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.
I didn't realise such things paid so well. How did you get the gig ?
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.
Thought so. I'm same ballpark but a bit less. So my butt is ... well, as I say, same ballpark but a bit less.
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.
Sort of. To be more precise, they do exist but not in significant numbers nationally, especially after netting off against their mirror image, shy-Bidens (who also exist.)
They can make a difference in limited locations. They cluster, for example, in high-income groups in otherwise fairly heavily democrat-leaning demographics. There may even be a few limited examples where they make a small difference statewide but all the copious analysis of the 2016 polling 'failure' indicates that the problem (which in any case wasn't that great) resided elsewhere.
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.
Under our constitution Westminster is sovereign, Andy Burnham may whinge about it but ultimately Westminster where the Tories have an 80 seat majority in the Commons has the ultimate power over both Manchester and Scotland.
Westminster could vote to scrap the Greater Manchester Mayoralty and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Holyrood tomorrow and impose direct rule on both if it chose to entirely within our constitution
"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
Ah, thanks - I'd thought the 'province' was a modern neologism as it didn't match the original Ulaidh. One learns daily on PB.
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.
Sleeping and gaffing and bumbling his way to a glorious victory!
Legend in the making.
Doesn't really matter. He's a transparently decent guy, and has a very good team backing him up. That's about as much as anyone can expect from a government at the moment.
God knows it would be an improvement on our shower.
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.
So we can reduce VAT below 15%.
No. VAT is 20%.
We have had for sometime Vat rates at 5% and 0%. Am I missing something?
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.
So we can reduce VAT below 15%.
No. VAT is 20%.
No it's not.
It is 5% on hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
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.
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.
So we can reduce VAT below 15%.
No. VAT is 20%.
We have had for sometime Vat rates at 5% and 0%. Am I missing something?
Yes the main VAT rate is 20%.
Under EU rules we are not allowed to reduce our main VAT rate below 15% and the 0% and 5% rates are for exceptions and not the rule.
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.
So we can reduce VAT below 15%.
No. VAT is 20%.
No it's not.
It is 5% on hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
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.
Why do you persist with this ludicrous "us plebs" thing? It's nothing to do with class, or wealth or anything of that nature. It's about risk segmentation – those who are elderly or infirm, or who work in frontline roles, will be prioritised. Exactly as it should be.
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.
Why do you persist with this ludicrous "us plebs" thing? It's nothing to do with class, or wealth or anything of that nature. It's about risk segmentation – those who are elderly or infirm, or who work in frontline roles, will be prioritised. Exactly as it should be.
Once the most at risk have been vaccinated the rest of us can get much more back to normal.
I don't if or when I get vaccinated, once my grandparents have been I will be relieved.
Though of course a UK free of Scotland and London would see almost permanent Tory rule
You ignore the tremendous shock that breakup of the UK would apply to our body politic.
Particularly in circumstances when it would be so clear that Tory misjudgements have led directly toward it.
Indeed, there might not be a rump UK to be lords over, whether HYUFD calls it that or not. The comment earlier about London was perhaps prescient.
No country lasts forever. None - nations (like corporations and religions) are abstract notions that stop existing when people no longer believe in them. Belief in the UK is draining fast and it has been breaking apart since 1922. It will end (as will the EU, eventually - although it will last longer than the UK) the USA (in that case sooner than we might think) and all other countries - including Scotland, Italy, New Zealand, all of them, eventually.
I'm sure the people of the Kingdom of Arles in the thirteenth century were sure that their country would last forever - but most people who today live on its former territory have never heard of it. The Kingdom of Savoy-Sardinia was a major European power until 1860. As was Prussia. The conquest of Languedoc by France makes England's adventures in Wales & Scotland look benign. Byzantium, the USSR, the Kingdom of the Two Sicillies, Prussia, Yugoslavia, Alt Clud, Burgundy, Mercia, Zhongshan, the Republic of Acre...all those countries, gone, caput, no one believes in them anymore, or in many cases even know of them. The UK is no different. No country has a right to, or will, last forever.
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.
So we can reduce VAT below 15%.
No. VAT is 20%.
We have had for sometime Vat rates at 5% and 0%. Am I missing something?
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.
Under our constitution Westminster is sovereign, Andy Burnham may whinge about it but ultimately Westminster where the Tories have an 80 seat majority in the Commons has the ultimate power over both Manchester and Scotland.
Westminster could vote to scrap the Greater Manchester Mayoralty and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Holyrood tomorrow and impose direct rule on both if it chose to entirely within our constitution
Another great example of a pointless graph. The colour scheme is number of people who have voted early, so surprise surprise, the dark blue states are the states with the most people.
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.
So we can reduce VAT below 15%.
No. VAT is 20%.
We have had for sometime Vat rates at 5% and 0%. Am I missing something?
Yes the main VAT rate is 20%.
Under EU rules we are not allowed to reduce our main VAT rate below 15% and the 0% and 5% rates are for exceptions and not the rule.
VAT on many items is 5%. On some it is 0%. The main VAT rate is 20% so what?
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.
Trump himself is at the center of the shift. ...
He was asked about it at the town hall. "Don't know them but I understand they fight very hard against pedophilia," he said.
Clearly wants the support of these people. I would not be surprised to see "Where we go one we go all" being sneaked into a tweet at some point.
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.
Under our constitution Westminster is sovereign, Andy Burnham may whinge about it but ultimately Westminster where the Tories have an 80 seat majority in the Commons has the ultimate power over both Manchester and Scotland.
Westminster could vote to scrap the Greater Manchester Mayoralty and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Holyrood tomorrow and impose direct rule on both if it chose to entirely within our constitution
I think the correct reply HYUFD should have been boom tish.
A wise man once said that traditionally African Americans prefer to vote early in person rather than by mail - especially in NC. I wonder if that sage's wisdom can be empirically tested.
Day prior to the opening of in person early voting in NC African American turnout lags their voter registration percentage
Day after the opening of in person early voting it shoots ahead
Truly the wisest of sages. If only he had any more cryptic advice...
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%.
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.
So we can reduce VAT below 15%.
No. VAT is 20%.
We have had for sometime Vat rates at 5% and 0%. Am I missing something?
Yes the main VAT rate is 20%.
Under EU rules we are not allowed to reduce our main VAT rate below 15% and the 0% and 5% rates are for exceptions and not the rule.
VAT on many items is 5%. On some it is 0%. The main VAT rate is 20% so what?
The proposal was to reduce VAT to 10%.
That can't be done under EU rules. It is simply not allowed.
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.
Sort of. To be more precise, they do exist but not in significant numbers nationally, especially after netting off against their mirror image, shy-Bidens (who also exist.)
They can make a difference in limited locations. They cluster, for example, in high-income groups in otherwise fairly heavily democrat-leaning demographics. There may even be a few limited examples where they make a small difference statewide but all the copious analysis of the 2016 polling 'failure' indicates that the problem (which in any case wasn't that great) resided elsewhere.
Indeed, if I remember correctly, the Monmouth paper on Shy Voters actually found slightly more Shy Bidenites than Shy Trumptons? Although, the researchers were at pains to point out, the difference wasn't statistically significant and they essentially netted each other off.
That is my memory of it, anyway. Sadly, I can't find the paper online.
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.
So we can reduce VAT below 15%.
No. VAT is 20%.
We have had for sometime Vat rates at 5% and 0%. Am I missing something?
Yes the main VAT rate is 20%.
Under EU rules we are not allowed to reduce our main VAT rate below 15% and the 0% and 5% rates are for exceptions and not the rule.
Meanwhile a Kaboom from Trafalgar who as in 2016 are the only pollster with Trump ahead in Michigan, if they are right again Trump will likely be re elected in the EC even if he loses the popular vote again
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 floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
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.
So we can reduce VAT below 15%.
No. VAT is 20%.
No it's not.
It is 5% on hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
And has been on power for many years now.
VAT on home energy supply is or should be one of the Brexiter's main arguments because it was raised by the Conservative government in 1993 (it was previously zero VAT-rated) and therefore cannot be lowered below that rate.
In the run up to the EURef, Boris said they would cut VAT on home energy bills as this is one of the genuine restrictions on UK behaviour.
So it is with baited breath that we wait for them to do so next 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 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.
Under our constitution Westminster is sovereign, Andy Burnham may whinge about it but ultimately Westminster where the Tories have an 80 seat majority in the Commons has the ultimate power over both Manchester and Scotland.
Westminster could vote to scrap the Greater Manchester Mayoralty and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Holyrood tomorrow and impose direct rule on both if it chose to entirely within our constitution
Precisely, so why is the government blathering and moaning that local politicians don't agree with them whilst the virus is spreading rapidly. Give more cash or dont give more cash, but act now.
Another great example of a pointless graph. The colour scheme is number of people who have voted early, so surprise surprise, the dark blue states are the states with the most people.
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.
So we can reduce VAT below 15%.
No. VAT is 20%.
We have had for sometime Vat rates at 5% and 0%. Am I missing something?
Yes the main VAT rate is 20%.
Under EU rules we are not allowed to reduce our main VAT rate below 15% and the 0% and 5% rates are for exceptions and not the rule.
VAT on many items is 5%. On some it is 0%. The main VAT rate is 20% so what?
The proposal was to reduce VAT to 10%.
That can't be done under EU rules. It is simply not allowed.
We have done it in the past six months. To 5% and 0%.
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 floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Meanwhile a Kaboom from Trafalgar who as in 2016 are the only pollster with Trump ahead in Michigan, if they are right again Trump will likely be re elected in the EC even if he loses the popular vote again
Today's IDP/Tipp Tracker isn't good for Biden – his lead is down to 6pts from 8/9pts on Monday. It's been trending downwards all week, which might be worth watching or might just be a worse cohort for him in one of the more recent samples.
I live in Tier 2, but if I turned left out of my house and walked in a straight line, the 8th house I got to would be in Tier 1. If only I lived there, I could go for a drink with 5 other people I don't live with
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.
Why do you persist with this ludicrous "us plebs" thing? It's nothing to do with class, or wealth or anything of that nature. It's about risk segmentation – those who are elderly or infirm, or who work in frontline roles, will be prioritised. Exactly as it should be.
Once the most at risk have been vaccinated the rest of us can get much more back to normal.
I don't if or when I get vaccinated, once my grandparents have been I will be relieved.
Exactly right. Agreed (in my case it's my ageing parents and inlaws).
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.
Sleeping and gaffing and bumbling his way to a glorious victory!
Legend in the making.
Doesn't really matter. He's a transparently decent guy, and has a very good team backing him up. That's about as much as anyone can expect from a government at the moment.
God knows it would be an improvement on our shower.
Definitely. Although for me this election is more about removing Trump than getting Biden. And on that score he has perhaps (caveat 3/11) turned out to be the perfect candidate. His so-called weakness - being a low key, totally known quantity - has been a strength.
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 floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
I live in Tier 2, but if I turned left out of my house and walked in a straight line, the 8th house I got to would be in Tier 1. If only I lived there, I could go for a drink with 5 other people I don't live with
Can't you just meet your friends in the first pub in the Tier 1 zone?
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.
So we can reduce VAT below 15%.
No. VAT is 20%.
We have had for sometime Vat rates at 5% and 0%. Am I missing something?
Yes the main VAT rate is 20%.
Under EU rules we are not allowed to reduce our main VAT rate below 15% and the 0% and 5% rates are for exceptions and not the rule.
VAT on many items is 5%. On some it is 0%. The main VAT rate is 20% so what?
The proposal was to reduce VAT to 10%.
That can't be done under EU rules. It is simply not allowed.
We have done it in the past six months. To 5% and 0%.
No we have not. The main VAT rate is still 20%, the exemptions are not the point. If the idea is to change everything so that nothing is charged more than 10% that is simply not allowed.
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.
Under our constitution Westminster is sovereign, Andy Burnham may whinge about it but ultimately Westminster where the Tories have an 80 seat majority in the Commons has the ultimate power over both Manchester and Scotland.
Westminster could vote to scrap the Greater Manchester Mayoralty and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Holyrood tomorrow and impose direct rule on both if it chose to entirely within our constitution
I heard Peter Hennessy on BBC R4 WATO pleading that what we desperately need are opposing parties working together to get us out of this Covid crisis. The " up yours Jack" attitude that you are suggesting certainly won't help us along that road.
Johnson is swimming against the tide here. He may be right and everyone else may be wrong but he hasn't communicated his position very well. Like you say, if he is confident the 3 tier approach works, he can impose it on Burnham, but he needs to explain why, and clearly, including why the financial package is acceptable.
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.
Sleeping and gaffing and bumbling his way to a glorious victory!
Legend in the making.
Doesn't really matter. He's a transparently decent guy, and has a very good team backing him up. That's about as much as anyone can expect from a government at the moment.
God knows it would be an improvement on our shower.
Definitely. Although for me this election is more about removing Trump than getting Biden. And on that score he has perhaps (caveat 3/11) turned out to be the perfect candidate. His so-called weakness - being a low key, totally known quantity - has been a strength.
Biden 2020: Letting you go back to ignoring the news out of boredom, not horror.
I live in Tier 2, but if I turned left out of my house and walked in a straight line, the 8th house I got to would be in Tier 1. If only I lived there, I could go for a drink with 5 other people I don't live with
Can't you just meet your friends in the first pub in the Tier 1 zone?
No I don't think so. You have to abide by the rules of your tier no matter where you are I think. Hope I am wrong about that, but sure thats what I read
I live in Tier 2, but if I turned left out of my house and walked in a straight line, the 8th house I got to would be in Tier 1. If only I lived there, I could go for a drink with 5 other people I don't live with
Can't you just meet your friends in the first pub in the Tier 1 zone?
Sounds like compliance is going to be pretty low on this one!
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.
Trump himself is at the center of the shift. ...
He was asked about it at the town hall. "Don't know them but I understand they fight very hard against pedophilia," he said.
Clearly wants the support of these people. I would not be surprised to see "Where we go one we go all" being sneaked into a tweet at some point.
Read the whole article - the GOP is welcoming them wholesale. The party is beyond redemption.
US conservatives need to tear it up and start again.
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.
Sleeping and gaffing and bumbling his way to a glorious victory!
Legend in the making.
Doesn't really matter. He's a transparently decent guy, and has a very good team backing him up. That's about as much as anyone can expect from a government at the moment.
God knows it would be an improvement on our shower.
Definitely. Although for me this election is more about removing Trump than getting Biden. And on that score he has perhaps (caveat 3/11) turned out to be the perfect candidate. His so-called weakness - being a low key, totally known quantity - has been a strength.
Biden 2020: Letting you go back to ignoring the news out of boredom, not horror.
I think his campaign has been better than we might give him credit for. It's not that easy running against someone like Trump, just ask Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz.
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 floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They aren't making it up as they go along, so much as negotiating with each region, who request different restrictions...I think anybody could have spotted the issue when they said on top this tier system would operate like this, thus nullifying the idea that it is simplifying the rules.
I honestly don't know what the government are trying to achieve here, yes some regions have different demographics etc, but we aren't a very large country and really not that different, thus some idea you can really treat Manchester different to Liverpool in the way perhaps you might treat NYC different to Orlando is bonkers.
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.
So we can reduce VAT below 15%.
No. VAT is 20%.
We have had for sometime Vat rates at 5% and 0%. Am I missing something?
Yes the main VAT rate is 20%.
Under EU rules we are not allowed to reduce our main VAT rate below 15% and the 0% and 5% rates are for exceptions and not the rule.
VAT on many items is 5%. On some it is 0%. The main VAT rate is 20% so what?
The proposal was to reduce VAT to 10%.
That can't be done under EU rules. It is simply not allowed.
We have done it in the past six months. To 5% and 0%.
No we have not. The main VAT rate is still 20%, the exemptions are not the point. If the idea is to change everything so that nothing is charged more than 10% that is simply not allowed.
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.
Sleeping and gaffing and bumbling his way to a glorious victory!
Legend in the making.
Doesn't really matter. He's a transparently decent guy, and has a very good team backing him up. That's about as much as anyone can expect from a government at the moment.
God knows it would be an improvement on our shower.
Definitely. Although for me this election is more about removing Trump than getting Biden. And on that score he has perhaps (caveat 3/11) turned out to be the perfect candidate. His so-called weakness - being a low key, totally known quantity - has been a strength.
Biden 2020: Letting you go back to ignoring the news out of boredom, not horror.
I think his campaign has been better than we might give him credit for. It's not that easy running against someone like Trump, just ask Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz.
Oh 100%. I think he's a bit lucky in terms of being the right man for the moment, but I'm an outspoken supporter of the line that he knows what he's doing. I also think that, contrary to what many people said 12 months ago, the 2020 primary field was one of the strongest for ages. And he won.
The EU are going to be very unhappy about this. Fine paying to take a gamble on a treatment (and indeed prudent) ... but after the developer knows it doesn't work ?
Though of course a UK free of Scotland and London would see almost permanent Tory rule
You ignore the tremendous shock that breakup of the UK would apply to our body politic.
Particularly in circumstances when it would be so clear that Tory misjudgements have led directly toward it.
Quite: The Tories will face obliteration. We talk about the thirty or forty years it would take for Scotland to recover, but at least with a clear path back to the EU, there would be a direction to go in. Whereas England and Wales would struggle to decide even to stay together and then work out what kind of country it wanted to be. It would be a total sh*tshow and by the end of it the Tories would be finished as a viable force.
As they are seeking investment would far rather the govt invested their billions in this kind of start up than paying BCG consultants £6k per day to advise them how to do their own jobs.
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 floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
The EU are going to be very unhappy about this. Fine paying to take a gamble on a treatment (and indeed prudent) ... but after the developer knows it doesn't work ?
twitter.com/ABsteward/status/1317082341198696450
Hopefully they had the wit to include "Bad Faith" provisions in the contract as a basis for revocation.
The EU are going to be very unhappy about this. Fine paying to take a gamble on a treatment (and indeed prudent) ... but after the developer knows it doesn't work ?
twitter.com/ABsteward/status/1317082341198696450
Isn't Gileads position that they contest the results of this study and point to others that show better outcomes?
I live in Tier 2, but if I turned left out of my house and walked in a straight line, the 8th house I got to would be in Tier 1. If only I lived there, I could go for a drink with 5 other people I don't live with
Can't you just meet your friends in the first pub in the Tier 1 zone?
No I don't think so. You have to abide by the rules of your tier no matter where you are I think. Hope I am wrong about that, but sure thats what I read
Yes, correct. The rule applies either to anyone meeting inside the Tier 2 or 3 zone (irrespective of where they live), or to anyone living in Tier 1 or Tier 2, irrespective of where they meet up with others. Which is pretty sensible, if you think about it.
They aren't making it up as they go along, so much as negotiating with each region, who request different restrictions...I think anybody could have spotted the issue when they said on top this tier system would operate like this.
Perhaps they could ask for some advice from the EU about how you get rapprochement among your component parts (they needn't use the French word if they didn't want to)?
Is this just a right wing commentator thing, or more widespread? I have already heard people myself saying that they are categorically not going to obey the rules at Xmas.
A wise man once said that traditionally African Americans prefer to vote early in person rather than by mail - especially in NC. I wonder if that sage's wisdom can be empirically tested.
Day prior to the opening of in person early voting in NC African American turnout lags their voter registration percentage
Day after the opening of in person early voting it shoots ahead
Truly the wisest of sages. If only he had any more cryptic advice...
Black voters will hopefully save the USA from a second Trump term.
Though of course a UK free of Scotland and London would see almost permanent Tory rule
You ignore the tremendous shock that breakup of the UK would apply to our body politic.
Particularly in circumstances when it would be so clear that Tory misjudgements have led directly toward it.
Quite: The Tories will face obliteration. We talk about the thirty or forty years it would take for Scotland to recover, but at least with a clear path back to the EU, there would be a direction to go in. Whereas England and Wales would struggle to decide even to stay together and then work out what kind of country it wanted to be. It would be a total sh*tshow and by the end of it the Tories would be finished as a viable force.
'Finished as a viable force'? What, like the Lib Dems?
They aren't making it up as they go along, so much as negotiating with each region, who request different restrictions...I think anybody could have spotted the issue when they said on top this tier system would operate like this, thus nullifying the idea that it is simplifying the rules.
I honestly don't know what the government are trying to achieve here, yes some regions have different demographics etc, but we aren't a very large country and really not that different, thus some idea you can really treat Manchester different to Liverpool in the way perhaps you might treat NYC different to Orlando is bonkers.
Well, they were lambasted for imposing rules from London, so they've given some freedom to local areas to choose the mix. The same people who lambasted them for the first are now laying into them for the second.
Is this just a right wing commentator thing, or more widespread? I have already heard people myself saying that they are categorically not going to obey the rules at Xmas.
More widespread. In the following common sense group.
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 floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Meanwhile a Kaboom from Trafalgar who as in 2016 are the only pollster with Trump ahead in Michigan, if they are right again Trump will likely be re elected in the EC even if he loses the popular vote again
Trafalgar are cruising for a bruising. Either that or they are deliberately taking a position, calculating that on the off chance of fluking it the glory will be unbounded whereas if they are wrong (meaning wronger than others) this will be quickly forgotten or can somehow be explained away. The polling industry equivalent of the wannabe star City analyst making a high profile against-the-herd call on something big such as house prices.
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.
Sleeping and gaffing and bumbling his way to a glorious victory!
Legend in the making.
Doesn't really matter. He's a transparently decent guy, and has a very good team backing him up. That's about as much as anyone can expect from a government at the moment.
God knows it would be an improvement on our shower.
Definitely. Although for me this election is more about removing Trump than getting Biden. And on that score he has perhaps (caveat 3/11) turned out to be the perfect candidate. His so-called weakness - being a low key, totally known quantity - has been a strength.
Biden 2020: Letting you go back to ignoring the news out of boredom, not horror.
I think his campaign has been better than we might give him credit for. It's not that easy running against someone like Trump, just ask Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz.
Oh 100%. I think he's a bit lucky in terms of being the right man for the moment, but I'm an outspoken supporter of the line that he knows what he's doing. I also think that, contrary to what many people said 12 months ago, the 2020 primary field was one of the strongest for ages. And he won.
I thought Biden wouldn't even make Iowa (until, ironically, Ukrainegate happened at which point he had to stay in the race otherwise he'd have given Trump an easy win) and I thought he would drop out early after taking some beatings.
I still think he is a crap candidate who will turn into a weak "my precious norms" president who will fail to punish the Republican shitbaggery of the last 8 years but I was completely wrong about him getting rto this point and he will wallop Trump.
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 floor is 5%, the VAT rate we have on fuel.
No the floor is 5% on a limited range of exemptions which includes fuel - or anything which we have continuously charged 0% on can be kept at 0% but if we ever charge anything on it then that 0% can not be restored.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
The following list of items has a VAT rate of 5%:
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Irrelevant to the point. The idea was to make everything 10%. That is not allowed.
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
You said that the VAT rate in the UK is 20% and I gave you a shopping list of items where the VAT rate is not 20%.
They are exceptions.
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
5%.
Regardless of the details, do you understand why people have a problem with not having full control over things like VAT? What if we wanted to drop it to 0% and raise money elsewhere?
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
Though of course a UK free of Scotland and London would see almost permanent Tory rule
You ignore the tremendous shock that breakup of the UK would apply to our body politic.
Particularly in circumstances when it would be so clear that Tory misjudgements have led directly toward it.
Quite: The Tories will face obliteration. We talk about the thirty or forty years it would take for Scotland to recover, but at least with a clear path back to the EU, there would be a direction to go in. Whereas England and Wales would struggle to decide even to stay together and then work out what kind of country it wanted to be. It would be a total sh*tshow and by the end of it the Tories would be finished as a viable force.
The opposite, the Tories would become the English Nationalist Party, the English version of the SNP, Britain would be ridden with nationalism, England pro hard Brexit, Scotland anti, but the Tories would dominate it on the English side of the border and to ensure the hardest of lines with the SNP in independence negotiations, Labour would be as obliterated in England as it has been in Scotland by nationalism and just have to hope it can still tread water in Wales.
The Tories had a majority of over 150 in England last year remember
A wise man once said that traditionally African Americans prefer to vote early in person rather than by mail - especially in NC. I wonder if that sage's wisdom can be empirically tested.
Day prior to the opening of in person early voting in NC African American turnout lags their voter registration percentage
Day after the opening of in person early voting it shoots ahead
Truly the wisest of sages. If only he had any more cryptic advice...
Black voters will hopefully save the USA from a second Trump term.
A wise man once said that traditionally African Americans prefer to vote early in person rather than by mail - especially in NC. I wonder if that sage's wisdom can be empirically tested.
Day prior to the opening of in person early voting in NC African American turnout lags their voter registration percentage
Day after the opening of in person early voting it shoots ahead
Truly the wisest of sages. If only he had any more cryptic advice...
Black voters will hopefully save the USA from a second Trump term.
I'm keeping a very close eye on Michigan. Things are not developing quite as I expect.
I live in Tier 2, but if I turned left out of my house and walked in a straight line, the 8th house I got to would be in Tier 1. If only I lived there, I could go for a drink with 5 other people I don't live with
Can't you just meet your friends in the first pub in the Tier 1 zone?
No I don't think so. You have to abide by the rules of your tier no matter where you are I think. Hope I am wrong about that, but sure thats what I read
Yes, correct. The rule applies either to anyone meeting inside the Tier 2 or 3 zone (irrespective of where they live), or to anyone living in Tier 1 or Tier 2, irrespective of where they meet up with others. Which is pretty sensible, if you think about it.
Yes, else everyone from the so called high risk areas would just descend en masse to the so called low risk areas for a drink with five mates!
Another great example of a pointless graph. The colour scheme is number of people who have voted early, so surprise surprise, the dark blue states are the states with the most people.
Thank you. The second choice with turnout in 2016 as a denominator is much more informative. The surprise there is why Vermont a safe and uncontroversial has such a high proportion of early voters, especially compared to neighbouring states.
Comments
How fortuitous!
How did you get the gig ?
They can make a difference in limited locations. They cluster, for example, in high-income groups in otherwise fairly heavily democrat-leaning demographics. There may even be a few limited examples where they make a small difference statewide but all the copious analysis of the 2016 polling 'failure' indicates that the problem (which in any case wasn't that great) resided elsewhere.
Westminster could vote to scrap the Greater Manchester Mayoralty and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Holyrood tomorrow and impose direct rule on both if it chose to entirely within our constitution
Ah, thanks - I'd thought the 'province' was a modern neologism as it didn't match the original Ulaidh. One learns daily on PB.
He's a transparently decent guy, and has a very good team backing him up. That's about as much as anyone can expect from a government at the moment.
God knows it would be an improvement on our shower.
[Edit: corrected typo...]
It is 5% on hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
Under EU rules we are not allowed to reduce our main VAT rate below 15% and the 0% and 5% rates are for exceptions and not the rule.
I don't if or when I get vaccinated, once my grandparents have been I will be relieved.
I'm sure the people of the Kingdom of Arles in the thirteenth century were sure that their country would last forever - but most people who today live on its former territory have never heard of it. The Kingdom of Savoy-Sardinia was a major European power until 1860. As was Prussia. The conquest of Languedoc by France makes England's adventures in Wales & Scotland look benign. Byzantium, the USSR, the Kingdom of the Two Sicillies, Prussia, Yugoslavia, Alt Clud, Burgundy, Mercia, Zhongshan, the Republic of Acre...all those countries, gone, caput, no one believes in them anymore, or in many cases even know of them. The UK is no different. No country has a right to, or will, last forever.
Clearly wants the support of these people. I would not be surprised to see "Where we go one we go all" being sneaked into a tweet at some point.
Day prior to the opening of in person early voting in NC African American turnout lags their voter registration percentage
Day after the opening of in person early voting it shoots ahead
Truly the wisest of sages. If only he had any more cryptic advice...
That can't be done under EU rules. It is simply not allowed.
That is my memory of it, anyway. Sadly, I can't find the paper online.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1317099245346955270?s=20
Ouch.
The standard rate for goods and services can not go below 15%. If we wanted to just charge 5% for everything, we would not be allowed to under EU rules.
In the run up to the EURef, Boris said they would cut VAT on home energy bills as this is one of the genuine restrictions on UK behaviour.
So it is with baited breath that we wait for them to do so next year.
https://twitter.com/larwoolf/status/1316937942699474951?s=20
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html
Hospitality and tourism including restaurants; cafes; pubs (ex alcohol); hospitality; hotels; B&B's; home rental; caravan and tent sites; hot take away food; theatres; circuses; amusement parks; concerts; museums; zoos; cinemas; and exhibitions.
I live in Tier 2, but if I turned left out of my house and walked in a straight line, the 8th house I got to would be in Tier 1. If only I lived there, I could go for a drink with 5 other people I don't live with
That some scraps are allowed doesn't change facts whatsoever.
Your whatabouterisms are immaterial.
Johnson is swimming against the tide here. He may be right and everyone else may be wrong but he hasn't communicated his position very well. Like you say, if he is confident the 3 tier approach works, he can impose it on Burnham, but he needs to explain why, and clearly, including why the financial package is acceptable.
The party is beyond redemption.
US conservatives need to tear it up and start again.
Cool idea, but it's at least six months away from practical use.
https://twitter.com/UniofOxford/status/1316691891040157696
I honestly don't know what the government are trying to achieve here, yes some regions have different demographics etc, but we aren't a very large country and really not that different, thus some idea you can really treat Manchester different to Liverpool in the way perhaps you might treat NYC different to Orlando is bonkers.
Fine paying to take a gamble on a treatment (and indeed prudent) ... but after the developer knows it doesn't work ?
https://twitter.com/ABsteward/status/1317082341198696450
You do understand the meaning of the word exception do you not? If not, you might want to read up on it rather than us going around in circles.
If the proposal is to reduce VAT to 10% then that means from the items that are 20% that are not on the exemption list - not the ones that are on the very limited exemption list.
He used to live here!
Well for 3 weeks anyways.
Is this just a right wing commentator thing, or more widespread? I have already heard people myself saying that they are categorically not going to obey the rules at Xmas.
Politics, innit?
5%.
Also Lancashire going into tier 3 makes it more difficult for Burnham
I still think he is a crap candidate who will turn into a weak "my precious norms" president who will fail to punish the Republican shitbaggery of the last 8 years but I was completely wrong about him getting rto this point and he will wallop Trump.
Also with us wanting to do things and the EU "allowing" us. Sure they might do now, but the EU is ever increasing in scope and you might not be able to next year as sovereignty is gradually leached away.
The Tories had a majority of over 150 in England last year remember
https://twitter.com/NeilDotObrien/status/1317046902605729792?s=20
https://www.ft.com/content/e7a279df-3239-4e00-be29-f38d98f4d730