A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Yes you are. Economists call it deadweight welfare loss.
Plus of course during the middle of a pandemic and the greatest economic shock in three centuries with inflation on the floor borrowing or QE is a viable alternative.
I agree that tax messes with complete free market equilibrium such that there are transactions that would happen in the absence of the tax don't happen with it, and the welfare gain that would have occurred from those transactions is "deadweight loss".
But that IN NO WAY equates to "Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy" which is what the discussion is about. That comment is, on its face, just wrong - unless the assumption is that the pound isn't then spent (which is a pretty weird assumption).
Government spending is hugely inefficient. It’s a drag on the economy in general, and only benefits those lucky people employed by it - people who could otherwise be employed doing something economically productive with their lives.
The scales have fallen from my eyes, and I now realise how all those soldiers, nurses, firemen and primary school teachers have been f***ing me, a lawyer, over all these years. What a bunch of bastards they are.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Surely that depends on what the tax is spent on?
I'd argue that every pound cut from public spending is a pound removed from circulation.
Government spending is some of the most inefficient use of money that exists. Letting people choose how to spend their money is much more productive for the economy than collecting taxes, routing it through an expensive bureaucracy and giving some of it back out again. That expensive bureaucracy is only productive for the people working in it, not for the economy as a whole.
Not true if the government provides services or public goods that are supplied at a socially suboptimal level in the private sector equilibrium. And is the public sector really so much less efficient than the private? My experience of the US private healthcare system was of a vast and absurdly inefficient bureaucracy built up around the insurance industry. I remember sending cheques for copays where the stamp cost more than the copay. And when I went to university I got in to the same place and got the same degree as kids whose private education had been far more expensive than my state school. Again, hardly suggestive that government was so much less efficient.
The biggest hole in the Betfair rules is that they don't say what happens if no candidate has a majority in "projected" EC votes but then when electors actually vote there is a majority, and thus the 12th amendment is not invoked. They'd either have to come up with a peculiar definition of "projected" or else void the whole market. The former is unlikely if it all depends on "faithless" electors, because they have specifically said that "faithless" electors won't affect how they settle the market. One could ask the amusing question, "What if it's projected that some electors will vote faithlessly?"
They’re specifically ignoring the actual EC vote, and going purely by how the electors from each State *should* vote, based only on the certified result of the vote in each State.
Given everything that’s happened so far in 2020, watching the actual EC vote be decided by faithless electors wouldn’t be surprising at this point!
But "should" an elector vote for a candidate whom they were elected to vote for but whom they know is dead, and who may have died even before 3 November? Are they "projected" to do that? Arguably, yes. But also arguably, no, especially if the relevant party has now said (if it's Trump for example) that a vote for Trump is a vote for Pence (and also going by common sense, because no dead person, even Jeremy Bentham at UCL, can hold proper office).
A helpful explainer on deadweight welfare loss in relation to taxes. It is not true to say that the ratio of tax revenue raised to dwl is innately 1:1.
The biggest hole in the Betfair rules is that they don't say what happens if no candidate has a majority in "projected" EC votes but then when electors actually vote there is a majority, and thus the 12th amendment is not invoked. They'd either have to come up with a peculiar definition of "projected" or else void the whole market. The former is unlikely if it all depends on "faithless" electors, because they have specifically said that "faithless" electors won't affect how they settle the market. One could ask the amusing question, "What if it's projected that some electors will vote faithlessly?"
They’re specifically ignoring the actual EC vote, and going purely by how the electors from each State *should* vote, based only on the certified result of the vote in each State.
Given everything that’s happened so far in 2020, watching the actual EC vote be decided by faithless electors wouldn’t be surprising at this point!
But "should" an elector vote for a candidate whom they were elected to vote for but whom they know is dead, and who may have died even before 3 November? Are they "projected" to do that? Arguably, yes. But also arguably, no, especially if the relevant party has now said (if it's Trump for example) that a vote for Trump is a vote for Pence (and also going by common sense, because no dead person, even Jeremy Bentham at UCL, can hold proper office).
I get your point on the tie-breaker lacuna, but you're wrong on this. It would ultimately be a court matter, but I'd be incredibly surprised if a court didn't say a pledged EC voter was "projected". Just because you can argue the toss over it really doesn't mean it'd fly legally.
A helpful explainer on deadweight welfare loss in relation to taxes. It is not true to say that the ratio of tax revenue raised to dwl is innately 1:1.
Re: the "deadweight" bureaucratic loss on welfare payments. Surely it matters here though whether we are talking about taxes being spent to support the establishment of new welfare benefits with new bureaucratic procedures. Where it is used to simply increase an existing benefit with an existing bureaucratic regime, the impact is far more efficient and beneficial, as (in principle) there is no additional bureaucracy needed to administer the changes. It is all a marginal gain.
If the Government chooses to increase the state pension on April 1st by 5% instead of 2.5% then there are no additional bureaucratic costs for the former over the latter. If the additional cost is, say, £5billion (this could be out by many orders of magnitude it doesn't matter) and the government raises taxes by £5 billion to pay for it, then the only "seepage" will be the loss in additional costs of collecting the tax - there will be little or no seepage in the spending of it?
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Yes you are. Economists call it deadweight welfare loss.
Plus of course during the middle of a pandemic and the greatest economic shock in three centuries with inflation on the floor borrowing or QE is a viable alternative.
I agree that tax messes with complete free market equilibrium such that there are transactions that would happen in the absence of the tax don't happen with it, and the welfare gain that would have occurred from those transactions is "deadweight loss".
But that IN NO WAY equates to "Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy" which is what the discussion is about. That comment is, on its face, just wrong - unless the assumption is that the pound isn't then spent (which is a pretty weird assumption).
Government spending is hugely inefficient. It’s a drag on the economy in general, and only benefits those lucky people employed by it - people who could otherwise be employed doing something economically productive with their lives.
The scales have fallen from my eyes, and I now realise how all those soldiers, nurses, firemen and primary school teachers have been f***ing me, a lawyer, over all these years. What a bunch of bastards they are.
Well i suppose it's an improvement on the line that anyone employed in the public sector is a complete waster who couldn't get a job in the private sector even if they wanted to.
The biggest hole in the Betfair rules is that they don't say what happens if no candidate has a majority in "projected" EC votes but then when electors actually vote there is a majority, and thus the 12th amendment is not invoked. They'd either have to come up with a peculiar definition of "projected" or else void the whole market. The former is unlikely if it all depends on "faithless" electors, because they have specifically said that "faithless" electors won't affect how they settle the market. One could ask the amusing question, "What if it's projected that some electors will vote faithlessly?"
That is an interesting point. Yes, I think they'd have to void the market if, say, the result was 269-269 so nobody had majority of Electoral College votes but one of Biden's pledged electors flipped and put Trump in. The 12th amendment wouldn't then have been invoked, so the tie breaker rules wouldn't have broken the tie.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Surely that depends on what the tax is spent on?
I'd argue that every pound cut from public spending is a pound removed from circulation.
Government spending is some of the most inefficient use of money that exists. Letting people choose how to spend their money is much more productive for the economy than collecting taxes, routing it through an expensive bureaucracy and giving some of it back out again. That expensive bureaucracy is only productive for the people working in it, not for the economy as a whole.
Not true if the government provides services or public goods that are supplied at a socially suboptimal level in the private sector equilibrium. And is the public sector really so much less efficient than the private? My experience of the US private healthcare system was of a vast and absurdly inefficient bureaucracy built up around the insurance industry. I remember sending cheques for copays where the stamp cost more than the copay. And when I went to university I got in to the same place and got the same degree as kids whose private education had been far more expensive than my state school. Again, hardly suggestive that government was so much less efficient.
There is of course a minimum that government has to do in an functioning economy, such as defence and ensuring that people don’t fall through a hole in society. There are also services that can really only be delivered by government such as large infrastructure projects.
You won’t find a positive word from me about the US healthcare system, it’s a total shambles of regulatory capture and lobbying, designed to benefit insurance companies and lawyers. The public sector US healthcare system (Medicare and Medicaid) spends more per capita than most European countries do in total.
The biggest hole in the Betfair rules is that they don't say what happens if no candidate has a majority in "projected" EC votes but then when electors actually vote there is a majority, and thus the 12th amendment is not invoked. They'd either have to come up with a peculiar definition of "projected" or else void the whole market. The former is unlikely if it all depends on "faithless" electors, because they have specifically said that "faithless" electors won't affect how they settle the market. One could ask the amusing question, "What if it's projected that some electors will vote faithlessly?"
They’re specifically ignoring the actual EC vote, and going purely by how the electors from each State *should* vote, based only on the certified result of the vote in each State.
Given everything that’s happened so far in 2020, watching the actual EC vote be decided by faithless electors wouldn’t be surprising at this point!
But "should" an elector vote for a candidate whom they were elected to vote for but whom they know is dead, and who may have died even before 3 November? Are they "projected" to do that? Arguably, yes. But also arguably, no, especially if the relevant party has now said (if it's Trump for example) that a vote for Trump is a vote for Pence (and also going by common sense, because no dead person, even Jeremy Bentham at UCL, can hold proper office).
What Betfair are doing, is deliberately removing their £100m market from any electoral shenanigans that might take place in the real world, such as faithless electors swinging the result one way or the other. There have already been rumours suggesting that certain state governors might deliberately appoint electors they know to be faithless.
Whether Betfair would settle for Trump or for Pence, if Trump withdraws or dies before the results are ratified, is a question that appears ambiguous in their market rules and needs to be asked of Betfair directly.
The reply from any politician should be for them to check the government or LA website. That might just put a stop to the endless attempts at gotcha moment like these.
Can't you say that for ANY question a Government minister is asked? If they are on to speak about housing policy and are asked why they are proposing to relax various planning rules, they could in theory say "if you want to know that, it's all in the consultation document". But then what's the point of having them there?
The PM and his ministers should - particularly at a time like this - be on a mission to inform the public. Saying "look at the website" isn't informing anyone and is a total waste of everyone's time.
And these aren't "gotcha" moments in the sense of being mean tricks. If the people responsible for setting the rules don't know them and can't explain them, then how in holy hell are the rest of us meant to? It's like going into an exam, and then saying the fact it contains some questions is a "gotcha" moment - no, it's just checking you've done your prep.
I'm of the view that asking the question is a waste of everyone's time, since the interviewer already knows the answer. The whole point of asking it is to try and trip up the interviewee, so they can get a story about how an incompetent minister doesn't know anything. It doesn't exactly help further the public health message, does it?
In an ideal world the minister responsible would be able to answer every single question on the spot about their specific area, but unfortunately ministers have a finite amount of time to read and be briefed on everything. Do you really expect that ministers should be able to recite from memory every single restriction and piece of advice to all different groups of people? I'd rather they focus on sorting out the bigger problems than spending hours in exam prep in case they get asked one of these questions.
It reminds me of the 1983 GE campaign when I was the late Lord Wyn Roberts driver and when discussing various issues, including the Falklands conflict, that he really only had knowledge of his brief and on some occasions asked me to answer some constituents questions.
On a personal note he was the most wonderful and generous politician and to see the constituents in council estates display his poster in most of of their homes and come out to great him was amazing
My reading of the betfair rules is that Trump is winner even if he has died before election day.
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market."
Pence may actually become President, but Trump is the candidate.
The market is entitled: "Who will be elected to be the next President of the United States of America as a result of the 2020 presidential election?"
Surely this cannot be settled as Trump even though he had died?
If your interpretation is the case the market in play now would not have any other possible outcomes other than Biden and Trump.
BF rules also say, in event of a EC draw, "this market will be settled on the person chosen as President". If a draw they would not choose a dead person. So this reinforces my belief that your interpretation cannot be correct.
Right at the bottom their rules it says: " If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules" Im not sure how helpful or not this sentence is.
Any other views on this?
Your first bit on the "in the event of a draw" bit is parahrasing which slightly misses the key point. In fact, the first bit of the paragraph says:
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market."
So if the Trump/Pence slate wins most "projected" Electoral College votes at the election, BF pays out on Trump whatever the medical situation.
If, when the Electoral College meet, they chose someone other than Trump (the example of faithless electors is used, but following "such as" so it'd cover where Trump was no longer available for the gig) it doesn't matter - they pay out on Trump. The winner of most "projected" votes won't be President, but that doesn't matter under the terms.
It's only where it is a 269/269 draw* that the tie-breaker comes into play, and "In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution." It is only in that incrediby limited situation that Pence (and possibly other people) come into play, even if Pence were to become President tomorrow for unfortunate reasons, and remain it due to the Trump/Pence ticket winning in November.
* technically, it comes into play if both tickets fall short of 270, even if one has more EVs than the other, perhaps due to failure of a state to validate due to fraud (unlikely - though there could be court cases), or a third party candidate winning a state (no real chance of that).
I don't think your third paragraph follows from your second.
It is unlikely that Trump will die but it is quite likely that he will withdraw from the race and that the Republican candidate will become Pence. If Pence is "the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election", Betfair will pay up on Pence according to their rules.
I'm extremely doubtful about the phrase ' it is quite likely that he (Trump) will withdraw from the race'. On the contrary, I think even his recovery is not as 'good' as Johnson's I suspect (fear?) he'll be back, boasting of his 'strength'.
I'm hating this development. It has thrown a dollop of ??? into an outcome - Trump loss on 3/11 - that was almost done and we now have the spread markets suspended for god knows how long since they will (understandably) not price up the probability profile of Covid-19 progression in this particular 74 year old obese but tee total and smoke free male. I personally do not think Donald Trump will be withdrawing unless he dies (and even then he might refuse) and that is good because we want - we need - to hear the democratic verdict on him and his toxic, aberrational presidency. What is (potentially) not so great is the prospect of him remaining mildly to moderately unwell and milking the situation for all it's worth. We see this happening already with the palpable bollox of the dramatic helicopter trip to hospital and the sickly "love you dad" and "such a warrior" tweets from the motley clan. The ultimate reality TV star has been presented with the ultimate reality TV opportunity. He has all the spotlight now - with the election just around the corner. It is suddenly "bad taste" and "inappropriate" to make the personal attacks that were landing with real impact. Instead of yet more Big Bad Freewheeling Trump - "the Donald" - between now and polling day, the blustering bombastic shtick that has no chance of turning things around for him, we might well get a forced change of tone and messaging, something with a touch of vulnerability, some feigned empathy even, phony as hell but there could just be sufficient sympathy from a sufficient number of simple-minded, uncommitted voters to make a difference. I hope not - I think not - but I do have a slightly queasy feeling about it.
It's early days. Bear in mind that medical capacity to do the job is front and centre in the election, largely because Trump put it there. If I were Biden I would be seeding the press with horror stories about Long Covid.
Yes this could go the other way and render him even more unelectable. I'm only a teeny bit worried (from being not worried at all). I probably think about this election more than most people even on here. Unlike GE19 I have my betting and politics aligned. I want Trump out with a passion AND I have a pretty chunky spread bet on it happening. It's all or nothing.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Because it filters through 17 different levels of bureaucracy and your extra £1000 in tax gives a direct benefit of just £500 worth of spending in the economy. Benefits are the classic case study for this.
But money can’t be destroyed someone ends up with it and it eventually gets spent but maybe not in the UK, as demonstrated by so many of the super rich
No but the other £500 ends up being split across 200 different people meaning no real benefit to the economy is seen by it. It is in essence, gone.
Er, the 250 people with £2.50 extra just throw it in the bin instead of spending it?
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Because it filters through 17 different levels of bureaucracy and your extra £1000 in tax gives a direct benefit of just £500 worth of spending in the economy. Benefits are the classic case study for this.
But money can’t be destroyed someone ends up with it and it eventually gets spent but maybe not in the UK, as demonstrated by so many of the super rich
No but the other £500 ends up being split across 200 different people meaning no real benefit to the economy is seen by it. It is in essence, gone.
Er, the 250 people with £2.50 extra just throw it in the bin instead of spending it?
My reading of the betfair rules is that Trump is winner even if he has died before election day.
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market."
Pence may actually become President, but Trump is the candidate.
The market is entitled: "Who will be elected to be the next President of the United States of America as a result of the 2020 presidential election?"
Surely this cannot be settled as Trump even though he had died?
If your interpretation is the case the market in play now would not have any other possible outcomes other than Biden and Trump.
BF rules also say, in event of a EC draw, "this market will be settled on the person chosen as President". If a draw they would not choose a dead person. So this reinforces my belief that your interpretation cannot be correct.
Right at the bottom their rules it says: " If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules" Im not sure how helpful or not this sentence is.
Any other views on this?
Your first bit on the "in the event of a draw" bit is parahrasing which slightly misses the key point. In fact, the first bit of the paragraph says:
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market."
So if the Trump/Pence slate wins most "projected" Electoral College votes at the election, BF pays out on Trump whatever the medical situation.
If, when the Electoral College meet, they chose someone other than Trump (the example of faithless electors is used, but following "such as" so it'd cover where Trump was no longer available for the gig) it doesn't matter - they pay out on Trump. The winner of most "projected" votes won't be President, but that doesn't matter under the terms.
It's only where it is a 269/269 draw* that the tie-breaker comes into play, and "In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution." It is only in that incrediby limited situation that Pence (and possibly other people) come into play, even if Pence were to become President tomorrow for unfortunate reasons, and remain it due to the Trump/Pence ticket winning in November.
* technically, it comes into play if both tickets fall short of 270, even if one has more EVs than the other, perhaps due to failure of a state to validate due to fraud (unlikely - though there could be court cases), or a third party candidate winning a state (no real chance of that).
I don't think your third paragraph follows from your second.
It is unlikely that Trump will die but it is quite likely that he will withdraw from the race and that the Republican candidate will become Pence. If Pence is "the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election", Betfair will pay up on Pence according to their rules.
I'm extremely doubtful about the phrase ' it is quite likely that he (Trump) will withdraw from the race'. On the contrary, I think even his recovery is not as 'good' as Johnson's I suspect (fear?) he'll be back, boasting of his 'strength'.
I'm hating this development. It has thrown a dollop of ??? into an outcome - Trump loss on 3/11 - that was almost done and we now have the spread markets suspended for god knows how long since they will (understandably) not price up the probability profile of Covid-19 progression in this particular 74 year old obese but tee total and smoke free male. I personally do not think Donald Trump will be withdrawing unless he dies (and even then he might refuse) and that is good because we want - we need - to hear the democratic verdict on him and his toxic, aberrational presidency. What is (potentially) not so great is the prospect of him remaining mildly to moderately unwell and milking the situation for all it's worth. We see this happening already with the palpable bollox of the dramatic helicopter trip to hospital and the sickly "love you dad" and "such a warrior" tweets from the motley clan. The ultimate reality TV star has been presented with the ultimate reality TV opportunity. He has all the spotlight now - with the election just around the corner. It is suddenly "bad taste" and "inappropriate" to make the personal attacks that were landing with real impact. Instead of yet more Big Bad Freewheeling Trump - "the Donald" - between now and polling day, the blustering bombastic shtick that has no chance of turning things around for him, we might well get a forced change of tone and messaging, something with a touch of vulnerability, some feigned empathy even, phony as hell but there could just be sufficient sympathy from a sufficient number of simple-minded, uncommitted voters to make a difference. I hope not - I think not - but I do have a slightly queasy feeling about it.
It's early days. Bear in mind that medical capacity to do the job is front and centre in the election, largely because Trump put it there. If I were Biden I would be seeding the press with horror stories about Long Covid.
Yes this could go the other way and render him even more unelectable. I'm only a teeny bit worried (from being not worried at all). I probably think about this election more than most people even on here. Unlike GE19 I have my betting and politics aligned. I want Trump out with a passion AND I have a pretty chunky spread bet on it happening. It's all or nothing.
I cannot see Trump being in a position to campaign and hope that his powers are delegated to Pence
However, in such a litigious society I would not like to predict who the next US president will be, but it will not be Trump
Funny to read that Trump is being treated with Remdesivir and not Hydroxychloroquine.
Almost as if actual medicine and not snake oil is what he's interested in for himself.
Not his choice, is it?
Why isn't it his choice? He's the paying customer and can choose not to follow the doctor's advice if he wants to.
He couldn't, obviously, take anything illegal. But he can have his unproven snake oil against advice. He just doesn't because he's a charlatan, not a moron.
I said yesterday I hope Trump gets better quickly so he can be defeated at the ballot box and not a martyr but I just had a scary thought.
Imagine if Trump does perish in hospital ... With so many believing in Q conspiracies nowadays what are the conspiracy theorists going to take from that?
I said yesterday I hope Trump gets better quickly so he can be defeated at the ballot box and not a martyr but I just had a scary thought.
Imagine if Trump does perish in hospital ... With so many believing in Q conspiracies nowadays what are the conspiracy theorists going to take from that?
I presume the QAnon nutters are always spreading something about the deep state deliberately infecting Trump to stop him being re-elected.
So Biden has to back off out of courtesy while Trump's goons continue their hatchet job regardless.
The GOP are in danger of running out of thumbs to put in the scales.
Depressingly, a lot of people will buy the "suspend the campaign" line.
Memories are so short... in the 2016, when Hillary Clinton was treated for pneumonia during the campaign, Trump not only continued his campaign but actively mocked and attacked his opponent for her physical weakness.
This has been attack CNNs line, but I take issue with this.
I am no fan of Trump, but just like when Boris was ill, there are much bigger reasons why in these extreme circumstances we the public aren't fully informed (and there are elements of smokescreen and mistruths).
They didn't over Reagan or JFK (and I don't think those administration are in anyway comparable to the Trump alternative facts lot), and we know we won't be around the Queen either. It is about stability, it is about not letting our enemies know if there is a power vacuum, etc.
I said yesterday I hope Trump gets better quickly so he can be defeated at the ballot box and not a martyr but I just had a scary thought.
Imagine if Trump does perish in hospital ... With so many believing in Q conspiracies nowadays what are the conspiracy theorists going to take from that?
They'll applaud his genius in faking his own death.
They'll be singing "There's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Donald" for decades to come.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Yes you are. Economists call it deadweight welfare loss.
Plus of course during the middle of a pandemic and the greatest economic shock in three centuries with inflation on the floor borrowing or QE is a viable alternative.
I agree that tax messes with complete free market equilibrium such that there are transactions that would happen in the absence of the tax don't happen with it, and the welfare gain that would have occurred from those transactions is "deadweight loss".
But that IN NO WAY equates to "Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy" which is what the discussion is about. That comment is, on its face, just wrong - unless the assumption is that the pound isn't then spent (which is a pretty weird assumption).
Is it not generally the case that if you tax the rich and give it to the poor they go out and spend, but if you tax the poor and give it to the rich they stay home and save. We are reminded from time to time (by @RCS, among others) that the country as a whole doesn't save enough. So, much as it grieves me to say so, squeezing the poor is the only way forward.
Daily Telegraph: "a source told CNN that Mr Trump had a fever and was "struggling to breathe"."
Well he wouldn't be going to a hospital if he just was a bit tired and sweaty. They would bring the doctors to him.
He might get seriously ill but even if not he will seek to maximize the drama. This is Donald Trump.
I am not sure. He has made this big play of being a tough guy, not scared of the virus, the idiots with the chin diapers, etc. Him being ill enough to have to be taken to hospital isn't a fake 4d chess move, as it makes him look like an idiot after spending 6 months engaging in high risk behaviour.
I said yesterday I hope Trump gets better quickly so he can be defeated at the ballot box and not a martyr but I just had a scary thought.
Imagine if Trump does perish in hospital ... With so many believing in Q conspiracies nowadays what are the conspiracy theorists going to take from that?
I presume the QAnon nutters are always spreading something about the deep state deliberately infecting Trump to stop him being re-elected.
Pretty much. They're saying the Democrats deliberately infected his microphone at the debate last week. Not sure if they're also saying they made Trump lick the microphone, but who knows.
Surely Boris should have been prepared for this. Just say, 'I'm not going to relate the regional advice as it's a fluid situation, but would urge everyone to confirm what restrictions apply to them in their particular area by visiting the website blah blah blah.' Why let the journos suck him into a pub quiz?
So Biden has to back off out of courtesy while Trump's goons continue their hatchet job regardless.
The GOP are in danger of running out of thumbs to put in the scales.
One of the amusing things over the last 48 hours or so have been the Trumpers/GOPers who have spent the last 10 months trying to tell the electorate and the media that Biden is physically and mentally unfit to be President who now argue that it is a unprincipled disgrace to argue that Trump's health makes him unfit to be President.
This has been attack CNNs line, but I take issue with this.
I am no fan of Trump, but just like when Boris was ill, there are much bigger reasons why in these extreme circumstances we the public aren't fully informed (and there are elements of smokescreen and mistruths).
They didn't over Reagan or JFK (and I don't think those administration are in anyway comparable to the Trump alternative facts lot), and we know we won't be around the Queen either. It is about stability, it is about not letting our enemies know if there is a power vacuum, etc.
There is also medical confidentiality of course too. Wasn't FDR secretly confined to a wheelchair?
Surely Boris should have been prepared for this. Just say, 'I'm not going to relate the regional advice as it's a fluid situation, but would urge everyone to confirm what restrictions apply to them in their particular area by visiting the website blah blah blah.' Why let the journos suck him into a pub quiz?
Agreed. But then people would mock him for that but yes that's what I think too.
"Following the latest media updates, the Betfair Exchange has taken the decision to suspend betting on the US election until further notice. We will continue to monitor any material developments and update the market as appropriate."
This has been attack CNNs line, but I take issue with this.
I am no fan of Trump, but just like when Boris was ill, there are much bigger reasons why in these extreme circumstances we the public aren't fully informed (and there are elements of smokescreen and mistruths).
They didn't over Reagan or JFK (and I don't think those administration are in anyway comparable to the Trump alternative facts lot), and we know we won't be around the Queen either. It is about stability, it is about not letting our enemies know if there is a power vacuum, etc.
There is also medical confidentiality of course too. Wasn't FDR secretly confined to a wheelchair?
Yes, the idiots on CNN were trying to get the head of the company who produced the antibody drug to talk about who else had been given it e.g. Had the first lady been given it. They didn't seem to get medical confidentiality lark.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Yes you are. Economists call it deadweight welfare loss.
Plus of course during the middle of a pandemic and the greatest economic shock in three centuries with inflation on the floor borrowing or QE is a viable alternative.
I agree that tax messes with complete free market equilibrium such that there are transactions that would happen in the absence of the tax don't happen with it, and the welfare gain that would have occurred from those transactions is "deadweight loss".
But that IN NO WAY equates to "Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy" which is what the discussion is about. That comment is, on its face, just wrong - unless the assumption is that the pound isn't then spent (which is a pretty weird assumption).
Is it not generally the case that if you tax the rich and give it to the poor they go out and spend, but if you tax the poor and give it to the rich they stay home and save. We are reminded from time to time (by @RCS, among others) that the country as a whole doesn't save enough. So, much as it grieves me to say so, squeezing the poor is the only way forward.
Well, at least you're clear. Perhaps "squeezing the poor is the only way forward" could be the Tories' slogan at the next election?
Surely Boris should have been prepared for this. Just say, 'I'm not going to relate the regional advice as it's a fluid situation, but would urge everyone to confirm what restrictions apply to them in their particular area by visiting the website blah blah blah.' Why let the journos suck him into a pub quiz?
I would finish that by saying, the idea of all these measures is to suppress the transition and to protect the old / vulnerable. Every member of the public should consider which actions in their lives they absolutely need to take and which could be placing themselves or a loved one at risk, and try to minimize those.
Yes he would get the "TOOOOOO CONFUSING"....what about if I am in a party of 6, but I stop to talk to another friend at 1.99m away type questions....but in reality the above is the truth and should be the public health message and I would do a New Labour type PR messaging approach which just reiterates this regardless of the question.
I said yesterday I hope Trump gets better quickly so he can be defeated at the ballot box and not a martyr but I just had a scary thought.
Imagine if Trump does perish in hospital ... With so many believing in Q conspiracies nowadays what are the conspiracy theorists going to take from that?
I presume the QAnon nutters are always spreading something about the deep state deliberately infecting Trump to stop him being re-elected.
Pretty much. They're saying the Democrats deliberately infected his microphone at the debate last week. Not sure if they're also saying they made Trump lick the microphone, but who knows.
Isn't the QAnon line that Trump is always one step ahead?
So He will have KNOWN the evil Democrats planned to infect Him in between abusing children at that pizza restaurant in DC - Podesta was there, with Hillary, Comey, and various other Enemies of the People. He therefore licked the microphone deliberately, sending a coded message to supporters via Twitter that He'd get through it "TOGETHER" (which is obviously "TO GET HER" - i.e. Hillary). So as soon as He's faked His death, the Deep State will relax and make their big mistake. Then He will come back and the Storm will really get going.
It's all very simple, and you're naive sheeple if you believe anything else.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Because it filters through 17 different levels of bureaucracy and your extra £1000 in tax gives a direct benefit of just £500 worth of spending in the economy. Benefits are the classic case study for this.
But money can’t be destroyed someone ends up with it and it eventually gets spent but maybe not in the UK, as demonstrated by so many of the super rich
I actually had someone tell e the other day that that the simplification in benefits that would result from a true UBI was a problem - because of a massive reduction in the people who spend all their time reducing and increasing various benefits for victims of the system.
Tomorrow's end to the RU season in doubt due to the pox at Sale. Sport is proving to be a spreader even without fans.
You mean that with groups of people huddled together it's possible for respiratory infections to spread? Colour me shocked.
Of course the point of sport minus fans is to manage risk not eliminate it.
Rugby Union, in particular, seems to create the perfect causes and conditions for transmission.
The big girl's blouse fifth tackle rule of Rugby League reduces the chance of Covid-19 spread, proper Rugby without the fifth tackle rule increases the chances of Covid-19 spread.
But Rugby Union players are as tough as nails and will endure, soft Rugby League players will struggle.
Daily Telegraph: "a source told CNN that Mr Trump had a fever and was "struggling to breathe"."
Well he wouldn't be going to a hospital if he just was a bit tired and sweaty. They would bring the doctors to him.
He might get seriously ill but even if not he will seek to maximize the drama. This is Donald Trump.
I am not sure. He has made this big play of being a tough guy, not scared of the virus, the idiots with the chin diapers, etc. Him being ill enough to have to be taken to hospital isn't a fake 4d chess move, as it makes him look like an idiot after spending 6 months engaging in high risk behaviour.
I'm not saying there's some deep and devious thinking at play. Just the impulse of a man addicted to the spotlight to amp it up and keep it right on him. He was, remember, behind the 8 ball and looking to splay the table. Let's see. I would not be surprised by an overstatement of his symptoms followed by an "empathetic and valiant warrior" address to the nation from hospital when he has "beaten it".
I said yesterday I hope Trump gets better quickly so he can be defeated at the ballot box and not a martyr but I just had a scary thought.
Imagine if Trump does perish in hospital ... With so many believing in Q conspiracies nowadays what are the conspiracy theorists going to take from that?
They'll applaud his genius in faking his own death.
They'll be singing "There's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Donald" for decades to come.
I mentioned Peron earlier. There is *still* a cult devoted that idiot. And Chavism in Venezuela is just Peronism IV - the sequel where all the main cast have left and CGI budget is a fiver.
Tomorrow's end to the RU season in doubt due to the pox at Sale. Sport is proving to be a spreader even without fans.
You mean that with groups of people huddled together it's possible for respiratory infections to spread? Colour me shocked.
Of course the point of sport minus fans is to manage risk not eliminate it.
Rugby Union, in particular, seems to create the perfect causes and conditions for transmission.
The big girl's blouse fifth tackle rule of Rugby League reduces the chance of Covid-19 spread, proper Rugby without the fifth tackle rule increases the chances of Covid-19 spread.
But Rugby Union players are as tough as nails and will endure, soft Rugby League players will struggle.
Haven't they scraped the scums in Rugby League to be more COVID secure (not that they were proper ones anyway)?
Funny to read that Trump is being treated with Remdesivir and not Hydroxychloroquine.
Almost as if actual medicine and not snake oil is what he's interested in for himself.
Well I assume he is being treated by an actual doctor.
Actually, President Trump's doctor is an osteopath, hence the "DO" after his name. It is quite common in America to have combined degrees in medicine and osteopathy. The most famous example here was Dr Stephen Ward in the Profumo affair. At the time, the GMC did not recognise his American medical licence so he could call himself a doctor but practise only as an osteopath. You'll thank me when this question comes up on QI.
Surely Boris should have been prepared for this. Just say, 'I'm not going to relate the regional advice as it's a fluid situation, but would urge everyone to confirm what restrictions apply to them in their particular area by visiting the website blah blah blah.' Why let the journos suck him into a pub quiz?
Or some notes?
Ideally, journalists wouldn't waste a chance to grill the PM by asking questions that they and their viewers should already know the answers too. Ideally isn't going to happen, and I can see that the "go to the website" could sound dismissive, particularly given Boris and the Govts communication style.
Just tell him the flippin' rules for the area he's speaking to 5 mins before each interview - and notes if he needs them.
Tomorrow's end to the RU season in doubt due to the pox at Sale. Sport is proving to be a spreader even without fans.
You mean that with groups of people huddled together it's possible for respiratory infections to spread? Colour me shocked.
Of course the point of sport minus fans is to manage risk not eliminate it.
Rugby Union, in particular, seems to create the perfect causes and conditions for transmission.
The big girl's blouse fifth tackle rule of Rugby League reduces the chance of Covid-19 spread, proper Rugby without the fifth tackle rule increases the chances of Covid-19 spread.
But Rugby Union players are as tough as nails and will endure, soft Rugby League players will struggle.
Haven't they scraped the scums in Rugby League to be more COVID secure (not that they were proper ones anyway)?
Pass, I don't really follow Rugby League.
I do know they are struggling financially, as much as I enjoy taking the piss out of the sport I do hope it does survive, as bona fide Northerner who worked in Leeds for six years, and has plenty of friends in Wakefield and Cas Vegas, I know how important it is to the locals.
I said yesterday I hope Trump gets better quickly so he can be defeated at the ballot box and not a martyr but I just had a scary thought.
Imagine if Trump does perish in hospital ... With so many believing in Q conspiracies nowadays what are the conspiracy theorists going to take from that?
I presume the QAnon nutters are always spreading something about the deep state deliberately infecting Trump to stop him being re-elected.
Pretty much. They're saying the Democrats deliberately infected his microphone at the debate last week. Not sure if they're also saying they made Trump lick the microphone, but who knows.
Isn't the QAnon line that Trump is always one step ahead?
So He will have KNOWN the evil Democrats planned to infect Him in between abusing children at that pizza restaurant in DC - Podesta was there, with Hillary, Comey, and various other Enemies of the People. He therefore licked the microphone deliberately, sending a coded message to supporters via Twitter that He'd get through it "TOGETHER" (which is obviously "TO GET HER" - i.e. Hillary). So as soon as He's faked His death, the Deep State will relax and make their big mistake. Then He will come back and the Storm will really get going.
It's all very simple, and you're naive sheeple if you believe anything else.
Or...
John Stonehouse faked his death to avoid imprisonment for his financial improprieties. Maybe Trump is a thrift shop John Stonehouse.
I said yesterday I hope Trump gets better quickly so he can be defeated at the ballot box and not a martyr but I just had a scary thought.
Imagine if Trump does perish in hospital ... With so many believing in Q conspiracies nowadays what are the conspiracy theorists going to take from that?
They'll applaud his genius in faking his own death.
They'll be singing "There's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Donald" for decades to come.
I mentioned Peron earlier. There is *still* a cult devoted that idiot. And Chavism in Venezuela is just Peronism IV - the sequel where all the main cast have left and CGI budget is a fiver.
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Yes you are. Economists call it deadweight welfare loss.
Plus of course during the middle of a pandemic and the greatest economic shock in three centuries with inflation on the floor borrowing or QE is a viable alternative.
I agree that tax messes with complete free market equilibrium such that there are transactions that would happen in the absence of the tax don't happen with it, and the welfare gain that would have occurred from those transactions is "deadweight loss".
But that IN NO WAY equates to "Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy" which is what the discussion is about. That comment is, on its face, just wrong - unless the assumption is that the pound isn't then spent (which is a pretty weird assumption).
Is it not generally the case that if you tax the rich and give it to the poor they go out and spend, but if you tax the poor and give it to the rich they stay home and save. We are reminded from time to time (by @RCS, among others) that the country as a whole doesn't save enough. So, much as it grieves me to say so, squeezing the poor is the only way forward.
Well, at least you're clear. Perhaps "squeezing the poor is the only way forward" could be the Tories' slogan at the next election?
It's a plausible offer. Instead of Labour's "we'll squeeze everyone richer than you" they can promise "we'll squeeze everyone poorer than you". The battle for the centre ground etc etc.
Surely Boris should have been prepared for this. Just say, 'I'm not going to relate the regional advice as it's a fluid situation, but would urge everyone to confirm what restrictions apply to them in their particular area by visiting the website blah blah blah.' Why let the journos suck him into a pub quiz?
Or some notes?
Ideally, journalists wouldn't waste a chance to grill the PM by asking questions that they and their viewers should already know the answers too. Ideally isn't going to happen, and I can see that the "go to the website" could sound dismissive, particularly given Boris and the Govts communication style.
Just tell him the flippin' rules for the area he's speaking to 5 mins before each interview - and notes if he needs them.
Quite right. Boris holding up a card a reciting what was written on it would be preferable to these attempts at busking it - it doesn't do the Covid strategy any good and makes him look hapless. Why? I thought Dom was the great communications man.
Tomorrow's end to the RU season in doubt due to the pox at Sale. Sport is proving to be a spreader even without fans.
You mean that with groups of people huddled together it's possible for respiratory infections to spread? Colour me shocked.
Of course the point of sport minus fans is to manage risk not eliminate it.
Rugby Union, in particular, seems to create the perfect causes and conditions for transmission.
The big girl's blouse fifth tackle rule of Rugby League reduces the chance of Covid-19 spread, proper Rugby without the fifth tackle rule increases the chances of Covid-19 spread.
But Rugby Union players are as tough as nails and will endure, soft Rugby League players will struggle.
Haven't they scraped the scums in Rugby League to be more COVID secure (not that they were proper ones anyway)?
Quite where experimental drugs fit in the continuum from snake oil to actual medicine is left as an exercise for the reader.
I think the any talk of snake oil / not actual medicine is being a bit overstated. It is really just a new spin on well known antibody plasma treatment (already been used in the UK) that has been about for 100+ years and this company already had similar approaches shown to work for things like Ebola.
I said yesterday I hope Trump gets better quickly so he can be defeated at the ballot box and not a martyr but I just had a scary thought.
Imagine if Trump does perish in hospital ... With so many believing in Q conspiracies nowadays what are the conspiracy theorists going to take from that?
They'll applaud his genius in faking his own death.
They'll be singing "There's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Donald" for decades to come.
I mentioned Peron earlier. There is *still* a cult devoted that idiot. And Chavism in Venezuela is just Peronism IV - the sequel where all the main cast have left and CGI budget is a fiver.
Completely agree with you. Trump will be a huge and destructive factor in politics whether he leaves the White House in January 2021, or in January 2025, or in a pine box. In a sense, that's MOST true if it's the last of those, which is a reason (as well as simply not wishing death on anyone) to hope he recovers quickly and fully.
Being deliberately provocative about it, the religious problems we have now don't stem primarily from Jesus or Mohammed themselves, but from subsequent battles among supporters to claim and cement their legacies. That's obviously far bigger in scale than this stuff, but similar pattern.
Surely Boris should have been prepared for this. Just say, 'I'm not going to relate the regional advice as it's a fluid situation, but would urge everyone to confirm what restrictions apply to them in their particular area by visiting the website blah blah blah.' Why let the journos suck him into a pub quiz?
I would finish that by saying, the idea of all these measures is to suppress the transition and to protect the old / vulnerable. Every member of the public should consider which actions in their lives they absolutely need to take and which could be placing themselves or a loved one at risk, and try to minimize those.
Yes he would get the "TOOOOOO CONFUSING"....what about if I am in a party of 6, but I stop to talk to another friend at 1.99m away type questions....but in reality the above is the truth and should be the public health message and I would do a New Labour type PR messaging approach which just reiterates this regardless of the question.
That would be fine, if they kept the laws simple, so people can easily avoid breaking the law, and left the harder to define aspects as advice. They havent done so. I think it is completely unreasonable for a government to create laws that they cannot even explain or remember regardless of their good intentions.
I said yesterday I hope Trump gets better quickly so he can be defeated at the ballot box and not a martyr but I just had a scary thought.
Imagine if Trump does perish in hospital ... With so many believing in Q conspiracies nowadays what are the conspiracy theorists going to take from that?
They will split I to two broad camps.
Those who think it is the ultimate cover story for the big taken down of Clinton and the murderous pedophile ring. Then there are those who will think the deep state has got him, a portion of those Wil turn towards violence as we saw with the proto-QAnon Pizzagate.
Someone on top of their brief (And the restrictions are a very obvious point that will come up in every interview) could have come out with
"First up people should check the website (Give out gov website) for details of local restrictions in their area. Now I'm afraid that the Wirral is I believe an area under enhanced measures, so it would be against guidance to meet with a household other than your own in a park"
"But could they do it Mr PM. Would it be illegal ?"
"There is no law against meeting in a park, but it is against guidance. And if we all follow guidance, along with the good common sense of the British people we can defeat this virus together".
"So they could meet in the park"
"Yes, but it would be against guidance if it is in an area with enhanced measures. Go to the gov website, put in your postcode and you'll get details of the guidance. Because coronavirus is a fast moving and sneaky foe we need to have pinpoint laser guided measures to defeat this nasty virus"
I said yesterday I hope Trump gets better quickly so he can be defeated at the ballot box and not a martyr but I just had a scary thought.
Imagine if Trump does perish in hospital ... With so many believing in Q conspiracies nowadays what are the conspiracy theorists going to take from that?
They'll applaud his genius in faking his own death.
They'll be singing "There's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Donald" for decades to come.
I mentioned Peron earlier. There is *still* a cult devoted that idiot. And Chavism in Venezuela is just Peronism IV - the sequel where all the main cast have left and CGI budget is a fiver.
Just been to the big Tesco in Newcastle. Absolutely rammed with zero possibility of social distancing. However mask usage probably over 99%.
Was at the City centre one on Grainger Street the other day and was impressed with the organisation. Although a 10 minutes queue in the persistent rain probably was keeping the numbers down.
"Following the latest media updates, the Betfair Exchange has taken the decision to suspend betting on the US election until further notice. We will continue to monitor any material developments and update the market as appropriate."
Yesterday Betfair emailed mean hour and a half after the market had reopened to tell me they had closed it and now reopened it
A pity as Romney being a Republican yet having voted to impeach Trump but still sending his prayers for the Trumps recovery yesterday is probably one of the few potential Presidents who might be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans at the moment.
He is also one of the most able candidates to ever have run for President, having top grades from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and an extremely successful business career before he entered politics which made him hundreds of millions of dollars as well as being a deeply moral man, a leader in the Mormon Church and married to his wife Ann for 51 years without a hint of scandal.
He is certainly the most able nominee the Republicans have had since Bush Snr, his misfortune in 2012 was to be up against Obama seeking re election, a grade A candidate, in any other year he would had a good chance to win and he is certainly more able than Trump or Biden will be for the office
Biden's 22 minute speech in Grand Rapids yesterday was awesome. On that speech alone we have clearly been sold a lie that he is nothing more than a demented old fool.
Should we be concerned though about the reports that Biden has suspended negative campaign ads, but Republicans are barrelling on full steam ahead?
The Trump campaign's argument was Biden's speech attacked the record of the administration still so they will keep running negative ads in return
I see Biden like Starmer is focusing on taxing the rich more
A Conservative economist on Radio 4, can't remember who, suggested yesterday, that QE and spending cuts have already been optimised, so to pay for the pandemic and the aftermath, tax rises are the only viable solution.
So I guess, who do we tax? The rich or the poor. You seem to be implying it should be the poor.
There’s plenty of spending still to be ‘optimised’. Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession.
Hopefully the pandemic and accompanying recession will encourage governments to think outside the box, both in terms of what they do and how they pay for it.
"Tax rises simply hold growth down on the way out of the recession".
It depends who and how you tax.
It really doesn’t. Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
Even ‘big evil foreign companies’ are mostly owned by yours and my pension funds.
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand this: Every pound taken in tax is a pound removed from circulation in the economy.
If I pay an extra £x in income tax, and that money is used to raise the minimum wage, or to pay care workers more, how is that money taken out of the economy? Those who receive that money will spend it, in the economy, won't they? They certainly won't squirrel it away in a safe haven.
Or am I missing something?
Because it filters through 17 different levels of bureaucracy and your extra £1000 in tax gives a direct benefit of just £500 worth of spending in the economy. Benefits are the classic case study for this.
But money can’t be destroyed someone ends up with it and it eventually gets spent but maybe not in the UK, as demonstrated by so many of the super rich
I actually had someone tell e the other day that that the simplification in benefits that would result from a true UBI was a problem - because of a massive reduction in the people who spend all their time reducing and increasing various benefits for victims of the system.
Yet another example of the lump of work fallacy.
Yes, that’s like accountants and lawyers not being in favour of simplifying taxes, because it gives them less work. These services are parasitic (genuine economic term) because they are pretty much compulsory and, while generating economic activity, remove the freedom of people to spend their own money as they see fit.
Daily Telegraph: "a source told CNN that Mr Trump had a fever and was "struggling to breathe"."
Well he wouldn't be going to a hospital if he just was a bit tired and sweaty. They would bring the doctors to him.
He might get seriously ill but even if not he will seek to maximize the drama. This is Donald Trump.
I am not sure. He has made this big play of being a tough guy, not scared of the virus, the idiots with the chin diapers, etc. Him being ill enough to have to be taken to hospital isn't a fake 4d chess move, as it makes him look like an idiot after spending 6 months engaging in high risk behaviour.
I'm not saying there's some deep and devious thinking at play. Just the impulse of a man addicted to the spotlight to amp it up and keep it right on him. He was, remember, behind the 8 ball and looking to splay the table. Let's see. I would not be surprised by an overstatement of his symptoms followed by an "empathetic and valiant warrior" address to the nation from hospital when he has "beaten it".
You know I disagree with you when it comes to Trump's fundamental chances in this election pre-this but I think you are right in saying this has upended the situation. I hope if he recovers but, if I was looking at this from a totally cold-eyed situation on the Democrat side, what I would not want are the extremes i.e. he recovers fully (in which case, there will not only be tales of his strength coming through but it would also encourage the evangelicals to believe it is somehow God's will and therefore encourage them to come and vote) nor his death, which runs the risk of sympathy / a clear choice between a 78 year old Biden and 61 year old Pence (let's ignore the EC rules, constitutional issues etc for now). What I would want, from that cold-eyed perspective, is he ends up something like Boris Johnson i.e. clinging on but clearly with less vigour than before and being obvious he is suffering from long-term side effects which raises the question as to whether he could continue to be President.
There is one other factor you haven't mentioned but it will come up at some point pre-election if only because people will start to put 2 and 2 together, is that what has happened with Trump will also sharpen people's minds on the possibility of a Kamala Harris Presidency. I hope and pray Biden does not have it nor get it but what was an abstract idea of Harris as President has suddenly taking on new potency. I wonder how that will impact independent / swing voters in particular (and also certain sections of the Hispanic community who are anti-socialist).
Just been to the big Tesco in Newcastle. Absolutely rammed with zero possibility of social distancing. However mask usage probably over 99%.
Was at the City centre one on Grainger Street the other day and was impressed with the organisation. Although a 10 minutes queue in the persistent rain probably was keeping the numbers down.
There hasn't been a queuing system at Kingston Park for months. 🤷♂️
Surely Boris should have been prepared for this. Just say, 'I'm not going to relate the regional advice as it's a fluid situation, but would urge everyone to confirm what restrictions apply to them in their particular area by visiting the website blah blah blah.' Why let the journos suck him into a pub quiz?
I would finish that by saying, the idea of all these measures is to suppress the transition and to protect the old / vulnerable. Every member of the public should consider which actions in their lives they absolutely need to take and which could be placing themselves or a loved one at risk, and try to minimize those.
Yes he would get the "TOOOOOO CONFUSING"....what about if I am in a party of 6, but I stop to talk to another friend at 1.99m away type questions....but in reality the above is the truth and should be the public health message and I would do a New Labour type PR messaging approach which just reiterates this regardless of the question.
That would be fine, if they kept the laws simple, so people can easily avoid breaking the law, and left the harder to define aspects as advice. They havent done so. I think it is completely unreasonable for a government to create laws that they cannot even explain or remember regardless of their good intentions.
I am long been an advocate for simple rules in place for a long period of time, not this multi-level stuff with chopping and changing. But then you get the "not fair, not fair" brigade, we only have 2 cases / 100k, we demand something different, or our region ha a special demographic we demand different rules e.g. the idiot from Middlesbrough.
"Following the latest media updates, the Betfair Exchange has taken the decision to suspend betting on the US election until further notice. We will continue to monitor any material developments and update the market as appropriate."
Yesterday Betfair emailed mean hour and a half after the market had reopened to tell me they had closed it and now reopened it
They're absolute melts. I just got off the phone to discuss what would happen with the SPIN supremacy market I'm in in the event of a candidate pullout/death (It'd be voided - this is specifically stated in the rules prior to be fair) but it was an honest conversation so I know exactly where I stand. Betdaq similiarly has a section on candidate death in the rules.
Surely Boris should have been prepared for this. Just say, 'I'm not going to relate the regional advice as it's a fluid situation, but would urge everyone to confirm what restrictions apply to them in their particular area by visiting the website blah blah blah.' Why let the journos suck him into a pub quiz?
I would finish that by saying, the idea of all these measures is to suppress the transition and to protect the old / vulnerable. Every member of the public should consider which actions in their lives they absolutely need to take and which could be placing themselves or a loved one at risk, and try to minimize those.
Yes he would get the "TOOOOOO CONFUSING"....what about if I am in a party of 6, but I stop to talk to another friend at 1.99m away type questions....but in reality the above is the truth and should be the public health message and I would do a New Labour type PR messaging approach which just reiterates this regardless of the question.
That would be fine, if they kept the laws simple, so people can easily avoid breaking the law, and left the harder to define aspects as advice. They havent done so. I think it is completely unreasonable for a government to create laws that they cannot even explain or remember regardless of their good intentions.
I am long been an advocate for simple rules in place for a long period of time, not this multi-level stuff with chopping and changing. But then you get the "not fair, not fair" brigade, we only have 2 cases / 100k, we demand something different, or our region ha a special demographic we demand different rules e.g. the idiot from Middlesbrough.
Where the rules are hard to understand for me (and for others) are what exactly is the situation if you live in an area with no restrictions but work in an area with (severe) restrictions in place.
I said yesterday I hope Trump gets better quickly so he can be defeated at the ballot box and not a martyr but I just had a scary thought.
Imagine if Trump does perish in hospital ... With so many believing in Q conspiracies nowadays what are the conspiracy theorists going to take from that?
They will split I to two broad camps.
Those who think it is the ultimate cover story for the big taken down of Clinton and the murderous pedophile ring. Then there are those who will think the deep state has got him, a portion of those Wil turn towards violence as we saw with the proto-QAnon Pizzagate.
I suppose there's no possibility a few might conclude he simply contracted a deadly virus due to recklessly taking no precautions? No, thought not.
I said yesterday I hope Trump gets better quickly so he can be defeated at the ballot box and not a martyr but I just had a scary thought.
Imagine if Trump does perish in hospital ... With so many believing in Q conspiracies nowadays what are the conspiracy theorists going to take from that?
I presume the QAnon nutters are always spreading something about the deep state deliberately infecting Trump to stop him being re-elected.
Pretty much. They're saying the Democrats deliberately infected his microphone at the debate last week. Not sure if they're also saying they made Trump lick the microphone, but who knows.
Isn't the QAnon line that Trump is always one step ahead?
So He will have KNOWN the evil Democrats planned to infect Him in between abusing children at that pizza restaurant in DC - Podesta was there, with Hillary, Comey, and various other Enemies of the People. He therefore licked the microphone deliberately, sending a coded message to supporters via Twitter that He'd get through it "TOGETHER" (which is obviously "TO GET HER" - i.e. Hillary). So as soon as He's faked His death, the Deep State will relax and make their big mistake. Then He will come back and the Storm will really get going.
It's all very simple, and you're naive sheeple if you believe anything else.
Or...
John Stonehouse faked his death to avoid imprisonment for his financial improprieties. Maybe Trump is a thrift shop John Stonehouse.
Stonehouse's leaving of his clothes (an allusion to "the emperor's new clothes") on a beach in Miami ("me & me" - a reference to Parliamentary greed) was a clear message as to what he was about to expose.
And EXACTLY 35 years later, the Parliamentary expenses scandal was uncovered.
Stonehouse's 4D chess had worked, and it is the sheeple who were proved wrong on that occassion, just as they will be by Trump.
Surely Boris should have been prepared for this. Just say, 'I'm not going to relate the regional advice as it's a fluid situation, but would urge everyone to confirm what restrictions apply to them in their particular area by visiting the website blah blah blah.' Why let the journos suck him into a pub quiz?
I would finish that by saying, the idea of all these measures is to suppress the transition and to protect the old / vulnerable. Every member of the public should consider which actions in their lives they absolutely need to take and which could be placing themselves or a loved one at risk, and try to minimize those.
Yes he would get the "TOOOOOO CONFUSING"....what about if I am in a party of 6, but I stop to talk to another friend at 1.99m away type questions....but in reality the above is the truth and should be the public health message and I would do a New Labour type PR messaging approach which just reiterates this regardless of the question.
That would be fine, if they kept the laws simple, so people can easily avoid breaking the law, and left the harder to define aspects as advice. They havent done so. I think it is completely unreasonable for a government to create laws that they cannot even explain or remember regardless of their good intentions.
I am long been an advocate for simple rules in place for a long period of time, not this multi-level stuff with chopping and changing. But then you get the "not fair, not fair" brigade, we only have 2 cases / 100k, we demand something different, or our region ha a special demographic we demand different rules e.g. the idiot from Middlesbrough.
Where the rules are hard to understand for me (and for others) are what exactly is the situation if you live in an area with no restrictions but work in an area with (severe) restrictions in place.
Particularly if you have to use public transport.
Which wouldn't be a problem is we just had nationwide rules :-)
These different levels of local lockdowns are in a similar boat to the every changing air bridges. We should just be saying no you can't go on your holibobs to Greece this summer or Italy for the winter.
I don't know what is funnier. Shagger not having a clue or the people on here defending him.
Maybe Johnson knowing nothing is just satire. Johnson always gets a free pass when satire is the explanation.
Yep. He is not judged by the same standards as others in public life. "Boris" is a brand and being clueless is an integral part of it. He has turned a bug into a feature. If he were to suddenly and fundamentally change into a serious, hard working politician on top of his brief he would lose a big chunk of his base. They would feel cheated and start feeling alienated from politics again.
"Following the latest media updates, the Betfair Exchange has taken the decision to suspend betting on the US election until further notice. We will continue to monitor any material developments and update the market as appropriate."
Yesterday Betfair emailed mean hour and a half after the market had reopened to tell me they had closed it and now reopened it
They're absolute melts. I just got off the phone to discuss what would happen with the SPIN supremacy market I'm in in the event of a candidate pullout/death (It'd be voided - this is specifically stated in the rules prior to be fair) but it was an honest conversation so I know exactly where I stand. Betdaq similiarly has a section on candidate death in the rules.
I might go to IBAS now and say given that the Betfair rules cover death then the repeated suspension of the market is causing an unfair market distortion for those of us who have factored in a candidate incapacity/death in our betting strategy from the very start.
Nietzsche's 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger' maxim hadn't met long Covid. Mind you it didn't really survive contact with his tertiary syphilis.
If ministers had to appear at the dispatch box in the House of Commons to explain and justify every decision that they made and back it up with evidence, we would have a better quality of decision-making.
Comments
It is not true to say that the ratio of tax revenue raised to dwl is innately 1:1.
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/2478/economics/deadweight-welfare-loss-of-tax/
If the Government chooses to increase the state pension on April 1st by 5% instead of 2.5% then there are no additional bureaucratic costs for the former over the latter. If the additional cost is, say, £5billion (this could be out by many orders of magnitude it doesn't matter) and the government raises taxes by £5 billion to pay for it, then the only "seepage" will be the loss in additional costs of collecting the tax - there will be little or no seepage in the spending of it?
Almost as if actual medicine and not snake oil is what he's interested in for himself.
The election will result in a tie.
You won’t find a positive word from me about the US healthcare system, it’s a total shambles of regulatory capture and lobbying, designed to benefit insurance companies and lawyers. The public sector US healthcare system (Medicare and Medicaid) spends more per capita than most European countries do in total.
Whether Betfair would settle for Trump or for Pence, if Trump withdraws or dies before the results are ratified, is a question that appears ambiguous in their market rules and needs to be asked of Betfair directly.
On a personal note he was the most wonderful and generous politician and to see the constituents in council estates display his poster in most of of their homes and come out to great him was amazing
Interesting that he now responds to interviewers' questions on Covid in the style of Father Jack.
However, in such a litigious society I would not like to predict who the next US president will be, but it will not be Trump
He couldn't, obviously, take anything illegal. But he can have his unproven snake oil against advice. He just doesn't because he's a charlatan, not a moron.
Fancy that.
Imagine if Trump does perish in hospital ... With so many believing in Q conspiracies nowadays what are the conspiracy theorists going to take from that?
Memories are so short... in the 2016, when Hillary Clinton was treated for pneumonia during the campaign, Trump not only continued his campaign but actively mocked and attacked his opponent for her physical weakness.
Thunderdome.
I am no fan of Trump, but just like when Boris was ill, there are much bigger reasons why in these extreme circumstances we the public aren't fully informed (and there are elements of smokescreen and mistruths).
They didn't over Reagan or JFK (and I don't think those administration are in anyway comparable to the Trump alternative facts lot), and we know we won't be around the Queen either. It is about stability, it is about not letting our enemies know if there is a power vacuum, etc.
They'll be singing "There's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Donald" for decades to come.
Sport is proving to be a spreader even without fans.
Of course the point of sport minus fans is to manage risk not eliminate it.
Wasn't FDR secretly confined to a wheelchair?
"Following the latest media updates, the Betfair Exchange has taken the decision to suspend betting on the US election until further notice. We will continue to monitor any material developments and update the market as appropriate."
Yes he would get the "TOOOOOO CONFUSING"....what about if I am in a party of 6, but I stop to talk to another friend at 1.99m away type questions....but in reality the above is the truth and should be the public health message and I would do a New Labour type PR messaging approach which just reiterates this regardless of the question.
So He will have KNOWN the evil Democrats planned to infect Him in between abusing children at that pizza restaurant in DC - Podesta was there, with Hillary, Comey, and various other Enemies of the People. He therefore licked the microphone deliberately, sending a coded message to supporters via Twitter that He'd get through it "TOGETHER" (which is obviously "TO GET HER" - i.e. Hillary). So as soon as He's faked His death, the Deep State will relax and make their big mistake. Then He will come back and the Storm will really get going.
It's all very simple, and you're naive sheeple if you believe anything else.
Yet another example of the lump of work fallacy.
But Rugby Union players are as tough as nails and will endure, soft Rugby League players will struggle.
Ideally, journalists wouldn't waste a chance to grill the PM by asking questions that they and their viewers should already know the answers too. Ideally isn't going to happen, and I can see that the "go to the website" could sound dismissive, particularly given Boris and the Govts communication style.
Just tell him the flippin' rules for the area he's speaking to 5 mins before each interview - and notes if he needs them.
I do know they are struggling financially, as much as I enjoy taking the piss out of the sport I do hope it does survive, as bona fide Northerner who worked in Leeds for six years, and has plenty of friends in Wakefield and Cas Vegas, I know how important it is to the locals.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/02/regenerons-antibody-cocktail-experimental-drug-taken-donald/
Quite where experimental drugs fit in the continuum from snake oil to actual medicine is left as an exercise for the reader.
John Stonehouse faked his death to avoid imprisonment for his financial improprieties. Maybe Trump is a thrift shop John Stonehouse.
It isn't exactly drinking bleach type stuff.
Being deliberately provocative about it, the religious problems we have now don't stem primarily from Jesus or Mohammed themselves, but from subsequent battles among supporters to claim and cement their legacies. That's obviously far bigger in scale than this stuff, but similar pattern.
Those who think it is the ultimate cover story for the big taken down of Clinton and the murderous pedophile ring. Then there are those who will think the deep state has got him, a portion of those Wil turn towards violence as we saw with the proto-QAnon Pizzagate.
"First up people should check the website (Give out gov website) for details of local restrictions in their area. Now I'm afraid that the Wirral is I believe an area under enhanced measures, so it would be against guidance to meet with a household other than your own in a park"
"But could they do it Mr PM. Would it be illegal ?"
"There is no law against meeting in a park, but it is against guidance. And if we all follow guidance, along with the good common sense of the British people we can defeat this virus together".
"So they could meet in the park"
"Yes, but it would be against guidance if it is in an area with enhanced measures. Go to the gov website, put in your postcode and you'll get details of the guidance. Because coronavirus is a fast moving and sneaky foe we need to have pinpoint laser guided measures to defeat this nasty virus"
Although a 10 minutes queue in the persistent rain probably was keeping the numbers down.
https://twitter.com/allisonpearson/status/1312329626044313601?s=20
I thought Hopkins would be the first UK media loonball to go full QAnon, but we have a hot new favourite.
There is one other factor you haven't mentioned but it will come up at some point pre-election if only because people will start to put 2 and 2 together, is that what has happened with Trump will also sharpen people's minds on the possibility of a Kamala Harris Presidency. I hope and pray Biden does not have it nor get it but what was an abstract idea of Harris as President has suddenly taking on new potency. I wonder how that will impact independent / swing voters in particular (and also certain sections of the Hispanic community who are anti-socialist).
Betdaq similiarly has a section on candidate death in the rules.
Particularly if you have to use public transport.
No, thought not.
And EXACTLY 35 years later, the Parliamentary expenses scandal was uncovered.
Stonehouse's 4D chess had worked, and it is the sheeple who were proved wrong on that occassion, just as they will be by Trump.
These different levels of local lockdowns are in a similar boat to the every changing air bridges. We should just be saying no you can't go on your holibobs to Greece this summer or Italy for the winter.
https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1312055293115850752?s=20
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/10/02/boris-johnsons-strongman-government-destroying-democracy/