So I think I've been very critical of the government, fairly, but also of Starmer for not proposing any solutions and just carping from the sidelines. To avoid accusations of doing the same I'm going to offer up, for free, three workable policies:
1. Change self isolation to separation. People who test positive should be given paid for accommodation and £500 per week for up to three weeks and be completely separated from wider society. People who need to be separated as a family should be given family rooms and couples should be given double rooms. This should be provided to all UK citizens and long term residents free of charge. The cost of the policy works out to £1.2k per person per week in isolation up to a maximum of £3.6k, even at today's high levels of community infection this comes to £2.5bn per week. The advantages of this policy is that it's £2.5bn per week which subsidises the beleaguered hotel and catering industry as well as hermetically sealing off people who test positive from the wider community resulting in a huge reduction in the R. Disadvantages are that its an initially costly policy, though as it is one which will being the R down very rapidly the cost goes down very quickly. It may also discourage people from being tested, but the generous nature of the scheme should avoid this.
2. All arrivals in the UK should be quarantined at their own expense for 5 days in hotels near the airport and then tested with an accurate PCR test, people who test negative go home, those who don't continue in separation at their own expense until two negative tests in a row are recorded. This will destroy the international tourism sector, however this is a necessary cost to avoid another lockdown which will wipe another 7-9% off GDP. Advantages - after 5 days almost all cases are caught, another big win for UK hotels and catering. Disadvantages - it discourages tourism which may or may not be good.
Completely agree with 1) - indeed I’ve been arguing much the same.
2) I’d just give them rapid antigen tests, the most accurate available, and if positive do 1).
On the second point I wanted to work within the bounds of what the UK government seems acceptable, clearly they don't believe in any kind of rapid testing so it's not an option. Ideally, yes, I'd actually say two rapid tests with two consecutive negative results.
As for your 3) also provide free masks to shops, pubs etc. Some supermarkets have started handing them out at the entrance to the maskless, and it takes away most of the arguments about not having them.
Might also ensure decent quality of masks worn.
Yes, agreed. The government has a huge stock of non-surgical masks from that dodgy seller. Give them out to small shops and restaurants. I think my controversial point was "no mask, no entry, no exceptions", those with whatever medical conditions would no longer be able to go into indoor public places.
But have we just accepted that general large scale grifting is now acceptable in government, so long as it’s dressed up in a commercial contract ? (Which can’t be enquired into too deeply owing to ‘commercial confidentiality’.)
EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.
That’s a really silly thing to do, at a time when social gatherings in homes are banned. They should televise every match played behind closed doors, selling loads of adverts around it if they need the money.
Advertising revenue has dropped like never before.
These are the matches that aren't normally televised, nobody wants to pay lots of money to advertise around West Brom and Fulham.
The problem is that they’re on PPV, which is going to encourage people to engage in risky and prohibited behaviour - namely having house parties to watch the match.
Blame the government who think it is fine to let people into the cinemas and the Royal Albert Hall but not football stadia.
Presumably because those venues have spent a lot of time and money on convincing the authorities they could operate a reduced capacity safely.
What are the actual issues with premier league grounds? I’m assuming it’s more related to co-ordinating arrivals and departures, behaviour inside the ground, city centre locations, fans without tickets etc., than the risks of catching a virus when 2m from anyone else and wearing a mask.
Also most people in the RAH and flicks don't jump around and yell themselves hoarse (the Last Night of the Proms excepted). It's not a nice thought to be downwind of a stadium full, however spaced out they might be, if they are all yelling at once.
Up here the public transport would be a nightmare at NUFC. Not to mention the Strawberry.
*Googles* - ah, the local equivalent of the Louden Tavern, not far from Chinatown.
It's right opposite the Gallowgate end. Heaving. You can finish your pint 5 minutes before kick off and be in your seat on time.
But have we just accepted that general large scale grifting is now acceptable in government, so long as it’s dressed up in a commercial contract ? (Which can’t be enquired into too deeply owing to ‘commercial confidentiality’.)
So I think I've been very critical of the government, fairly, but also of Starmer for not proposing any solutions and just carping from the sidelines. To avoid accusations of doing the same I'm going to offer up, for free, three workable policies:
1. Change self isolation to separation. People who test positive should be given paid for accommodation and £500 per week for up to three weeks and be completely separated from wider society. People who need to be separated as a family should be given family rooms and couples should be given double rooms. This should be provided to all UK citizens and long term residents free of charge. The cost of the policy works out to £1.2k per person per week in isolation up to a maximum of £3.6k, even at today's high levels of community infection this comes to £2.5bn per week. The advantages of this policy is that it's £2.5bn per week which subsidises the beleaguered hotel and catering industry as well as hermetically sealing off people who test positive from the wider community resulting in a huge reduction in the R. Disadvantages are that its an initially costly policy, though as it is one which will being the R down very rapidly the cost goes down very quickly. It may also discourage people from being tested, but the generous nature of the scheme should avoid this.
2. All arrivals in the UK should be quarantined at their own expense for 5 days in hotels near the airport and then tested with an accurate PCR test, people who test negative go home, those who don't continue in separation at their own expense until two negative tests in a row are recorded. This will destroy the international tourism sector, however this is a necessary cost to avoid another lockdown which will wipe another 7-9% off GDP. Advantages - after 5 days almost all cases are caught, another big win for UK hotels and catering. Disadvantages - it discourages tourism which may or may not be good.
Completely agree with 1) - indeed I’ve been arguing much the same.
2) I’d just give them rapid antigen tests, the most accurate available, and if positive do 1).
On the second point I wanted to work within the bounds of what the UK government seems acceptable, clearly they don't believe in any kind of rapid testing so it's not an option. Ideally, yes, I'd actually say two rapid tests with two consecutive negative results.
As for your 3) also provide free masks to shops, pubs etc. Some supermarkets have started handing them out at the entrance to the maskless, and it takes away most of the arguments about not having them.
Might also ensure decent quality of masks worn.
They were doing the latter in Germany in er, April.
EPL going for greed...£14.95 per match that isn't already on Sky or BT schedule. So everybody will all go round Bob's house and share the cost and spread the COVID, genius.
That’s a really silly thing to do, at a time when social gatherings in homes are banned. They should televise every match played behind closed doors, selling loads of adverts around it if they need the money.
Advertising revenue has dropped like never before.
These are the matches that aren't normally televised, nobody wants to pay lots of money to advertise around West Brom and Fulham.
The problem is that they’re on PPV, which is going to encourage people to engage in risky and prohibited behaviour - namely having house parties to watch the match.
Blame the government who think it is fine to let people into the cinemas and the Royal Albert Hall but not football stadia.
Presumably because those venues have spent a lot of time and money on convincing the authorities they could operate a reduced capacity safely.
What are the actual issues with premier league grounds? I’m assuming it’s more related to co-ordinating arrivals and departures, behaviour inside the ground, city centre locations, fans without tickets etc., than the risks of catching a virus when 2m from anyone else and wearing a mask.
Also most people in the RAH and flicks don't jump around and yell themselves hoarse (the Last Night of the Proms excepted). It's not a nice thought to be downwind of a stadium full, however spaced out they might be, if they are all yelling at once.
Up here the public transport would be a nightmare at NUFC. Not to mention the Strawberry.
*Googles* - ah, the local equivalent of the Louden Tavern, not far from Chinatown.
It's right opposite the Gallowgate end. Heaving. You can finish your pint 5 minutes before kick off and be in your seat on time.
If voters get the choice of whether members of the Royal family stay members of the Royal family... then doesn't that rather change the whole "how a monarchy works" thing.
There was a short but interesting piece from John Sopel on R4 a week or so back in which he described C19 protocols within the WH as virtually non-existent. Outside the building, normal precautions are strictly adhered to but inside you wouldn't know there's a health crisis on anywhere.
If that's true, and I don't doubt it, it would be very hard to pinpoint the source of the infection let alone do any serious tracing.
Perhaps @Cyclefree can enlighten us, but I suspect that pubs would prefer to be in a Lockdown Area 3 (Red) and be forced to close and receive the money from Sunak's new scheme than be in the amber zone and be allowed to open but have few customers and have to constantly police whether people are really in a social support bubble or live in the same house?
Maybe. But I doubt the employees would.
Debatable. Now that the weather is getting worse I know of a number of pubs that are finding that since they now need 2 people during the day to operate table service when previously they would only need 1, that actually it's not worth opening during the day and so the employees are now getting fewer hours. It's not a 9-5 regular hours kind of industry.
Allegra Stratton should have refused to become the new Downing Street press secretary. I have three big reasons for saying this, and none of them has anything to do with party politics, or my views about the Conservatives or Boris Johnson, or even my liking for Stratton herself.
Likelihood is that she will remain tainted by taking this position long after Bozo becomes just a bad memory.
I don't see how this role is that much different to what spin doctors / press secretary used to get up to, over than this job is to do it on the record. And of course one which is pretty much always filled by a somebody with a journalist background, from Bernard to Bad Al to Coulson.
Yes, Martin Kettle's Guardian article (an opinion piece) neglects to mention Alastair Campbell, which is an oversight. But even Campbell kept a relatively low profile, as did, for example, Bernard Ingham (who is very critical of the daily briefing idea).
So the key point about the article is the intention that Stratton should lead daily press briefings on behalf of the government, and that this in itself is yet another step to undermine the role of parliament and create a more presidential system of government. The expectation is that the trend to announcing government policies or thinking via the media rather than via parliament will increase. In this respect, Kettle has a point - a further move away from parliamentary democracy.
Is it is all well and good saying that, but we know all these previous individuals regularly briefed the media well ahead of announcements in parliament e.g For years we had the whole of budgets pre-announced through the media and we know what Boris is going to announce on Monday.
And every day we get the PM spoke person said x, the lobby were briefed y.
I honestly don't see that much of a difference.
Precisely.
In fact it will be harder to anonymously brief something if it's then going to be quoted and asked about on live TV later on.
Is there any reason to think that the under-the-counter stuff won't continue to happen as well?
In the meantime, the Daily Allegra Show looks at risk of two flaws:
First is the problem we saw with some of the episodes of the Covid Briefing Show towards the end of Series 1. Most days, if things are going well, there's not much to talk about.
Second, Allegra is going to need to know the PMs mind on everything to a public display standard. Working out what that is might be a useful exercise for the PM, but it will be a hefty time sink. And most PMs (You know, competent diligent ones) won't want to subcontract talking to the people to someone else. Can you imagine any previous PM thinking that wasn't a core part of their job?
Worth noting. Europeans have conceded they're now going to get a smaller quota in British waters in future and are now squabbling amongst themselves as to who takes the hit:
So I think I've been very critical of the government, fairly, but also of Starmer for not proposing any solutions and just carping from the sidelines. To avoid accusations of doing the same I'm going to offer up, for free, three workable policies:
1. Change self isolation to separation. People who test positive should be given paid for accommodation and £500 per week for up to three weeks and be completely separated from wider society. People who need to be separated as a family should be given family rooms and couples should be given double rooms. This should be provided to all UK citizens and long term residents free of charge. The cost of the policy works out to £1.2k per person per week in isolation up to a maximum of £3.6k, even at today's high levels of community infection this comes to £2.5bn per week. The advantages of this policy is that it's £2.5bn per week which subsidises the beleaguered hotel and catering industry as well as hermetically sealing off people who test positive from the wider community resulting in a huge reduction in the R. Disadvantages are that its an initially costly policy, though as it is one which will being the R down very rapidly the cost goes down very quickly. It may also discourage people from being tested, but the generous nature of the scheme should avoid this.
2. All arrivals in the UK should be quarantined at their own expense for 5 days in hotels near the airport and then tested with an accurate PCR test, people who test negative go home, those who don't continue in separation at their own expense until two negative tests in a row are recorded. This will destroy the international tourism sector, however this is a necessary cost to avoid another lockdown which will wipe another 7-9% off GDP. Advantages - after 5 days almost all cases are caught, another big win for UK hotels and catering. Disadvantages - it discourages tourism which may or may not be good.
Completely agree with 1) - indeed I’ve been arguing much the same.
2) I’d just give them rapid antigen tests, the most accurate available, and if positive do 1).
On the second point I wanted to work within the bounds of what the UK government seems acceptable, clearly they don't believe in any kind of rapid testing so it's not an option. Ideally, yes, I'd actually say two rapid tests with two consecutive negative results.
As for your 3) also provide free masks to shops, pubs etc. Some supermarkets have started handing them out at the entrance to the maskless, and it takes away most of the arguments about not having them.
Might also ensure decent quality of masks worn.
They were doing the latter in Germany in er, April.
Worth noting. Europeans have conceded they're now going to get a smaller quota in British waters in future and are now squabbling amongst themselves as to who takes the hit:
But have we just accepted that general large scale grifting is now acceptable in government, so long as it’s dressed up in a commercial contract ? (Which can’t be enquired into too deeply owing to ‘commercial confidentiality’.)
Allegra Stratton should have refused to become the new Downing Street press secretary. I have three big reasons for saying this, and none of them has anything to do with party politics, or my views about the Conservatives or Boris Johnson, or even my liking for Stratton herself.
Likelihood is that she will remain tainted by taking this position long after Bozo becomes just a bad memory.
I don't see how this role is that much different to what spin doctors / press secretary used to get up to, over than this job is to do it on the record. And of course one which is pretty much always filled by a somebody with a journalist background, from Bernard to Bad Al to Coulson.
Yes, Martin Kettle's Guardian article (an opinion piece) neglects to mention Alastair Campbell, which is an oversight. But even Campbell kept a relatively low profile, as did, for example, Bernard Ingham (who is very critical of the daily briefing idea).
So the key point about the article is the intention that Stratton should lead daily press briefings on behalf of the government, and that this in itself is yet another step to undermine the role of parliament and create a more presidential system of government. The expectation is that the trend to announcing government policies or thinking via the media rather than via parliament will increase. In this respect, Kettle has a point - a further move away from parliamentary democracy.
Is it is all well and good saying that, but we know all these previous individuals regularly briefed the media well ahead of announcements in parliament e.g For years we had the whole of budgets pre-announced through the media and we know what Boris is going to announce on Monday.
And every day we get the PM spoke person said x, the lobby were briefed y.
I honestly don't see that much of a difference.
Precisely.
In fact it will be harder to anonymously brief something if it's then going to be quoted and asked about on live TV later on.
Is there any reason to think that the under-the-counter stuff won't continue to happen as well?
In the meantime, the Daily Allegra Show looks at risk of two flaws:
First is the problem we saw with some of the episodes of the Covid Briefing Show towards the end of Series 1. Most days, if things are going well, there's not much to talk about.
Second, Allegra is going to need to know the PMs mind on everything to a public display standard. Working out what that is might be a useful exercise for the PM, but it will be a hefty time sink. And most PMs (You know, competent diligent ones) won't want to subcontract talking to the people to someone else. Can you imagine any previous PM thinking that wasn't a core part of their job?
It's huge mistake and will be work out badly. God knows who talked Johnson into this idea, but I'm guessing we can stab a guess.
Worth noting. Europeans have conceded they're now going to get a smaller quota in British waters in future and are now squabbling amongst themselves as to who takes the hit:
If voters get the choice of whether members of the Royal family stay members of the Royal family... then doesn't that rather change the whole "how a monarchy works" thing.
No as they have renounced their royal status and moved permanently to California and are no longer working royals
Allegra Stratton should have refused to become the new Downing Street press secretary. I have three big reasons for saying this, and none of them has anything to do with party politics, or my views about the Conservatives or Boris Johnson, or even my liking for Stratton herself.
Likelihood is that she will remain tainted by taking this position long after Bozo becomes just a bad memory.
I don't see how this role is that much different to what spin doctors / press secretary used to get up to, over than this job is to do it on the record. And of course one which is pretty much always filled by a somebody with a journalist background, from Bernard to Bad Al to Coulson.
Yes, Martin Kettle's Guardian article (an opinion piece) neglects to mention Alastair Campbell, which is an oversight. But even Campbell kept a relatively low profile, as did, for example, Bernard Ingham (who is very critical of the daily briefing idea).
So the key point about the article is the intention that Stratton should lead daily press briefings on behalf of the government, and that this in itself is yet another step to undermine the role of parliament and create a more presidential system of government. The expectation is that the trend to announcing government policies or thinking via the media rather than via parliament will increase. In this respect, Kettle has a point - a further move away from parliamentary democracy.
Is it is all well and good saying that, but we know all these previous individuals regularly briefed the media well ahead of announcements in parliament e.g For years we had the whole of budgets pre-announced through the media and we know what Boris is going to announce on Monday.
And every day we get the PM spoke person said x, the lobby were briefed y.
I honestly don't see that much of a difference.
Precisely.
In fact it will be harder to anonymously brief something if it's then going to be quoted and asked about on live TV later on.
Is there any reason to think that the under-the-counter stuff won't continue to happen as well?
In the meantime, the Daily Allegra Show looks at risk of two flaws:
First is the problem we saw with some of the episodes of the Covid Briefing Show towards the end of Series 1. Most days, if things are going well, there's not much to talk about.
Second, Allegra is going to need to know the PMs mind on everything to a public display standard. Working out what that is might be a useful exercise for the PM, but it will be a hefty time sink. And most PMs (You know, competent diligent ones) won't want to subcontract talking to the people to someone else. Can you imagine any previous PM thinking that wasn't a core part of their job?
Firstly that's not such a problem. Daily briefings already happen despite that, the only difference is now they'll be on camera. Plus I believe some of the TV stations have already said they don't intend to screen the briefings live daily unless they're expecting major news from them. But if there is some news in them they'll be on camera for clips later.
Secondly this shouldn't be a problem. Actually there should be no shame in a spokesperson saying "that is a good question, I will have to ask the Prime Minister and get back to you". That's what the White House Press Spokesman does quite often and I expect its what already happens in many lobby briefings. Furthermore all PMs have always had a spokesperson speaking to the media, this happening is not new, the only new element is it being on camera.
But have we just accepted that general large scale grifting is now acceptable in government, so long as it’s dressed up in a commercial contract ? (Which can’t be enquired into too deeply owing to ‘commercial confidentiality’.)
If voters get the choice of whether members of the Royal family stay members of the Royal family... then doesn't that rather change the whole "how a monarchy works" thing.
No as they have renounced their royal status and moved permanently to California and are no longer working royals
They've ceased to be active Royals but I do not believe they've renounced their royal status. They're still in the Royal line of succession as far as I'm aware.
I believe if there was to be eg a tragic car crash resulting in the deaths of William and his children, then Harry would be the future King after Charles.
Got a feeling we are entering the squeaky bum time period of the election.
There has been a stern mathematical link over the millennium between voter reg numbers is Nevada and final votes cast.
Clinton managed to crash through the very bottom end of the ration by some distance and still won the state by two and a half. The RCP polling average actually had it going for Trump.
Once I see the October voter registration figures I will make my pronouncement of how Nevada will go.
If voters get the choice of whether members of the Royal family stay members of the Royal family... then doesn't that rather change the whole "how a monarchy works" thing.
No as they have renounced their royal status and moved permanently to California and are no longer working royals
They've ceased to be active Royals but I do not believe they've renounced their royal status. They're still in the Royal line of succession as far as I'm aware.
I believe if there was to be eg a tragic car crash resulting in the deaths of William and his children, then Harry would be the future King after Charles.
In which case he would have to return to the UK and become King and she would have to be Queen but given the chances of Charles, William and all his children being killed are near zero otherwise they are no longer working royals and the Sussexes will likely spend the rest of their lives in exile like a 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor
Thank you very much for putting that in a proper showing the swing format, and not the Americans lazy "in case you can't deduct one number from another" format.
Looks like a very consistent across the board slight swing to Biden.
Edit: I find a 5 points lead for Biden in Florida a bit hard to believe. Though if the reported major swing to Biden amongst seniors is true then it is possible.
Not sure it will be worth staying up to see Trump declare himself winner on the night.
Many states mail in ballots are counted first . The media seem to be pushing a narrative that’s not supported by the facts . It’s more likely that Biden will have a big lead in some states and this will reduce as on the day voting comes in . There will still be exit polls aswell.
There is a nasty streak amongst Royalists certainly. Hell hath no fury than a Royalist scorned.
True. A lot of people, monarchists and republicans, are fans thesedays of having some sympathy with royals as living in a gilded cage (with the former emphasising how it is therefore a service performed, the latter saying we should let them free), but I think the sympathy disappears if the royals themselves appear to despise it, whilst still wanting benefits of publicity from it, as Harry does.
On the face of it good for Biden but on the other hand in only 1 of those key swing states is Biden over 50%, in Wisconsin and even then only just at 51%
But have we just accepted that general large scale grifting is now acceptable in government, so long as it’s dressed up in a commercial contract ? (Which can’t be enquired into too deeply owing to ‘commercial confidentiality’.)
We're gradually becoming a kleptocracy.
It is the Putinisation of politics, with new oligarchs enriched by the taxpayer at the whim of the great leader.
The Trump Team turned up too late to be tested. Rather than call it off the organisers took it on trust that they had tested negative before they left. At the time, this seemed indicative of nothing more than poor planning and organisation at Team Trump. Now it seems a whole lot more suspicious.
I think there were positive cases amongst them and they knew so. What a bunch of effing liars.
Lord Sumption in his Sun piece that I linked to in the last thread seems very keen on the GB declaration and its 'distinguished' sponsors. Hopefully his standards were a little more rigorous in his judgin' days.
That certainly seemed to be the case, also in his legal writings and academic work I understand. I fear that in retirement and some civil liberty celebtrity he might let it go to his head a bit and the temptation is to give his audience what they want. I very much enjoyed his Trials of the State though.
I feel like I can guess what prompted his forthcoming book 'Law in a time of Crisis' and its likely general thrust though
I see that neither Great Jumping Jolyon, nor the original article, provide a shred of evidence that the process was corrupt.
Quel surprise - another game of Attention-seeking Imaginary Whackafox.
People are remarkably free with accusations of corruption, surprisingly. I don't know a planning officer who has not been accused of taking bribes in a very casual manner.
So the key point about the article is the intention that Stratton should lead daily press briefings on behalf of the government, and that this in itself is yet another step to undermine the role of parliament and create a more presidential system of government. The expectation is that the trend to announcing government policies or thinking via the media rather than via parliament will increase. In this respect, Kettle has a point - a further move away from parliamentary democracy.
It's an idea that will die with BoZo
Johnson is (politically) immortal. He and his party's stock ascends as the nation descends into chaos.
Kind of a Nosferatu situation. As we bleed and wither away he feeds on our blood - and our flesh - and gets plumper and blonder and ever more boyish until eventually we are a bag of bones and he is returned to his pristine Eton schoolboy prime. There is truth in this image.
If voters get the choice of whether members of the Royal family stay members of the Royal family... then doesn't that rather change the whole "how a monarchy works" thing.
Not that it is a good idea, but not necessarily as I'm pretty sure other nations have enacted laws or rules that mean no one but the core royals get titles, that is no choice for the monarch to dole out a new dukedom if they want.
Allegra Stratton should have refused to become the new Downing Street press secretary. I have three big reasons for saying this, and none of them has anything to do with party politics, or my views about the Conservatives or Boris Johnson, or even my liking for Stratton herself.
Likelihood is that she will remain tainted by taking this position long after Bozo becomes just a bad memory.
I don't see how this role is that much different to what spin doctors / press secretary used to get up to, over than this job is to do it on the record. And of course one which is pretty much always filled by a somebody with a journalist background, from Bernard to Bad Al to Coulson.
Yes, Martin Kettle's Guardian article (an opinion piece) neglects to mention Alastair Campbell, which is an oversight. But even Campbell kept a relatively low profile, as did, for example, Bernard Ingham (who is very critical of the daily briefing idea).
So the key point about the article is the intention that Stratton should lead daily press briefings on behalf of the government, and that this in itself is yet another step to undermine the role of parliament and create a more presidential system of government. The expectation is that the trend to announcing government policies or thinking via the media rather than via parliament will increase. In this respect, Kettle has a point - a further move away from parliamentary democracy.
Is it is all well and good saying that, but we know all these previous individuals regularly briefed the media well ahead of announcements in parliament e.g For years we had the whole of budgets pre-announced through the media and we know what Boris is going to announce on Monday.
And every day we get the PM spoke person said x, the lobby were briefed y.
I honestly don't see that much of a difference.
Precisely.
In fact it will be harder to anonymously brief something if it's then going to be quoted and asked about on live TV later on.
Is there any reason to think that the under-the-counter stuff won't continue to happen as well?
In the meantime, the Daily Allegra Show looks at risk of two flaws:
First is the problem we saw with some of the episodes of the Covid Briefing Show towards the end of Series 1. Most days, if things are going well, there's not much to talk about.
Second, Allegra is going to need to know the PMs mind on everything to a public display standard. Working out what that is might be a useful exercise for the PM, but it will be a hefty time sink. And most PMs (You know, competent diligent ones) won't want to subcontract talking to the people to someone else. Can you imagine any previous PM thinking that wasn't a core part of their job?
Firstly that's not such a problem. Daily briefings already happen despite that, the only difference is now they'll be on camera. Plus I believe some of the TV stations have already said they don't intend to screen the briefings live daily unless they're expecting major news from them. But if there is some news in them they'll be on camera for clips later.
Secondly this shouldn't be a problem. Actually there should be no shame in a spokesperson saying "that is a good question, I will have to ask the Prime Minister and get back to you". That's what the White House Press Spokesman does quite often and I expect its what already happens in many lobby briefings. Furthermore all PMs have always had a spokesperson speaking to the media, this happening is not new, the only new element is it being on camera.
So let's get this straight.
Most days, this will be a non-event that's going to cost a non trivial amount.
If the government wants to put something on the record, they have the House of Commons for that.
Apart from the fact that the PM is turning into the Wizard of Oz, what's the point of this? Because if you really think that this will put an end to off-the-record briefings, I have an exclusive story to tell you.
On the face of it good for Biden but on the other hand in only 1 of those key swing states is Biden over 50%, in Wisconsin and even then only just at 51%
Two of them are at 50%+ and six out of six are at 49%+
Given that US Presidential elections never have a 100% two party share, every single one of them would essentially be guaranteed a Biden victory if his share is accurate.
The four northern mayors say Rishi's extended scheme may not be enough
It never is with labour
He could offer to pay 125% of people wages and it would still be not enough according to the usual suspects.
It's hard for a casual observer to know what is and is not reasonable. Its certainly true someone will always say X is not enough, particular when having no job losses is implied to be the goal and that's not going to happen, but I honestly have no idea if they have a point, being fortunate to have received my full salary throughout.
Not sure it will be worth staying up to see Trump declare himself winner on the night.
Many states mail in ballots are counted first . The media seem to be pushing a narrative that’s not supported by the facts . It’s more likely that Biden will have a big lead in some states and this will reduce as on the day voting comes in . There will still be exit polls aswell.
If voters get the choice of whether members of the Royal family stay members of the Royal family... then doesn't that rather change the whole "how a monarchy works" thing.
No as they have renounced their royal status and moved permanently to California and are no longer working royals
They've ceased to be active Royals but I do not believe they've renounced their royal status. They're still in the Royal line of succession as far as I'm aware.
I believe if there was to be eg a tragic car crash resulting in the deaths of William and his children, then Harry would be the future King after Charles.
In which case he would have to return to the UK and become King and she would have to be Queen but given the chances of Charles, William and all his children being killed are near zero otherwise they are no longer working royals and the Sussexes will likely spend the rest of their lives in exile like a 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor
Its extremely unlikely but unexpected car crashes are possible - that family knows that as much as anyone. Charles wouldn't have to be involved for this to happen, just William with his children on board. William is considered a future King even if his father and grandmother are alive. If something tragic were to happen to William and his children (extremely unlikely but not impossible) then Harry would overnight become a future King.
On the face of it good for Biden but on the other hand in only 1 of those key swing states is Biden over 50%, in Wisconsin and even then only just at 51%
Biden is doing better than Hillary did in all those states but still worse than Obama did in most of them. That suggests he will certainly get closer to Trump in the EC than Hillary did but he is still not on course for a clear EC win as Obama got so it could still be very close.
For comparison in 2012 Obama got 52% in Pennsylvania, 54% in Michigan, 53% in Wisconsin and 50% in Florida so Biden is still not doing as well as the President he served in those states, he is doing fractionally better in North Carolina than the 48% Obama got there in 2012 but worse than the 49.7% Obama got there in 2008.
Biden is doing better than the 44% Obama got in Arizona in both 2008 and 2012 though
On the face of it good for Biden but on the other hand in only 1 of those key swing states is Biden over 50%, in Wisconsin and even then only just at 51%
Two of them are at 50%+ and six out of six are at 49%+
Given that US Presidential elections never have a 100% two party share, every single one of them would essentially be guaranteed a Biden victory if his share is accurate.
There are small vote shares for Jorgensen and Hawkins. There are always some Don't Knows and one or two pollsters include those who refuse or say they won't vote.
In 2016, Gary Johnson won 3.3%, Jill Stein 1.1% and Even McMullin 0.5% so that's effectively 5% of vote share outside the two candidates so those numbers look solid for Biden.
The good news: many Cineworld staff will be retained in a job The bad news: many Cineworld staff will be starving as no income, no furlough, no UC
You are wrong on the bad news. Just because someone is kept on file doesn't mean they will be ineligible to furlough or UC.
UC is based upon what you actually earn, not what you are capable of earning. If someone on a zero hour contract has zero hours worked they would be eligible for full UC payments for whatever they're worth.
But have we just accepted that general large scale grifting is now acceptable in government, so long as it’s dressed up in a commercial contract ? (Which can’t be enquired into too deeply owing to ‘commercial confidentiality’.)
If voters get the choice of whether members of the Royal family stay members of the Royal family... then doesn't that rather change the whole "how a monarchy works" thing.
No as they have renounced their royal status and moved permanently to California and are no longer working royals
They've ceased to be active Royals but I do not believe they've renounced their royal status. They're still in the Royal line of succession as far as I'm aware.
I believe if there was to be eg a tragic car crash resulting in the deaths of William and his children, then Harry would be the future King after Charles.
In which case he would have to return to the UK and become King and she would have to be Queen but given the chances of Charles, William and all his children being killed are near zero otherwise they are no longer working royals and the Sussexes will likely spend the rest of their lives in exile like a 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor
Its extremely unlikely but unexpected car crashes are possible - that family knows that as much as anyone. Charles wouldn't have to be involved for this to happen, just William with his children on board. William is considered a future King even if his father and grandmother are alive. If something tragic were to happen to William and his children (extremely unlikely but not impossible) then Harry would overnight become a future King.
On the face of it good for Biden but on the other hand in only 1 of those key swing states is Biden over 50%, in Wisconsin and even then only just at 51%
Biden is doing better than Hillary did in all those states but still worse than Obama did in most of them. That suggests he will certainly get closer to Trump in the EC than Hillary did but he is still not on course for a clear EC win as Obama got so it could still be very close.
For comparison in 2012 Obama got 52% in Pennsylvania, 54% in Michigan, 53% in Wisconsin and 50% in Florida so Biden is still not doing as well as the President he served in those states, he is doing fractionally better in North Carolina than the 48% Obama got there in 2012 but worse than the 49.7% Obama got there in 2008.
Biden is doing better than the 44% Obama got in Arizona in both 2008 and 2012 though
You are comparing apples with oranges.
All candidates always normally get a better share than they are polling since don't knows aren't eliminated in US polls. It is utterly inappropriate to compare what Biden is polling to what Obama actually got in the election, rather than how Obama was polling at the same stage.
EG for comparison in 2012 Obama was polling between 43% to 51% this week of 2012, with an average of 47.75% - so Biden is polling better than Obama was at this stage in PA. Obama's final RCP average was 49.6%
Not sure it will be worth staying up to see Trump declare himself winner on the night.
Many states mail in ballots are counted first . The media seem to be pushing a narrative that’s not supported by the facts . It’s more likely that Biden will have a big lead in some states and this will reduce as on the day voting comes in . There will still be exit polls aswell.
How they do exit polls in the US these days? I believe in the UK there's an e
If voters get the choice of whether members of the Royal family stay members of the Royal family... then doesn't that rather change the whole "how a monarchy works" thing.
No as they have renounced their royal status and moved permanently to California and are no longer working royals
They've ceased to be active Royals but I do not believe they've renounced their royal status. They're still in the Royal line of succession as far as I'm aware.
I believe if there was to be eg a tragic car crash resulting in the deaths of William and his children, then Harry would be the future King after Charles.
In which case he would have to return to the UK and become King and she would have to be Queen but given the chances of Charles, William and all his children being killed are near zero otherwise they are no longer working royals and the Sussexes will likely spend the rest of their lives in exile like a 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor
Its extremely unlikely but unexpected car crashes are possible - that family knows that as much as anyone. Charles wouldn't have to be involved for this to happen, just William with his children on board. William is considered a future King even if his father and grandmother are alive. If something tragic were to happen to William and his children (extremely unlikely but not impossible) then Harry would overnight become a future King.
I would suspect they never all travel together.
That is very sad if true. A family should be able to travel together.
Allegra Stratton should have refused to become the new Downing Street press secretary. I have three big reasons for saying this, and none of them has anything to do with party politics, or my views about the Conservatives or Boris Johnson, or even my liking for Stratton herself.
Likelihood is that she will remain tainted by taking this position long after Bozo becomes just a bad memory.
I don't see how this role is that much different to what spin doctors / press secretary used to get up to, over than this job is to do it on the record. And of course one which is pretty much always filled by a somebody with a journalist background, from Bernard to Bad Al to Coulson.
Yes, Martin Kettle's Guardian article (an opinion piece) neglects to mention Alastair Campbell, which is an oversight. But even Campbell kept a relatively low profile, as did, for example, Bernard Ingham (who is very critical of the daily briefing idea).
So the key point about the article is the intention that Stratton should lead daily press briefings on behalf of the government, and that this in itself is yet another step to undermine the role of parliament and create a more presidential system of government. The expectation is that the trend to announcing government policies or thinking via the media rather than via parliament will increase. In this respect, Kettle has a point - a further move away from parliamentary democracy.
Is it is all well and good saying that, but we know all these previous individuals regularly briefed the media well ahead of announcements in parliament e.g For years we had the whole of budgets pre-announced through the media and we know what Boris is going to announce on Monday.
And every day we get the PM spoke person said x, the lobby were briefed y.
I honestly don't see that much of a difference.
Precisely.
In fact it will be harder to anonymously brief something if it's then going to be quoted and asked about on live TV later on.
Is there any reason to think that the under-the-counter stuff won't continue to happen as well?
In the meantime, the Daily Allegra Show looks at risk of two flaws:
First is the problem we saw with some of the episodes of the Covid Briefing Show towards the end of Series 1. Most days, if things are going well, there's not much to talk about.
Second, Allegra is going to need to know the PMs mind on everything to a public display standard. Working out what that is might be a useful exercise for the PM, but it will be a hefty time sink. And most PMs (You know, competent diligent ones) won't want to subcontract talking to the people to someone else. Can you imagine any previous PM thinking that wasn't a core part of their job?
Firstly that's not such a problem. Daily briefings already happen despite that, the only difference is now they'll be on camera. Plus I believe some of the TV stations have already said they don't intend to screen the briefings live daily unless they're expecting major news from them. But if there is some news in them they'll be on camera for clips later.
Secondly this shouldn't be a problem. Actually there should be no shame in a spokesperson saying "that is a good question, I will have to ask the Prime Minister and get back to you". That's what the White House Press Spokesman does quite often and I expect its what already happens in many lobby briefings. Furthermore all PMs have always had a spokesperson speaking to the media, this happening is not new, the only new element is it being on camera.
So let's get this straight.
Most days, this will be a non-event that's going to cost a non trivial amount.
If the government wants to put something on the record, they have the House of Commons for that.
Apart from the fact that the PM is turning into the Wizard of Oz, what's the point of this? Because if you really think that this will put an end to off-the-record briefings, I have an exclusive story to tell you.
Once again are you not aware that these briefings have been a feature of British politics for a very, very, very long time already.
The only difference now is that they are finally being put on camera, which is greater transparency. Daily briefings are not being "introduced" they have always been there.
Comments
But have we just accepted that general large scale grifting is now acceptable in government, so long as it’s dressed up in a commercial contract ?
(Which can’t be enquired into too deeply owing to ‘commercial confidentiality’.)
Heaving. You can finish your pint 5 minutes before kick off and be in your seat on time.
Hopefully a one off.
Biden moves from +7 to +12 after the likely voter screen.
Absolute nonsense.
Temporary depressed Trump turnout detected.
If that's true, and I don't doubt it, it would be very hard to pinpoint the source of the infection let alone do any serious tracing.
In the meantime, the Daily Allegra Show looks at risk of two flaws:
First is the problem we saw with some of the episodes of the Covid Briefing Show towards the end of Series 1. Most days, if things are going well, there's not much to talk about.
Second, Allegra is going to need to know the PMs mind on everything to a public display standard. Working out what that is might be a useful exercise for the PM, but it will be a hefty time sink. And most PMs (You know, competent diligent ones) won't want to subcontract talking to the people to someone else. Can you imagine any previous PM thinking that wasn't a core part of their job?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/europeans-about-to-get-caught-in-internal-brexit-battle-over-fish-qh3glkxwx
From their figures then it would be more likely 54/45 which is still an impressive lead.
We’ve some way to go yet...
An Arms Dealer, an Ex-N.F.L. Player and Huge Federal Contracts for Medical Gowns
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/07/business/ppe-coronavirus-us-contracts.html
The Trump administration awarded hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of urgent work to small companies with scant experience.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1314662420892340224
Arizona
Biden 49
Trump 43
North Carolina
Biden 49
Trump 44
Florida
Biden 49
Trump 44
Michigan
Biden 50
Trump 42
Pennsylvania
Biden 49
Trump 42
Wisconsin
Biden 51
Trump 41
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/why-complex-language-is-a-sign-of-inferiority-2j63dp6s3
This must be really hard for you.
https://twitter.com/apoorva_nyc/status/1314621142062247938
Got a feeling we are entering the squeaky bum time period of the election.
Redfield & Wilton - who they?
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1314585033462681600
The Crooked Spire was allegedly bent when the Devil sat on it. Hence Chesterfield as a place to sit.
Not sure it will be worth staying up to see Trump declare himself winner on the night.
Secondly this shouldn't be a problem. Actually there should be no shame in a spokesperson saying "that is a good question, I will have to ask the Prime Minister and get back to you". That's what the White House Press Spokesman does quite often and I expect its what already happens in many lobby briefings. Furthermore all PMs have always had a spokesperson speaking to the media, this happening is not new, the only new element is it being on camera.
Biden 49 (+2)
Trump 43 (-1)
North Carolina
Biden 49 (+2)
Trump 44 (-1)
Florida
Biden 49 (+1)
Trump 44 (+1)
Michigan
Biden 50 (-1)
Trump 42 (-)
Pennsylvania
Biden 49 (-1)
Trump 42 (-2)
Wisconsin
Biden 51 (+3)
Trump 41 (-2)
The four northern mayors say Rishi's extended scheme may not be enough
It never is with labour
According to this they still are: https://www.royal.uk/succession
I believe if there was to be eg a tragic car crash resulting in the deaths of William and his children, then Harry would be the future King after Charles.
Clinton managed to crash through the very bottom end of the ration by some distance and still won the state by two and a half. The RCP polling average actually had it going for Trump.
Once I see the October voter registration figures I will make my pronouncement of how Nevada will go.
Looks like a very consistent across the board slight swing to Biden.
Edit: I find a 5 points lead for Biden in Florida a bit hard to believe. Though if the reported major swing to Biden amongst seniors is true then it is possible.
I think there were positive cases amongst them and they knew so. What a bunch of effing liars.
I feel like I can guess what prompted his forthcoming book 'Law in a time of Crisis' and its likely general thrust though
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B08FKQMX94/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i4
Most days, this will be a non-event that's going to cost a non trivial amount.
If the government wants to put something on the record, they have the House of Commons for that.
Apart from the fact that the PM is turning into the Wizard of Oz, what's the point of this? Because if you really think that this will put an end to off-the-record briefings, I have an exclusive story to tell you.
Given that US Presidential elections never have a 100% two party share, every single one of them would essentially be guaranteed a Biden victory if his share is accurate.
Besides, my main issue was the word "Great". With Boris, it should only be used as a prefix in front of "showman" or "big cowardy custard"
The good news: many Cineworld staff will be retained in a job
The bad news: many Cineworld staff will be starving as no income, no furlough, no UC
For comparison in 2012 Obama got 52% in Pennsylvania, 54% in Michigan, 53% in Wisconsin and 50% in Florida so Biden is still not doing as well as the President he served in those states, he is doing fractionally better in North Carolina than the 48% Obama got there in 2012 but worse than the 49.7% Obama got there in 2008.
Biden is doing better than the 44% Obama got in Arizona in both 2008 and 2012 though
Boris announcement expected Monday
Given that US Presidential elections never have a 100% two party share, every single one of them would essentially be guaranteed a Biden victory if his share is accurate.
There are small vote shares for Jorgensen and Hawkins. There are always some Don't Knows and one or two pollsters include those who refuse or say they won't vote.
In 2016, Gary Johnson won 3.3%, Jill Stein 1.1% and Even McMullin 0.5% so that's effectively 5% of vote share outside the two candidates so those numbers look solid for Biden.
UC is based upon what you actually earn, not what you are capable of earning. If someone on a zero hour contract has zero hours worked they would be eligible for full UC payments for whatever they're worth.
https://youtu.be/0q5IpKsOZGM
HM: "One cannot say"
Boris: *thinks*That means yes, I knew it!
All candidates always normally get a better share than they are polling since don't knows aren't eliminated in US polls. It is utterly inappropriate to compare what Biden is polling to what Obama actually got in the election, rather than how Obama was polling at the same stage.
EG for comparison in 2012 Obama was polling between 43% to 51% this week of 2012, with an average of 47.75% - so Biden is polling better than Obama was at this stage in PA. Obama's final RCP average was 49.6%
Are we meant to be retraining for jobs that, at the best of times, don’t exist or are poorly paid?
So Tories plus DUP = 320 but Labour plus SNP plus LDs plus PC plus Greens also = 320.
So Starmer PM but only thanks to the support of the 2 SDLP and 1 Alliance NI MPs
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=41&LAB=39&LIB=8&Brexit=2&Green=4&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=20&SCOTLAB=18.4&SCOTLIB=5.5&SCOTBrexit=1.1&SCOTGreen=1.1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=52.6&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019
The only difference now is that they are finally being put on camera, which is greater transparency. Daily briefings are not being "introduced" they have always been there.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12890745/london-lockdown-next-week-khan/
Sadiq Kahn is the Sturgeon of the South!