Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

YouGov’s US election model is just out and projects a Biden landslide – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 12 in General
YouGov’s US election model is just out and projects a Biden landslide – politicalbetting.com

Here are the latest results from our 2020 presidential election model:ELECTORAL COLLEGEBiden 363 / Trump 175POPULAR VOTEBiden 53.3% / Trump 44.6%Check out the interactive map for state-level results and more at https://t.co/5xQeQUaklG pic.twitter.com/xbaLMdwxeN

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 4,292
    Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?

    Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.

    After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.


  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 4,292
    Part 2

    Incidentally the reaction afterwards of the popular press is strangely negative towards Diana, the sympathy so obvious to immature teenage boys clearly lost on fleet street. In magnificent style the public pay no attention to the sneering hacks which is always a pleasure to see as Diana’s star grows further. At this point the programme neatly brings in Tony Blair then heading towards a landslide majority. I confess I never really understood the euphoria around the 1997 election, why it meant so much to some people just as I didn't understand the hysteria around Diana's death a few months later. I was as shocked as anyone but the elevation of her into a goddess wasn't something I could grasp. I always found Blair's anti-establishment posturing a bit egotistical and aggressive, a kind of self-indulgent public schoolboy rebel without a cause who's ignorant of his own privilege. But for the first time I think I understood it. There was something ugly about the British establishment and those who saw him and Diana as spokespeople for something new were at least partly right. Blair's reputation soured for many reasons in the following years and you could easily argue that he simply sought to replace the establishment with his own cronies, a forerunner of the modern day chumocracy. But I've rarely felt more empathy with him or better understood the optimism of his time.

    Some like to think that Diana was an aberration and that with her out of the way, thank goodness, the Windsors were eventually able to triumph in a surprising comeback. I'm not so sure. Other than the Queen they aren't especially popular. We face the possibility of a King married to someone known as not the Queen but Princess consort and who already doesn't dare take the title Princess of Wales. Increasingly it's the next generation who are the face of the monarchy and it looks a lot more like a House of Spencer than a House of Windsor. They are clearly keen to carry on her work with advocacy for topics like mental health. The story of the interview would make for good revealing drama. I hope The Crown don't flunk it.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 1,206
    NYT/Siena Biden by 10 in WI and 8 in MI
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037
    Well that would be nice.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 49,066
    I notice Van Tam was being as misleading as Witty / Valance use of not a prediction chart. He claimed hospital admissions are at same level as March, which is true, but the gradient of the line, showing the rate of increase, isn't similar at all.
  • Those of us who listened to Richard Nabavi's advice about the spreads are feeling rather content at the moment.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 4,659
    edited October 12
    Subsample alert but the just-out NYT/Siena rustbelt polling seems to suggest a fairly notable shift of white men from Trump to Biden since 2016.
  • Subsample alert but the just-out NYT/Siena rustbelt polling seems to suggest a fairly notable shift of white men from Trump to Biden since 2016.

    As I have been saying for some time, it is all over for Trump

    At least something is going right
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862

    Those of us who listened to Richard Nabavi's advice about the spreads are feeling rather content at the moment.

    I could do with a small loan if you come up big.

    Nothing substantial, $1 million should do.
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 1,753

    I notice Van Tam was being as misleading as Witty / Valance use of not a prediction chart. He claimed hospital admissions are at same level as March, which is true, but the gradient of the line, showing the rate of increase, isn't similar at all.

    Van Tam was the guy who was adamant in March/April that masks didn't work, in fact he claimed they were positively harmful, and he had a "top scientist friend in Hong Kong who agreed" with him (a place where, funnily enough, they all wear masks)

    He was either lying, or he is stupid, or perhaps both.

    When are the scientists going to start taking responsibility for their own incompetence? When do they start resigning and apologising?

    We are rightly tough on the crap politicians, but the scientific advice has also been utterly rubbish, at times.


  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 4,659

    Subsample alert but the just-out NYT/Siena rustbelt polling seems to suggest a fairly notable shift of white men from Trump to Biden since 2016.

    As I have been saying for some time, it is all over for Trump

    At least something is going right
    I think there is you @kinabalu and I believe @Pulpstar in the Trump Is Toast crew.

    I dare not think it. Indeed I have bet on Trump.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 4,659
    Am I right in suggesting that this is the model that got the 2017 UK election result pretty much spot on?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 37,468

    Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?

    Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.

    After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.


    The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037

    Subsample alert but the just-out NYT/Siena rustbelt polling seems to suggest a fairly notable shift of white men from Trump to Biden since 2016.

    As I have been saying for some time, it is all over for Trump

    At least something is going right
    I think there is you @kinabalu and I believe @Pulpstar in the Trump Is Toast crew.

    I dare not think it. Indeed I have bet on Trump.
    I do too but it is from last year, pre Covid. That’s what done for him. If this election was all about the economy he would have been in with a decent shout.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 14,742
    This YouGov landslide has Trump holding Texas by 0.1%. So ...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 49,021

    Am I right in suggesting that this is the model that got the 2017 UK election result pretty much spot on?

    Remember when Nate Silver applied his model to the 2015 UK election?

    Lol is all I can say.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 4,659
    edited October 12
    A couple more state polls out today –– note however that the FL fieldwork is rather old.

    Pennsylvania
    OCT 5-9, 2020
    Whitman Insight Strategies
    517 LV
    Biden
    51%
    46%
    Trump

    Biden +5
    President: general election

    Florida
    SEP 27-OCT 2, 2020
    C/D
    Saint Leo University
    500 RV

    Biden
    49%
    43%
    Trump

    Biden +6
  • I suspect we'll see more analysis like this from across the country.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862

    Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?

    Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.

    After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.


    The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.
    They might have been bugging her clients.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037
    LadyG said:

    I notice Van Tam was being as misleading as Witty / Valance use of not a prediction chart. He claimed hospital admissions are at same level as March, which is true, but the gradient of the line, showing the rate of increase, isn't similar at all.

    Van Tam was the guy who was adamant in March/April that masks didn't work, in fact he claimed they were positively harmful, and he had a "top scientist friend in Hong Kong who agreed" with him (a place where, funnily enough, they all wear masks)

    He was either lying, or he is stupid, or perhaps both.

    When are the scientists going to start taking responsibility for their own incompetence? When do they start resigning and apologising?

    We are rightly tough on the crap politicians, but the scientific advice has also been utterly rubbish, at times.


    Completely agree. The quality of expert advice has been shockingly poor. Of course politicians who are so innumerate that they can’t ask relevant questions have not helped. It might have been better under Hunt.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 49,021

    I suspect we'll see more analysis like this from across the country.

    Implying the only thing they are using to decide is that one map.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 4,659
    edited October 12
    DavidL said:

    Subsample alert but the just-out NYT/Siena rustbelt polling seems to suggest a fairly notable shift of white men from Trump to Biden since 2016.

    As I have been saying for some time, it is all over for Trump

    At least something is going right
    I think there is you @kinabalu and I believe @Pulpstar in the Trump Is Toast crew.

    I dare not think it. Indeed I have bet on Trump.
    I do too but it is from last year, pre Covid. That’s what done for him. If this election was all about the economy he would have been in with a decent shout.
    Yes, I suppose were the Biden victory to come to pass, the counterfactual history novelists won't be short of material.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 85,321
    edited October 12

    Am I right in suggesting that this is the model that got the 2017 UK election result pretty much spot on?

    Not quite.

    It uses different variables and methodology, because Great Britain and the US have a different electoral geography.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 14,742

    Subsample alert but the just-out NYT/Siena rustbelt polling seems to suggest a fairly notable shift of white men from Trump to Biden since 2016.

    As I have been saying for some time, it is all over for Trump

    At least something is going right
    I think there is you @kinabalu and I believe @Pulpstar in the Trump Is Toast crew.

    I dare not think it. Indeed I have bet on Trump.
    Was that the 'emotional hedge' - if he wins you're distraught but at least make some money to cushion the blow?

    Or did you really think he was a good bet?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 4,659

    Am I right in suggesting that this is the model that got the 2017 UK election result pretty much spot on?

    Not quite.

    It uses different variables and methodology, because Great Britain and the US have a different electoral geography.
    Care to elaborate? :smile:
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 49,066
    edited October 12

    I suspect we'll see more analysis like this from across the country.

    twitter.com/TracyDoucet/status/1315708141913374720

    Just looking at the zonings, they are very broad. Cheshire East & West have both been placed in Tier 2, they cover a large area with some urban centres like Chester, but a hell of a lot of countryside that has seen bugger all COVID throughout.

    Many people who live in Chester work in Liverpool or Manchester, but large parts of the rural areas never go near those places on a regular basis.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 4,659
    kinabalu said:

    Subsample alert but the just-out NYT/Siena rustbelt polling seems to suggest a fairly notable shift of white men from Trump to Biden since 2016.

    As I have been saying for some time, it is all over for Trump

    At least something is going right
    I think there is you @kinabalu and I believe @Pulpstar in the Trump Is Toast crew.

    I dare not think it. Indeed I have bet on Trump.
    Was that the 'emotional hedge' - if he wins you're distraught but at least make some money to cushion the blow?

    Or did you really think he was a good bet?
    The former, although 7.4 at 270-299 is arguably decent value as, if he does win, he is very likely IMO to be in this band.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 14,742

    Subsample alert but the just-out NYT/Siena rustbelt polling seems to suggest a fairly notable shift of white men from Trump to Biden since 2016.

    As I have been saying for some time, it is all over for Trump

    At least something is going right
    Hmm. Have you really being saying that for some time, Big G? I think you first called it on Wednesday, didn't you? :smile:
  • RobD said:

    I suspect we'll see more analysis like this from across the country.

    Implying the only thing they are using to decide is that one map.
    But you saw Tory MPs in Parliament pointing out things like this.

    I think one of the Wolverhampton MPs pointed out her figures were some of the lowest in the country.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 4,659
    Emerson poll of FL will be an overnighter here.

    2000hrs EDT according to Twitter.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 49,021

    RobD said:

    I suspect we'll see more analysis like this from across the country.

    Implying the only thing they are using to decide is that one map.
    But you saw Tory MPs in Parliament pointing out things like this.

    I think one of the Wolverhampton MPs pointed out her figures were some of the lowest in the country.
    They literally can't win on this. Either it's complaints about an area with low incidence being encompassed in the zone, or complaints that you can just walk to a pub over the road to get a pint without any restrictions.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 4,659
    kinabalu said:

    Subsample alert but the just-out NYT/Siena rustbelt polling seems to suggest a fairly notable shift of white men from Trump to Biden since 2016.

    As I have been saying for some time, it is all over for Trump

    At least something is going right
    Hmm. Have you really being saying that for some time, Big G? I think you first called it on Wednesday, didn't you? :smile:
    Well that is some time, five days of time to be precise.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 10,428
    TimT said:

    NYT/Siena Biden by 10 in WI and 8 in MI

    @HYUFD will be along soon with a Trafalgar poll.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 7,324
    Margin of error seems to be 6% in most states.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 49,066
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I suspect we'll see more analysis like this from across the country.

    Implying the only thing they are using to decide is that one map.
    But you saw Tory MPs in Parliament pointing out things like this.

    I think one of the Wolverhampton MPs pointed out her figures were some of the lowest in the country.
    They literally can't win on this. Either it's complaints about an area with low incidence being encompassed in the zone, or complaints that you can just walk to a pub over the road to get a pint without any restrictions.
    It is why local lockdown regions don't work politically or really in containing COVID.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 1,206
    ROFL

    TimT said:

    NYT/Siena Biden by 10 in WI and 8 in MI

    @HYUFD will be along soon with a Trafalgar poll.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 14,742

    kinabalu said:

    Subsample alert but the just-out NYT/Siena rustbelt polling seems to suggest a fairly notable shift of white men from Trump to Biden since 2016.

    As I have been saying for some time, it is all over for Trump

    At least something is going right
    I think there is you @kinabalu and I believe @Pulpstar in the Trump Is Toast crew.

    I dare not think it. Indeed I have bet on Trump.
    Was that the 'emotional hedge' - if he wins you're distraught but at least make some money to cushion the blow?

    Or did you really think he was a good bet?
    The former, although 7.4 at 270-299 is arguably decent value as, if he does win, he is very likely IMO to be in this band.
    Yes that's no mug bet. But a loser, we hope.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I suspect we'll see more analysis like this from across the country.

    Implying the only thing they are using to decide is that one map.
    But you saw Tory MPs in Parliament pointing out things like this.

    I think one of the Wolverhampton MPs pointed out her figures were some of the lowest in the country.
    They literally can't win on this. Either it's complaints about an area with low incidence being encompassed in the zone, or complaints that you can just walk to a pub over the road to get a pint without any restrictions.
    The government can win quite easily, they can point out that very few people live, work, and stay in the same place, so there's a level of transmission possibility and drawing it on county lines makes sense.

    But the government comms is shite, they can't even do that.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 1,206

    Emerson poll of FL will be an overnighter here.

    2000hrs EDT according to Twitter.

    It's been trailed as sensational. Hoping that means in favour of Biden, not Trump
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 34,502

    Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?

    Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.

    After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.


    The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.
    Are you sure?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/dec/10/monarchy.peterallen

    The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.

    Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 10,428
    edited October 12
    Penn is back as the tipping point state on 538.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,100
    ydoethur said:

    Those of us who listened to Richard Nabavi's advice about the spreads are feeling rather content at the moment.

    I could do with a small loan if you come up big.

    Nothing substantial, $1 million should do.
    You tipped Trump to win Michigan in 2016 as a great value bet, what have you frittered your winnings on?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 4,659
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Subsample alert but the just-out NYT/Siena rustbelt polling seems to suggest a fairly notable shift of white men from Trump to Biden since 2016.

    As I have been saying for some time, it is all over for Trump

    At least something is going right
    I think there is you @kinabalu and I believe @Pulpstar in the Trump Is Toast crew.

    I dare not think it. Indeed I have bet on Trump.
    Was that the 'emotional hedge' - if he wins you're distraught but at least make some money to cushion the blow?

    Or did you really think he was a good bet?
    The former, although 7.4 at 270-299 is arguably decent value as, if he does win, he is very likely IMO to be in this band.
    Yes that's no mug bet. But a loser, we hope.
    Oh absolutely, I very much hope it's a charitable donation to my match on Betfair.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 37,468
    ydoethur said:

    Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?

    Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.

    After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.


    The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.
    They might have been bugging her clients.
    That's true.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 29,108

    DavidL said:

    Subsample alert but the just-out NYT/Siena rustbelt polling seems to suggest a fairly notable shift of white men from Trump to Biden since 2016.

    As I have been saying for some time, it is all over for Trump

    At least something is going right
    I think there is you @kinabalu and I believe @Pulpstar in the Trump Is Toast crew.

    I dare not think it. Indeed I have bet on Trump.
    I do too but it is from last year, pre Covid. That’s what done for him. If this election was all about the economy he would have been in with a decent shout.
    Yes, I suppose were the Biden victory to come to pass, the counterfactual history novelists won't be short of material.
    So you mean the Chinese release covid to get a patsy like Biden in the White House?

    🤔
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 7,324
    edited October 12
    It looks like Trump would need a swingback of around 3.5% to win with the YouGov projection.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 37,468

    Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?

    Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.

    After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.


    The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.
    Are you sure?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/dec/10/monarchy.peterallen

    The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.

    Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.
    That's the American not the British.

    Some Americans seem to think royals are far more important than they actually are.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 8,641

    I suspect we'll see more analysis like this from across the country.

    twitter.com/TracyDoucet/status/1315708141913374720

    Just looking at the zonings, they are very broad. Cheshire East & West have both been placed in Tier 2, they cover a large area with some urban centres like Chester, but a hell of a lot of countryside that has seen bugger all COVID throughout.

    Many people who live in Chester work in Liverpool or Manchester, but large parts of the rural areas never go near those places on a regular basis.
    Just consider North Northumberland.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 4,292

    Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?

    Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.

    After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.


    The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.
    They certainly should do. But she clearly wasn't alone in believing it as her brother did too. Perhaps he was unhinged as well. And it's not just a matter of bugging but whether the protection officers could be trusted.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 4,659
    TimT said:

    Emerson poll of FL will be an overnighter here.

    2000hrs EDT according to Twitter.

    It's been trailed as sensational. Hoping that means in favour of Biden, not Trump
    Hard to see how a Trump lead could be sensational given that it's not a required state for Big Joe.

    But, to be honest, poll rampers will say just about anything – usually the follow through isn't as potent as the fart.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 10,428
    dixiedean said:

    I suspect we'll see more analysis like this from across the country.

    twitter.com/TracyDoucet/status/1315708141913374720

    Just looking at the zonings, they are very broad. Cheshire East & West have both been placed in Tier 2, they cover a large area with some urban centres like Chester, but a hell of a lot of countryside that has seen bugger all COVID throughout.

    Many people who live in Chester work in Liverpool or Manchester, but large parts of the rural areas never go near those places on a regular basis.
    Just consider North Northumberland.
    Nobody there
  • Am I right in suggesting that this is the model that got the 2017 UK election result pretty much spot on?

    Not quite.

    It uses different variables and methodology, because Great Britain and the US have a different electoral geography.
    Care to elaborate? :smile:
    It's a mixture of lower turnout in America (so they have to tweak that more in America, which increases the possibility of errors.)

    There's also the issue that in some states you cannot ask mail in voters how they HAVE voted, so that skews the model, particularly in a pandemic world.

    As a general rule there's only one or two elections on UK general election, for some Americans there's many more, and the possibility of split ticketing could skew the model, so they have to make assumptions for that too.

    We don't have much split ticketing in the UK.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 4,659

    TimT said:

    NYT/Siena Biden by 10 in WI and 8 in MI

    @HYUFD will be along soon with a Trafalgar poll.
    Realise this was a pisstake but I was sad enough to actually look this up and Biden leads with the Trafalgar too in those two states as far as I can tell (albeit by much smaller margins)
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 10,428

    Am I right in suggesting that this is the model that got the 2017 UK election result pretty much spot on?

    Not quite.

    It uses different variables and methodology, because Great Britain and the US have a different electoral geography.
    Care to elaborate? :smile:
    It's a mixture of lower turnout in America (so they have to tweak that more in America, which increases the possibility of errors.)

    There's also the issue that in some states you cannot ask mail in voters how they HAVE voted, so that skews the model, particularly in a pandemic world.

    As a general rule there's only one or two elections on UK general election, for some Americans there's many more, and the possibility of split ticketing could skew the model, so they have to make assumptions for that too.

    We don't have much split ticketing in the UK.
    In 2015 I voted Green in the GE and Labour for Newcastle City Council. 😊
  • TimTTimT Posts: 1,206

    TimT said:

    Emerson poll of FL will be an overnighter here.

    2000hrs EDT according to Twitter.

    It's been trailed as sensational. Hoping that means in favour of Biden, not Trump
    Hard to see how a Trump lead could be sensational given that it's not a required state for Big Joe.

    But, to be honest, poll rampers will say just about anything – usually the follow through isn't as potent as the fart.
    That latter thought had already crossed my mind, albeit in not quite so colourfully metaphorical terms
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 4,659
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    Subsample alert but the just-out NYT/Siena rustbelt polling seems to suggest a fairly notable shift of white men from Trump to Biden since 2016.

    As I have been saying for some time, it is all over for Trump

    At least something is going right
    I think there is you @kinabalu and I believe @Pulpstar in the Trump Is Toast crew.

    I dare not think it. Indeed I have bet on Trump.
    I do too but it is from last year, pre Covid. That’s what done for him. If this election was all about the economy he would have been in with a decent shout.
    Yes, I suppose were the Biden victory to come to pass, the counterfactual history novelists won't be short of material.
    So you mean the Chinese release covid to get a patsy like Biden in the White House?

    🤔
    No, when I used the term counterfactual, I hadn't meant you to express your own view.
  • Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?

    Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.

    After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.


    The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.
    Are you sure?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/dec/10/monarchy.peterallen

    The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.

    Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.
    That's the American not the British.

    Some Americans seem to think royals are far more important than they actually are.
    The Queen and several other Royals receive daily briefings from the government and the intelligence services.

    I think that's why Mrs Thatcher exploded at the idea of Anthony Blunt being that close to the Queen, he could view those papers (and pass them on.)
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,126
    edited October 12
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I suspect we'll see more analysis like this from across the country.

    Implying the only thing they are using to decide is that one map.
    But you saw Tory MPs in Parliament pointing out things like this.

    I think one of the Wolverhampton MPs pointed out her figures were some of the lowest in the country.
    They literally can't win on this. Either it's complaints about an area with low incidence being encompassed in the zone, or complaints that you can just walk to a pub over the road to get a pint without any restrictions.
    They could win on this if hospitality and similarly affected businesses encompassed in the zone were at least allowed to furlough staff when the rules on no household mixing virtually cut out all their trade overnight. Instead they are hanging out such businesses and their staff to dry.

    We have a charlatan Chancellor who last week announced a supposed national extension to the furlough scheme which now turns out to apply only to the Liverpool City area.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,733

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I suspect we'll see more analysis like this from across the country.

    Implying the only thing they are using to decide is that one map.
    But you saw Tory MPs in Parliament pointing out things like this.

    I think one of the Wolverhampton MPs pointed out her figures were some of the lowest in the country.
    They literally can't win on this. Either it's complaints about an area with low incidence being encompassed in the zone, or complaints that you can just walk to a pub over the road to get a pint without any restrictions.
    It is why local lockdown regions don't work politically or really in containing COVID.
    Unless you use the police to cordon them off, as the Irish Police have apparently started doing
  • Am I right in suggesting that this is the model that got the 2017 UK election result pretty much spot on?

    Not quite.

    It uses different variables and methodology, because Great Britain and the US have a different electoral geography.
    Care to elaborate? :smile:
    It's a mixture of lower turnout in America (so they have to tweak that more in America, which increases the possibility of errors.)

    There's also the issue that in some states you cannot ask mail in voters how they HAVE voted, so that skews the model, particularly in a pandemic world.

    As a general rule there's only one or two elections on UK general election, for some Americans there's many more, and the possibility of split ticketing could skew the model, so they have to make assumptions for that too.

    We don't have much split ticketing in the UK.
    In 2015 I voted Green in the GE and Labour for Newcastle City Council. 😊
    If you're really lucky in America, next month you'll have votes for President, Senate, Congressional, Governor, State Houses/Senate races.

    There's much more potential split ticketing.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 4,292

    Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?

    Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.

    After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.


    The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.
    Are you sure?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/dec/10/monarchy.peterallen

    The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.

    Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.
    Isn't the US security services bugging the Brits and us doing the reverse before we share the intelligence with each other a way for us to get around the laws that would prevent us doing it to our own citizens?
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,032

    Am I right in suggesting that this is the model that got the 2017 UK election result pretty much spot on?

    Not quite.

    It uses different variables and methodology, because Great Britain and the US have a different electoral geography.
    Care to elaborate? :smile:
    It's a mixture of lower turnout in America (so they have to tweak that more in America, which increases the possibility of errors.)

    There's also the issue that in some states you cannot ask mail in voters how they HAVE voted, so that skews the model, particularly in a pandemic world.

    As a general rule there's only one or two elections on UK general election, for some Americans there's many more, and the possibility of split ticketing could skew the model, so they have to make assumptions for that too.

    We don't have much split ticketing in the UK.
    In 2015 I voted Green in the GE and Labour for Newcastle City Council. 😊
    If you're really lucky in America, next month you'll have votes for President, Senate, Congressional, Governor, State Houses/Senate races.

    There's much more potential split ticketing.
    Don’t forget the local dog catcher as well.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 14,742
    edited October 12
    DavidL said:

    Subsample alert but the just-out NYT/Siena rustbelt polling seems to suggest a fairly notable shift of white men from Trump to Biden since 2016.

    As I have been saying for some time, it is all over for Trump

    At least something is going right
    I think there is you @kinabalu and I believe @Pulpstar in the Trump Is Toast crew.

    I dare not think it. Indeed I have bet on Trump.
    I do too but it is from last year, pre Covid. That’s what done for him. If this election was all about the economy he would have been in with a decent shout.
    I think he would have struggled to win a 2nd term regardless but his response to Covid has doomed him. An empathetic, competent "presidential" response could imo have secured his re-election.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 37,468

    Part 2

    Incidentally the reaction afterwards of the popular press is strangely negative towards Diana, the sympathy so obvious to immature teenage boys clearly lost on fleet street. In magnificent style the public pay no attention to the sneering hacks which is always a pleasure to see as Diana’s star grows further. At this point the programme neatly brings in Tony Blair then heading towards a landslide majority. I confess I never really understood the euphoria around the 1997 election, why it meant so much to some people just as I didn't understand the hysteria around Diana's death a few months later. I was as shocked as anyone but the elevation of her into a goddess wasn't something I could grasp. I always found Blair's anti-establishment posturing a bit egotistical and aggressive, a kind of self-indulgent public schoolboy rebel without a cause who's ignorant of his own privilege. But for the first time I think I understood it. There was something ugly about the British establishment and those who saw him and Diana as spokespeople for something new were at least partly right. Blair's reputation soured for many reasons in the following years and you could easily argue that he simply sought to replace the establishment with his own cronies, a forerunner of the modern day chumocracy. But I've rarely felt more empathy with him or better understood the optimism of his time.

    Some like to think that Diana was an aberration and that with her out of the way, thank goodness, the Windsors were eventually able to triumph in a surprising comeback. I'm not so sure. Other than the Queen they aren't especially popular. We face the possibility of a King married to someone known as not the Queen but Princess consort and who already doesn't dare take the title Princess of Wales. Increasingly it's the next generation who are the face of the monarchy and it looks a lot more like a House of Spencer than a House of Windsor. They are clearly keen to carry on her work with advocacy for topics like mental health. The story of the interview would make for good revealing drama. I hope The Crown don't flunk it.

    I don't think it was ugly. I just think a values gap had opened up. Many at the top were of a different generation (having largely gone to public school in the 1940s and 1950s) and therefore reflected those values in their actions and behaviours and came across as out of touch.

    On the royal family, there are rules to a constitutional monarchy. Some of its members are careless in following them.

    The Queen has been impeccable in exemplifying them throughout her reign, consistently working hard to build bridges within the UK and to cement bonds within and across the Commonwealth, and she's always put herself last - which is why she's so widely respected.

    Old fashioned though it might be there's a lot to be said for Duty.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 7,446
    Evening all :)

    A pulchritude of polling from the US in the past couple of days. IBD/TIPP has Biden up 9 (52-43) in an all-candidates contest and 53-42 in a forced match.

    Some interesting demographics in this poll which contradict those from some other polls. Men apparently back Trump 52-44 (some other polls have them tied) while women are voting Biden 59-36 so a massive 23-point lead. White voters back Trump 50-45 but white women back Biden 51-45 so the big lead enjoyed by Trump in 2016 among White voters has bene eroded.

    https://www.investors.com/news/joe-biden-leads-donald-trump-ibd-tipp-2020-election-tracking-poll-oct-12/

    On the state poll front, solid leads for Biden in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

    Clinton won Colorado by five in 2016 but a new poll puts Biden ahead by ten. In Montana, a 20-point Trump lead has been cut to just six. It does seem Biden is doing disproportionately well in Red strongholds than in marginal states and piling up votes where it seems less likely they'll be of any value.

    BUT...

    If we are seeing this bigger swing, states like Iowa, Georgia, Missouri, South Carolina, Alaska and Ohio are all in play. I'm NOT suggesting Biden will win all of them or indeed any of them but I do expect him to get a bigger swing in some of these states than UNS might suggest.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 4,292
    ydoethur said:

    Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?

    Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.

    After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.


    The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.
    They might have been bugging her clients.
    What is that supposed to mean?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,100
    TimT said:

    Emerson poll of FL will be an overnighter here.

    2000hrs EDT according to Twitter.

    It's been trailed as sensational. Hoping that means in favour of Biden, not Trump
    If it is the one I have seen teased it is apparently disasterous for the GOP.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 1,836
    There are a lot of complaints from areas covered by lockdowns. I have seen no complaints the other way - from the residents of area x, or from local newspaper y, or politician z, that their area should be in a higher category. Yet it's less than two weeks since Andy Preston in Middlesbrough seemed to be the first local politician to speak out against the restrictions being imposed. And as I understand the most recent polls, tighter lockdowns are still more popular than the reverse. Does this mark the moment sentiment starts to shift against lockdown? It's been politically incorrect before now to be against lockdown - the counterargument often coming back that you basically want grannies to die - but is that now shifting now the equally absurd counterargument can be put forward that those in favour basically want to condemn northerners to penury?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 34,502

    Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?

    Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.

    After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.


    The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.
    Are you sure?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/dec/10/monarchy.peterallen

    The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.

    Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.
    Isn't the US security services bugging the Brits and us doing the reverse before we share the intelligence with each other a way for us to get around the laws that would prevent us doing it to our own citizens?
    I believe so.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 4,659
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    A pulchritude of polling from the US in the past couple of days. IBD/TIPP has Biden up 9 (52-43) in an all-candidates contest and 53-42 in a forced match.

    Some interesting demographics in this poll which contradict those from some other polls. Men apparently back Trump 52-44 (some other polls have them tied) while women are voting Biden 59-36 so a massive 23-point lead. White voters back Trump 50-45 but white women back Biden 51-45 so the big lead enjoyed by Trump in 2016 among White voters has bene eroded.

    https://www.investors.com/news/joe-biden-leads-donald-trump-ibd-tipp-2020-election-tracking-poll-oct-12/

    On the state poll front, solid leads for Biden in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

    Clinton won Colorado by five in 2016 but a new poll puts Biden ahead by ten. In Montana, a 20-point Trump lead has been cut to just six. It does seem Biden is doing disproportionately well in Red strongholds than in marginal states and piling up votes where it seems less likely they'll be of any value.

    BUT...

    If we are seeing this bigger swing, states like Iowa, Georgia, Missouri, South Carolina, Alaska and Ohio are all in play. I'm NOT suggesting Biden will win all of them or indeed any of them but I do expect him to get a bigger swing in some of these states than UNS might suggest.

    Emerson FL poll due this evening at 2000 EDT – of course that will be an overnighter here.

    Will be interesting to see what it says.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,106
    jayfdee said:

    So have I got this right, I live on the border Lancashire and Cumbria, on the Lancs side,just. I can go to the pub in Lancashire on my own, sit at a table for table service, and then a mate from the village wanders in and says"Hi Jayfdee, can I join you", the answer is no, 2 households cannot mix.
    OK I say lets nip up the road a very short distance into Cumbria and have a pint together.
    I am fortunate enough to own property in both Lancashire, and Cumbria, and could possibly game my address if travel restrictions come into play.
    Do people really believe I will not allow my Family to visit for Christmas.
    It is an unenforceable mess.

    Wow, so you live on the border of an area. Amazing. Please tell us more about this completey new thing, none of us have ever experienced living near a border where the rules are different on either side. 🙄🙄🙄
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 3,675
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    A pulchritude of polling from the US in the past couple of days. IBD/TIPP has Biden up 9 (52-43) in an all-candidates contest and 53-42 in a forced match.

    Some interesting demographics in this poll which contradict those from some other polls. Men apparently back Trump 52-44 (some other polls have them tied) while women are voting Biden 59-36 so a massive 23-point lead. White voters back Trump 50-45 but white women back Biden 51-45 so the big lead enjoyed by Trump in 2016 among White voters has bene eroded.

    https://www.investors.com/news/joe-biden-leads-donald-trump-ibd-tipp-2020-election-tracking-poll-oct-12/

    On the state poll front, solid leads for Biden in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

    Clinton won Colorado by five in 2016 but a new poll puts Biden ahead by ten. In Montana, a 20-point Trump lead has been cut to just six. It does seem Biden is doing disproportionately well in Red strongholds than in marginal states and piling up votes where it seems less likely they'll be of any value.

    BUT...

    If we are seeing this bigger swing, states like Iowa, Georgia, Missouri, South Carolina, Alaska and Ohio are all in play. I'm NOT suggesting Biden will win all of them or indeed any of them but I do expect him to get a bigger swing in some of these states than UNS might suggest.

    Whilst Biden getting lots of votes in red states may not matter for the presidential race, it could have a significant impact on the House and Senate down-ballot in states like MT and SC.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,953
    Coronavirus - I have a theory, and it explains why the Govt has comprehensively failed and why so many of the mitigation efforts have been so useless.

    Fundamentally this virus is not that difficult to contain in a stable population. For most of the year most people spend their time in family units and relatively small social groups. If the virus enters in of these groups it may well spread throughout them pretty quickly but then it will fizzle out. The real danger is when these close knit groups break down.

    And virtually all the Govt measures through this crisis have been targeted at keeping virus within these social groups (rule of six etc) but then this would have happened anyway so had little effect.

    In the U.K. there have been two major waves of this virus - and both can be traced back to huge mixing of populations. The first was in March and was due to holiday travel (holiday travel in the summer wasn’t the same issue because it was much reduced and planes/airports have become much safer) The second was in September and was due to Universities returning. These have dwarfed everything else. Shut the borders in March and the virus never takes hold in the first place. Don’t let universities return (or plan it MUCH better) and we don’t get the massive resurgence in September.

    Everything else (given wfh, closed nightclubs, massively reduced travel on public transport) is just noise, that is killing the economy and having little significant effect on the virus.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,811
    edited October 12

    Am I right in suggesting that this is the model that got the 2017 UK election result pretty much spot on?

    Not quite.

    It uses different variables and methodology, because Great Britain and the US have a different electoral geography.
    Care to elaborate? :smile:
    It's a mixture of lower turnout in America (so they have to tweak that more in America, which increases the possibility of errors.)

    There's also the issue that in some states you cannot ask mail in voters how they HAVE voted, so that skews the model, particularly in a pandemic world.

    As a general rule there's only one or two elections on UK general election, for some Americans there's many more, and the possibility of split ticketing could skew the model, so they have to make assumptions for that too.

    We don't have much split ticketing in the UK.
    In 2015 I voted Green in the GE and Labour for Newcastle City Council. 😊
    If you're really lucky in America, next month you'll have votes for President, Senate, Congressional, Governor, State Houses/Senate races.

    There's much more potential split ticketing.
    In NYS this November we have all those except US Senator and Governor. We have a smattering of judges to elect too. Split ticketing is possible everywhere, but many states print their ballots with a straight ticket option, i.e. you vote for all the Democratic or Republican candidates on the slate by filling out just one box. I understand that's become more common in recent years which is one reason, along with the general polarization of the electorate, why ticket-splitting happens a lot less nowadays than it once did.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 49,021
    MaxPB said:

    jayfdee said:

    So have I got this right, I live on the border Lancashire and Cumbria, on the Lancs side,just. I can go to the pub in Lancashire on my own, sit at a table for table service, and then a mate from the village wanders in and says"Hi Jayfdee, can I join you", the answer is no, 2 households cannot mix.
    OK I say lets nip up the road a very short distance into Cumbria and have a pint together.
    I am fortunate enough to own property in both Lancashire, and Cumbria, and could possibly game my address if travel restrictions come into play.
    Do people really believe I will not allow my Family to visit for Christmas.
    It is an unenforceable mess.

    Wow, so you live on the border of an area. Amazing. Please tell us more about this completey new thing, none of us have ever experienced living near a border where the rules are different on either side. 🙄🙄🙄
    Do I sense a hint of sarcasm in this reply? So hard to tell on the internet.
  • MaxPB said:

    jayfdee said:

    So have I got this right, I live on the border Lancashire and Cumbria, on the Lancs side,just. I can go to the pub in Lancashire on my own, sit at a table for table service, and then a mate from the village wanders in and says"Hi Jayfdee, can I join you", the answer is no, 2 households cannot mix.
    OK I say lets nip up the road a very short distance into Cumbria and have a pint together.
    I am fortunate enough to own property in both Lancashire, and Cumbria, and could possibly game my address if travel restrictions come into play.
    Do people really believe I will not allow my Family to visit for Christmas.
    It is an unenforceable mess.

    Wow, so you live on the border of an area. Amazing. Please tell us more about this completey new thing, none of us have ever experienced living near a border where the rules are different on either side. 🙄🙄🙄
    That situation is dealt with on page 385 of the government list of possible scenarios. Page 466 confirms the situation if either of them go with their wives, and the relevant wife went to the gym 2 days previously.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 34,502

    Old fashioned though it might be there's a lot to be said for Duty.

    Is it really old-fashioned, or is it an innovation of the current monarch that ultimately depends on her personal authority?
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,126
    edited October 12

    I suspect we'll see more analysis like this from across the country.

    twitter.com/TracyDoucet/status/1315708141913374720

    Just looking at the zonings, they are very broad. Cheshire East & West have both been placed in Tier 2, they cover a large area with some urban centres like Chester, but a hell of a lot of countryside that has seen bugger all COVID throughout.

    Many people who live in Chester work in Liverpool or Manchester, but large parts of the rural areas never go near those places on a regular basis.
    A few minutes ago ITV news had an interview with a restaurant owner in Cheshire who basically accepted that he would have been better off trading in Liverpool, as there he would at least get some compensation. Better to be closed altogether with furlough compensation than to be told you can still open with no customers and have to pay your staff out of your own pocket or make them redundant.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 7,324
    Is there a map anywhere showing which tier an area has been placed in?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,964
    Rishi looking less comfortable than he used to.
  • kinabalu said:

    Subsample alert but the just-out NYT/Siena rustbelt polling seems to suggest a fairly notable shift of white men from Trump to Biden since 2016.

    As I have been saying for some time, it is all over for Trump

    At least something is going right
    Hmm. Have you really being saying that for some time, Big G? I think you first called it on Wednesday, didn't you? :smile:
    I have never doubted Trump was gone as soon as he got covid and confirmed how much a pratt he is
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 77,818
    edited October 12
    Yougov's US model in 2016 forecast a Clinton landslide with Hillary winning not just states Trump narrowly won like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida but also states Trump comfortably won like Ohio and Iowa and North Carolina. It was completely wrong.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/10/04/yougov-model-state-2016-election

    The Yougov MRP model may work in the UK, in the US last time it was hopeless
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 49,066
    Dishi Rishi again way better than Boris.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 49,021
    Andy_JS said:

    Is there a map anywhere showing which tier an area has been placed in?

    There's one on the Telegraph live blog.
  • Dishi Rishi again way better than Boris.

    He is the future
  • rpjs said:

    Am I right in suggesting that this is the model that got the 2017 UK election result pretty much spot on?

    Not quite.

    It uses different variables and methodology, because Great Britain and the US have a different electoral geography.
    Care to elaborate? :smile:
    It's a mixture of lower turnout in America (so they have to tweak that more in America, which increases the possibility of errors.)

    There's also the issue that in some states you cannot ask mail in voters how they HAVE voted, so that skews the model, particularly in a pandemic world.

    As a general rule there's only one or two elections on UK general election, for some Americans there's many more, and the possibility of split ticketing could skew the model, so they have to make assumptions for that too.

    We don't have much split ticketing in the UK.
    In 2015 I voted Green in the GE and Labour for Newcastle City Council. 😊
    If you're really lucky in America, next month you'll have votes for President, Senate, Congressional, Governor, State Houses/Senate races.

    There's much more potential split ticketing.
    In NYS this November we have all those except US Senator and Governor. We have a smattering of judges to elect too. Split ticketing is possible everywhere, but many states print their ballots with a straight ticket option, i.e. you vote for all the Democratic or Republican candidates on the slate by filling out just one box. I understand that's become more common in recent years which is one reason, along with the general polarization of the electorate, why ticket-splitting happens a lot less nowadays than it once did.
    There are a few places you can see split ticketing happening, with Maine 1st congressional district voting for Biden by an overwhelming majority but Susan Collins doing better than Trump.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 36,505
    Blimey. Must be one long frat party living in Sheffield...

    "Sheffield, home to some half a million students, has two universities - the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University "

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8831343/Covid-19-infection-rates-universities-SEVEN-TIMES-higher-local-cities.html
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 49,066
    I don't know who does the visualisations for the slides, but the colour coding is awful.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 77,818
    Looks like the North and West Midlands will be the focus for the top tier
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 34,502

    I don't know who does the visualisations for the slides, but the colour coding is awful.

    They should send the team on an away day to Barnard Castle to test their eyesight.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 49,066
    Interesting south east is flat.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 49,066
    Another thing that struck me...no talk of shielding the old / vulnerable for the winter, as was the case during spring.
  • Dishi Rishi again way better than Boris.

    Yes. Were I interested in discussing Ugandan affairs it would be Dishi Rishi rather than Shagger.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 49,066
    And time for the twattish questions....
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 37,468

    Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?

    Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.

    After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.


    The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.
    Are you sure?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/dec/10/monarchy.peterallen

    The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.

    Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.
    That's the American not the British.

    Some Americans seem to think royals are far more important than they actually are.
    The Queen and several other Royals receive daily briefings from the government and the intelligence services.

    I think that's why Mrs Thatcher exploded at the idea of Anthony Blunt being that close to the Queen, he could view those papers (and pass them on.)
    They will vary. Charles and the Queen will get similar (although not identical ones) whilst William probably gets a simpler digest.

    I doubt Andrew, Edward or Harry get anything at all.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,733
    Andy_JS said:

    Is there a map anywhere showing which tier an area has been placed in?

    There's a list here. Someone must be drawing a map for tomorrow's papers

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-52530518
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 7,324
    HYUFD said:

    Looks like the North and West Midlands will be the focus for the top tier

    I hope that just includes the West Midlands urban area and not the wider West Midlands region.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,964

    Dishi Rishi again way better than Boris.

    I thought Sunak looked less comfortable than normal. Whitty looks positively ashen. They know the short term future is scary.

    Johnson getting bouncier as the presser progresses.
Sign In or Register to comment.