On topic, thanks Mike for a very informative header. A few thoughts.
1. How much is cannibalisation? From what I have seen of the NC figures, and from what Bitzer has said, it seems like 75pc plus of the early voters voted in 2016 with very few non-16 voters and the rest were not registered in 2016 (I think the ratio was 1:4 or thereabouts).
That is fine and, if the Hunter Biden issues escalate (the NY Post seems to be doubling down), it’s good to get the votes banked.
2. Related to this, it’s worth remembering that in NC, PA and FL, the Republicans are running ahead in new registrations. So, if the bulk of the additional “new” votes are coming from people not registered in 2016 than non-2016 voters, it is likely the Republicans will catch up in those states;
3. There is some evidence out of MI and WI that very Republican counties are seeing high early voting turnout rates. Given the demographic issues, that would probably be a good indicator for OH and PA. it might also suggest a high WWC turnout
Clearly a lot of it is 'cannibalisation', in the sense of just bringing forward votes that would have been placed anyway. And it is also true that in general the most committed voters are those who vote early. Nonetheless, the overall picture is good for Biden for a couple of reasons:
1. It's looking like a higher turnout than in 2016, suggesting that some of those who couldn't be bothered last time because they were unenthused by Hillary are voting this time.
2. A vote in the bag today is worth N prospective votes in the box on November 3rd, where N is some number fractionally greater than 1. A big advantage on this protects Biden to some extent against a last-minute drift towards Trump, and against the likelihood that some of those intending to vote in person on the day (or at the last moment in early voting) won't in fact do so, either because they don't get round to it, or because voting is disturbed by Covid-19 issues or some other problems.
It's hard to quantify how big any such effects are, but the bottom line is that with a current ten-point or so lead, the more and earlier that Biden can get that advantage solidified into cast votes, the better for him.
The polls might be wrong, but the only poll of voters already voted I've has a ~ 54% lead for Biden. He is clearly millions of votes in front with votes already cast.
This is done. I'm considering selling all I possess and laying Trump at 2.98. Going to be discussing that with my wife this afternoon. I have points in the bank from erecting a wardrobe recently.
There is a bit of 2.18 on Biden available of BF`s "Electoral College Vote H'cap - 100.5" market.
I have a feeling high stakes gambling is not for me. I have £xy (i.e. double figures) on Biden at 5/6, and a sell on him at 320 EC votes to hedge that.
The scale of Biden's win will mirror that of Reagan over Carter, not in terms of the electoral college (at least, I don't think so) but in terms of the popular vote.
It will be a crushing defeat for the one-term Trump team.
It won't, Biden may match Reagan's 1980 vote but then there was a significant third party vote with Anderson so I expect Trump to poll higher than Carter
"TfL staff prepare for shutdown of Tube, bus and train network THIS WEEKEND as Sadiq Khan refuses £1bn government bailout over demand he extends £15 congestion zone to north and south circulars and charges all under 18s for travel
Londoners are braced for the capital's transport system to grind to a halt this weekend as cash-strapped TfL burns through the last of its funding. Eleventh-hour talks for a £1billion bailout between ministers and Sadiq Khan have stalled because of sticking points involving the Government's conditions for a deal. The Mayor is understood to be refusing to sign up to an expansion of the congestion zone to the North and South Circulars, which he said would punish Londoners already facing new Tier 2 Covid-19 restrictions."
£15 per day to use the car anywhere in London, wont be popular!
Bloody Tories, first they opposed the congestion charge, then they opposed its extension to Kensington, now they want everyone in London to pay it. They can go fuck themselves.
I guess the calculation is that the only Tory seat inside the North Circular apart from Westminster and K&C is Finchley.
I'm getting sick of these people punishing anyone who doesn't vote for them, it's disgusting.
Once Scotland leaves, the independence for London campaign will take off.
On what grounds? There is not even a London independence party and the London economy depends on commuters coming from the Home Counties which has currently dried up.
Though of course a UK free of Scotland and London would see almost permanent Tory rule
No such thing as a UK free of Scotland. Only one kingdom to unite with itself, remember?
The whole Brexit process ought to be postponed while we deal with Covid-19. Trying to cope with both at the same time is ridiculous.
No, not really. The EU won't change their rules. The UK (under its current management) won't accept a deal that doesn't involve the EU changing their rules. So just get on with it. Ideally we should have been out in June 2018.
Exactly. Covid makes it all the more important to get it over and done with ASAP, then we can move on.
To what ? The next set of negotiations in January ?
So the threat to walk away hasn't happened. @Philip_Thompson presumably you oppose this?
It has happened, he's said prepare for an Australia style deal. Did you miss that?
"Boris Johnson has not walked away from trade talks - but says the EU must change direction to save them."
I'm not sure who you are quoting but the quote was if we didn't have a deal by 15 October we would prepare for an Australian style trade arrangements.
The 15th October came, the EU made their statement and now Boris has said we are preparing for an Australian style trade arrangements. Exactly as he'd said.
Of course the door isn't closed if the EU want to come begging for a new deal, but he never said it would be.
BBC News.
You've got to be on the wind up.
The EU come begging us for a deal? Hahahahaha.
Why are we still having talks if Johnson has walked away? Answer: he hasn't.
Your sycophantic support for anything he says or does is just depressing.
Let`s hope that the EU will see sense, stop bullying and at least offer us similar to Canada was offered. Is that what you`re hoping for CHB?
The scale of Biden's win will mirror that of Reagan over Carter, not in terms of the electoral college (at least, I don't think so) but in terms of the popular vote.
It will be a crushing defeat for the one-term Trump team.
It won't, Biden may match Reagan's 1980 vote but then there was a significant third party vote with Anderson so I expect Trump to poll higher than Carter
You expect Trump to poll higher than 41%? Brave.
Yes, given around 5% of voters are neither backing Biden nor a third party candidate and likely shy Trump's
Lord Frost gave a tart response to the EU’s conclusions, saying he had been “surprised” by the suggestion that all future moves needed to come from the UK. “It’s an unusual approach to conducting a negotiation.”
If you're clearly the weak partner, you do the conceding, who knew?
We're not clearly the weaker partner though.
It's not a question of weak and strong, but rather brittle and flexible. The EU's position has to take into account 27 countries' views. That makes it inflexible. Like the oak and the bamboo in a strong wind - the oak falls while the bamboo bends.
Indeed and that inflexibility is what is wrong with the EU and why the EU is a failing sclerotic region that is shrinking rapidly as a share of the world economy.
We should embrace our flexibility in full, walk away and trade on a global not European stage as flexibly as we can.
I'd have thought it was obvious the primary reason for the EU's declining share of the world economy is simply because it is developed, rather than developing economy. Pretty much the same applies to any other first world region. It is therefore a nonsense to suggest that this is a sensible reason to leave the EU.
Compare Europe against other developed economies (not just developing ones) and the same fact is true.
Look at Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, America etc . . . Europe is sclerotic and being left behind.
Europe is not "sclerotic", Philip. It's mature. Is a mighty oak sclerotic? Would you point and call it that if you came across one? No. You'd gaze at it in wonder. At least I hope that's the case.
I had an entertaining conversation with a certain MP once. She decried the fact that the current government wasn't pushing forward in space technology - falling behind etc etc...
When I reminded her that she had carefully and with considerable effort thwarted plans by a UK company to set up a test site for liquid fueled rocket engines - well apparently that wasn't the point.
Apparently we need awesome innovation and technology. Just nothing built or done anywhere near... me.
I have been told by someone involved in European space efforts that the French are arguing for a response to Starlink - the response being not licensing* its usage in the EU....
*Terminals and ground stations require national approval.
I see. Well, balance etc. Deregulation liberates animal spirits, yes, but OTOH, you don't want to sacrifice everything in pursuit of technical advancement and growth. The notion of Europe as "sclerotic" continent stuck in its ways and risk averse while other parts of the world hum with dynamism and a buccaneering joie de vivre, I don't look at it like that. I think it's just a cliche and misses the point. The golden rule is a scientific not economic one - the conversion of potential to kinetic. Meaning that in general that the countries who will grow the most are those with the most room to do so, i.e. those who are "less developed" now. This is not us, inside or outside of the European Union.
Look at other developed nations across the globe over the past three decades since the EEC turned into the EU and answer one simple question for me please: can you name any two developed nations the EU has outperformed in your eyes and why?
Fools errand with terrific scope for taking us off the point. The illuminating comparison is the growth of developed nations vs that of less developed nations. This demonstrates the point I'm making. Then we could - if we really want to - review the growth of individual developed nations relative to each other in order to glean further marginal insights. Do you want to do that? Attempt to glean further marginal insights? If so, we need a table of all the developed nations with cumulative growth rates over (say) 5,10,25 years.
Unless you think the EU is the only developed region in the world, then its not a fools errand.
As a share of the developed world the EU is shrinking. It is sclerotic and failing.
Developed countries are shrinking relative to developing countries. As 'developing' attains 'developed' the size of the latter grouping grows relative to the former. And each individual developed nation shrinks relative to this greater aggregate. Whether a country is an EU member or not has only a marginal impact. If you wish to argue with any credibility that being in the European Single Market materially hampers growth you have much work to do.
No. Do I need to explain this slower to you?
Comparing the same set of countries - developed of thirty years ago, versus the same set of developed countries today, the sclerotic EU is going backwards not forwards.
That's not comparing the EU against developing nations, but developed ones. Like for like.
Though if your argument now is that wither a country is an EU member ir not has only a marginal impact that would be a reason not to be one.
Not slower, you need to make a start. The proposition you make is -
EU membership has materially reduced the growth of its constituent member states.
Go for it.
OK here we go: Developed EU member states have declined relative to developed non-EU members.
That means either the EU is a drag on its members states, in which case we're right to leave. Or it means that EU membership is inconsequential to growth, in which case we're not wrong to leave.
Which do you think it is? Heads I win, tails you lose.
Either is a false inference. To provide some evidence for the proposition you need to show that for most countries in the EU (and particularly the UK) there has been a decline in economic performance relative to most other economically comparable countries outside the EU as compared to their performance against those same comparable countries before they (the EU countries) joined the EU. There are 2 relativities there and neither can be ignored. I predict you will not be able to do this. Which means we must fall back on an intuitive answer to the question, "Does being a member of the largest frictionless free trade bloc in the world on balance help or hinder growth?"
I've done that. Look at the UK, French, German etc growth rates since 1993 relative to the growth of eg Canada, Australia, New Zealand, USA etc
I have looked. It's not what the doctor ordered. Anyway, fine for you to shirk the challenge. It's smart. I'll let you off the hook and change the subject.
To BORIS JOHNSON.
I wish to offer a niche take. The sad fact is, in recent times he's got a reputation as a blowhard who always caves under pressure. We saw it with the WA. With Rashford. Many many times with Covid. Etc.
But the 2 big stories right now give him a chance to turn this around.
1. Covid.
Pressure is mounting to go for Starmer's national circuit breaker instead of persisting with his diluted localist approach. Looks like the political consensus and public compliance is breaking down and the virus is not playing ball. Everyone expects him to fold. So there's an opportunity there. Surprise people by sticking to his guns. Tell Starmer to fuck off and carry on with his Tiers.
2. Brexit.
Same thing. Having said it's Do or Die, the shrewd money expects him to do neither. The cognescenti (i.e. expert Johnson watchers) think he does not have the balls to walk away from the EU with No Deal. They think he'll cave, do a shit deal and call the turd a chocolate gateaux. So here again, massive opportunity for him to confound us. Tell the EU to fuck off and do a clean break.
I'm really intrigued to see how this pans out. Will he surprise us? Can he reinvent himself?
"TfL staff prepare for shutdown of Tube, bus and train network THIS WEEKEND as Sadiq Khan refuses £1bn government bailout over demand he extends £15 congestion zone to north and south circulars and charges all under 18s for travel
Londoners are braced for the capital's transport system to grind to a halt this weekend as cash-strapped TfL burns through the last of its funding. Eleventh-hour talks for a £1billion bailout between ministers and Sadiq Khan have stalled because of sticking points involving the Government's conditions for a deal. The Mayor is understood to be refusing to sign up to an expansion of the congestion zone to the North and South Circulars, which he said would punish Londoners already facing new Tier 2 Covid-19 restrictions."
£15 per day to use the car anywhere in London, wont be popular!
Bloody Tories, first they opposed the congestion charge, then they opposed its extension to Kensington, now they want everyone in London to pay it. They can go fuck themselves.
I guess the calculation is that the only Tory seat inside the North Circular apart from Westminster and K&C is Finchley.
I'm getting sick of these people punishing anyone who doesn't vote for them, it's disgusting.
Once Scotland leaves, the independence for London campaign will take off.
On what grounds? There is not even a London independence party and the London economy depends on commuters coming from the Home Counties which has currently dried up.
Though of course a UK free of Scotland and London would see almost permanent Tory rule
No such thing as a UK free of Scotland. Only one kingdom to unite with itself, remember?
Not true, Northern Ireland is still the remainder of the Act of Union with Ireland, the UK would only cease to exist if Scotland and Northern Ireland left in which case it would be the Kingdom of England and Wales
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
The other problem with the government COVID Tier system is they have set it up so they are negotiating individual deals with each region. That's like trying to get the EU 27 countries to agree....you probably get there in the end, but it takes forever.
"TfL staff prepare for shutdown of Tube, bus and train network THIS WEEKEND as Sadiq Khan refuses £1bn government bailout over demand he extends £15 congestion zone to north and south circulars and charges all under 18s for travel
Londoners are braced for the capital's transport system to grind to a halt this weekend as cash-strapped TfL burns through the last of its funding. Eleventh-hour talks for a £1billion bailout between ministers and Sadiq Khan have stalled because of sticking points involving the Government's conditions for a deal. The Mayor is understood to be refusing to sign up to an expansion of the congestion zone to the North and South Circulars, which he said would punish Londoners already facing new Tier 2 Covid-19 restrictions."
£15 per day to use the car anywhere in London, wont be popular!
Bloody Tories, first they opposed the congestion charge, then they opposed its extension to Kensington, now they want everyone in London to pay it. They can go fuck themselves.
I guess the calculation is that the only Tory seat inside the North Circular apart from Westminster and K&C is Finchley.
I'm getting sick of these people punishing anyone who doesn't vote for them, it's disgusting.
Once Scotland leaves, the independence for London campaign will take off.
On what grounds? There is not even a London independence party and the London economy depends on commuters coming from the Home Counties which has currently dried up.
Though of course a UK free of Scotland and London would see almost permanent Tory rule
No such thing as a UK free of Scotland. Only one kingdom to unite with itself, remember?
Not true, Northern Ireland is still the remainder of the Act of Union with Ireland, the UK would only cease to exist if Scotland and Northern Ireland left in which case it would be the Kingdom of England and Wales
OH, then whyt is it called the Province?
You could just as well argue that it's the United Kingdom of England and France because the Engs kept their paws on a few bits of France (where Carlotta lives).
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
I'm confused by the phrase 'politicians we vote for'. In both the UK and EU you do vote for a parliament and an executive is appointed. Admittedly most of the executive (although not all) are appointed from the elected MPs in the UK scenario, but whether you voted for them is pure chance. I have never voted for and never had the opportunity to vote for anyone in the Executive.
Equally for instance in America you only get a chance to vote for 2 members of the Executive. In fact you are not allowed otherwise to be in the executive if you have been elected to their parliament.
So if you are referring to the Executive I don't think that is correct and if you are referring to the parliament it is no different.
I do accept they are not exactly analogous, but it would be remarkable if they were.
I'm wary of rumour-mongering either way, but a trusted friend who is a volunteer in a vaccine trial in Nottingham tells me, "They say it is looking very promising. They hope to start vaccinating health care workers around Christmas, then it will be the over 80s, then the over 70s, and so on, with a general roll out around early spring. So there is definitely room for optimism."
Question for pharma people - this sounds excellent, but does it make any sense? When I worked in pharma, they didn't peek at the results till the trials were finished (and my friend is still having regular tests so it's not). And if they're not finished, is it conceivable that people will be getting vaccinations by Christmas?
Fits with Foxy's rumour about GP's gearing up for vaccinating in Jan
"TfL staff prepare for shutdown of Tube, bus and train network THIS WEEKEND as Sadiq Khan refuses £1bn government bailout over demand he extends £15 congestion zone to north and south circulars and charges all under 18s for travel
Londoners are braced for the capital's transport system to grind to a halt this weekend as cash-strapped TfL burns through the last of its funding. Eleventh-hour talks for a £1billion bailout between ministers and Sadiq Khan have stalled because of sticking points involving the Government's conditions for a deal. The Mayor is understood to be refusing to sign up to an expansion of the congestion zone to the North and South Circulars, which he said would punish Londoners already facing new Tier 2 Covid-19 restrictions."
£15 per day to use the car anywhere in London, wont be popular!
Bloody Tories, first they opposed the congestion charge, then they opposed its extension to Kensington, now they want everyone in London to pay it. They can go fuck themselves.
I guess the calculation is that the only Tory seat inside the North Circular apart from Westminster and K&C is Finchley.
I'm getting sick of these people punishing anyone who doesn't vote for them, it's disgusting.
Once Scotland leaves, the independence for London campaign will take off.
On what grounds? There is not even a London independence party and the London economy depends on commuters coming from the Home Counties which has currently dried up.
Though of course a UK free of Scotland and London would see almost permanent Tory rule
No such thing as a UK free of Scotland. Only one kingdom to unite with itself, remember?
Not true, Northern Ireland is still the remainder of the Act of Union with Ireland, the UK would only cease to exist if Scotland and Northern Ireland left in which case it would be the Kingdom of England and Wales
OH, then whyt is it called the Province?
You could just as well argue that it's the United Kingdom of England and France because the Engs kept their paws on a few bits of France (where Carlotta lives).
Well arguably it was until Joan of Arc recaptured most of it for France and then Mary Tudor lost Calais
Though of course a UK free of Scotland and London would see almost permanent Tory rule
I applaud your painfully slow journey towards psychological acceptance of the idea that Scotland will leave. No pain, no gain!
No it won't, Boris will block indyref2 even with an SNP majority next year, I was talking hypothetically
I get the sense that what you long for most of all is a return to the Blair years when you were able to combine the purity of opposition with a government you didn't entirely disagree with. For a time, it looked like Chuka Umunna would fit the bill, but he's off the scene now so you have to hope that a Starmer administration will take power.
The other problem with the government COVID Tier system is they have set it up so they are negotiating individual deals with each region. That's like trying to get the EU 27 countries to agree....you probably get there in the end, but it takes forever.
It really doesnt have to. It is a central govt power. They are only doing this for political cover, as shown by nearly all the local politicians accusing the govt of treating them with contempt.
It is the central govts responsibility, they should just do it, listen to what local politicians want by all means, but ultimately central govt need to decide and be accountable for their decisions.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
I'm confused by the phrase 'politicians we vote for'. In both the UK and EU you do vote for a parliament and an executive is appointed. Admittedly most of the executive (although not all) are appointed from the elected MPs in the UK scenario, but whether you voted for them is pure chance. I have never voted for and never had the opportunity to vote for anyone in the Executive.
Equally for instance in America you only get a chance to vote for 2 members of the Executive. In fact you are not allowed otherwise to be in the executive if you have been elected to their parliament.
So if you are referring to the Executive I don't think that is correct and if you are referring to the parliament it is no different.
I do accept they are not exactly analogous, but it would be remarkable if they were.
The executive in the UK comes from the Parliament and the public is engaged with the election and Parliament and thus the voters decide by and large what sort of executive and what sort of policies we get.
The EU is not the same, both because through its Byzantine model that the European Parliament is not in control, plus in the fact that the public is not engaged and debating policies at a European level at European elections.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
I'm wary of rumour-mongering either way, but a trusted friend who is a volunteer in a vaccine trial in Nottingham tells me, "They say it is looking very promising. They hope to start vaccinating health care workers around Christmas, then it will be the over 80s, then the over 70s, and so on, with a general roll out around early spring. So there is definitely room for optimism."
Question for pharma people - this sounds excellent, but does it make any sense? When I worked in pharma, they didn't peek at the results till the trials were finished (and my friend is still having regular tests so it's not). And if they're not finished, is it conceivable that people will be getting vaccinations by Christmas?
Fits with Foxy's rumour about GP's gearing up for vaccinating in Jan
The actual head of the vaccine trial gave an update this week....
If we are lucky, we might get the required data by the end of the year, but then there is all sorts of other hurdles. Even in best case scenario, us plebs shouldn't be thinking about this being over for another year.
Though of course a UK free of Scotland and London would see almost permanent Tory rule
I applaud your painfully slow journey towards psychological acceptance of the idea that Scotland will leave. No pain, no gain!
No it won't, Boris will block indyref2 even with an SNP majority next year, I was talking hypothetically
But you are always talking about invading Scotland if the SNP declare indy. To the degree that it upsets quite a few PBTories. Why do so if you don't think it would happen?
Else you might as well be talking about the electoral impact of an invasion of the Falklands by the Mongolian Navy, and the impact on the SCUP vote. But you don't. You are obviously worried.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
"TfL staff prepare for shutdown of Tube, bus and train network THIS WEEKEND as Sadiq Khan refuses £1bn government bailout over demand he extends £15 congestion zone to north and south circulars and charges all under 18s for travel
Londoners are braced for the capital's transport system to grind to a halt this weekend as cash-strapped TfL burns through the last of its funding. Eleventh-hour talks for a £1billion bailout between ministers and Sadiq Khan have stalled because of sticking points involving the Government's conditions for a deal. The Mayor is understood to be refusing to sign up to an expansion of the congestion zone to the North and South Circulars, which he said would punish Londoners already facing new Tier 2 Covid-19 restrictions."
£15 per day to use the car anywhere in London, wont be popular!
Bloody Tories, first they opposed the congestion charge, then they opposed its extension to Kensington, now they want everyone in London to pay it. They can go fuck themselves.
I guess the calculation is that the only Tory seat inside the North Circular apart from Westminster and K&C is Finchley.
I'm getting sick of these people punishing anyone who doesn't vote for them, it's disgusting.
Once Scotland leaves, the independence for London campaign will take off.
On what grounds? There is not even a London independence party and the London economy depends on commuters coming from the Home Counties which has currently dried up.
Though of course a UK free of Scotland and London would see almost permanent Tory rule
No such thing as a UK free of Scotland. Only one kingdom to unite with itself, remember?
Not true, Northern Ireland is still the remainder of the Act of Union with Ireland, the UK would only cease to exist if Scotland and Northern Ireland left in which case it would be the Kingdom of England and Wales
OH, then whyt is it called the Province?
You could just as well argue that it's the United Kingdom of England and France because the Engs kept their paws on a few bits of France (where Carlotta lives).
Well arguably it was until Joan of Arc recaptured most of it for France and then Mary Tudor lost Calais
Wow. That`s astonishing . I don`t know what to make of it - maybe it confirms what I`ve posted before - that the big bookies are laying off on Betfair, keeping Biden`s price "artificially" high?
On topic, thanks Mike for a very informative header. A few thoughts.
1. How much is cannibalisation? From what I have seen of the NC figures, and from what Bitzer has said, it seems like 75pc plus of the early voters voted in 2016 with very few non-16 voters and the rest were not registered in 2016 (I think the ratio was 1:4 or thereabouts).
That is fine and, if the Hunter Biden issues escalate (the NY Post seems to be doubling down), it’s good to get the votes banked.
2. Related to this, it’s worth remembering that in NC, PA and FL, the Republicans are running ahead in new registrations. So, if the bulk of the additional “new” votes are coming from people not registered in 2016 than non-2016 voters, it is likely the Republicans will catch up in those states;
3. There is some evidence out of MI and WI that very Republican counties are seeing high early voting turnout rates. Given the demographic issues, that would probably be a good indicator for OH and PA. it might also suggest a high WWC turnout
Clearly a lot of it is 'cannibalisation', in the sense of just bringing forward votes that would have been placed anyway. And it is also true that in general the most committed voters are those who vote early. Nonetheless, the overall picture is good for Biden for a couple of reasons:
1. It's looking like a higher turnout than in 2016, suggesting that some of those who couldn't be bothered last time because they were unenthused by Hillary are voting this time.
2. A vote in the bag today is worth N prospective votes in the box on November 3rd, where N is some number fractionally greater than 1. A big advantage on this protects Biden to some extent against a last-minute drift towards Trump, and against the likelihood that some of those intending to vote in person on the day (or at the last moment in early voting) won't in fact do so, either because they don't get round to it, or because voting is disturbed by Covid-19 issues or some other problems.
It's hard to quantify how big any such effects are, but the bottom line is that with a current ten-point or so lead, the more and earlier that Biden can get that advantage solidified into cast votes, the better for him.
The polls might be wrong, but the only poll of voters already voted I've has a ~ 54% lead for Biden. He is clearly millions of votes in front with votes already cast.
This is done. I'm considering selling all I possess and laying Trump at 2.98. Going to be discussing that with my wife this afternoon. I have points in the bank from erecting a wardrobe recently.
There is a bit of 2.18 on Biden available of BF`s "Electoral College Vote H'cap - 100.5" market.
I have a feeling high stakes gambling is not for me. I have £xy (i.e. double figures) on Biden at 5/6, and a sell on him at 320 EC votes to hedge that.
You might net LOSE if Joe sweeps the South. Would that be annoying or would the non-betting joy make up for it?
Joseph R Biden Jr has moved to a 10.7pt lead on 538 today – that's the highest the lead has been in the history of the series.
That lead tends to fluctuate according to which pollsters have just reported. USC is sweet on Biden and has just dumped a few figures into the mix, hence the new high. It may be illusory, although the direction of travel over the past few weeks seems pretty clear.
Incidentally, I see Biden appears to have Hawaii sewn up. Note however that his lead of 33% is only 1% higher than Clinton polled in 2016. Maybe Joe needs to put his floral shirt on and get out there.
I think Shadsy said in a subsequent tweet that the the actual cash volume for Trump was a lot lower (55%?) which suggests a lot of small punters on Trump. I guess that's interesting in itself.
I'm wary of rumour-mongering either way, but a trusted friend who is a volunteer in a vaccine trial in Nottingham tells me, "They say it is looking very promising. They hope to start vaccinating health care workers around Christmas, then it will be the over 80s, then the over 70s, and so on, with a general roll out around early spring. So there is definitely room for optimism."
Question for pharma people - this sounds excellent, but does it make any sense? When I worked in pharma, they didn't peek at the results till the trials were finished (and my friend is still having regular tests so it's not). And if they're not finished, is it conceivable that people will be getting vaccinations by Christmas?
Fits with Foxy's rumour about GP's gearing up for vaccinating in Jan
The actual head of the vaccine trial gave an update this week....
If we are lucky, we might get the required data by the end of the year, but then there is all sorts of other hurdles. Even in best case scenario, us plebs shouldn't be thinking about this being over for another year.
This being over and us starting vaccinations are two very, very, very different dates.
Once we can start vaccinations that will reduce the severity of the illness dramatically, since the most vulnerable are targetted and can be vaccinated relatively quickly.
It may take time to vaccinate everyone else, but once the most vulnerable have been done then any threats to capacity in hospitals etc should be relieved dramatically.
The scale of Biden's win will mirror that of Reagan over Carter, not in terms of the electoral college (at least, I don't think so) but in terms of the popular vote.
It will be a crushing defeat for the one-term Trump team.
It won't, Biden may match Reagan's 1980 vote but then there was a significant third party vote with Anderson so I expect Trump to poll higher than Carter
You expect Trump to poll higher than 41%? Brave.
Yes, given around 5% of voters are neither backing Biden nor a third party candidate and likely shy Trump's
What is your evidence for the existence of the alleged shy Trumper?
So the threat to walk away hasn't happened. @Philip_Thompson presumably you oppose this?
It has happened, he's said prepare for an Australia style deal. Did you miss that?
Australia didn't need to build a lorry park, though.
There are no queues of trucks at Fremantle or Port Lincoln trying to get to Calais are there? None! So the Australia deal will work just fine.
Then all they need to do is to build a prison camp for migrants in the middle of the Great English Desert, opposite a convenient airfield, like they had at Woomera. I expect Doncaster will do just fine.
The scale of Biden's win will mirror that of Reagan over Carter, not in terms of the electoral college (at least, I don't think so) but in terms of the popular vote.
It will be a crushing defeat for the one-term Trump team.
It won't, Biden may match Reagan's 1980 vote but then there was a significant third party vote with Anderson so I expect Trump to poll higher than Carter
You expect Trump to poll higher than 41%? Brave.
Yes, given around 5% of voters are neither backing Biden nor a third party candidate and likely shy Trump's
What is your evidence for the existence of the alleged shy Trumper?
He doesn't feel able to admit that he wants Trump to win, ergo shy Trumpers exist.
On topic, thanks Mike for a very informative header. A few thoughts.
1. How much is cannibalisation? From what I have seen of the NC figures, and from what Bitzer has said, it seems like 75pc plus of the early voters voted in 2016 with very few non-16 voters and the rest were not registered in 2016 (I think the ratio was 1:4 or thereabouts).
That is fine and, if the Hunter Biden issues escalate (the NY Post seems to be doubling down), it’s good to get the votes banked.
2. Related to this, it’s worth remembering that in NC, PA and FL, the Republicans are running ahead in new registrations. So, if the bulk of the additional “new” votes are coming from people not registered in 2016 than non-2016 voters, it is likely the Republicans will catch up in those states;
3. There is some evidence out of MI and WI that very Republican counties are seeing high early voting turnout rates. Given the demographic issues, that would probably be a good indicator for OH and PA. it might also suggest a high WWC turnout
Clearly a lot of it is 'cannibalisation', in the sense of just bringing forward votes that would have been placed anyway. And it is also true that in general the most committed voters are those who vote early. Nonetheless, the overall picture is good for Biden for a couple of reasons:
1. It's looking like a higher turnout than in 2016, suggesting that some of those who couldn't be bothered last time because they were unenthused by Hillary are voting this time.
2. A vote in the bag today is worth N prospective votes in the box on November 3rd, where N is some number fractionally greater than 1. A big advantage on this protects Biden to some extent against a last-minute drift towards Trump, and against the likelihood that some of those intending to vote in person on the day (or at the last moment in early voting) won't in fact do so, either because they don't get round to it, or because voting is disturbed by Covid-19 issues or some other problems.
It's hard to quantify how big any such effects are, but the bottom line is that with a current ten-point or so lead, the more and earlier that Biden can get that advantage solidified into cast votes, the better for him.
The polls might be wrong, but the only poll of voters already voted I've has a ~ 54% lead for Biden. He is clearly millions of votes in front with votes already cast.
This is done. I'm considering selling all I possess and laying Trump at 2.98. Going to be discussing that with my wife this afternoon. I have points in the bank from erecting a wardrobe recently.
There is a bit of 2.18 on Biden available of BF`s "Electoral College Vote H'cap - 100.5" market.
Actually I think I'm done until the night. I have a couple of hedges on. Main one, Florida to stay Red.
Are you hedged at all or are you going naked into the chamber?
A roll out of the coronavirus vaccine is being considered for December, with sources saying that there is a “50/50” chance of the jab being available by the end of the year.
Discussions are already underway between NHS England, the British Medical Association (BMA) as well as other groups over who will administer the vaccines and who will be the first to receive it.
There is debate on whether the first groups to be vaccinated will be care home patients and staff, or health care professionals such as GPs.
One source close to the discussions told Pulse magazine that there is optimism around the potential of a December vaccine, and that the feeling is “50/50” on whether it will be available by then.
I think Shadsy said in a subsequent tweet that the the actual cash volume for Trump was a lot lower (55%?) which suggests a lot of small punters on Trump. I guess that's interesting in itself.
He did, and I agree (though some of that is probably just people betting larger due to shorter odds). It's nonetheless striking how out of sync it is with the probabilities, given the odds available.
The scale of Biden's win will mirror that of Reagan over Carter, not in terms of the electoral college (at least, I don't think so) but in terms of the popular vote.
It will be a crushing defeat for the one-term Trump team.
It won't, Biden may match Reagan's 1980 vote but then there was a significant third party vote with Anderson so I expect Trump to poll higher than Carter
You expect Trump to poll higher than 41%? Brave.
Yes, given around 5% of voters are neither backing Biden nor a third party candidate and likely shy Trump's
What is your evidence for the existence of the alleged shy Trumper?
Here is a video of one such shy and elusive creature:
I actually can't remember. I will need to look on bf. I topped up after Rory entered the race.
*pause - looks on bf*
I see that I am no longer green on him - did they void the original bets after the postponement??
He is now at 4.1 which doesn't hugely thrill me tbh.
Ye, I'm afraid they did void all the bets because of the postponement. So my nice carefully-constructed green position on Sadiq - acquired at tremendously good odds given the very low risk - disappeared without trace like a Boris promise.
On topic, thanks Mike for a very informative header. A few thoughts.
1. How much is cannibalisation? From what I have seen of the NC figures, and from what Bitzer has said, it seems like 75pc plus of the early voters voted in 2016 with very few non-16 voters and the rest were not registered in 2016 (I think the ratio was 1:4 or thereabouts).
That is fine and, if the Hunter Biden issues escalate (the NY Post seems to be doubling down), it’s good to get the votes banked.
2. Related to this, it’s worth remembering that in NC, PA and FL, the Republicans are running ahead in new registrations. So, if the bulk of the additional “new” votes are coming from people not registered in 2016 than non-2016 voters, it is likely the Republicans will catch up in those states;
3. There is some evidence out of MI and WI that very Republican counties are seeing high early voting turnout rates. Given the demographic issues, that would probably be a good indicator for OH and PA. it might also suggest a high WWC turnout
Clearly a lot of it is 'cannibalisation', in the sense of just bringing forward votes that would have been placed anyway. And it is also true that in general the most committed voters are those who vote early. Nonetheless, the overall picture is good for Biden for a couple of reasons:
1. It's looking like a higher turnout than in 2016, suggesting that some of those who couldn't be bothered last time because they were unenthused by Hillary are voting this time.
2. A vote in the bag today is worth N prospective votes in the box on November 3rd, where N is some number fractionally greater than 1. A big advantage on this protects Biden to some extent against a last-minute drift towards Trump, and against the likelihood that some of those intending to vote in person on the day (or at the last moment in early voting) won't in fact do so, either because they don't get round to it, or because voting is disturbed by Covid-19 issues or some other problems.
It's hard to quantify how big any such effects are, but the bottom line is that with a current ten-point or so lead, the more and earlier that Biden can get that advantage solidified into cast votes, the better for him.
The polls might be wrong, but the only poll of voters already voted I've has a ~ 54% lead for Biden. He is clearly millions of votes in front with votes already cast.
This is done. I'm considering selling all I possess and laying Trump at 2.98. Going to be discussing that with my wife this afternoon. I have points in the bank from erecting a wardrobe recently.
There is a bit of 2.18 on Biden available of BF`s "Electoral College Vote H'cap - 100.5" market.
Actually I think I'm done until the night. I have a couple of hedges on. Main one, Florida to stay Red.
Are you hedged at all or are you going naked into the chamber?
I`m naked with my butt hanging out the window. £5k plus.
"TfL staff prepare for shutdown of Tube, bus and train network THIS WEEKEND as Sadiq Khan refuses £1bn government bailout over demand he extends £15 congestion zone to north and south circulars and charges all under 18s for travel
Londoners are braced for the capital's transport system to grind to a halt this weekend as cash-strapped TfL burns through the last of its funding. Eleventh-hour talks for a £1billion bailout between ministers and Sadiq Khan have stalled because of sticking points involving the Government's conditions for a deal. The Mayor is understood to be refusing to sign up to an expansion of the congestion zone to the North and South Circulars, which he said would punish Londoners already facing new Tier 2 Covid-19 restrictions."
£15 per day to use the car anywhere in London, wont be popular!
All that middle class tax base that was thinking do I need to live in London now that WFH is going great, just got another reason to bugger off.
Nope. Londoners will see the changes. Will blame Khan for personally imposing them. Will vote in Shaun Bailey. Will sweep back into town for a celebratory Curry night special in Spoons.
I would very much like them to do that, even the curry in Spoons because I am heavily green on Shaun Bailey. So yes please.
Oh and all best wishes to you on navigating through life. When it all seems oppressive there's nothing better than arguing with @Philip_Thompson about one or other of his patently absurd propositions to bring normality back into the world.
What kind of price(s) tempted you to back Bailey?
I actually can't remember. I will need to look on bf. I topped up after Rory entered the race.
*pause - looks on bf*
I see that I am no longer green on him - did they void the original bets after the postponement??
He is now at 4.1 which doesn't hugely thrill me tbh.
I think they did, I had a fantastic portfolio of bets on Sadiq from before and just after Rory Stewart announced. Not far under evens, and some bets at 3/1 that Bailey would 'Win without Khan' (i.e. come 2nd). Gutted it was delayed. I don't even think it was the right decision for the country. We should have recognised COVID was going to take a while and just done an all-postal election this once. Extending everyone's terms at Mayor and Council level was far from ideal.
In my defence, I'd like to make clear I actually did say all this at the time.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
I'm confused by the phrase 'politicians we vote for'. In both the UK and EU you do vote for a parliament and an executive is appointed. Admittedly most of the executive (although not all) are appointed from the elected MPs in the UK scenario, but whether you voted for them is pure chance. I have never voted for and never had the opportunity to vote for anyone in the Executive.
Equally for instance in America you only get a chance to vote for 2 members of the Executive. In fact you are not allowed otherwise to be in the executive if you have been elected to their parliament.
So if you are referring to the Executive I don't think that is correct and if you are referring to the parliament it is no different.
I do accept they are not exactly analogous, but it would be remarkable if they were.
The executive in the UK comes from the Parliament and the public is engaged with the election and Parliament and thus the voters decide by and large what sort of executive and what sort of policies we get.
The EU is not the same, both because through its Byzantine model that the European Parliament is not in control, plus in the fact that the public is not engaged and debating policies at a European level at European elections.
I did say it was not exactly analogous and it would be remarkable if they were. I was just pointing out that the statement made was really not as clear cut as it was made to sound (particularly in comparison to the USA) and that they were not as different as they were made to sound in terms of the Executive and the Parliament.
I accept your points as clearly correct. Although it is worth noting you referred to Parliament and not the the Commons. You only vote for the Commons and a number of the Executive are appointed from the Lords. In fact a number are appointed who are in neither house and are later appointed to the Lords so as to take their position.
There is a huge overlap in how the UK, US and EU parliament and Executive function in principle. It is just the method of getting there are often very different.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
OK, that's very good! I'm studiously avoiding the Brexit arguments (in life and online) because I find them futile and aggravating, but that's a cracker.
I actually can't remember. I will need to look on bf. I topped up after Rory entered the race.
*pause - looks on bf*
I see that I am no longer green on him - did they void the original bets after the postponement??
He is now at 4.1 which doesn't hugely thrill me tbh.
Ye, I'm afraid they did void all the bets because of the postponement. So my nice carefully-constructed green position on Sadiq - acquired at tremendously good odds given the very low risk - disappeared without trace like a Boris promise.
Entirely reasonable if you listen to the video. Nothing wrong with that at all.
Expert: "Brexit is coming at the worst possible time for the food industry" Our Phil: "Nothing wrong with that at all."
It is what it is. Expert is confident they have put in measures and will cope even if there's temporary disruption on some lines.
If you need for a few weeks to eat Stilton instead of Gorgonzola then I'm sure you can live.
"It is what it is". Hmmm...where have I heard that recently. Oh yes! From another callous gi with no care for the lives of those outside his immediate family...
The scale of Biden's win will mirror that of Reagan over Carter, not in terms of the electoral college (at least, I don't think so) but in terms of the popular vote.
It will be a crushing defeat for the one-term Trump team.
It won't, Biden may match Reagan's 1980 vote but then there was a significant third party vote with Anderson so I expect Trump to poll higher than Carter
You expect Trump to poll higher than 41%? Brave.
Yes, given around 5% of voters are neither backing Biden nor a third party candidate and likely shy Trump's
What is your evidence for the existence of the alleged shy Trumper?
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The UK just reduced its VAT rate for many goods (ebooks, online journals, etc) to 0% and for hospitality to 5%.
On topic, thanks Mike for a very informative header. A few thoughts.
1. How much is cannibalisation? From what I have seen of the NC figures, and from what Bitzer has said, it seems like 75pc plus of the early voters voted in 2016 with very few non-16 voters and the rest were not registered in 2016 (I think the ratio was 1:4 or thereabouts).
That is fine and, if the Hunter Biden issues escalate (the NY Post seems to be doubling down), it’s good to get the votes banked.
2. Related to this, it’s worth remembering that in NC, PA and FL, the Republicans are running ahead in new registrations. So, if the bulk of the additional “new” votes are coming from people not registered in 2016 than non-2016 voters, it is likely the Republicans will catch up in those states;
3. There is some evidence out of MI and WI that very Republican counties are seeing high early voting turnout rates. Given the demographic issues, that would probably be a good indicator for OH and PA. it might also suggest a high WWC turnout
Clearly a lot of it is 'cannibalisation', in the sense of just bringing forward votes that would have been placed anyway. And it is also true that in general the most committed voters are those who vote early. Nonetheless, the overall picture is good for Biden for a couple of reasons:
1. It's looking like a higher turnout than in 2016, suggesting that some of those who couldn't be bothered last time because they were unenthused by Hillary are voting this time.
2. A vote in the bag today is worth N prospective votes in the box on November 3rd, where N is some number fractionally greater than 1. A big advantage on this protects Biden to some extent against a last-minute drift towards Trump, and against the likelihood that some of those intending to vote in person on the day (or at the last moment in early voting) won't in fact do so, either because they don't get round to it, or because voting is disturbed by Covid-19 issues or some other problems.
It's hard to quantify how big any such effects are, but the bottom line is that with a current ten-point or so lead, the more and earlier that Biden can get that advantage solidified into cast votes, the better for him.
The polls might be wrong, but the only poll of voters already voted I've has a ~ 54% lead for Biden. He is clearly millions of votes in front with votes already cast.
This is done. I'm considering selling all I possess and laying Trump at 2.98. Going to be discussing that with my wife this afternoon. I have points in the bank from erecting a wardrobe recently.
There is a bit of 2.18 on Biden available of BF`s "Electoral College Vote H'cap - 100.5" market.
Actually I think I'm done until the night. I have a couple of hedges on. Main one, Florida to stay Red.
Are you hedged at all or are you going naked into the chamber?
I`m naked with my butt hanging out the window. £5k plus.
My book is not dissimilar, Stocky. I'd prefer it if Trump drifted so that I could lay off cheap but if he doesn't I'm happy to stand my ground.
"TfL staff prepare for shutdown of Tube, bus and train network THIS WEEKEND as Sadiq Khan refuses £1bn government bailout over demand he extends £15 congestion zone to north and south circulars and charges all under 18s for travel
Londoners are braced for the capital's transport system to grind to a halt this weekend as cash-strapped TfL burns through the last of its funding. Eleventh-hour talks for a £1billion bailout between ministers and Sadiq Khan have stalled because of sticking points involving the Government's conditions for a deal. The Mayor is understood to be refusing to sign up to an expansion of the congestion zone to the North and South Circulars, which he said would punish Londoners already facing new Tier 2 Covid-19 restrictions."
£15 per day to use the car anywhere in London, wont be popular!
Bloody Tories, first they opposed the congestion charge, then they opposed its extension to Kensington, now they want everyone in London to pay it. They can go fuck themselves.
I guess the calculation is that the only Tory seat inside the North Circular apart from Westminster and K&C is Finchley.
I'm getting sick of these people punishing anyone who doesn't vote for them, it's disgusting.
Once Scotland leaves, the independence for London campaign will take off.
On what grounds? There is not even a London independence party and the London economy depends on commuters coming from the Home Counties which has currently dried up.
Though of course a UK free of Scotland and London would see almost permanent Tory rule
No such thing as a UK free of Scotland. Only one kingdom to unite with itself, remember?
Not true, Northern Ireland is still the remainder of the Act of Union with Ireland, the UK would only cease to exist if Scotland and Northern Ireland left in which case it would be the Kingdom of England and Wales
OH, then whyt is it called the Province?
You could just as well argue that it's the United Kingdom of England and France because the Engs kept their paws on a few bits of France (where Carlotta lives).
Well arguably it was until Joan of Arc recaptured most of it for France and then Mary Tudor lost Calais
Channel Islands. I did say Carlotta ...
There was never a formal Act of Union with the Channel Islands as there was with Ireland and the monarch was never crowned King of the Channel Islands as they were of France either
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The UK just reduced its VAT rate for many goods (ebooks, online journals, etc) to 0% and for hospitality to 5%.
We're allowed under EU rules to do that for a limited range of goods, not for everything.
Though of course a UK free of Scotland and London would see almost permanent Tory rule
I applaud your painfully slow journey towards psychological acceptance of the idea that Scotland will leave. No pain, no gain!
No it won't, Boris will block indyref2 even with an SNP majority next year, I was talking hypothetically
But you are always talking about invading Scotland if the SNP declare indy. To the degree that it upsets quite a few PBTories. Why do so if you don't think it would happen?
Else you might as well be talking about the electoral impact of an invasion of the Falklands by the Mongolian Navy, and the impact on the SCUP vote. But you don't. You are obviously worried.
If Sturgeon went so far as to declare UDI then there is a significant possibility Boris would suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster over Scotland as Madrid did when the Catalan nationalist government declared an illegal UDI but that would be kept as a last resort
All this shite from Johnson because he’s scared of a bunch of fucking right wing idiots that are determined to wreck the country for god know what. Pathetic, if he can’t beat the twat farage then tough.
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The UK just reduced its VAT rate for many goods (ebooks, online journals, etc) to 0% and for hospitality to 5%.
We're allowed under EU rules to do that for a limited range of goods, not for everything.
The scale of Biden's win will mirror that of Reagan over Carter, not in terms of the electoral college (at least, I don't think so) but in terms of the popular vote.
It will be a crushing defeat for the one-term Trump team.
It won't, Biden may match Reagan's 1980 vote but then there was a significant third party vote with Anderson so I expect Trump to poll higher than Carter
You expect Trump to poll higher than 41%? Brave.
Yes, given around 5% of voters are neither backing Biden nor a third party candidate and likely shy Trump's
What is your evidence for the existence of the alleged shy Trumper?
That's evidence for unnacounted voters, not "likely" shy Trumpers. Again, where is your evidence for shy Trumpers? Maybe they're shy Biden fans? Maybe they are just not that interested? Such people do exist.
"TfL staff prepare for shutdown of Tube, bus and train network THIS WEEKEND as Sadiq Khan refuses £1bn government bailout over demand he extends £15 congestion zone to north and south circulars and charges all under 18s for travel
Londoners are braced for the capital's transport system to grind to a halt this weekend as cash-strapped TfL burns through the last of its funding. Eleventh-hour talks for a £1billion bailout between ministers and Sadiq Khan have stalled because of sticking points involving the Government's conditions for a deal. The Mayor is understood to be refusing to sign up to an expansion of the congestion zone to the North and South Circulars, which he said would punish Londoners already facing new Tier 2 Covid-19 restrictions."
£15 per day to use the car anywhere in London, wont be popular!
Bloody Tories, first they opposed the congestion charge, then they opposed its extension to Kensington, now they want everyone in London to pay it. They can go fuck themselves.
I guess the calculation is that the only Tory seat inside the North Circular apart from Westminster and K&C is Finchley.
I'm getting sick of these people punishing anyone who doesn't vote for them, it's disgusting.
Once Scotland leaves, the independence for London campaign will take off.
On what grounds? There is not even a London independence party and the London economy depends on commuters coming from the Home Counties which has currently dried up.
Though of course a UK free of Scotland and London would see almost permanent Tory rule
No such thing as a UK free of Scotland. Only one kingdom to unite with itself, remember?
Not true, Northern Ireland is still the remainder of the Act of Union with Ireland, the UK would only cease to exist if Scotland and Northern Ireland left in which case it would be the Kingdom of England and Wales
OH, then whyt is it called the Province?
No great mystery - it is one of the four Provinces of Ireland - Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught - but it is the only one of the four with territory in the UK. One third of it - Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan are all in the Republic
The scale of Biden's win will mirror that of Reagan over Carter, not in terms of the electoral college (at least, I don't think so) but in terms of the popular vote.
It will be a crushing defeat for the one-term Trump team.
It won't, Biden may match Reagan's 1980 vote but then there was a significant third party vote with Anderson so I expect Trump to poll higher than Carter
You expect Trump to poll higher than 41%? Brave.
Yes, given around 5% of voters are neither backing Biden nor a third party candidate and likely shy Trump's
What is your evidence for the existence of the alleged shy Trumper?
Not really evidence of shy trump voters, just undecided. How they break is remain to be seen. There have been quite a few studies on if shy trump voters really exist and they struggle to find much evidence for them.
The scale of Biden's win will mirror that of Reagan over Carter, not in terms of the electoral college (at least, I don't think so) but in terms of the popular vote.
It will be a crushing defeat for the one-term Trump team.
It won't, Biden may match Reagan's 1980 vote but then there was a significant third party vote with Anderson so I expect Trump to poll higher than Carter
You expect Trump to poll higher than 41%? Brave.
Yes, given around 5% of voters are neither backing Biden nor a third party candidate and likely shy Trump's
What is your evidence for the existence of the alleged shy Trumper?
That's evidence for unnacounted voters, not "likely" shy Trumpers. Again, where is your evidence for shy Trumpers? Maybe they're shy Biden fans? Maybe they are just not that interested? Such people do exist.
They were there in 2016, hence 538's final forecast was Clinton 48.5% and Trump 44.9% and Clinton 302 EC votes and Trump 235 but Clinton won the popular vote by a smaller margin with Trump getting a significantly higher voteshare and Trump also won the EC. They are likely there again
Some of the figures for the proportion of 2016 turnout already cast are really extraordinary (and remember that these are the votes which have already been received and registered by the state officials, so exclude ones in the post and awaiting processing). Amongst potentially competitive states:
FL 23.7% TX 27.2% WI 26.4% GA 27% NC 18.7% AZ 17.2% IA 24.9%
OH and PA are laggards at 13.1% and 11.1%.
Meanwhile the betting markets seem to think that Trump has plenty of time to catch up...
If there is no deal does that mean we don't have to pay the £50bn settlement with the EU or have we paid that already and got sod all in return?
Anyone?
I think we`ve paid some and are scheduled to pay more in tranches. It`s released us from EU obligations so I guess it`s not correct to say "sod all in return". Though I see what you are getting at. It`s not entitled us to a Canada-style deal even, it seems.
Thanks. So we've given away a large part of our main bargaining chip without getting any closer to a trade deal or anything else we wanted, what a monumental cock up. The EU would be much more willing to negotiate if they had a £50bn shaped hole in their finances looming with no deal.
We shouldn't have given them a penny.
At least we will save some of it with no deal or have we caved on that as well?
The money has nothing to do with deals it’s what we owe
Owe them for what? Paying in a fortune for 40 years whilst getting no share of the assets that the money was spent on.
We should have told them to stick it.
What is the outcome you wanted from Brexit and how do you think it would have been negotiable?
I wanted to leave the EU and be able to have control of the country back in the hands of the politicians we can vote for. So that includes being able to decide tax rates and decide who has access to the fishing waters.
Also I wanted to have a reasonable relationship with the EU after and a trade deal like Canada, which apparently is impossible for some unknown reason.
What would be the first measure you would enact with this control?
I'd like to see us lower the corporation tax rate to get more businesses based here. Also reduce VAT to 10%.
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
Could we not do that within the EU?
No.
What couldn't we do and why?
EU has a floor on the main VAT rate of 15% ergo we could not do his proposal of reducing VAT to 10%.
The UK just reduced its VAT rate for many goods (ebooks, online journals, etc) to 0% and for hospitality to 5%.
We're allowed under EU rules to do that for a limited range of goods, not for everything.
The GOP starts forging a new alliance with QAnon https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/15/qanon-trump-maga-movement-429739 ...As Trump has courted a wide range of supporters to expand his base, the beliefs of this mushrooming community are seeping into the Republican base. A recent Morning Consult poll found that 38 percent of Republicans believe that at least parts of the QAnon conspiracy are true, and 12 percent of all social media users who are familiar with QAnon have positively engaged with the theory on social media. A Pew Research survey last month found that 41 percent of Republicans believed that QAnon was “somewhat” or “very good” for the country.
The scale of Biden's win will mirror that of Reagan over Carter, not in terms of the electoral college (at least, I don't think so) but in terms of the popular vote.
It will be a crushing defeat for the one-term Trump team.
It won't, Biden may match Reagan's 1980 vote but then there was a significant third party vote with Anderson so I expect Trump to poll higher than Carter
You expect Trump to poll higher than 41%? Brave.
Yes, given around 5% of voters are neither backing Biden nor a third party candidate and likely shy Trump's
What is your evidence for the existence of the alleged shy Trumper?
That's evidence for unnacounted voters, not "likely" shy Trumpers. Again, where is your evidence for shy Trumpers? Maybe they're shy Biden fans? Maybe they are just not that interested? Such people do exist.
They were there in 2016, hence 538's final forecast was Clinton 48.5% and Trump 44.9% and Clinton 302 EC votes and Trump 235 but Clinton won the popular vote by a smaller margin with Trump getting a significantly higher voteshare and Trump also won the EC. They are likely there again
Funny you should say that, there may be an article here on the cause of 2016's error and if Biden's lead is more resilient to it coming sometime soon...
"TfL staff prepare for shutdown of Tube, bus and train network THIS WEEKEND as Sadiq Khan refuses £1bn government bailout over demand he extends £15 congestion zone to north and south circulars and charges all under 18s for travel
Londoners are braced for the capital's transport system to grind to a halt this weekend as cash-strapped TfL burns through the last of its funding. Eleventh-hour talks for a £1billion bailout between ministers and Sadiq Khan have stalled because of sticking points involving the Government's conditions for a deal. The Mayor is understood to be refusing to sign up to an expansion of the congestion zone to the North and South Circulars, which he said would punish Londoners already facing new Tier 2 Covid-19 restrictions."
£15 per day to use the car anywhere in London, wont be popular!
Bloody Tories, first they opposed the congestion charge, then they opposed its extension to Kensington, now they want everyone in London to pay it. They can go fuck themselves.
I guess the calculation is that the only Tory seat inside the North Circular apart from Westminster and K&C is Finchley.
I'm getting sick of these people punishing anyone who doesn't vote for them, it's disgusting.
Once Scotland leaves, the independence for London campaign will take off.
On what grounds? There is not even a London independence party and the London economy depends on commuters coming from the Home Counties which has currently dried up.
Though of course a UK free of Scotland and London would see almost permanent Tory rule
Though of course a UK free of Scotland and London would see almost permanent Tory rule
I applaud your painfully slow journey towards psychological acceptance of the idea that Scotland will leave. No pain, no gain!
No it won't, Boris will block indyref2 even with an SNP majority next year, I was talking hypothetically
But you are always talking about invading Scotland if the SNP declare indy. To the degree that it upsets quite a few PBTories. Why do so if you don't think it would happen?
Else you might as well be talking about the electoral impact of an invasion of the Falklands by the Mongolian Navy, and the impact on the SCUP vote. But you don't. You are obviously worried.
If Sturgeon went so far as to declare UDI then there is a significant possibility Boris would suspend Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster over Scotland as Madrid did when the Catalan nationalist government declared an illegal UDI but that would be kept as a last resort
Sure, HYUFD. At the moment, he's struggling to impose direct rule on Manchester.
Some of the figures for the proportion of 2016 turnout already cast are really extraordinary (and remember that these are the votes which have already been received and registered by the state officials, so exclude ones in the post and awaiting processing). Amongst potentially competitive states:
FL 23.7% TX 27.2% WI 26.4% GA 27% NC 18.7% AZ 17.2% IA 24.9%
OH and PA are laggards at 13.1% and 11.1%.
Meanwhile the betting markets seem to think that Trump has plenty of time to catch up...
Comments
Its done now. Its being built, so get over it.
Stock up on pasta.
To BORIS JOHNSON.
I wish to offer a niche take. The sad fact is, in recent times he's got a reputation as a blowhard who always caves under pressure. We saw it with the WA. With Rashford. Many many times with Covid. Etc.
But the 2 big stories right now give him a chance to turn this around.
1. Covid.
Pressure is mounting to go for Starmer's national circuit breaker instead of persisting with his diluted localist approach. Looks like the political consensus and public compliance is breaking down and the virus is not playing ball. Everyone expects him to fold. So there's an opportunity there. Surprise people by sticking to his guns. Tell Starmer to fuck off and carry on with his Tiers.
2. Brexit.
Same thing. Having said it's Do or Die, the shrewd money expects him to do neither. The cognescenti (i.e. expert Johnson watchers) think he does not have the balls to walk away from the EU with No Deal. They think he'll cave, do a shit deal and call the turd a chocolate gateaux. So here again, massive opportunity for him to confound us. Tell the EU to fuck off and do a clean break.
I'm really intrigued to see how this pans out. Will he surprise us? Can he reinvent himself?
But the point is to have back control to a democratically elected government. The principle is very important.
You could just as well argue that it's the United Kingdom of England and France because the Engs kept their paws on a few bits of France (where Carlotta lives).
Equally for instance in America you only get a chance to vote for 2 members of the Executive. In fact you are not allowed otherwise to be in the executive if you have been elected to their parliament.
So if you are referring to the Executive I don't think that is correct and if you are referring to the parliament it is no different.
I do accept they are not exactly analogous, but it would be remarkable if they were.
To the barricades, luvvies!
It is the central govts responsibility, they should just do it, listen to what local politicians want by all means, but ultimately central govt need to decide and be accountable for their decisions.
The EU is not the same, both because through its Byzantine model that the European Parliament is not in control, plus in the fact that the public is not engaged and debating policies at a European level at European elections.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-vaccine-oxford-university-cases-trials-latest-b1016739.html
If we are lucky, we might get the required data by the end of the year, but then there is all sorts of other hurdles. Even in best case scenario, us plebs shouldn't be thinking about this being over for another year.
Else you might as well be talking about the electoral impact of an invasion of the Falklands by the Mongolian Navy, and the impact on the SCUP vote. But you don't. You are obviously worried.
Our Phil: "Nothing wrong with that at all."
Incidentally, I see Biden appears to have Hawaii sewn up. Note however that his lead of 33% is only 1% higher than Clinton polled in 2016. Maybe Joe needs to put his floral shirt on and get out there.
Aloha, folks. Back later.
Once we can start vaccinations that will reduce the severity of the illness dramatically, since the most vulnerable are targetted and can be vaccinated relatively quickly.
It may take time to vaccinate everyone else, but once the most vulnerable have been done then any threats to capacity in hospitals etc should be relieved dramatically.
Are you hedged at all or are you going naked into the chamber?
Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive. But to be a young Brexity Tory was very heaven.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1317091484684980225
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1317091486434021376
A roll out of the coronavirus vaccine is being considered for December, with sources saying that there is a “50/50” chance of the jab being available by the end of the year.
Discussions are already underway between NHS England, the British Medical Association (BMA) as well as other groups over who will administer the vaccines and who will be the first to receive it.
There is debate on whether the first groups to be vaccinated will be care home patients and staff, or health care professionals such as GPs.
One source close to the discussions told Pulse magazine that there is optimism around the potential of a December vaccine, and that the feeling is “50/50” on whether it will be available by then.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/15/vaccine-roll-considered-december-sources-say-likelihood-5050/
Apparently Pulse magazine is a publication on British primary care, and not, as I assumed, a 90's dance music mag.
Anyway, sounds in line with Nick's rumour posted earlier.
If you need for a few weeks to eat Stilton instead of Gorgonzola then I'm sure you can live.
Legend in the making.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MIo6KmdtPM
In my defence, I'd like to make clear I actually did say all this at the time.
Much of this is much ado about nothing.
I accept your points as clearly correct. Although it is worth noting you referred to Parliament and not the the Commons. You only vote for the Commons and a number of the Executive are appointed from the Lords. In fact a number are appointed who are in neither house and are later appointed to the Lords so as to take their position.
There is a huge overlap in how the UK, US and EU parliament and Executive function in principle. It is just the method of getting there are often very different.
Particularly in circumstances when it would be so clear that Tory misjudgements have led directly toward it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldOeB4htKD8
Biden 51.2% Trump 43.2% Jorgensen 2.2% Hawkins 1%
So at least 2.3% unaccounted for.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden_vs_jorgensen_vs_hawkins-7225.html
In the battleground states it is Biden 49.3% Trump 44.6% so again a significant number of voters unaccounted for
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54564536
No great mystery - it is one of the four Provinces of Ireland - Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught - but it is the only one of the four with territory in the UK. One third of it - Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan are all in the Republic
No Deal with Manchester
What a useless set of Tories we have in power
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
FL 23.7%
TX 27.2%
WI 26.4%
GA 27%
NC 18.7%
AZ 17.2%
IA 24.9%
OH and PA are laggards at 13.1% and 11.1%.
Meanwhile the betting markets seem to think that Trump has plenty of time to catch up...
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/15/qanon-trump-maga-movement-429739
...As Trump has courted a wide range of supporters to expand his base, the beliefs of this mushrooming community are seeping into the Republican base. A recent Morning Consult poll found that 38 percent of Republicans believe that at least parts of the QAnon conspiracy are true, and 12 percent of all social media users who are familiar with QAnon have positively engaged with the theory on social media. A Pew Research survey last month found that 41 percent of Republicans believed that QAnon was “somewhat” or “very good” for the country.
Trump himself is at the center of the shift. ...
At the moment, he's struggling to impose direct rule on Manchester.
But certainly WI is "locking in" what appears to be a healthy Biden lead. To a lesser extent AZ and NC too.