Confusion in Madrid as court overturns emergency measures to limit mobility out of Madrid and other measures, 750/100,000 and high ICU utilization but human rights more important. I suspect the national government will win in the end but so sad that politics is shaping the debate.
On topic, and aware of the fact I was pretty dismissive of his 2024 nomination chances last night if Trump loses, I though Pence did well last night within the context of what he was aiming to do.
If I was a fairly conservative voter, who was sceptical (or even very concerned) about Trump's temperament, I'd have been comforted by Pence to a fair degree.
Will it move the topline numbers? Probably not appreciably. But I think it will steady the ship a bit after a rocky period for the re-election campaign.
Yes Johnson has struggled with the pandemic, and his decision making hasn't been particularly clear, but to be fair to him he is between a rock and a hard place, the greatest political operatives would be under pressure. I have said all along this pandemic is a nightmare for incumbents the world over. Johnson, perhaps fairly, perhaps unfairly, will pay for this with his personal, and the Conservative Party's long term popularity.
Trump pulling out of the second debate must put a severe strain on the Biden campaign's champagne budget.
Absolutely!
I thought Trump would show as little regard to the Hatch Act as he did during his Conference. Sit at the Resolute Desk for the debate. Make it as blatant as he could.
He's giving up isn't he? He knows he has lost.
Coupling his refusal with "They're trying to protect Biden" just puts the cherry on top. Does the man _ever_ think about what's coming out of his mouth?
I personally think the Government should invest in a huge public safety campaign about limiting social contacts, social distancing, hygiene etc. Billboards, internet, TV, radio. Even on the BBC.
Slash corporation tax, VAT, alcohol duty, and employers NI to 0 for hospitality.
Make their businesses viable even with much reduced numbers.
Invest in many more Health and Safety inspectors to inspect VENUES not people. Huge sanctions for businesses who break the rules including directors themselves. Incentivise people to whistleblow on venues. Protect employees at these venues from retribution.
Thoughts?
Sounds better than closing them down or putting them out of business for 3%. Gets my vote.
3% seems very low. See Figure 12 here which puts 'hospitality' as the 2nd or 3rd greatest factor (not just pubs, I assume). And once you have told people again to people behave in terms of meeting at home, it's the largest single target (other than transmission within the family, which you can't control short of breaking up families)...
But isn't that partly how the Chinese got it under control - mass testing & isolation of infected individuals away from their homes ?
You are referring to family breakup by 'that', I take it? I rather think I don't know enough about China to comment sensibly.
Edit PS - not trying to be rude, just don't have anything useful to say!
No, I was referring to isolating individuals outside of their homes in centres set aside for that purpose. For now, we ask those who need to isolate to stay at home with the rest of their family, so the chances of passing on the virus to family members are very high (and compliance with strict isolation correspondingly low).
You think some of the key swing states would vote for a gay presidential candidate ?
The elephant in the room that most commentators didn’t want to talk about during the primaries. He’d make a great member of Biden’s administration but his sexuality would be an issue for some people as a candidate . Personally I could care less , if you’re good enough that should be enough but I really don’t think the USA is liberal enough to accept a gay President yet.
"I could care less": I will never be able to read/hear this without it annoying the hell aout of me.
I actually approve this usage, as a clear case of elision. The un-elided phrase is clearly "I could care less, but it would be a great effort to do so".
"Local leaders have warned that people will see this weekend as "their last chance before Christmas" to have a party, as they attack the Government for dragging its heels on new restrictions in England.
David Mellen, leader of Nottingham City Council, told Radio 4's Today programme that even though the city had "very high numbers" they now had to "wait until next week for the Government to bring in what we expect to be new restrictions".
As well as that allowing the virus extra time to spread, that could mean "people think 'this is our last chance before Christmas' and go have a party," Mr Mellen said. "We can't have that." "
Telegraph
Cannot win here. Introduce with no lead in and no one can prepare or understand. Wait and people say it reduces effectiveness.
What will happen with instantly introducing changes - "Local political slams changes without consultation - doesn't match condition on the ground"
Be ready to publish the fricking rules when you implement restrictions. Go for a cycle of assessing and finalising restrictions that runs from Monday to Thursday. Announce on Wednesday/Thursday lunchtime the restrictions for that night, and make sure paperwork lands as you stand up in the commons. If all that doesn't fit well with report days, either change the report days or go with the trend. It's really not difficult.
Confusion in Madrid as court overturns emergency measures to limit mobility out of Madrid and other measures, 750/100,000 and high ICU utilization but human rights more important. I suspect the national government will win in the end but so sad that politics is shaping the debate.
I have reached the end of my patience...
...With those who said that social scientists saying there was "a limit to how much lock down people will take" were talking nonsense.
From a scientist point of view, it would be interesting to compare events in England, if restrictions were lifted as the Mail apparently wants, with events in other countries.
As a resident of England with elderly relatives with risk-increasing conditions, I'd rather some other country tried it. I also suspect (hope) that the British public would mess up such an experiment by self-imposing restrictions, much like the Swedes (in addition to the actual legal restrictions the Swedish government implemented, which were not insignificant).
On topic, and aware of the fact I was pretty dismissive of his 2024 nomination chances last night if Trump loses, I though Pence did well last night within the context of what he was aiming to do.
If I was a fairly conservative voter, who was sceptical (or even very concerned) about Trump's temperament, I'd have been comforted by Pence to a fair degree.
Will it move the topline numbers? Probably not appreciably. But I think it will steady the ship a bit after a rocky period for the re-election campaign.
I think that is a fair assessment and it is probably why the EC spread has gone a touch down. It wasn't spectacular, it didn't knock Harris out of the park but the impression (you can debate the substance) was competence and composure. I also suspect, for conservative voters, it maybe reminded them of things they don't like about Harris (and, no, I am not thinking her race or gender).
Ps One other thing. Bear in mind CA has seen one of the largest outflow of residents fleeing the state and they tend to go to places like NC, TX, AZ etc.
I have no problems with those specific fifty fishermen he granted the rights to exercising those rights.
In 1420 an international treaty with the French agreed that Henry V or his heirs should succeed to the French throne upon the death of Charles VI. The French subsequently reneged on their international obligations. The UK maintained that monarchs of the UK were also monarchs of France until the 19th Century and never formally renounced that claim. It was just left unstated after France became a republic. However, under international law our claim remains valid - the decision of the French to abolish their monarchy and become a republic has no validity since it was never confirmed in a law that received Royal Assent from the rightful (UK) monarch. So if we're delving back into history and given the recent emphasis on the supposed primacy of international law, perhaps it's time to reassert that claim too.
SKS siding with the farmers who put giant "Vote Conservative" placards in their fields at election time.
That's my membership card in the bin.
(Joking)
I think SKS is being quite canny here. Yes, he's siding with the farmers. But he's also siding with all the people who eat food. Which is really quite a lot of people.....
I personally think the Government should invest in a huge public safety campaign about limiting social contacts, social distancing, hygiene etc. Billboards, internet, TV, radio. Even on the BBC.
Slash corporation tax, VAT, alcohol duty, and employers NI to 0 for hospitality.
Make their businesses viable even with much reduced numbers.
Invest in many more Health and Safety inspectors to inspect VENUES not people. Huge sanctions for businesses who break the rules including directors themselves. Incentivise people to whistleblow on venues. Protect employees at these venues from retribution.
Thoughts?
Sounds better than closing them down or putting them out of business for 3%. Gets my vote.
3% seems very low. See Figure 12 here which puts 'hospitality' as the 2nd or 3rd greatest factor (not just pubs, I assume). And once you have told people again to people behave in terms of meeting at home, it's the largest single target (other than transmission within the family, which you can't control short of breaking up families)...
But isn't that partly how the Chinese got it under control - mass testing & isolation of infected individuals away from their homes ?
You are referring to family breakup by 'that', I take it? I rather think I don't know enough about China to comment sensibly.
Edit PS - not trying to be rude, just don't have anything useful to say!
No, I was referring to isolating individuals outside of their homes in centres set aside for that purpose. For now, we ask those who need to isolate to stay at home with the rest of their family, so the chances of passing on the virus to family members are very high (and compliance with strict isolation correspondingly low).
Confusion in Madrid as court overturns emergency measures to limit mobility out of Madrid and other measures, 750/100,000 and high ICU utilization but human rights more important. I suspect the national government will win in the end but so sad that politics is shaping the debate.
Politics is supposed to shape debates. What's sad is when judges decide them.
I wonder whether debate organisers will follow the approach of HIGNFY with Roy Hattersley years ago, and replace Trump at the next debate with a tub of lard?
Sir Keir lets us down, no bottle. Just like all the rest of em
Waste of space
Bit unfair? Graun covid feed quotes a Huff Post interview
"The problem with the vote next week is it’s an up-down take-it-or-leave-it vote and therefore if you vote down the current arrangements there won’t be any restrictions in place.
That’s not what we want so we won’t be down the restrictions that are in place.
But we do say to the government – reform the 10pm rule, show us the evidence, do it in a much smarter way."
"Local leaders have warned that people will see this weekend as "their last chance before Christmas" to have a party, as they attack the Government for dragging its heels on new restrictions in England.
David Mellen, leader of Nottingham City Council, told Radio 4's Today programme that even though the city had "very high numbers" they now had to "wait until next week for the Government to bring in what we expect to be new restrictions".
As well as that allowing the virus extra time to spread, that could mean "people think 'this is our last chance before Christmas' and go have a party," Mr Mellen said. "We can't have that." "
Telegraph
Cannot win here. Introduce with no lead in and no one can prepare or understand. Wait and people say it reduces effectiveness.
What will happen with instantly introducing changes - "Local political slams changes without consultation - doesn't match condition on the ground"
Be ready to publish the fricking rules when you implement restrictions. Go for a cycle of assessing and finalising restrictions that runs from Monday to Thursday. Announce on Wednesday/Thursday lunchtime the restrictions for that night, and make sure paperwork lands as you stand up in the commons. If all that doesn't fit well with report days, either change the report days or go with the trend. It's really not difficult.
The problem you will run into, is that unless you give the local politicians/managers several working days to digest the proposals, they will get increasingly upset and uncooperative.
On topic, and aware of the fact I was pretty dismissive of his 2024 nomination chances last night if Trump loses, I though Pence did well last night within the context of what he was aiming to do.
If I was a fairly conservative voter, who was sceptical (or even very concerned) about Trump's temperament, I'd have been comforted by Pence to a fair degree.
Will it move the topline numbers? Probably not appreciably. But I think it will steady the ship a bit after a rocky period for the re-election campaign.
I think that is a fair assessment and it is probably why the EC spread has gone a touch down. It wasn't spectacular, it didn't knock Harris out of the park but the impression (you can debate the substance) was competence and composure. I also suspect, for conservative voters, it maybe reminded them of things they don't like about Harris (and, no, I am not thinking her race or gender).
Ps One other thing. Bear in mind CA has seen one of the largest outflow of residents fleeing the state and they tend to go to places like NC, TX, AZ etc.
Yes - and I don't think he was trying to knock Harris out of the park, as the pugilistic approach would have backfired if he didn't get a devestating blow (and he probably wouldn't - Harris is very competent). He was there to quietly remind moderate conservatives that there are actually adults in the room to change Trump's nappies, and was pretty successful in that.
You think some of the key swing states would vote for a gay presidential candidate ?
The elephant in the room that most commentators didn’t want to talk about during the primaries. He’d make a great member of Biden’s administration but his sexuality would be an issue for some people as a candidate . Personally I could care less , if you’re good enough that should be enough but I really don’t think the USA is liberal enough to accept a gay President yet.
"I could care less": I will never be able to read/hear this without it annoying the hell aout of me.
I actually approve this usage, as a clear case of elision. The un-elided phrase is clearly "I could care less, but it would be a great effort to do so".
I wonder whether debate organisers will follow the approach of HIGNFY with Roy Hattersley years ago, and replace Trump at the next debate with a tub of lard?
Boris Johnson, wasn't it?
Fairly certain it was Hattersley originally, although whether they later repeated the trick I don't know (haven't watched it for years as it went off the boil a long time ago).
Ref Trump's decision to pull out, it makes sense in isolation and is completely nuts in the bigger picture.
Of itself, the chances of Trump winning a debate when he can't feed off the energy in the room, can't face his opponent directly, and can be muted at will by the moderator were pretty minimal. It's not a format that plays to his advantage and the obvious Dem response to a Trump call for an in-person debate would be for Covid tests, which Trump would have good reason to try to avoid.
However, he's losing. By a long way. Unless something changes in the next 25 days, it's game over. This was an opportunity - if not a great one - to change the course of the election. Instead, he now looks to be running scared of both Biden and the public.
On topic, and aware of the fact I was pretty dismissive of his 2024 nomination chances last night if Trump loses, I though Pence did well last night within the context of what he was aiming to do.
If I was a fairly conservative voter, who was sceptical (or even very concerned) about Trump's temperament, I'd have been comforted by Pence to a fair degree.
Will it move the topline numbers? Probably not appreciably. But I think it will steady the ship a bit after a rocky period for the re-election campaign.
I think that is a fair assessment and it is probably why the EC spread has gone a touch down. It wasn't spectacular, it didn't knock Harris out of the park but the impression (you can debate the substance) was competence and composure. I also suspect, for conservative voters, it maybe reminded them of things they don't like about Harris (and, no, I am not thinking her race or gender).
Ps One other thing. Bear in mind CA has seen one of the largest outflow of residents fleeing the state and they tend to go to places like NC, TX, AZ etc.
Of course the numbers don’t support this view, otherwise the Harris’ debate polling would have been below the Potus polling.
Yes Johnson has struggled with the pandemic, and his decision making hasn't been particularly clear, but to be fair to him he is between a rock and a hard place, the greatest political operatives would be under pressure. I have said all along this pandemic is a nightmare for incumbents the world over. Johnson, perhaps fairly, perhaps unfairly, will pay for this with his personal, and the Conservative Party's long term popularity.
An argument can be made, and probably will be, that we would be in a better place if every single one of BoZo's decisions had been reversed, starting with sacking Cummings right at the start
Don't appoint Dido.
Clear the cabinet of Brexiteers and bring in ministers like Hunt
The restrictions aren't tight enough. So let's loosen them.
I'm struggling to see the logic in that one.
The experts behind the study were on R4 this morning during the last hour of the Today programme. Their work continues to use data from the Imperial model.
Their argument was that they now believe excess deaths over the whole piece could be (have been) minimised by shielding/locking down those vulnerable to the serious illness whilst allowing everyone else to mingle and the economy to keep on going. This leads to few deaths as those vulnerable remain uninflected, whilst spreading immunity among those much less susceptible to the serious effects, thereby protecting everyone further down the line.
Those with good memories will remember this was the plan that was set out at the very first press conference with Bozo and the scientists - before they panicked that hospital capacity would be overwhelmed and pushed us all into tighter lockdown. And thereafter chopped and changed this way and that depending on the wind direction.
I wonder whether debate organisers will follow the approach of HIGNFY with Roy Hattersley years ago, and replace Trump at the next debate with a tub of lard?
Boris Johnson, wasn't it?
Fairly certain it was Hattersley originally, although whether they later repeated the trick I don't know (haven't watched it for years as it went off the boil a long time ago).
I personally think the Government should invest in a huge public safety campaign about limiting social contacts, social distancing, hygiene etc. Billboards, internet, TV, radio. Even on the BBC.
Slash corporation tax, VAT, alcohol duty, and employers NI to 0 for hospitality.
Make their businesses viable even with much reduced numbers.
Invest in many more Health and Safety inspectors to inspect VENUES not people. Huge sanctions for businesses who break the rules including directors themselves. Incentivise people to whistleblow on venues. Protect employees at these venues from retribution.
Thoughts?
Sounds better than closing them down or putting them out of business for 3%. Gets my vote.
3% seems very low. See Figure 12 here which puts 'hospitality' as the 2nd or 3rd greatest factor (not just pubs, I assume). And once you have told people again to people behave in terms of meeting at home, it's the largest single target (other than transmission within the family, which you can't control short of breaking up families)...
But isn't that partly how the Chinese got it under control - mass testing & isolation of infected individuals away from their homes ?
You are referring to family breakup by 'that', I take it? I rather think I don't know enough about China to comment sensibly.
Edit PS - not trying to be rude, just don't have anything useful to say!
No, I was referring to isolating individuals outside of their homes in centres set aside for that purpose. For now, we ask those who need to isolate to stay at home with the rest of their family, so the chances of passing on the virus to family members are very high (and compliance with strict isolation correspondingly low).
Thanks - I get it now. Quite so.
No problem - my earlier comment could have been clearer.
On topic, and aware of the fact I was pretty dismissive of his 2024 nomination chances last night if Trump loses, I though Pence did well last night within the context of what he was aiming to do.
If I was a fairly conservative voter, who was sceptical (or even very concerned) about Trump's temperament, I'd have been comforted by Pence to a fair degree.
Will it move the topline numbers? Probably not appreciably. But I think it will steady the ship a bit after a rocky period for the re-election campaign.
Pence is a smooth and solid media performer. Appears unflappable and reassuring. Some wacky views, though, and not much of an intellect. And mendacious, very mendacious.
Ref Trump's decision to pull out, it makes sense in isolation and is completely nuts in the bigger picture.
Of itself, the chances of Trump winning a debate when he can't feed off the energy in the room, can't face his opponent directly, and can be muted at will by the moderator were pretty minimal. It's not a format that plays to his advantage and the obvious Dem response to a Trump call for an in-person debate would be for Covid tests, which Trump would have good reason to try to avoid.
However, he's losing. By a long way. Unless something changes in the next 25 days, it's game over. This was an opportunity - if not a great one - to change the course of the election. Instead, he now looks to be running scared of both Biden and the public.
Or perhaps he doesn't feel he'll be well enough to hold up to a 90 minute debate ? Impossible to know, but a plausible alternative.
SKS siding with the farmers who put giant "Vote Conservative" placards in their fields at election time.
That's my membership card in the bin.
(Joking)
I think SKS is being quite canny here. Yes, he's siding with the farmers. But he's also siding with all the people who eat food. Which is really quite a lot of people.....
It is often said that the diet preferred by social groups c2s and ds is nutritionally speaking s***. When chlorinated chicken from the USA becomes available, they might be less than pleased to discover they are actually eating genuine excrement.
Surprised that Trump has pulled out of the virtual debate.
Surely the fact that he would have participated from the White House would have given him an advantage - not in terms of the debate but the general projection of his status to the electorate - as 'I am your President and I am in the right environment'.
Surprised that Trump has pulled out of the virtual debate.
Surely the fact that he would have participated from the White House would have given him an advantage - not in terms of the debate but the general projection of his status to the electorate - as 'I am your President and I am in the right environment'.
I feel like it must be his health, including his voice. If he can't get through 90 minutes (or whatever it was) of a legitimately tiring exercise without showing the strain, his response makes sense.
Boom. Looks like State Aid will be wrapped up in next week and then there'll be a political call on fish very late doors. We should be ok.
"One EU source said that Mr Barnier had told diplomats: “Maintaining the status quo in UK waters will not be feasible. So the most concerned member states will need to explore room to move towards the UK in terms of quota allocation; provided the UK meets the EU on governance and state aid.”
If Johnson falls for that he's become Boris In Name Only.
He won't, there was no 2019 Tory manifesto promise on state aid only on fishing
You're wrong. This is the promise:
"This future relationship will be one that allows us to:
Take back control of our laws.
Take back control of our money.
Control our own trade policy.
Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system.
Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment.
Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters."
State aid is control of our laws and control of our money. Literally the first two things promised.
No it isn't, handing state bailouts to companies is not taking back control of our laws nor our money, it is intervention to distort the free market.
As I correctly said there was no manifesto promise specifically to reclaim control of state aid
I obviously have no idea what has been agreed, but if you don't have control over decisions about state aid then as Philip says you haven't got control over 'our' laws and 'our' money. It doesn't matter what side of the argument you are on re state aid.
Reducing ECJ jurisdiction over the UK and the supremacy of EU law over the UK and ending our annual payments to Brussels all are reclaiming control of our laws and money enough to satisfy that part of the manifesto, I repeat there was no specific promise in the winning 2019 Tory manifesto to regain control of state aid, only an obsession by Philip's hero Dominic Cummings.
HYUFD, quoting other areas where you have taken back control doesn't mitigate the situation if you don't have control over state aid. I have no idea if this is the case, but if it is then this is an area where you have not taken back control of your laws or your money. As I said it doesn't matter what side you are on, whether you are in favour or against state aid, if you don't have control over the decisions you do not have control of your laws or your money in this area.
If the Tory manifesto said you would then you have breached the manifesto. Simples.
No, I am a Tory activist not you and also more so than Philip who voted Labour in 2001 and Brexit Party in 2019 at the Euros when I voted Tory in all those elections so I will also take no lectures from him on what Tory policy is.
I know what was in the Tory manifesto, there was no specific promise to regain control of state aid, zero, nada, only to end free movement, do our own trade deals and regain control of fishing waters.
Brexit by itself now having being delivered reduces EU law over the UK and also our annual subsidies to Brussels which covers that point.
End of conversation
I'm unsure why you think that having undying loyalty to the "Conservative Party" is a good thing?
If you want to tell me what Tory policy should be you should certainly show some consistent loyalty to the party, if not I am not that interested especially when there is no requirement in the winning Tory manifesto for it.
Philip Thompson is a Blair voting, Farage voting, Cummings worshipping fanatic on Brexit not a loyal Tory
I voted for Blair when Blair and Brown were sticking to Ken Clarke's plans and managing the economy well. I didn't after 2001.
I never voted for Farage. Which Parliament is Farage a member of thanks to my vote? 🙄
You voted Labour in 2001, you voted Brexit Party in 2019 and to continue Farage's membership of the European Parliament at that time which he duly continued until this year
Millions more voted Labour in 2001 than Tories. Rather than turning your nose up at people that you were on the losing side, maybe you should stop slapping yourself on the back for one second and ask why that happened?
As for the European Parliament election it should never have taken place. We were supposed to leave before the elections even happened. It was only due to Theresa May's abject failure the election even happened - that you rewarded her abject failure by voting for her again is not something to be proud of.
I didn't elect an MEP, I voted we should have no MEPs at all. The election shouldn't have even happened. It brought down the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime. I'm glad for that vote.
Did you vote for a Party in the Euro elections? If you did, you didn't vote for "no MEPs". If you voted for Farage's crowd you just voted to waste our money on approx 30 odd trouble makers in the parliament who were paid for the priviledge of causing trouble. The whole history of UKIP/Brexit were wreckers who never did any meaningful work!
I never voted for UKIP when that was meaningful.
In 2019 the UK wasn't even supposed to be in the European Parliament anymore! I didn't want "meaningful work" to be done by our MEPs. What "meaningful work" should they be doing when they should already not have a job?
It was a protest vote to MPs who matter. The MEPs were irrelevant.
Out of interest, if the Conservatives had taken an abstentionist position for the European elections, pledging that their elected MEPs would not turn up to Brussels/Strasbourg, and wouldn't take a salary, would that have persuaded you to vote Tory over Faragist? Or was driving the Conservative vote as low as possible, as an anti-May protest vote, the primary concern?
Trump pulling out of the second debate must put a severe strain on the Biden campaign's champagne budget.
Absolutely!
I thought Trump would show as little regard to the Hatch Act as he did during his Conference. Sit at the Resolute Desk for the debate. Make it as blatant as he could.
He's giving up isn't he? He knows he has lost.
Question: Can now Biden just pull out of the third debate without looking weak/afraid?
Doubt he will but the chances of any more debates must be shrinking.
Yes Johnson has struggled with the pandemic, and his decision making hasn't been particularly clear, but to be fair to him he is between a rock and a hard place, the greatest political operatives would be under pressure. I have said all along this pandemic is a nightmare for incumbents the world over. Johnson, perhaps fairly, perhaps unfairly, will pay for this with his personal, and the Conservative Party's long term popularity.
An argument can be made, and probably will be, that we would be in a better place if every single one of BoZo's decisions had been reversed, starting with sacking Cummings right at the start
Don't appoint Dido.
Clear the cabinet of Brexiteers and bring in ministers like Hunt
Don't manage by press release.
Etc, etc, ...
I was trying to be impartial. But your argument is compelling.
On topic, and aware of the fact I was pretty dismissive of his 2024 nomination chances last night if Trump loses, I though Pence did well last night within the context of what he was aiming to do.
If I was a fairly conservative voter, who was sceptical (or even very concerned) about Trump's temperament, I'd have been comforted by Pence to a fair degree.
Will it move the topline numbers? Probably not appreciably. But I think it will steady the ship a bit after a rocky period for the re-election campaign.
Pence is a smooth and solid media performer. Appears unflappable and reassuring. Some wacky views, though, and not much of an intellect. And mendacious, very mendacious.
I have no problems with those specific fifty fishermen he granted the rights to exercising those rights.
In 1420 an international treaty with the French agreed that Henry V or his heirs should succeed to the French throne upon the death of Charles VI. The French subsequently reneged on their international obligations. The UK maintained that monarchs of the UK were also monarchs of France until the 19th Century and never formally renounced that claim. It was just left unstated after France became a republic. However, under international law our claim remains valid - the decision of the French to abolish their monarchy and become a republic has no validity since it was never confirmed in a law that received Royal Assent from the rightful (UK) monarch. So if we're delving back into history and given the recent emphasis on the supposed primacy of international law, perhaps it's time to reassert that claim too.
I suspect George III went cool on the idea in 1789.
SKS siding with the farmers who put giant "Vote Conservative" placards in their fields at election time.
That's my membership card in the bin.
(Joking)
I think SKS is being quite canny here. Yes, he's siding with the farmers. But he's also siding with all the people who eat food. Which is really quite a lot of people.....
It is often said that the diet preferred by social groups c2s and ds is nutritionally speaking s***. When chlorinated chicken from the USA becomes available, they might be less than pleased to discover they are actually eating genuine excrement.
Have you ever been to the US?
People aren't eating excrement there, the hysteria over chlorinated chicken is absolutely absurd.
Ref Trump's decision to pull out, it makes sense in isolation and is completely nuts in the bigger picture.
Of itself, the chances of Trump winning a debate when he can't feed off the energy in the room, can't face his opponent directly, and can be muted at will by the moderator were pretty minimal. It's not a format that plays to his advantage and the obvious Dem response to a Trump call for an in-person debate would be for Covid tests, which Trump would have good reason to try to avoid.
However, he's losing. By a long way. Unless something changes in the next 25 days, it's game over. This was an opportunity - if not a great one - to change the course of the election. Instead, he now looks to be running scared of both Biden and the public.
Or perhaps he doesn't feel he'll be well enough to hold up to a 90 minute debate ? Impossible to know, but a plausible alternative.
In a normal person, that would make sense. It only makes sense for Trump if he's really not well right now. Otherwise he'll think he'll be fine - perfect even. But maybe he is quite unwell.
Surprised that Trump has pulled out of the virtual debate.
Surely the fact that he would have participated from the White House would have given him an advantage - not in terms of the debate but the general projection of his status to the electorate - as 'I am your President and I am in the right environment'.
I feel like it must be his health, including his voice. If he can't get through 90 minutes (or whatever it was) of a legitimately tiring exercise without showing the strain, his response makes sense.
(I see Nigel B has already made this point)
I was wrong. It's the fault of the swamp creatures.
7 day rolling average admissions on NE&Y up 51% on the week. (R=1.25).
On this trajectory it would top the previous 7 day regional admissions level (1-7/4) on 29/10. I suspect, though, with a different Yorkshire (more) Vs NE (less) split (iirc, I think NHS wise this covers Cumbria too).
SKS siding with the farmers who put giant "Vote Conservative" placards in their fields at election time.
That's my membership card in the bin.
(Joking)
I think SKS is being quite canny here. Yes, he's siding with the farmers. But he's also siding with all the people who eat food. Which is really quite a lot of people.....
It is often said that the diet preferred by social groups c2s and ds is nutritionally speaking s***. When chlorinated chicken from the USA becomes available, they might be less than pleased to discover they are actually eating genuine excrement.
Have you ever been to the US?
People aren't eating excrement there, the hysteria over chlorinated chicken is absolutely absurd.
Yes I have, but being an elitist liberal I have never dined in places serving chlorinated chicken en ordure.
SKS siding with the farmers who put giant "Vote Conservative" placards in their fields at election time.
That's my membership card in the bin.
(Joking)
I think SKS is being quite canny here. Yes, he's siding with the farmers. But he's also siding with all the people who eat food. Which is really quite a lot of people.....
It is often said that the diet preferred by social groups c2s and ds is nutritionally speaking s***. When chlorinated chicken from the USA becomes available, they might be less than pleased to discover they are actually eating genuine excrement.
Have you ever been to the US?
People aren't eating excrement there, the hysteria over chlorinated chicken is absolutely absurd.
I know we have gone around this loop a hundred times but the issue with chlorinated chicken is not the quality of the meat but the welfare standards that require the chlorination.
I wonder whether debate organisers will follow the approach of HIGNFY with Roy Hattersley years ago, and replace Trump at the next debate with a tub of lard?
I might be wrong but didn't the tub of lard end up on the winning side in that episode?
Sounds like a mis-step from the Donald, but I note Sporting Index has backtracked a couple of points. Biden ECVs now down to 314/320. Anyone think why?
Maybe the voters liked the fly.......
Perhaps just in response to money. They were getting close to our magic 100 sell price on supremacy. Was 94 now 92.
One of the greatest things about this pandemic has been the speed with which research has been published, and the free access to most of that research. One of the downsides is that it has resulted in a lot of poor research getting the light of day.
I must admit, when I read a paper now, my first reaction is, "Can I trust this?". Unfortunately, even the name of the journal does not help that much in answering that question given how much is publish without peer review.
But on balance, I still prefer that everything gets out there quickly. Even if it muddies the water a little, it means that we are getting more data points much more quickly.
Ref Trump's decision to pull out, it makes sense in isolation and is completely nuts in the bigger picture.
Of itself, the chances of Trump winning a debate when he can't feed off the energy in the room, can't face his opponent directly, and can be muted at will by the moderator were pretty minimal. It's not a format that plays to his advantage and the obvious Dem response to a Trump call for an in-person debate would be for Covid tests, which Trump would have good reason to try to avoid.
However, he's losing. By a long way. Unless something changes in the next 25 days, it's game over. This was an opportunity - if not a great one - to change the course of the election. Instead, he now looks to be running scared of both Biden and the public.
Or perhaps he doesn't feel he'll be well enough to hold up to a 90 minute debate ? Impossible to know, but a plausible alternative.
In a normal person, that would make sense. It only makes sense for Trump if he's really not well right now. Otherwise he'll think he'll be fine - perfect even. But maybe he is quite unwell.
Trump is always better than perfect - at least in his own mind.
Comments
That's my membership card in the bin.
(Joking)
I`ve topped up on "Trump Electoral College Votes" market, range 180 -209 at 6.8 with BF.
https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president
If I was a fairly conservative voter, who was sceptical (or even very concerned) about Trump's temperament, I'd have been comforted by Pence to a fair degree.
Will it move the topline numbers? Probably not appreciably. But I think it will steady the ship a bit after a rocky period for the re-election campaign.
I'm struggling to see the logic in that one.
For now, we ask those who need to isolate to stay at home with the rest of their family, so the chances of passing on the virus to family members are very high (and compliance with strict isolation correspondingly low).
...With those who said that social scientists saying there was "a limit to how much lock down people will take" were talking nonsense.
As a resident of England with elderly relatives with risk-increasing conditions, I'd rather some other country tried it. I also suspect (hope) that the British public would mess up such an experiment by self-imposing restrictions, much like the Swedes (in addition to the actual legal restrictions the Swedish government implemented, which were not insignificant).
Ps One other thing. Bear in mind CA has seen one of the largest outflow of residents fleeing the state and they tend to go to places like NC, TX, AZ etc.
That's an interesting comment on Mrs May cf Goran Eriksson.
Did you mean to post it on my Wall rather than the general board?
"The problem with the vote next week is it’s an up-down take-it-or-leave-it vote and therefore if you vote down the current arrangements there won’t be any restrictions in place.
That’s not what we want so we won’t be down the restrictions that are in place.
But we do say to the government – reform the 10pm rule, show us the evidence, do it in a much smarter way."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/07/politics/electoral-college-joe-biden-donald-trump/index.html
If you send out the proposals, they will leak.
Of itself, the chances of Trump winning a debate when he can't feed off the energy in the room, can't face his opponent directly, and can be muted at will by the moderator were pretty minimal. It's not a format that plays to his advantage and the obvious Dem response to a Trump call for an in-person debate would be for Covid tests, which Trump would have good reason to try to avoid.
However, he's losing. By a long way. Unless something changes in the next 25 days, it's game over. This was an opportunity - if not a great one - to change the course of the election. Instead, he now looks to be running scared of both Biden and the public.
In fact, it was ahead of it.
Funny old world.
Don't appoint Dido.
Clear the cabinet of Brexiteers and bring in ministers like Hunt
Don't manage by press release.
Etc, etc, ...
Their argument was that they now believe excess deaths over the whole piece could be (have been) minimised by shielding/locking down those vulnerable to the serious illness whilst allowing everyone else to mingle and the economy to keep on going. This leads to few deaths as those vulnerable remain uninflected, whilst spreading immunity among those much less susceptible to the serious effects, thereby protecting everyone further down the line.
Those with good memories will remember this was the plan that was set out at the very first press conference with Bozo and the scientists - before they panicked that hospital capacity would be overwhelmed and pushed us all into tighter lockdown. And thereafter chopped and changed this way and that depending on the wind direction.
It was Mr H (but Mr J got referred to in that context much later, which might explain it).
Impossible to know, but a plausible alternative.
Surely the fact that he would have participated from the White House would have given him an advantage - not in terms of the debate but the general projection of his status to the electorate - as 'I am your President and I am in the right environment'.
(I see Nigel B has already made this point)
https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1314191170164137992
People aren't eating excrement there, the hysteria over chlorinated chicken is absolutely absurd.
It's the fault of the swamp creatures.
https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1314178916882489350
The question is will Boris Johnson engage in the 'Harrying of the North'?
That Southern Jessie won't know what will hit him.
On this trajectory it would top the previous 7 day regional admissions level (1-7/4) on 29/10. I suspect, though, with a different Yorkshire (more) Vs NE (less) split (iirc, I think NHS wise this covers Cumbria too).
Scrutiny
https://twitter.com/David_Batty/status/1314192823974064130
https://twitter.com/nbcbayarea/status/1314090682630406144
Hat and coat!
I must admit, when I read a paper now, my first reaction is, "Can I trust this?". Unfortunately, even the name of the journal does not help that much in answering that question given how much is publish without peer review.
But on balance, I still prefer that everything gets out there quickly. Even if it muddies the water a little, it means that we are getting more data points much more quickly.
'Not new leadership but NO leadership'!