Young people are taking the hit wet unemployment from the data release today. They can't party, they're losing their jobs and they're in for 20 years of higher taxes to pay all of this off. Once again, the old have fucked over the young.
And you'd change that how?
Old and fat people lockdown, everyone else do as you please. Risk segmentation.
If you exclude everyone over 60 and everyone who is overweight or worse thats a majority of the population
The age limit is 70, not 60 and being overweight isn't an issue, it's being obese that's the issue.
>In your first post you said "old and fat". Being "overweight" is by definition "fat"
Perhaps the Rule of Six is to stop people catching the flu?
I went to the pub yesterday afternoon and after half an hour or so a group arrived. There were SIX of them, all rather blobby units, and they squashed in together at a compact table next to me, absolutely cheek by jowl, thighs rubbing up against each other, really very cosy indeed. Nothing to be said since totally legal - albeit pushing the envelope - but it nevertheless felt to me like odd behaviour whereas 6 months ago I wouldn't have batted an eyelid. I think what this shows is that Covid has changed how we view certain things and even when it's all over I wonder if many of these changes will stick. In addition to WFH vs office, I mean, I'm thinking more about how we generally interact and socialize.
Young people are taking the hit wet unemployment from the data release today. They can't party, they're losing their jobs and they're in for 20 years of higher taxes to pay all of this off. Once again, the old have fucked over the young.
And you'd change that how?
Old and fat people lockdown, everyone else do as you please. Risk segmentation.
If you exclude everyone over 60 and everyone who is overweight or worse thats a majority of the population
The age limit is 70, not 60 and being overweight isn't an issue, it's being obese that's the issue.
It's still nearly 30% of the population who are obese.
Young people are taking the hit wet unemployment from the data release today. They can't party, they're losing their jobs and they're in for 20 years of higher taxes to pay all of this off. Once again, the old have fucked over the young.
And you'd change that how?
Old and fat people lockdown, everyone else do as you please. Risk segmentation.
If you exclude everyone over 60 and everyone who is overweight or worse thats a majority of the population
The age limit is 70, not 60 and being overweight isn't an issue, it's being obese that's the issue.
>In your first post you said "old and fat". Being "overweight" is by definition "fat"
Also there are other risk factors: being immune-compromised, having diabetes, asthma, COPD or a blood disease etc.
Schools update: 1. My daughter's primary school. On Monday issued an email to parents stating that any parent coming onto school property to pick up / drop off must wear a mask. That has now been extended in that the mass of parents hovering by the school gates must disperse - if they are waiting for walk home alone children they must actually be allowed to walk home and not be collected by mingling parents 2. My son's high school. Another email to parents imploring them to send their kids in with masks which they strongly recommend be worn at all times when not in their own classroom 3. My wife's school. All staff now issued visors. The sudden surge in poorly kids (coughs / colds not the pox) makes it a basic H&S at work issue for staff. Kids are still crammed in mandated rows in classrooms that you can now barely move around.
That's just this week. I wonder if any parents at my daughter's school will make themselves legal by bringing their shotgun and perhaps a dead grouse to school. Remember that Gavin the Liar insisted that schools were perfectly safe, that staff and students absolutely shouldn't wear PPE and parents faced a fine for not bringing their sprogs to school. Less than a month into the new term and reality kicks in and now parents will be fined if they bring their sprogs to school.
Why are grown adults allegedly incapable of standing a few feet apart at school gates?
Quite possible at all the schools near me.
How leafy an area do you live in. For the schools round here the the 2m rule means all roads would be closed for 20 minutes as they would be completely blocked.
Or you let most of the school kids make their own way to and from school.
I was pleasantly shocked to see so many young school kids going to school on their own here in Berlin. Often the very young 6 or 7 years old are accompanied by a sibling a couple of years older, but you do see some as young as six walking or cycling to school on their own.
Both my wife and I, as children walked to primary school alone, or if not alone, without an adult. My wife, as the 'oldest girl' in her group of houses was, by the time she was about 7, charged with looking after the little ones on the route. My first infant/primary was a penny bus ride away and I, and half-a-dozen or so little boys from nearby all went on the bus together.
That was in the 40's. Started during the War for me, too, and we still had air-raids (Doodle-bugs).
Young people are taking the hit wet unemployment from the data release today. They can't party, they're losing their jobs and they're in for 20 years of higher taxes to pay all of this off. Once again, the old have fucked over the young.
And you'd change that how?
Old and fat people lockdown, everyone else do as you please. Risk segmentation.
If you exclude everyone over 60 and everyone who is overweight or worse thats a majority of the population
The age limit is 70, not 60 and being overweight isn't an issue, it's being obese that's the issue.
>In your first post you said "old and fat". Being "overweight" is by definition "fat"
There's a very strong correlation but it's not equivalent.
We'll end up with a hybrid system – a few days a week at home and a few in the office. When we are together in the office, there will be an implicit function to collaborate and socialise.
Managed well, it will be the best of both worlds.
I'm already referring to it as "flexible working" rather than "work from home". The latter harks back to (the first?) lockdown where you could not go out. The former is that companies and employees have seen the huge mutual benefits in being flexible, so only go in as required as opposed to every day.
I don't have anything in quick and easy for lunch today. If there was a local cafe, I'd be there...
The problem with "flexible working" is it souds like "Flexitime" which is not in most cases working from home.
Schools update: 1. My daughter's primary school. On Monday issued an email to parents stating that any parent coming onto school property to pick up / drop off must wear a mask. That has now been extended in that the mass of parents hovering by the school gates must disperse - if they are waiting for walk home alone children they must actually be allowed to walk home and not be collected by mingling parents 2. My son's high school. Another email to parents imploring them to send their kids in with masks which they strongly recommend be worn at all times when not in their own classroom 3. My wife's school. All staff now issued visors. The sudden surge in poorly kids (coughs / colds not the pox) makes it a basic H&S at work issue for staff. Kids are still crammed in mandated rows in classrooms that you can now barely move around.
That's just this week. I wonder if any parents at my daughter's school will make themselves legal by bringing their shotgun and perhaps a dead grouse to school. Remember that Gavin the Liar insisted that schools were perfectly safe, that staff and students absolutely shouldn't wear PPE and parents faced a fine for not bringing their sprogs to school. Less than a month into the new term and reality kicks in and now parents will be fined if they bring their sprogs to school.
Why are grown adults allegedly incapable of standing a few feet apart at school gates?
Quite possible at all the schools near me.
How leafy an area do you live in. For the schools round here the the 2m rule means all roads would be closed for 20 minutes as they would be completely blocked.
Or you let most of the school kids make their own way to and from school.
I was pleasantly shocked to see so many young school kids going to school on their own here in Berlin. Often the very young 6 or 7 years old are accompanied by a sibling a couple of years older, but you do see some as young as six walking or cycling to school on their own.
After a couple of weeks, I walked the quarter mile to my primary school, 5 to 7. From 7 to 11 I walked a good mile each way, on my own. Through snow drifts sometimes.
I will leave it to others to decide whether this has had any lasting harm.
Young people are taking the hit wet unemployment from the data release today. They can't party, they're losing their jobs and they're in for 20 years of higher taxes to pay all of this off. Once again, the old have fucked over the young.
And you'd change that how?
Old and fat people lockdown, everyone else do as you please. Risk segmentation.
If you exclude everyone over 60 and everyone who is overweight or worse thats a majority of the population
The age limit is 70, not 60 and being overweight isn't an issue, it's being obese that's the issue.
>In your first post you said "old and fat". Being "overweight" is by definition "fat"
There's a very strong correlation but it's not equivalent.
OK, not "by definition" but it is much closer than the back peddling manouvre trying to claim "fat"="obese", which is certainly not true.
Young people are taking the hit wet unemployment from the data release today. They can't party, they're losing their jobs and they're in for 20 years of higher taxes to pay all of this off. Once again, the old have fucked over the young.
And you'd change that how?
Old and fat people lockdown, everyone else do as you please. Risk segmentation.
Don't forget the BAME people who also have a higher risk, Max. And the men.
Schools update: 1. My daughter's primary school. On Monday issued an email to parents stating that any parent coming onto school property to pick up / drop off must wear a mask. That has now been extended in that the mass of parents hovering by the school gates must disperse - if they are waiting for walk home alone children they must actually be allowed to walk home and not be collected by mingling parents 2. My son's high school. Another email to parents imploring them to send their kids in with masks which they strongly recommend be worn at all times when not in their own classroom 3. My wife's school. All staff now issued visors. The sudden surge in poorly kids (coughs / colds not the pox) makes it a basic H&S at work issue for staff. Kids are still crammed in mandated rows in classrooms that you can now barely move around.
That's just this week. I wonder if any parents at my daughter's school will make themselves legal by bringing their shotgun and perhaps a dead grouse to school. Remember that Gavin the Liar insisted that schools were perfectly safe, that staff and students absolutely shouldn't wear PPE and parents faced a fine for not bringing their sprogs to school. Less than a month into the new term and reality kicks in and now parents will be fined if they bring their sprogs to school.
Why are grown adults allegedly incapable of standing a few feet apart at school gates?
Quite possible at all the schools near me.
How leafy an area do you live in. For the schools round here the the 2m rule means all roads would be closed for 20 minutes as they would be completely blocked.
Or you let most of the school kids make their own way to and from school.
I was pleasantly shocked to see so many young school kids going to school on their own here in Berlin. Often the very young 6 or 7 years old are accompanied by a sibling a couple of years older, but you do see some as young as six walking or cycling to school on their own.
After a couple of weeks, I walked the quarter mile to my primary school, 5 to 7. From 7 to 11 I walked a good mile each way, on my own. Through snow drifts sometimes.
I will leave it to others to decide whether this has had any lasting harm.
My kids are in their 20s now, but their primary school sat on the edge of the A56 - the SW artery into Manchester and a feeder for the M60 motorway. There is simply no way that parents are going to allow small children to walk along the edge of a 4 lane road which has constant heavy traffic.
Er no... Scotland had the control over what money to apply from the EU. This is talking about Westminster "taking back control" over things that Scotland since devolution have controlled.
Er no... Scotland had the control over what money to apply from the EU. This is talking about Westminster "taking back control" over things that Scotland since devolution have controlled.
In all the brouhaha about the Internal Markets Bill, possibly one of the most important aspects of it has been overlooked - namely that it gives the government the power to disapply any domestic law or court judgment whatsoever. In effect, the government is empowering itself to disregard the law of the land - not simply international law.
There has, as far as I know, been no explanation from government why this is necessary. To my mind this section is far more objectionable and far more frightening. That this has not been picked up on by even those objecting is quite worrying.
It looks like it might be time to become a "Leaver" in the geographic sense....
Schools update: 1. My daughter's primary school. On Monday issued an email to parents stating that any parent coming onto school property to pick up / drop off must wear a mask. That has now been extended in that the mass of parents hovering by the school gates must disperse - if they are waiting for walk home alone children they must actually be allowed to walk home and not be collected by mingling parents 2. My son's high school. Another email to parents imploring them to send their kids in with masks which they strongly recommend be worn at all times when not in their own classroom 3. My wife's school. All staff now issued visors. The sudden surge in poorly kids (coughs / colds not the pox) makes it a basic H&S at work issue for staff. Kids are still crammed in mandated rows in classrooms that you can now barely move around.
That's just this week. I wonder if any parents at my daughter's school will make themselves legal by bringing their shotgun and perhaps a dead grouse to school. Remember that Gavin the Liar insisted that schools were perfectly safe, that staff and students absolutely shouldn't wear PPE and parents faced a fine for not bringing their sprogs to school. Less than a month into the new term and reality kicks in and now parents will be fined if they bring their sprogs to school.
Why are grown adults allegedly incapable of standing a few feet apart at school gates?
Quite possible at all the schools near me.
1. The parents in question aren't very bright 2. People are bored of the virus / think its gone / don't care 3. There isn't space for them to spread out into. There was - in the school playground where they used to collect. But Gavin Twatface told the schools don't do that, so they can't
Is it really necessary to use offensive names like that?
Absolutely. But out of deference to OGH I will refer to him as Gavin the Liar. You can't complain about that. He is a liar. He was sacked for lying.
Schools update: 1. My daughter's primary school. On Monday issued an email to parents stating that any parent coming onto school property to pick up / drop off must wear a mask. That has now been extended in that the mass of parents hovering by the school gates must disperse - if they are waiting for walk home alone children they must actually be allowed to walk home and not be collected by mingling parents 2. My son's high school. Another email to parents imploring them to send their kids in with masks which they strongly recommend be worn at all times when not in their own classroom 3. My wife's school. All staff now issued visors. The sudden surge in poorly kids (coughs / colds not the pox) makes it a basic H&S at work issue for staff. Kids are still crammed in mandated rows in classrooms that you can now barely move around.
That's just this week. I wonder if any parents at my daughter's school will make themselves legal by bringing their shotgun and perhaps a dead grouse to school. Remember that Gavin the Liar insisted that schools were perfectly safe, that staff and students absolutely shouldn't wear PPE and parents faced a fine for not bringing their sprogs to school. Less than a month into the new term and reality kicks in and now parents will be fined if they bring their sprogs to school.
Why are grown adults allegedly incapable of standing a few feet apart at school gates?
Quite possible at all the schools near me.
How leafy an area do you live in. For the schools round here the the 2m rule means all roads would be closed for 20 minutes as they would be completely blocked.
Or you let most of the school kids make their own way to and from school.
I was pleasantly shocked to see so many young school kids going to school on their own here in Berlin. Often the very young 6 or 7 years old are accompanied by a sibling a couple of years older, but you do see some as young as six walking or cycling to school on their own.
After a couple of weeks, I walked the quarter mile to my primary school, 5 to 7. From 7 to 11 I walked a good mile each way, on my own. Through snow drifts sometimes.
I will leave it to others to decide whether this has had any lasting harm.
My kids are in their 20s now, but their primary school sat on the edge of the A56 - the SW artery into Manchester and a feeder for the M60 motorway. There is simply no way that parents are going to allow small children to walk along the edge of a 4 lane road which has constant heavy traffic.
What you write is still part of the problem though. Schools have been built and roads developed assuming that parents will drive their children to and from school. This in turn increases the amount of traffic, and the demand for new roads, making the school even more cut off.
In all the brouhaha about the Internal Markets Bill, possibly one of the most important aspects of it has been overlooked - namely that it gives the government the power to disapply any domestic law or court judgment whatsoever. In effect, the government is empowering itself to disregard the law of the land - not simply international law.
There has, as far as I know, been no explanation from government why this is necessary. To my mind this section is far more objectionable and far more frightening. That this has not been picked up on by even those objecting is quite worrying.
As I posted earlier this morning, once we pass both statute and convention that government can act illegally then we open the door to a very dangerous place.
Schools update: 1. My daughter's primary school. On Monday issued an email to parents stating that any parent coming onto school property to pick up / drop off must wear a mask. That has now been extended in that the mass of parents hovering by the school gates must disperse - if they are waiting for walk home alone children they must actually be allowed to walk home and not be collected by mingling parents 2. My son's high school. Another email to parents imploring them to send their kids in with masks which they strongly recommend be worn at all times when not in their own classroom 3. My wife's school. All staff now issued visors. The sudden surge in poorly kids (coughs / colds not the pox) makes it a basic H&S at work issue for staff. Kids are still crammed in mandated rows in classrooms that you can now barely move around.
That's just this week. I wonder if any parents at my daughter's school will make themselves legal by bringing their shotgun and perhaps a dead grouse to school. Remember that Gavin the Liar insisted that schools were perfectly safe, that staff and students absolutely shouldn't wear PPE and parents faced a fine for not bringing their sprogs to school. Less than a month into the new term and reality kicks in and now parents will be fined if they bring their sprogs to school.
Why are grown adults allegedly incapable of standing a few feet apart at school gates?
Quite possible at all the schools near me.
1. The parents in question aren't very bright 2. People are bored of the virus / think its gone / don't care 3. There isn't space for them to spread out into. There was - in the school playground where they used to collect. But Gavin Twatface told the schools don't do that, so they can't
Is it really necessary to use offensive names like that?
Absolutely. But out of deference to OGH I will refer to him as Gavin the Liar. You can't complain about that. He is a liar. He was sacked for lying.
But that will be confusing. Boris was sacked 3 times for lying, Patel once and Gavin once. Perhaps you could have a numbering system.
In all the brouhaha about the Internal Markets Bill, possibly one of the most important aspects of it has been overlooked - namely that it gives the government the power to disapply any domestic law or court judgment whatsoever. In effect, the government is empowering itself to disregard the law of the land - not simply international law.
There has, as far as I know, been no explanation from government why this is necessary. To my mind this section is far more objectionable and far more frightening. That this has not been picked up on by even those objecting is quite worrying.
It looks like it might be time to become a "Leaver" in the geographic sense....
Or simply follow the government’s example - and disapply the laws we don’t like. After all, if it’s good enough for them ......
Ah I see older and fat people would rather destroy the life chances of the young than keep themselves out of risky situations for the good of the country. Once again the nation's most selfish generation living up to their reputation.
Schools update: 1. My daughter's primary school. On Monday issued an email to parents stating that any parent coming onto school property to pick up / drop off must wear a mask. That has now been extended in that the mass of parents hovering by the school gates must disperse - if they are waiting for walk home alone children they must actually be allowed to walk home and not be collected by mingling parents 2. My son's high school. Another email to parents imploring them to send their kids in with masks which they strongly recommend be worn at all times when not in their own classroom 3. My wife's school. All staff now issued visors. The sudden surge in poorly kids (coughs / colds not the pox) makes it a basic H&S at work issue for staff. Kids are still crammed in mandated rows in classrooms that you can now barely move around.
That's just this week. I wonder if any parents at my daughter's school will make themselves legal by bringing their shotgun and perhaps a dead grouse to school. Remember that Gavin the Liar insisted that schools were perfectly safe, that staff and students absolutely shouldn't wear PPE and parents faced a fine for not bringing their sprogs to school. Less than a month into the new term and reality kicks in and now parents will be fined if they bring their sprogs to school.
Why are grown adults allegedly incapable of standing a few feet apart at school gates?
Quite possible at all the schools near me.
1. The parents in question aren't very bright 2. People are bored of the virus / think its gone / don't care 3. There isn't space for them to spread out into. There was - in the school playground where they used to collect. But Gavin Twatface told the schools don't do that, so they can't
Is it really necessary to use offensive names like that?
Absolutely. But out of deference to OGH I will refer to him as Gavin the Liar. You can't complain about that. He is a liar. He was sacked for lying.
But that will be confusing. Boris was sacked 3 times for lying, Patel once and Gavin once. Perhaps you could have a numbering system.
Nope. Boris is Shagger. The one man sex machine who appears to shag anything that walks. That he was sacked for lying about it just adds to the fun
Young people are taking the hit wet unemployment from the data release today. They can't party, they're losing their jobs and they're in for 20 years of higher taxes to pay all of this off. Once again, the old have fucked over the young.
And you'd change that how?
Old and fat people lockdown, everyone else do as you please. Risk segmentation.
If you exclude everyone over 60 and everyone who is overweight or worse thats a majority of the population
The age limit is 70, not 60 and being overweight isn't an issue, it's being obese that's the issue.
>In your first post you said "old and fat". Being "overweight" is by definition "fat"
Also there are other risk factors: being immune-compromised, having diabetes, asthma, COPD or a blood disease etc.
Indeed. If 16.6 million are over 60, 12.5 million under 60s are obese, ~5 million under 60s who are not obese are asthmatic (while there are about twice as many asthmatics under 60 than this, there's quite an ovelap with obesity), and ~2 million non-obese under 60s are diabetic, that comes out to ~36 million at risk out of 67 million.
Thats not including other risk factors (immunocompromised, COPD, etc) That's more than half of the entire population. Including 40% of the under 60s.
On topic, and answering the comments of Philip, DavidL etc, some counter-points to Mike's arguments:
1. Comparing a mid-term to a Presidential year re turnout is risky. In 2018, yes, the suburbs came out for the Democrats but there is an argument for saying the "populist" base of Trump's vote didn't feel as fired up to vote. American elections are all about turnout and Trump's base looks more fired up - there are a lot of anti-Trump's voters on Biden's side but it also feels like a lot of "soft" support that may not turn out on the day. One example - much has been made of the surge in NC early ballot requests but so far, less than 25K have been returned and accepted, a rise of just over 2K day on day. That does feel like an electorate that is dropping everything to get Trump out of the door.
2. There have been some comments on here that Trump faces a number of obstacles, particularly the Woodward book. I can't see that myself - there have been so many allegations against him, it is hard to see another one changing too many minds. Biden, however, does face some potentially significant hurdles - how he does in the debates (yes the bar has been set low but, if he stumbles...). Maybe more of an issue is the continued BLM-violence / "mainly peaceful" protests. Monmouth have found 65% of Americans saying law and order is a major issue with Black Americans the most concerned. It's true their poll findings could be used to buttress either candidate but the BLM movement looks out of control and cops being killed runs the risk of turning the suburbs against Biden;
3. Conversely, it could be argued Trump is getting into his stride. His approval rating is at a three month high. He can point to diplomatic triumphs in the Middle East as someone who gets things done. He can also point to his desire to get America back to work;
4. There are signs the Democrats may be repeating the 2016 mistake of taking one of their core voting blocks for granted, namely the Hispanic population. There have been multiple reports of Trump taking share and / or the Democrats worried about whether enough has been done to get Hispanic support. That might be reflected in the polling not only in Florida but also in places like Nevada and Arizona (where you would expect a bigger Biden lead if Hispanic support was firm and the suburbs were swinging away from Trump).
Trump won Arizona by 3.5% in 2016. The latest 538 Arizona polling average has Biden 5.0% ahead, so a bigger swing to Biden in Arizona than nationally. Not sure how you get any evidence from that that he is losing Hispanic support there.
Ah I see older and fat people would rather destroy the life chances of the young than keep themselves out of risky situations for the good of the country. Once again the nation's most selfish generation living up to their reputation.
What twaddle. I am one of those at risk. I have been shielding myself ever since this bloody thing started. I see no end in sight. It is killing me inside. My priority is and always has been my children - their jobs, their futures, their businesses - which are being destroyed not by me or people like me but by the total fuck up being made by the government you are so keen to support.
In all the brouhaha about the Internal Markets Bill, possibly one of the most important aspects of it has been overlooked - namely that it gives the government the power to disapply any domestic law or court judgment whatsoever. In effect, the government is empowering itself to disregard the law of the land - not simply international law.
There has, as far as I know, been no explanation from government why this is necessary. To my mind this section is far more objectionable and far more frightening. That this has not been picked up on by even those objecting is quite worrying.
It looks like it might be time to become a "Leaver" in the geographic sense....
Or simply follow the government’s example - and disapply the laws we don’t like. After all, if it’s good enough for them ......
Civil disobedience is a noble tradition, so long as you're prepared to face the consequences.
On topic, and answering the comments of Philip, DavidL etc, some counter-points to Mike's arguments:
1. Comparing a mid-term to a Presidential year re turnout is risky. In 2018, yes, the suburbs came out for the Democrats but there is an argument for saying the "populist" base of Trump's vote didn't feel as fired up to vote. American elections are all about turnout and Trump's base looks more fired up - there are a lot of anti-Trump's voters on Biden's side but it also feels like a lot of "soft" support that may not turn out on the day. One example - much has been made of the surge in NC early ballot requests but so far, less than 25K have been returned and accepted, a rise of just over 2K day on day. That does feel like an electorate that is dropping everything to get Trump out of the door.
2. There have been some comments on here that Trump faces a number of obstacles, particularly the Woodward book. I can't see that myself - there have been so many allegations against him, it is hard to see another one changing too many minds. Biden, however, does face some potentially significant hurdles - how he does in the debates (yes the bar has been set low but, if he stumbles...). Maybe more of an issue is the continued BLM-violence / "mainly peaceful" protests. Monmouth have found 65% of Americans saying law and order is a major issue with Black Americans the most concerned. It's true their poll findings could be used to buttress either candidate but the BLM movement looks out of control and cops being killed runs the risk of turning the suburbs against Biden;
3. Conversely, it could be argued Trump is getting into his stride. His approval rating is at a three month high. He can point to diplomatic triumphs in the Middle East as someone who gets things done. He can also point to his desire to get America back to work;
4. There are signs the Democrats may be repeating the 2016 mistake of taking one of their core voting blocks for granted, namely the Hispanic population. There have been multiple reports of Trump taking share and / or the Democrats worried about whether enough has been done to get Hispanic support. That might be reflected in the polling not only in Florida but also in places like Nevada and Arizona (where you would expect a bigger Biden lead if Hispanic support was firm and the suburbs were swinging away from Trump).
Trump won Arizona by 3.5% in 2016. The latest 538 Arizona polling average has Biden 5.0% ahead, so a bigger swing to Biden in Arizona than nationally. Not sure how you get any evidence from that that he is losing Hispanic support there.
Isn't the Arizona swing correlated to general suburban swing ? Tucson and particularly Phoenix metro areas have 80% of the state's population. (Phoenix 66% alone). Only Nevada is more dominated by a big city I think.
So either this is all bluster for the inevitable capitulation by Boris Johnson (which has happened every time before, including when he signed the deal he now hates), or the Government has accepted No Deal and is trying to blame anyone else but themselves.
At the end of the day, UK Gov chose to leave the EU. It's really on them, I never supported this line of action, can't blame me
At the end of the day - that day being Thursday June 23rd, 2016 - the UK voters chose to leave the EU. It's really on them.
And as recently as last December, they gave the PM an 80 seat majority to do just that. That you did not vote for either does not invalidate its democratic mandate.
Indeed. A democratic mandate to pass the Withdrawal Agreement and Get Brexit Done. Now that we have left the EU the government want to tear up that democratic mandate for the WA. Happily we have the House of Lords to uphold our democracy and block this bill to death.
If the House of Lords want to block, plenty of us will volunteer to be a Peer for a Year to prevent that blockade.
The Tory troughers will be slavering at the thought of getting the golden trough ticket
In all the brouhaha about the Internal Markets Bill, possibly one of the most important aspects of it has been overlooked - namely that it gives the government the power to disapply any domestic law or court judgment whatsoever. In effect, the government is empowering itself to disregard the law of the land - not simply international law.
There has, as far as I know, been no explanation from government why this is necessary. To my mind this section is far more objectionable and far more frightening. That this has not been picked up on by even those objecting is quite worrying.
It looks like it might be time to become a "Leaver" in the geographic sense....
Or simply follow the government’s example - and disapply the laws we don’t like. After all, if it’s good enough for them ......
Civil disobedience is a noble tradition, so long as you're prepared to face the consequences.
The generic Congressional ballot does rather well historically. I will use RCP, the one and only true source of poll averages and Iooking at the last couple of Presidential elections we have.
2012: Average GOP +0.2, Actual Dem +1.2 2016: Average Dem +0.6, Actual GOP +1.1
So the Generic Congressional votes has been within a couple of points each time.
What does the generic congressional look like at the moment?
2020: Dem +5.9
So even if it is out by 2 points in GOP favour meaning the real result is +3.9 that is still good for Biden as Clinton out performed the Congressional result in 2016 and Obama outperformed the Congressional result in 2012 by several points.
In all the brouhaha about the Internal Markets Bill, possibly one of the most important aspects of it has been overlooked - namely that it gives the government the power to disapply any domestic law or court judgment whatsoever. In effect, the government is empowering itself to disregard the law of the land - not simply international law.
There has, as far as I know, been no explanation from government why this is necessary. To my mind this section is far more objectionable and far more frightening. That this has not been picked up on by even those objecting is quite worrying.
Saw Starmer propose an end to firing and rehiring. It sounds like a horrible practice but after 2008 companies saved millions of jobs by doing it and the wage cuts were only temporary and it gave employees time and space to find better opportunities while not being unemployed.
If we're at that stage where companies are happy to keep people on but not at their full previous wage then it's probably a good sign that they feel there is a way back. Get rid of fire and rehire and they will fire without the rehire and it will result in more unemployment overall which is surely something everyone wants to avoid.
From someone from a time when senior No 10 aides actually had a clue rather than pet projects, personal vendettas and loony tunes ideas from moonbase alpha.
On topic, and answering the comments of Philip, DavidL etc, some counter-points to Mike's arguments:
1. Comparing a mid-term to a Presidential year re turnout is risky. In 2018, yes, the suburbs came out for the Democrats but there is an argument for saying the "populist" base of Trump's vote didn't feel as fired up to vote. American elections are all about turnout and Trump's base looks more fired up - there are a lot of anti-Trump's voters on Biden's side but it also feels like a lot of "soft" support that may not turn out on the day. One example - much has been made of the surge in NC early ballot requests but so far, less than 25K have been returned and accepted, a rise of just over 2K day on day. That does feel like an electorate that is dropping everything to get Trump out of the door.
2. There have been some comments on here that Trump faces a number of obstacles, particularly the Woodward book. I can't see that myself - there have been so many allegations against him, it is hard to see another one changing too many minds. Biden, however, does face some potentially significant hurdles - how he does in the debates (yes the bar has been set low but, if he stumbles...). Maybe more of an issue is the continued BLM-violence / "mainly peaceful" protests. Monmouth have found 65% of Americans saying law and order is a major issue with Black Americans the most concerned. It's true their poll findings could be used to buttress either candidate but the BLM movement looks out of control and cops being killed runs the risk of turning the suburbs against Biden;
3. Conversely, it could be argued Trump is getting into his stride. His approval rating is at a three month high. He can point to diplomatic triumphs in the Middle East as someone who gets things done. He can also point to his desire to get America back to work;
4. There are signs the Democrats may be repeating the 2016 mistake of taking one of their core voting blocks for granted, namely the Hispanic population. There have been multiple reports of Trump taking share and / or the Democrats worried about whether enough has been done to get Hispanic support. That might be reflected in the polling not only in Florida but also in places like Nevada and Arizona (where you would expect a bigger Biden lead if Hispanic support was firm and the suburbs were swinging away from Trump).
Trump won Arizona by 3.5% in 2016. The latest 538 Arizona polling average has Biden 5.0% ahead, so a bigger swing to Biden in Arizona than nationally. Not sure how you get any evidence from that that he is losing Hispanic support there.
American pollsters have a polling problem in Nevada, they are failing to find Dem voters. Going inti the final month in 2018 Heller was consistently ahead, Emerson had a +7 for them and Trafalgar had a +3 for example only for Rosen to win by 5.
Similarly in 2016 the polling average had Trump ahead, with Clinton winning by 2.5
From someone from a time when senior No 10 aides actually had a clue rather than pet projects, personal vendettas and loony tunes ideas from moonbase alpha.
I really can't see how all this will be resolved. What happened to drones with x-ray cameras monitoring the lorries between RoE and NI? Is that still a goer?
From someone from a time when senior No 10 aides actually had a clue rather than pet projects, personal vendettas and loony tunes ideas from moonbase alpha.
There is absolutely no reason why trusted trader schemes can't work. They are exactly what the Irish and the EU were working on until May threw away her majority and they perceived the UK was weak.
Necessity is the mother of invention, if the UK walks away whole and diverges from NI then a scheme will need to be created. But until that actually happens there's no pressure to do so.
In all the brouhaha about the Internal Markets Bill, possibly one of the most important aspects of it has been overlooked - namely that it gives the government the power to disapply any domestic law or court judgment whatsoever. In effect, the government is empowering itself to disregard the law of the land - not simply international law.
There has, as far as I know, been no explanation from government why this is necessary. To my mind this section is far more objectionable and far more frightening. That this has not been picked up on by even those objecting is quite worrying.
They are desperate to crush Scotland
Yep - it will merely delay what I believe is inevitable. The biggest question is how does the next PM (who will be the person in charge when Scotland leaves) ensure Boris and Gove get the historic blame.
From someone from a time when senior No 10 aides actually had a clue rather than pet projects, personal vendettas and loony tunes ideas from moonbase alpha.
There is absolutely no reason why trusted trader schemes can't work. They are exactly what the Irish and the EU were working on until May threw away her majority and they perceived the UK was weak.
Necessity is the mother of invention, if the UK walks away whole and diverges from NI then a scheme will need to be created. But until that actually happens there's no pressure to do so.
"if the UK walks away whole and diverges from NI .."?
The American polls often have huge margins of error. Taking the headline figures as being, so to speak, gospel, is inaccurate and misleading to the point of misinformation.
Case in point - the Trafalgar poll in North Carolina (some on here seem to believe Trafalgar is the only reliable pollster) showing Trump up 48-46 (the actual figures were 47.8-46.1) has a margin of error of 2.95% (go on, call it 3%, the figures are already being rounded).
With a 3% MoE, Trump could be winning 51-43 or Biden could be ahead 49-45. The MoE makes for a vast range of potential outcomes. Some of the sample sizes are tiny so the margin of error can be 4.5%.
I understand those explicitly opposed to a candidate and those explicitly supporting a candidate selectively re-tweeting headline poll numbers but that is weaponising the numbers. Publish the numbers AND the margin of error so we can assess the value of each poll.
From someone from a time when senior No 10 aides actually had a clue rather than pet projects, personal vendettas and loony tunes ideas from moonbase alpha.
There is absolutely no reason why trusted trader schemes can't work. They are exactly what the Irish and the EU were working on until May threw away her majority and they perceived the UK was weak.
Necessity is the mother of invention, if the UK walks away whole and diverges from NI then a scheme will need to be created. But until that actually happens there's no pressure to do so.
"if the UK walks away whole and diverges from NI .."?
Sorry, typo.
If the UK walks away whole and diverges from Ireland.
In all the brouhaha about the Internal Markets Bill, possibly one of the most important aspects of it has been overlooked - namely that it gives the government the power to disapply any domestic law or court judgment whatsoever. In effect, the government is empowering itself to disregard the law of the land - not simply international law.
There has, as far as I know, been no explanation from government why this is necessary. To my mind this section is far more objectionable and far more frightening. That this has not been picked up on by even those objecting is quite worrying.
It looks like it might be time to become a "Leaver" in the geographic sense....
Or simply follow the government’s example - and disapply the laws we don’t like. After all, if it’s good enough for them ......
The problem is, once this lot start digging in, more and more restrictive laws for the proles (but not for the elite) will become the norm and with a Home Sec. like Priti Patel, I would not be surprised if the death penalty was reintroduced and the definition of treason widened to any who disagrees with the govt.
This crock of sh*t is going to get worse before it gets better.
I can see why the EU is so reviled by the extremists - the treaties stopped their fascist tendencies. "Take Back Control" really meant "Let us be b*st*rds"....
Young people are taking the hit wet unemployment from the data release today. They can't party, they're losing their jobs and they're in for 20 years of higher taxes to pay all of this off. Once again, the old have fucked over the young.
And you'd change that how?
Old and fat people lockdown, everyone else do as you please. Risk segmentation.
Don't forget the BAME people who also have a higher risk, Max. And the men.
No one except thin white women on the streets.
As you say - risk segmentation.
Or is it pandering to prejudice?
No, it's not pandering to prejudice. What a ridiculous post.
This is classic PB – take a decent, reasoned idea and reduce it to complete absurdity then use that to flame the OP. In this case, Max is the target.
There are 40 million people in England without preexisting conditions, most of whom are under 70.
A risk segmentation approach would allow those to be vigilant but largely live normal lives, whereas the other 16 million would be shielded to a greater or lesser degree depending on risk level.
This is not some sort of prejudice/apartheid but a rational approach to living with the virus proposed by scores of senior people worldwide in the medical profession.
Here's one such model from, erm, Dr David Katz, who has a fairly decent cv...
From someone from a time when senior No 10 aides actually had a clue rather than pet projects, personal vendettas and loony tunes ideas from moonbase alpha.
There is absolutely no reason why trusted trader schemes can't work. They are exactly what the Irish and the EU were working on until May threw away her majority and they perceived the UK was weak.
Necessity is the mother of invention, if the UK walks away whole and diverges from NI then a scheme will need to be created. But until that actually happens there's no pressure to do so.
"if the UK walks away whole and diverges from NI .."?
Sorry, typo.
If the UK walks away whole and diverges from Ireland.
So you would completely ignore the Northern Ireland protocol in substance, not just the details of its implementation?
I've been watching UK elections and Parliamentary affairs for a long time now, and I really don't recall a time when an election-winner's 'honeymoon period' was dissipated so quickly.
Have we yet had any announcements on Whip-removal; can't see anything about.
Would I be right in thinking that Boris/Cummings never intended and don't actually want the IM bill to pass in its current form? Rather, they are just setting the scene to be able to blame those who reject/emasculate it for the disruptions to trade with NI inherent in the WA? If so, Labour must be sorely tempted to vote for the bill, even though its passing would have the effect of devastating the country as well as the Conservative party.
From someone from a time when senior No 10 aides actually had a clue rather than pet projects, personal vendettas and loony tunes ideas from moonbase alpha.
I really can't see how all this will be resolved. What happened to drones with x-ray cameras monitoring the lorries between RoE and NI? Is that still a goer?
We could always try and adopt May's Deal. It's the compromise we need.
No border on the island of Ireland. No border between NI and GB. The four freedoms split so the UK can control it's border and the UK doesn't have to pay for market access.
From someone from a time when senior No 10 aides actually had a clue rather than pet projects, personal vendettas and loony tunes ideas from moonbase alpha.
I really can't see how all this will be resolved. What happened to drones with x-ray cameras monitoring the lorries between RoE and NI? Is that still a goer?
We could always try and adopt May's Deal. It's the compromise we need.
No border on the island of Ireland. No border between NI and GB. The four freedoms split so the UK can control it's border and the UK doesn't have to pay for market access.
It's better than the present mess.
Looks like the present arrangement..... assuming this new Bill passes....... is going to be a smugglers charter.
Young people are taking the hit wet unemployment from the data release today. They can't party, they're losing their jobs and they're in for 20 years of higher taxes to pay all of this off. Once again, the old have fucked over the young.
And you'd change that how?
Old and fat people lockdown, everyone else do as you please. Risk segmentation.
Don't forget the BAME people who also have a higher risk, Max. And the men.
No one except thin white women on the streets.
As you say - risk segmentation.
Or is it pandering to prejudice?
No, it's not pandering to prejudice. What a ridiculous post.
This is classic PB – take a decent, reasoned idea and reduce it to complete absurdity then use that to flame the OP. In this case, Max is the target.
There are 40 million people in England without preexisting conditions, most of whom are under 70.
A risk segmentation approach would allow those to be vigilant but largely live normal lives, whereas the other 16 million would be shielded to a greater or lesser degree depending on risk level.
This is not some sort of prejudice/apartheid but a rational approach to living with the virus proposed by scores of senior people worldwide in the medical profession.
Here's one such model from, erm, Dr David Katz, who has a fairly decent cv...
Perhaps the medical geniuses and super-shrewdies on here have a better idea than Max or Dr Katz? Go ahead. I am all ears.
We have a 'risk segmented approach' in practice in that people assess their risks and incorporate this into their behaviour. For example, a fit & well 40 year old will be more relaxed about the virus than an 85 year old with a bad heart.
What do you want to change? Do you want the UK government to actually pass a law that specifically defines the groups who are most vulnerable and compels them to stay home whilst lifting restrictions on everybody else?
In all the brouhaha about the Internal Markets Bill, possibly one of the most important aspects of it has been overlooked - namely that it gives the government the power to disapply any domestic law or court judgment whatsoever. In effect, the government is empowering itself to disregard the law of the land - not simply international law.
There has, as far as I know, been no explanation from government why this is necessary. To my mind this section is far more objectionable and far more frightening. That this has not been picked up on by even those objecting is quite worrying.
It looks like it might be time to become a "Leaver" in the geographic sense....
Or simply follow the government’s example - and disapply the laws we don’t like. After all, if it’s good enough for them ......
The problem is, once this lot start digging in, more and more restrictive laws for the proles (but not for the elite) will become the norm and with a Home Sec. like Priti Patel, I would not be surprised if the death penalty was reintroduced and the definition of treason widened to any who disagrees with the govt.
This crock of sh*t is going to get worse before it gets better.
I can see why the EU is so reviled by the extremists - the treaties stopped their fascist tendencies. "Take Back Control" really meant "Let us be b*st*rds"....
Almost everyone will have a breaking point at some stage. For me, it was the prorogation fiasco, for others it was Dom's Adventures in Durham. For yet others, it has been the Internal Market Bill. But the awfulness of the government's actions has compromised the ability of MPs to realise what's going on. They're like frogs in a boiling saucepan, and many haven't noticed their fortitude being melted away.
So we have the situation where the government can win a comfortable majority for any old nonsense. Even if they lose the argument, they win the vote. Perhaps the quivering confused remains of Johnson will be wheeled in and out, like a 1980's Soviet president. If he doesn't need to do anything to convince, it doesn't matter if he does nothing.
And that will keep working, and the usual suspects will keep cheering it, until it suddenly stops working. If we're lucky, we get post-Franco Spain; if we're unlucky, we get post-Soviet Russia.
On topic, and answering the comments of Philip, DavidL etc, some counter-points to Mike's arguments:
1. Comparing a mid-term to a Presidential year re turnout is risky. In 2018, yes, the suburbs came out for the Democrats but there is an argument for saying the "populist" base of Trump's vote didn't feel as fired up to vote. American elections are all about turnout and Trump's base looks more fired up - there are a lot of anti-Trump's voters on Biden's side but it also feels like a lot of "soft" support that may not turn out on the day. One example - much has been made of the surge in NC early ballot requests but so far, less than 25K have been returned and accepted, a rise of just over 2K day on day. That does feel like an electorate that is dropping everything to get Trump out of the door.
2. There have been some comments on here that Trump faces a number of obstacles, particularly the Woodward book. I can't see that myself - there have been so many allegations against him, it is hard to see another one changing too many minds. Biden, however, does face some potentially significant hurdles - how he does in the debates (yes the bar has been set low but, if he stumbles...). Maybe more of an issue is the continued BLM-violence / "mainly peaceful" protests. Monmouth have found 65% of Americans saying law and order is a major issue with Black Americans the most concerned. It's true their poll findings could be used to buttress either candidate but the BLM movement looks out of control and cops being killed runs the risk of turning the suburbs against Biden;
3. Conversely, it could be argued Trump is getting into his stride. His approval rating is at a three month high. He can point to diplomatic triumphs in the Middle East as someone who gets things done. He can also point to his desire to get America back to work;
4. There are signs the Democrats may be repeating the 2016 mistake of taking one of their core voting blocks for granted, namely the Hispanic population. There have been multiple reports of Trump taking share and / or the Democrats worried about whether enough has been done to get Hispanic support. That might be reflected in the polling not only in Florida but also in places like Nevada and Arizona (where you would expect a bigger Biden lead if Hispanic support was firm and the suburbs were swinging away from Trump).
Trump won Arizona by 3.5% in 2016. The latest 538 Arizona polling average has Biden 5.0% ahead, so a bigger swing to Biden in Arizona than nationally. Not sure how you get any evidence from that that he is losing Hispanic support there.
American pollsters have a polling problem in Nevada, they are failing to find Dem voters. Going inti the final month in 2018 Heller was consistently ahead, Emerson had a +7 for them and Trafalgar had a +3 for example only for Rosen to win by 5.
Similarly in 2016 the polling average had Trump ahead, with Clinton winning by 2.5
In Nevada, it’s the ability of the service unions to bring out the Hispanic vote which is key to the Democrats’ success so no wonder there is a polling problem
Young people are taking the hit wet unemployment from the data release today. They can't party, they're losing their jobs and they're in for 20 years of higher taxes to pay all of this off. Once again, the old have fucked over the young.
And you'd change that how?
Old and fat people lockdown, everyone else do as you please. Risk segmentation.
Don't forget the BAME people who also have a higher risk, Max. And the men.
No one except thin white women on the streets.
As you say - risk segmentation.
Or is it pandering to prejudice?
No, it's not pandering to prejudice. What a ridiculous post.
This is classic PB – take a decent, reasoned idea and reduce it to complete absurdity then use that to flame the OP. In this case, Max is the target.
There are 40 million people in England without preexisting conditions, most of whom are under 70.
A risk segmentation approach would allow those to be vigilant but largely live normal lives, whereas the other 16 million would be shielded to a greater or lesser degree depending on risk level.
This is not some sort of prejudice/apartheid but a rational approach to living with the virus proposed by scores of senior people worldwide in the medical profession.
Here's one such model from, erm, Dr David Katz, who has a fairly decent cv...
Perhaps the medical geniuses and super-shrewdies on here have a better idea than Max or Dr Katz? Go ahead. I am all ears.
We have a 'risk segmented approach' in practice in that people assess their risks and incorporate this into their behaviour. For example, a fit & well 40 year old will be more relaxed about the virus than an 85 year old with a bad heart.
What do you want to change? Do you want the UK government to actually pass a law that specifically defines the groups who are most vulnerable and compels them to stay home whilst lifting restrictions on everybody else?
The current set up in England is that everyone is subject to the same restrictions, completely regardless of the risks they are under.
That's not sensible.
The Scottish system is slightly more sensible – there, younger children, who have more chance of coming a cropper from a UFO attack than from coronavirus, are exempt.
So some sort of stratified approach is wise – the details can and should be worked out, but risk segmentation as a broad principle must be the best approach?
On topic, and answering the comments of Philip, DavidL etc, some counter-points to Mike's arguments:
1. Comparing a mid-term to a Presidential year re turnout is risky. In 2018, yes, the suburbs came out for the Democrats but there is an argument for saying the "populist" base of Trump's vote didn't feel as fired up to vote. American elections are all about turnout and Trump's base looks more fired up - there are a lot of anti-Trump's voters on Biden's side but it also feels like a lot of "soft" support that may not turn out on the day. One example - much has been made of the surge in NC early ballot requests but so far, less than 25K have been returned and accepted, a rise of just over 2K day on day. That does feel like an electorate that is dropping everything to get Trump out of the door.
2. There have been some comments on here that Trump faces a number of obstacles, particularly the Woodward book. I can't see that myself - there have been so many allegations against him, it is hard to see another one changing too many minds. Biden, however, does face some potentially significant hurdles - how he does in the debates (yes the bar has been set low but, if he stumbles...). Maybe more of an issue is the continued BLM-violence / "mainly peaceful" protests. Monmouth have found 65% of Americans saying law and order is a major issue with Black Americans the most concerned. It's true their poll findings could be used to buttress either candidate but the BLM movement looks out of control and cops being killed runs the risk of turning the suburbs against Biden;
3. Conversely, it could be argued Trump is getting into his stride. His approval rating is at a three month high. He can point to diplomatic triumphs in the Middle East as someone who gets things done. He can also point to his desire to get America back to work;
4. There are signs the Democrats may be repeating the 2016 mistake of taking one of their core voting blocks for granted, namely the Hispanic population. There have been multiple reports of Trump taking share and / or the Democrats worried about whether enough has been done to get Hispanic support. That might be reflected in the polling not only in Florida but also in places like Nevada and Arizona (where you would expect a bigger Biden lead if Hispanic support was firm and the suburbs were swinging away from Trump).
Trump won Arizona by 3.5% in 2016. The latest 538 Arizona polling average has Biden 5.0% ahead, so a bigger swing to Biden in Arizona than nationally. Not sure how you get any evidence from that that he is losing Hispanic support there.
Isn't the Arizona swing correlated to general suburban swing ? Tucson and particularly Phoenix metro areas have 80% of the state's population. (Phoenix 66% alone). Only Nevada is more dominated by a big city I think.
You got in before me Pulpstar. If Trump is seeing the biggest swings against him in the suburbs, as is claimed, then - all other things being equal - you would expect to see Arizona having one of the largest swings against Trump of all the states. It’s not, which suggests that the Hispanic vote (another major bloc) is not as solid for the Dems as 2016.
More generally, there have been a number of articles in Democrat leading publications, as well as GOP ones, highlighting the risk to the Democrats on the Hispanic share vote.
On topic, and answering the comments of Philip, DavidL etc, some counter-points to Mike's arguments:
1. Comparing a mid-term to a Presidential year re turnout is risky. In 2018, yes, the suburbs came out for the Democrats but there is an argument for saying the "populist" base of Trump's vote didn't feel as fired up to vote. American elections are all about turnout and Trump's base looks more fired up - there are a lot of anti-Trump's voters on Biden's side but it also feels like a lot of "soft" support that may not turn out on the day. One example - much has been made of the surge in NC early ballot requests but so far, less than 25K have been returned and accepted, a rise of just over 2K day on day. That does feel like an electorate that is dropping everything to get Trump out of the door.
2. There have been some comments on here that Trump faces a number of obstacles, particularly the Woodward book. I can't see that myself - there have been so many allegations against him, it is hard to see another one changing too many minds. Biden, however, does face some potentially significant hurdles - how he does in the debates (yes the bar has been set low but, if he stumbles...). Maybe more of an issue is the continued BLM-violence / "mainly peaceful" protests. Monmouth have found 65% of Americans saying law and order is a major issue with Black Americans the most concerned. It's true their poll findings could be used to buttress either candidate but the BLM movement looks out of control and cops being killed runs the risk of turning the suburbs against Biden;
3. Conversely, it could be argued Trump is getting into his stride. His approval rating is at a three month high. He can point to diplomatic triumphs in the Middle East as someone who gets things done. He can also point to his desire to get America back to work;
4. There are signs the Democrats may be repeating the 2016 mistake of taking one of their core voting blocks for granted, namely the Hispanic population. There have been multiple reports of Trump taking share and / or the Democrats worried about whether enough has been done to get Hispanic support. That might be reflected in the polling not only in Florida but also in places like Nevada and Arizona (where you would expect a bigger Biden lead if Hispanic support was firm and the suburbs were swinging away from Trump).
Trump won Arizona by 3.5% in 2016. The latest 538 Arizona polling average has Biden 5.0% ahead, so a bigger swing to Biden in Arizona than nationally. Not sure how you get any evidence from that that he is losing Hispanic support there.
Isn't the Arizona swing correlated to general suburban swing ? Tucson and particularly Phoenix metro areas have 80% of the state's population. (Phoenix 66% alone). Only Nevada is more dominated by a big city I think.
You got in before me Pulpstar. If Trump is seeing the biggest swings against him in the suburbs, as is claimed, then - all other things being equal - you would expect to see Arizona having one of the largest swings against Trump of all the states. It’s not, which suggests that the Hispanic vote (another major bloc) is not as solid for the Dems as 2016.
More generally, there have been a number of articles in Democrat leading publications, as well as GOP ones, highlighting the risk to the Democrats on the Hispanic share vote.
There were a bunch, but they all seem to be pinned on a single subsample of like 140 people in Florida. The fact that something's a media narrative doesn't mean that it's true; They have to write something, and if the race is dead flat calm the easiest way to do it is to set an intern trawling through polls looking for a data point that says something other than "Biden seems to be on course for a win, but it's by no means a sure thing".
I'm not saying Biden *isn't* underperforming with Latinos, but to know if he is we need actual data, not a general media vibe.
On topic, and answering the comments of Philip, DavidL etc, some counter-points to Mike's arguments:
1. Comparing a mid-term to a Presidential year re turnout is risky. In 2018, yes, the suburbs came out for the Democrats but there is an argument for saying the "populist" base of Trump's vote didn't feel as fired up to vote. American elections are all about turnout and Trump's base looks more fired up - there are a lot of anti-Trump's voters on Biden's side but it also feels like a lot of "soft" support that may not turn out on the day. One example - much has been made of the surge in NC early ballot requests but so far, less than 25K have been returned and accepted, a rise of just over 2K day on day. That does feel like an electorate that is dropping everything to get Trump out of the door.
2. There have been some comments on here that Trump faces a number of obstacles, particularly the Woodward book. I can't see that myself - there have been so many allegations against him, it is hard to see another one changing too many minds. Biden, however, does face some potentially significant hurdles - how he does in the debates (yes the bar has been set low but, if he stumbles...). Maybe more of an issue is the continued BLM-violence / "mainly peaceful" protests. Monmouth have found 65% of Americans saying law and order is a major issue with Black Americans the most concerned. It's true their poll findings could be used to buttress either candidate but the BLM movement looks out of control and cops being killed runs the risk of turning the suburbs against Biden;
3. Conversely, it could be argued Trump is getting into his stride. His approval rating is at a three month high. He can point to diplomatic triumphs in the Middle East as someone who gets things done. He can also point to his desire to get America back to work;
4. There are signs the Democrats may be repeating the 2016 mistake of taking one of their core voting blocks for granted, namely the Hispanic population. There have been multiple reports of Trump taking share and / or the Democrats worried about whether enough has been done to get Hispanic support. That might be reflected in the polling not only in Florida but also in places like Nevada and Arizona (where you would expect a bigger Biden lead if Hispanic support was firm and the suburbs were swinging away from Trump).
Trump won Arizona by 3.5% in 2016. The latest 538 Arizona polling average has Biden 5.0% ahead, so a bigger swing to Biden in Arizona than nationally. Not sure how you get any evidence from that that he is losing Hispanic support there.
It's hard to see anything like that effect (or indeed evidence of any great shift at all) elsewhere. And notable that the Democratic campaign is throwing considerably more resources at Florida, and specifically towards Hispanic outreach.
And of course the shift in voting patterns of Florida seniors appears to be in rather the opposite direction.
From someone from a time when senior No 10 aides actually had a clue rather than pet projects, personal vendettas and loony tunes ideas from moonbase alpha.
I really can't see how all this will be resolved. What happened to drones with x-ray cameras monitoring the lorries between RoE and NI? Is that still a goer?
We could always try and adopt May's Deal. It's the compromise we need.
No border on the island of Ireland. No border between NI and GB. The four freedoms split so the UK can control it's border and the UK doesn't have to pay for market access.
It's better than the present mess.
One of the great mysteries of our time is why Boris was so keen to trash and discard Theresa's deal? Was it because he genuinely believed his version would solve the NI-border conundrum without the vassal-state stuff; or did he just feed the Tories any old crap out of short-term ambition? If the former, then it was rather witless; if the latter then difficult to justify.
From someone from a time when senior No 10 aides actually had a clue rather than pet projects, personal vendettas and loony tunes ideas from moonbase alpha.
I really can't see how all this will be resolved. What happened to drones with x-ray cameras monitoring the lorries between RoE and NI? Is that still a goer?
We could always try and adopt May's Deal. It's the compromise we need.
No border on the island of Ireland. No border between NI and GB. The four freedoms split so the UK can control it's border and the UK doesn't have to pay for market access.
It's better than the present mess.
One of the great mysteries of our time is why Boris was so keen to trash and discard Theresa's deal? Was it because he genuinely believed his version would solve the NI-border conundrum without the vassal-state stuff; or did he just feed the Tories any old crap out of short-term ambition? If the former, then it was rather witless; if the latter then difficult to justify.
On topic, and answering the comments of Philip, DavidL etc, some counter-points to Mike's arguments:
1. Comparing a mid-term to a Presidential year re turnout is risky. In 2018, yes, the suburbs came out for the Democrats but there is an argument for saying the "populist" base of Trump's vote didn't feel as fired up to vote. American elections are all about turnout and Trump's base looks more fired up - there are a lot of anti-Trump's voters on Biden's side but it also feels like a lot of "soft" support that may not turn out on the day. One example - much has been made of the surge in NC early ballot requests but so far, less than 25K have been returned and accepted, a rise of just over 2K day on day. That does feel like an electorate that is dropping everything to get Trump out of the door.
2. There have been some comments on here that Trump faces a number of obstacles, particularly the Woodward book. I can't see that myself - there have been so many allegations against him, it is hard to see another one changing too many minds. Biden, however, does face some potentially significant hurdles - how he does in the debates (yes the bar has been set low but, if he stumbles...). Maybe more of an issue is the continued BLM-violence / "mainly peaceful" protests. Monmouth have found 65% of Americans saying law and order is a major issue with Black Americans the most concerned. It's true their poll findings could be used to buttress either candidate but the BLM movement looks out of control and cops being killed runs the risk of turning the suburbs against Biden;
3. Conversely, it could be argued Trump is getting into his stride. His approval rating is at a three month high. He can point to diplomatic triumphs in the Middle East as someone who gets things done. He can also point to his desire to get America back to work;
4. There are signs the Democrats may be repeating the 2016 mistake of taking one of their core voting blocks for granted, namely the Hispanic population. There have been multiple reports of Trump taking share and / or the Democrats worried about whether enough has been done to get Hispanic support. That might be reflected in the polling not only in Florida but also in places like Nevada and Arizona (where you would expect a bigger Biden lead if Hispanic support was firm and the suburbs were swinging away from Trump).
Trump won Arizona by 3.5% in 2016. The latest 538 Arizona polling average has Biden 5.0% ahead, so a bigger swing to Biden in Arizona than nationally. Not sure how you get any evidence from that that he is losing Hispanic support there.
Isn't the Arizona swing correlated to general suburban swing ? Tucson and particularly Phoenix metro areas have 80% of the state's population. (Phoenix 66% alone). Only Nevada is more dominated by a big city I think.
You got in before me Pulpstar. If Trump is seeing the biggest swings against him in the suburbs, as is claimed, then - all other things being equal - you would expect to see Arizona having one of the largest swings against Trump of all the states. It’s not, which suggests that the Hispanic vote (another major bloc) is not as solid for the Dems as 2016.
More generally, there have been a number of articles in Democrat leading publications, as well as GOP ones, highlighting the risk to the Democrats on the Hispanic share vote.
Interesting stuff Ed, complex and worthy of further examination. I don't know the answer but I suspect it could depend on which sort Hispanics. Cuban-Americans would, I believe, be strong for Trump. That would certainly explain Florida's resistance to Biden. (I'm backing Trump to hold the State in anything but a landslide.) Mexican-Americans would be different, but they themselves wouldn't be homogeneous. It would certainly be unwise to assume they are a bloc vote.
In all the brouhaha about the Internal Markets Bill, possibly one of the most important aspects of it has been overlooked - namely that it gives the government the power to disapply any domestic law or court judgment whatsoever. In effect, the government is empowering itself to disregard the law of the land - not simply international law.
There has, as far as I know, been no explanation from government why this is necessary. To my mind this section is far more objectionable and far more frightening. That this has not been picked up on by even those objecting is quite worrying.
It looks like it might be time to become a "Leaver" in the geographic sense....
Or simply follow the government’s example - and disapply the laws we don’t like. After all, if it’s good enough for them ......
The problem is, once this lot start digging in, more and more restrictive laws for the proles (but not for the elite) will become the norm and with a Home Sec. like Priti Patel, I would not be surprised if the death penalty was reintroduced and the definition of treason widened to any who disagrees with the govt.
This crock of sh*t is going to get worse before it gets better.
I can see why the EU is so reviled by the extremists - the treaties stopped their fascist tendencies. "Take Back Control" really meant "Let us be b*st*rds"....
Almost everyone will have a breaking point at some stage. For me, it was the prorogation fiasco, for others it was Dom's Adventures in Durham. For yet others, it has been the Internal Market Bill. But the awfulness of the government's actions has compromised the ability of MPs to realise what's going on. They're like frogs in a boiling saucepan, and many haven't noticed their fortitude being melted away.
So we have the situation where the government can win a comfortable majority for any old nonsense. Even if they lose the argument, they win the vote. Perhaps the quivering confused remains of Johnson will be wheeled in and out, like a 1980's Soviet president. If he doesn't need to do anything to convince, it doesn't matter if he does nothing.
And that will keep working, and the usual suspects will keep cheering it, until it suddenly stops working. If we're lucky, we get post-Franco Spain; if we're unlucky, we get post-Soviet Russia.
I think you're overegging it. Boris will stay in place until at least January 2021, it's clear that no one else is trusted not to push through an extension or agree terms that are acceptable for a trade deal. After that date everything changes in terms of party management.
From someone from a time when senior No 10 aides actually had a clue rather than pet projects, personal vendettas and loony tunes ideas from moonbase alpha.
There is absolutely no reason why trusted trader schemes can't work. They are exactly what the Irish and the EU were working on until May threw away her majority and they perceived the UK was weak.
Necessity is the mother of invention, if the UK walks away whole and diverges from NI then a scheme will need to be created. But until that actually happens there's no pressure to do so.
"if the UK walks away whole and diverges from NI .."?
Sorry, typo.
If the UK walks away whole and diverges from Ireland.
So you would completely ignore the Northern Ireland protocol in substance, not just the details of its implementation?
If the EU don't compromise? Absolutely, yes.
If they do then the Protocol should be rendered pretty meaningless - if we have a zero tariff treaty then collecting customs becomes moot and if the Joint Committee does its job then there should be little that needs checking.
But if the EU continues to weaponise NI, fails to operate in good faith with the Protocol so that the Joint Committee doesn't reach decisions etc, etc, etc then yes absolutely I would serve notice that we are disapplying the entire Protocol.
We have a 'risk segmented approach' in practice in that people assess their risks and incorporate this into their behaviour. For example, a fit & well 40 year old will be more relaxed about the virus than an 85 year old with a bad heart.
What do you want to change? Do you want the UK government to actually pass a law that specifically defines the groups who are most vulnerable and compels them to stay home whilst lifting restrictions on everybody else?
Starting down the road of legalised risk segmentation is a very dangerous path in a free society however dismissive some are and however well-intentioned others may be.
We cannot operate by the "tyranny of the healthy" or the "tyranny of the unhealthy". Many organisations (mine included) have a multi-generational workforce and the interaction between those aged 17 and 70 is often positive for both sides.
Those who work in firms dominated by one age group may not appreciate the advantages that brings but they are considerable.
The other aspect is employers will in time stop hiring older people as too much of a risk and bring younger people back into the workforce. For now the young are cheap and easy to let go to cut costs but would you want the risk of employing an older person who is at greater risk of contracting the virus and infecting others? Let's hope the much promised vaccine delivers in every sense.
At a wider level, there is de facto segregation already - it shouldn't be de jure. The opportunities to integrate have to remain and indeed we should be doing more to encourage that societal mixing instead of allowing us to retreat to our echo chambers but the latter is so tempting - after all, people like people like themselves.
We have a 'risk segmented approach' in practice in that people assess their risks and incorporate this into their behaviour. For example, a fit & well 40 year old will be more relaxed about the virus than an 85 year old with a bad heart.
What do you want to change? Do you want the UK government to actually pass a law that specifically defines the groups who are most vulnerable and compels them to stay home whilst lifting restrictions on everybody else?
Starting down the road of legalised risk segmentation is a very dangerous path in a free society however dismissive some are and however well-intentioned others may be.
We cannot operate by the "tyranny of the healthy" or the "tyranny of the unhealthy". Many organisations (mine included) have a multi-generational workforce and the interaction between those aged 17 and 70 is often positive for both sides.
Those who work in firms dominated by one age group may not appreciate the advantages that brings but they are considerable.
The other aspect is employers will in time stop hiring older people as too much of a risk and bring younger people back into the workforce. For now the young are cheap and easy to let go to cut costs but would you want the risk of employing an older person who is at greater risk of contracting the virus and infecting others? Let's hope the much promised vaccine delivers in every sense.
At a wider level, there is de facto segregation already - it shouldn't be de jure. The opportunities to integrate have to remain and indeed we should be doing more to encourage that societal mixing instead of allowing us to retreat to our echo chambers but the latter is so tempting - after all, people like people like themselves.
One point - not sure the old are really more at risk of contracting/infecting. Depends on their behaviour, as well as biomedical factors.
Young people are taking the hit wet unemployment from the data release today. They can't party, they're losing their jobs and they're in for 20 years of higher taxes to pay all of this off. Once again, the old have fucked over the young.
And you'd change that how?
Old and fat people lockdown, everyone else do as you please. Risk segmentation.
Don't forget the BAME people who also have a higher risk, Max. And the men.
No one except thin white women on the streets.
As you say - risk segmentation.
Or is it pandering to prejudice?
No, it's not pandering to prejudice. What a ridiculous post.
This is classic PB – take a decent, reasoned idea and reduce it to complete absurdity then use that to flame the OP. In this case, Max is the target.
There are 40 million people in England without preexisting conditions, most of whom are under 70.
A risk segmentation approach would allow those to be vigilant but largely live normal lives, whereas the other 16 million would be shielded to a greater or lesser degree depending on risk level.
This is not some sort of prejudice/apartheid but a rational approach to living with the virus proposed by scores of senior people worldwide in the medical profession.
Here's one such model from, erm, Dr David Katz, who has a fairly decent cv...
Perhaps the medical geniuses and super-shrewdies on here have a better idea than Max or Dr Katz? Go ahead. I am all ears.
We have a 'risk segmented approach' in practice in that people assess their risks and incorporate this into their behaviour. For example, a fit & well 40 year old will be more relaxed about the virus than an 85 year old with a bad heart.
What do you want to change? Do you want the UK government to actually pass a law that specifically defines the groups who are most vulnerable and compels them to stay home whilst lifting restrictions on everybody else?
The current set up in England is that everyone is subject to the same restrictions, completely regardless of the risks they are under.
That's not sensible.
The Scottish system is slightly more sensible – there, younger children, who have more chance of coming a cropper from a UFO attack than from coronavirus, are exempt.
So some sort of stratified approach is wise – the details can and should be worked out, but risk segmentation as a broad principle must be the best approach?
Makes perfect sense. But there's 2 ways it can happen -
(1) Same official rules for everyone but not actively policed. Rely on people behaving appropriate to their circumstances. So the vulnerable will in practice shield whilst the low risk will be more relaxed, often breaking the rules, which will go unenforced except for gross cases.
(2) Have the government attempt to define specific and different rules for specific and different groups of people. At one end of the spectrum tell (say) over 70s they MUST stay home whereas at the other end say to under 40s they can do whatever they want. This would imo be divisive and open up a pandora's box of grief and special pleading. There are all the medium risk and other high risk categories. What if you've got the antibodies? Can you prove it? What about obesity? Diabetes? The male v female difference? The BAME risk premium? Your job. Etc etc.
So I get the principle - I do - but I think (1) although deeply sub-optimal is the better approach.
From someone from a time when senior No 10 aides actually had a clue rather than pet projects, personal vendettas and loony tunes ideas from moonbase alpha.
I really can't see how all this will be resolved. What happened to drones with x-ray cameras monitoring the lorries between RoE and NI? Is that still a goer?
We could always try and adopt May's Deal. It's the compromise we need.
No border on the island of Ireland. No border between NI and GB. The four freedoms split so the UK can control it's border and the UK doesn't have to pay for market access.
It's better than the present mess.
Looks like the present arrangement..... assuming this new Bill passes....... is going to be a smugglers charter.
I'm being deadly serious when I say: so what?
This isn't a joke or a pirate fantasy, all possible solutions have flaws. If we enforce a hard border across the Republic/NI then we risk a return to violence. Is some smuggling worse than a return to the Troubles? I would say no, definitely not, what do you think?
On topic, and answering the comments of Philip, DavidL etc, some counter-points to Mike's arguments:
1. Comparing a mid-term to a Presidential year re turnout is risky. In 2018, yes, the suburbs came out for the Democrats but there is an argument for saying the "populist" base of Trump's vote didn't feel as fired up to vote. American elections are all about turnout and Trump's base looks more fired up - there are a lot of anti-Trump's voters on Biden's side but it also feels like a lot of "soft" support that may not turn out on the day. One example - much has been made of the surge in NC early ballot requests but so far, less than 25K have been returned and accepted, a rise of just over 2K day on day. That does feel like an electorate that is dropping everything to get Trump out of the door.
2. There have been some comments on here that Trump faces a number of obstacles, particularly the Woodward book. I can't see that myself - there have been so many allegations against him, it is hard to see another one changing too many minds. Biden, however, does face some potentially significant hurdles - how he does in the debates (yes the bar has been set low but, if he stumbles...). Maybe more of an issue is the continued BLM-violence / "mainly peaceful" protests. Monmouth have found 65% of Americans saying law and order is a major issue with Black Americans the most concerned. It's true their poll findings could be used to buttress either candidate but the BLM movement looks out of control and cops being killed runs the risk of turning the suburbs against Biden;
3. Conversely, it could be argued Trump is getting into his stride. His approval rating is at a three month high. He can point to diplomatic triumphs in the Middle East as someone who gets things done. He can also point to his desire to get America back to work;
4. There are signs the Democrats may be repeating the 2016 mistake of taking one of their core voting blocks for granted, namely the Hispanic population. There have been multiple reports of Trump taking share and / or the Democrats worried about whether enough has been done to get Hispanic support. That might be reflected in the polling not only in Florida but also in places like Nevada and Arizona (where you would expect a bigger Biden lead if Hispanic support was firm and the suburbs were swinging away from Trump).
Trump won Arizona by 3.5% in 2016. The latest 538 Arizona polling average has Biden 5.0% ahead, so a bigger swing to Biden in Arizona than nationally. Not sure how you get any evidence from that that he is losing Hispanic support there.
Isn't the Arizona swing correlated to general suburban swing ? Tucson and particularly Phoenix metro areas have 80% of the state's population. (Phoenix 66% alone). Only Nevada is more dominated by a big city I think.
You got in before me Pulpstar. If Trump is seeing the biggest swings against him in the suburbs, as is claimed, then - all other things being equal - you would expect to see Arizona having one of the largest swings against Trump of all the states. It’s not, which suggests that the Hispanic vote (another major bloc) is not as solid for the Dems as 2016.
More generally, there have been a number of articles in Democrat leading publications, as well as GOP ones, highlighting the risk to the Democrats on the Hispanic share vote.
Interesting stuff Ed, complex and worthy of further examination. I don't know the answer but I suspect it could depend on which sort Hispanics. Cuban-Americans would, I believe, be strong for Trump. That would certainly explain Florida's resistance to Biden. (I'm backing Trump to hold the State in anything but a landslide.) Mexican-Americans would be different, but they themselves wouldn't be homogeneous. It would certainly be unwise to assume they are a bloc vote.
One other point on state polling is the timely in getting new information. For example, the most recent polls from Ohio, Texas and Georgia on RCP all seem to be a couple of weeks old, and Florida a week back.
No doubt there will be more along soon, but we're always looking in the rear view mirror.
From someone from a time when senior No 10 aides actually had a clue rather than pet projects, personal vendettas and loony tunes ideas from moonbase alpha.
I really can't see how all this will be resolved. What happened to drones with x-ray cameras monitoring the lorries between RoE and NI? Is that still a goer?
We could always try and adopt May's Deal. It's the compromise we need.
No border on the island of Ireland. No border between NI and GB. The four freedoms split so the UK can control it's border and the UK doesn't have to pay for market access.
It's better than the present mess.
Looks like the present arrangement..... assuming this new Bill passes....... is going to be a smugglers charter.
I'm being deadly serious when I say: so what?
This isn't a joke or a pirate fantasy, all possible solutions have flaws. If we enforce a hard border across the Republic/NI then we risk a return to violence. Is some smuggling worse than a return to the Troubles? I would say no, definitely not, what do you think?
Philip, can you not change your name to Jack Sparrow, please? And maybe put your own picture up as your new avatar.
Seriously, mate, the smuggling gangs would be run by the gangsters on both sides of the divide. It wouldn't be all ho-ho-ho and a bottle of rum.
I wonder if the EU is trying to get the UK to commit to SPS standards for much longer than the WTO notification period of 9 months?
So Frost and Johnson are telling the truth and Barnier is threatening a full blockade. Every MP in the Commons who isn't backing the government over the IM Bill should be ashamed of themselves.
The UK reply that the UK is following EU rules is pretty self-explanatory too. If the UK diverges in the future then the EU should deal with that in the future but for now this is just them messing us around. Good on the Government for calling it out.
On topic, and answering the comments of Philip, DavidL etc, some counter-points to Mike's arguments:
1. Comparing a mid-term to a Presidential year re turnout is risky. In 2018, yes, the suburbs came out for the Democrats but there is an argument for saying the "populist" base of Trump's vote didn't feel as fired up to vote. American elections are all about turnout and Trump's base looks more fired up - there are a lot of anti-Trump's voters on Biden's side but it also feels like a lot of "soft" support that may not turn out on the day. One example - much has been made of the surge in NC early ballot requests but so far, less than 25K have been returned and accepted, a rise of just over 2K day on day. That does feel like an electorate that is dropping everything to get Trump out of the door.
2. There have been some comments on here that Trump faces a number of obstacles, particularly the Woodward book. I can't see that myself - there have been so many allegations against him, it is hard to see another one changing too many minds. Biden, however, does face some potentially significant hurdles - how he does in the debates (yes the bar has been set low but, if he stumbles...). Maybe more of an issue is the continued BLM-violence / "mainly peaceful" protests. Monmouth have found 65% of Americans saying law and order is a major issue with Black Americans the most concerned. It's true their poll findings could be used to buttress either candidate but the BLM movement looks out of control and cops being killed runs the risk of turning the suburbs against Biden;
3. Conversely, it could be argued Trump is getting into his stride. His approval rating is at a three month high. He can point to diplomatic triumphs in the Middle East as someone who gets things done. He can also point to his desire to get America back to work;
4. There are signs the Democrats may be repeating the 2016 mistake of taking one of their core voting blocks for granted, namely the Hispanic population. There have been multiple reports of Trump taking share and / or the Democrats worried about whether enough has been done to get Hispanic support. That might be reflected in the polling not only in Florida but also in places like Nevada and Arizona (where you would expect a bigger Biden lead if Hispanic support was firm and the suburbs were swinging away from Trump).
Trump won Arizona by 3.5% in 2016. The latest 538 Arizona polling average has Biden 5.0% ahead, so a bigger swing to Biden in Arizona than nationally. Not sure how you get any evidence from that that he is losing Hispanic support there.
Isn't the Arizona swing correlated to general suburban swing ? Tucson and particularly Phoenix metro areas have 80% of the state's population. (Phoenix 66% alone). Only Nevada is more dominated by a big city I think.
You got in before me Pulpstar. If Trump is seeing the biggest swings against him in the suburbs, as is claimed, then - all other things being equal - you would expect to see Arizona having one of the largest swings against Trump of all the states. It’s not, which suggests that the Hispanic vote (another major bloc) is not as solid for the Dems as 2016.
More generally, there have been a number of articles in Democrat leading publications, as well as GOP ones, highlighting the risk to the Democrats on the Hispanic share vote.
Interesting stuff Ed, complex and worthy of further examination. I don't know the answer but I suspect it could depend on which sort Hispanics. Cuban-Americans would, I believe, be strong for Trump. That would certainly explain Florida's resistance to Biden. (I'm backing Trump to hold the State in anything but a landslide.) Mexican-Americans would be different, but they themselves wouldn't be homogeneous. It would certainly be unwise to assume they are a bloc vote.
One other point on state polling is the timely in getting new information. For example, the most recent polls from Ohio, Texas and Georgia on RCP all seem to be a couple of weeks old, and Florida a week back.
No doubt there will be more along soon, but we're always looking in the rear view mirror.
True, but with so few undecideds I'm not expecting much change now. A snapshot now will probably be very close to the final result. I reckon Trump will be a point or two closer Nationally, mainly because of enthusiastic supporters and maybe some voter suppression, but Biden should make it home comfortably enough.
I wonder if the EU is trying to get the UK to commit to SPS standards for much longer than the WTO notification period of 9 months?
Brexiteers throwing their toys out of the pram because they don’t like the bureaucracy they voted for? What else is new?
The UK is fulfilling the bureaucratic requirements. We've informed the EU that we are following EU rules and have agreed to give them 9 months notice of any change to those rules as per pre-existing WTO and EU rules.
Davy is obviously extremely thick and does not have any clue on democracy. Another Tory lickspittle trying to justify the crooks.
Brussels good, Westminster bad.....Scotland sends 58 MPs to Westminster (out of 650, 9%) and sent 6 MEPs to Brussels (out of 736, 0.8%).....
Brussels would not be proscriptive and interfering in internal business budgets etc. Also as we see Ireland gets a say in what happens in EU , they don't get it force fed down their throats. Anything is better than being a colony.
Davy is obviously extremely thick and does not have any clue on democracy. Another Tory lickspittle trying to justify the crooks.
Brussels good, Westminster bad.....Scotland sends 58 MPs to Westminster (out of 650, 9%) and sent 6 MEPs to Brussels (out of 736, 0.8%).....
Brussels would not be proscriptive and interfering in internal business budgets etc. Also as we see Ireland gets a say in what happens in EU , they don't get it force fed down their throats. Anything is better than being a colony.
Doesn't the EU decide where that money goes, not the individual member state?
From someone from a time when senior No 10 aides actually had a clue rather than pet projects, personal vendettas and loony tunes ideas from moonbase alpha.
I really can't see how all this will be resolved. What happened to drones with x-ray cameras monitoring the lorries between RoE and NI? Is that still a goer?
We could always try and adopt May's Deal. It's the compromise we need.
No border on the island of Ireland. No border between NI and GB. The four freedoms split so the UK can control it's border and the UK doesn't have to pay for market access.
It's better than the present mess.
Looks like the present arrangement..... assuming this new Bill passes....... is going to be a smugglers charter.
I'm being deadly serious when I say: so what?
This isn't a joke or a pirate fantasy, all possible solutions have flaws. If we enforce a hard border across the Republic/NI then we risk a return to violence. Is some smuggling worse than a return to the Troubles? I would say no, definitely not, what do you think?
Philip, can you not change your name to Jack Sparrow, please? And maybe put your own picture up as your new avatar.
Seriously, mate, the smuggling gangs would be run by the gangsters on both sides of the divide. It wouldn't be all ho-ho-ho and a bottle of rum.
Yes exactly as already happens with those who smuggle alcohol and tobacco from France to the UK already today due to our very different duties. HMRC puts a lot of effort into cracking down on, arresting and prosecuting anyone who does that without needing a hard border to do so.
Smuggling is bad, just as all crimes and tax evasion, but a return to The Troubles is worse is it not?
I wonder if the EU is trying to get the UK to commit to SPS standards for much longer than the WTO notification period of 9 months?
Brexiteers throwing their toys out of the pram because they don’t like the bureaucracy they voted for? What else is new?
Perhaps unfair, but as soon as I saw this Crisp guy worked for the Telegraph I just dismissed his pronouncements as desperate, slavering, pro-Boris spin.
Comments
That was in the 40's. Started during the War for me, too, and we still had air-raids (Doodle-bugs).
I will leave it to others to decide whether this has had any lasting harm.
No one except thin white women on the streets.
As you say - risk segmentation.
Or is it pandering to prejudice?
Thats not including other risk factors (immunocompromised, COPD, etc)
That's more than half of the entire population. Including 40% of the under 60s.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/14/ed-miliband-revels-in-the-humiliation-of-boris-and-his-word-salad
2012: Average GOP +0.2, Actual Dem +1.2
2016: Average Dem +0.6, Actual GOP +1.1
So the Generic Congressional votes has been within a couple of points each time.
What does the generic congressional look like at the moment?
2020: Dem +5.9
So even if it is out by 2 points in GOP favour meaning the real result is +3.9 that is still good for Biden as Clinton out performed the Congressional result in 2016 and Obama outperformed the Congressional result in 2012 by several points.
If we're at that stage where companies are happy to keep people on but not at their full previous wage then it's probably a good sign that they feel there is a way back. Get rid of fire and rehire and they will fire without the rehire and it will result in more unemployment overall which is surely something everyone wants to avoid.
From someone from a time when senior No 10 aides actually had a clue rather than pet projects, personal vendettas and loony tunes ideas from moonbase alpha.
Similarly in 2016 the polling average had Trump ahead, with Clinton winning by 2.5
Man using A SNAKE 'as face covering' seen riding bus in Greater Manchester
'At first I thought he had a really funky mask on, then he let it crawl around the hand rails'.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/snake-salford-bus-swinton-manchester-18935508
Necessity is the mother of invention, if the UK walks away whole and diverges from NI then a scheme will need to be created. But until that actually happens there's no pressure to do so.
Worth repeating because it happens a lot on here.
The American polls often have huge margins of error. Taking the headline figures as being, so to speak, gospel, is inaccurate and misleading to the point of misinformation.
Case in point - the Trafalgar poll in North Carolina (some on here seem to believe Trafalgar is the only reliable pollster) showing Trump up 48-46 (the actual figures were 47.8-46.1) has a margin of error of 2.95% (go on, call it 3%, the figures are already being rounded).
With a 3% MoE, Trump could be winning 51-43 or Biden could be ahead 49-45. The MoE makes for a vast range of potential outcomes. Some of the sample sizes are tiny so the margin of error can be 4.5%.
I understand those explicitly opposed to a candidate and those explicitly supporting a candidate selectively re-tweeting headline poll numbers but that is weaponising the numbers. Publish the numbers AND the margin of error so we can assess the value of each poll.
If the UK walks away whole and diverges from Ireland.
This crock of sh*t is going to get worse before it gets better.
I can see why the EU is so reviled by the extremists - the treaties stopped their fascist tendencies. "Take Back Control" really meant "Let us be b*st*rds"....
Wish I'd watched the Ed speech live now.
This is classic PB – take a decent, reasoned idea and reduce it to complete absurdity then use that to flame the OP. In this case, Max is the target.
There are 40 million people in England without preexisting conditions, most of whom are under 70.
A risk segmentation approach would allow those to be vigilant but largely live normal lives, whereas the other 16 million would be shielded to a greater or lesser degree depending on risk level.
This is not some sort of prejudice/apartheid but a rational approach to living with the virus proposed by scores of senior people worldwide in the medical profession.
Here's one such model from, erm, Dr David Katz, who has a fairly decent cv...
https://davidkatzmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ravirs.katz_.3-22-20.pdf
Perhaps the medical geniuses and super-shrewdies on here have a better idea than Max or Dr Katz? Go ahead. I am all ears.
Have we yet had any announcements on Whip-removal; can't see anything about.
Lol, Jez on the wrong side of history again. Waspi women lose their appeal by unanimous decision.
No border on the island of Ireland. No border between NI and GB. The four freedoms split so the UK can control it's border and the UK doesn't have to pay for market access.
It's better than the present mess.
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1305812601574764549
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-09-15/u-k-budget-boris-johnson-faces-a-reckoning-over-tax
What do you want to change? Do you want the UK government to actually pass a law that specifically defines the groups who are most vulnerable and compels them to stay home whilst lifting restrictions on everybody else?
So we have the situation where the government can win a comfortable majority for any old nonsense. Even if they lose the argument, they win the vote. Perhaps the quivering confused remains of Johnson will be wheeled in and out, like a 1980's Soviet president. If he doesn't need to do anything to convince, it doesn't matter if he does nothing.
And that will keep working, and the usual suspects will keep cheering it, until it suddenly stops working. If we're lucky, we get post-Franco Spain; if we're unlucky, we get post-Soviet Russia.
That's not sensible.
The Scottish system is slightly more sensible – there, younger children, who have more chance of coming a cropper from a UFO attack than from coronavirus, are exempt.
So some sort of stratified approach is wise – the details can and should be worked out, but risk segmentation as a broad principle must be the best approach?
More generally, there have been a number of articles in Democrat leading publications, as well as GOP ones, highlighting the risk to the Democrats on the Hispanic share vote.
https://twitter.com/BBCArchive/status/1305468839665180672?s=20
I'm not saying Biden *isn't* underperforming with Latinos, but to know if he is we need actual data, not a general media vibe.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/joe-biden-florida-hispanic-voters-poll-408711
It's hard to see anything like that effect (or indeed evidence of any great shift at all) elsewhere. And notable that the Democratic campaign is throwing considerably more resources at Florida, and specifically towards Hispanic outreach.
And of course the shift in voting patterns of Florida seniors appears to be in rather the opposite direction.
If they do then the Protocol should be rendered pretty meaningless - if we have a zero tariff treaty then collecting customs becomes moot and if the Joint Committee does its job then there should be little that needs checking.
But if the EU continues to weaponise NI, fails to operate in good faith with the Protocol so that the Joint Committee doesn't reach decisions etc, etc, etc then yes absolutely I would serve notice that we are disapplying the entire Protocol.
We cannot operate by the "tyranny of the healthy" or the "tyranny of the unhealthy". Many organisations (mine included) have a multi-generational workforce and the interaction between those aged 17 and 70 is often positive for both sides.
Those who work in firms dominated by one age group may not appreciate the advantages that brings but they are considerable.
The other aspect is employers will in time stop hiring older people as too much of a risk and bring younger people back into the workforce. For now the young are cheap and easy to let go to cut costs but would you want the risk of employing an older person who is at greater risk of contracting the virus and infecting others? Let's hope the much promised vaccine delivers in every sense.
At a wider level, there is de facto segregation already - it shouldn't be de jure. The opportunities to integrate have to remain and indeed we should be doing more to encourage that societal mixing instead of allowing us to retreat to our echo chambers but the latter is so tempting - after all, people like people like themselves.
Testin
(1) Same official rules for everyone but not actively policed. Rely on people behaving appropriate to their circumstances. So the vulnerable will in practice shield whilst the low risk will be more relaxed, often breaking the rules, which will go unenforced except for gross cases.
(2) Have the government attempt to define specific and different rules for specific and different groups of people. At one end of the spectrum tell (say) over 70s they MUST stay home whereas at the other end say to under 40s they can do whatever they want. This would imo be divisive and open up a pandora's box of grief and special pleading. There are all the medium risk and other high risk categories. What if you've got the antibodies? Can you prove it? What about obesity? Diabetes? The male v female difference? The BAME risk premium? Your job. Etc etc.
So I get the principle - I do - but I think (1) although deeply sub-optimal is the better approach.
This isn't a joke or a pirate fantasy, all possible solutions have flaws. If we enforce a hard border across the Republic/NI then we risk a return to violence. Is some smuggling worse than a return to the Troubles? I would say no, definitely not, what do you think?
With the Women Against State Pension Equality losing their court case too the courts are having a good day today.
https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1305821913177100291?s=20
I wonder if the EU is trying to get the UK to commit to SPS standards for much longer than the WTO notification period of 9 months?
For example, the most recent polls from Ohio, Texas and Georgia on RCP all seem to be a couple of weeks old, and Florida a week back.
No doubt there will be more along soon, but we're always looking in the rear view mirror.
Seriously, mate, the smuggling gangs would be run by the gangsters on both sides of the divide. It wouldn't be all ho-ho-ho and a bottle of rum.
The UK reply that the UK is following EU rules is pretty self-explanatory too. If the UK diverges in the future then the EU should deal with that in the future but for now this is just them messing us around. Good on the Government for calling it out.
Smuggling is bad, just as all crimes and tax evasion, but a return to The Troubles is worse is it not?
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1305827498945581056?s=20