Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
The thing is though when I read McCluskey`s words - "I would suggest Peter goes into a room and counts his gold" - I thought he was having a humorous dig at Mandelson for being famously rich. It honestly didn`t occur to me that he is Jewish (who cares?) and that was what he was getting at. I wouldn`t have made the link.
Maybe that`s me being naive. Or could it be that McCluskey didn`t make the link either and the link is being made by others, in which case who is the anti-semite here?
How can I put this?
If somebody is hanging out with a bunch of racists, if they make a remark with a possible racist subtext, they cannot be surprised if it is interpreted as racism.
The solutions are (a) don't hang out with racists or (b) pick your words more carefully.
Or (c) both.
McCluskey and his mates apart - the hard left in general are anti wealth creation. This is a matter of hard-baked ideology. How can they voice their disapproval, and deep dislike frankly, of rich people without being charged with anti-semitism?
Instead of these speculative and usually ill-informed threads (Mike isn't one of them) PLEASE could we have some threads on individuals state and senate battles? There are some wonderful battlegrounds taking place and they make for exciting betting opportunities.
p.s. and no there's no need to be jittery. No there isn't a shy Trump vote. And yes Biden is going to win big.
You claim to be a writer. Write one and send it in. Instead of incessantly complaining about everyone else’s offerings.
No writer worth his or her salt would make such an elementary mistake with the final adverb in Mysticrose's post. The correct word is, and always has been, "bigly".
However, our inquiry found out that in countries such as France, Spain, Portugal and Greece, there are a large number, the total is unknown, of UK nationals who are not yet registered as resident.
However, our inquiry found out that in countries such as France, Spain, Portugal and Greece, there are a large number, the total is unknown, of UK nationals who are not yet registered as resident.
In Spain it will include many who have mis used their EHIC card for medical treatment and now find the can’t afford the insurance required, if under retirement age, for residentia. They will probably stay and just hope an alternative EHIC arrangement is made. Not right but they don’t care.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
The pre Reformation Tory Party maybe.
The modern party is not at all. Get into the 20th century, the rest of us are in the 21st already.
You are a free market liberal hard Brexiteer not a Tory, you voted for Blair and for Farage which just proves the point
Look HYUFD
Just who do you think you are deciding who is a conservative on here.
Thankfully most of us reject your idiotic views and dogma and represent the real centre of the party
Indeed, I could say to you that you are not a conservative, just a kipper in disguise, though I think even Farage would draw the line at sending troops to beat down the good folk of Scotland
I am quite justified in saying you are both at most swing voters not Conservatives when neither of you voted for John Major or William Hague in 1997 and 2001 when the Tories still got almost a third of voters to vote for them but for Blair and New Labour. I was first eligible to vote at a general election in 2001 and cast my first vote for William Hague and the Tories.
I also have never voted for either UKIP or the Brexit Party at either a general election or a European election, at the European elections last year I still voted for the Tories even when Philip was voting for Farage and the Brexit Party.
You are a sad image of a time long gone, thankfully
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
The pre Reformation Tory Party maybe.
The modern party is not at all. Get into the 20th century, the rest of us are in the 21st already.
You are a free market liberal hard Brexiteer not a Tory, you voted for Blair and for Farage which just proves the point
Look HYUFD
Just who do you think you are deciding who is a conservative on here.
Thankfully most of us reject your idiotic views and dogma and represent the real centre of the party
Indeed, I could say to you that you are not a conservative, just a kipper in disguise, though I think even Farage would draw the line at sending troops to beat down the good folk of Scotland
Well said.
The thing that HYUFD seems blissfully ignorant of is that the 17th century Tory Party of gentry and church died hundreds of years ago. The Conservative Party dates back to 1834 and is not the Party he is talking about.
Until very recently, it was both. The David Horton character in the Vicar of Dibley was and is a recognisable archetype. Yes it was a sitcom, but the archetype represented something recognisable because it was real.
The clue is in the name "Conservative", keen (if possible) on conserving things. Incremental reforms where they were needed. Threatening to abolish institutions because they say things that are disagreeable to you isn't conservative.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
The pre Reformation Tory Party maybe.
The modern party is not at all. Get into the 20th century, the rest of us are in the 21st already.
You are a free market liberal hard Brexiteer not a Tory, you voted for Blair and for Farage which just proves the point
Look HYUFD
Just who do you think you are deciding who is a conservative on here.
Thankfully most of us reject your idiotic views and dogma and represent the real centre of the party
Indeed, I could say to you that you are not a conservative, just a kipper in disguise, though I think even Farage would draw the line at sending troops to beat down the good folk of Scotland
Well said.
The thing that HYUFD seems blissfully ignorant of is that the 17th century Tory Party of gentry and church died hundreds of years ago. The Conservative Party dates back to 1834 and is not the Party he is talking about.
Until very recently, it was both. The David Horton character in the Vicar of Dibley was and is a recognisable archetype. Yes it was a sitcom, but the archetype represented something recognisable because it was real.
The clue is in the name "Conservative", keen (if possible) on conserving things. Incremental reforms where they were needed. Threatening to abolish institutions because they say things that are disagreeable to you isn't conservative.
Dominic Cummings isn't a Conservative. Not a member of the party, doesn't buy its ideas. He gives every sign of being a nihilist, in fact, although that may be to mistake empty-headedness for wilful destruction.
Remember, there is absolutely no proof that the Labour Party is riddled with screaming anti-semites.
As you're no longer in it there's at least one less raging loon.
Indeed! I have no doubt that the hard left are glad to be rid of 25 year veteran activists like me who are full of bourgeois ideas like electoral success. If you are a party member you are most welcome to what it has become.
It's true that, if you look at Jacinda Ardern; squint a bit; imagine her as a far left, grumpy old Venezuala obsessed nutcase with a huge and unaddressed anti-semitism problem; and ignore the fact she's a smart, modern, empathetic leader with appeal to moderates, then the parallels are pretty uncanny.
Mr. Nichomar, isn't there some anger by female cyclists at trans cyclists consistently beating them?
Probably, they shouldn’t be allowed to compete in female events unless they are biologically female there is no rational argument to allow trans people to take part if they are biological males.
This issue which seems to get brought up as hugely significant when it really isn't is eerily familiar to the debate we had about gay rights, where it was thought legalising gay acts would lead to the corruption of children
I don't accept that parallel.
The thing is, the vast majority of the time it really shouldn't matter what gender someone is - and hopefully it matters a lot less now than it did. So whether someone was born and raised a different gender to the one that they now present to the world would also not make any difference.
So the debate naturally fixates on that small number of occasions where it does make a difference, of which sex-segregated elite sport is one of the more obvious.
You being a sensible and considered individual whom I have much time for, I can accept making this argument in good faith and we can discuss it - but there are others who are anti-trans/anti-gay (not here) who just use your argument to cover up what is actually an issue with the concept of trans people.
Spot on. It is a valid and genuine concern which is often exaggerated and exploited by those whose actual agenda is to ridicule and de-legitimize transgenderism and trans people. The trick is to distinguish the good faith from the bad faith contributions. I'm sure you find that just as hard as I do - i.e. it's not hard.
Re the second chart, isn't the debate about restrictions in *greater* Manchester, which includes those areas with quite alarming increases in the past few days? You'd need to look at the figures across Greater Manchester as a whole to come to a view.
I see @Big_G_NorthWales and @HYUFD are at daggers drawn yet again. How can this be when both are rock solid true blue Conservative loyalists? Is it indicative of something rotten in the state of Tory?
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
The pre Reformation Tory Party maybe.
The modern party is not at all. Get into the 20th century, the rest of us are in the 21st already.
You are a free market liberal hard Brexiteer not a Tory, you voted for Blair and for Farage which just proves the point
Look HYUFD
Just who do you think you are deciding who is a conservative on here.
Thankfully most of us reject your idiotic views and dogma and represent the real centre of the party
Indeed, I could say to you that you are not a conservative, just a kipper in disguise, though I think even Farage would draw the line at sending troops to beat down the good folk of Scotland
Well said.
The thing that HYUFD seems blissfully ignorant of is that the 17th century Tory Party of gentry and church died hundreds of years ago. The Conservative Party dates back to 1834 and is not the Party he is talking about.
Until very recently, it was both. The David Horton character in the Vicar of Dibley was and is a recognisable archetype. Yes it was a sitcom, but the archetype represented something recognisable because it was real.
The clue is in the name "Conservative", keen (if possible) on conserving things. Incremental reforms where they were needed. Threatening to abolish institutions because they say things that are disagreeable to you isn't conservative.
I agree, indeed in the 19th century even under Disraeli the Tories were the Party of the Anglican Church, the gentry, the monarchy and Gladstone's Liberals were the party of the free trade merchant classes and nonconfirmists.
Indeed at the last general election the Tories still won the Anglican vote comfortably and swept rural areas, Labour did better in urban areas and the Liberals actually got a big swing to them in the City of London and stockbroker belt area of Surrey like Esher and Walton
However, our inquiry found out that in countries such as France, Spain, Portugal and Greece, there are a large number, the total is unknown, of UK nationals who are not yet registered as resident.
The HoC paper says that in Europe there are two systems of acquiring citizens' rights:
A declarative system, where those meeting the conditions required automatically have rights under the Withdrawal Agreement; A constitutive system, where those wishing to obtain or maintain citizens' rights need to go through a mandatory application process. https://houseofcommons.shorthandstories.com/brexit-and-citizens-rights/index.html
But I can't find which applies to Spain (where my son lives with his family)
Keir given yet another chance to distance himself from the past, I suggest he takes it.
Go up against McCluskey? No, I can`t see him doing that.
Well if he doesn’t he’s no better than corbyn and destined for the same future. Get rid of the destructive idiot scouter whilst you can.
The thing is though when I read McCluskey`s words - "I would suggest Peter goes into a room and counts his gold" - I thought he was having a humorous dig at Mandelson for being famously rich. It honestly didn`t occur to me that he is Jewish (who cares?) and that was what he was getting at. I wouldn`t have made the link.
Maybe that`s me being naive. Or could it be that McCluskey didn`t make the link either and the link is being made by others, in which case who is the anti-semite here?
How can I put this?
If somebody is hanging out with a bunch of racists, if they make a remark with a possible racist subtext, they cannot be surprised if it is interpreted as racism.
The solutions are (a) don't hang out with racists or (b) pick your words more carefully.
Or (c) both.
McCluskey and his mates apart - the hard left in general are anti wealth creation. This is a matter of hard-baked ideology. How can they voice their disapproval, and deep dislike frankly, of rich people without being charged with anti-semitism?
I see @Big_G_NorthWales and @HYUFD are at daggers drawn yet again. How can this be when both are rock solid true blue Conservative loyalists? Is it indicative of something rotten in the state of Tory?
HYUFD is a blue Corbynite. Only true believers in his hardcore extreme are real Conservatives in his eyes.
Big G is a proper mainstream Conservative and thus a traitor to the Blue Corbynites.
However, our inquiry found out that in countries such as France, Spain, Portugal and Greece, there are a large number, the total is unknown, of UK nationals who are not yet registered as resident.
The HoC paper says that in Europe there are two systems of acquiring citizens' rights:
A declarative system, where those meeting the conditions required automatically have rights under the Withdrawal Agreement; A constitutive system, where those wishing to obtain or maintain citizens' rights need to go through a mandatory application process. https://houseofcommons.shorthandstories.com/brexit-and-citizens-rights/index.html
But I can't find which applies to Spain (where my son lives with his family)
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
The pre Reformation Tory Party maybe.
The modern party is not at all. Get into the 20th century, the rest of us are in the 21st already.
You are a free market liberal hard Brexiteer not a Tory, you voted for Blair and for Farage which just proves the point
Look HYUFD
Just who do you think you are deciding who is a conservative on here.
Thankfully most of us reject your idiotic views and dogma and represent the real centre of the party
Indeed, I could say to you that you are not a conservative, just a kipper in disguise, though I think even Farage would draw the line at sending troops to beat down the good folk of Scotland
Well said.
The thing that HYUFD seems blissfully ignorant of is that the 17th century Tory Party of gentry and church died hundreds of years ago. The Conservative Party dates back to 1834 and is not the Party he is talking about.
Until very recently, it was both. The David Horton character in the Vicar of Dibley was and is a recognisable archetype. Yes it was a sitcom, but the archetype represented something recognisable because it was real.
The clue is in the name "Conservative", keen (if possible) on conserving things. Incremental reforms where they were needed. Threatening to abolish institutions because they say things that are disagreeable to you isn't conservative.
Dominic Cummings isn't a Conservative. Not a member of the party, doesn't buy its ideas. He gives every sign of being a nihilist, in fact, although that may be to mistake empty-headedness for wilful destruction.
When the dust has settled, someone needs to work out how and why the Conservative party has let someone who is so far from its vision come in and take over. Its as if a host has not just accepted a parasite, but welcomed it in an let it take root in its brain.
OK he can run a successful campaign, but the party has never let oiks like that near the actual levers of power before.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
You do parrot a right wing view of the party and this member respects the Queen but after her I have no feelings either way for the monarchy and as for the church, although confirmed into the CoE, I reject the idea it represents a multicultural view of GB and needs to accept times change and so does it's role.
You also voted for Blair, hardly a traditional Tory in the original tradition.
The Tory Party arose as the party of the crown, the Anglican church and the gentry and the Archbishop of York who has just retired was black so you are wrong on that too, indeed a higher percentage of churchgoers are black in the UK than their percentage of the UK as a whole
Centuries ago it did.
That Tory Party is dead and gone. The modern Conservative Party at least from Disraeli onwards is not the Party you are talking about.
It is, Disraeli was also a staunch monarchist, favourite of Queen Victoria and even converted to the Church of England
I have the impression that Disraeli would do or say anything if it helped the advancement of Mr Disraeli. A man of no fixed principles really.
Interesting. So if we're talking an Australian-style trade arrangement, how many of the 86 treaties have the UK government and EU replicated so far? I wouldn't want to end up with no agreements - the, as others have put it, Afghanistan-style* trade arrangement (unfair to say N Korea or Somalia-style as they're not in WTO).
* Even Afghanistan, of course, is in the process/has completed agreements with the EU, is there a better comparator?
It was 4-4 in a terrifying for the future judgement,
Can they overturn it when post election when it would be 5-4 or is it a final and settled decision now?
A decision is a decision and a binding precedent, including on themselves - they can't revisit it in the same form, though they could think again if a slightly different case arises.
Re the second chart, isn't the debate about restrictions in *greater* Manchester, which includes those areas with quite alarming increases in the past few days? You'd need to look at the figures across Greater Manchester as a whole to come to a view.
Actually, what's going on with the dotted lines? They look very odd, as either provisional results (which may be updated as new) or as projections - the former should be lower than previous trend as they'll revise up, the latter you'd expect to look a bit like preceding trends.
However, our inquiry found out that in countries such as France, Spain, Portugal and Greece, there are a large number, the total is unknown, of UK nationals who are not yet registered as resident.
The HoC paper says that in Europe there are two systems of acquiring citizens' rights:
A declarative system, where those meeting the conditions required automatically have rights under the Withdrawal Agreement; A constitutive system, where those wishing to obtain or maintain citizens' rights need to go through a mandatory application process. https://houseofcommons.shorthandstories.com/brexit-and-citizens-rights/index.html
But I can't find which applies to Spain (where my son lives with his family)
The Conservative Party has effectively been taken over by a radical faction aligned with UKIP/Brexit Party, engineered by Cummings and Johnson. It is now a nativist English populist party. It no longer has the values of the Conservative Party of yore because, for good or ill, it is no longer that party.
I see @Big_G_NorthWales and @HYUFD are at daggers drawn yet again. How can this be when both are rock solid true blue Conservative loyalists? Is it indicative of something rotten in the state of Tory?
I will always reject HYUFD narrow view and look to a moderate position
Indeed as HYUFD keeps saying I am not a conservative as I voted for Blair (twice) but he misses the point that sometimes a party needs time in opposition and on that subject I am not at all certain who I will support at GE 2024
Of course labour are not in a position as yet to tempt me, not least that they still have Corbyn and his cabal as members, but I have no idea what their policies are for the future, how they would address the debt, and how pro business they are
Outside of Independence which I strongly oppose, Nicola Sturgeon is a very good role model for labour
These are and will continue to be very strange times
" Harry S. Truman had inherited the presidency from FDR – who died midterm in 1945 – and was seeking a second term against Republican governor Thomas E. Dewey."
Someone on ths forum would call this seeking a "first term" and taking over counts as a zeroth term.
I see @Big_G_NorthWales and @HYUFD are at daggers drawn yet again. How can this be when both are rock solid true blue Conservative loyalists? Is it indicative of something rotten in the state of Tory?
HYUFD is a blue Corbynite. Only true believers in his hardcore extreme are real Conservatives in his eyes.
Big G is a proper mainstream Conservative and thus a traitor to the Blue Corbynites.
That is not true, I also voted for Cameron and for May as well as Boris.
I am in the middle of the party not its right or its left ie a party loyalist.
Labour voters who voted for Blair and Corbyn would be party loyalists too in a similar way.
I would only be a blue Corbynite if I voted for UKIP in 2015 and only voted Tory post Brexit, similarly hardcore Corbynites would likely have voted for the LDs or Greens in 2005 and 2010 and only switched to Labour from 2015 (and some will now have gone back to the Greens with Starmer now Labour leader)
Why "Zero COVID" is a fool's errand. Guernsey was "Zero COVID" yesterday. Not today - and source unknown (not inbound travel, which has been the case for all cases for several months.
Re the second chart, isn't the debate about restrictions in *greater* Manchester, which includes those areas with quite alarming increases in the past few days? You'd need to look at the figures across Greater Manchester as a whole to come to a view.
Actually, what's going on with the dotted lines? They look very odd, as either provisional results (which may be updated as new) or as projections - the former should be lower than previous trend as they'll revise up, the latter you'd expect to look a bit like preceding trends.
That's the linking the label with the lines, I think. Not data.
" Harry S. Truman had inherited the presidency from FDR – who died midterm in 1945 – and was seeking a second term against Republican governor Thomas E. Dewey."
Someone on ths forum would call this seeking a "first term" and taking over counts as a zeroth term.
Very interesting header, RB. Trump has to overturn a calculated Biden advantage of 3-5% in the key swing states. This isn't an inconceivable possibility
Remember, there is absolutely no proof that the Labour Party is riddled with screaming anti-semites.
Politely ignoring your provocation, but I do wonder where the ECHR investigation has got to? There was some discussion of individuals' right to reply and time to consider what they said, but really it seems time to publish and resolve whatever issues they raise.
I see @Big_G_NorthWales and @HYUFD are at daggers drawn yet again. How can this be when both are rock solid true blue Conservative loyalists? Is it indicative of something rotten in the state of Tory?
Like most (successful) parties the Conservative Party is a broad church with a vast array of different people with different backgrounds and different views.
Same as Labour which is a party that houses Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn.
That second graph in particular is rather deceptive. If you discount the grey area (which you should, since the data are incomplete), then the only district in while cases are actually falling is Manchester, which actually forms a relatively small fraction of the Greater Manchester area.
It's best if you refrain from plotting incomplete data, but if you must, then it should be made very clear that the data is incomplete. Using dotted instead of solid lines for the relevant potion of the graph would be better.
Derek Draper is still in intensive care after seven months. His appears to be an unnusual case, but there’s lots of people suffering badly from a disease that we know relatively little about.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
The pre Reformation Tory Party maybe.
The modern party is not at all. Get into the 20th century, the rest of us are in the 21st already.
You are a free market liberal hard Brexiteer not a Tory, you voted for Blair and for Farage which just proves the point
Look HYUFD
Just who do you think you are deciding who is a conservative on here.
Thankfully most of us reject your idiotic views and dogma and represent the real centre of the party
Indeed, I could say to you that you are not a conservative, just a kipper in disguise, though I think even Farage would draw the line at sending troops to beat down the good folk of Scotland
Well said.
The thing that HYUFD seems blissfully ignorant of is that the 17th century Tory Party of gentry and church died hundreds of years ago. The Conservative Party dates back to 1834 and is not the Party he is talking about.
Until very recently, it was both. The David Horton character in the Vicar of Dibley was and is a recognisable archetype. Yes it was a sitcom, but the archetype represented something recognisable because it was real.
The clue is in the name "Conservative", keen (if possible) on conserving things. Incremental reforms where they were needed. Threatening to abolish institutions because they say things that are disagreeable to you isn't conservative.
Dominic Cummings isn't a Conservative. Not a member of the party, doesn't buy its ideas. He gives every sign of being a nihilist, in fact, although that may be to mistake empty-headedness for wilful destruction.
When the dust has settled, someone needs to work out how and why the Conservative party has let someone who is so far from its vision come in and take over. Its as if a host has not just accepted a parasite, but welcomed it in an let it take root in its brain.
OK he can run a successful campaign, but the party has never let oiks like that near the actual levers of power before.
I posted the idea of Cummings being a parasite a few weeks ago. He is a flea who has found a dog to get him into a warm house.
I see @Big_G_NorthWales and @HYUFD are at daggers drawn yet again. How can this be when both are rock solid true blue Conservative loyalists? Is it indicative of something rotten in the state of Tory?
I would say @Big_G_NorthWales and @HYUFD are Cummings' "useful idiots" or, to put it more politely, useful voting fodder to add to his faction. @Philip_Thompson is where the Conservative Party is at these days
If Corbyn had possessed any leadership abilities and if the Labour Party hadn't tolerated antisemitism, then a great Socialist victory would have been more likely.
Instead of these speculative and usually ill-informed threads (Mike isn't one of them) PLEASE could we have some threads on individuals state and senate battles? There are some wonderful battlegrounds taking place and they make for exciting betting opportunities.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
You do parrot a right wing view of the party and this member respects the Queen but after her I have no feelings either way for the monarchy and as for the church, although confirmed into the CoE, I reject the idea it represents a multicultural view of GB and needs to accept times change and so does it's role.
You also voted for Blair, hardly a traditional Tory in the original tradition.
The Tory Party arose as the party of the crown, the Anglican church and the gentry and the Archbishop of York who has just retired was black so you are wrong on that too, indeed a higher percentage of churchgoers are black in the UK than their percentage of the UK as a whole
Centuries ago it did.
That Tory Party is dead and gone. The modern Conservative Party at least from Disraeli onwards is not the Party you are talking about.
It is, Disraeli was also a staunch monarchist, favourite of Queen Victoria and even converted to the Church of England
The tory party is the party of power.
Look at the last 9 months. Every so called tory 'value' has been totally junked in favour of a debt laden, restriction laden, petty rule laden, state driven, unaccountable state sponsored medic ruled Corbynism.
As Peter Hitchens remarked the other day,the modern Tory party would guillotine the Queen in Trafalgar Square if it thought it could retain power that way.
Well that's Trump fecked, the economy is his ace in the hole.
US voters no longer see Donald Trump’s policies helping recovery
Final pre-election FT-Peterson poll shows more believe president is hurting the economy
Donald Trump’s handling of the US economy is no longer benefiting his candidacy just weeks before election day, with a Financial Times poll finding more Americans believe the president’s policies are hurting rather than helping the recovery.
The final monthly survey of likely voters before November 3 for the FT and the Peter G Peterson Foundation found 46 per cent of Americans believe Mr Trump’s policies had hurt the economy, compared to 44 per cent who said the policies had helped.
It was the first time this year that a larger share of respondents said the president’s economic policies had hurt rather than helped, and was a significant drop-off since the start of the pandemic. In March, before Covid-19 forced nationwide lockdowns, Americans believed Mr Trump’s policies were helping the US economy by an 11-point margin.
In addition, only 32 per cent of Americans now believe they are better off financially now than they were when Mr Trump took office four years ago — equal to the lowest total since the FT-Peterson survey began 12 months ago.
I have no idea what's going to happen in the US general election.
Until around a month ago I always felt that Trump would win because, in the end, Biden just doesn't look "up to it" - he just doesn't have that certain "something" that gives him the Presidential touch.
Then Trump got Covid and everything was turned on its head. I'm sure the polls are overstating Biden and understating Trump but can they *that* wrong???
Then we have Nancy Pelosi's recent moves. Not the actions of someone that's confident their desired candidate will be POTUS IMO.
Its hard to think that Biden can lose this election and Trump can win it... and yet...
Re the second chart, isn't the debate about restrictions in *greater* Manchester, which includes those areas with quite alarming increases in the past few days? You'd need to look at the figures across Greater Manchester as a whole to come to a view.
Actually, what's going on with the dotted lines? They look very odd, as either provisional results (which may be updated as new) or as projections - the former should be lower than previous trend as they'll revise up, the latter you'd expect to look a bit like preceding trends.
That's the linking the label with the lines, I think. Not data.
D'oh! And I'm supposed to be a scientist More coffee, methinks.
However, our inquiry found out that in countries such as France, Spain, Portugal and Greece, there are a large number, the total is unknown, of UK nationals who are not yet registered as resident.
The HoC paper says that in Europe there are two systems of acquiring citizens' rights:
A declarative system, where those meeting the conditions required automatically have rights under the Withdrawal Agreement; A constitutive system, where those wishing to obtain or maintain citizens' rights need to go through a mandatory application process. https://houseofcommons.shorthandstories.com/brexit-and-citizens-rights/index.html
But I can't find which applies to Spain (where my son lives with his family)
Aren't you and or GeoffW confusing residency with citizenship. I can't imagine any EU country lets British citizens claim citizen's rights of that country automatically.
Truman also had a solid record of achievement to fall back on - ending the war with Japan quickly using A-bombs, guiding people successfully through the global famine of 1947, a strong record of willing to be bipartisan that the Congressional Republicans foolishly threw in his teeth, and a willingness to fight for the underprivileged on principle as shown by his extraordinary courage in taking on the segregationists in the Democrats after he realised how wrong he had been to support them. That’s even before we mention his efforts on pensions and healthcare. His agenda blocked by Congress May have been populist but it’s easy to see how it would be popular in many places. Indeed I would argue it was Truman, far more than Roosevelt or Kennedy, who made the Democrats the progressive party in American politics.
What’s Trump got to fall back on? How’s the wall coming along?
To be fair to Trump (yes, I know), foreign policy has been one of his better areas, certainly better than many of his immediate predecessors.
He's not got involved in any shooting wars, has brought US troops back home from all around the world, has stood up to China in the trade arena, and was a key facilitator of the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Gulf States.
But he has royally fucked off his closest allies.
Biden, if he wins, will spend the first year smoothing down the ruffled feathers.
The widow of a man who was killed when a lorry ploughed into his stationary car on a smart motorway has said the wrong person has been jailed.
Alexandru Murgeanu and Jason Mercer died when Prezemyslaw Szuba crashed into their vehicles on a section of the M1 without a hard shoulder.
As I understand it, Smart Motorways are a net benefit in terms of safety, but of course we never know about the lives saved.
I'm not sure about that. Smart Motorways have been a way of widening motorways on the cheap by removing the hard shoulder rather than physically widening the road.
They have a wildly disproportionate number of serious accidents for their percentage of the motorway network, many of which involve vehicles being struck after breaking down in a live lane. It takes something like 17 minutes on average for them to spot a stationery vehicle in a live lane and sign it as closed, which is pretty poor really.
Against this, they are obviously some of busiest sections of motorway, so it's not unsurprising that they have more accidents compared to the network on average. What would be more revealing would be to compare the relative rates between the motorway network as a whole and what are now smart sections now, and say 10 years ago, and see how the relative rates compare.
The other question is how much do we value a life? Widening motorways properly is very expensive. I expect that it's not seen as worth the first extra cost for the lives it saves.
Interestingly, by comparison the main reason rail travel is cripplingly expensive in the UK is that any level of death is seen as unacceptable, and literally millions will be spent to save maybe a life a year. Unlike the road network, where it's accepted that some people will die, we go to huge lengths to prevent rail travelers from death, but the cost implications almost certainly actually cost lives in total as people drive instead as its cheaper!
I have read that car safety design implicitly values a life at $3-4 M (£2-3M). I think that seems reasonable. The NHS stops a bit before that, according to NICE's valuation of a quality-adjusted life year, i.e. the NHS is underfunded somewhat.
With rail travel and certain other fields, a life seems to have infinite value, leading to barmy decisions. Recently, discouraging people from public transport and leaving them to drive might cause air pollution which kills more people than COVID. Indeed has anyone caught COVID on a train or bus ...?
Proper risk comparison is almost unknown except to Prof Spiegelhalter ... and apparently a few people on this forum and doctors like Malcolm Kendrick. If it was done well, more people would be, er, alive.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
The pre Reformation Tory Party maybe.
The modern party is not at all. Get into the 20th century, the rest of us are in the 21st already.
You are a free market liberal hard Brexiteer not a Tory, you voted for Blair and for Farage which just proves the point
Look HYUFD
Just who do you think you are deciding who is a conservative on here.
Thankfully most of us reject your idiotic views and dogma and represent the real centre of the party
Indeed, I could say to you that you are not a conservative, just a kipper in disguise, though I think even Farage would draw the line at sending troops to beat down the good folk of Scotland
Well said.
The thing that HYUFD seems blissfully ignorant of is that the 17th century Tory Party of gentry and church died hundreds of years ago. The Conservative Party dates back to 1834 and is not the Party he is talking about.
Until very recently, it was both. The David Horton character in the Vicar of Dibley was and is a recognisable archetype. Yes it was a sitcom, but the archetype represented something recognisable because it was real.
The clue is in the name "Conservative", keen (if possible) on conserving things. Incremental reforms where they were needed. Threatening to abolish institutions because they say things that are disagreeable to you isn't conservative.
Dominic Cummings isn't a Conservative. Not a member of the party, doesn't buy its ideas. He gives every sign of being a nihilist, in fact, although that may be to mistake empty-headedness for wilful destruction.
When the dust has settled, someone needs to work out how and why the Conservative party has let someone who is so far from its vision come in and take over. Its as if a host has not just accepted a parasite, but welcomed it in an let it take root in its brain.
OK he can run a successful campaign, but the party has never let oiks like that near the actual levers of power before.
I posted the idea of Cummings being a parasite a few weeks ago. He is a flea who has found a dog to get him into a warm house.
I see @Big_G_NorthWales and @HYUFD are at daggers drawn yet again. How can this be when both are rock solid true blue Conservative loyalists? Is it indicative of something rotten in the state of Tory?
I will always reject HYUFD narrow view and look to a moderate position
Indeed as HYUFD keeps saying I am not a conservative as I voted for Blair (twice) but he misses the point that sometimes a party needs time in opposition and on that subject I am not at all certain who I will support at GE 2024
Of course labour are not in a position as yet to tempt me, not least that they still have Corbyn and his cabal as members, but I have no idea what their policies are for the future, how they would address the debt, and how pro business they are
Outside of Independence which I strongly oppose, Nicola Sturgeon is a very good role model for labour
These are and will continue to be very strange times
When the parties change, I change my vote. What do you do, sir?
Is COVID unusual in that its effects range from death at one end of the spectrum through to no symptoms at the other? Does that happen with other viruses?
I found the most uplifting poll the one taken of Jewish voters posted by HYUFD which showed overwhelming support for Biden (55%-22% I think). Even more uplifting were the comments underneath which showed they considered their liberal values and concern for the treatment of immigrants and minorities more important than Israel and Trumps attempts to curry their favour. It convinced me if anything could that this is going to be one of those rare recent plebiscites where the good guys win
Problem is, Johnson quite can't bring himself to polish this turd. But as a turd nailed on and of his own making, polishing is the best thing he can do with it.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
You do parrot a right wing view of the party and this member respects the Queen but after her I have no feelings either way for the monarchy and as for the church, although confirmed into the CoE, I reject the idea it represents a multicultural view of GB and needs to accept times change and so does it's role.
You also voted for Blair, hardly a traditional Tory in the original tradition.
The Tory Party arose as the party of the crown, the Anglican church and the gentry and the Archbishop of York who has just retired was black so you are wrong on that too, indeed a higher percentage of churchgoers are black in the UK than their percentage of the UK as a whole
Centuries ago it did.
That Tory Party is dead and gone. The modern Conservative Party at least from Disraeli onwards is not the Party you are talking about.
It is, Disraeli was also a staunch monarchist, favourite of Queen Victoria and even converted to the Church of England
The tory party is the party of power.
Look at the last 9 months. Every so called tory 'value' has been totally junked in favour of a debt laden, restriction laden, petty rule laden, state driven, unaccountable state sponsored medic ruled Corbynism.
As Peter Hitchens remarked the other day,the modern Tory party would guillotine the Queen in Trafalgar Square if it thought it could retain power that way.
A bunch of careerist opportunists.
Wait until you and that halfwit Hitchens read about the policies Churchill used during world war II to ensure we won that.
I mean Churchill cancelled the general election due in 1940 and was only forced to hold one in 1945 when his allies left the government.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
You do parrot a right wing view of the party and this member respects the Queen but after her I have no feelings either way for the monarchy and as for the church, although confirmed into the CoE, I reject the idea it represents a multicultural view of GB and needs to accept times change and so does it's role.
You also voted for Blair, hardly a traditional Tory in the original tradition.
The Tory Party arose as the party of the crown, the Anglican church and the gentry and the Archbishop of York who has just retired was black so you are wrong on that too, indeed a higher percentage of churchgoers are black in the UK than their percentage of the UK as a whole
Centuries ago it did.
That Tory Party is dead and gone. The modern Conservative Party at least from Disraeli onwards is not the Party you are talking about.
It is, Disraeli was also a staunch monarchist, favourite of Queen Victoria and even converted to the Church of England
The tory party is the party of power.
Look at the last 9 months. Every so called tory 'value' has been totally junked in favour of a debt laden, restriction laden, petty rule laden, state driven, unaccountable state sponsored medic ruled Corbynism.
As Peter Hitchens remarked the other day,the modern Tory party would guillotine the Queen in Trafalgar Square if it thought it could retain power that way.
A bunch of careerist opportunists.
That's pretty on the mark for the last year or so. Before that, I'd say the party was struggling between pragmatists and ideologues. Smartest thing the PM did was persuading Boris to call an election before the Tory grassroots really absorbed the state of the new order.
Is COVID unusual in that its effects range from death at one end of the spectrum through to no symptoms at the other? Does that happen with other viruses?
Wasn't Polio somewhat similar in it's extreme range?
I have no idea what's going to happen in the US general election.
Until around a month ago I always felt that Trump would win because, in the end, Biden just doesn't look "up to it" - he just doesn't have that certain "something" that gives him the Presidential touch.
Then Trump got Covid and everything was turned on its head. I'm sure the polls are overstating Biden and understating Trump but can they *that* wrong???
Then we have Nancy Pelosi's recent moves. Not the actions of someone that's confident their desired candidate will be POTUS IMO.
Its hard to think that Biden can lose this election and Trump can win it... and yet...
The fact is that America is incredibly hard to poll properly. The smaller towns and rural areas where Trump is very powerful and the working class white areas too, especially.
But will these people vote? hell yes.
If you poll liberals in the cities you will get liberal in the city answers and big leads for Biden. But that is not the full picture in the state, necessarily, far from it.
A few pollsters make a massive effort to actually reach the reluctant, busy, often out working people out in the sticks who are for Trump. When you do that, you get a different picture to what some polls find.
Instead of these speculative and usually ill-informed threads (Mike isn't one of them) PLEASE could we have some threads on individuals state and senate battles? There are some wonderful battlegrounds taking place and they make for exciting betting opportunities.
p.s. and no there's no need to be jittery. No there isn't a shy Trump vote. And yes Biden is going to win big.
You claim to be a writer. Write one and send it in. Instead of incessantly complaining about everyone else’s offerings.
My piece is mainly a repeating of what Niall Ferguson said last week about Trump and 1948.
Is he "ill-informed"?
I think not.
Well, he's a bad example actually because he often is. And as I noted right at the start, I think the parallel is at best inexact. All other considerations aside, Truman was a highly experienced campaigner, a senior politician, and could reasonably point to a popular agenda and some key successes. He was also a fairly ordinary person who spoke to voters in ways they understood. About the only thing they have in common is that they were both failed businessmen before entering politics.
But I certainly wouldn't say this piece was ill informed. Don't altogether agree with it, but certainly Trump's cause isn't hopeless, or at least, not as hopeless as it bloody well ought to be.
Mysticrose, as with many of SeanT's identities, seems designed primarily to provoke. Just ignore.
However, our inquiry found out that in countries such as France, Spain, Portugal and Greece, there are a large number, the total is unknown, of UK nationals who are not yet registered as resident.
The HoC paper says that in Europe there are two systems of acquiring citizens' rights:
A declarative system, where those meeting the conditions required automatically have rights under the Withdrawal Agreement; A constitutive system, where those wishing to obtain or maintain citizens' rights need to go through a mandatory application process. https://houseofcommons.shorthandstories.com/brexit-and-citizens-rights/index.html
But I can't find which applies to Spain (where my son lives with his family)
Aren't you and or GeoffW confusing residency with citizenship.
Where do you get that idea?
The UK has processed over 4 million EU citizens settlement status - would that some members of the EU were as efficient as that with UK citizens, given the most any of them will have to process is under a tenth of that.
However, our inquiry found out that in countries such as France, Spain, Portugal and Greece, there are a large number, the total is unknown, of UK nationals who are not yet registered as resident.
The HoC paper says that in Europe there are two systems of acquiring citizens' rights:
A declarative system, where those meeting the conditions required automatically have rights under the Withdrawal Agreement; A constitutive system, where those wishing to obtain or maintain citizens' rights need to go through a mandatory application process. https://houseofcommons.shorthandstories.com/brexit-and-citizens-rights/index.html
But I can't find which applies to Spain (where my son lives with his family)
Aren't you and or GeoffW confusing residency with citizenship. I can't imagine any EU country lets British citizens claim citizen's rights of that country automatically.
It's not to do with citizenship. Just as EU settled status is not about acquiring UK citizenship.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
You do parrot a right wing view of the party and this member respects the Queen but after her I have no feelings either way for the monarchy and as for the church, although confirmed into the CoE, I reject the idea it represents a multicultural view of GB and needs to accept times change and so does it's role.
You also voted for Blair, hardly a traditional Tory in the original tradition.
The Tory Party arose as the party of the crown, the Anglican church and the gentry and the Archbishop of York who has just retired was black so you are wrong on that too, indeed a higher percentage of churchgoers are black in the UK than their percentage of the UK as a whole
Centuries ago it did.
That Tory Party is dead and gone. The modern Conservative Party at least from Disraeli onwards is not the Party you are talking about.
It is, Disraeli was also a staunch monarchist, favourite of Queen Victoria and even converted to the Church of England
The tory party is the party of power.
Look at the last 9 months. Every so called tory 'value' has been totally junked in favour of a debt laden, restriction laden, petty rule laden, state driven, unaccountable state sponsored medic ruled Corbynism.
As Peter Hitchens remarked the other day,the modern Tory party would guillotine the Queen in Trafalgar Square if it thought it could retain power that way.
A bunch of careerist opportunists.
Wait until you and that halfwit Hitchens read about the policies Churchill used during world war II to ensure we won that.
I mean Churchill cancelled the general election due in 1940 and was only forced to hold one in 1945 when his allies left the government.
Warden Hodges there, with his daily 'don't you know there's a pandemic on !' briefing.
Enjoyed the thread header, RB. Thank you. I know they are not easy to write and you expose yourself to flack so all thanks are well-deserved, and that goes for other thread-writers too.
It's always interesting to hear contrarian views but your man rather undermines his own case when he speaks of Trump having a 10% chance. As a number of posters have pointed out, that's about the same ballpark as the major models around, such as 538 and The Economist.
There has been less comment on his shy-Trumper remark, despite the fact he seems to be well off the pace here too. The topic has been much analysed since the polling 'failure' of 2016. I have read two very good articles on it. One was by a highly rated polling firm (Emerson, or maybe Monmouth?) and the other was the Kennedy report into how the pollsters performed generally. Both are worth a read but they're long. The executive summary is:
* Shy-Trumpers do exist. They are mostly to be found in higher income groups, especially amongst segments of the population which are generally thought to be strongly Democrat. (Think middle to upper range executives in big firms in Democrat-voting States.)
* The number is not great - possibly enough to be noticeable at district level but unlikely to be enough to turn a whole State, especially as they have to be netted off against....
* Shy Biden voters: these are the STs mirror image. (Think construction site workers who consider it unwise to let their peers know they think Trump is a schmuck.)
The reports also looked at the related question of under-weighting of low education voters in the samples. This was probably the biggest contributor to the 'fail'. Most decent polling organisations have adjusted for this now, which is not to say that another unforeseen probem may arise, or that it won't cut the other way this time and overestimate Trump's vote. Nobody knows. When you are dealing with humans, anything can happen (which I kind of like and find reassuring.)
Your man is no doubt an excellent historian and I envy you having the opportunity to listen to him, but his knowledge of polls and polling seems to be a little on the thin side. I'd certainly back a number of PB posters against him. In fact, I kind of have.
Re the second chart, isn't the debate about restrictions in *greater* Manchester, which includes those areas with quite alarming increases in the past few days? You'd need to look at the figures across Greater Manchester as a whole to come to a view.
Member of the metropolitan elite unaware of, or unconcerned about, the geography of the North to push their political line? Example 8437 this week alone.
I have no idea what's going to happen in the US general election.
Until around a month ago I always felt that Trump would win because, in the end, Biden just doesn't look "up to it" - he just doesn't have that certain "something" that gives him the Presidential touch.
Then Trump got Covid and everything was turned on its head. I'm sure the polls are overstating Biden and understating Trump but can they *that* wrong???
Then we have Nancy Pelosi's recent moves. Not the actions of someone that's confident their desired candidate will be POTUS IMO.
Its hard to think that Biden can lose this election and Trump can win it... and yet...
The fact is that America is incredibly hard to poll properly. The smaller towns and rural areas where Trump is very powerful and the working class white areas too, especially.
But will these people vote? hell yes.
If you poll liberals in the cities you will get liberal in the city answers and big leads for Biden. But that is not the full picture in the state, necessarily, far from it.
A few pollsters make a massive effort to actually reach the reluctant, busy, often out working people out in the sticks who are for Trump. When you do that, you get a different picture to what some polls find.
Except in 2016 the national polls got it largely right, with them going for a Clinton national lead of 2-3% but it was the state level polling that was largely bobbins.
Re the second chart, isn't the debate about restrictions in *greater* Manchester, which includes those areas with quite alarming increases in the past few days? You'd need to look at the figures across Greater Manchester as a whole to come to a view.
Actually, what's going on with the dotted lines? They look very odd, as either provisional results (which may be updated as new) or as projections - the former should be lower than previous trend as they'll revise up, the latter you'd expect to look a bit like preceding trends.
Interesting about Truman in 48. I suppose there are - at a stretch - some parallels. And of course the election is not over till it's over. Both horses are running and either could win. Totally agree with that. But the evidence points to Biden. He's a strong favourite, should be shorter in the betting, and imo a BIG win for him is more likely than Trump pulling off a surprise. It's easy to overstate Trump's chances if, like me, you find the thought almost unbearable. I'm a natural pessimist myself but in this case I'm not succumbing to it. I am utterly convinced that this time the better side of the great nation of America will prevail. There is one simple question for every voter there. "Given my lived experience of 4 years of Donald Trump in the White House, am I up for 4 more?" That will be a great big fat resounding No. C'mon, of course it will. Guy is unelectable.
The Conservative Party has effectively been taken over by a radical faction aligned with UKIP/Brexit Party, engineered by Cummings and Johnson. It is now a nativist English populist party. It no longer has the values of the Conservative Party of yore because, for good or ill, it is no longer that party.
Certainly in terms of the membership BigG and PT are the ones out of step. The membership seems pretty aligned with UKIP/BXP rather than One Nation Conservatism.
However, our inquiry found out that in countries such as France, Spain, Portugal and Greece, there are a large number, the total is unknown, of UK nationals who are not yet registered as resident.
The HoC paper says that in Europe there are two systems of acquiring citizens' rights:
A declarative system, where those meeting the conditions required automatically have rights under the Withdrawal Agreement; A constitutive system, where those wishing to obtain or maintain citizens' rights need to go through a mandatory application process. https://houseofcommons.shorthandstories.com/brexit-and-citizens-rights/index.html
But I can't find which applies to Spain (where my son lives with his family)
Aren't you and or GeoffW confusing residency with citizenship. I can't imagine any EU country lets British citizens claim citizen's rights of that country automatically.
Residency is a national competency in the EU, I think. The one obligation under FoM rules is that nationals of other member states get the right to permanent residency in the host state after 5 years. This doesn't apply to non-EU nationals.
Michael Gove had a row with the European Commission because national governments weren't in his view proactive enough in giving UK citizens residency under the Withdrawal Agreement. The EC accepted his criticism of national governments but claimed they had no direct authority over them on this.
Getting rid of the Supreme Governor from any role in public is the logical next step.
Absolutely not on either front, the Tory Party is the party of the monarchy and Anglican Church before all else.
The Bishops are entitled to their view on the internal markets bill as long as they also reflect on the fact that most of their congregation, even if not all, voted for Brexit and voted for the Tories.
Baker is an evangelical Christian anyway not a mainline Anglican
You do parrot a right wing view of the party and this member respects the Queen but after her I have no feelings either way for the monarchy and as for the church, although confirmed into the CoE, I reject the idea it represents a multicultural view of GB and needs to accept times change and so does it's role.
You also voted for Blair, hardly a traditional Tory in the original tradition.
The Tory Party arose as the party of the crown, the Anglican church and the gentry and the Archbishop of York who has just retired was black so you are wrong on that too, indeed a higher percentage of churchgoers are black in the UK than their percentage of the UK as a whole
Centuries ago it did.
That Tory Party is dead and gone. The modern Conservative Party at least from Disraeli onwards is not the Party you are talking about.
It is, Disraeli was also a staunch monarchist, favourite of Queen Victoria and even converted to the Church of England
The tory party is the party of power.
Look at the last 9 months. Every so called tory 'value' has been totally junked in favour of a debt laden, restriction laden, petty rule laden, state driven, unaccountable state sponsored medic ruled Corbynism.
As Peter Hitchens remarked the other day,the modern Tory party would guillotine the Queen in Trafalgar Square if it thought it could retain power that way.
A bunch of careerist opportunists.
That's pretty on the mark for the last year or so. Before that, I'd say the party was struggling between pragmatists and ideologues. Smartest thing the PM did was persuading Boris to call an election before the Tory grassroots really absorbed the state of the new order.
That's part of the Cummings mystery. Conservative politicians deeply believe that they ought to be running things. And yet they calmly handed the actual running of things to a scruffy bloke who looks like the Mekon and has made his contempt for Conservatives clear.
I have no idea what's going to happen in the US general election.
Until around a month ago I always felt that Trump would win because, in the end, Biden just doesn't look "up to it" - he just doesn't have that certain "something" that gives him the Presidential touch.
Then Trump got Covid and everything was turned on its head. I'm sure the polls are overstating Biden and understating Trump but can they *that* wrong???
Then we have Nancy Pelosi's recent moves. Not the actions of someone that's confident their desired candidate will be POTUS IMO.
Its hard to think that Biden can lose this election and Trump can win it... and yet...
The fact is that America is incredibly hard to poll properly. The smaller towns and rural areas where Trump is very powerful and the working class white areas too, especially.
But will these people vote? hell yes.
If you poll liberals in the cities you will get liberal in the city answers and big leads for Biden. But that is not the full picture in the state, necessarily, far from it.
A few pollsters make a massive effort to actually reach the reluctant, busy, often out working people out in the sticks who are for Trump. When you do that, you get a different picture to what some polls find.
Except in 2016 the national polls got it largely right, with them going for a Clinton national lead of 2-3% but it was the state level polling that was largely bobbins.
Yes and the 'fail' has been well analysed, as I mention below. The polls were pretty good in 2018. I suspect they will be fine this time too. They have improved immeasurably since Truman/Dewey. If they are out, I suspect it will be down to overcompensation for 2016 but that's just my guess.
One of the most interesting insights I've read into the US election came from Andrew Sullivan last week.
Basically, you could be forgiven for thinking the traffic is all one way. But it isn't. Basically a lot of older white voters are turning to Biden out of fear of control of the virus whilst some Latinos and African-Americans are turning to Trump - the former because they don't like Woke condescension and the latter because poor black voters know what "defunding the police" in their neighbourhoods would really mean.
Defunding the police isn't Biden policy, is there polling evidence that black voters think it is?
I think it's the fear that that sort of sentiment comes with the broader Democratic ticket and could trickle down to affect them at local level.
That seems like a very strained explanation for Trump's support holding up among black people, when there are non-strained explanations like voters rating Trump on the economy.
Why wouldn't that be a factor? Security drives voting behaviour as much as money does - which is really just another form of security:
"Notably, young Black voters don’t seem to feel as negatively about Trump as older Black Americans do. For instance, an early-July African American Research Collaborative poll of battleground states found that 35 percent of 18-to-29-year-old Black adults agreed that although they didn’t always like Trump’s policies, they liked his strong demeanor and defiance of the establishment. Conversely, just 10 percent of those 60 and older said the same."
The claim you mentioned isn't part of what you quoted. It's a hobby-horse of conservative pundits, that completely failed to shift the polls when they said it would. And we're talking about a policy the candidate doesn't have. So I think it needs some kind of evidence, otherwise the default assumption should be that it's a conservative pundit on his hobby-horse again.
I see @Big_G_NorthWales and @HYUFD are at daggers drawn yet again. How can this be when both are rock solid true blue Conservative loyalists? Is it indicative of something rotten in the state of Tory?
I will always reject HYUFD narrow view and look to a moderate position
Indeed as HYUFD keeps saying I am not a conservative as I voted for Blair (twice) but he misses the point that sometimes a party needs time in opposition and on that subject I am not at all certain who I will support at GE 2024
Of course labour are not in a position as yet to tempt me, not least that they still have Corbyn and his cabal as members, but I have no idea what their policies are for the future, how they would address the debt, and how pro business they are
Outside of Independence which I strongly oppose, Nicola Sturgeon is a very good role model for labour
These are and will continue to be very strange times
HYUFD does what the right wing always do. Thy attach themselves to leaders rather than ideas which is why he's now gone from Remainer to Leaver; from Cameron to Johnson and seamlessly to Trump because he reminds him of Johnson.
Re the second chart, isn't the debate about restrictions in *greater* Manchester, which includes those areas with quite alarming increases in the past few days? You'd need to look at the figures across Greater Manchester as a whole to come to a view.
Actually, what's going on with the dotted lines? They look very odd, as either provisional results (which may be updated as new) or as projections - the former should be lower than previous trend as they'll revise up, the latter you'd expect to look a bit like preceding trends.
they are labels...
The bigger question is why don't they appear in the order of the lines?
Whether Trump manages to stagger over the line I think Covid is generally going to be terrible news for incumbents and the 2020's will see a big shift to the left generally (of course there will be a few places that buck this trend)
Enjoyed the thread header, RB. Thank you. I know they are not easy to write and you expose yourself to flack so all thanks are well-deserved, and that goes for other thread-writers too.
It's always interesting to hear contrarian views but your man rather undermines his own case when he speaks of Trump having a 10% chance. As a number of posters have pointed out, that's about the same ballpark as the major models around, such as 538 and The Economist.
There has been less comment on his shy-Trumper remark, despite the fact he seems to be well off the pace here too. The topic has been much analysed since the polling 'failure' of 2016. I have read two very good articles on it. One was by a highly rated polling firm (Emerson, or maybe Monmouth?) and the other was the Kennedy report into how the pollsters performed generally. Both are worth a read but they're long. The executive summary is:
* Shy-Trumpers do exist. They are mostly to be found in higher income groups, especially amongst segments of the population which are generally thought to be strongly Democrat. (Think middle to upper range executives in big firms in Democrat-voting States.)
* The number is not great - possibly enough to be noticeable at district level but unlikely to be enough to turn a whole State, especially as they have to be netted off against....
* Shy Biden voters: these are the STs mirror image. (Think construction site workers who consider it unwise to let their peers know they think Trump is a schmuck.)
The reports also looked at the related question of under-weighting of low education voters in the samples. This was probably the biggest contributor to the 'fail'. Most decent polling organisations have adjusted for this now, which is not to say that another unforeseen probem may arise, or that it won't cut the other way this time and overestimate Trump's vote. Nobody knows. When you are dealing with humans, anything can happen (which I kind of like and find reassuring.)
Your man is no doubt an excellent historian and I envy you having the opportunity to listen to him, but his knowledge of polls and polling seems to be a little on the thin side. I'd certainly back a number of PB posters against him. In fact, I kind of have.
Thanks for this. I should have been clearer in my question earlier about the existence of shy-Trump voters. Clearly they DO exist, and clearly shy-Biden voters exist too. The question is, do we really think one outweighs the other. I don't know what evidence we could find other than, say, looking at the midterm results. The evidence there seems to be that shy voters didn't tip the scales one way or the other. Which is another way of saying the pollsters were right. I think that should be our default position, and only if we see evidence to pull us one way or another should we change our minds. I don't see that evidence (though I haven't looked for it either).
I think there is a psychological effect going on here. I think a great many people are traumatised by the Trumpward lurch and appalled at his demeanour and behaviour, and are genuinely afraid that he will win. But it's the same as the fear of getting blown up by terrorists: the possibilities are much, MUCH lower than the looming fear that it might happen. For me, that explains the gap between polls and markets, and I think we have a happy situation here were the odds-favourite is also pretty damn good value: you're taking money off people hedging against their fears.
Enjoyed the thread header, RB. Thank you. I know they are not easy to write and you expose yourself to flack so all thanks are well-deserved, and that goes for other thread-writers too.
It's always interesting to hear contrarian views but your man rather undermines his own case when he speaks of Trump having a 10% chance. As a number of posters have pointed out, that's about the same ballpark as the major models around, such as 538 and The Economist.
There has been less comment on his shy-Trumper remark, despite the fact he seems to be well off the pace here too. The topic has been much analysed since the polling 'failure' of 2016. I have read two very good articles on it. One was by a highly rated polling firm (Emerson, or maybe Monmouth?) and the other was the Kennedy report into how the pollsters performed generally. Both are worth a read but they're long. The executive summary is:
* Shy-Trumpers do exist. They are mostly to be found in higher income groups, especially amongst segments of the population which are generally thought to be strongly Democrat. (Think middle to upper range executives in big firms in Democrat-voting States.)
* The number is not great - possibly enough to be noticeable at district level but unlikely to be enough to turn a whole State, especially as they have to be netted off against....
* Shy Biden voters: these are the STs mirror image. (Think construction site workers who consider it unwise to let their peers know they think Trump is a schmuck.)
The reports also looked at the related question of under-weighting of low education voters in the samples. This was probably the biggest contributor to the 'fail'. Most decent polling organisations have adjusted for this now, which is not to say that another unforeseen probem may arise, or that it won't cut the other way this time and overestimate Trump's vote. Nobody knows. When you are dealing with humans, anything can happen (which I kind of like and find reassuring.)
Your man is no doubt an excellent historian and I envy you having the opportunity to listen to him, but his knowledge of polls and polling seems to be a little on the thin side. I'd certainly back a number of PB posters against him. In fact, I kind of have.
It is a good article, but I agree with your comments. The parallels between Trump and Truman are, electoral predictions aside, rather strained. I may be being unfair to him, but Ferguson is an historian of decided political views, and it’s not impossible an element of wishful thinking has crept into his analysis (whatever his personal opinion of Trump).
I see @Big_G_NorthWales and @HYUFD are at daggers drawn yet again. How can this be when both are rock solid true blue Conservative loyalists? Is it indicative of something rotten in the state of Tory?
I will always reject HYUFD narrow view and look to a moderate position
Indeed as HYUFD keeps saying I am not a conservative as I voted for Blair (twice) but he misses the point that sometimes a party needs time in opposition and on that subject I am not at all certain who I will support at GE 2024
Of course labour are not in a position as yet to tempt me, not least that they still have Corbyn and his cabal as members, but I have no idea what their policies are for the future, how they would address the debt, and how pro business they are
Outside of Independence which I strongly oppose, Nicola Sturgeon is a very good role model for labour
These are and will continue to be very strange times
HYUFD does what the right wing always do. Thy attach themselves to leaders rather than ideas which is why he's now gone from Remainer to Leaver; from Cameron to Johnson and seamlessly to Trump because he reminds him of Johnson.
Rather like you do if slightly less so.
I am not pro Trump, I just think he could still narrowly win the EC
Whether Trump manages to stagger over the line I think Covid is generally going to be terrible news for incumbents and the 2020's will see a big shift to the left generally (of course there will be a few places that buck this trend)
Bye bye Boris and Tories in 2024 lol!
And bye bye Thatcherite free market too then, the Tories shift to statism under Boris would be mirrored even further by a Starmer Labour government
I see @Big_G_NorthWales and @HYUFD are at daggers drawn yet again. How can this be when both are rock solid true blue Conservative loyalists? Is it indicative of something rotten in the state of Tory?
HYUFD is a blue Corbynite. Only true believers in his hardcore extreme are real Conservatives in his eyes.
Big G is a proper mainstream Conservative and thus a traitor to the Blue Corbynites.
Both voted Remain, so neither are hardcore extreme right wingers. No, I sense we are looking at the "narcissism of small differences" here.
Guys, that is an appropriate learned phrase, I am NOT calling either of you a narcissist.
I see @Big_G_NorthWales and @HYUFD are at daggers drawn yet again. How can this be when both are rock solid true blue Conservative loyalists? Is it indicative of something rotten in the state of Tory?
HYUFD is a blue Corbynite. Only true believers in his hardcore extreme are real Conservatives in his eyes.
Big G is a proper mainstream Conservative and thus a traitor to the Blue Corbynites.
That is not true, I also voted for Cameron and for May as well as Boris.
I am in the middle of the party not its right or its left ie a party loyalist.
Labour voters who voted for Blair and Corbyn would be party loyalists too in a similar way.
I would only be a blue Corbynite if I voted for UKIP in 2015 and only voted Tory post Brexit, similarly hardcore Corbynites would likely have voted for the LDs or Greens in 2005 and 2010 and only switched to Labour from 2015 (and some will now have gone back to the Greens with Starmer now Labour leader)
One of the most interesting insights I've read into the US election came from Andrew Sullivan last week.
Basically, you could be forgiven for thinking the traffic is all one way. But it isn't. Basically a lot of older white voters are turning to Biden out of fear of control of the virus whilst some Latinos and African-Americans are turning to Trump - the former because they don't like Woke condescension and the latter because poor black voters know what "defunding the police" in their neighbourhoods would really mean.
Defunding the police isn't Biden policy, is there polling evidence that black voters think it is?
I think it's the fear that that sort of sentiment comes with the broader Democratic ticket and could trickle down to affect them at local level.
That seems like a very strained explanation for Trump's support holding up among black people, when there are non-strained explanations like voters rating Trump on the economy.
Why wouldn't that be a factor? Security drives voting behaviour as much as money does - which is really just another form of security:
"Notably, young Black voters don’t seem to feel as negatively about Trump as older Black Americans do. For instance, an early-July African American Research Collaborative poll of battleground states found that 35 percent of 18-to-29-year-old Black adults agreed that although they didn’t always like Trump’s policies, they liked his strong demeanor and defiance of the establishment. Conversely, just 10 percent of those 60 and older said the same."
The claim you mentioned isn't part of what you quoted. It's a hobby-horse of conservative pundits, that completely failed to shift the polls when they said it would. And we're talking about a policy the candidate doesn't have. So I think it needs some kind of evidence, otherwise the default assumption should be that it's a conservative pundit on his hobby-horse again.
Andrew Sullivan isn't a conservative pundit.
Andrew Sullivan backed McCain in the primaries and George W Bush in the general election in 2000 but shifted to Kerry in 2004 and has backed the Democrats ever since, he is basically a John McCain Republican
Whether Trump manages to stagger over the line I think Covid is generally going to be terrible news for incumbents and the 2020's are going to to see a big shift to the left generally (of course there will be a few places that buck this trend)
Bye bye Boris and Tories in 2024 lol!
Ardern did well confirming your point as the exception to the rule.
I have no idea what's going to happen in the US general election.
Until around a month ago I always felt that Trump would win because, in the end, Biden just doesn't look "up to it" - he just doesn't have that certain "something" that gives him the Presidential touch.
Then Trump got Covid and everything was turned on its head. I'm sure the polls are overstating Biden and understating Trump but can they *that* wrong???
Then we have Nancy Pelosi's recent moves. Not the actions of someone that's confident their desired candidate will be POTUS IMO.
Its hard to think that Biden can lose this election and Trump can win it... and yet...
The fact is that America is incredibly hard to poll properly. The smaller towns and rural areas where Trump is very powerful and the working class white areas too, especially.
But will these people vote? hell yes.
If you poll liberals in the cities you will get liberal in the city answers and big leads for Biden. But that is not the full picture in the state, necessarily, far from it.
A few pollsters make a massive effort to actually reach the reluctant, busy, often out working people out in the sticks who are for Trump. When you do that, you get a different picture to what some polls find.
I agree, that's why polling of semi-rural/rural key congressional districts in key states is very important.
Comments
He lives in a £700k apartment in central London, that he managed to pay for himself after a row over Unite buying a share in it. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/26/len-mccluskey-repays-400000-unite-put-towards-his-flat
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1318452815119962113?s=20
https://twitter.com/EuroGuido/status/1318487831313002500?s=20
The clue is in the name "Conservative", keen (if possible) on conserving things. Incremental reforms where they were needed. Threatening to abolish institutions because they say things that are disagreeable to you isn't conservative.
Especially since I've been agreeing with Burnham all along. 🙄🙄🙄🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Indeed at the last general election the Tories still won the Anglican vote comfortably and swept rural areas, Labour did better in urban areas and the Liberals actually got a big swing to them in the City of London and stockbroker belt area of Surrey like Esher and Walton
https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/negotiations/aeufta/Pages/default
"We want an FTA with the EU to set the benchmark for what can be achieved between like-minded partners."
The HoC paper says that in Europe there are two systems of acquiring citizens' rights:
A declarative system, where those meeting the conditions required automatically have rights under the Withdrawal Agreement;
A constitutive system, where those wishing to obtain or maintain citizens' rights need to go through a mandatory application process.
https://houseofcommons.shorthandstories.com/brexit-and-citizens-rights/index.html
But I can't find which applies to Spain (where my son lives with his family)
So far, all the EU has said is that 13 countries have opted for the constitutive route and 14 the declaratory, but it has not said which countries are opting for which system.
- Guardian, 30/6/2020
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/30/uk-citizens-rights-eu-at-risk-brexit
Big G is a proper mainstream Conservative and thus a traitor to the Blue Corbynites.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmexeu/849/84905.htm#_idTextAnchor006
OK he can run a successful campaign, but the party has never let oiks like that near the actual levers of power before.
Remind you of anybody in modern times?
* Even Afghanistan, of course, is in the process/has completed agreements with the EU, is there a better comparator?
We are only here for the tips.
https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/1318491649220235264
Indeed as HYUFD keeps saying I am not a conservative as I voted for Blair (twice) but he misses the point that sometimes a party needs time in opposition and on that subject I am not at all certain who I will support at GE 2024
Of course labour are not in a position as yet to tempt me, not least that they still have Corbyn and his cabal as members, but I have no idea what their policies are for the future, how they would address the debt, and how pro business they are
Outside of Independence which I strongly oppose, Nicola Sturgeon is a very good role model for labour
These are and will continue to be very strange times
Someone on ths forum would call this seeking a "first term" and taking over counts as a zeroth term.
I am in the middle of the party not its right or its left ie a party loyalist.
Labour voters who voted for Blair and Corbyn would be party loyalists too in a similar way.
I would only be a blue Corbynite if I voted for UKIP in 2015 and only voted Tory post Brexit, similarly hardcore Corbynites would likely have voted for the LDs or Greens in 2005 and 2010 and only switched to Labour from 2015 (and some will now have gone back to the Greens with Starmer now Labour leader)
https://gov.gg/article/179120/Another-case-of-COVID-19-in-the-Bailiwick
Truman served 45 months out a 48 month term.
Same as Labour which is a party that houses Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn.
It's best if you refrain from plotting incomplete data, but if you must, then it should be made very clear that the data is incomplete. Using dotted instead of solid lines for the relevant potion of the graph would be better.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/20/covid-firm-secures-10m-to-infect-young-volunteers-to-hasten-vaccine
https://twitter.com/clementzampa/status/1318483601256742913
Is he "ill-informed"?
I think not.
Look at the last 9 months. Every so called tory 'value' has been totally junked in favour of a debt laden, restriction laden, petty rule laden, state driven, unaccountable state sponsored medic ruled Corbynism.
As Peter Hitchens remarked the other day,the modern Tory party would guillotine the Queen in Trafalgar Square if it thought it could retain power that way.
A bunch of careerist opportunists.
US voters no longer see Donald Trump’s policies helping recovery
Final pre-election FT-Peterson poll shows more believe president is hurting the economy
Donald Trump’s handling of the US economy is no longer benefiting his candidacy just weeks before election day, with a Financial Times poll finding more Americans believe the president’s policies are hurting rather than helping the recovery.
The final monthly survey of likely voters before November 3 for the FT and the Peter G Peterson Foundation found 46 per cent of Americans believe Mr Trump’s policies had hurt the economy, compared to 44 per cent who said the policies had helped.
It was the first time this year that a larger share of respondents said the president’s economic policies had hurt rather than helped, and was a significant drop-off since the start of the pandemic. In March, before Covid-19 forced nationwide lockdowns, Americans believed Mr Trump’s policies were helping the US economy by an 11-point margin.
In addition, only 32 per cent of Americans now believe they are better off financially now than they were when Mr Trump took office four years ago — equal to the lowest total since the FT-Peterson survey began 12 months ago.
https://www.ft.com/content/64ceaf97-20b6-4274-9fd6-e458978aad85
Until around a month ago I always felt that Trump would win because, in the end, Biden just doesn't look "up to it" - he just doesn't have that certain "something" that gives him the Presidential touch.
Then Trump got Covid and everything was turned on its head. I'm sure the polls are overstating Biden and understating Trump but can they *that* wrong???
Then we have Nancy Pelosi's recent moves. Not the actions of someone that's confident their desired candidate will be POTUS IMO.
Its hard to think that Biden can lose this election and Trump can win it... and yet...
Biden, if he wins, will spend the first year smoothing down the ruffled feathers.
With rail travel and certain other fields, a life seems to have infinite value, leading to barmy decisions. Recently, discouraging people from public transport and leaving them to drive might cause air pollution which kills more people than COVID. Indeed has anyone caught COVID on a train or bus ...?
Proper risk comparison is almost unknown except to Prof Spiegelhalter ... and apparently a few people on this forum and doctors like Malcolm Kendrick. If it was done well, more people would be, er, alive.
(in support of @Big_G_NorthWales position, as is hopefully clear)
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/20/alberta-two-weeks-2020-election-feelings-430238
Even if behaviorally Republican white women were peeling off, the president’s team believed, there was still untapped support among some of their husbands in the suburbs, voters who are foundationally right of center but could not bear to vote for either Trump or Clinton in 2016.
The problem for Trump? That holdout of college-educated white men is breaking—and not in his direction....
I found the most uplifting poll the one taken of Jewish voters posted by HYUFD which showed overwhelming support for Biden (55%-22% I think). Even more uplifting were the comments underneath which showed they considered their liberal values and concern for the treatment of immigrants and minorities more important than Israel and Trumps attempts to curry their favour. It convinced me if anything could that this is going to be one of those rare recent plebiscites where the good guys win
I mean Churchill cancelled the general election due in 1940 and was only forced to hold one in 1945 when his allies left the government.
But will these people vote? hell yes.
If you poll liberals in the cities you will get liberal in the city answers and big leads for Biden. But that is not the full picture in the state, necessarily, far from it.
A few pollsters make a massive effort to actually reach the reluctant, busy, often out working people out in the sticks who are for Trump. When you do that, you get a different picture to what some polls find.
But I certainly wouldn't say this piece was ill informed. Don't altogether agree with it, but certainly Trump's cause isn't hopeless, or at least, not as hopeless as it bloody well ought to be.
Mysticrose, as with many of SeanT's identities, seems designed primarily to provoke. Just ignore.
The UK has processed over 4 million EU citizens settlement status - would that some members of the EU were as efficient as that with UK citizens, given the most any of them will have to process is under a tenth of that.
Put that bloody light out!
You two! stop snogging!
It's always interesting to hear contrarian views but your man rather undermines his own case when he speaks of Trump having a 10% chance. As a number of posters have pointed out, that's about the same ballpark as the major models around, such as 538 and The Economist.
There has been less comment on his shy-Trumper remark, despite the fact he seems to be well off the pace here too. The topic has been much analysed since the polling 'failure' of 2016. I have read two very good articles on it. One was by a highly rated polling firm (Emerson, or maybe Monmouth?) and the other was the Kennedy report into how the pollsters performed generally. Both are worth a read but they're long. The executive summary is:
* Shy-Trumpers do exist. They are mostly to be found in higher income groups, especially amongst segments of the population which are generally thought to be strongly Democrat. (Think middle to upper range executives in big firms in Democrat-voting States.)
* The number is not great - possibly enough to be noticeable at district level but unlikely to be enough to turn a whole State, especially as they have to be netted off against....
* Shy Biden voters: these are the STs mirror image. (Think construction site workers who consider it unwise to let their peers know they think Trump is a schmuck.)
The reports also looked at the related question of under-weighting of low education voters in the samples. This was probably the biggest contributor to the 'fail'. Most decent polling organisations have adjusted for this now, which is not to say that another unforeseen probem may arise, or that it won't cut the other way this time and overestimate Trump's vote. Nobody knows. When you are dealing with humans, anything can happen (which I kind of like and find reassuring.)
Your man is no doubt an excellent historian and I envy you having the opportunity to listen to him, but his knowledge of polls and polling seems to be a little on the thin side. I'd certainly back a number of PB posters against him. In fact, I kind of have.
It's not my fault you don't any history.
Example 8437 this week alone.
Interesting about Truman in 48. I suppose there are - at a stretch - some parallels. And of course the election is not over till it's over. Both horses are running and either could win. Totally agree with that. But the evidence points to Biden. He's a strong favourite, should be shorter in the betting, and imo a BIG win for him is more likely than Trump pulling off a surprise. It's easy to overstate Trump's chances if, like me, you find the thought almost unbearable. I'm a natural pessimist myself but in this case I'm not succumbing to it. I am utterly convinced that this time the better side of the great nation of America will prevail. There is one simple question for every voter there. "Given my lived experience of 4 years of Donald Trump in the White House, am I up for 4 more?" That will be a great big fat resounding No. C'mon, of course it will. Guy is unelectable.
Michael Gove had a row with the European Commission because national governments weren't in his view proactive enough in giving UK citizens residency under the Withdrawal Agreement. The EC accepted his criticism of national governments but claimed they had no direct authority over them on this.
Why?
Rather like you do if slightly less so.
Bye bye Boris and Tories in 2024 lol!
I think there is a psychological effect going on here. I think a great many people are traumatised by the Trumpward lurch and appalled at his demeanour and behaviour, and are genuinely afraid that he will win. But it's the same as the fear of getting blown up by terrorists: the possibilities are much, MUCH lower than the looming fear that it might happen. For me, that explains the gap between polls and markets, and I think we have a happy situation here were the odds-favourite is also pretty damn good value: you're taking money off people hedging against their fears.
The parallels between Trump and Truman are, electoral predictions aside, rather strained. I may be being unfair to him, but Ferguson is an historian of decided political views, and it’s not impossible an element of wishful thinking has crept into his analysis (whatever his personal opinion of Trump).
Guys, that is an appropriate learned phrase, I am NOT calling either of you a narcissist.
Utter and complete nonsense
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/house/pennsylvania/10/ for instance.