They both do the Thai wai at the end. The clasped praying hands and brief head bow.
We should all adopt this. It’s gracious, elegant and easy. Handshakes are gone forever. And the elbow bumps are a bit silly and awkward.
Strongly strongly agree. The elbow bump is embarrassing and it still involves contact. The "Cliff Richard" is vastly better. Also it gets round the "shake or kiss?" dilemma when it comes to females that I find so paralyzing that I start to fret about it days before I'm due to meet one.
You have several days' notice of meeting a female?
Perhaps he's a member of the same sect as Pence ?
Don't worry, if the Trump succumbs to the pox then under President Pence you won't need to worry about this. The womenfolk will be kept in their own home suckling babies and cooking apple pie.
That is why Pence is so dangerous. He has beliefs he might act on and AFAICS they are not exactly modern.
Without doubt Pence is a nasty piece of work, but at least he is likely to conform to political etiquettes.
Carole being schooled by YouGov now? She really needs to put down twitter for a bit.
They're making an assumption though, aren't they? Initially Matt Singh compared party polling, to Cadwalladr mentioning Boris' popularity. Now YouGov are comparing party popularity to Boris' popularity.
There's a good chance YouGov are right, but if they only have one data point for Boris between mid March and mid May, then it's still an assumption. The big story at the start of lockdown was Rishi announcing huge amounts of spending - how do they know he wasn't driving the Tory increase, while Boris was still missing?
If you look at 10th May, Boris is still on +22%, while the govt approval is down to 7% - You could easily ask why he's so much more popular than the govt in the weeks after his illness?
Pollsters spend most of their time (reasonably) telling us not to read too much into things, or adding caveats to their data, so I still think Matt Singh and YouGov's response to this is far too dismissive.
The leadership approval ratings tell the same story. A surge at the end of March, not during April:
YouGov have just backtracked as they do have more data, and it shows that Boris popularity did rise after he went into ICU. I wouldn't read too much into it, but I don't think Matt Singh comes out of this looking particularly clever.
A small blip relative to the surge seen previously, which is what Carole was alluding to.
12% is a surge and 6% is a blip?
Given that this thread started with someone mocking Cadwalladr for a half-hearted backtrack, it's a little ironic.
Matt Singh was wrong to tweet about party ratings and party favourability when Cadwalladr mentioned Boris' popularity. He said Boris' ICU admission had no discernible effect on the "polls", which is true, as he tweeted a pic of party election polling, but for a polling expert to make that kind of mix up is very poor. I think he should apologise.
The Honda F1 story - if big manufacturers don't want to come flooding back into the sport (i.e. Toyota, Peugeot, Ford) then F1 needs to copy Indycar and have OEM engine manufacturers. Mercedes reportedly selling up having done all there is to be done - so there's one. Renault and/or Ferrari as engine suppliers on free availability has to be the way forward.
They should just adopt a variant of the IndyCar rules altogether. Fuck off the OEMs apart from engines, have a control chassis and the teams just do aero. It's far more cost effective and sustainable.
They both do the Thai wai at the end. The clasped praying hands and brief head bow.
We should all adopt this. It’s gracious, elegant and easy. Handshakes are gone forever. And the elbow bumps are a bit silly and awkward.
Strongly strongly agree. The elbow bump is embarrassing and it still involves contact. The "Cliff Richard" is vastly better. Also it gets round the "shake or kiss?" dilemma when it comes to females that I find so paralyzing that I start to fret about it days before I'm due to meet one.
They both do the Thai wai at the end. The clasped praying hands and brief head bow.
We should all adopt this. It’s gracious, elegant and easy. Handshakes are gone forever. And the elbow bumps are a bit silly and awkward.
Strongly strongly agree. The elbow bump is embarrassing and it still involves contact. The "Cliff Richard" is vastly better. Also it gets round the "shake or kiss?" dilemma when it comes to females that I find so paralyzing that I start to fret about it days before I'm due to meet one.
There is a theory that the terrible French resurgence in Covid is just because the French won’t give up the social kiss - la bise.
Whereas non-kissing, non-handshaking Thailand has barely seen any Covid at all....
Mmm, I wonder. Personally I have never mastered the social kiss. My instinct is always to plant a soft one on the forehead but that has "last rites" overtones that some dislike.
So I just looked through all the presidents who died in office and it turns out that in the event that Trump succumbs to covid19, he will be the first in the history of the office to qualify for a Darwin Award.
Strongly strongly agree. The elbow bump is embarrassing and it still involves contact. The "Cliff Richard" is vastly better. Also it gets round the "shake or kiss?" dilemma when it comes to females that I find so paralyzing that I start to fret about it days before I'm due to meet one.
One of my old COs had a cast iron rule that kissing was "for whores only".
The most disparaging comment he could make about somebody was that he was the type of bloke who "kisses his Mrs".
He was a very inspirational leader and we would have all flown through the gates of hell for him.
1. The official statement is that Trump has tested positive for Sars Cov 2, i.e. the virus, not the disease Covid-19.
2. There are few people to move the needle here. If you don't like the guy and intend to vote for Biden (c48% already in the bag) this is not going to change it
3. Where it MIGHT have an effect is boosting GOP/Trump turnout which is potentially a weak spot.
The Honda F1 story - if big manufacturers don't want to come flooding back into the sport (i.e. Toyota, Peugeot, Ford) then F1 needs to copy Indycar and have OEM engine manufacturers. Mercedes reportedly selling up having done all there is to be done - so there's one. Renault and/or Ferrari as engine suppliers on free availability has to be the way forward.
They should just adopt a variant of the IndyCar rules altogether. Fuck off the OEMs apart from engines, have a control chassis and the teams just do aero. It's far more cost effective and sustainable.
Entirely agree and its been the obvious way to go for a while. Hardly anyone can afford to play in F1 and so many of the ones who do are uncompetitive. Level the playing field!
The Honda F1 story - if big manufacturers don't want to come flooding back into the sport (i.e. Toyota, Peugeot, Ford) then F1 needs to copy Indycar and have OEM engine manufacturers. Mercedes reportedly selling up having done all there is to be done - so there's one. Renault and/or Ferrari as engine suppliers on free availability has to be the way forward.
They should just adopt a variant of the IndyCar rules altogether. Fuck off the OEMs apart from engines, have a control chassis and the teams just do aero. It's far more cost effective and sustainable.
Entirely agree and its been the obvious way to go for a while. Hardly anyone can afford to play in F1 and so many of the ones who do are uncompetitive. Level the playing field!
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
Nothing wrong with a bit of government scaremongering in the scenario we had. "A bit" is important in that statemtent, it shouldnt be so much as to undermine public confidence but enough to change some behaviour to get the R closer to 1.
Strongly strongly agree. The elbow bump is embarrassing and it still involves contact. The "Cliff Richard" is vastly better. Also it gets round the "shake or kiss?" dilemma when it comes to females that I find so paralyzing that I start to fret about it days before I'm due to meet one.
One of my old COs had a cast iron rule that kissing was "for whores only".
The most disparaging comment he could make about somebody was that he was the type of bloke who "kisses his Mrs".
He was a very inspirational leader and we would have all flown through the gates of hell for him.
In spite of my earlier comment I understand (no experience on the matter) that Thai girls consider proper kissing (tongues) is normally something that only committed couples do.
The Honda F1 story - if big manufacturers don't want to come flooding back into the sport (i.e. Toyota, Peugeot, Ford) then F1 needs to copy Indycar and have OEM engine manufacturers. Mercedes reportedly selling up having done all there is to be done - so there's one. Renault and/or Ferrari as engine suppliers on free availability has to be the way forward.
They should just adopt a variant of the IndyCar rules altogether. Fuck off the OEMs apart from engines, have a control chassis and the teams just do aero. It's far more cost effective and sustainable.
Entirely agree and its been the obvious way to go for a while. Hardly anyone can afford to play in F1 and so many of the ones who do are uncompetitive. Level the playing field!
The answer to me would be to separate the drivers and manufacturers championships.
Every driver should get to drive the same number of races in each brand of car, perhaps 2 GPs per year per brand.
This solution finds the best driver and the best manufacturer, which is far more interesting than finding the best combination of driver and manufacturer.
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
Unless you're saying the new restrictions are having zero impact (which seems implausible) then wouldn't infections be going down not plateauing if Vallance was scaremongering?
That to me seems an illogical difference. The EC supremacy market is the delta between Biden EC and opponent EC.
It's perfectly logical in principle: If Biden withdraws, the Biden ECV market is voided but the Trump ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If Trump withdraws, the Trump ECV market is voided but the Biden ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If either withdraws, the Supremacy market is voided because it's the delta between two figures one of which is not considered not valid.
In practice, though, I'm not sure it's sustainable. The market is essentially about the Trump/Biden contest and only the Trump/Biden contest. The whole basis of the market would be invalid if one of them withdraws.
But that's what I mean by illogical. The supremacy is Biden EC over Trump EC. It's A = B - C. So, the basis of B and C should be the same as that of A. But so long as the rules were clear and put up in advance - as they were - then I guess a punter cannot complain. You could factor the illogicality in.
Its entirely logical.
If A = Supremacy, B = Biden and C = Trump then Biden withdrawing voids B and therefore also voids A. Trump withdrawing voids C and therefore also voids A.
Not my point. It is indeed logical that A is void if either B or C is void. The illogicality is that B is not void if C is, and C is not void if B is.
Why?
Because B = 540 - C and C = 540 - B. Thus if C changes its identity (e.g. from Trump to Pence) it is no longer the C it used to be - as confirmed by the fact it would be void. Ergo B (being 540 minus a void C) should also be void. QED.
That to me seems an illogical difference. The EC supremacy market is the delta between Biden EC and opponent EC.
It's perfectly logical in principle: If Biden withdraws, the Biden ECV market is voided but the Trump ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If Trump withdraws, the Trump ECV market is voided but the Biden ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If either withdraws, the Supremacy market is voided because it's the delta between two figures one of which is not considered not valid.
In practice, though, I'm not sure it's sustainable. The market is essentially about the Trump/Biden contest and only the Trump/Biden contest. The whole basis of the market would be invalid if one of them withdraws.
But that's what I mean by illogical. The supremacy is Biden EC over Trump EC. It's A = B - C. So, the basis of B and C should be the same as that of A. But so long as the rules were clear and put up in advance - as they were - then I guess a punter cannot complain. You could factor the illogicality in.
Its entirely logical.
If A = Supremacy, B = Biden and C = Trump then Biden withdrawing voids B and therefore also voids A. Trump withdrawing voids C and therefore also voids A.
Not my point. It is indeed logical that A is void if either B or C is void. The illogicality is that B is not void if C is, and C is not void if B is.
Why?
Because B = 540 - C and C = 540 - B. Thus if C changes its identity (e.g. from Trump to Pence) it is no longer the C it used to be - as confirmed by the fact it would be void. Ergo B (being 540 minus a void C) should also be void. QED.
You're wrong.
B is not 540 - C since voters also have the right to vote for third parties D. Electoral college votes have indeed gone to third parties in the past on more than a few occasions.
That to me seems an illogical difference. The EC supremacy market is the delta between Biden EC and opponent EC.
It's perfectly logical in principle: If Biden withdraws, the Biden ECV market is voided but the Trump ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If Trump withdraws, the Trump ECV market is voided but the Biden ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If either withdraws, the Supremacy market is voided because it's the delta between two figures one of which is not considered not valid.
In practice, though, I'm not sure it's sustainable. The market is essentially about the Trump/Biden contest and only the Trump/Biden contest. The whole basis of the market would be invalid if one of them withdraws.
But that's what I mean by illogical. The supremacy is Biden EC over Trump EC. It's A = B - C. So, the basis of B and C should be the same as that of A. But so long as the rules were clear and put up in advance - as they were - then I guess a punter cannot complain. You could factor the illogicality in.
Its entirely logical.
If A = Supremacy, B = Biden and C = Trump then Biden withdrawing voids B and therefore also voids A. Trump withdrawing voids C and therefore also voids A.
Not my point. It is indeed logical that A is void if either B or C is void. The illogicality is that B is not void if C is, and C is not void if B is.
Why?
Because B = 540 - C and C = 540 - B. Thus if C changes its identity (e.g. from Trump to Pence) it is no longer the C it used to be - as confirmed by the fact it would be void. Ergo B (being 540 minus a void C) should also be void. QED.
You're wrong.
B is not 540 - C since voters also have the right to vote for third parties D. Electoral college votes have indeed gone to third parties in the past on more than a few occasions.
That is not material to the point I am demonstrating.
In other words she acted decisively once it became clear their position was untenable?
The criticism is that she is bending to public opinion, rather than having the judgment to anticipate it.
I've always said that it's a strength to admit to and correct mistakes - but clearly it would be better not to have made the mistake in the first place.
Most people will consider that petty nit-picking in this case, given that the correction has been much faster than with Calderwood, and that it never came from Johnson over Cummings.
In other words she acted decisively once it became clear their position was untenable?
A party leader acting within a day or two of hearing an allegation is perfectly fine to the vast majority of the public. Only the highly partisan will care exactly what she knew Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday.
That to me seems an illogical difference. The EC supremacy market is the delta between Biden EC and opponent EC.
It's perfectly logical in principle: If Biden withdraws, the Biden ECV market is voided but the Trump ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If Trump withdraws, the Trump ECV market is voided but the Biden ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If either withdraws, the Supremacy market is voided because it's the delta between two figures one of which is not considered not valid.
In practice, though, I'm not sure it's sustainable. The market is essentially about the Trump/Biden contest and only the Trump/Biden contest. The whole basis of the market would be invalid if one of them withdraws.
But that's what I mean by illogical. The supremacy is Biden EC over Trump EC. It's A = B - C. So, the basis of B and C should be the same as that of A. But so long as the rules were clear and put up in advance - as they were - then I guess a punter cannot complain. You could factor the illogicality in.
Its entirely logical.
If A = Supremacy, B = Biden and C = Trump then Biden withdrawing voids B and therefore also voids A. Trump withdrawing voids C and therefore also voids A.
Not my point. It is indeed logical that A is void if either B or C is void. The illogicality is that B is not void if C is, and C is not void if B is.
Why?
Because B = 540 - C and C = 540 - B. Thus if C changes its identity (e.g. from Trump to Pence) it is no longer the C it used to be - as confirmed by the fact it would be void. Ergo B (being 540 minus a void C) should also be void. QED.
You're wrong.
B is not 540 - C since voters also have the right to vote for third parties D. Electoral college votes have indeed gone to third parties in the past on more than a few occasions.
That is not material to the point I am demonstrating.
Yes it is. The question is solely Biden ECVs so Trump isn't in the equation.
For every ECV the question is if it is won by Biden (you win) or A N Other (you lose).
Trump is only relevant for the Trump and Supremacy markets.
Strongly strongly agree. The elbow bump is embarrassing and it still involves contact. The "Cliff Richard" is vastly better. Also it gets round the "shake or kiss?" dilemma when it comes to females that I find so paralyzing that I start to fret about it days before I'm due to meet one.
One of my old COs had a cast iron rule that kissing was "for whores only".
The most disparaging comment he could make about somebody was that he was the type of bloke who "kisses his Mrs".
He was a very inspirational leader and we would have all flown through the gates of hell for him.
In spite of my earlier comment I understand (no experience on the matter) that Thai girls consider proper kissing (tongues) is normally something that only committed couples do.
Methinks you doth protest too much. Your knowledge of Thai girls seems genuinely deep and, dare I say, broad.
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- Infection rates surge -
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
So I just looked through all the presidents who died in office and it turns out that in the event that Trump succumbs to covid19, he will be the first in the history of the office to qualify for a Darwin Award.
The Darwin Awards only started in 1994, and no US President has died in Office since 1963. So *if* Trum does beome eligible, it is hardly Surpising that he would be the first eligible US President .
That to me seems an illogical difference. The EC supremacy market is the delta between Biden EC and opponent EC.
It's perfectly logical in principle: If Biden withdraws, the Biden ECV market is voided but the Trump ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If Trump withdraws, the Trump ECV market is voided but the Biden ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If either withdraws, the Supremacy market is voided because it's the delta between two figures one of which is not considered not valid.
In practice, though, I'm not sure it's sustainable. The market is essentially about the Trump/Biden contest and only the Trump/Biden contest. The whole basis of the market would be invalid if one of them withdraws.
But that's what I mean by illogical. The supremacy is Biden EC over Trump EC. It's A = B - C. So, the basis of B and C should be the same as that of A. But so long as the rules were clear and put up in advance - as they were - then I guess a punter cannot complain. You could factor the illogicality in.
Its entirely logical.
If A = Supremacy, B = Biden and C = Trump then Biden withdrawing voids B and therefore also voids A. Trump withdrawing voids C and therefore also voids A.
Not my point. It is indeed logical that A is void if either B or C is void. The illogicality is that B is not void if C is, and C is not void if B is.
Why?
Because B = 540 - C and C = 540 - B. Thus if C changes its identity (e.g. from Trump to Pence) it is no longer the C it used to be - as confirmed by the fact it would be void. Ergo B (being 540 minus a void C) should also be void. QED.
You're wrong.
B is not 540 - C since voters also have the right to vote for third parties D. Electoral college votes have indeed gone to third parties in the past on more than a few occasions.
That is not material to the point I am demonstrating.
Yes it is. The question is solely Biden ECVs so Trump isn't in the equation.
For every ECV the question is if it is won by Biden (you win) or A N Other (you lose).
Trump is only relevant for the Trump and Supremacy markets.
Think deeper. It is B vs C for EC votes. So when assessing how many of the 540 available B will win you assess the chances of B against C. It has no meaning in isolation. What C is defines and affects what B is. For example, if C is Superman, you get one answer for B's chances, and if C is Clark Kent, you get another. Thus if B or C is void, so in logic should the other one be. QED.
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- Infection rates surge -
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Hmm.
You don't believe in cause and effect, do you? I always thought of you as one of the more sensible ones.
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- Infection rates surge -
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Hmm.
You don't believe in cause and effect, do you? I always thought of you as one of the more sensible ones.
There might be the possibility of a hint of a smidgeon of sarcasm/reductio ad absurdum there.
Off topic. Does anyone know what the impact of the eventual take over of William Hill will be ? My son in law works in their IT department in Leeds.
iirc it has been suggested the Americans only want the American bit and the UK-based bookmaker will be sold off. Betfred already owns a stake. But I've not been following the saga and your son-in-law is doubtless better informed than me.
Comments
Keep on rockin' in the free world!
Given that this thread started with someone mocking Cadwalladr for a half-hearted backtrack, it's a little ironic.
Matt Singh was wrong to tweet about party ratings and party favourability when Cadwalladr mentioned Boris' popularity. He said Boris' ICU admission had no discernible effect on the "polls", which is true, as he tweeted a pic of party election polling, but for a polling expert to make that kind of mix up is very poor. I think he should apologise.
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
The most disparaging comment he could make about somebody was that he was the type of bloke who "kisses his Mrs".
He was a very inspirational leader and we would have all flown through the gates of hell for him.
2. There are few people to move the needle here. If you don't like the guy and intend to vote for Biden (c48% already in the bag) this is not going to change it
3. Where it MIGHT have an effect is boosting GOP/Trump turnout which is potentially a weak spot.
Every driver should get to drive the same number of races in each brand of car, perhaps 2 GPs per year per brand.
This solution finds the best driver and the best manufacturer, which is far more interesting than finding the best combination of driver and manufacturer.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1311991855131897856
Why?
Because B = 540 - C and C = 540 - B. Thus if C changes its identity (e.g. from Trump to Pence) it is no longer the C it used to be - as confirmed by the fact it would be void. Ergo B (being 540 minus a void C) should also be void. QED.
B is not 540 - C since voters also have the right to vote for third parties D. Electoral college votes have indeed gone to third parties in the past on more than a few occasions.
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1311993397385797632
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1311993719047020545
I've always said that it's a strength to admit to and correct mistakes - but clearly it would be better not to have made the mistake in the first place.
Most people will consider that petty nit-picking in this case, given that the correction has been much faster than with Calderwood, and that it never came from Johnson over Cummings.
For every ECV the question is if it is won by Biden (you win) or A N Other (you lose).
Trump is only relevant for the Trump and Supremacy markets.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Hmm.