Well I am not going to get egg on my face as I am purposefully not making a prediction. My credibility with certain people (or all?) is already low so I am not sure my contribution would be valued or respected anyway.
But I wonder if those who do get it wrong, will have it brought up 10 times a day or will they be ignored? Will they pretend they never made those predictions? Who knows, only time will tell.
Pish. Trump is going to lose, and probably lose quite badly. It's almost a mirror image of 2019: there's one issue that voters are thoroughly sick of, and want to get done - Brexit/coronavirus; there's one candidate who is considered too crazy and dangerous to elect - Corbyn/Trump; there's one line on the polling charts that is rock-solid and will not move downwards for love nor money- Tory vote share / Biden vote share. Only the Supreme Court or a Biden obitus can save Trump now.
Go bold, or go home
Indeed besides their supposed difference the similarities between Corbyn and Trump are uncanny, only the Electoral College allowed Trump to win in 2016 rather than lose as he would have with our electoral system like Corbyn did in 2017.
2020 will be like 2019 barring a shock. Even with a late shock it may still be like 2019 given the volume of voters already going to the polls.
There are almost no similarities between Corbyn and Trump. There are many parallels between Boris and Trump but they are of no obvious help for betting on the election in a fortnight.
Prime Minister Patel will be our equivalent of Trump.
Never mind the King in the North securing cash for Tier 3, the big battle will be cash for Tier 2. As local rag reports over the weekend pointed out, the inability to go to the pub or restaurant with friends combined with the curfew has killed trade for businesses supposedly free to stay open.
Which if you think about it is the same fiasco as we saw in March. Don't go to the pub spake the ministers. "what about our livelihoods" say the hospitality trade. "what about it" says the government.
Fuck business vote Tory. Again. How is it they haven't learned a single thing from the first phase of this pandemic?
Why should they they were the world beaters in the last wave so no need to learn anything.
I detect a touch of irony there. Just to reinforce the point, in terms or raw outcomes (deaths & economic hit), we are near the worst in the world.
Looks like Belgium, Spain and Mexico are worst on that graph considering deaths and loss of economic growth, South Korea, Vietnam and China best overall in terms of minimal deaths per head and minimal economic damage (though China's figures are a bit dubious). Clearly then mass mask wearing crucial as well as track and trace and lockdown's only when absolutely necessary eg New Zealand does well on low deaths but has a loss in gdp of at least average
Oh I see the graph I posted last night is now interesting and relevant again because it was posted by somebody else, never change PB
Yes, I can see that countries like Belgium are going to be hit by No Deal, as well as the UK. The difference is Belgium has 26 other countries to remodel their trade with....
Never mind the King in the North securing cash for Tier 3, the big battle will be cash for Tier 2. As local rag reports over the weekend pointed out, the inability to go to the pub or restaurant with friends combined with the curfew has killed trade for businesses supposedly free to stay open.
Which if you think about it is the same fiasco as we saw in March. Don't go to the pub spake the ministers. "what about our livelihoods" say the hospitality trade. "what about it" says the government.
Fuck business vote Tory. Again. How is it they haven't learned a single thing from the first phase of this pandemic?
Why should they they were the world beaters in the last wave so no need to learn anything.
I detect a touch of irony there. Just to reinforce the point, in terms or raw outcomes (deaths & economic hit), we are near the worst in the world.
Looks like Belgium, Spain and Mexico are worst on that graph considering deaths and loss of economic growth, South Korea, Vietnam and China best overall in terms of minimal deaths per head and minimal economic damage (though China's figures are a bit dubious). Clearly then mass mask wearing crucial as well as track and trace and lockdown's only when absolutely necessary eg New Zealand does well on low deaths but has a loss in gdp of at least average
Oh I see the graph I posted last night is now interesting and relevant again because it was posted by somebody else, never change PB
Never mind the King in the North securing cash for Tier 3, the big battle will be cash for Tier 2. As local rag reports over the weekend pointed out, the inability to go to the pub or restaurant with friends combined with the curfew has killed trade for businesses supposedly free to stay open.
Which if you think about it is the same fiasco as we saw in March. Don't go to the pub spake the ministers. "what about our livelihoods" say the hospitality trade. "what about it" says the government.
Fuck business vote Tory. Again. How is it they haven't learned a single thing from the first phase of this pandemic?
Why should they they were the world beaters in the last wave so no need to learn anything.
I detect a touch of irony there. Just to reinforce the point, in terms or raw outcomes (deaths & economic hit), we are near the worst in the world.
Looks like Belgium, Spain and Mexico are worst on that graph considering deaths and loss of economic growth, South Korea, Vietnam and China best overall in terms of minimal deaths per head and minimal economic damage (though China's figures are a bit dubious). Clearly then mass mask wearing crucial as well as track and trace and lockdown's only when absolutely necessary eg New Zealand does well on low deaths but has a loss in gdp of at least average
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Until the Reformation most Lords were Bishops, only after did they become majority hereditary and only now are they majority life peer.
The Archbishops position is not opposition to Brexit per se, only the internal markets bill, so on that is no different to Biden's or Pelosi's or even Theresa May's.
Indeed if the Internal Markets Bill passes and Biden becomes President you can be sure there is zero chance of a US and UK trade deal.
Though it must be said that a majority of Anglicans, 66%, voted for Brexit so the Bishops have to be careful not to be seen to be careful to still respect the delivery of Brexit even if they disagree with the Internal Markets Bill
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Until the Reformation most Lords were Bishops, only after did they become majority hereditary and only now are they majority life peer.
The Archbishops position is not opposition to Brexit per se, only the internal markets bill, so on that is no different to Biden's or Pelosi's or even Theresa May's.
Indeed if the Internal Markets Bill passes and Biden becomes President you can be sure there is zero chance of a US and UK trade deal.
Though it must be said that a majority of Anglicans, 66%, voted for Brexit so the Bishops have to be careful not to be seen to be careful to still respect the delivery of Brexit even if they disagree with the Internal Markets Bill
Good to see Robert had a chat with Trafalgar's head man and can give us a bit more detail about their methods.
Though in 2016 while they were the only pollster to correctly have Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania not a single pollster had Trump ahead in Wisconsin but he won all 3 ( Trafalgar did not poll Wisconsin then and is this time as even Trafalgar did not expect Trump to have a chance in Wisconsin in 2016, yet Trump won it by the largest margin of the 3).
How have you an "off topic" point against you discussing Trafalgar in a thread about Trafalgar? The off topic button is being abused.
Still, you have been shown the smoking gun, yet you still advocate for Trafalgar! Why?
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
Never mind the King in the North securing cash for Tier 3, the big battle will be cash for Tier 2. As local rag reports over the weekend pointed out, the inability to go to the pub or restaurant with friends combined with the curfew has killed trade for businesses supposedly free to stay open.
Which if you think about it is the same fiasco as we saw in March. Don't go to the pub spake the ministers. "what about our livelihoods" say the hospitality trade. "what about it" says the government.
Fuck business vote Tory. Again. How is it they haven't learned a single thing from the first phase of this pandemic?
Why should they they were the world beaters in the last wave so no need to learn anything.
I detect a touch of irony there. Just to reinforce the point, in terms or raw outcomes (deaths & economic hit), we are near the worst in the world.
Looks like Belgium, Spain and Mexico are worst on that graph considering deaths and loss of economic growth, South Korea, Vietnam and China best overall in terms of minimal deaths per head and minimal economic damage (though China's figures are a bit dubious). Clearly then mass mask wearing crucial as well as track and trace and lockdown's only when absolutely necessary eg New Zealand does well on low deaths but has a loss in gdp of at least average
Oh I see the graph I posted last night is now interesting and relevant again because it was posted by somebody else, never change PB
If those Nevada numbers are anything like, then it is not a close race.
The polls and now quite a bit of anedotal evidence are suggesting a shellacking for the GOP on a scale rarely- if ever- seen before. Even allowing for a hard core of Republicans voting solidly in the red states, we can`t be looking at more than a third of the EC going Trump, and there could be some big name casualties in the Senate.
It´ll be interesting how Trafalgar explain that ex post facto. Probably have to rename the dog to Villeneuve...
That is not really true, on the latest poll today Trump is on 45% ie better than Bush Snr got in 1992 and better than Bob Dole got in 1996 and far better than Barry Goldwater got in 1964 and about the same as McCain got in 2008 and only 1% less than he got in 2016, Biden's gains have mainly come from voters who voted for other candidates in 2016
Bromley is indeed one of the lowest but there isnt much correlation between inner/outer London or urban/suburban and covid levels. Richmond, Harrow and Kingston are near the highest and Southwark, Lewisham and Croydon near the bottom.
The correlation within London is largely geographic, higher in the north and west, lower in the south and east.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
Well, that is pretty typical of the Brexit fanatics. They were so keen to point out the democratic difficulties with the EU while conveniently ignoring our own. To adapt a biblical metaphor, they look for the speck in the EU's eye whilst ignoring the beam in their own. The hypocrisy of Brexit; a whited sepulchre of lies and deceptions. It is to those like Philip Thompson, a religion that they must keep observance to in spite of its absurdities and contradictions. The High Priest of that religion? Bozo the Clown.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
In any case, of the five signatories, only Canterbury and York are members of the House of Lords; the Anglican churches in Wales, Scotland and Ireland aren't established.
And whilst nobody sane would want a theocracy, let alone an Anglican one, why wouldn't you at least listen to the leaders of a body with a larger membership than any political party? Especially one with a perspective formed over centuries?
And the points they make aren't incorrect, are they?
"Traditional pollsters reach voters by either having an on-line panel (YouGov, for example) or by calling people, with either automated voice response or a real human".
Just a question. I'm sure online panels work as a polling process, but I am puzzled as to how. Is it not inevitable that online panels are biased towards the sorts of people who like being on online panels, biased towards those who have some sort of interest in politics and also skewed by the fact that just being on a panel may affect how much attention you give to the issues as compared with a constantly changing random sample.
Re point 2, I believe that you get recruited to a panel to answer all kinds of questions, not specifically to a political questions panel.
Regarding the first point, I expect that weighting is done by comparing the results of those recruited to online panels compared to those polled in other ways, so any systematic differences in those who would like to be in online panels can be accounted for.
The third point is interesting, would be fascinating to see whether people in online panels become more aware of the things they are asked about over time. Again I expect you can compare new and old recruits/panels to tease out these differences, although that may be too subtle to have been done so far. Intellectually, that third question is intriguing.
Another subtle question is why people do the surveys and whether their type affects the answer. I'm on the Opinium and YouGov panels, and get generally 50p a time for doing them. I mainly respond because I like to be asked my opinion, and I want it represented in the survey. The 50p is of course trivial (and after tax a bit more trivial) but occasionally it's a nice surprise to add up to £25. Also, the Opinium surveys are generally on current issues (such as how is Covid affecting your behaviour), which makes them interesting for me. But I rarely do the YouGov ones, because they're often mostly about brand awareness ("Which of the following emotions do you feel about Aviva's new slogan? - pride, excitement, trust, belonging, ..."), and I dislike the whole brand culture.
So the style is affecting me, and someone who's really into brands but fed up with Covid might feel the opposite. Do these differences affect political outcomes? Presumably, but it's hard to predict how. And the institutions simply ask questions that they've been paid to ask (PB could commission a couple of questions for £1000 or so) so it'[s not stable over time.
And if they paid nothing at all, or merely gave me a raffle ticket, I would be demotivated and wouldn't bother, as doing something for nothing that someone else will commercially profit from feels wrong, even though the amount is trivial.
It had all built up into an ugly mood. “We have got Liverpool feeling cheated, Lancashire feeling bullied, and Manchester angrily determined,” the Bishop of Manchester, David Walker, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “ I think what we have seen in the last few days is that even long-held party loyalties are giving way to a widespread belief that the most urgent threat to life and livelihoods is not what is going on in Liverpool gyms and Lancashire pubs: it is 200 miles away in an increasingly disconnected Westminster bunker that seems to lack either the care or competence to get us through the crisis.”
The most excellent intentions can have terrible outcomes. Just as Blair's efforts to neutralise internal nationalism by devolution has had precisely the opposite effect, the effort to minimise the damage of lockdown by regionalising it can split what had been a fairly unified effort to control the outbreak.
The local law also has ludicrous effects. If you live in Tier 3 and attend a wedding (among the 15) in Tier 1 it is lawful to be at the marriage ceremony but not lawful to attend the reception. When a law is both absurd and unenforceable something has gone wrong.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
Ralston is the man who knows Nevada and early voting. When Ralston calls the state his word is law.
But the fact that Democrats are voting early really doesn't prove much in itself. You might get the odd extra one who might not have actually managed to vote on the day or, more likely, would have been prevented from voting by voter suppression techniques, but they still only get to vote once.
The polling looks really good for Biden, not least in its consistency, but I think reading through the entrails of early voting returns tells you very little.
It has been pointed out that at this stage Clinton's polling lead was not dissimilar to Biden'. That is basically true even though Biden's is significantly better
This is cited as evidence that the polls could change dramatically by election day and, of course, they could. But as each day passes the window for Trump's polling to significantly improve is closing.
The significance of the unprecedented amount of votes being cast ahead of election day is that if there does happen to be another game changer in the pipeline all these votes are being cast before it happens.
I accept that most of the votes being cast are from committed voters but nevertheless it can only really be to Biden's advantage. 42% of 2016 turnout in Texas 2 weeks before election day is not insignificant.
Ralston is the man who knows Nevada and early voting. When Ralston calls the state his word is law.
While those are optimistic numbers it's not reasonable to say 44k Dem lead is it? Since we know more R voters self identify as registered independents than Dems do?
In 2012 early voting stats for Nevada almost matched the result (in terms of the self-identified split between Dem and Rep). In 2016 they underestimated the Republicans share but only slightly - the early voting stats had the Dems 4% ahead whereas they won by 2.4%. Trump did better in 2016 amongst independents, but given that there's evidence that independents have since turned away from Trump I am not worried that the early voting splits will underestimate the Republicans this time.
There are nonetheless other problems with drawing conclusions from early voting patterns in Nevada this time. In contrast to previously all electors received forms allowing "mail-in" (postal) voting and have had a couple of weeks to return them, whereas so far there's only been a day of in-person voting in Nevada. Democrats have a whopping lead in mail-in ballots but there is evidence that Trump could have put off his supporters from using that method, because the Reps led in the first day of in-person voting in contrast to losing by a mile in the mail-ins. So the sample to date is clearly skewed until we get more in-person voting.
You need to compare 2020 to date with the relevant links showing what happened at the same stage in 2016. Because of the potential skew above, I would wait at least until the end of the first week's in-person early voting before drawing too many conclusions. At the moment, based on mail-in early votes and one day's in-person early votes, the Dems are leading by 44k (105 to 61). At the end of the first week's in-person voting the Dems were leading by 30k (151 to 121) and eventually led by 45k or 4% - compared to the 2.4% result.
What can we speculate from all this so far? The critical thing over the next few days is the daily trend in in-person voting - do the Democrats stretch their banked 44k lead or does it start to narrow? The first day of in-person voting was essentially a tie. I suspect that the Democrats' lead will grow in absolute terms, but only to a small degree, on an increased turnout. That's because the Republicans could only tie the first day of in-person voting despite this effectively being the first day of any voting for the absolute core of Trump diehards who believe that mail-in voting is not to be trusted. If the Democrats do stretch their lead slightly, and allowing for Biden doing better than Clinton amongst independents, that would point to a small swing to Biden in Nevada compared to 2016.
One other thing to bear in mind if extrapolating to the national result. Opinion polls have generally been showing a smaller swing to the Democrats in Nevada than nationally and in other key battlegrounds.
It had all built up into an ugly mood. “We have got Liverpool feeling cheated, Lancashire feeling bullied, and Manchester angrily determined,” the Bishop of Manchester, David Walker, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “ I think what we have seen in the last few days is that even long-held party loyalties are giving way to a widespread belief that the most urgent threat to life and livelihoods is not what is going on in Liverpool gyms and Lancashire pubs: it is 200 miles away in an increasingly disconnected Westminster bunker that seems to lack either the care or competence to get us through the crisis.”
That's a real, Anglican bishop, is it? Because if they want to descend into the party political arena like that they they can bugger right off out of the HoL and get themselves elected to the Commons, like everybody else. Subject of course to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
In any case, of the five signatories, only Canterbury and York are members of the House of Lords; the Anglican churches in Wales, Scotland and Ireland aren't established.
And whilst nobody sane would want a theocracy, let alone an Anglican one, why wouldn't you at least listen to the leaders of a body with a larger membership than any political party? Especially one with a perspective formed over centuries?
And the points they make aren't incorrect, are they?
In don't want a theocracy either, but if I had to have one an Anglican one would be absolutely first choice as being the closest thing in religion to a freedom of thought liberal society. But of course the problem with theocracy is not the idea but the practice. Anglicanism would soon stop being the all things to all people thing it is if you gave bishops some real clout - because the wrong sort would then want to be bishops.
Never mind the King in the North securing cash for Tier 3, the big battle will be cash for Tier 2. As local rag reports over the weekend pointed out, the inability to go to the pub or restaurant with friends combined with the curfew has killed trade for businesses supposedly free to stay open.
Which if you think about it is the same fiasco as we saw in March. Don't go to the pub spake the ministers. "what about our livelihoods" say the hospitality trade. "what about it" says the government.
Fuck business vote Tory. Again. How is it they haven't learned a single thing from the first phase of this pandemic?
Why should they they were the world beaters in the last wave so no need to learn anything.
I detect a touch of irony there. Just to reinforce the point, in terms or raw outcomes (deaths & economic hit), we are near the worst in the world.
When are Johnson's apologists going to wake up? We are competing with Spain (not renowned for stable "world beating" government) as to who has handled this the worst. Johnson needs to go, he is making a bad situation much worse.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Until the Reformation most Lords were Bishops, only after did they become majority hereditary and only now are they majority life peer.
The Archbishops position is not opposition to Brexit per se, only the internal markets bill, so on that is no different to Biden's or Pelosi's or even Theresa May's.
Indeed if the Internal Markets Bill passes and Biden becomes President you can be sure there is zero chance of a US and UK trade deal.
Though it must be said that a majority of Anglicans, 66%, voted for Brexit so the Bishops have to be careful not to be seen to be careful to still respect the delivery of Brexit even if they disagree with the Internal Markets Bill
In the Dark Ages most people were serfs and couldn't vote so I'm not sure what your point is.
You may model yourself on Jacob Rees Mogg but we are not pre-Reformation anymore, this is 2020 and we are a secular, religiously diverse nation: The clerics belong in the past not the Legislature.
Quite right too. Covid should respect borough boundaries, and not seep through from Labour boroughs into Conservative ones. Disgraceful.
One of the 'facts' Neil cites in his argument that Bromley should not be in Tier 2 is that his borough has the largest number of pensioners in London. I suspect that doesn't really strengthen his argument.
It had all built up into an ugly mood. “We have got Liverpool feeling cheated, Lancashire feeling bullied, and Manchester angrily determined,” the Bishop of Manchester, David Walker, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “ I think what we have seen in the last few days is that even long-held party loyalties are giving way to a widespread belief that the most urgent threat to life and livelihoods is not what is going on in Liverpool gyms and Lancashire pubs: it is 200 miles away in an increasingly disconnected Westminster bunker that seems to lack either the care or competence to get us through the crisis.”
That's a real, Anglican bishop, is it? Because if they want to descend into the party political arena like that they they can bugger right off out of the HoL and get themselves elected to the Commons, like everybody else. Subject of course to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I would prefer bishops as informal regional spokespeople to unappointed and angry "community leaders". Perhaps we should be careful what we wish for. I often disagree with them but by and large they are good people who care about their communities.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
In any case, of the five signatories, only Canterbury and York are members of the House of Lords; the Anglican churches in Wales, Scotland and Ireland aren't established.
And whilst nobody sane would want a theocracy, let alone an Anglican one, why wouldn't you at least listen to the leaders of a body with a larger membership than any political party? Especially one with a perspective formed over centuries?
And the points they make aren't incorrect, are they?
In don't want a theocracy either, but if I had to have one an Anglican one would be absolutely first choice as being the closest thing in religion to a freedom of thought liberal society. But of course the problem with theocracy is not the idea but the practice. Anglicanism would soon stop being the all things to all people thing it is if you gave bishops some real clout - because the wrong sort would then want to be bishops.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic and we are not a theocracy. I have never once endorsed the Lords overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
The democratic process working unhindered involves getting rid of the Lords too not just Brussels.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Until the Reformation most Lords were Bishops, only after did they become majority hereditary and only now are they majority life peer.
The Archbishops position is not opposition to Brexit per se, only the internal markets bill, so on that is no different to Biden's or Pelosi's or even Theresa May's.
Indeed if the Internal Markets Bill passes and Biden becomes President you can be sure there is zero chance of a US and UK trade deal.
Though it must be said that a majority of Anglicans, 66%, voted for Brexit so the Bishops have to be careful not to be seen to be careful to still respect the delivery of Brexit even if they disagree with the Internal Markets Bill
In the Dark Ages most people were serfs and couldn't vote so I'm not sure what your point is.
You may model yourself on Jacob Rees Mogg but we are not pre-Reformation anymore, this is 2020 and we are a secular, religiously diverse nation: The clerics belong in the past not the Legislature.
As long as we have an appointed upper house the Bishops belong there, along with a few rabbis and imams and other life peers from business, academia, science, sport, the arts, politics, the law etc who have played a key role in our national life.
Unless you go for an all elected upper house then the Bishops should stay
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
In any case, of the five signatories, only Canterbury and York are members of the House of Lords; the Anglican churches in Wales, Scotland and Ireland aren't established.
And whilst nobody sane would want a theocracy, let alone an Anglican one, why wouldn't you at least listen to the leaders of a body with a larger membership than any political party? Especially one with a perspective formed over centuries?
And the points they make aren't incorrect, are they?
In don't want a theocracy either, but if I had to have one an Anglican one would be absolutely first choice as being the closest thing in religion to a freedom of thought liberal society. But of course the problem with theocracy is not the idea but the practice. Anglicanism would soon stop being the all things to all people thing it is if you gave bishops some real clout - because the wrong sort would then want to be bishops.
Point taken. By Anglican I am thinking of the English version. Only English bishops are in the Lords as of right. Though it is worth bearing in mind that in a number of developing countries the Anglican tradition is among the more tolerant of religious groups (check out some of the others), though the competition for tolerance is not strenuous.
Never mind the King in the North securing cash for Tier 3, the big battle will be cash for Tier 2. As local rag reports over the weekend pointed out, the inability to go to the pub or restaurant with friends combined with the curfew has killed trade for businesses supposedly free to stay open.
Which if you think about it is the same fiasco as we saw in March. Don't go to the pub spake the ministers. "what about our livelihoods" say the hospitality trade. "what about it" says the government.
Fuck business vote Tory. Again. How is it they haven't learned a single thing from the first phase of this pandemic?
Why should they they were the world beaters in the last wave so no need to learn anything.
I detect a touch of irony there. Just to reinforce the point, in terms or raw outcomes (deaths & economic hit), we are near the worst in the world.
When are Johnson's apologists going to wake up? We are competing with Spain (not renowned for stable "world beating" government) as to who has handled this the worst. Johnson needs to go, he is making a bad situation much worse.
You do realise don't you that chart is deeply troubled and flawed?
On one axis it has data going to mid October on another axis it has data going to 30 June. Those are not the same data sets and it is completely misleading to put data from two different data sets on a chart like that.
The UK was hit hard in H1 this year, everybody knows that and nobody denies that.
The reason the USA, Brazil and Chile for instance have our level of deaths but much less of an economic hit is because they were hit in Q3 so their deaths are showing but not the economic data which is missing because two different data sets are being disingenuously combined.
Excellent work from Smithson Jnr on Trafalgar. The only proviso I'd make is that it doesn't necessarily follow that they can't carry out interviews by phone/email etc because they don't seem to have permanent staff. There are lots of telemarketing agencies which can do that kind of work for you. Obviously it costs money, but not ridiculous amounts of money if you're only trying to reach a few hundred people and ask them a small number of questions.
So, if we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are not total shysters and do actually conduct polls in the way described, the real question is whether their results are likely to be more or less accurate than those of more conventional pollsters. Certainly the fact that they don't seem to weight their figures to get demographically-representative samples is a big red flag.
Update on Covid politics in Ireland -- Two weeks ago Irish politicians took the major step of disregarding the advice of their public health experts and using their own epidemiological judgment to set policy. Today, this period of independent thinking is expected to effectively come to an end, when the politicians largely acquiesce to the repeated advice to move to level 5 restrictions with what is being trailed as a "blend of level 4 and 5".
In this two-week period the number of daily cases in Ireland has roughly doubled, the number of Covid patients in hospital has increased by more than six-fifths - to about one-third of the previous peak in the spring. Elective surgeries have been cancelled due to a lack of available ICU beds.
Ralston is the man who knows Nevada and early voting. When Ralston calls the state his word is law.
But the fact that Democrats are voting early really doesn't prove much in itself. You might get the odd extra one who might not have actually managed to vote on the day or, more likely, would have been prevented from voting by voter suppression techniques, but they still only get to vote once.
The polling looks really good for Biden, not least in its consistency, but I think reading through the entrails of early voting returns tells you very little.
I agree.
People grasp for it as the only information we have during the increasingly febrile runup to a critical election.
We see the same at UK election time, with endless posts about snippets of information supposedly derived from postal vote verifications, which are always rubbish.
Sorry but that's a nonsense. Ralston knows his onions in Nevada
Just to give an idea of why Pulpstar and I give credence to Ralston:
Here is the 2010 polling average for the Seante race
In October there were only 2 polls out of 15 that gave Reid a lead. The RCP average lead on polling day was GOP +2.7 (538 projected a 3 point GOP win) , Reid won by +5.6.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
In any case, of the five signatories, only Canterbury and York are members of the House of Lords; the Anglican churches in Wales, Scotland and Ireland aren't established.
And whilst nobody sane would want a theocracy, let alone an Anglican one, why wouldn't you at least listen to the leaders of a body with a larger membership than any political party? Especially one with a perspective formed over centuries?
And the points they make aren't incorrect, are they?
In don't want a theocracy either, but if I had to have one an Anglican one would be absolutely first choice as being the closest thing in religion to a freedom of thought liberal society. But of course the problem with theocracy is not the idea but the practice. Anglicanism would soon stop being the all things to all people thing it is if you gave bishops some real clout - because the wrong sort would then want to be bishops.
Point taken. By Anglican I am thinking of the English version. Only English bishops are in the Lords as of right. Though it is worth bearing in mind that in a number of developing countries the Anglican tradition is among the more tolerant of religious groups (check out some of the others), though the competition for tolerance is not strenuous.
Well as God is, of course, an Englishman I couldn't disagree.
The most excellent intentions can have terrible outcomes. Just as Blair's efforts to neutralise internal nationalism by devolution has had precisely the opposite effect, the effort to minimise the damage of lockdown by regionalising it can split what had been a fairly unified effort to control the outbreak.
The local law also has ludicrous effects. If you live in Tier 3 and attend a wedding (among the 15) in Tier 1 it is lawful to be at the marriage ceremony but not lawful to attend the reception. When a law is both absurd and unenforceable something has gone wrong.
I'd defend the Government on that. Sitting in a pew olr row of seats, ideally a bit separate, your chance of infection is surely far lower than mingling in a reception.
Good to see Robert had a chat with Trafalgar's head man and can give us a bit more detail about their methods.
Though in 2016 while they were the only pollster to correctly have Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania not a single pollster had Trump ahead in Wisconsin but he won all 3 ( Trafalgar did not poll Wisconsin then and is this time as even Trafalgar did not expect Trump to have a chance in Wisconsin in 2016, yet Trump won it by the largest margin of the 3).
How have you an "off topic" point against you discussing Trafalgar in a thread about Trafalgar? The off topic button is being abused.
Still, you have been shown the smoking gun, yet you still advocate for Trafalgar! Why?
HYUFD simply ignores anything that doesn't fit his narrative
Never mind the King in the North securing cash for Tier 3, the big battle will be cash for Tier 2. As local rag reports over the weekend pointed out, the inability to go to the pub or restaurant with friends combined with the curfew has killed trade for businesses supposedly free to stay open.
Which if you think about it is the same fiasco as we saw in March. Don't go to the pub spake the ministers. "what about our livelihoods" say the hospitality trade. "what about it" says the government.
Fuck business vote Tory. Again. How is it they haven't learned a single thing from the first phase of this pandemic?
Why should they they were the world beaters in the last wave so no need to learn anything.
I detect a touch of irony there. Just to reinforce the point, in terms or raw outcomes (deaths & economic hit), we are near the worst in the world.
When are Johnson's apologists going to wake up? We are competing with Spain (not renowned for stable "world beating" government) as to who has handled this the worst. Johnson needs to go, he is making a bad situation much worse.
You do realise don't you that chart is deeply troubled and flawed?
On one axis it has data going to mid October on another axis it has data going to 30 June. Those are not the same data sets and it is completely misleading to put data from two different data sets on a chart like that.
The UK was hit hard in H1 this year, everybody knows that and nobody denies that.
The reason the USA, Brazil and Chile for instance have our level of deaths but much less of an economic hit is because they were hit in Q3 so their deaths are showing but not the economic data which is missing because two different data sets are being disingenuously combined.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Until the Reformation most Lords were Bishops, only after did they become majority hereditary and only now are they majority life peer.
The Archbishops position is not opposition to Brexit per se, only the internal markets bill, so on that is no different to Biden's or Pelosi's or even Theresa May's.
Indeed if the Internal Markets Bill passes and Biden becomes President you can be sure there is zero chance of a US and UK trade deal.
Though it must be said that a majority of Anglicans, 66%, voted for Brexit so the Bishops have to be careful not to be seen to be careful to still respect the delivery of Brexit even if they disagree with the Internal Markets Bill
In the Dark Ages most people were serfs and couldn't vote so I'm not sure what your point is.
You may model yourself on Jacob Rees Mogg but we are not pre-Reformation anymore, this is 2020 and we are a secular, religiously diverse nation: The clerics belong in the past not the Legislature.
As long as we have an appointed upper house the Bishops belong there, along with a few rabbis and imams and other life peers from business, academia, science, sport, the arts, politics, the law etc who have played a key role in our national life.
Unless you go for an all elected upper house then the Bishops should stay
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
In any case, of the five signatories, only Canterbury and York are members of the House of Lords; the Anglican churches in Wales, Scotland and Ireland aren't established.
And whilst nobody sane would want a theocracy, let alone an Anglican one, why wouldn't you at least listen to the leaders of a body with a larger membership than any political party? Especially one with a perspective formed over centuries?
And the points they make aren't incorrect, are they?
In don't want a theocracy either, but if I had to have one an Anglican one would be absolutely first choice as being the closest thing in religion to a freedom of thought liberal society. But of course the problem with theocracy is not the idea but the practice. Anglicanism would soon stop being the all things to all people thing it is if you gave bishops some real clout - because the wrong sort would then want to be bishops.
Point taken. By Anglican I am thinking of the English version. Only English bishops are in the Lords as of right. Though it is worth bearing in mind that in a number of developing countries the Anglican tradition is among the more tolerant of religious groups (check out some of the others), though the competition for tolerance is not strenuous.
What is it with African churches and their absolute terror of gay people? I once had to dismiss a Nigerian when he discovered another team member was gay. He went into meltdown and then went off and sought advice from his vicar/pastor/priest and came back in full-on "conversion therapy" mode on the gay team member. The constant rows brought work to a complete halt, so out he went.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
Ralston is the man who knows Nevada and early voting. When Ralston calls the state his word is law.
While those are optimistic numbers it's not reasonable to say 44k Dem lead is it? Since we know more R voters self identify as registered independents than Dems do?
Never mind the King in the North securing cash for Tier 3, the big battle will be cash for Tier 2. As local rag reports over the weekend pointed out, the inability to go to the pub or restaurant with friends combined with the curfew has killed trade for businesses supposedly free to stay open.
Which if you think about it is the same fiasco as we saw in March. Don't go to the pub spake the ministers. "what about our livelihoods" say the hospitality trade. "what about it" says the government.
Fuck business vote Tory. Again. How is it they haven't learned a single thing from the first phase of this pandemic?
Why should they they were the world beaters in the last wave so no need to learn anything.
I detect a touch of irony there. Just to reinforce the point, in terms or raw outcomes (deaths & economic hit), we are near the worst in the world.
When are Johnson's apologists going to wake up? We are competing with Spain (not renowned for stable "world beating" government) as to who has handled this the worst. Johnson needs to go, he is making a bad situation much worse.
You do realise don't you that chart is deeply troubled and flawed?
On one axis it has data going to mid October on another axis it has data going to 30 June. Those are not the same data sets and it is completely misleading to put data from two different data sets on a chart like that.
The UK was hit hard in H1 this year, everybody knows that and nobody denies that.
The reason the USA, Brazil and Chile for instance have our level of deaths but much less of an economic hit is because they were hit in Q3 so their deaths are showing but not the economic data which is missing because two different data sets are being disingenuously combined.
And to reiterate, any graph without errors on the data is immediately suspect.
No professional scientist or mathematician would do this (though a journalist or politician trying to make a point might).
To claim any correlation, we would need to know the errors on the datapoints and the covariances.
The datapoint error on the horizontal axis is about 100-150, just judged on different totals for deaths reported in the media. So it is substantial. There are others that can estimate the error in the fall of the GDP better than myself.
The correlation claimed may exist, but the graph itself provides no evidence and is tendentious.
For this reason & the one Philip gives, I suspect the FT journalist constructed the graph with the particular aim of forcing the data to tell a particular story.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
If you think I created the idea of us going to the ballot box to elect MPs, or that I created the idea that it is our MPs that are democratically elected, then I think you are giving me far more credit than I deserve. Thank you for the unintended compliment but I am not responsible for creating the idea that MPs are democratically elected.
That the UK is flawed does not discount the flaws in other entities like the EU. I have never pretended the UK is not flawed, not for one second. I'll give you a clue for future reference in case you think this is a smoking gun: I also believe that Johnson is flawed, I believe Sunak is flawed, I believe the Conservative Party is flawed, I believe Gove is flawed and I believe that I am flawed. I believe everyone has flaws. If you think that is a smoking gun because you think you are divine and without flaws then that says more about your own narcissism than it does about me.
As usual, a lot of useful nuggets. Black American vote so far matching its share of the electorate (22%) mainly because of first day voting so looks good for Democrats there. However, one thing they might be worried about is the age split - 36% of NC voters are 40 or under but, so far, only 17% of the votes cast come from that age group.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
In any case, of the five signatories, only Canterbury and York are members of the House of Lords; the Anglican churches in Wales, Scotland and Ireland aren't established.
And whilst nobody sane would want a theocracy, let alone an Anglican one, why wouldn't you at least listen to the leaders of a body with a larger membership than any political party? Especially one with a perspective formed over centuries?
And the points they make aren't incorrect, are they?
In don't want a theocracy either, but if I had to have one an Anglican one would be absolutely first choice as being the closest thing in religion to a freedom of thought liberal society. But of course the problem with theocracy is not the idea but the practice. Anglicanism would soon stop being the all things to all people thing it is if you gave bishops some real clout - because the wrong sort would then want to be bishops.
My tongue was slightly in cheek on that point; as a former PCC member, it's hard to imagine government-by-Anglicanism getting very much of anything done. But the current setup is one of those paradoxes that Britain doing well does so well. The elected government absolutely shouldn't follow the statements of the unelected Lords mindlessly- whether it's the Bishop of Blackburn or Lord Beefy of Botham and Brexit. But if they have any sense, they should reflect on them very carefully indeed.
So, if we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are not total shysters and do actually conduct polls in the way described, the real question is whether their results are likely to be more or less accurate than those of more conventional pollsters. Certainly the fact that they don't seem to weight their figures to get demographically-representative samples is a big red flag.
In theory if your sampling is efficient enough then you shouldn't need to do weighting, ie if you're working off a contact list that's already broken down into whatever demographics you need, and it says the target population has 10% white men under 30, and you're aiming for a sample of 1000, you keep making calls to white men under 30 until you've got 100 of them, then stop calling white men under 30.
The hitch is that it sounds like some of these methods are asynchronous, eg if you're sending out emails you need to send them out today to get the responses within a few days, and you don't know how many will respond. In which case the only way to get a balanced sample without weighting would be to throw away the later responses after the first 100, which would be weirdly wasteful.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
In any case, of the five signatories, only Canterbury and York are members of the House of Lords; the Anglican churches in Wales, Scotland and Ireland aren't established.
And whilst nobody sane would want a theocracy, let alone an Anglican one, why wouldn't you at least listen to the leaders of a body with a larger membership than any political party? Especially one with a perspective formed over centuries?
And the points they make aren't incorrect, are they?
In don't want a theocracy either, but if I had to have one an Anglican one would be absolutely first choice as being the closest thing in religion to a freedom of thought liberal society. But of course the problem with theocracy is not the idea but the practice. Anglicanism would soon stop being the all things to all people thing it is if you gave bishops some real clout - because the wrong sort would then want to be bishops.
Point taken. By Anglican I am thinking of the English version. Only English bishops are in the Lords as of right. Though it is worth bearing in mind that in a number of developing countries the Anglican tradition is among the more tolerant of religious groups (check out some of the others), though the competition for tolerance is not strenuous.
Well as God is, of course, an Englishman I couldn't disagree.
After reviewing the absolute fcking bin fire that is the world today, I have to concur that God is indeed an Englishman.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
If you think I created the idea of us going to the ballot box to elect MPs, or that I created the idea that it is our MPs that are democratically elected, then I think you are giving me far more credit than I deserve. Thank you for the unintended compliment but I am not responsible for creating the idea that MPs are democratically elected.
That the UK is flawed does not discount the flaws in other entities like the EU. I have never pretended the UK is not flawed, not for one second. I'll give you a clue for future reference in case you think this is a smoking gun: I also believe that Johnson is flawed, I believe Sunak is flawed, I believe the Conservative Party is flawed, I believe Gove is flawed and I believe that I am flawed. I believe everyone has flaws. If you think that is a smoking gun because you think you are divine and without flaws then that says more about your own narcissism than it does about me.
Er, thanks for the outpouring.
Here's what I think - that you railed against the EU because it was anti-democratic. You are now railing against the UK because it is anti-democratic.
Hence we can discount your views about anything being anti-democratic including, obvs, the EU.
Ralston is the man who knows Nevada and early voting. When Ralston calls the state his word is law.
While those are optimistic numbers it's not reasonable to say 44k Dem lead is it? Since we know more R voters self identify as registered independents than Dems do?
Mail lead for the Dems in Clark is 33K which would fit in with a 44K lead overall (if I have got something wrong, pls flag).
Twitter comments seem to suggest positive for the Dems. Obvious question is which way the Independents split
Going from 2016, and broadly how we know everyone leans you can add all the non Clark to Trump and 18% of Clark and add 50% of Clark but nowhere else to Biden. That ends up Reno in the Trump 16 column which isn't correct but it's about the limit of what the GOP could achieve this time I think.
Fascinating stuff. Does Robert Cahaly blog here as Mr Ed? Because it sounds like that type of thing to me. Essentially a Republican and pro-Trump take on a complex, multi-faceted election (where you can always if you're sufficiently knowledgeable and motivated generate plausible sounding reasons why it will go the way you want it to) rather than any sort of detached sampling and collection of voter intentions. That said, Betfair is where real people stake real money on this election and Trump has the Mo' on there. Punters think he has a great chance. He's 2.48 to win the EC and 5.8 to win the PV. This compares to a modelling chance of 12% and 4% respectively.
Ralston is the man who knows Nevada and early voting. When Ralston calls the state his word is law.
While those are optimistic numbers it's not reasonable to say 44k Dem lead is it? Since we know more R voters self identify as registered independents than Dems do?
Mail lead for the Dems in Clark is 33K which would fit in with a 44K lead overall (if I have got something wrong, pls flag).
Twitter comments seem to suggest positive for the Dems. Obvious question is which way the Independents split
I'm not sure either side should be particularly happy with Clark so far: Dems aren't doing a great job with in person, and Repubs aren't doing very well with mail in.
Vegas is being hammered right now, despite having very few restrictions.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
Oh I think you will find there are a very large number of people - perhaps even the majority - who feel that, for many diverse and different reasons, the UK is not democratic. Many Scots feel that way because of the English dominance of Parliament. Many feel that way because of the electoral systems we use. Others like me because of the Lords and because of the overly centralised nature of our system. So I am afraid that you are in good company with those children in Beziers. Clearly you and they both know very little about the rights and wrongs of democracy in this country.
Never mind the King in the North securing cash for Tier 3, the big battle will be cash for Tier 2. As local rag reports over the weekend pointed out, the inability to go to the pub or restaurant with friends combined with the curfew has killed trade for businesses supposedly free to stay open.
Which if you think about it is the same fiasco as we saw in March. Don't go to the pub spake the ministers. "what about our livelihoods" say the hospitality trade. "what about it" says the government.
Fuck business vote Tory. Again. How is it they haven't learned a single thing from the first phase of this pandemic?
Why should they they were the world beaters in the last wave so no need to learn anything.
I detect a touch of irony there. Just to reinforce the point, in terms or raw outcomes (deaths & economic hit), we are near the worst in the world.
When are Johnson's apologists going to wake up? We are competing with Spain (not renowned for stable "world beating" government) as to who has handled this the worst. Johnson needs to go, he is making a bad situation much worse.
You do realise don't you that chart is deeply troubled and flawed?
Yes, it's not factored a potential no deal brexit in yet.
"We have never invented a coronavirus vaccine before":
We have; two of them, in animals. We also came pretty close to completing the MERS vaccine before funding was pulled. The vaccine was invented; it hadn't completed trials and no-one wanted to fund or carry out the trials (and too few people were getting infected to test it, anyway).
Tries to imply that only over 60s and the obese or those with co-morbidities can be harmed by the virus; this is not true.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
If you think I created the idea of us going to the ballot box to elect MPs, or that I created the idea that it is our MPs that are democratically elected, then I think you are giving me far more credit than I deserve. Thank you for the unintended compliment but I am not responsible for creating the idea that MPs are democratically elected.
That the UK is flawed does not discount the flaws in other entities like the EU. I have never pretended the UK is not flawed, not for one second. I'll give you a clue for future reference in case you think this is a smoking gun: I also believe that Johnson is flawed, I believe Sunak is flawed, I believe the Conservative Party is flawed, I believe Gove is flawed and I believe that I am flawed. I believe everyone has flaws. If you think that is a smoking gun because you think you are divine and without flaws then that says more about your own narcissism than it does about me.
Er, thanks for the outpouring.
Here's what I think - that you railed against the EU because it was anti-democratic. You are now railing against the UK because it is anti-democratic.
Hence we can discount your views about anything being anti-democratic including, obvs, the EU.
One does not follow from the other.
I'm not railing against the UK anyway, I rail against the Lords and I am far, far from the only person to do so. I'm far from the only person in this thread to do so.
The Lords have been largely neutered anyway by both convention and the Parliament Act while Her Majesty has been entirely neutered into an apolitical figurehead. In my ideal world the Lords would be as neutered as Her Majesty is, they should be there to advise but not decide. If it was up to me I would amend the Parliament Act to reduce the Lords power of delay from one year to one week of 'ping pong'. The Lords should be able to advise the Commons but if after a week the Commons don't want to take their advice then the elected chamber should be supreme.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
Oh I think you will find there are a very large number of people - perhaps even the majority - who feel that, for many diverse and different reasons, the UK is not democratic. Many Scots feel that way because of the English dominance of Parliament. Many feel that way because of the electoral systems we use. Others like me because of the Lords and because of the overly centralised nature of our system. So I am afraid that you are in good company with those children in Beziers. Clearly you and they both know very little about the rights and wrongs of democracy in this country.
As I said, we can instantly discount the fringe, such as you and Philip because you don't identify the UK as being democratic. That's fine - as I said to Phil, perfectly consistent. But instantly ignorable because we now realise that all your rantings about the anti-democratic EU can be applied to what you believe to be the anti-democratic UK.
Whereas I'm willing to bet a fiver that "a majority" even, think that we live in a well-functioning parliamentary democracy.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
Oh I think you will find there are a very large number of people - perhaps even the majority - who feel that, for many diverse and different reasons, the UK is not democratic. Many Scots feel that way because of the English dominance of Parliament. Many feel that way because of the electoral systems we use. Others like me because of the Lords and because of the overly centralised nature of our system. So I am afraid that you are in good company with those children in Beziers. Clearly you and they both know very little about the rights and wrongs of democracy in this country.
That would be the same Scots who elect both MPs at Westminster and MSPs to their own Parliament at Holyrood, while English voters elect MPs only and do not have a Parliament of their own?
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Until the Reformation most Lords were Bishops, only after did they become majority hereditary and only now are they majority life peer.
The Archbishops position is not opposition to Brexit per se, only the internal markets bill, so on that is no different to Biden's or Pelosi's or even Theresa May's.
Indeed if the Internal Markets Bill passes and Biden becomes President you can be sure there is zero chance of a US and UK trade deal.
Though it must be said that a majority of Anglicans, 66%, voted for Brexit so the Bishops have to be careful not to be seen to be careful to still respect the delivery of Brexit even if they disagree with the Internal Markets Bill
In the Dark Ages most people were serfs and couldn't vote so I'm not sure what your point is.
You may model yourself on Jacob Rees Mogg but we are not pre-Reformation anymore, this is 2020 and we are a secular, religiously diverse nation: The clerics belong in the past not the Legislature.
As long as we have an appointed upper house the Bishops belong there, along with a few rabbis and imams and other life peers from business, academia, science, sport, the arts, politics, the law etc who have played a key role in our national life.
Unless you go for an all elected upper house then the Bishops should stay
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
In any case, of the five signatories, only Canterbury and York are members of the House of Lords; the Anglican churches in Wales, Scotland and Ireland aren't established.
And whilst nobody sane would want a theocracy, let alone an Anglican one, why wouldn't you at least listen to the leaders of a body with a larger membership than any political party? Especially one with a perspective formed over centuries?
And the points they make aren't incorrect, are they?
In don't want a theocracy either, but if I had to have one an Anglican one would be absolutely first choice as being the closest thing in religion to a freedom of thought liberal society. But of course the problem with theocracy is not the idea but the practice. Anglicanism would soon stop being the all things to all people thing it is if you gave bishops some real clout - because the wrong sort would then want to be bishops.
Point taken. By Anglican I am thinking of the English version. Only English bishops are in the Lords as of right. Though it is worth bearing in mind that in a number of developing countries the Anglican tradition is among the more tolerant of religious groups (check out some of the others), though the competition for tolerance is not strenuous.
Well as God is, of course, an Englishman I couldn't disagree.
After reviewing the absolute fcking bin fire that is the world today, I have to concur that God is indeed an Englishman.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Until the Reformation most Lords were Bishops, only after did they become majority hereditary and only now are they majority life peer.
The Archbishops position is not opposition to Brexit per se, only the internal markets bill, so on that is no different to Biden's or Pelosi's or even Theresa May's.
Indeed if the Internal Markets Bill passes and Biden becomes President you can be sure there is zero chance of a US and UK trade deal.
Though it must be said that a majority of Anglicans, 66%, voted for Brexit so the Bishops have to be careful not to be seen to be careful to still respect the delivery of Brexit even if they disagree with the Internal Markets Bill
In the Dark Ages most people were serfs and couldn't vote so I'm not sure what your point is.
You may model yourself on Jacob Rees Mogg but we are not pre-Reformation anymore, this is 2020 and we are a secular, religiously diverse nation: The clerics belong in the past not the Legislature.
As long as we have an appointed upper house the Bishops belong there, along with a few rabbis and imams and other life peers from business, academia, science, sport, the arts, politics, the law etc who have played a key role in our national life.
Unless you go for an all elected upper house then the Bishops should stay
Like Botham and Fox?
Yes
What key roles have those two played in our lives?
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Until the Reformation most Lords were Bishops, only after did they become majority hereditary and only now are they majority life peer.
The Archbishops position is not opposition to Brexit per se, only the internal markets bill, so on that is no different to Biden's or Pelosi's or even Theresa May's.
Indeed if the Internal Markets Bill passes and Biden becomes President you can be sure there is zero chance of a US and UK trade deal.
Though it must be said that a majority of Anglicans, 66%, voted for Brexit so the Bishops have to be careful not to be seen to be careful to still respect the delivery of Brexit even if they disagree with the Internal Markets Bill
In the Dark Ages most people were serfs and couldn't vote so I'm not sure what your point is.
You may model yourself on Jacob Rees Mogg but we are not pre-Reformation anymore, this is 2020 and we are a secular, religiously diverse nation: The clerics belong in the past not the Legislature.
As long as we have an appointed upper house the Bishops belong there, along with a few rabbis and imams and other life peers from business, academia, science, sport, the arts, politics, the law etc who have played a key role in our national life.
Unless you go for an all elected upper house then the Bishops should stay
Like Botham and Fox?
Yes
What key roles have those two played in our lives?
Botham is one of our greatest ever cricketers and has done a huge amount for charity, Fox is founder of the Ideas think tank and a former MEP
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
Oh I think you will find there are a very large number of people - perhaps even the majority - who feel that, for many diverse and different reasons, the UK is not democratic. Many Scots feel that way because of the English dominance of Parliament. Many feel that way because of the electoral systems we use. Others like me because of the Lords and because of the overly centralised nature of our system. So I am afraid that you are in good company with those children in Beziers. Clearly you and they both know very little about the rights and wrongs of democracy in this country.
As I said, we can instantly discount the fringe, such as you and Philip because you don't identify the UK as being democratic. That's fine - as I said to Phil, perfectly consistent. But instantly ignorable because we now realise that all your rantings about the anti-democratic EU can be applied to what you believe to be the anti-democratic UK.
Whereas I'm willing to bet a fiver that "a majority" even, think that we live in a well-functioning parliamentary democracy.
I believe we live in a well-functioning parliamentary democracy, because the flaws in our democracy (like the Lords) are pretty small. Doesn't mean that we live in a perfect unflawed parliamentary democracy.
If you think that criticism of the EU is only valid if it comes from extremists who see no faults whatsoever in the UK and believe that the Lords is a democratic institution then your logic is very twisted. I'd rather listen to people who can reasonably see the faults in both sides but still come to an educated balanced viewpoint.
We cannot back down over fishing, we can on state aid, there was nothing specific about state aid in the winning 2019 Tory manifesto unlike on reclaiming our fishing waters
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
If you think I created the idea of us going to the ballot box to elect MPs, or that I created the idea that it is our MPs that are democratically elected, then I think you are giving me far more credit than I deserve. Thank you for the unintended compliment but I am not responsible for creating the idea that MPs are democratically elected.
That the UK is flawed does not discount the flaws in other entities like the EU. I have never pretended the UK is not flawed, not for one second. I'll give you a clue for future reference in case you think this is a smoking gun: I also believe that Johnson is flawed, I believe Sunak is flawed, I believe the Conservative Party is flawed, I believe Gove is flawed and I believe that I am flawed. I believe everyone has flaws. If you think that is a smoking gun because you think you are divine and without flaws then that says more about your own narcissism than it does about me.
Er, thanks for the outpouring.
Here's what I think - that you railed against the EU because it was anti-democratic. You are now railing against the UK because it is anti-democratic.
Hence we can discount your views about anything being anti-democratic including, obvs, the EU.
One does not follow from the other.
I'm not railing against the UK anyway, I rail against the Lords and I am far, far from the only person to do so. I'm far from the only person in this thread to do so.
The Lords have been largely neutered anyway by both convention and the Parliament Act while Her Majesty has been entirely neutered into an apolitical figurehead. In my ideal world the Lords would be as neutered as Her Majesty is, they should be there to advise but not decide. If it was up to me I would amend the Parliament Act to reduce the Lords power of delay from one year to one week of 'ping pong'. The Lords should be able to advise the Commons but if after a week the Commons don't want to take their advice then the elected chamber should be supreme.
Again, all consistent but at least we know what we're dealing with. Someone who wants to dismantle our system of government and voting to leave the EU was a necessary first step along this path.
It's fine to want to dismantle our system of government. But it also puts into context the motivation for leaving the EU. Not so that the UK parliamentary system can act unhindered as a principle of democratic accountability, but as part of a process whereby many elements of our parliamentary system are dismantled and recast in a form that you believe is better.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
Oh I think you will find there are a very large number of people - perhaps even the majority - who feel that, for many diverse and different reasons, the UK is not democratic. Many Scots feel that way because of the English dominance of Parliament. Many feel that way because of the electoral systems we use. Others like me because of the Lords and because of the overly centralised nature of our system. So I am afraid that you are in good company with those children in Beziers. Clearly you and they both know very little about the rights and wrongs of democracy in this country.
That would be the same Scots who elect both MPs at Westminster and MSPs to their own Parliament at Holyrood, while English voters elect MPs only and do not have a Parliament of their own?
Biggest decision this 'country' has made in decades and a great flowering of popular democracy, as the Brexit obsessives would have it.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
If you think I created the idea of us going to the ballot box to elect MPs, or that I created the idea that it is our MPs that are democratically elected, then I think you are giving me far more credit than I deserve. Thank you for the unintended compliment but I am not responsible for creating the idea that MPs are democratically elected.
That the UK is flawed does not discount the flaws in other entities like the EU. I have never pretended the UK is not flawed, not for one second. I'll give you a clue for future reference in case you think this is a smoking gun: I also believe that Johnson is flawed, I believe Sunak is flawed, I believe the Conservative Party is flawed, I believe Gove is flawed and I believe that I am flawed. I believe everyone has flaws. If you think that is a smoking gun because you think you are divine and without flaws then that says more about your own narcissism than it does about me.
Er, thanks for the outpouring.
Here's what I think - that you railed against the EU because it was anti-democratic. You are now railing against the UK because it is anti-democratic.
Hence we can discount your views about anything being anti-democratic including, obvs, the EU.
One does not follow from the other.
I'm not railing against the UK anyway, I rail against the Lords and I am far, far from the only person to do so. I'm far from the only person in this thread to do so.
The Lords have been largely neutered anyway by both convention and the Parliament Act while Her Majesty has been entirely neutered into an apolitical figurehead. In my ideal world the Lords would be as neutered as Her Majesty is, they should be there to advise but not decide. If it was up to me I would amend the Parliament Act to reduce the Lords power of delay from one year to one week of 'ping pong'. The Lords should be able to advise the Commons but if after a week the Commons don't want to take their advice then the elected chamber should be supreme.
Again, all consistent but at least we know what we're dealing with. Someone who wants to dismantle our system of government and voting to leave the EU was a necessary first step along this path.
It's fine to want to dismantle our system of government. But it also puts into context the motivation for leaving the EU. Not so that the UK parliamentary system can act unhindered as a principle of democratic accountability, but as part of a process whereby many elements of our parliamentary system are dismantled and recast in a form that you believe is better.
I don't want to dismantle our system of government. Our system of government is the Commons and the government stems from that.
Lords reform has been on the agenda since before I was old enough to vote. So don't blame me for thinking Lords reform is a reasonable position to have.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
In any case, of the five signatories, only Canterbury and York are members of the House of Lords; the Anglican churches in Wales, Scotland and Ireland aren't established.
And whilst nobody sane would want a theocracy, let alone an Anglican one, why wouldn't you at least listen to the leaders of a body with a larger membership than any political party? Especially one with a perspective formed over centuries?
And the points they make aren't incorrect, are they?
In don't want a theocracy either, but if I had to have one an Anglican one would be absolutely first choice as being the closest thing in religion to a freedom of thought liberal society. But of course the problem with theocracy is not the idea but the practice. Anglicanism would soon stop being the all things to all people thing it is if you gave bishops some real clout - because the wrong sort would then want to be bishops.
Point taken. By Anglican I am thinking of the English version. Only English bishops are in the Lords as of right. Though it is worth bearing in mind that in a number of developing countries the Anglican tradition is among the more tolerant of religious groups (check out some of the others), though the competition for tolerance is not strenuous.
Well as God is, of course, an Englishman I couldn't disagree.
After reviewing the absolute fcking bin fire that is the world today, I have to concur that God is indeed an Englishman.
With a thinning blond mop ?
I think I preferred things when it was Eric Clapton.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
If you think I created the idea of us going to the ballot box to elect MPs, or that I created the idea that it is our MPs that are democratically elected, then I think you are giving me far more credit than I deserve. Thank you for the unintended compliment but I am not responsible for creating the idea that MPs are democratically elected.
That the UK is flawed does not discount the flaws in other entities like the EU. I have never pretended the UK is not flawed, not for one second. I'll give you a clue for future reference in case you think this is a smoking gun: I also believe that Johnson is flawed, I believe Sunak is flawed, I believe the Conservative Party is flawed, I believe Gove is flawed and I believe that I am flawed. I believe everyone has flaws. If you think that is a smoking gun because you think you are divine and without flaws then that says more about your own narcissism than it does about me.
Er, thanks for the outpouring.
Here's what I think - that you railed against the EU because it was anti-democratic. You are now railing against the UK because it is anti-democratic.
Hence we can discount your views about anything being anti-democratic including, obvs, the EU.
One does not follow from the other.
I'm not railing against the UK anyway, I rail against the Lords and I am far, far from the only person to do so. I'm far from the only person in this thread to do so.
The Lords have been largely neutered anyway by both convention and the Parliament Act while Her Majesty has been entirely neutered into an apolitical figurehead. In my ideal world the Lords would be as neutered as Her Majesty is, they should be there to advise but not decide. If it was up to me I would amend the Parliament Act to reduce the Lords power of delay from one year to one week of 'ping pong'. The Lords should be able to advise the Commons but if after a week the Commons don't want to take their advice then the elected chamber should be supreme.
Again, all consistent but at least we know what we're dealing with. Someone who wants to dismantle our system of government and voting to leave the EU was a necessary first step along this path.
It's fine to want to dismantle our system of government. But it also puts into context the motivation for leaving the EU. Not so that the UK parliamentary system can act unhindered as a principle of democratic accountability, but as part of a process whereby many elements of our parliamentary system are dismantled and recast in a form that you believe is better.
I don't want to dismantle our system of government. Our system of government is the Commons and the government stems from that.
Lords reform has been on the agenda since before I was old enough to vote. So don't blame me for thinking Lords reform is a reasonable position to have.
Nah. Our system of government is our system of government.
Is this one of those VAT is 20% always when VAT is actually 5% on a large number of items discussions?
I don't have time for that although I appreciate you do!
This is interesting. It shows how important it is to ensure that people isolate when advised to do so - when returning from abroad, or when suspected of being infectious.
Excellent work from Smithson Jnr on Trafalgar. The only proviso I'd make is that it doesn't necessarily follow that they can't carry out interviews by phone/email etc because they don't seem to have permanent staff. There are lots of telemarketing agencies which can do that kind of work for you. Obviously it costs money, but not ridiculous amounts of money if you're only trying to reach a few hundred people and ask them a small number of questions.
So, if we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are not total shysters and do actually conduct polls in the way described, the real question is whether their results are likely to be more or less accurate than those of more conventional pollsters. Certainly the fact that they don't seem to weight their figures to get demographically-representative samples is a big red flag.
On balance, file their polls in the bin.
On your first point - Given that there's likely to be over $10,000,000,000 spending on this election, it's not much of a stretch to suggest some Republican is happy to spend enough to ask a few hundred people some questions.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
Oh I think you will find there are a very large number of people - perhaps even the majority - who feel that, for many diverse and different reasons, the UK is not democratic. Many Scots feel that way because of the English dominance of Parliament. Many feel that way because of the electoral systems we use. Others like me because of the Lords and because of the overly centralised nature of our system. So I am afraid that you are in good company with those children in Beziers. Clearly you and they both know very little about the rights and wrongs of democracy in this country.
That would be the same Scots who elect both MPs at Westminster and MSPs to their own Parliament at Holyrood, while English voters elect MPs only and do not have a Parliament of their own?
Biggest decision this 'country' has made in decades and a great flowering of popular democracy, as the Brexit obsessives would have it.
England Leave 53% Remain 47%
Scotland Leave 38% Remain 62%
Shut up Jocks and do what we say.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
Oh I think you will find there are a very large number of people - perhaps even the majority - who feel that, for many diverse and different reasons, the UK is not democratic. Many Scots feel that way because of the English dominance of Parliament. Many feel that way because of the electoral systems we use. Others like me because of the Lords and because of the overly centralised nature of our system. So I am afraid that you are in good company with those children in Beziers. Clearly you and they both know very little about the rights and wrongs of democracy in this country.
There is no such thing as a democratic practice which is immune from the criticism that in some respect it is not democratic. There is no ideal standpoint from which to evaluate them. All democracies that work have been have involved an organic process of development, which like all evolutions leave traces of the past lying around, and weaknesses in the current state of play.
But as with evolution the most destructive thing is to destroy the species in the hope of starting afresh.
And further to Trump and Betfair, I must fess up to having called things badly wrong. Important to do this given I am not shy about informing people when I get stuff right. I thought, and have repeatedly opined in the most strident fashion, that if the national polling were to still show him facing a big deficit at this juncture the penny would be dropping with punters and his price would start collapsing towards something like 5 on eve on poll. Well there is little sign of this. The opposite if anything. He's 2.5 as compared to around 3 a couple of weeks ago. Unsmug City.
I see the clerics in the Lord's are sticking their noses into the Brexit debate. Farcical in 2020 Britain that they get a role within the legislature. If someone wants to listen to Priests they should go to Church not Parliament.
The unelected Lords should have their say but after ping pong respect the elected Commons decision.
Jeez Phil are you in favour of the UK's own system of parliamentary democracy or aren't you? I thought you Brexited precisely because you wanted our superior democratic process to work unhindered.
I'm in favour of the democracy element of Parliamentary democracy.
The Lords is not democratic. I have never once endorsed the Lord's overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
Very interesting.
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government. Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
Do you live by the motto of "two wrongs make a right"?
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council. That means the Commons not the European Commission. That means the Commons not the Clergy. That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
Oh it's consistent. Consistent with the fact that you only recognise a very small, Philip Thomson- created idea of democracy as democracy.
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
If you think I created the idea of us going to the ballot box to elect MPs, or that I created the idea that it is our MPs that are democratically elected, then I think you are giving me far more credit than I deserve. Thank you for the unintended compliment but I am not responsible for creating the idea that MPs are democratically elected.
That the UK is flawed does not discount the flaws in other entities like the EU. I have never pretended the UK is not flawed, not for one second. I'll give you a clue for future reference in case you think this is a smoking gun: I also believe that Johnson is flawed, I believe Sunak is flawed, I believe the Conservative Party is flawed, I believe Gove is flawed and I believe that I am flawed. I believe everyone has flaws. If you think that is a smoking gun because you think you are divine and without flaws then that says more about your own narcissism than it does about me.
Er, thanks for the outpouring.
Here's what I think - that you railed against the EU because it was anti-democratic. You are now railing against the UK because it is anti-democratic.
Hence we can discount your views about anything being anti-democratic including, obvs, the EU.
One does not follow from the other.
I'm not railing against the UK anyway, I rail against the Lords and I am far, far from the only person to do so. I'm far from the only person in this thread to do so.
The Lords have been largely neutered anyway by both convention and the Parliament Act while Her Majesty has been entirely neutered into an apolitical figurehead. In my ideal world the Lords would be as neutered as Her Majesty is, they should be there to advise but not decide. If it was up to me I would amend the Parliament Act to reduce the Lords power of delay from one year to one week of 'ping pong'. The Lords should be able to advise the Commons but if after a week the Commons don't want to take their advice then the elected chamber should be supreme.
Again, all consistent but at least we know what we're dealing with. Someone who wants to dismantle our system of government and voting to leave the EU was a necessary first step along this path.
It's fine to want to dismantle our system of government. But it also puts into context the motivation for leaving the EU. Not so that the UK parliamentary system can act unhindered as a principle of democratic accountability, but as part of a process whereby many elements of our parliamentary system are dismantled and recast in a form that you believe is better.
I don't want to dismantle our system of government. Our system of government is the Commons and the government stems from that.
Lords reform has been on the agenda since before I was old enough to vote. So don't blame me for thinking Lords reform is a reasonable position to have.
Nah. Our system of government is our system of government.
Is this one of those VAT is 20% always when VAT is actually 5% on a large number of items discussions?
I don't have time for that although I appreciate you do!
The Commons is our government yes and the Lords respects the Commons almost all the time. If they didn't then Lords reform would come much quicker.
Only you were obsessing that VAT was 20% "always" and obsessing over exceptions when everyone else knew, understood and appreciated that the 5% are the exception and it is the main rate that can't under EU law go below 15%. The exception is not the rule, especially when exceptions are very restricted. 🙄
So, if I understand this, ... the State Aid Rules stop him from hurling govt money at whatever he considers needs govt money so presumably it impacts on the ability to stuff the bank accounts of deserving folk who have been appointed to positions of largesse and power. [Sarcasm alert] Not that there have been any examples of that recently [/Sarcasm alert]
Does "Take Back Control" really mean "Buy loyalty"?
We cannot back down over fishing, we can on state aid, there was nothing specific about state aid in the winning 2019 Tory manifesto unlike on reclaiming our fishing waters
The manifesto made it clear we were taking back control of our laws and our money.
"State aid" is about control of our laws and money. Does everything need to be made explicit for you.
So long as we have control over our laws and money then we are OK according to the manifesto, if we do not have control over our laws and money then the manifesto has been breached.
And further to Trump and Betfair, I must fess up to having called things badly wrong. Important to do this given I am not shy about informing people when I get stuff right. I thought, and have repeatedly opined in the most strident fashion, that if the national polling were to still show him facing a big deficit at this juncture the penny would be dropping with punters and his price would start collapsing towards something like 5 on eve on poll. Well there is little sign of this. The opposite if anything. He's 2.5 as compared to around 3 a couple of weeks ago. Unsmug City.
Yes, but the question is: why? It makes no sense that the markets are moving towards Trump. They should be heading towards what the polls indicate, as the election gets closer and so many votes are already cast.
And further to Trump and Betfair, I must fess up to having called things badly wrong. Important to do this given I am not shy about informing people when I get stuff right. I thought, and have repeatedly opined in the most strident fashion, that if the national polling were to still show him facing a big deficit at this juncture the penny would be dropping with punters and his price would start collapsing towards something like 5 on eve on poll. Well there is little sign of this. The opposite if anything. He's 2.5 as compared to around 3 a couple of weeks ago. Unsmug City.
Yep - me too. I am surprised Biden price is drifting. Couldn't help myself and put a bit more on him. 1.22 for the PV is surely great value. I would really prefer to cash out at least partially before election night if possible though...
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it's so lovely that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I do find it contradictory how a Brexiteer can support Leave but not support Scottish Independence.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.
If you view your 'country' as Scotland then the 2016 Referendum had much, much, much lower turnout than the 2014. Close to a million fewer Scots voted in 2016 than 2014 so it would seem your fellow "Jocks" considered 2014's referendum to be a more important decision.
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926 2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
Always lovely to hear from the PB Scotch experts, it makes all the difference that you 'think' we should have another referendum. However as long as you supinely support the incompetent creeps that are intent on blocking it, that makes not a whit of difference (and you should probably stop bleating on about democracy and all).
I don't support them blocking you having another referendum. I don't support the Tories on everything and I've made it clear I would oppose Westminster blocking another referendum if you win the Holyrood election next year.
Comments
The Archbishops position is not opposition to Brexit per se, only the internal markets bill, so on that is no different to Biden's or Pelosi's or even Theresa May's.
Indeed if the Internal Markets Bill passes and Biden becomes President you can be sure there is zero chance of a US and UK trade deal.
Though it must be said that a majority of Anglicans, 66%, voted for Brexit so the Bishops have to be careful not to be seen to be careful to still respect the delivery of Brexit even if they disagree with the Internal Markets Bill
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/09/20/how-anglicans-tipped-the-brexit-vote/
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1318009427346280448?s=20
Still, you have been shown the smoking gun, yet you still advocate for Trafalgar! Why?
The correlation within London is largely geographic, higher in the north and west, lower in the south and east.
And whilst nobody sane would want a theocracy, let alone an Anglican one, why wouldn't you at least listen to the leaders of a body with a larger membership than any political party? Especially one with a perspective formed over centuries?
And the points they make aren't incorrect, are they?
So the style is affecting me, and someone who's really into brands but fed up with Covid might feel the opposite. Do these differences affect political outcomes? Presumably, but it's hard to predict how. And the institutions simply ask questions that they've been paid to ask (PB could commission a couple of questions for £1000 or so) so it'[s not stable over time.
And if they paid nothing at all, or merely gave me a raffle ticket, I would be demotivated and wouldn't bother, as doing something for nothing that someone else will commercially profit from feels wrong, even though the amount is trivial.
The local law also has ludicrous effects. If you live in Tier 3 and attend a wedding (among the 15) in Tier 1 it is lawful to be at the marriage ceremony but not lawful to attend the reception. When a law is both absurd and unenforceable something has gone wrong.
This is cited as evidence that the polls could change dramatically by election day and, of course, they could. But as each day passes the window for Trump's polling to significantly improve is closing.
The significance of the unprecedented amount of votes being cast ahead of election day is that if there does happen to be another game changer in the pipeline all these votes are being cast before it happens.
I accept that most of the votes being cast are from committed voters but nevertheless it can only really be to Biden's advantage. 42% of 2016 turnout in Texas 2 weeks before election day is not insignificant.
There are nonetheless other problems with drawing conclusions from early voting patterns in Nevada this time. In contrast to previously all electors received forms allowing "mail-in" (postal) voting and have had a couple of weeks to return them, whereas so far there's only been a day of in-person voting in Nevada. Democrats have a whopping lead in mail-in ballots but there is evidence that Trump could have put off his supporters from using that method, because the Reps led in the first day of in-person voting in contrast to losing by a mile in the mail-ins. So the sample to date is clearly skewed until we get more in-person voting.
The source of the stats can be found here:
https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/election-turnout-statistics
You need to compare 2020 to date with the relevant links showing what happened at the same stage in 2016. Because of the potential skew above, I would wait at least until the end of the first week's in-person early voting before drawing too many conclusions. At the moment, based on mail-in early votes and one day's in-person early votes, the Dems are leading by 44k (105 to 61). At the end of the first week's in-person voting the Dems were leading by 30k (151 to 121) and eventually led by 45k or 4% - compared to the 2.4% result.
What can we speculate from all this so far? The critical thing over the next few days is the daily trend in in-person voting - do the Democrats stretch their banked 44k lead or does it start to narrow? The first day of in-person voting was essentially a tie. I suspect that the Democrats' lead will grow in absolute terms, but only to a small degree, on an increased turnout. That's because the Republicans could only tie the first day of in-person voting despite this effectively being the first day of any voting for the absolute core of Trump diehards who believe that mail-in voting is not to be trusted. If the Democrats do stretch their lead slightly, and allowing for Biden doing better than Clinton amongst independents, that would point to a small swing to Biden in Nevada compared to 2016.
One other thing to bear in mind if extrapolating to the national result. Opinion polls have generally been showing a smaller swing to the Democrats in Nevada than nationally and in other key battlegrounds.
You may model yourself on Jacob Rees Mogg but we are not pre-Reformation anymore, this is 2020 and we are a secular, religiously diverse nation: The clerics belong in the past not the Legislature.
One of the 'facts' Neil cites in his argument that Bromley should not be in Tier 2 is that his borough has the largest number of pensioners in London. I suspect that doesn't really strengthen his argument.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2020/6-march/news/world/welby-too-supportive-of-homosexuality-says-church-of-uganda
The Lords is not democratic and we are not a theocracy. I have never once endorsed the Lords overruling the Commons, not even during the Labour years.
The democratic process working unhindered involves getting rid of the Lords too not just Brussels.
Unless you go for an all elected upper house then the Bishops should stay
@Philip_Thompson: The EU is not democratic we want to free ourselves so that we only pay heed to the UK's system of government.
Also @Philip_Thompson: The UK's system of government is not democratic.
On one axis it has data going to mid October on another axis it has data going to 30 June. Those are not the same data sets and it is completely misleading to put data from two different data sets on a chart like that.
The UK was hit hard in H1 this year, everybody knows that and nobody denies that.
The reason the USA, Brazil and Chile for instance have our level of deaths but much less of an economic hit is because they were hit in Q3 so their deaths are showing but not the economic data which is missing because two different data sets are being disingenuously combined.
So, if we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are not total shysters and do actually conduct polls in the way described, the real question is whether their results are likely to be more or less accurate than those of more conventional pollsters. Certainly the fact that they don't seem to weight their figures to get demographically-representative samples is a big red flag.
On balance, file their polls in the bin.
--
Two weeks ago Irish politicians took the major step of disregarding the advice of their public health experts and using their own epidemiological judgment to set policy. Today, this period of independent thinking is expected to effectively come to an end, when the politicians largely acquiesce to the repeated advice to move to level 5 restrictions with what is being trailed as a "blend of level 4 and 5".
In this two-week period the number of daily cases in Ireland has roughly doubled, the number of Covid patients in hospital has increased by more than six-fifths - to about one-third of the previous peak in the spring. Elective surgeries have been cancelled due to a lack of available ICU beds.
Does this presage a similar outcome in England?
Only time will tell.
Here is the 2010 polling average for the Seante race
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/nv/nevada_senate_angle_vs_reid-1517.html
In October there were only 2 polls out of 15 that gave Reid a lead. The RCP average lead on polling day was GOP +2.7 (538 projected a 3 point GOP win) , Reid won by +5.6.
Ralston called it for Reid based, in the main, on Early voting data - https://lasvegassun.com/news/2010/oct/31/atmospherics-are-terrible-reid-he-will-hold/
I believe in democracy, therefore I believe that the power to set our laws should reside in the Commons.
That means the Commons not the European Council.
That means the Commons not the European Commission.
That means the Commons not the Clergy.
That means the Commons not the Lords.
What part of that do you find inconsistent?
We can also, as if we didn't previously, discount all your rantings about the EU being anti-democratic because you also believe that the UK is anti-democratic. Which latter I think even small children in Beziers can appreciate is transparently not the case.
https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/1318055403536539649
Mail lead for the Dems in Clark is 33K which would fit in with a 44K lead overall (if I have got something wrong, pls flag).
Twitter comments seem to suggest positive for the Dems. Obvious question is which way the Independents split
No professional scientist or mathematician would do this (though a journalist or politician trying to make a point might).
To claim any correlation, we would need to know the errors on the datapoints and the covariances.
The datapoint error on the horizontal axis is about 100-150, just judged on different totals for deaths reported in the media. So it is substantial. There are others that can estimate the error in the fall of the GDP better than myself.
The correlation claimed may exist, but the graph itself provides no evidence and is tendentious.
For this reason & the one Philip gives, I suspect the FT journalist constructed the graph with the particular aim of forcing the data to tell a particular story.
That the UK is flawed does not discount the flaws in other entities like the EU. I have never pretended the UK is not flawed, not for one second. I'll give you a clue for future reference in case you think this is a smoking gun: I also believe that Johnson is flawed, I believe Sunak is flawed, I believe the Conservative Party is flawed, I believe Gove is flawed and I believe that I am flawed. I believe everyone has flaws. If you think that is a smoking gun because you think you are divine and without flaws then that says more about your own narcissism than it does about me.
http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/2020/10/nc-first-day-of-absentee-in-person.html
As usual, a lot of useful nuggets. Black American vote so far matching its share of the electorate (22%) mainly because of first day voting so looks good for Democrats there. However, one thing they might be worried about is the age split - 36% of NC voters are 40 or under but, so far, only 17% of the votes cast come from that age group.
The hitch is that it sounds like some of these methods are asynchronous, eg if you're sending out emails you need to send them out today to get the responses within a few days, and you don't know how many will respond. In which case the only way to get a balanced sample without weighting would be to throw away the later responses after the first 100, which would be weirdly wasteful.
Here's what I think - that you railed against the EU because it was anti-democratic. You are now railing against the UK because it is anti-democratic.
Hence we can discount your views about anything being anti-democratic including, obvs, the EU.
That ends up Reno in the Trump 16 column which isn't correct but it's about the limit of what the GOP could achieve this time I think.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1318113766341574657?s=20
Vegas is being hammered right now, despite having very few restrictions.
The question is: who gets blamed?
"We have never invented a coronavirus vaccine before":
We have; two of them, in animals.
We also came pretty close to completing the MERS vaccine before funding was pulled. The vaccine was invented; it hadn't completed trials and no-one wanted to fund or carry out the trials (and too few people were getting infected to test it, anyway).
Tries to imply that only over 60s and the obese or those with co-morbidities can be harmed by the virus; this is not true.
I'm not railing against the UK anyway, I rail against the Lords and I am far, far from the only person to do so. I'm far from the only person in this thread to do so.
The Lords have been largely neutered anyway by both convention and the Parliament Act while Her Majesty has been entirely neutered into an apolitical figurehead. In my ideal world the Lords would be as neutered as Her Majesty is, they should be there to advise but not decide. If it was up to me I would amend the Parliament Act to reduce the Lords power of delay from one year to one week of 'ping pong'. The Lords should be able to advise the Commons but if after a week the Commons don't want to take their advice then the elected chamber should be supreme.
Whereas I'm willing to bet a fiver that "a majority" even, think that we live in a well-functioning parliamentary democracy.
If you think that criticism of the EU is only valid if it comes from extremists who see no faults whatsoever in the UK and believe that the Lords is a democratic institution then your logic is very twisted. I'd rather listen to people who can reasonably see the faults in both sides but still come to an educated balanced viewpoint.
It's fine to want to dismantle our system of government. But it also puts into context the motivation for leaving the EU. Not so that the UK parliamentary system can act unhindered as a principle of democratic accountability, but as part of a process whereby many elements of our parliamentary system are dismantled and recast in a form that you believe is better.
England
Leave 53%
Remain 47%
Scotland
Leave 38%
Remain 62%
Shut up Jocks and do what we say.
Lords reform has been on the agenda since before I was old enough to vote. So don't blame me for thinking Lords reform is a reasonable position to have.
Is this one of those VAT is 20% always when VAT is actually 5% on a large number of items discussions?
I don't have time for that although I appreciate you do!
It's all gone very 1980s
https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1019/1172407-covid-19-midwest/
2014 Remain in the UK: 2,001,926
2016 Remain in the EU: 1,661,191
I think you should have another referendum now and I hope Yes wins, but if they don't then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. In as much as people talk about Scotland being "dragged out" the fact is the Remain vote was about the same as the 2014 Yes vote.
But as with evolution the most destructive thing is to destroy the species in the hope of starting afresh.
Only you were obsessing that VAT was 20% "always" and obsessing over exceptions when everyone else knew, understood and appreciated that the 5% are the exception and it is the main rate that can't under EU law go below 15%. The exception is not the rule, especially when exceptions are very restricted. 🙄
Does "Take Back Control" really mean "Buy loyalty"?
"State aid" is about control of our laws and money. Does everything need to be made explicit for you.
So long as we have control over our laws and money then we are OK according to the manifesto, if we do not have control over our laws and money then the manifesto has been breached.
Look at the complete U-turn they did from praising Johnson's amazing deal in December to saying it was rubbish as soon as Johnson did.
And they have the absolute arrogance to call me a Starmer fanboy.
Personally I'm in favour of Scotland staying but I can see another Indy ref and if I lived in Scotland I would actively consider voting Yes.