chads was Gore, not Bush.
    That’s not quite right, is it? Gore wanted to delay the declaration/certification of the result (since he was behind) not delay the counting of votes. Although the points at issue there related mainly to recounts not original counts I think.

    The play book envisaged (and the basis for comparison) is that Trump gets counting delayed, and then tries to convince that the votes actually counted form the basis for a certification in his favour. Or alternatively, if he’s behind, that the votes don’t get certified and or the members of the electoral college are nominated by the state legislatures instead, influenced by the political balance of said legislatures rather than on the basis of votes cast.
    Trump ally and convicted felon Roger Stone has previewed the strategy: declare martial law, seize the ballot boxes and round up political opponents. Don't say you weren't warned.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533
    edited September 13
    alex_ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Just playing with the maps, the trick is how to get to an odd number.

    The conventional shortest path is to hold MN(10) and flip WI (10), MI(16), PA(20) which gets Biden 278. Miss WI or lose MN and that's 268, which is one short of a tie.

    One way to fix that is to add AZ(11) and lose either MN+WI or PA. This is fairly plausible: A good national vote share, combined with a slightly greater under-performance in the mid-West than current polling, just enough to lose PA.

    The other way to do it is to lose MN or WI but grab the Nebraska 2nd Congressional District (Omaha and suburbs). Losing WI looks quite plausible, what with its supreme court doing shady things. Obama won the district in 2008, Trump only won it by 2%, and the last two congressional races (2016 and 2018) were GOP holds but within 2%.

    269-269 is only fun if the Dems grab the Senate.

    Then it becomes very interesting indeed. (Another McDonalds, Donald?)

    But are such decisions taken by the old Senate or the new one?
    The new one, or however much of that isn't still being argued about in court. That becomes another fun thing to game though - for example, when Minnesota had a close Senate race their GOP governor managed to delay the winning Democrat from taking office for a good 8 months...
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,279

    alex_ said:

    ydoethur said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

    I wonder what Republican law makers in Congress really make of all this talk? (just hoping it will all go away and not come to pass?). There have been problematic US presidential elections in the past (either as a result of general closeness or actual problems with vote-rigging) but in the end the party hierarchies have ultimately always prioritised the protection of the appearance of the respect of American democracy over all else, even when they might have actually had right on their side. The alternative and its implications for the democratic process which infuses almost every layer of US public administration and judiciary, has always been too awful to contemplate.

    But this time Trump (and potentially a lot of others) maybe just have too much to lose

    What is new? Trump did not invent political lying: remember Bush's "truthiness"? Republicans shutting down government during Clinton's presidency, or impeaching him over sex after their extensive investigations failed to turn up evidence of corruption? Republicans blocking Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court?

    Trump might have taken things to extremes but the trends that were already there.
    I’m not denying all that. But ultimately failing to accept the result of a Presidential Election has always up to now been a red line which has not been crossed. Even if it has been required to take it to the Supreme Court first. Whether the “trends” have been taking it in that direction or not, it doesn’t not make it a “crossing the Rubicon” issue. The consequences for US “democracy” are immense. And, essentially, terminal.

    And Trump hasn’t done it yet.

    I imagine that in the event of a close election, Trump will attempt to follow the Bush 2000 (hanging chads) playbook and try to suspend or delay the counting of votes; remember there is a mid-December deadline.
    That wouldn’t help him though, would it? He needs to be actually elected by the Electoral College, or the House in the event of a tie, or the Speaker becomes President.

    Edit - incidentally the person who tried to hold things up over hanging chads was Gore, not Bush.
    That’s not quite right, is it? Gore wanted to delay the declaration/certification of the result (since he was behind) not delay the counting of votes. Although the points at issue there related mainly to recounts not original counts I think.

    The play book envisaged (and the basis for comparison) is that Trump gets counting delayed, and then tries to convince that the votes actually counted form the basis for a certification in his favour. Or alternatively, if he’s behind, that the votes don’t get certified and or the members of the electoral college are nominated by the state legislatures instead, influenced by the political balance of said legislatures rather than on the basis of votes cast.
    Trump ally and convicted felon Roger Stone has previewed the strategy: declare martial law, seize the ballot boxes and round up political opponents. Don't say you weren't warned.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election
    Lol - if you open up all the previous quotes, does that make this the definition of a circular debate? ;)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,428
    edited September 13
    alex_ said:

    ydoethur said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

    I wonder what Republican law makers in Congress really make of all this talk? (just hoping it will all go away and not come to pass?). There have been problematic US presidential elections in the past (either as a result of general closeness or actual problems with vote-rigging) but in the end the party hierarchies have ultimately always prioritised the protection of the appearance of the respect of American democracy over all else, even when they might have actually had right on their side. The alternative and its implications for the democratic process which infuses almost every layer of US public administration and judiciary, has always been too awful to contemplate.

    But this time Trump (and potentially a lot of others) maybe just have too much to lose

    What is new? Trump did not invent political lying: remember Bush's "truthiness"? Republicans shutting down government during Clinton's presidency, or impeaching him over sex after their extensive investigations failed to turn up evidence of corruption? Republicans blocking Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court?

    Trump might have taken things to extremes but the trends that were already there.
    I’m not denying all that. But ultimately failing to accept the result of a Presidential Election has always up to now been a red line which has not been crossed. Even if it has been required to take it to the Supreme Court first. Whether the “trends” have been taking it in that direction or not, it doesn’t not make it a “crossing the Rubicon” issue. The consequences for US “democracy” are immense. And, essentially, terminal.

    And Trump hasn’t done it yet.

    I imagine that in the event of a close election, Trump will attempt to follow the Bush 2000 (hanging chads) playbook and try to suspend or delay the counting of votes; remember there is a mid-December deadline.
    That wouldn’t help him though, would it? He needs to be actually elected by the Electoral College, or the House in the event of a tie, or the Speaker becomes President.

    Edit - incidentally the person who tried to hold things up over hanging chads was Gore, not Bush.
    That’s not quite right, is it? Gore wanted to delay the declaration/certification of the result (since he was behind) not delay the counting of votes. Although the points at issue there related mainly to recounts not original counts I think.

    The play book envisaged (and the basis for comparison) is that Trump gets counting delayed, and then tries to convince that the votes actually counted form the basis for a certification in his favour. Or alternatively, if he’s behind, that the votes don’t get certified and or the members of the electoral college are nominated by the state legislatures instead, influenced by the political balance of said legislatures rather than on the basis of votes cast.
    As I recall, Gore petitioned for three counties to be recounted by hand, and for results not to be certified until that happened.

    Bush petitioned to refuse this and requested the result be certified at once. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed.

    That’s not exactly ‘Bush attempting to suspend or delay the counting of votes.’ If Gore hadn’t contested, there would have been no delays.

    The irony is of course that later indications suggested that there had been a miscount and if the SC had allowed a recount Gore might have won.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 35,146
    rcs1000 said:

    Just playing with the maps, the trick is how to get to an odd number.

    The conventional shortest path is to hold MN(10) and flip WI (10), MI(16), PA(20) which gets Biden 278. Miss WI or lose MN and that's 268, which is one short of a tie.

    One way to fix that is to add AZ(11) and lose either MN+WI or PA. This is fairly plausible: A good national vote share, combined with a slightly greater under-performance in the mid-West than current polling, just enough to lose PA.

    The other way to do it is to lose MN or WI but grab the Nebraska 2nd Congressional District (Omaha and suburbs). Losing WI looks quite plausible, what with its supreme court doing shady things. Obama won the district in 2008, Trump only won it by 2%, and the last two congressional races (2016 and 2018) were GOP holds but within 2%.

    269-269 is only fun if the Dems grab the Senate.

    Then it becomes very interesting indeed. (Another McDonalds, Donald?)
    You think there wouldn't be one faithless EC voter prepared to change to break the tie? I don't see it getting to the Senate....
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108
    alex_ said:

    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Johnson-Trump.

    For all that comparisons are made between these two I find it interesting that there is a key wedge issue that they are on the opposite sides of and, possibly, their current political base.

    Namely response to COVID and implementation of authoritarian measures in response to it.

    Trump is very anti, Johnson is not. Trump’s base is very anti, Johnson’s as far as we can tell from polling I think (? - unless contradicted) is not. But there’s an interesting additional dynamic in that there is still a vociferous anti lockdown etc element on the right of the Tory Party, aligned with the likes of Nigel Farage. What’s not clear is if these elements are speaking largely for themselves, or whether they are representing a constituency aligned with Leave/pro Brexit voters.

    There’s no doubt a largely unrepresented anti mask/lockdown etc constituency in the country at the moment. But are the likes of Farage actually well placed to exploit them, or do they come from other areas of the pro/anti immigration, pro/anti Brexit spectrum?

    Do we have lockdown any more? I mean in any meaningful way?

    Shops, bars and pubs are open. Religious services and sports are going ahead. Workplaces, schools and universities are all open.

    Yes, we have rules on social distancing, masks and the rule of six, but that is hardly lockdown. Indeed, such lesser public health measures are the alternative to lockdown.

    So how can anyone be anti-lockdown, when we haven't got it?
    Foxy, i was using “anti-lockdown” as a proxy shorthand, not a literal term, for general Covid related restrictions/regulations (and yes, including masks, although clearly it is simplifying since taken as a group various measures are often a trade off against each other and many people recognise that).

    I suppose maybe a better way of thinking of it would be the extent to which individuals should be able to take their own choices, and take their own risks on behalf of themselves and others vs being mandated by the state to do so for their own and the general good.
    Yes, I appreciate that some people do not want to abide by public health meaures that inconvenience them. I wouldn't use the term lockdown in that context though.

    The problem is that as soon as that dissident mixes with other people he (and it usually is a male of a certain age) impinges on other peoples right to mix, to shop, to ride public transport etc.

    So I do not think it reasonable for example to have a non mask wearer, refusing to socially distance from other patients in the outpatients waiting area or consultation room.

    I am not overly paranoid about the bug, having worked in a Covid rich environment for 6 months now, in a hospital and city with significant ongoing disease risk. Even so, I do carefully evaluate places. I will not go to situations where the absence of enforcement puts me at risk.
    The point of my post wasn’t to address the merits either way, but to explore the underlying political dynamics - and differences on the issue between Trump’s and Johnson’s political base.
    Yes, there is that dimension too. I think the differences stem from the age spectrum of support. The Conservative vote is much more age related than the Republican one. British over 65s are the Tory base now, and both at higher risk from Covid-19 and more able to abide by the rules without suffering economically than the average Republican.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533

    rcs1000 said:

    Just playing with the maps, the trick is how to get to an odd number.

    The conventional shortest path is to hold MN(10) and flip WI (10), MI(16), PA(20) which gets Biden 278. Miss WI or lose MN and that's 268, which is one short of a tie.

    One way to fix that is to add AZ(11) and lose either MN+WI or PA. This is fairly plausible: A good national vote share, combined with a slightly greater under-performance in the mid-West than current polling, just enough to lose PA.

    The other way to do it is to lose MN or WI but grab the Nebraska 2nd Congressional District (Omaha and suburbs). Losing WI looks quite plausible, what with its supreme court doing shady things. Obama won the district in 2008, Trump only won it by 2%, and the last two congressional races (2016 and 2018) were GOP holds but within 2%.

    269-269 is only fun if the Dems grab the Senate.

    Then it becomes very interesting indeed. (Another McDonalds, Donald?)
    You think there wouldn't be one faithless EC voter prepared to change to break the tie? I don't see it getting to the Senate....
    It's 2020, there would be several... from each side, exactly cancelling each other out...
  • alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    ydoethur said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

    I wonder what Republican law makers in Congress really make of all this talk? (just hoping it will all go away and not come to pass?). There have been problematic US presidential elections in the past (either as a result of general closeness or actual problems with vote-rigging) but in the end the party hierarchies have ultimately always prioritised the protection of the appearance of the respect of American democracy over all else, even when they might have actually had right on their side. The alternative and its implications for the democratic process which infuses almost every layer of US public administration and judiciary, has always been too awful to contemplate.

    But this time Trump (and potentially a lot of others) maybe just have too much to lose

    What is new? Trump did not invent political lying: remember Bush's "truthiness"? Republicans shutting down government during Clinton's presidency, or impeaching him over sex after their extensive investigations failed to turn up evidence of corruption? Republicans blocking Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court?

    Trump might have taken things to extremes but the trends that were already there.
    I’m not denying all that. But ultimately failing to accept the result of a Presidential Election has always up to now been a red line which has not been crossed. Even if it has been required to take it to the Supreme Court first. Whether the “trends” have been taking it in that direction or not, it doesn’t not make it a “crossing the Rubicon” issue. The consequences for US “democracy” are immense. And, essentially, terminal.

    And Trump hasn’t done it yet.

    I imagine that in the event of a close election, Trump will attempt to follow the Bush 2000 (hanging chads) playbook and try to suspend or delay the counting of votes; remember there is a mid-December deadline.
    That wouldn’t help him though, would it? He needs to be actually elected by the Electoral College, or the House in the event of a tie, or the Speaker becomes President.

    Edit - incidentally the person who tried to hold things up over hanging chads was Gore, not Bush.
    That’s not quite right, is it? Gore wanted to delay the declaration/certification of the result (since he was behind) not delay the counting of votes. Although the points at issue there related mainly to recounts not original counts I think.

    The play book envisaged (and the basis for comparison) is that Trump gets counting delayed, and then tries to convince that the votes actually counted form the basis for a certification in his favour. Or alternatively, if he’s behind, that the votes don’t get certified and or the members of the electoral college are nominated by the state legislatures instead, influenced by the political balance of said legislatures rather than on the basis of votes cast.
    Trump ally and convicted felon Roger Stone has previewed the strategy: declare martial law, seize the ballot boxes and round up political opponents. Don't say you weren't warned.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election
    Lol - if you open up all the previous quotes, does that make this the definition of a circular debate? ;)
    Ah yes, sorry did not scroll through the whole thread. Aren't circular debates what PB specialises in? Anyone face a discussion on Brexit? 😜
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,428

    rcs1000 said:

    Just playing with the maps, the trick is how to get to an odd number.

    The conventional shortest path is to hold MN(10) and flip WI (10), MI(16), PA(20) which gets Biden 278. Miss WI or lose MN and that's 268, which is one short of a tie.

    One way to fix that is to add AZ(11) and lose either MN+WI or PA. This is fairly plausible: A good national vote share, combined with a slightly greater under-performance in the mid-West than current polling, just enough to lose PA.

    The other way to do it is to lose MN or WI but grab the Nebraska 2nd Congressional District (Omaha and suburbs). Losing WI looks quite plausible, what with its supreme court doing shady things. Obama won the district in 2008, Trump only won it by 2%, and the last two congressional races (2016 and 2018) were GOP holds but within 2%.

    269-269 is only fun if the Dems grab the Senate.

    Then it becomes very interesting indeed. (Another McDonalds, Donald?)
    You think there wouldn't be one faithless EC voter prepared to change to break the tie? I don't see it getting to the Senate....
    It's 2020, there would be several... from each side, exactly cancelling each other out...
    Would be funny if they all sat down and agreed unanimously to vote for for someone else entirely.

    Will never happen of course, but can you imagine the look on Trump’s face if he came third in a Presidential election?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,279
    ydoethur said:

    alex_ said:

    ydoethur said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

    I wonder what Republican law makers in Congress really make of all this talk? (just hoping it will all go away and not come to pass?). There have been problematic US presidential elections in the past (either as a result of general closeness or actual problems with vote-rigging) but in the end the party hierarchies have ultimately always prioritised the protection of the appearance of the respect of American democracy over all else, even when they might have actually had right on their side. The alternative and its implications for the democratic process which infuses almost every layer of US public administration and judiciary, has always been too awful to contemplate.

    But this time Trump (and potentially a lot of others) maybe just have too much to lose

    What is new? Trump did not invent political lying: remember Bush's "truthiness"? Republicans shutting down government during Clinton's presidency, or impeaching him over sex after their extensive investigations failed to turn up evidence of corruption? Republicans blocking Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court?

    Trump might have taken things to extremes but the trends that were already there.
    I’m not denying all that. But ultimately failing to accept the result of a Presidential Election has always up to now been a red line which has not been crossed. Even if it has been required to take it to the Supreme Court first. Whether the “trends” have been taking it in that direction or not, it doesn’t not make it a “crossing the Rubicon” issue. The consequences for US “democracy” are immense. And, essentially, terminal.

    And Trump hasn’t done it yet.

    I imagine that in the event of a close election, Trump will attempt to follow the Bush 2000 (hanging chads) playbook and try to suspend or delay the counting of votes; remember there is a mid-December deadline.
    That wouldn’t help him though, would it? He needs to be actually elected by the Electoral College, or the House in the event of a tie, or the Speaker becomes President.

    Edit - incidentally the person who tried to hold things up over hanging chads was Gore, not Bush.
    That’s not quite right, is it? Gore wanted to delay the declaration/certification of the result (since he was behind) not delay the counting of votes. Although the points at issue there related mainly to recounts not original counts I think.

    The play book envisaged (and the basis for comparison) is that Trump gets counting delayed, and then tries to convince that the votes actually counted form the basis for a certification in his favour. Or alternatively, if he’s behind, that the votes don’t get certified and or the members of the electoral college are nominated by the state legislatures instead, influenced by the political balance of said legislatures rather than on the basis of votes cast.
    As I recall, Gore petitioned for three counties to be recounted by hand, and for results not to be certified until that happened.

    Bush petitioned to refuse this and requested the result be certified at once. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed.

    That’s not exactly ‘Bush attempting to suspend or delay the counting of votes.’ If Gore hadn’t contested, there would have been no delays.

    The irony is of course that later indications suggested that there had been a miscount and if the SC had allowed a recount Gore might have won.
    The whole business of selective recounts is a bit of a nonsense though, unless there are particular reasons to isolated failings in the administration of the count (was that the issue here, maybe it was?). Because you could just as easily get a miscount in any county.

    But anyway, all this is a bit at a tangent to my original question which was focussing on the talk of refusing to accept the electoral outcome, outside of normal electoral administration and judicial processes.
  • In other news, I wonder how many patriots out there realise that the Last Night of the Proms happened, er, last night. I wonder when the viewing figures are going to be published?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,198

    alex_ said:

    ydoethur said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

    I wonder what Republican law makers in Congress really make of all this talk? (just hoping it will all go away and not come to pass?). There have been problematic US presidential elections in the past (either as a result of general closeness or actual problems with vote-rigging) but in the end the party hierarchies have ultimately always prioritised the protection of the appearance of the respect of American democracy over all else, even when they might have actually had right on their side. The alternative and its implications for the democratic process which infuses almost every layer of US public administration and judiciary, has always been too awful to contemplate.

    But this time Trump (and potentially a lot of others) maybe just have too much to lose

    What is new? Trump did not invent political lying: remember Bush's "truthiness"? Republicans shutting down government during Clinton's presidency, or impeaching him over sex after their extensive investigations failed to turn up evidence of corruption? Republicans blocking Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court?

    Trump might have taken things to extremes but the trends that were already there.
    I’m not denying all that. But ultimately failing to accept the result of a Presidential Election has always up to now been a red line which has not been crossed. Even if it has been required to take it to the Supreme Court first. Whether the “trends” have been taking it in that direction or not, it doesn’t not make it a “crossing the Rubicon” issue. The consequences for US “democracy” are immense. And, essentially, terminal.

    And Trump hasn’t done it yet.

    I imagine that in the event of a close election, Trump will attempt to follow the Bush 2000 (hanging chads) playbook and try to suspend or delay the counting of votes; remember there is a mid-December deadline.
    That wouldn’t help him though, would it? He needs to be actually elected by the Electoral College, or the House in the event of a tie, or the Speaker becomes President.

    Edit - incidentally the person who tried to hold things up over hanging chads was Gore, not Bush.
    That’s not quite right, is it? Gore wanted to delay the declaration/certification of the result (since he was behind) not delay the counting of votes. Although the points at issue there related mainly to recounts not original counts I think.

    The play book envisaged (and the basis for comparison) is that Trump gets counting delayed, and then tries to convince that the votes actually counted form the basis for a certification in his favour. Or alternatively, if he’s behind, that the votes don’t get certified and or the members of the electoral college are nominated by the state legislatures instead, influenced by the political balance of said legislatures rather than on the basis of votes cast.
    Trump ally and convicted felon Roger Stone has previewed the strategy: declare martial law, seize the ballot boxes and round up political opponents. Don't say you weren't warned.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election
    So Team Trump has a workable plan B. Very dangerous!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,428
    edited September 13
    alex_ said:

    ydoethur said:

    alex_ said:

    ydoethur said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

    I wonder what Republican law makers in Congress really make of all this talk? (just hoping it will all go away and not come to pass?). There have been problematic US presidential elections in the past (either as a result of general closeness or actual problems with vote-rigging) but in the end the party hierarchies have ultimately always prioritised the protection of the appearance of the respect of American democracy over all else, even when they might have actually had right on their side. The alternative and its implications for the democratic process which infuses almost every layer of US public administration and judiciary, has always been too awful to contemplate.

    But this time Trump (and potentially a lot of others) maybe just have too much to lose

    What is new? Trump did not invent political lying: remember Bush's "truthiness"? Republicans shutting down government during Clinton's presidency, or impeaching him over sex after their extensive investigations failed to turn up evidence of corruption? Republicans blocking Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court?

    Trump might have taken things to extremes but the trends that were already there.
    I’m not denying all that. But ultimately failing to accept the result of a Presidential Election has always up to now been a red line which has not been crossed. Even if it has been required to take it to the Supreme Court first. Whether the “trends” have been taking it in that direction or not, it doesn’t not make it a “crossing the Rubicon” issue. The consequences for US “democracy” are immense. And, essentially, terminal.

    And Trump hasn’t done it yet.

    I imagine that in the event of a close election, Trump will attempt to follow the Bush 2000 (hanging chads) playbook and try to suspend or delay the counting of votes; remember there is a mid-December deadline.
    That wouldn’t help him though, would it? He needs to be actually elected by the Electoral College, or the House in the event of a tie, or the Speaker becomes President.

    Edit - incidentally the person who tried to hold things up over hanging chads was Gore, not Bush.
    That’s not quite right, is it? Gore wanted to delay the declaration/certification of the result (since he was behind) not delay the counting of votes. Although the points at issue there related mainly to recounts not original counts I think.

    The play book envisaged (and the basis for comparison) is that Trump gets counting delayed, and then tries to convince that the votes actually counted form the basis for a certification in his favour. Or alternatively, if he’s behind, that the votes don’t get certified and or the members of the electoral college are nominated by the state legislatures instead, influenced by the political balance of said legislatures rather than on the basis of votes cast.
    As I recall, Gore petitioned for three counties to be recounted by hand, and for results not to be certified until that happened.

    Bush petitioned to refuse this and requested the result be certified at once. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed.

    That’s not exactly ‘Bush attempting to suspend or delay the counting of votes.’ If Gore hadn’t contested, there would have been no delays.

    The irony is of course that later indications suggested that there had been a miscount and if the SC had allowed a recount Gore might have won.
    The whole business of selective recounts is a bit of a nonsense though, unless there are particular reasons to isolated failings in the administration of the count (was that the issue here, maybe it was?). Because you could just as easily get a miscount in any county.

    But anyway, all this is a bit at a tangent to my original question which was focussing on the talk of refusing to accept the electoral outcome, outside of normal electoral administration and judicial processes.
    Again, without checking so I could be wrong, the issue was that the layout of the Florida ballot paper was utterly fucking cretinous. They had a single row of punch buttons down the middle with arrows pointing to candidates’ names. People were clearly struggling to identify which button led to which candidate, so were pressing the button hesitantly, or twice, and that led to ‘pregnant’ chads, ‘hanging’ chads or ‘dimpled’ chads, which the machines didn’t count as valid votes. This affected Bush - at the top of the paper and easy to find - rather less than Gore, who was in the middle. There was also an unexpectedly large vote for the candidate whose name was next to Gore on the ballot paper.

    The mistake Gore made - and it was a dumb mistake, but then he is quite dumb - was not to say that this called the whole Florida result into question and there needed to be a state wide recount of all ballots by hand. Instead he went for just three counties which were strongly Democratic so it came across as naked partisan mud slinging.

    It also tells me that the American electoral system is designed by people who are even denser than Amanda Spielman minus Dominic Cummings.
  • Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Johnson-Trump.

    For all that comparisons are made between these two I find it interesting that there is a key wedge issue that they are on the opposite sides of and, possibly, their current political base.

    Namely response to COVID and implementation of authoritarian measures in response to it.

    Trump is very anti, Johnson is not. Trump’s base is very anti, Johnson’s as far as we can tell from polling I think (? - unless contradicted) is not. But there’s an interesting additional dynamic in that there is still a vociferous anti lockdown etc element on the right of the Tory Party, aligned with the likes of Nigel Farage. What’s not clear is if these elements are speaking largely for themselves, or whether they are representing a constituency aligned with Leave/pro Brexit voters.

    There’s no doubt a largely unrepresented anti mask/lockdown etc constituency in the country at the moment. But are the likes of Farage actually well placed to exploit them, or do they come from other areas of the pro/anti immigration, pro/anti Brexit spectrum?

    Do we have lockdown any more? I mean in any meaningful way?

    Shops, bars and pubs are open. Religious services and sports are going ahead. Workplaces, schools and universities are all open.

    Yes, we have rules on social distancing, masks and the rule of six, but that is hardly lockdown. Indeed, such lesser public health measures are the alternative to lockdown.

    So how can anyone be anti-lockdown, when we haven't got it?
    Foxy, i was using “anti-lockdown” as a proxy shorthand, not a literal term, for general Covid related restrictions/regulations (and yes, including masks, although clearly it is simplifying since taken as a group various measures are often a trade off against each other and many people recognise that).

    I suppose maybe a better way of thinking of it would be the extent to which individuals should be able to take their own choices, and take their own risks on behalf of themselves and others vs being mandated by the state to do so for their own and the general good.
    Yes, I appreciate that some people do not want to abide by public health meaures that inconvenience them. I wouldn't use the term lockdown in that context though.

    The problem is that as soon as that dissident mixes with other people he (and it usually is a male of a certain age) impinges on other peoples right to mix, to shop, to ride public transport etc.

    So I do not think it reasonable for example to have a non mask wearer, refusing to socially distance from other patients in the outpatients waiting area or consultation room.

    I am not overly paranoid about the bug, having worked in a Covid rich environment for 6 months now, in a hospital and city with significant ongoing disease risk. Even so, I do carefully evaluate places. I will not go to situations where the absence of enforcement puts me at risk.
    The point of my post wasn’t to address the merits either way, but to explore the underlying political dynamics - and differences on the issue between Trump’s and Johnson’s political base.
    Yes, there is that dimension too. I think the differences stem from the age spectrum of support. The Conservative vote is much more age related than the Republican one. British over 65s are the Tory base now, and both at higher risk from Covid-19 and more able to abide by the rules without suffering economically than the average Republican.

    And they get what seems for them to be the immensely satisfying opportunity to crap all over the young!

  • In other news, I wonder how many patriots out there realise that the Last Night of the Proms happened, er, last night. I wonder when the viewing figures are going to be published?

    Just watching excepts on the BBC news channel
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,428

    In other news, I wonder how many patriots out there realise that the Last Night of the Proms happened, er, last night. I wonder when the viewing figures are going to be published?

    Bit pointless to have a last night without a first night.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108

    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Johnson-Trump.

    For all that comparisons are made between these two I find it interesting that there is a key wedge issue that they are on the opposite sides of and, possibly, their current political base.

    Namely response to COVID and implementation of authoritarian measures in response to it.

    Trump is very anti, Johnson is not. Trump’s base is very anti, Johnson’s as far as we can tell from polling I think (? - unless contradicted) is not. But there’s an interesting additional dynamic in that there is still a vociferous anti lockdown etc element on the right of the Tory Party, aligned with the likes of Nigel Farage. What’s not clear is if these elements are speaking largely for themselves, or whether they are representing a constituency aligned with Leave/pro Brexit voters.

    There’s no doubt a largely unrepresented anti mask/lockdown etc constituency in the country at the moment. But are the likes of Farage actually well placed to exploit them, or do they come from other areas of the pro/anti immigration, pro/anti Brexit spectrum?

    Do we have lockdown any more? I mean in any meaningful way?

    Shops, bars and pubs are open. Religious services and sports are going ahead. Workplaces, schools and universities are all open.

    Yes, we have rules on social distancing, masks and the rule of six, but that is hardly lockdown. Indeed, such lesser public health measures are the alternative to lockdown.

    So how can anyone be anti-lockdown, when we haven't got it?
    Foxy, i was using “anti-lockdown” as a proxy shorthand, not a literal term, for general Covid related restrictions/regulations (and yes, including masks, although clearly it is simplifying since taken as a group various measures are often a trade off against each other and many people recognise that).

    I suppose maybe a better way of thinking of it would be the extent to which individuals should be able to take their own choices, and take their own risks on behalf of themselves and others vs being mandated by the state to do so for their own and the general good.
    Yes, I appreciate that some people do not want to abide by public health meaures that inconvenience them. I wouldn't use the term lockdown in that context though.

    The problem is that as soon as that dissident mixes with other people he (and it usually is a male of a certain age) impinges on other peoples right to mix, to shop, to ride public transport etc.

    So I do not think it reasonable for example to have a non mask wearer, refusing to socially distance from other patients in the outpatients waiting area or consultation room.

    I am not overly paranoid about the bug, having worked in a Covid rich environment for 6 months now, in a hospital and city with significant ongoing disease risk. Even so, I do carefully evaluate places. I will not go to situations where the absence of enforcement puts me at risk.
    The point of my post wasn’t to address the merits either way, but to explore the underlying political dynamics - and differences on the issue between Trump’s and Johnson’s political base.
    Yes, there is that dimension too. I think the differences stem from the age spectrum of support. The Conservative vote is much more age related than the Republican one. British over 65s are the Tory base now, and both at higher risk from Covid-19 and more able to abide by the rules without suffering economically than the average Republican.

    And they get what seems for them to be the immensely satisfying opportunity to crap all over the young!

    By and large, the youngsters seem quite OK with the rules, though a significant minority ignore them. Not the sort of youngsters who are likely to listen to covid marshals either.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 21,355
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,428
    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Incoming from contrarian and Nerys In 3...2...1
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,471
    edited September 13
    Just as a technical point , there is both sides of the bet offered , it is just split out into sub categories although the overall overound is very high about 160% . FWIW 66/1 feels about fair value though as probably the best value bet amongst the tissue
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,428

    alex_ said:

    ydoethur said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

    I wonder what Republican law makers in Congress really make of all this talk? (just hoping it will all go away and not come to pass?). There have been problematic US presidential elections in the past (either as a result of general closeness or actual problems with vote-rigging) but in the end the party hierarchies have ultimately always prioritised the protection of the appearance of the respect of American democracy over all else, even when they might have actually had right on their side. The alternative and its implications for the democratic process which infuses almost every layer of US public administration and judiciary, has always been too awful to contemplate.

    But this time Trump (and potentially a lot of others) maybe just have too much to lose

    What is new? Trump did not invent political lying: remember Bush's "truthiness"? Republicans shutting down government during Clinton's presidency, or impeaching him over sex after their extensive investigations failed to turn up evidence of corruption? Republicans blocking Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court?

    Trump might have taken things to extremes but the trends that were already there.
    I’m not denying all that. But ultimately failing to accept the result of a Presidential Election has always up to now been a red line which has not been crossed. Even if it has been required to take it to the Supreme Court first. Whether the “trends” have been taking it in that direction or not, it doesn’t not make it a “crossing the Rubicon” issue. The consequences for US “democracy” are immense. And, essentially, terminal.

    And Trump hasn’t done it yet.

    I imagine that in the event of a close election, Trump will attempt to follow the Bush 2000 (hanging chads) playbook and try to suspend or delay the counting of votes; remember there is a mid-December deadline.
    That wouldn’t help him though, would it? He needs to be actually elected by the Electoral College, or the House in the event of a tie, or the Speaker becomes President.

    Edit - incidentally the person who tried to hold things up over hanging chads was Gore, not Bush.
    That’s not quite right, is it? Gore wanted to delay the declaration/certification of the result (since he was behind) not delay the counting of votes. Although the points at issue there related mainly to recounts not original counts I think.

    The play book envisaged (and the basis for comparison) is that Trump gets counting delayed, and then tries to convince that the votes actually counted form the basis for a certification in his favour. Or alternatively, if he’s behind, that the votes don’t get certified and or the members of the electoral college are nominated by the state legislatures instead, influenced by the political balance of said legislatures rather than on the basis of votes cast.
    Trump ally and convicted felon Roger Stone has previewed the strategy: declare martial law, seize the ballot boxes and round up political opponents. Don't say you weren't warned.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election
    So Team Trump has a workable plan B. Very dangerous!
    It’s only workable if the military back him.

    Given recent events where he rather unwisely publicly called them ‘losers’ and ‘suckers’ this seems a bold assumption.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 744
    edited September 13
    Morning all. FPT

    Interesting to see last night the death penalty popping up. New examination of this subject is a logical consequence of Brexit, not that it’s one most people will particularly relish.

    Most in the UK have grown up without thinking too hard about the issue, because EU membership meant debate of its reinstatement was closed. With the door now open to abrogating parts of the ECHR, that’s now changed.

    For most of the young, it’s a simple truism that’s the death penalty is wrong. I’ve lived in countries where it’s both a profoundly toxic idea and others where it’s not only practiced but very enthusiastically supported by pretty much all sections of society, including the well travelled, educated affluent young, who on most other issues fit nicely into #generationwoke. When you adjust the focus of your lens, it’s not as straightforward a debate as most of people think.

    To Mr Horse, if you wish to reside only in countries that do not have the death penalty on the statute book, you are pretty much limiting yourself to Latin America, CANZUK, the EEA and small pockets of Asia and Africa (e.g. Korea, S Africa). Lots of very pleasant and prosperous places to live in that group of course.

    But you’re ruling out 4 of the 5 most populous democracies of the US, Japan, India, Indonesia. The city states of Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong. Good portions of postcard destinations in the Caribbean and most of SE Asia. Much of Africa. And pretty much all of the Muslim world. Then throw in the places with unofficial death penalties, via extra judicial state killings (Russia and others). And of course China. By population count, countries that explicitly ban the death penalty are a pretty fringe group, I have summed it up but can you get much past 1bn people in the anti column?

    I wouldn’t like to call now where UK public sentiment will sit in 10-15 years, especially given the changing age and religious demographics. Ask people about the principles of the policy and they tend to have little interest. Ask them how many thought it good that Bin Laden or the Beatles Jihadis were executed and it’s hard to find a dissenter. “Oh but that’s different”. Where the argument will play out over time is in the middle. Child killers, domestic terrorists etc...

    There are parallels to Brexit, which seemed like a really fringe issue that all the parties could safely ignore. Until they couldn’t...
  • In other news, I wonder how many patriots out there realise that the Last Night of the Proms happened, er, last night. I wonder when the viewing figures are going to be published?

    I think the general point many were making wasn't about the Last night of the Proms in isolation but about the need to alter songs associated with Britain in general (ie dont sing the words as they are not deemed woke anymore)
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,881

    In other news, I wonder how many patriots out there realise that the Last Night of the Proms happened, er, last night. I wonder when the viewing figures are going to be published?

    Oh dear.
  • MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,198
    ydoethur said:

    alex_ said:

    ydoethur said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

    I wonder what Republican law makers in Congress really make of all this talk? (just hoping it will all go away and not come to pass?). There have been problematic US presidential elections in the past (either as a result of general closeness or actual problems with vote-rigging) but in the end the party hierarchies have ultimately always prioritised the protection of the appearance of the respect of American democracy over all else, even when they might have actually had right on their side. The alternative and its implications for the democratic process which infuses almost every layer of US public administration and judiciary, has always been too awful to contemplate.

    But this time Trump (and potentially a lot of others) maybe just have too much to lose

    What is new? Trump did not invent political lying: remember Bush's "truthiness"? Republicans shutting down government during Clinton's presidency, or impeaching him over sex after their extensive investigations failed to turn up evidence of corruption? Republicans blocking Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court?

    Trump might have taken things to extremes but the trends that were already there.
    I’m not denying all that. But ultimately failing to accept the result of a Presidential Election has always up to now been a red line which has not been crossed. Even if it has been required to take it to the Supreme Court first. Whether the “trends” have been taking it in that direction or not, it doesn’t not make it a “crossing the Rubicon” issue. The consequences for US “democracy” are immense. And, essentially, terminal.

    And Trump hasn’t done it yet.

    I imagine that in the event of a close election, Trump will attempt to follow the Bush 2000 (hanging chads) playbook and try to suspend or delay the counting of votes; remember there is a mid-December deadline.
    That wouldn’t help him though, would it? He needs to be actually elected by the Electoral College, or the House in the event of a tie, or the Speaker becomes President.

    Edit - incidentally the person who tried to hold things up over hanging chads was Gore, not Bush.
    That’s not quite right, is it? Gore wanted to delay the declaration/certification of the result (since he was behind) not delay the counting of votes. Although the points at issue there related mainly to recounts not original counts I think.

    The play book envisaged (and the basis for comparison) is that Trump gets counting delayed, and then tries to convince that the votes actually counted form the basis for a certification in his favour. Or alternatively, if he’s behind, that the votes don’t get certified and or the members of the electoral college are nominated by the state legislatures instead, influenced by the political balance of said legislatures rather than on the basis of votes cast.
    Trump ally and convicted felon Roger Stone has previewed the strategy: declare martial law, seize the ballot boxes and round up political opponents. Don't say you weren't warned.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election
    So Team Trump has a workable plan B. Very dangerous!
    It’s only workable if the military back him.

    Given recent events where he rather unwisely publicly called them ‘losers’ and ‘suckers’ this seems a bold assumption.
    Isn't disobeying the Commander in Chief punishable by court martial? Obeying orders isn't optional.
  • I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,198

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    "Extreme measures"?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,428
    edited September 13

    ydoethur said:

    alex_ said:

    ydoethur said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

    I wonder what Republican law makers in Congress really make of all this talk? (just hoping it will all go away and not come to pass?). There have been problematic US presidential elections in the past (either as a result of general closeness or actual problems with vote-rigging) but in the end the party hierarchies have ultimately always prioritised the protection of the appearance of the respect of American democracy over all else, even when they might have actually had right on their side. The alternative and its implications for the democratic process which infuses almost every layer of US public administration and judiciary, has always been too awful to contemplate.

    But this time Trump (and potentially a lot of others) maybe just have too much to lose

    What is new? Trump did not invent political lying: remember Bush's "truthiness"? Republicans shutting down government during Clinton's presidency, or impeaching him over sex after their extensive investigations failed to turn up evidence of corruption? Republicans blocking Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court?

    Trump might have taken things to extremes but the trends that were already there.
    I’m not denying all that. But ultimately failing to accept the result of a Presidential Election has always up to now been a red line which has not been crossed. Even if it has been required to take it to the Supreme Court first. Whether the “trends” have been taking it in that direction or not, it doesn’t not make it a “crossing the Rubicon” issue. The consequences for US “democracy” are immense. And, essentially, terminal.

    And Trump hasn’t done it yet.

    I imagine that in the event of a close election, Trump will attempt to follow the Bush 2000 (hanging chads) playbook and try to suspend or delay the counting of votes; remember there is a mid-December deadline.
    That wouldn’t help him though, would it? He needs to be actually elected by the Electoral College, or the House in the event of a tie, or the Speaker becomes President.

    Edit - incidentally the person who tried to hold things up over hanging chads was Gore, not Bush.
    That’s not quite right, is it? Gore wanted to delay the declaration/certification of the result (since he was behind) not delay the counting of votes. Although the points at issue there related mainly to recounts not original counts I think.

    The play book envisaged (and the basis for comparison) is that Trump gets counting delayed, and then tries to convince that the votes actually counted form the basis for a certification in his favour. Or alternatively, if he’s behind, that the votes don’t get certified and or the members of the electoral college are nominated by the state legislatures instead, influenced by the political balance of said legislatures rather than on the basis of votes cast.
    Trump ally and convicted felon Roger Stone has previewed the strategy: declare martial law, seize the ballot boxes and round up political opponents. Don't say you weren't warned.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election
    So Team Trump has a workable plan B. Very dangerous!
    It’s only workable if the military back him.

    Given recent events where he rather unwisely publicly called them ‘losers’ and ‘suckers’ this seems a bold assumption.
    Isn't disobeying the Commander in Chief punishable by court martial? Obeying orders isn't optional.
    Depends on whether those orders are legal. If, for example, they are ordered to deploy to a US city without a request from a governor or mayor, that would not be lawful and if it was refused I cannot imagine any court martial would be convened to even hear it.
  • alex_ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

    I wonder what Republican law makers in Congress really make of all this talk? (just hoping it will all go away and not come to pass?). There have been problematic US presidential elections in the past (either as a result of general closeness or actual problems with vote-rigging) but in the end the party hierarchies have ultimately always prioritised the protection of the appearance of the respect of American democracy over all else, even when they might have actually had right on their side. The alternative and its implications for the democratic process which infuses almost every layer of US public administration and judiciary, has always been too awful to contemplate.

    But this time Trump (and potentially a lot of others) maybe just have too much to lose

    What is new? Trump did not invent political lying: remember Bush's "truthiness"? Republicans shutting down government during Clinton's presidency, or impeaching him over sex after their extensive investigations failed to turn up evidence of corruption? Republicans blocking Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court?

    Trump might have taken things to extremes but the trends that were already there.
    The tendency has always been there in US Politics but the trnd gathered pace significantly with Richard Nixon.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,471
    edited September 13
    moonshine said:

    Morning all. FPT

    Interesting to see last night the death penalty popping up. New examination of this subject is a logical consequence of Brexit, not that it’s one most people will particularly relish.

    Most in the UK have grown up without thinking too hard about the issue, because EU membership meant debate of its reinstatement was closed. With the door now open to abrogating parts of the ECHR, that’s now changed.

    For most of the young, it’s a simple truism that’s the death penalty is wrong. I’ve lived in countries where it’s both a profoundly toxic idea and others where it’s not only practiced but very enthusiastically supported by pretty much all sections of society, including the well travelled, educated affluent young, who on most other issues fit nicely into #generationwoke. When you adjust the focus of your lens, it’s not as straightforward a debate as most of people think.

    To Mr Horse, if you wish to reside only in countries that do not have the death penalty on the statute book, you are pretty much limiting yourself to Latin America, CANZUK, the EEA and small pockets of Asia and Africa (e.g. Korea, S Africa). Lots of very pleasant and prosperous places to live in that group of course.

    But you’re ruling out 4 of the 5 most populous democracies of the US, Japan, India, Indonesia. The city states of Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong. Good portions of postcard destinations in the Caribbean and most of SE Asia. Much of Africa. And pretty much all of the Muslim world. Then throw in the places with unofficial death penalties, via extra judicial state killings (Russia and others). And of course China. By population count, countries that explicitly ban the death penalty are a pretty fringe group, I have summed it up but can you get much past 1bn people in the anti column?

    I wouldn’t like to call now where UK public sentiment will sit in 10-15 years, especially given the changing age and religious demographics. Ask people about the principles of the policy and they tend to have little interest. Ask them how many thought it good that Bin Laden or the Beatles Jihadis were executed and it’s hard to find a dissenter. “Oh but that’s different”. Where the argument will play out over time is in the middle. Child killers, domestic terrorists etc...

    There are parallels to Brexit, which seemed like a really fringe issue that all the parties could safely ignore. Until they couldn’t...

    We have seen the draconian measures the world governments (UK by far not the worst but not an exception) put in place to control covid -19 and the motives for doing that are generally decided by how to not lose face/votes/power. Not sure allowing states the power to also kill people is progressive as motives are never pure enough for this to be deeemed fair to my eyes
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,881
    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    I'm still unclear on this - in Spain which is 5/6 weeks or so ahead of the UK the rise in hospitals/deaths was also very slow initially. But both are on a steady upward incline now as the young slowly but surely spread it to the older groups - soething which seems inavoidable without quite draconian restrictions. I do think it may be that improved treatments may have a mitigating factor on death rates overall but the elderly do remain very vulnerable indeed.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,279
    U
    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Johnson-Trump.

    For all that comparisons are made between these two I find it interesting that there is a key wedge issue that they are on the opposite sides of and, possibly, their current political base.

    Namely response to COVID and implementation of authoritarian measures in response to it.

    Trump is very anti, Johnson is not. Trump’s base is very anti, Johnson’s as far as we can tell from polling I think (? - unless contradicted) is not. But there’s an interesting additional dynamic in that there is still a vociferous anti lockdown etc element on the right of the Tory Party, aligned with the likes of Nigel Farage. What’s not clear is if these elements are speaking largely for themselves, or whether they are representing a constituency aligned with Leave/pro Brexit voters.

    There’s no doubt a largely unrepresented anti mask/lockdown etc constituency in the country at the moment. But are the likes of Farage actually well placed to exploit them, or do they come from other areas of the pro/anti immigration, pro/anti Brexit spectrum?

    Do we have lockdown any more? I mean in any meaningful way?

    Shops, bars and pubs are open. Religious services and sports are going ahead. Workplaces, schools and universities are all open.

    Yes, we have rules on social distancing, masks and the rule of six, but that is hardly lockdown. Indeed, such lesser public health measures are the alternative to lockdown.

    So how can anyone be anti-lockdown, when we haven't got it?
    Foxy, i was using “anti-lockdown” as a proxy shorthand, not a literal term, for general Covid related restrictions/regulations (and yes, including masks, although clearly it is simplifying since taken as a group various measures are often a trade off against each other and many people recognise that).

    I suppose maybe a better way of thinking of it would be the extent to which individuals should be able to take their own choices, and take their own risks on behalf of themselves and others vs being mandated by the state to do so for their own and the general good.
    Yes, I appreciate that some people do not want to abide by public health meaures that inconvenience them. I wouldn't use the term lockdown in that context though.

    The problem is that as soon as that dissident mixes with other people he (and it usually is a male of a certain age) impinges on other peoples right to mix, to shop, to ride public transport etc.

    So I do not think it reasonable for example to have a non mask wearer, refusing to socially distance from other patients in the outpatients waiting area or consultation room.

    I am not overly paranoid about the bug, having worked in a Covid rich environment for 6 months now, in a hospital and city with significant ongoing disease risk. Even so, I do carefully evaluate places. I will not go to situations where the absence of enforcement puts me at risk.
    The point of my post wasn’t to address the merits either way, but to explore the underlying political dynamics - and differences on the issue between Trump’s and Johnson’s political base.
    Yes, there is that dimension too. I think the differences stem from the age spectrum of support. The Conservative vote is much more age related than the Republican one. British over 65s are the Tory base now, and both at higher risk from Covid-19 and more able to abide by the rules without suffering economically than the average Republican.
    Probably, but this is the interesting U.K. political dynamic. Because for 20 years the Conservatives have been scared sh*tless about what Farage(ist?) led parties can do to them. For a long time in their heartlands, and now in stealing back all their shiny new voters in the North.

    But Farage is a Trumpist on this. Many of the dissenting voices on the Tory benches are similar (although not to the same extent perhaps). So does he have a constituency out there on this issue and is it aligned in areas that can do the Tories damage? Quite possibly not. These people are currently unrepresented. But is there actually anyone who could credibly represent them? If I had to speculate it might be the more traditional Tory attracting areas in the Midlands, rather than the new areas of the North. The small businesses and self employed, rather than the working class if you like.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,471
    edited September 13

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    "Extreme measures"?
    I think its extreme not being allowed inside public places (and thus destroying businesses in the action) without an unecessary face cloth. There is no evidence this works and the WHO said so back in March until politicians decided they thought it would be a symbol of how they could control (they plainly cannot) a pandemic which (as all pandemics do) is to run its course naturally
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 4,245
    Do Tory voters live longer than Labour ones? Wondering why the elderly vote is so squeezed their way.

    Why is the government so against a border in the Irish Sea. This was the consequence of the withdrawal agreement they signed and passed through parliament last year. I'd have more respect for them if they admitted their mistake rather than accusing the EU of trying to harm the UK.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,428

    I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.

    It is worth pondering what will happen to the Faragist voters in the north at the next election.

    Should they return to Labour, then several Tory gains look vulnerable.

    Should they go to the Tories, then many more Labour seats could go blue.

    Should they stay at home - then not much is likely to change.

    As for Tory Remainers, they probably still haven’t been convinced by Starmer. If he is painted as an articulate and intelligent version of Corbyn, without the racism, dodgy friends, love of terrorists and mind bending arrogance, they might still cling to the Johnson party.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 21,355

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,428
    edited September 13

    Do Tory voters live longer than Labour ones? Wondering why the elderly vote is so squeezed their way.

    Why is the government so against a border in the Irish Sea. This was the consequence of the withdrawal agreement they signed and passed through parliament last year. I'd have more respect for them if they admitted their mistake rather than accusing the EU of trying to harm the UK.

    1) Elderly voters are more likely to have assets and pensions that they feared would be seized by Corbyn.

    2) Because Johnson is so thick he didn’t understand what he’d signed and why it was a much worse deal than May’s. He genuinely seems not to have realised that there would have to be customs barriers in place.

    Edit - on point one, I might add however that voters with comfortable lives and ample assets are also probably more likely to live longer than those in low paid jobs who worry every month about where to find the rent. So your point may well be valid.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
    So why did the WHO (who should know) say back in March (height of the pandemic for many countries) that there was no evidence they helped?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 21,355
    felix said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    I'm still unclear on this - in Spain which is 5/6 weeks or so ahead of the UK the rise in hospitals/deaths was also very slow initially. But both are on a steady upward incline now as the young slowly but surely spread it to the older groups - soething which seems inavoidable without quite draconian restrictions. I do think it may be that improved treatments may have a mitigating factor on death rates overall but the elderly do remain very vulnerable indeed.
    I think we'll just have to wait and see what happens here. Stupidly it seems as though the government had once again failed to create a proper bubble around care homes. I honestly don't understand how they are finding it difficult to say "no visitors" until this is done and giving staff surgical grade PPE and training on wearing it to stop transmission.
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Johnson-Trump.

    For all that comparisons are made between these two I find it interesting that there is a key wedge issue that they are on the opposite sides of and, possibly, their current political base.

    Namely response to COVID and implementation of authoritarian measures in response to it.

    Trump is very anti, Johnson is not. Trump’s base is very anti, Johnson’s as far as we can tell from polling I think (? - unless contradicted) is not. But there’s an interesting additional dynamic in that there is still a vociferous anti lockdown etc element on the right of the Tory Party, aligned with the likes of Nigel Farage. What’s not clear is if these elements are speaking largely for themselves, or whether they are representing a constituency aligned with Leave/pro Brexit voters.

    There’s no doubt a largely unrepresented anti mask/lockdown etc constituency in the country at the moment. But are the likes of Farage actually well placed to exploit them, or do they come from other areas of the pro/anti immigration, pro/anti Brexit spectrum?

    Do we have lockdown any more? I mean in any meaningful way?

    Shops, bars and pubs are open. Religious services and sports are going ahead. Workplaces, schools and universities are all open.

    Yes, we have rules on social distancing, masks and the rule of six, but that is hardly lockdown. Indeed, such lesser public health measures are the alternative to lockdown.

    So how can anyone be anti-lockdown, when we haven't got it?
    Foxy, i was using “anti-lockdown” as a proxy shorthand, not a literal term, for general Covid related restrictions/regulations (and yes, including masks, although clearly it is simplifying since taken as a group various measures are often a trade off against each other and many people recognise that).

    I suppose maybe a better way of thinking of it would be the extent to which individuals should be able to take their own choices, and take their own risks on behalf of themselves and others vs being mandated by the state to do so for their own and the general good.
    Yes, I appreciate that some people do not want to abide by public health meaures that inconvenience them. I wouldn't use the term lockdown in that context though.

    The problem is that as soon as that dissident mixes with other people he (and it usually is a male of a certain age) impinges on other peoples right to mix, to shop, to ride public transport etc.

    So I do not think it reasonable for example to have a non mask wearer, refusing to socially distance from other patients in the outpatients waiting area or consultation room.

    I am not overly paranoid about the bug, having worked in a Covid rich environment for 6 months now, in a hospital and city with significant ongoing disease risk. Even so, I do carefully evaluate places. I will not go to situations where the absence of enforcement puts me at risk.
    The point of my post wasn’t to address the merits either way, but to explore the underlying political dynamics - and differences on the issue between Trump’s and Johnson’s political base.
    Yes, there is that dimension too. I think the differences stem from the age spectrum of support. The Conservative vote is much more age related than the Republican one. British over 65s are the Tory base now, and both at higher risk from Covid-19 and more able to abide by the rules without suffering economically than the average Republican.

    And they get what seems for them to be the immensely satisfying opportunity to crap all over the young!

    By and large, the youngsters seem quite OK with the rules, though a significant minority ignore them. Not the sort of youngsters who are likely to listen to covid marshals either.
    Last nite was party nite on Hampstead Heath, I can tell you. Wouldn't have fancied being a marshall there without a gun.
  • In other news, I wonder how many patriots out there realise that the Last Night of the Proms happened, er, last night. I wonder when the viewing figures are going to be published?

    I think the general point many were making wasn't about the Last night of the Proms in isolation but about the need to alter songs associated with Britain in general (ie dont sing the words as they are not deemed woke anymore)

    Or, maybe, it was that such songs lack power and context when performed by soloists in an empty hall. The viewing figures will no doubt tell us just how many patriots watched and enjoyed their victory over the woke left.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 21,355

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
    So why did the WHO (who should know) say back in March (height of the pandemic for many countries) that there was no evidence they helped?
    Because the WHO is a rubbish political organisation which should be shit canned once this is over.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,428

    In other news, I wonder how many patriots out there realise that the Last Night of the Proms happened, er, last night. I wonder when the viewing figures are going to be published?

    I think the general point many were making wasn't about the Last night of the Proms in isolation but about the need to alter songs associated with Britain in general (ie dont sing the words as they are not deemed woke anymore)

    Or, maybe, it was that such songs lack power and context when performed by soloists in an empty hall. The viewing figures will no doubt tell us just how many patriots watched and enjoyed their victory over the woke left.
    I must be completely unwoke. I was asleep while it was on.
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,881

    I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.

    For me it is simple - every time the government does anything - the chatterati/twitterati go massively ott in their response [Starmer incidentally being a notable exception]. All of the old exPMs have their 2 pennyworth - it becomes a kind of reverse 'outraged of Tonbridge Wells' as they all froget that the the Brexit referendum/GE suggest much of the public inhabit a different world. Also a failure to understand that probably a very high proportion of the 'Remain' vote were not strongly pro-European but feel a strong sense that the result must be respected.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
    So why did the WHO (who should know) say back in March (height of the pandemic for many countries) that there was no evidence they helped?

    Because maybe back in March there wasn't much evidence. It's September now.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,428

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
    So why did the WHO (who should know) say back in March (height of the pandemic for many countries) that there was no evidence they helped?
    Because the evidence has been accumulated during the pandemic?
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,471
    edited September 13

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
    So why did the WHO (who should know) say back in March (height of the pandemic for many countries) that there was no evidence they helped?

    Because maybe back in March there wasn't much evidence. It's September now.

    So the WHO with all its many years of health expertise (including of pandemics in the past) has somehow changed its mind in 6 months after years and years of research telling them to openly say in March they are not effective? The WHO also in their advice in March were presumably also not even considering the economic consequences of enforced mask wearing (or social aspects either) so if on medical grounds alone they said their was no evidence they overall worked , if you add the economic damage (especially to non essential indoor leisure like theatre ,museams, book shops and cinema) and the general depressing state of the lack of social interaction mask wearing does then why on earth are we doing it - my only conclusion is that it shows governments are somehow in control (which they are not and beyond providing medical provision for serious cases of it cannot ever hope to be)
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,769
    ydoethur said:

    In other news, I wonder how many patriots out there realise that the Last Night of the Proms happened, er, last night. I wonder when the viewing figures are going to be published?

    I think the general point many were making wasn't about the Last night of the Proms in isolation but about the need to alter songs associated with Britain in general (ie dont sing the words as they are not deemed woke anymore)

    Or, maybe, it was that such songs lack power and context when performed by soloists in an empty hall. The viewing figures will no doubt tell us just how many patriots watched and enjoyed their victory over the woke left.
    I must be completely unwoke. I was asleep while it was on.
    I think they were all probably watching Naomi Osaka’s victory in the US Open, which they would have found altogether more inspiring.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,279

    I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.

    BigG’s your man!

    People don’t care about Brexit/international law it’s all a wash. All sides as bad as each other/playing games/don’t know what to believe. Still waiting to see what happens on Jan 1st. Perhaps residual rallying around the Govt in a crisis (covid). Ongoing widespread suspicion/distrust of Labour.

    It would be interesting though to track whether there has been any material rise in the number of “don’t knows” in the polling.
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,881

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
    So why did the WHO (who should know) say back in March (height of the pandemic for many countries) that there was no evidence they helped?
    I believe the WHO also supported the 'punishment from God' theory about the Black Death in 1348. When the evidence changes so does the advice.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 21,355
    The testing regime seems completely broken as well, Times saying that tests are being sent to Italy and Germany to be processed but loads are not being sent in proper conditions so the results aren't reliable.

    They seem to have built a house of cards testing system which is about to completely collapse. We've had >£15bn spent and 4 months to prepare for this second wave. It's a complete disaster.
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,881
    MaxPB said:

    felix said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    I'm still unclear on this - in Spain which is 5/6 weeks or so ahead of the UK the rise in hospitals/deaths was also very slow initially. But both are on a steady upward incline now as the young slowly but surely spread it to the older groups - soething which seems inavoidable without quite draconian restrictions. I do think it may be that improved treatments may have a mitigating factor on death rates overall but the elderly do remain very vulnerable indeed.
    I think we'll just have to wait and see what happens here. Stupidly it seems as though the government had once again failed to create a proper bubble around care homes. I honestly don't understand how they are finding it difficult to say "no visitors" until this is done and giving staff surgical grade PPE and training on wearing it to stop transmission.
    The care homes issue is awful and sad but it seems to be a problem well beyond the UK - many of the new Spanish deaths are from care homes outbreaks.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108

    I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.

    There are fanatics in both the Leave and Remain camps, but I suppose it is that a substantial part of both the Remain and Leave voters are quite bored with the whole topic, and never want to hear of it again.

    I suspect they support the Tories for other reasons, but are a demographic that both Starmer and Davey are targeting. Davey has announced that LDs will not be campaigning to rejoin next GE, for example*. I think the Bored of Brexit vote could well be the swing voters, and we will get some sense of how big that vote is next May, with the Scottish, Welsh and English Local elections.

    *https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-liberal-democrats-eu-ed-davey-europe-b404557.html




  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,309

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    So if car crashes kill 100,000 people a year, and the introduction of compulsory seat belts reduces that figure to 10 people a year, that proves that the risk of dying in a car crash was always too trivial to justify the extreme measure of compulsory seat belts.
  • ydoethur said:

    I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.

    It is worth pondering what will happen to the Faragist voters in the north at the next election.

    Should they return to Labour, then several Tory gains look vulnerable.

    Should they go to the Tories, then many more Labour seats could go blue.

    Should they stay at home - then not much is likely to change.

    As for Tory Remainers, they probably still haven’t been convinced by Starmer. If he is painted as an articulate and intelligent version of Corbyn, without the racism, dodgy friends, love of terrorists and mind bending arrogance, they might still cling to the Johnson party.

    I think the Tories already have just about all of the Faragist vote everywhere. The challenge for them is to keep it, hence the relentless culture war and face-offs with the EU. I don't see Tory Remainers ever voting Labour. They are potential LibDems, if anything. I just wonder what it is they see in this Tory party, that is focused so relentlessly on appeasing the Farage demographic, that keeps them onside. If it is just fear of Labour beyond Starmer, then that would worry me if I were a Tory strategist, because there is only one direction in which Labour is going over the next few years.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,198

    I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.

    Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.

    The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    So if car crashes kill 100,000 people a year, and the introduction of compulsory seat belts reduces that figure to 10 people a year, that proves that the risk of dying in a car crash was always too trivial to justify the extreme measure of compulsory seat belts.
    But car seat belts have been proven to save lives .
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,309

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
    So why did the WHO (who should know) say back in March (height of the pandemic for many countries) that there was no evidence they helped?
    Because that was March and this is September and stuff has happened in April to August inclusive and because the stuff has happened we know things now we did not know in March.
  • felix said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
    So why did the WHO (who should know) say back in March (height of the pandemic for many countries) that there was no evidence they helped?
    I believe the WHO also supported the 'punishment from God' theory about the Black Death in 1348. When the evidence changes so does the advice.
    Pardon?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 21,355

    IshmaelZ said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    So if car crashes kill 100,000 people a year, and the introduction of compulsory seat belts reduces that figure to 10 people a year, that proves that the risk of dying in a car crash was always too trivial to justify the extreme measure of compulsory seat belts.
    But car seat belts have been proven to save lives .
    And now there is evidence that mask wearing increases asymptomatic and mild symptoms transmission which saves lives.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
    The article is paywalled in the Telegraph, but the case is made in this open access piece in the NEJM, Americas leading medical journal.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,563
    edited September 13
    felix said:

    I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.

    For me it is simple - every time the government does anything - the chatterati/twitterati go massively ott in their response [Starmer incidentally being a notable exception]. All of the old exPMs have their 2 pennyworth - it becomes a kind of reverse 'outraged of Tonbridge Wells' as they all froget that the the Brexit referendum/GE suggest much of the public inhabit a different world. Also a failure to understand that probably a very high proportion of the 'Remain' vote were not strongly pro-European but feel a strong sense that the result must be respected.

    So your reasons for continuing to back the Tories are entirely negative. I suspect that is probably the case for quite a large percentage of the Tory and Labour vote.

  • MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    "Extreme measures"?
    I think its extreme not being allowed inside public places (and thus destroying businesses in the action) without an unecessary face cloth. There is no evidence this works and the WHO said so back in March until politicians decided they thought it would be a symbol of how they could control (they plainly cannot) a pandemic which (as all pandemics do) is to run its course naturally
    On a purely functional rather than a philosophical basis there is more reason for the country to want you to wear a cloth covering your mouth and nose during a pandemic, than a cloth over your genitals.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,309

    IshmaelZ said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    So if car crashes kill 100,000 people a year, and the introduction of compulsory seat belts reduces that figure to 10 people a year, that proves that the risk of dying in a car crash was always too trivial to justify the extreme measure of compulsory seat belts.
    But car seat belts have been proven to save lives .
    By exactly the same kind of process as is now proving that masks save lives.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    So if car crashes kill 100,000 people a year, and the introduction of compulsory seat belts reduces that figure to 10 people a year, that proves that the risk of dying in a car crash was always too trivial to justify the extreme measure of compulsory seat belts.
    But car seat belts have been proven to save lives .
    By exactly the same kind of process as is now proving that masks save lives.
    Where is that proof?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,428

    IshmaelZ said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    So if car crashes kill 100,000 people a year, and the introduction of compulsory seat belts reduces that figure to 10 people a year, that proves that the risk of dying in a car crash was always too trivial to justify the extreme measure of compulsory seat belts.
    But car seat belts have been proven to save lives .
    There was no shortage of people arguing they wouldn’t back in the day.

    To take an extreme example, Jochen Rindt died because he refused to wear his seatbelt properly. He was afraid if his car caught fire, he wouldn’t be able to remove his belt in time to jump out. As a result, he only attached half of it and it garrotted him when he crashed.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,279
    MaxPB said:

    The testing regime seems completely broken as well, Times saying that tests are being sent to Italy and Germany to be processed but loads are not being sent in proper conditions so the results aren't reliable.

    They seem to have built a house of cards testing system which is about to completely collapse. We've had >£15bn spent and 4 months to prepare for this second wave. It's a complete disaster.

    All they seem to have done in concentrate on increasing capacity whilst giving little thought to how they would manage demand. And how they could best use the capacity they had to deliver useful results to inform the response. Comparisons with the levels of testing in other countries to shows how much more we are doing and how great we are is meaningless if they have capacity appropriate to the level of testing they deem appropriate and we don’t.

    And this comes from the politicians initially, and the failure to take advice from those who are capable of understanding the future pitfalls. Or appointment of bad advisors.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 21,355
    In terms of analogies it actually is almost like putting a seat belt on. The crash (infection) still occurs but the outcome is far less severe resulting in fewer people dying.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    So if car crashes kill 100,000 people a year, and the introduction of compulsory seat belts reduces that figure to 10 people a year, that proves that the risk of dying in a car crash was always too trivial to justify the extreme measure of compulsory seat belts.
    But car seat belts have been proven to save lives .
    So have masks.

    I can understand you wanting to make an argument over philosophy, to say I don't care if this saves lives . . . But to pretend this is about what works is a nonsense. Masks work.
  • ydoethur said:

    I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.

    It is worth pondering what will happen to the Faragist voters in the north at the next election.

    Should they return to Labour, then several Tory gains look vulnerable.

    Should they go to the Tories, then many more Labour seats could go blue.

    Should they stay at home - then not much is likely to change.

    As for Tory Remainers, they probably still haven’t been convinced by Starmer. If he is painted as an articulate and intelligent version of Corbyn, without the racism, dodgy friends, love of terrorists and mind bending arrogance, they might still cling to the Johnson party.
    Starmer isn't the problem, as you can see from his approval figures. It's the Labour Party brand, which became toxic for many under Corbyn. It takes a while to repair that sort of damage.

    Personally I think Labour has done well to reduce the Tory poll lead as much as it has in such a short space of time. Much of the credit goes to Starmer himself although Johnson's contribution mustn't be underestimated. The GE is some way off (probably) so Party leads don't matter much at the moment but if Johnson continues as he has begun the electorate may appreciate a boring but competent successor and vote for Starmer in great numbers.

    That's my prediction anyway this Sunday morning, but we will have to wait for Brexit to start seriously affecting our lives before we see this come about....if indeed we ever do.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,309

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    So if car crashes kill 100,000 people a year, and the introduction of compulsory seat belts reduces that figure to 10 people a year, that proves that the risk of dying in a car crash was always too trivial to justify the extreme measure of compulsory seat belts.
    But car seat belts have been proven to save lives .
    By exactly the same kind of process as is now proving that masks save lives.
    Where is that proof?
    In the article.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    So if car crashes kill 100,000 people a year, and the introduction of compulsory seat belts reduces that figure to 10 people a year, that proves that the risk of dying in a car crash was always too trivial to justify the extreme measure of compulsory seat belts.
    But car seat belts have been proven to save lives .
    So have masks.

    I can understand you wanting to make an argument over philosophy, to say I don't care if this saves lives . . . But to pretend this is about what works is a nonsense. Masks work.
    I used to think they didn't. I've changed my mind. Is this allowed?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
    So why did the WHO (who should know) say back in March (height of the pandemic for many countries) that there was no evidence they helped?

    Because maybe back in March there wasn't much evidence. It's September now.

    So the WHO with all its many years of health expertise (including of pandemics in the past) has somehow changed its mind in 6 months after years and years of research telling them to openly say in March they are not effective? The WHO also in their advice in March were presumably also not even considering the economic consequences of enforced mask wearing (or social aspects either) so if on medical grounds alone they said their was no evidence they overall worked , if you add the economic damage (especially to non essential indoor leisure like theatre ,museams, book shops and cinema) and the general depressing state of the lack of social interaction mask wearing does then why on earth are we doing it - my only conclusion is that it shows governments are somehow in control (which they are not and beyond providing medical provision for serious cases of it cannot ever hope to be)
    The WHO was never AGAINST generalised mask wearing, but in March did not advocate it for two reasons:

    1) The evidence was less solid at that time.

    2) Supplies of masks were critically short across the world and needed to be prioritised for Health care workers.

    Neither of those is now the case, hence the change in advice.

  • IshmaelZ said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

    Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.

    Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
    So if car crashes kill 100,000 people a year, and the introduction of compulsory seat belts reduces that figure to 10 people a year, that proves that the risk of dying in a car crash was always too trivial to justify the extreme measure of compulsory seat belts.
    But car seat belts have been proven to save lives .
    So have masks.

    I can understand you wanting to make an argument over philosophy, to say I don't care if this saves lives . . . But to pretend this is about what works is a nonsense. Masks work.
    Are you that arrogant and medically trained to dismiss the WHO as giving out nonsense in March?
  • I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.

    Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.

    The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.

    I think it is interesting that people like Richard Nabavi, David Herdson and TSE - who were very loyal, ideologically-driven Tories that accepted the Brexit result and were convinced that it had to be honoured - have walked away from the party under Johnson, but that they do not seem to represent a movement, as such. It's notable that so many very talented individual Tories have deserted the party, but that this has not had much of an impact on its overall vote. That said, these are early days in this Parliament and the consequences of the undeliverable Brexit that Johnson and co have promised are yet to be felt, so maybe the old-style PB Tories are just the vanguard who have spent more time thinking about it than others have up to now.

Sign In or Register to comment.