Wildly O/T - as a lifetime renter by choice, this is the first I'm heard of stamp duty on rent. When did that come in?? It seems to be designed to make people in London in particular move home every few years, or fiddle it by having a "new" contract (who decides if it's really new?).
A week or so ago I posted a query about the NHS track and test (world-beating) app. Why couldn't one check out of it as well as check in. I also asked the Track and Test service, and now, days later I have a reply: 'If people with coronavirus (COVID-19) were at the venue at a similar time as you, a human contact tracer from the Contact Tracing and Advisory Service (CTAS), or the Joint Biosecurity Centre (JBC), will look into the case. They'll evaluate the risk level based on the type of venue and the details of the case. This will help them decide who may be at risk.' It continues, on another page: 'If local health protection teams decide that people with coronavirus have been to a venue, they may decide anyone who was at that venue at a certain time should get an alert. This is so people are made aware and can monitor their symptoms.'
In other words it appears that the Track and Trace people ask 'suspects' to decide whether they were in contact or not. So if I book into the pub at 5pm, stay there for an hour and then go home, and someone who is positive goes in at 8pm, Track & Trace may ring me. I assume, although the site doesn't say this, that the tracer will tell me that the suspect went to the pub at 8, and allow me to make a decision about getting tested or not. I'm not sure that's entirely satisfactory.
Funnily enough the person responsible for this was on the radio this morning, he said there's no check-out as the location check-in is used for cluster tracing, making a distinction with the automated contact tracing. I guess the point is that they would hope to speak to everyone who had been to a location and checked-in in order to make sure that not only do they pick up the people using the app, but other people in their party, family members, and so on, who wouldn't necessarily leave at the same time of have done the same things.
Also, he doesn't seem to know what "order of magnitude" means.
I find myself unable to agree with the proposition that the margin miss for Macron v Le Pen in the final round runoff is equivalent to the same margin miss in a tight race.
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. 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.
This is the key paragraph and it as ambiguous as all heck.
Who is projecting? What happens if a candidate withdraws? Or dies prior to election day.
As early votes are brig cast the election has taken place according to the rules and those votes are going to Trump.
Etc.
Anyone saying this is clear is not imaginative enough.
But the US has for many cycles determined the results by projections by the mainstream media outlets. Actually counting the votes is way too difficult and some may not even have arrived yet. If that is the way the election is determined then it makes sense to determine bets in the same way. Of course we may have a situation, if its really close, where different networks are minded to project different results but I have not seen that happen for more than a few minutes.
I'm hoping the networks refuse to project on the night. Because that could well mean an in-person voting win by Trump followed by days of lawyers.
You obviously wouldn't want them to project just based on in-person votes when there were still loads of postal votes uncounted and no idea how they'd split, but it may just be easy to tell what's going to happen, especially if Biden takes the swing states that verify their postal votes when they receive them, which I think is true of FL, NC and AZ.
Just FL and NC is probably enough to stick a fork in it, although it's *just about* possible that Biden might take those but miss AZ, then get killed in the mid-west and lose Minnesota too.
A week or so ago I posted a query about the NHS track and test (world-beating) app. Why couldn't one check out of it as well as check in. I also asked the Track and Test service, and now, days later I have a reply: 'If people with coronavirus (COVID-19) were at the venue at a similar time as you, a human contact tracer from the Contact Tracing and Advisory Service (CTAS), or the Joint Biosecurity Centre (JBC), will look into the case. They'll evaluate the risk level based on the type of venue and the details of the case. This will help them decide who may be at risk.' It continues, on another page: 'If local health protection teams decide that people with coronavirus have been to a venue, they may decide anyone who was at that venue at a certain time should get an alert. This is so people are made aware and can monitor their symptoms.'
In other words it appears that the Track and Trace people ask 'suspects' to decide whether they were in contact or not. So if I book into the pub at 5pm, stay there for an hour and then go home, and someone who is positive goes in at 8pm, Track & Trace may ring me. I assume, although the site doesn't say this, that the tracer will tell me that the suspect went to the pub at 8, and allow me to make a decision about getting tested or not. I'm not sure that's entirely satisfactory.
Funnily enough the person responsible for this was on the radio this morning, he said there's no check-out as the location check-in is used for cluster tracing, making a distinction with the automated contact tracing. I guess the point is that they would hope to speak to everyone who had been to a location and checked-in in order to make sure that not only do they pick up the people using the app, but other people in their party, family members, and so on, who wouldn't necessarily leave at the same time of have done the same things.
I see; the issue is the group, or potential group, not the individual. Understandable.
Also, he doesn't seem to know what "order of magnitude" means.
I find myself unable to agree with the proposition that the margin miss for Macron v Le Pen in the final round runoff is equivalent to the same margin miss in a tight race.
Well, obviously there's a difference in that they still predicted the correct winner. But in terms of the polling being wrong what's the difference?
Now the missing cases data has been released (and assuming there is no more missing data out there) how does the actual experience look compared to the "If cases double every 7 days" scenario posited at the coronavirus data briefing on 21 September 2020?
The UK covid data site has the new data and we now appear to be running at about 11,000 new cases per day, over recent days. The graph by date reported has shot up even more dramatically, of couse.
The revised UK data hasnt worked through to worldometers as yet, but for comparison a UK two-day new case total of about 22,000 stacks up against Italy's 5,400 and Germany's 3,200.
Even France, which people had assumed was doing hugely worse, is only moderately worse at 29,000
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Why doesn’t someone get sacked or resign for any of these failures? The late summer policy of essentially blackmailing people back to the office looks particularly ill judged. Operationally incompetent and poor leadership, and yet they carry on. You would have thought that someone might hold their hand up and say something.
I work with data and automated systems and I see worse errors than this all the time. You would be amazed. We have the three coding errors in the Irish calculated grades as another recent high profile example. Mistakes happen.
I've also seen the corrosive effect that a blame culture has. Distrust. People paralysed by fear and unable to make a decision. Recriminations rather than trying to fix things.
So what I really want to know is: who noticed there was a problem? Who took the risk of upsetting people by pointing out something had gone wrong? Who fixed it?
Mistakes will happen and we need to encourage people to notice them and fix them - rather than terrify them about the consequences.
Also, he doesn't seem to know what "order of magnitude" means.
I find myself unable to agree with the proposition that the margin miss for Macron v Le Pen in the final round runoff is equivalent to the same margin miss in a tight race.
Well, obviously there's a difference in that they still predicted the correct winner. But in terms of the polling being wrong what's the difference?
- Differential turnout when the likely winner is clear - Lots of people who had already voted for someone else in the first round now having to pick a side
Why doesn’t someone get sacked or resign for any of these failures? The late summer policy of essentially blackmailing people back to the office looks particularly ill judged. Operationally incompetent and poor leadership, and yet they carry on. You would have thought that someone might hold their hand up and say something.
I work with data and automated systems and I see worse errors than this all the time. You would be amazed. We have the three coding errors in the Irish calculated grades as another recent high profile example. Mistakes happen.
I've also seen the corrosive effect that a blame culture has. Distrust. People paralysed by fear and unable to make a decision. Recriminations rather than trying to fix things.
So what I really want to know is: who noticed there was a problem? Who took the risk of upsetting people by pointing out something had gone wrong? Who fixed it?
Mistakes will happen and we need to encourage people to notice them and fix them - rather than terrify them about the consequences.
I've almost no doubt that somebody had an inkling that something was wrong very quickly. If you operate such a system for any length of time you should get a feel for what is normal behaviour, and be able to spot things going wrong even if you can't yet say why. It took way too long to find the fault and fix it.
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. 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.
This is the key paragraph and it as ambiguous as all heck.
Who is projecting? What happens if a candidate withdraws? Or dies prior to election day.
As early votes are brig cast the election has taken place according to the rules and those votes are going to Trump.
Etc.
Anyone saying this is clear is not imaginative enough.
But the US has for many cycles determined the results by projections by the mainstream media outlets. Actually counting the votes is way too difficult and some may not even have arrived yet. If that is the way the election is determined then it makes sense to determine bets in the same way. Of course we may have a situation, if its really close, where different networks are minded to project different results but I have not seen that happen for more than a few minutes.
I'm hoping the networks refuse to project on the night. Because that could well mean an in-person voting win by Trump followed by days of lawyers.
It depends on when they get around to counting the postal votes but it is a concern. The whole system is simply not fit for purpose, controlled by partisan officials, underfunded, chaotic and unreliable. It is put to shame by most third world countries, it really is.
Why doesn’t someone get sacked or resign for any of these failures? The late summer policy of essentially blackmailing people back to the office looks particularly ill judged. Operationally incompetent and poor leadership, and yet they carry on. You would have thought that someone might hold their hand up and say something.
I work with data and automated systems and I see worse errors than this all the time. You would be amazed. We have the three coding errors in the Irish calculated grades as another recent high profile example. Mistakes happen.
I've also seen the corrosive effect that a blame culture has. Distrust. People paralysed by fear and unable to make a decision. Recriminations rather than trying to fix things.
So what I really want to know is: who noticed there was a problem? Who took the risk of upsetting people by pointing out something had gone wrong? Who fixed it?
Mistakes will happen and we need to encourage people to notice them and fix them - rather than terrify them about the consequences.
Well said.
When something goes wrong we should try to have a culture of congratulating the person who spotted the mistake first, not a blame culture that inevitably leads to a shooting the messenger and people attempting to cover it up.
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Congrats! - Squeeze in a few holes too?
Lord no, what a waste of time that would be. I find golf just beyond tedious. The only good things about it are the walk and the outdoors.
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Betfair were right to suspend when the news broke but should now re-open the market. It is clear that Trump is neither dying nor pulling out incapacitated. The interesting question is how this episode will affect the rest of the campaign and the result. Does it make any difference at all? If so, does it help him or hurt him? These are valid bettable issues.
Why doesn’t someone get sacked or resign for any of these failures? The late summer policy of essentially blackmailing people back to the office looks particularly ill judged. Operationally incompetent and poor leadership, and yet they carry on. You would have thought that someone might hold their hand up and say something.
I work with data and automated systems and I see worse errors than this all the time. You would be amazed. We have the three coding errors in the Irish calculated grades as another recent high profile example. Mistakes happen.
I've also seen the corrosive effect that a blame culture has. Distrust. People paralysed by fear and unable to make a decision. Recriminations rather than trying to fix things.
So what I really want to know is: who noticed there was a problem? Who took the risk of upsetting people by pointing out something had gone wrong? Who fixed it?
Mistakes will happen and we need to encourage people to notice them and fix them - rather than terrify them about the consequences.
Well said.
When something goes wrong we should try to have a culture of congratulating the person who spotted the mistake first, not a blame culture that inevitably leads to a shooting the messenger and people attempting to cover it up.
That's right. When I worked for Ciba-Geigy in Swirzerland, we once wasted two days looking for a bug until the person who'd caused it owned up and described what had happened. Our extremely gentle manager was too mild to sack him but said he should apply for a transfer to another department at once - "if you'd have admitted it at once, we'd have shrugged, but now I don't feel I can trust you". The same applies in politics, up to a point (not if you cock up every week). The problem with Cummings is that people didn't believe the explanation - if he'd just said sorry like Stanley Johnson and Corbyn, people would have got over it.
Why doesn’t someone get sacked or resign for any of these failures? The late summer policy of essentially blackmailing people back to the office looks particularly ill judged. Operationally incompetent and poor leadership, and yet they carry on. You would have thought that someone might hold their hand up and say something.
I work with data and automated systems and I see worse errors than this all the time. You would be amazed. We have the three coding errors in the Irish calculated grades as another recent high profile example. Mistakes happen.
I've also seen the corrosive effect that a blame culture has. Distrust. People paralysed by fear and unable to make a decision. Recriminations rather than trying to fix things.
So what I really want to know is: who noticed there was a problem? Who took the risk of upsetting people by pointing out something had gone wrong? Who fixed it?
Mistakes will happen and we need to encourage people to notice them and fix them - rather than terrify them about the consequences.
Well said.
When something goes wrong we should try to have a culture of congratulating the person who spotted the mistake first, not a blame culture that inevitably leads to a shooting the messenger and people attempting to cover it up.
I agree with the principle of this. And a government where the ministers are honest about the massive shortcomings in their capabilities can get away with it. The issue we have is that Shagger et al genuinely do think they're doing the best possible job hence saying with a straight face that the system is world beating.
Yes, congratulate the person who spots, owns and fixes the problem. Thats how I operate whether I'm the spotter or the manager of the spotter. But when there is functional incompetence and gross stupidity this isn't going to work. And it isn't.
In the BetFair rules the key phrase is "projected Electoral College Votes".
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
It's really not a good point though is it? Why do normal Universities have much higher fees? Because they have much higher costs, many of them fixed in the form of buildings, labs, campuses etc that have to be maintained. Do you want those facilities to continue to exist and be available for future generations? If so, how do you pay for it?
For me, its like those loyal souls who have bought season tickets for the clubs even although they are not allowed to go to the matches. The kind of thinking in this tweet is incredibly short term, bordering on stupid, but its all too typical of society today. Even these students, who are overpaying for the experience, benefit from the continued existence of the Institutions that will issue their degrees.
It's really not a good point though is it? Why do normal Universities have much higher fees? Because they have much higher costs, many of them fixed in the form of buildings, labs, campuses etc that have to be maintained. Do you want those facilities to continue to exist and be available for future generations? If so, how do you pay for it?
For me, its like those loyal souls who have bought season tickets for the clubs even although they are not allowed to go to the matches. The kind of thinking in this tweet is incredibly short term, bordering on stupid, but its all too typical of society today. Even these students, who are overpaying for the experience, benefit from the continued existence of the Institutions that will issue their degrees.
Oh come off it. We have universities offering OU courses for Oxbridge prices. I don't blame them - they face a serious cash crisis if they don't. I blame the government.
Many students are paying for what exactly - online teaching in a room they are barred from leaving? £15k for something they could have for a fifth of the price
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
Disagree, if Trump is dead and the GOP has a majority, I would say the number of electoral votes that will go for Trump will be approximately zero.
There might be some places where technically if you were in an extra-legalistic mood you could squint at the legislation and say that it meant they had to vote for Trump irrespective of his lack of vital signs, but most of them will be GOP-controlled, so if they really needed to they could fix their legislation.
It's really not a good point though is it? Why do normal Universities have much higher fees? Because they have much higher costs, many of them fixed in the form of buildings, labs, campuses etc that have to be maintained. Do you want those facilities to continue to exist and be available for future generations? If so, how do you pay for it?
For me, its like those loyal souls who have bought season tickets for the clubs even although they are not allowed to go to the matches. The kind of thinking in this tweet is incredibly short term, bordering on stupid, but its all too typical of society today. Even these students, who are overpaying for the experience, benefit from the continued existence of the Institutions that will issue their degrees.
Oh come off it. We have universities offering OU courses for Oxbridge prices. I don't blame them - they face a serious cash crisis if they don't. I blame the government.
Many students are paying for what exactly - online teaching in a room they are barred from leaving? £15k for something they could have for a fifth of the price
So the government should make up the shortfall, eh? That would be us, the taxpayers. And who gets the benefit of the continuation of the institutions? The students.
The idea that our government has some bottomless pit of money into which it can dip with no cost every time something is not ideal is just delusional. We really need to get away from it.
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Congrats! - Squeeze in a few holes too?
Lord no, what a waste of time that would be. I find golf just beyond tedious. The only good things about it are the walk and the outdoors.
The sandpit things on my local course are excellent for jumping my CRF250.
In the BetFair rules the key phrase is "projected Electoral College Votes".
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
Yet the betfair rules specifically state "projected", and specifically say they will ignore subsequent "faithless electors" which is what any electors voting for Pence would be.
What does he mean "caught out"??? Sending kids back to school was always going to spread the pox. Their guidance to schools was substandard guff which schools have had to beef up under their own initiative and yet its still spreading. And this is despite sitting kids like my daughter next to an open window in 6 degrees weather because the classroom is so cramped having set the kids out in rows.
Policy is clear - hope it goes away, blame everyone else if it doesn't.
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Congrats! - Squeeze in a few holes too?
Lord no, what a waste of time that would be. I find golf just beyond tedious. The only good things about it are the walk and the outdoors.
The sandpit things on my local course are excellent for jumping my CRF250.
You go to extraordinary lengths to achieve a certain level of popularity, don't you? Remarkable.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
Disagree, if Trump is dead and the GOP has a majority, I would say the number of electoral votes that will go for Trump will be approximately zero.
There might be some places where technically if you were in an extra-legalistic mood you could squint at the legislation and say that it meant they had to vote for Trump irrespective of his lack of vital signs, but most of them will be GOP-controlled, so if they really needed to they could fix their legislation.
Plus the SCOTUS ruling on the legality of faithless elector rules explicitly said there ruling was not to be considered precedence if the nominee is dead.
I think it all depends upon timing. If Trump were to withdraw before 3/11 then the GOP would have said ECVs would be going to Pence and the projection would be Pence. If Trump were to withdraw after the projection is made then it's too late.
It's really not a good point though is it? Why do normal Universities have much higher fees? Because they have much higher costs, many of them fixed in the form of buildings, labs, campuses etc that have to be maintained. Do you want those facilities to continue to exist and be available for future generations? If so, how do you pay for it?
For me, its like those loyal souls who have bought season tickets for the clubs even although they are not allowed to go to the matches. The kind of thinking in this tweet is incredibly short term, bordering on stupid, but its all too typical of society today. Even these students, who are overpaying for the experience, benefit from the continued existence of the Institutions that will issue their degrees.
Oh come off it. We have universities offering OU courses for Oxbridge prices. I don't blame them - they face a serious cash crisis if they don't. I blame the government.
Many students are paying for what exactly - online teaching in a room they are barred from leaving? £15k for something they could have for a fifth of the price
So the government should make up the shortfall, eh? That would be us, the taxpayers. And who gets the benefit of the continuation of the institutions? The students.
The idea that our government has some bottomless pit of money into which it can dip with no cost every time something is not ideal is just delusional. We really need to get away from it.
Do I think government should properly fund universities? Yes. Because the country benefits. And we haven't funded them properly for a decade where despite the massive hike in tuition fees they have less cash than ever.
Please be specific with what benefits an MMU student is getting from being imprisoned in £6k a year halls to do a £9k online degree that is not remotely what they signed on to do. When I took the boy to visit MMU early this year the open day was very clear about all the wonders of the university and the English department - almost all of which would be closed to him had he actually signed on.
In the BetFair rules the key phrase is "projected Electoral College Votes".
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
Yet the betfair rules specifically state "projected", and specifically say they will ignore subsequent "faithless electors" which is what any electors voting for Pence would be.
If Trump withdraws prior to the ballot and the GOP says Pence is the nominee and any Electors they win must faithfully pledge for Pence then are they truly faithless if they do?
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
Disagree, if Trump is dead and the GOP has a majority, I would say the number of electoral votes that will go for Trump will be approximately zero.
There might be some places where technically if you were in an extra-legalistic mood you could squint at the legislation and say that it meant they had to vote for Trump irrespective of his lack of vital signs, but most of them will be GOP-controlled, so if they really needed to they could fix their legislation.
OK but it doesn't change my central point that the Electoral Votes will be for Pence not Trump.
The RNC doesn't need to change any legislation. It simply instructs its Electors to put Pence on their ballot papers and these are then the Electoral Votes.
I think BetFair are in the clear with their rules. On close inspection, I don't think they are ambiguous.
What does he mean "caught out"??? Sending kids back to school was always going to spread the pox. Their guidance to schools was substandard guff which schools have had to beef up under their own initiative and yet its still spreading. And this is despite sitting kids like my daughter next to an open window in 6 degrees weather because the classroom is so cramped having set the kids out in rows.
Policy is clear - hope it goes away, blame everyone else if it doesn't.
I suspect caught out means hadn't thought through the consequences in any way, shape or form.
I'm seeing the same elsewhere exams being another example where the current decision is based on "well nothing will go wrong" when in reality it would be easier all round if they announced it was another year of with results based on teacher assessment.
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Congrats! - Squeeze in a few holes too?
Lord no, what a waste of time that would be. I find golf just beyond tedious. The only good things about it are the walk and the outdoors.
The sandpit things on my local course are excellent for jumping my CRF250.
You go to extraordinary lengths to achieve a certain level of popularity, don't you? Remarkable.
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Congrats! - Squeeze in a few holes too?
Lord no, what a waste of time that would be. I find golf just beyond tedious. The only good things about it are the walk and the outdoors.
The sandpit things on my local course are excellent for jumping my CRF250.
You go to extraordinary lengths to achieve a certain level of popularity, don't you? Remarkable.
Mt family used to rent a holiday hut at the seaside on the East Coast, on the edge of the local course. I could never understand why my father would get upset when I wanted to make castles in the sandpit things. Fortunately there was a huge sandy beach on the shore anyway.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
Disagree, if Trump is dead and the GOP has a majority, I would say the number of electoral votes that will go for Trump will be approximately zero.
There might be some places where technically if you were in an extra-legalistic mood you could squint at the legislation and say that it meant they had to vote for Trump irrespective of his lack of vital signs, but most of them will be GOP-controlled, so if they really needed to they could fix their legislation.
OK but it doesn't change my central point that the Electoral Votes will be for Pence not Trump.
The RNC doesn't need to change any legislation. It simply instructs its Electors to put Pence on their ballot papers and these are then the Electoral Votes.
I think BetFair are in the clear with their rules. On close inspection, I don't think they are ambiguous.
Yes, I agree. I mean, there are some potential situations where they're ambiguous, but Trump dying or withdrawing and tapping Pence isn't one of them.
PS IIUC there isn't time for the RNC to change its official nominee, but all it needs is a word from Trump or a consensus of grandees.
It's really not a good point though is it? Why do normal Universities have much higher fees? Because they have much higher costs, many of them fixed in the form of buildings, labs, campuses etc that have to be maintained. Do you want those facilities to continue to exist and be available for future generations? If so, how do you pay for it?
More to the point, as a first-year student do you want them available to you in your second and third years? It seems pretty likely that even if this whole academic year is a write-off we should have vaccine rollout by the next. I think I'd be annoyed at the cost this year but put up with it on the assumption that over the full three years it's still better than a three-year OU course.
Betfair were right to suspend when the news broke but should now re-open the market. It is clear that Trump is neither dying nor pulling out incapacitated. The interesting question is how this episode will affect the rest of the campaign and the result. Does it make any difference at all? If so, does it help him or hurt him? These are valid bettable issues.
I think he was infected days before he has admitted - probably at the nomination ceremony (which I believe was Saturday 26th). So almost a week before. He was sweating profusely at the debate and showed up late. An American friend of mine says that the lateness was deliberate so as to be too late to get tested before the debate, but I don`t know whether this is true.
The point is that Trump probably already knew he was infected when the debate took place, and possibly days before as well. Then he went on to a rally In Minnesota and a fundraiser. Not to mention potentially infecting White House staff.
So, if the above hypothesis is true - what follows?
Well there will be claims that he criminally infected other people. Will this affect his votes? I`m guessing, yes, but not significantly.
On the other side, my take on the debate is that it was a score draw. Trump repulsive as ever but Biden, I felt, came over as someone who was easily bullied by Trump. Wimpish even. Harsh, I know, but this may have an affect in the other direction - along with the new Trump narrative that "I beat Covid and Biden is a pussy".
At the future debates (I think they will go ahead) Trump will no doubt bully again - and again try to trigger a Biden stuttering episode to build up the new Trump narrative.
It's really not a good point though is it? Why do normal Universities have much higher fees? Because they have much higher costs, many of them fixed in the form of buildings, labs, campuses etc that have to be maintained. Do you want those facilities to continue to exist and be available for future generations? If so, how do you pay for it?
For me, its like those loyal souls who have bought season tickets for the clubs even although they are not allowed to go to the matches. The kind of thinking in this tweet is incredibly short term, bordering on stupid, but its all too typical of society today. Even these students, who are overpaying for the experience, benefit from the continued existence of the Institutions that will issue their degrees.
Oh come off it. We have universities offering OU courses for Oxbridge prices. I don't blame them - they face a serious cash crisis if they don't. I blame the government.
Many students are paying for what exactly - online teaching in a room they are barred from leaving? £15k for something they could have for a fifth of the price
So the government should make up the shortfall, eh? That would be us, the taxpayers. And who gets the benefit of the continuation of the institutions? The students.
The idea that our government has some bottomless pit of money into which it can dip with no cost every time something is not ideal is just delusional. We really need to get away from it.
Aren't graduates likely to pay higher taxes further down the line? We absolutely do need to make choices about where taxpayer money should go. It could be that ensuring the UK remains a global further education superpower is a wiser use of taxpayer money than, say, the bottomless pit of cash being thrown at friends of various ministers and advisers in the private sector to run various shambolic aspects of our pandemic response, or concreting over swathes of England to house lorries that will be caught up in the Brexit fiasco this government has created.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
Disagree, if Trump is dead and the GOP has a majority, I would say the number of electoral votes that will go for Trump will be approximately zero.
There might be some places where technically if you were in an extra-legalistic mood you could squint at the legislation and say that it meant they had to vote for Trump irrespective of his lack of vital signs, but most of them will be GOP-controlled, so if they really needed to they could fix their legislation.
OK but it doesn't change my central point that the Electoral Votes will be for Pence not Trump.
The RNC doesn't need to change any legislation. It simply instructs its Electors to put Pence on their ballot papers and these are then the Electoral Votes.
I think BetFair are in the clear with their rules. On close inspection, I don't think they are ambiguous.
Yes, I agree. I mean, there are some potential situations where they're ambiguous, but Trump dying or withdrawing and tapping Pence isn't one of them.
PS IIUC there isn't time for the RNC to change its official nominee, but all it needs is a word from Trump or a consensus of grandees.
It is probably easier to clarify if Trump were to withdraw voluntarily rather than die.
Why doesn’t someone get sacked or resign for any of these failures? The late summer policy of essentially blackmailing people back to the office looks particularly ill judged. Operationally incompetent and poor leadership, and yet they carry on. You would have thought that someone might hold their hand up and say something.
It will only mean they end up as defence secretary three months later.
There is zero accountability in this country. Sharpen your pitchforks.
In addition to reopening the markets (how much business are they losing to competitors over this?) BF needs to clarify the market rules on their Next President market.
When BF do reopen for business, I don`t know if or which way I will bet due to the interpretation of BF rules as understood by some on here.
I have have Laid Trump big and also have Backed Pence. If Trump were to bow out through ill health and Pence were to run for President instead - going on to win so that Pence is Next President - I would expect to win my Trump bet and win my Pence bet.
However, according to some on here I would lose both bets.
There has been a risk premium in Trump and Biden`s price from the off - originally due to age but now amplified due to Covid. For the above interpretation to be right the risk premium should not have been there (at least after the nomination stage). That leads me to think that there may be an opportunity to back Trump when Bf opens as I suspect, looking as Smarket odds, that he is going to open higher-priced that when Bf suspended the market and part of this higher price could? be based on a misunderstanding on BF rules.
Any views on all this?
It's a sad fact with BF that the title of their bets often don't match up with the published small print rules. An earlier classis was "will there be a no deal Brexit, yes or no" where the small print had a whole stack of provisos and tied the bet to a particular date. So you have to be very careful to make sure that what you think you are betting on is indeed the case.
Indeed. The title of the market is "Presidential Election 2020 - Next President". I`ve been laying Trump for months and I admit I didn`t look at the rules initially, thinking that the title of market pretty much said it all. When I did check the rules the last sentence, that basically says the market doesn`t void if someone dies, was reassuring (I thought). What`s concerning is that experienced PB.com punters take opposite interpretations of their rules.
There is a storm brewing for BF.
I think some people overcomplicate and overthink matters.
From memory the winner is the "projected" winner according to the rules? Well, if hypothetically Trump pulls out now and is replaced by Pence then even if the ballot papers say Trump the "projected" winner if the GOP wins on the night will be Pence.
Others take the other view, an overly literal interpretation that the ballot paper says Trump so Trump will have won. But in that scenario I think the media and everyone will be projecting that Pence has won, so you would win your bet.
The key is who interprets who has "projected" the winner. The rules don't, as some seem to think, insist upon the name on the ballot paper being the winner.
I think it's wise to *actually read the rules* rather than relying on your recollection.
From the rules link, I think it matches Philip's recollection:
Event Start Time 03 November 2020, 20:00 Win Only Market
MARKET INFORMATION
For further information please see Rules & Regs.
Who will be elected to be the next President of the United States of America as a result of the 2020 presidential election?
This market will be turned in-play at the stated time on the day of the election. Thereafter the market will not be actively managed. Customers are entirely responsible for their bets at all times.
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. 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.
This market will be void if an election does not take place in 2020. If more than one election takes place in 2020, then this market will apply to the first election that is held.
10/03/2020 10:30am – Once voting (whether postal, electronic or at the ballot box) begins in the year 2020 for the US Presidential Election 2020, the election will be deemed to have taken place for the purposes of this market. We will then settle the market as per our rules regardless of whether the election process is fully completed in 2020 or beyond.
If there is any material change to the established role or any ambiguity as to who occupies the position, then Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time. Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled.
Betfair expressly reserves the right to suspend and/or void any and all bets on this market at any time if Betfair is not satisfied (in its absolute discretion) with the certainty of the outcome.
Additional candidates may be added to this market on request.
Please note that candidates in this market will not be partially settled and will remain in the market until it is fully settled. This is to allow customers to continue trading candidates that they have positions on and because each candidate is still a valid runner in this market.
Customers should be aware that:
Transmissions described as “live” by some broadcasters may actually be delayed.
The extent of any such delay may vary, depending on the set-up through which they are receiving pictures or data.
Please note, due to internal administrative procedures, the indicated start date/time of this market is subject to change. This will have no impact on settlement as detailed in our market specific rules. Any changes to the start time/date will be recorded in the market rules. 16:00 17/06/2020 –Market rules have been updated to reflect new information above..
If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules (Updated - 20/06/2020)
Sorry but i think there is an important difference between 'projected winner' and candidate projected to win EC votes at 2020 election.
The *candidate* means the person nominated. That's Trump not Pence.
I disagree. They say "Please note that candidates in this market will not be partially settled and will remain in the market until it is fully settled. This is to allow customers to continue trading candidates that they have positions on and because each candidate is still a valid runner in this market." There is no way that that only means those whose names are printed on ballots even if they're dead and who were standing for parties which have now chosen replacements. It means everyone on the BF list.
It means that BF believe there is a chance that any of their "runners", i.e. anyone they have got listed, has a chance of being the winning "candidate", meaning the person who gets a majority of projected ECVs or who is appointed by the 12th amendment procedure.
And BF are quite right about that. If we just look at the PECVs, that literally CAN be anybody who is alive. (Sorry but members of the EC in my opinion will not vote for a person they know to be dead.) House delegations have to vote for one of the leading 3 candidates by ECVs (although goodness knows what happens if there is a tie for 3rd place, or if only two candidates won any votes in the EC and they both died after the EC votes were submitted). But there is no such restriction for members of the EC, who can vote for anyone (who is eligible, born in the US, etc.). Never mind state law here. Perhaps they will end up in state jail if they defy state authorities. That doesn't matter. The person they vote for doesn't (by federal law) have to be a person who was named on ballots for hoi polloi. This is not a pedantic point. On the contrary, it is the basis of where BF are coming from when they write that "each candidate is still a valid runner in this market" - meaning that they will remain a "valid runner" until the market is fully settled. That's slightly vague terminology, but it means that the "projected winner" of the EC could, as far as they and we know now, be anybody. It could for example be Oprah Winfrey - who was available until recently at 1000 and will presumably still be available at that price when the market reopens. So don't worry, @Stocky. If Trump withdraws and Pence becomes the GOP candidate, i.e. he is chosen by the RNC and the GOP then tell voters that "If it says 'Trump' on your ballot paper, that means 'Pence' ", and Pence then wins in enough states to be "projected" to win a majority of ECVs, then you will win your bet on Pence.
It doesn't matter whether dead people have been elected in other elections in the US. No serious "projector" will "project" that EC members will vote for someone they know is dead, and it won't happen.
It's really not a good point though is it? Why do normal Universities have much higher fees? Because they have much higher costs, many of them fixed in the form of buildings, labs, campuses etc that have to be maintained. Do you want those facilities to continue to exist and be available for future generations? If so, how do you pay for it?
For me, its like those loyal souls who have bought season tickets for the clubs even although they are not allowed to go to the matches. The kind of thinking in this tweet is incredibly short term, bordering on stupid, but its all too typical of society today. Even these students, who are overpaying for the experience, benefit from the continued existence of the Institutions that will issue their degrees.
Oh come off it. We have universities offering OU courses for Oxbridge prices. I don't blame them - they face a serious cash crisis if they don't. I blame the government.
Many students are paying for what exactly - online teaching in a room they are barred from leaving? £15k for something they could have for a fifth of the price
So the government should make up the shortfall, eh? That would be us, the taxpayers. And who gets the benefit of the continuation of the institutions? The students.
The idea that our government has some bottomless pit of money into which it can dip with no cost every time something is not ideal is just delusional. We really need to get away from it.
Do I think government should properly fund universities? Yes. Because the country benefits. And we haven't funded them properly for a decade where despite the massive hike in tuition fees they have less cash than ever.
Please be specific with what benefits an MMU student is getting from being imprisoned in £6k a year halls to do a £9k online degree that is not remotely what they signed on to do. When I took the boy to visit MMU early this year the open day was very clear about all the wonders of the university and the English department - almost all of which would be closed to him had he actually signed on.
Our University sector has grown like topsy under a tsunami of money the likes of which has never been seen by the sector before. There are good arguments to be had about whether fees or a graduate tax are the best ways of funding them but its simply not true that they have "less cash than ever". They have expanded their facilities and cost base enormously.
My nephew has just started computing at Dundee. He is sharing accommodation with 7 other students. They are socialising amongst themselves but it is fair to say that the kind of socialising that you would normally indulge in through Freshers week and societies is pretty seriously inhibited right now. There is only so much you can do by zoom. They are not locked in their rooms but its not the full experience either.
His course was supposed to be blended but it is now pretty much all online, at least for this first term. The limitations on meeting other students doing the same course is an issue too. It's not great but I met him for coffee last week and he had no doubt that he made the right call to come this year. He was seriously bored over the summer and is anxious to get on.
In the BetFair rules the key phrase is "projected Electoral College Votes".
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
Yet the betfair rules specifically state "projected", and specifically say they will ignore subsequent "faithless electors" which is what any electors voting for Pence would be.
If the RNC itself formally and explicitly changes the pledge of Republican Electors to Pence, then it would be hard to argue that they are "faithless electors". Who would do that (except possibly disgruntled Betfair punters on the wrong side of the bet who will be wasting their time).
You make a good point about "projected". Perhaps BetFair will not wait until 9th December but settle on projected EC votes if it is clear and unanimous.
Why spend taxpayer money on public services, or on helping those who have lost their businesses and jobs through no fault of their own, when it can be given to friends of Tory ministers and their advisers instead?
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
Disagree, if Trump is dead and the GOP has a majority, I would say the number of electoral votes that will go for Trump will be approximately zero.
There might be some places where technically if you were in an extra-legalistic mood you could squint at the legislation and say that it meant they had to vote for Trump irrespective of his lack of vital signs, but most of them will be GOP-controlled, so if they really needed to they could fix their legislation.
OK but it doesn't change my central point that the Electoral Votes will be for Pence not Trump.
The RNC doesn't need to change any legislation. It simply instructs its Electors to put Pence on their ballot papers and these are then the Electoral Votes.
I think BetFair are in the clear with their rules. On close inspection, I don't think they are ambiguous.
I hope you are right. But yesterday another highly respected PB.co poster also said that Betfair "are in the clear with their rules. On close inspection, I don't think they are ambiguous" and came to the opposite conclusion that you did!
This in particular struck me re the response rate:
Does anyone pick up the phone anymore?
Some people do. Just not many. We usually complete interviews with about 1 or 2 percent of the voters we try to reach.:
We've had similar problems in this country as well. The challenge is whether the 1-2% that pick up the phone are so atypical that modelling them so that they give a reasonably accurate idea what the rest of us are thinking is problematic in the extreme. The same argument can of course be made for the Yougov panel- surely they are way more interested in politics than the majority? Given these limitations it is remarkable that our pollsters get as close as they do.
I follow the NY Times on Twitter, as a rule any article from them about the UK is guff.
It somewhat undermines your confidence about what they report about America, doesn't it?
No to the same degree. I think the problem is that foreign correspondents generally aren't natives, and have a very different lifestyle from the people they are meant to be reporting about. There's certainly an element of that in the US press covering the hinterland, as illustrated in the famous New Yorker cover of the view from 9th Avenue, but it's really stark when reading about "ordinary" life in the UK.
The essential face-to-face part of traditional university teaching will be greatly helped by lecturers/tutors getting the vaccine. Same for schools of course.
It's really not a good point though is it? Why do normal Universities have much higher fees? Because they have much higher costs, many of them fixed in the form of buildings, labs, campuses etc that have to be maintained. Do you want those facilities to continue to exist and be available for future generations? If so, how do you pay for it?
For me, its like those loyal souls who have bought season tickets for the clubs even although they are not allowed to go to the matches. The kind of thinking in this tweet is incredibly short term, bordering on stupid, but its all too typical of society today. Even these students, who are overpaying for the experience, benefit from the continued existence of the Institutions that will issue their degrees.
Oh come off it. We have universities offering OU courses for Oxbridge prices. I don't blame them - they face a serious cash crisis if they don't. I blame the government.
Many students are paying for what exactly - online teaching in a room they are barred from leaving? £15k for something they could have for a fifth of the price
So the government should make up the shortfall, eh? That would be us, the taxpayers. And who gets the benefit of the continuation of the institutions? The students.
The idea that our government has some bottomless pit of money into which it can dip with no cost every time something is not ideal is just delusional. We really need to get away from it.
The govt used to fund University places.
Then the Unis were seen as a great way to get kids off the dole figures (remember NEETs? Not in Employment, Education, Training). New Labour came up a great scheme, keep 50% in education and make THEM pay for it. Lower jobless figures, less claiming dole and (maybe) better educated population.
In the BetFair rules the key phrase is "projected Electoral College Votes".
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
Yet the betfair rules specifically state "projected", and specifically say they will ignore subsequent "faithless electors" which is what any electors voting for Pence would be.
If Trump withdraws prior to the ballot and the GOP says Pence is the nominee and any Electors they win must faithfully pledge for Pence then are they truly faithless if they do?
No idea, but suspect it depends on rules in individual states. If Trump is still on the ballot electors should be faithful to what the voters vote for rather than what the Republican Party says, I would have thought.
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Congrats! - Squeeze in a few holes too?
Lord no, what a waste of time that would be. I find golf just beyond tedious. The only good things about it are the walk and the outdoors.
The sandpit things on my local course are excellent for jumping my CRF250.
You go to extraordinary lengths to achieve a certain level of popularity, don't you? Remarkable.
In the BetFair rules the key phrase is "projected Electoral College Votes".
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
Yet the betfair rules specifically state "projected", and specifically say they will ignore subsequent "faithless electors" which is what any electors voting for Pence would be.
If Trump withdraws prior to the ballot and the GOP says Pence is the nominee and any Electors they win must faithfully pledge for Pence then are they truly faithless if they do?
No idea, but suspect it depends on rules in individual states. If Trump is still on the ballot electors should be faithful to what the voters vote for rather than what the Republican Party says, I would have thought.
The ballot says Trump/Pence, if Trump withdraws while Pence is still in then there's no contradiction, the way to honour what the voters voted for is obviously to pick Pence.
Where it gets complicated is if the GOP bigwigs recommend Jeb Bush, or Trump recommends Jared Kushner.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
Disagree, if Trump is dead and the GOP has a majority, I would say the number of electoral votes that will go for Trump will be approximately zero.
There might be some places where technically if you were in an extra-legalistic mood you could squint at the legislation and say that it meant they had to vote for Trump irrespective of his lack of vital signs, but most of them will be GOP-controlled, so if they really needed to they could fix their legislation.
OK but it doesn't change my central point that the Electoral Votes will be for Pence not Trump.
The RNC doesn't need to change any legislation. It simply instructs its Electors to put Pence on their ballot papers and these are then the Electoral Votes.
I think BetFair are in the clear with their rules. On close inspection, I don't think they are ambiguous.
I hope you are right. But yesterday another highly respected PB.co poster also said that Betfair "are in the clear with their rules. On close inspection, I don't think they are ambiguous" and came to the opposite conclusion that you did!
In addition to reopening the markets (how much business are they losing to competitors over this?) BF needs to clarify the market rules on their Next President market.
When BF do reopen for business, I don`t know if or which way I will bet due to the interpretation of BF rules as understood by some on here.
I have have Laid Trump big and also have Backed Pence. If Trump were to bow out through ill health and Pence were to run for President instead - going on to win so that Pence is Next President - I would expect to win my Trump bet and win my Pence bet.
However, according to some on here I would lose both bets.
There has been a risk premium in Trump and Biden`s price from the off - originally due to age but now amplified due to Covid. For the above interpretation to be right the risk premium should not have been there (at least after the nomination stage). That leads me to think that there may be an opportunity to back Trump when Bf opens as I suspect, looking as Smarket odds, that he is going to open higher-priced that when Bf suspended the market and part of this higher price could? be based on a misunderstanding on BF rules.
Any views on all this?
It's a sad fact with BF that the title of their bets often don't match up with the published small print rules. An earlier classis was "will there be a no deal Brexit, yes or no" where the small print had a whole stack of provisos and tied the bet to a particular date. So you have to be very careful to make sure that what you think you are betting on is indeed the case.
Indeed. The title of the market is "Presidential Election 2020 - Next President". I`ve been laying Trump for months and I admit I didn`t look at the rules initially, thinking that the title of market pretty much said it all. When I did check the rules the last sentence, that basically says the market doesn`t void if someone dies, was reassuring (I thought). What`s concerning is that experienced PB.com punters take opposite interpretations of their rules.
There is a storm brewing for BF.
I think some people overcomplicate and overthink matters.
From memory the winner is the "projected" winner according to the rules? Well, if hypothetically Trump pulls out now and is replaced by Pence then even if the ballot papers say Trump the "projected" winner if the GOP wins on the night will be Pence.
Others take the other view, an overly literal interpretation that the ballot paper says Trump so Trump will have won. But in that scenario I think the media and everyone will be projecting that Pence has won, so you would win your bet.
The key is who interprets who has "projected" the winner. The rules don't, as some seem to think, insist upon the name on the ballot paper being the winner.
I think it's wise to *actually read the rules* rather than relying on your recollection.
From the rules link, I think it matches Philip's recollection:
Event Start Time 03 November 2020, 20:00 Win Only Market
MARKET INFORMATION
For further information please see Rules & Regs.
Who will be elected to be the next President of the United States of America as a result of the 2020 presidential election?
This market will be turned in-play at the stated time on the day of the election. Thereafter the market will not be actively managed. Customers are entirely responsible for their bets at all times.
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. 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.
This market will be void if an election does not take place in 2020. If more than one election takes place in 2020, then this market will apply to the first election that is held.
10/03/2020 10:30am – Once voting (whether postal, electronic or at the ballot box) begins in the year 2020 for the US Presidential Election 2020, the election will be deemed to have taken place for the purposes of this market. We will then settle the market as per our rules regardless of whether the election process is fully completed in 2020 or beyond.
If there is any material change to the established role or any ambiguity as to who occupies the position, then Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time. Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled.
Betfair expressly reserves the right to suspend and/or void any and all bets on this market at any time if Betfair is not satisfied (in its absolute discretion) with the certainty of the outcome.
Additional candidates may be added to this market on request.
Please note that candidates in this market will not be partially settled and will remain in the market until it is fully settled. This is to allow customers to continue trading candidates that they have positions on and because each candidate is still a valid runner in this market.
Customers should be aware that:
Transmissions described as “live” by some broadcasters may actually be delayed.
The extent of any such delay may vary, depending on the set-up through which they are receiving pictures or data.
Please note, due to internal administrative procedures, the indicated start date/time of this market is subject to change. This will have no impact on settlement as detailed in our market specific rules. Any changes to the start time/date will be recorded in the market rules. 16:00 17/06/2020 –Market rules have been updated to reflect new information above..
If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules (Updated - 20/06/2020)
Sorry but i think there is an important difference between 'projected winner' and candidate projected to win EC votes at 2020 election.
The *candidate* means the person nominated. That's Trump not Pence.
I disagree. They say "Please note that candidates in this market will not be partially settled and will remain in the market until it is fully settled. This is to allow customers to continue trading candidates that they have positions on and because each candidate is still a valid runner in this market." There is no way that that only means those whose names are printed on ballots even if they're dead and who were standing for parties which have now chosen replacements. It means everyone on the BF list.
It means that BF believe there is a chance that any of their "runners", i.e. anyone they have got listed, has a chance of being the winning "candidate", meaning the person who gets a majority of projected ECVs or who is appointed by the 12th amendment procedure.
And BF are quite right about that. If we just look at the PECVs, that literally CAN be anybody who is alive. (Sorry but members of the EC in my opinion will not vote for a person they know to be dead.) House delegations have to vote for one of the leading 3 candidates by ECVs (although goodness knows what happens if there is a tie for 3rd place, or if only two candidates won any votes in the EC and they both died after the EC votes were submitted). But there is no such restriction for members of the EC, who can vote for anyone (who is eligible, born in the US, etc.). Never mind state law here. Perhaps they will end up in state jail if they defy state authorities. That doesn't matter. The person they vote for doesn't (by federal law) have to be a person who was named on ballots for hoi polloi. This is not a pedantic point. On the contrary, it is the basis of where BF are coming from when they write that "each candidate is still a valid runner in this market" - meaning that they will remain a "valid runner" until the market is fully settled. That's slightly vague terminology, but it means that the "projected winner" of the EC could, as far as they and we know now, be anybody. It could for example be Oprah Winfrey - who was available until recently at 1000 and will presumably still be available at that price when the market reopens. So don't worry, @Stocky. If Trump withdraws and Pence becomes the GOP candidate, i.e. he is chosen by the RNC and the GOP then tell voters that "If it says 'Trump' on your ballot paper, that means 'Pence' ", and Pence then wins in enough states to be "projected" to win a majority of ECVs, then you will win your bet on Pence.
It doesn't matter whether dead people have been elected in other elections in the US. No serious "projector" will "project" that EC members will vote for someone they know is dead, and it won't happen.
Welcome - and thank you for your detailed comments. You seem very well informed - and this is your first post - is this some form of official response by any chance?
In the BetFair rules the key phrase is "projected Electoral College Votes".
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
Yet the betfair rules specifically state "projected", and specifically say they will ignore subsequent "faithless electors" which is what any electors voting for Pence would be.
If Trump withdraws prior to the ballot and the GOP says Pence is the nominee and any Electors they win must faithfully pledge for Pence then are they truly faithless if they do?
It doesn't matter. BF will go by the "projection" once votes are counted. If the "projection" is that 300 electors will vote in a way that "many people", or the vast majority of the commentariat, or most lawyers for that matter, call "faithless", that still doesn't matter. That's "subsequent". BF say "subsequent" doesn't matter. What matters is the "projection". Of course if there is no consensus on what to "project", then we have a problem. But if the RNC nominate Pence as their candidate on say 10 October and he accepts their nomination, debates Biden on the TV, and so on, and then the GOP ticket - which may have "Trump/Pence" written on it in some or even in all states - wins enough states, then BF will pay out on Pence.
Betfair were right to suspend when the news broke but should now re-open the market. It is clear that Trump is neither dying nor pulling out incapacitated. The interesting question is how this episode will affect the rest of the campaign and the result. Does it make any difference at all? If so, does it help him or hurt him? These are valid bettable issues.
I think he was infected days before he has admitted - probably at the nomination ceremony (which I believe was Saturday 26th). So almost a week before. He was sweating profusely at the debate and showed up late. An American friend of mine says that the lateness was deliberate so as to be too late to get tested before the debate, but I don`t know whether this is true.
The point is that Trump probably already knew he was infected when the debate took place, and possibly days before as well. Then he went on to a rally In Minnesota and a fundraiser. Not to mention potentially infecting White House staff.
So, if the above hypothesis is true - what follows?
Well there will be claims that he criminally infected other people. Will this affect his votes? I`m guessing, yes, but not significantly.
On the other side, my take on the debate is that it was a score draw. Trump repulsive as ever but Biden, I felt, came over as someone who was easily bullied by Trump. Wimpish even. Harsh, I know, but this may have an affect in the other direction - along with the new Trump narrative that "I beat Covid and Biden is a pussy".
At the future debates (I think they will go ahead) Trump will no doubt bully again - and again try to trigger a Biden stuttering episode to build up the new Trump narrative.
So. Yes, I`m worried.
Trump jumping in at every micro-pause had the paradoxical effect of hiding any Biden brain-fades that some say he set out to provoke. Trump operates on instinct rather than careful tactical analysis and we should be careful not to draw targets round the President's arrows.
I follow the NY Times on Twitter, as a rule any article from them about the UK is guff.
It somewhat undermines your confidence about what they report about America, doesn't it?
No to the same degree. I think the problem is that foreign correspondents generally aren't natives, and have a very different lifestyle from the people they are meant to be reporting about. There's certainly an element of that in the US press covering the hinterland, as illustrated in the famous New Yorker cover of the view from 9th Avenue, but it's really stark when reading about "ordinary" life in the UK.
I follow the Finnish press (it's a hobby) and it's extraordinary the extent to which the Helsingin Sanomat's (that's the main newspaper there) UK reporter follows the Guardian line as if it encapsulates how people in the UK think about current issues. No room for alternative views.
Today is our 35th wedding anniversary. We are out for afternoon tea at the Old Course hotel later. The planned walk is looking a little problematic, however. Some minor roads are closed with flooding around here.
Congrats! - Squeeze in a few holes too?
Lord no, what a waste of time that would be. I find golf just beyond tedious. The only good things about it are the walk and the outdoors.
Oh no. Bang goes another national stereotype. Be none left at this rate.
I played the Ryder Cup course at The Belfry the other week. Shot twice my age - which would have been quite impressive if I were a decade younger.
In the BetFair rules the key phrase is "projected Electoral College Votes".
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
Yet the betfair rules specifically state "projected", and specifically say they will ignore subsequent "faithless electors" which is what any electors voting for Pence would be.
If Trump withdraws prior to the ballot and the GOP says Pence is the nominee and any Electors they win must faithfully pledge for Pence then are they truly faithless if they do?
No idea, but suspect it depends on rules in individual states. If Trump is still on the ballot electors should be faithful to what the voters vote for rather than what the Republican Party says, I would have thought.
My father had a rather crude expression whenever I said I thought something as a youngster. "You know what thought did? He thought it was a fart."
One thing I have to credit the government with is being open about all of the virus stats regardless of how bad it has made them or the situation look. They could easily have buried the university stats as not being part of the public testing programme (meaning that labs haven't necessarily passed regulations) but chose not to which has hurt their reputation but the data is now available.
It's also unclear what the rest of Europe is doing wrt university cases so once again the daily statistics may not be comparable as they weren't when the death statistics didn't have a cut off point.
It's really not a good point though is it? Why do normal Universities have much higher fees? Because they have much higher costs, many of them fixed in the form of buildings, labs, campuses etc that have to be maintained. Do you want those facilities to continue to exist and be available for future generations? If so, how do you pay for it?
For me, its like those loyal souls who have bought season tickets for the clubs even although they are not allowed to go to the matches. The kind of thinking in this tweet is incredibly short term, bordering on stupid, but its all too typical of society today. Even these students, who are overpaying for the experience, benefit from the continued existence of the Institutions that will issue their degrees.
Oh come off it. We have universities offering OU courses for Oxbridge prices. I don't blame them - they face a serious cash crisis if they don't. I blame the government.
Many students are paying for what exactly - online teaching in a room they are barred from leaving? £15k for something they could have for a fifth of the price
So the government should make up the shortfall, eh? That would be us, the taxpayers. And who gets the benefit of the continuation of the institutions? The students.
The idea that our government has some bottomless pit of money into which it can dip with no cost every time something is not ideal is just delusional. We really need to get away from it.
The govt used to fund University places.
Then the Unis were seen as a great way to get kids off the dole figures (remember NEETs? Not in Employment, Education, Training). New Labour came up a great scheme, keep 50% in education and make THEM pay for it. Lower jobless figures, less claiming dole and (maybe) better educated population.
In Scotland the government pretend to fund University places. It's not true of course. They limit the number of places available, they rely very heavily on cross-subsidy from English students and foreign students paying approximately 5x and 10x as much for the same course and still Scottish Universities have not been able to match the growth of the English University sector.
I have deep reservations about the current system but government funding has been tried and failed.
In addition to reopening the markets (how much business are they losing to competitors over this?) BF needs to clarify the market rules on their Next President market.
When BF do reopen for business, I don`t know if or which way I will bet due to the interpretation of BF rules as understood by some on here.
I have have Laid Trump big and also have Backed Pence. If Trump were to bow out through ill health and Pence were to run for President instead - going on to win so that Pence is Next President - I would expect to win my Trump bet and win my Pence bet.
However, according to some on here I would lose both bets.
There has been a risk premium in Trump and Biden`s price from the off - originally due to age but now amplified due to Covid. For the above interpretation to be right the risk premium should not have been there (at least after the nomination stage). That leads me to think that there may be an opportunity to back Trump when Bf opens as I suspect, looking as Smarket odds, that he is going to open higher-priced that when Bf suspended the market and part of this higher price could? be based on a misunderstanding on BF rules.
Any views on all this?
It's a sad fact with BF that the title of their bets often don't match up with the published small print rules. An earlier classis was "will there be a no deal Brexit, yes or no" where the small print had a whole stack of provisos and tied the bet to a particular date. So you have to be very careful to make sure that what you think you are betting on is indeed the case.
Indeed. The title of the market is "Presidential Election 2020 - Next President". I`ve been laying Trump for months and I admit I didn`t look at the rules initially, thinking that the title of market pretty much said it all. When I did check the rules the last sentence, that basically says the market doesn`t void if someone dies, was reassuring (I thought). What`s concerning is that experienced PB.com punters take opposite interpretations of their rules.
There is a storm brewing for BF.
I think some people overcomplicate and overthink matters.
From memory the winner is the "projected" winner according to the rules? Well, if hypothetically Trump pulls out now and is replaced by Pence then even if the ballot papers say Trump the "projected" winner if the GOP wins on the night will be Pence.
Others take the other view, an overly literal interpretation that the ballot paper says Trump so Trump will have won. But in that scenario I think the media and everyone will be projecting that Pence has won, so you would win your bet.
The key is who interprets who has "projected" the winner. The rules don't, as some seem to think, insist upon the name on the ballot paper being the winner.
I think it's wise to *actually read the rules* rather than relying on your recollection.
From the rules link, I think it matches Philip's recollection:
Event Start Time 03 November 2020, 20:00 Win Only Market
MARKET INFORMATION
For further information please see Rules & Regs.
Who will be elected to be the next President of the United States of America as a result of the 2020 presidential election?
This market will be turned in-play at the stated time on the day of the election. Thereafter the market will not be actively managed. Customers are entirely responsible for their bets at all times.
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. 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.
This market will be void if an election does not take place in 2020. If more than one election takes place in 2020, then this market will apply to the first election that is held.
10/03/2020 10:30am – Once voting (whether postal, electronic or at the ballot box) begins in the year 2020 for the US Presidential Election 2020, the election will be deemed to have taken place for the purposes of this market. We will then settle the market as per our rules regardless of whether the election process is fully completed in 2020 or beyond.
If there is any material change to the established role or any ambiguity as to who occupies the position, then Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time. Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled.
Betfair expressly reserves the right to suspend and/or void any and all bets on this market at any time if Betfair is not satisfied (in its absolute discretion) with the certainty of the outcome.
Additional candidates may be added to this market on request.
Please note that candidates in this market will not be partially settled and will remain in the market until it is fully settled. This is to allow customers to continue trading candidates that they have positions on and because each candidate is still a valid runner in this market.
Customers should be aware that:
Transmissions described as “live” by some broadcasters may actually be delayed.
The extent of any such delay may vary, depending on the set-up through which they are receiving pictures or data.
Please note, due to internal administrative procedures, the indicated start date/time of this market is subject to change. This will have no impact on settlement as detailed in our market specific rules. Any changes to the start time/date will be recorded in the market rules. 16:00 17/06/2020 –Market rules have been updated to reflect new information above..
If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules (Updated - 20/06/2020)
Sorry but i think there is an important difference between 'projected winner' and candidate projected to win EC votes at 2020 election.
The *candidate* means the person nominated. That's Trump not Pence.
I disagree. They say "Please note that candidates in this market will not be partially settled and will remain in the market until it is fully settled. This is to allow customers to continue trading candidates that they have positions on and because each candidate is still a valid runner in this market." There is no way that that only means those whose names are printed on ballots even if they're dead and who were standing for parties which have now chosen replacements. It means everyone on the BF list.
It means that BF believe there is a chance that any of their "runners", i.e. anyone they have got listed, has a chance of being the winning "candidate", meaning the person who gets a majority of projected ECVs or who is appointed by the 12th amendment procedure.
And BF are quite right about that. If we just look at the PECVs, that literally CAN be anybody who is alive. (Sorry but members of the EC in my opinion will not vote for a person they know to be dead.) House delegations have to vote for one of the leading 3 candidates by ECVs (although goodness knows what happens if there is a tie for 3rd place, or if only two candidates won any votes in the EC and they both died after the EC votes were submitted). But there is no such restriction for members of the EC, who can vote for anyone (who is eligible, born in the US, etc.). Never mind state law here. Perhaps they will end up in state jail if they defy state authorities. That doesn't matter. The person they vote for doesn't (by federal law) have to be a person who was named on ballots for hoi polloi. This is not a pedantic point. On the contrary, it is the basis of where BF are coming from when they write that "each candidate is still a valid runner in this market" - meaning that they will remain a "valid runner" until the market is fully settled. That's slightly vague terminology, but it means that the "projected winner" of the EC could, as far as they and we know now, be anybody. It could for example be Oprah Winfrey - who was available until recently at 1000 and will presumably still be available at that price when the market reopens. So don't worry, @Stocky. If Trump withdraws and Pence becomes the GOP candidate, i.e. he is chosen by the RNC and the GOP then tell voters that "If it says 'Trump' on your ballot paper, that means 'Pence' ", and Pence then wins in enough states to be "projected" to win a majority of ECVs, then you will win your bet on Pence.
It doesn't matter whether dead people have been elected in other elections in the US. No serious "projector" will "project" that EC members will vote for someone they know is dead, and it won't happen.
Welcome - and thank you for your detailed comments. You seem very well informed - and this is your first post - is this some form of official response by any chance?
Thanks. No, it's just my take on it, but I have a lot staked and before staking I considered this very carefully.
It's really not a good point though is it? Why do normal Universities have much higher fees? Because they have much higher costs, many of them fixed in the form of buildings, labs, campuses etc that have to be maintained. Do you want those facilities to continue to exist and be available for future generations? If so, how do you pay for it?
For me, its like those loyal souls who have bought season tickets for the clubs even although they are not allowed to go to the matches. The kind of thinking in this tweet is incredibly short term, bordering on stupid, but its all too typical of society today. Even these students, who are overpaying for the experience, benefit from the continued existence of the Institutions that will issue their degrees.
Oh come off it. We have universities offering OU courses for Oxbridge prices. I don't blame them - they face a serious cash crisis if they don't. I blame the government.
Many students are paying for what exactly - online teaching in a room they are barred from leaving? £15k for something they could have for a fifth of the price
So the government should make up the shortfall, eh? That would be us, the taxpayers. And who gets the benefit of the continuation of the institutions? The students.
The idea that our government has some bottomless pit of money into which it can dip with no cost every time something is not ideal is just delusional. We really need to get away from it.
Aren't graduates likely to pay higher taxes further down the line? We absolutely do need to make choices about where taxpayer money should go. It could be that ensuring the UK remains a global further education superpower is a wiser use of taxpayer money than, say, the bottomless pit of cash being thrown at friends of various ministers and advisers in the private sector to run various shambolic aspects of our pandemic response, or concreting over swathes of England to house lorries that will be caught up in the Brexit fiasco this government has created.
Spot on. Plus those labs are also used for research and development. I’d also be a bit pissed off if I were a third/fourth year engineering student right now who needed into labs but which are being intermittently disrupted. Higher Education is a public good because it produces more productive individuals with more earning power and research that powers both prestigious institutes and big firms. It is not a waste to sub some of the money that universities and colleges are down. It’s certainly less than the cash that’s been wasted on sexy nonsense so far this parliament.
What does he mean "caught out"??? Sending kids back to school was always going to spread the pox. Their guidance to schools was substandard guff which schools have had to beef up under their own initiative and yet its still spreading. And this is despite sitting kids like my daughter next to an open window in 6 degrees weather because the classroom is so cramped having set the kids out in rows.
Policy is clear - hope it goes away, blame everyone else if it doesn't.
Worse than that- this was foreseeable and foreseen. But it got drowned out in the "Scaredy Starmer is in hock to evil teacher unions" guff because Johnson wanted a line, any line, that worked for him at PMQs.
(Since people might ask what should have happened... work out what the realistic capacity of the school system is; more than 10 % but less than 100 %. I doubt that there's much mileage in Nightingale Schools- there are just too many schools to expand and not much spare space in most of them. Then work out how far you can extend the normal school hours offer to those in social and economic need. Then see what you can do for the rest with the remaining capacity. And put the home lessons on broadcast TV, not online. The emergency laptops scheme is another low level mess.)
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/oct/05/as-a-tenant-when-am-i-liable-for-stamp-duty
Just FL and NC is probably enough to stick a fork in it, although it's *just about* possible that Biden might take those but miss AZ, then get killed in the mid-west and lose Minnesota too.
The revised UK data hasnt worked through to worldometers as yet, but for comparison a UK two-day new case total of about 22,000 stacks up against Italy's 5,400 and Germany's 3,200.
Even France, which people had assumed was doing hugely worse, is only moderately worse at 29,000
I mean, it is. Nobody else in the world has managed to bollocks up the basics as much as we have.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1313020578589282305?s=20
https://twitter.com/libe/status/1312975814502170630?s=20
https://twitter.com/JamesHesp/status/1313022891336888320
I've also seen the corrosive effect that a blame culture has. Distrust. People paralysed by fear and unable to make a decision. Recriminations rather than trying to fix things.
So what I really want to know is: who noticed there was a problem? Who took the risk of upsetting people by pointing out something had gone wrong? Who fixed it?
Mistakes will happen and we need to encourage people to notice them and fix them - rather than terrify them about the consequences.
- Lots of people who had already voted for someone else in the first round now having to pick a side
Some similarities to the US but not overhelming.
https://twitter.com/danieljelsom/status/1312498743317389315?s=20
As for the Govt's system. Not so much world beating more grouse beating
When something goes wrong we should try to have a culture of congratulating the person who spotted the mistake first, not a blame culture that inevitably leads to a shooting the messenger and people attempting to cover it up.
Yes, congratulate the person who spots, owns and fixes the problem. Thats how I operate whether I'm the spotter or the manager of the spotter. But when there is functional incompetence and gross stupidity this isn't going to work. And it isn't.
What are Electoral College Votes?
"Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president". "Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate for president. Ballot formats vary between the states: in New Jersey for example, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result." [Wikipedia]
Note that these ballots are not the ones that the public use for the November 3rd General Election. They are specifically for use by Electors of the Electoral College.
In the event of a Pence replacement for Trump, without central guidance, it is likely that some Electors with put Pence on their ballot paper and some will put Trump.
There is bound to be guidance or an instruction from the Republican National Committee (RNC). When and if the RNC decides to substitute Pence for Trump as candidate for President, it will almost certainly also instruct Republican Electors on the 9th December to cast their ballots for Pence not Trump to avoid a split vote and to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of a Pence presidency.
The Electoral College Votes would be for Pence and I'm sure Betfair would settle on that basis but would probably wait until 9th December before doing so.
For me, its like those loyal souls who have bought season tickets for the clubs even although they are not allowed to go to the matches. The kind of thinking in this tweet is incredibly short term, bordering on stupid, but its all too typical of society today. Even these students, who are overpaying for the experience, benefit from the continued existence of the Institutions that will issue their degrees.
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1313037295520559104
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1313034424427130880?s=20
Many students are paying for what exactly - online teaching in a room they are barred from leaving? £15k for something they could have for a fifth of the price
There might be some places where technically if you were in an extra-legalistic mood you could squint at the legislation and say that it meant they had to vote for Trump irrespective of his lack of vital signs, but most of them will be GOP-controlled, so if they really needed to they could fix their legislation.
The idea that our government has some bottomless pit of money into which it can dip with no cost every time something is not ideal is just delusional. We really need to get away from it.
Policy is clear - hope it goes away, blame everyone else if it doesn't.
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/WI.html
Total turnout in 2016 was like 2.8 million.
I think it all depends upon timing. If Trump were to withdraw before 3/11 then the GOP would have said ECVs would be going to Pence and the projection would be Pence. If Trump were to withdraw after the projection is made then it's too late.
Please be specific with what benefits an MMU student is getting from being imprisoned in £6k a year halls to do a £9k online degree that is not remotely what they signed on to do. When I took the boy to visit MMU early this year the open day was very clear about all the wonders of the university and the English department - almost all of which would be closed to him had he actually signed on.
http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/fees-and-funding
£3096 is the part time (half degree course) price.
The RNC doesn't need to change any legislation. It simply instructs its Electors to put Pence on their ballot papers and these are then the Electoral Votes.
I think BetFair are in the clear with their rules. On close inspection, I don't think they are ambiguous.
I'm seeing the same elsewhere exams being another example where the current decision is based on "well nothing will go wrong" when in reality it would be easier all round if they announced it was another year of with results based on teacher assessment.
Spelling fail.
PS IIUC there isn't time for the RNC to change its official nominee, but all it needs is a word from Trump or a consensus of grandees.
The point is that Trump probably already knew he was infected when the debate took place, and possibly days before as well. Then he went on to a rally In Minnesota and a fundraiser. Not to mention potentially infecting White House staff.
So, if the above hypothesis is true - what follows?
Well there will be claims that he criminally infected other people. Will this affect his votes? I`m guessing, yes, but not significantly.
On the other side, my take on the debate is that it was a score draw. Trump repulsive as ever but Biden, I felt, came over as someone who was easily bullied by Trump. Wimpish even. Harsh, I know, but this may have an affect in the other direction - along with the new Trump narrative that "I beat Covid and Biden is a pussy".
At the future debates (I think they will go ahead) Trump will no doubt bully again - and again try to trigger a Biden stuttering episode to build up the new Trump narrative.
So. Yes, I`m worried.
There is zero accountability in this country. Sharpen your pitchforks.
It means that BF believe there is a chance that any of their "runners", i.e. anyone they have got listed, has a chance of being the winning "candidate", meaning the person who gets a majority of projected ECVs or who is appointed by the 12th amendment procedure.
And BF are quite right about that. If we just look at the PECVs, that literally CAN be anybody who is alive. (Sorry but members of the EC in my opinion will not vote for a person they know to be dead.) House delegations have to vote for one of the leading 3 candidates by ECVs (although goodness knows what happens if there is a tie for 3rd place, or if only two candidates won any votes in the EC and they both died after the EC votes were submitted). But there is no such restriction for members of the EC, who can vote for anyone (who is eligible, born in the US, etc.). Never mind state law here. Perhaps they will end up in state jail if they defy state authorities. That doesn't matter. The person they vote for doesn't (by federal law) have to be a person who was named on ballots for hoi polloi. This is not a pedantic point. On the contrary, it is the basis of where BF are coming from when they write that "each candidate is still a valid runner in this market" - meaning that they will remain a "valid runner" until the market is fully settled. That's slightly vague terminology, but it means that the "projected winner" of the EC could, as far as they and we know now, be anybody. It could for example be Oprah Winfrey - who was available until recently at 1000 and will presumably still be available at that price when the market reopens. So don't worry, @Stocky. If Trump withdraws and Pence becomes the GOP candidate, i.e. he is chosen by the RNC and the GOP then tell voters that "If it says 'Trump' on your ballot paper, that means 'Pence' ", and Pence then wins in enough states to be "projected" to win a majority of ECVs, then you will win your bet on Pence.
It doesn't matter whether dead people have been elected in other elections in the US. No serious "projector" will "project" that EC members will vote for someone they know is dead, and it won't happen.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/upshot/poll-2020-election-method.html
This in particular struck me re the response rate:
Does anyone pick up the phone anymore?
Some people do. Just not many. We usually complete interviews with about 1 or 2 percent of the voters we try to reach.:
My nephew has just started computing at Dundee. He is sharing accommodation with 7 other students. They are socialising amongst themselves but it is fair to say that the kind of socialising that you would normally indulge in through Freshers week and societies is pretty seriously inhibited right now. There is only so much you can do by zoom. They are not locked in their rooms but its not the full experience either.
His course was supposed to be blended but it is now pretty much all online, at least for this first term. The limitations on meeting other students doing the same course is an issue too. It's not great but I met him for coffee last week and he had no doubt that he made the right call to come this year. He was seriously bored over the summer and is anxious to get on.
You make a good point about "projected". Perhaps BetFair will not wait until 9th December but settle on projected EC votes if it is clear and unanimous.
So the national polls also overestimated Hillary on average in 2016, just not as much as the state polls did
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
.
Then the Unis were seen as a great way to get kids off the dole figures (remember NEETs? Not in Employment, Education, Training). New Labour came up a great scheme, keep 50% in education and make THEM pay for it. Lower jobless figures, less claiming dole and (maybe) better educated population.
Where it gets complicated is if the GOP bigwigs recommend Jeb Bush, or Trump recommends Jared Kushner.
I played the Ryder Cup course at The Belfry the other week. Shot twice my age - which would have been quite impressive if I were a decade younger.
"You know what thought did? He thought it was a fart."
It's also unclear what the rest of Europe is doing wrt university cases so once again the daily statistics may not be comparable as they weren't when the death statistics didn't have a cut off point.
I have deep reservations about the current system but government funding has been tried and failed.
https://twitter.com/LouiseRawAuthor/status/1312868939861504005?s=20n
(Since people might ask what should have happened... work out what the realistic capacity of the school system is; more than 10 % but less than 100 %. I doubt that there's much mileage in Nightingale Schools- there are just too many schools to expand and not much spare space in most of them. Then work out how far you can extend the normal school hours offer to those in social and economic need. Then see what you can do for the rest with the remaining capacity. And put the home lessons on broadcast TV, not online. The emergency laptops scheme is another low level mess.)