Good news, although I wonder how they know the response lasts a year (clearly cannot have actually verified that, I assume based on rate of decline)...
Elissa Slotkin Wants to Know Who’ll Stand Up to Trump If He Loses https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/26/elissa-slotkin-michigan-election-day-431853 ...And what was interesting is, in a number of these scenarios, the president couldn’t do it by himself. He would need the support of his cabinet, particularly the attorney general, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs and the department head of Homeland Security. And with my perch of being on the Armed Services Committee and the Homeland Security Committee we started trying to get these guys on record, trying to get them to think through their own red lines, what are they going to be willing to do and not do if, indeed, the president refuses to accept a loss.
So, we originally tried to ask [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark] Milley and [Defense Secretary Mark] Esper in a hearing in July, but we were so junior that we didn’t get turns. So we did it in questions for the record. Then, I followed up and sent one to Chad Wolf, the acting head of [the Department of] Homeland Security. And then, when the [Director of National Intelligence] started to politicize election-related intelligence, I sent one to the DNI. I wasn’t thinking that their answers would turn the tide on anything, but from my congressional perch, this is what I could do to force these senior leaders into thinking through that they’re going to have to make a call based on what’s greater, their loyalty to the president or their belief in democracy. I was very happy that Milley got back to us and he had fulsome answers. Esper’s answers, I wasn’t so thrilled with; he basically handed it off to a lawyer to give the de minimis response. The DHS got back to us and said, ‘We’re going to be happy to answer your questions after the election,’ which I thought was an interesting approach. All we know about DNI is that they acknowledged receipt....
...Alberta: Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find it worrisome that a freshman congresswoman is laying this out in more detail than anyone else I’ve heard from in Washington. You would think this might be an all-consuming priority, even though it’s a hypothetical to some extent. Why aren’t we hearing more about this?...
As I said at the time of the original row, the PM should have priced up the cost, and offered to match fund anything raised by Rashford and his friends. That would have shut down the argument pretty sharpish.
No, if the government did announce the cost, people would see it is far less than has been wasted on paying Boris's cronies for whatever happens to be in the news this week.
And because the argument is not with Rashford but with the public. Even if CCHQ eviscerated the messenger, people would still think we ought to feed the children.
Excellent news, especially if it's safer among the older population.
Indeed. Hooray for boffins. Going from a virus not existing to (touch wood) a working vaccine in about a year is brilliant if you stop and think about it. I wonder how far back in history you'd have to go for that to be a pipe dream?
We sometimes miss the under-the-radar things that science quietly delivers that make life better and cleaner. LED lights, which got mentioned this morning, are another.
10 years ago despite a big marketing push from apple not many people had smartphones. They were popular with under 40 professionals with a high enough income to afford it. Now a very high proportion of adults have a smartphone, and I would guess the proportion of smartphone users is as high as the proportion of mobile phone users was in 2010. Just on example where STEM has had a huge impact on our lives.
The Field Programmable Gate Array is one of my favourite "Underrated technological innovations of the last 40 years" (and not just because I spent five years programming them). Most digital integrated circuits from the 80s into the 2000s were application specific. You put them on silicon and then they could never be changed. The FPGA is a reconfigurable digital circuit, which lets you update the firmware to fix errors and enhance functionality. They're used in almost everything now. Smart TVs are a good example: they allow you to do fast and low power parallel processing like an ASIC, but you can update them to use different codecs or to have better image enhancement algorithms. They're ubiquitous in telecoms and defense. Finance guys seem to like them as co-processors and Intel now offer cloud services with gate arrays by the artists-formerly-known-as-Altera.
Excellent news, especially if it's safer among the older population.
Works for about one year is absolutely ideal for Astra Zeneca.
Yep - as a product, needing an annual renewal is bang on the money for making HUGE returns. Imagine if it was a one off, immune for life product. Big profit in 2021, then limited thereafter...
On Lindsay Graham, Nate Silver had a piece on why it is so difficult for the Democrats to get over the line in SC.
I think if he is going to be defeated, it would need a larger than usual Black turnout to do so. There are few signs anywhere in the US that the Black vote is seeing a big upswing vs 2016
The AA early vote is down marginally (percentage-wise) in North Carolina, so one would expect something similar in South Carolina.
As I said at the time of the original row, the PM should have priced up the cost, and offered to match fund anything raised by Rashford and his friends. That would have shut down the argument pretty sharpish.
They wouldn't do that. Messrs Rashford & Co are not the only people taking in 6- figure sums annually. And it would raise the question why footie stars and the taxpayer should be paying, and why Tory Party pols and their backers were refusing to join in.
Is your objection that you disagree with the taxpayer paying anything, or that you disagree with philanthropic footballers like Rashford paying anything?
PS The way vaccines are developed has changed fundamentally with CRISPR-Cas 9. Now we can think about having a standard chassis which we know to be safe, and just at the target antigen to the chassis for a new vaccine (the Oxford approach, IIUC). And there are a bunch of entirely new approaches to vaccines. This NYT article provides a truly excellent overview of potential approaches and who is doing what re COVD
Excellent news, especially if it's safer among the older population.
Indeed. Hooray for boffins. Going from a virus not existing to (touch wood) a working vaccine in about a year is brilliant if you stop and think about it. I wonder how far back in history you'd have to go for that to be a pipe dream?
We sometimes miss the under-the-radar things that science quietly delivers that make life better and cleaner. LED lights, which got mentioned this morning, are another.
I think the previous record for a vaccine was 4 years.
Was that the Ebola vaccine? We did have a bit of an advantage out the gate on this one, which is one of the very, very few good things about this bloody virus. Since it's related to MERS and SARS a couple of companies that had vaccine candidates for those in their file systems were able to dust off the research and hit the ground running.
One thing I am curious about: Would a flu pandemic have been easier to develop a vaccine against, because we're generally pretty good at targeting individual flu strains?
A PB was asking yesterday what we thought of 'Roadkill'.
Here's Simon Heffer's view:
"One doesn’t need to be steeped in the realities of British politics (and I have written about them for 35 years) to discern on the briefest acquaintance that this series is one of the greatest turkeys even in the recent inglorious history of the BBC’s drama department."
(telegraph)
And Hugh Laurie did not even need the paycheque, after House he was the highest paid TV actor in the world.
Watched the first episode but watched Rebecca on Netflix instead rather than the second episode, may watch on iplayer if really bored
What was the Netflix Rebacca like? Every remake seems to suffer in comparison to Hitchcock's film.
Excellent news, especially if it's safer among the older population.
Works for about one year is absolutely ideal for Astra Zeneca.
Yep - as a product, needing an annual renewal is bang on the money for making HUGE returns. Imagine if it was a one off, immune for life product. Big profit in 2021, then limited thereafter...
Assuming that it's a decently effective vaccine (70%+) then I think the PR coup from "Stopped a Pandemic" is worth more for AstraZeneca than almost anything else. It's a free pass from government regulation for the next two decades and more investment and research money than Croesus.
Excellent news, especially if it's safer among the older population.
Indeed. Hooray for boffins. Going from a virus not existing to (touch wood) a working vaccine in about a year is brilliant if you stop and think about it. I wonder how far back in history you'd have to go for that to be a pipe dream?
We sometimes miss the under-the-radar things that science quietly delivers that make life better and cleaner. LED lights, which got mentioned this morning, are another.
10 years ago despite a big marketing push from apple not many people had smartphones. They were popular with under 40 professionals with a high enough income to afford it. Now a very high proportion of adults have a smartphone, and I would guess the proportion of smartphone users is as high as the proportion of mobile phone users was in 2010. Just on example where STEM has had a huge impact on our lives.
Personally, I think synthetic biology is going to be the biggest STEM revolution we've ever seen. Rapid vaccine production is just the tip of the iceberg.
Just as long as New Rose Hotel isn't on the menu....
On Lindsay Graham, Nate Silver had a piece on why it is so difficult for the Democrats to get over the line in SC.
I think if he is going to be defeated, it would need a larger than usual Black turnout to do so. There are few signs anywhere in the US that the Black vote is seeing a big upswing vs 2016
The AA early vote is down marginally (percentage-wise) in North Carolina, so one would expect something similar in South Carolina.
What that means in reality depends on how much AA voter-registration increased between 2016 and now.
Caveat: I am not a bettor, I read PB for the political news and personalities (honest), but I think we have an interesting House race here in New York that the more puntery of you might find interesting to look into.
tl;dr: NY-11 may be a "surprise" Republican House pick-up next week.
The 11th Congressional District of New York (NY-11 to its friends), is by far the most conservative of the 11 NYS districts wholly or partially in the City of New York. It is made up of Staten Island, by a very long margin the most, and indeed only, Republican-leaning of the five boros, and a fairly small chunk of SW Brooklyn. It was the only NYC district to vote for Trump in 2016, 54-44.
NY-11 has been the only NYC Congressional district to elect a Republican in the last few cycles, but that run came to an end in the 2018 "blue wave" when Democrat Max Rose flipped it 53-47 in one of the bigger surprises of the night.
Right now, pretty much every other political ad on NYC market TV stations is for one side or the other in NY-11, both from the campaigns themselves and supportive PACs, and many of them are vicious. Rose himself is a conservative Democrat and a US Army veteran, but he is being pilloried for giving qualified support to police reform efforts in the wake of the George Floyd killing. His Republican opponent, state rep Nicole Malliotakis is being attacked as a "fraud" for trying to play down her voting record at Albany and other things. My wife grew up in Rhode Island, which has a history of rough-and-tumble political campaigns, and she says she cannot recall seeing ads quite like these before.
What's interesting is that in the last week or so, the tenor the ads placed by the Rose campaign has shifted from attack ads (although there are still plenty running from Democrat-supporting PACs) to Rose simply saying it's been a hell of a year but we came together as a city and made the best of it, etc. etc. The GOP and affiliated-PAC ads have remained relentlessly negative against Rose.
So, will NY-11 flip back to the Republicans? I don't know, but NY-11 is a "naturally" Republican seat. if not overwhelmingly so, as it's rated a modest R+3 (every other NYC House seat is D+1 or more). On a balance of probabilities, one would expect it to go for Trump again this year, and that suggests Malliotakis will ride home on his coat-tails. OTOH the power of incumbency in House elections should never be underestimated.
The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats should easily retain their House majority and may even increase it somewhat, but there are always outliers that buck the trend. NY-11 may well be one.
Does half the New York City police force live there ? That's the only demographic I can see being GOP in New York City.
Large second and third generation Irish and Italian immigrant populations, who are certainly more Trump friendly than many other demographics. One half of my in-laws family is from there and are very aware that they swim against the political tide.
There was a recent Trump supporters parade in West Brighton not long ago.
At this rate by the election he'll have clawed back a whole 0.8%!
For much of the electorate, polling day has already been and gone.
Novel idea: do elections like this; have a day set aside well in advance when everybody votes in person at their local polling booth on the same day.
I would actually support early in person voting here, perhaps at a smaller number of centralised polling stations - not spread across weeks, but potentially the proceeding weekend?
As I said at the time of the original row, the PM should have priced up the cost, and offered to match fund anything raised by Rashford and his friends. That would have shut down the argument pretty sharpish.
They wouldn't do that. Messrs Rashford & Co are not the only people taking in 6- figure sums annually. And it would raise the question why footie stars and the taxpayer should be paying, and why Tory Party pols and their backers were refusing to join in.
Is your objection that you disagree with the taxpayer paying anything, or that you disagree with philanthropic footballers like Rashford paying anything?
Not mine personally. Just an objective assessment of a fairly wide sector of public reaction, helped by some parts of the media (not the DT, obviously).
As I said at the time of the original row, the PM should have priced up the cost, and offered to match fund anything raised by Rashford and his friends. That would have shut down the argument pretty sharpish.
No, if the government did announce the cost, people would see it is far less than has been wasted on paying Boris's cronies for whatever happens to be in the news this week.
And because the argument is not with Rashford but with the public. Even if CCHQ eviscerated the messenger, people would still think we ought to feed the children.
This isn't a serious contribution to the discussion. We should 'feed the children', 'treat the sick', 'look after the elderly', 'house the homeless', etc., but there are still practical limits on the degree to which we do all these things based on what the public purse can afford. That is true of left wing governments as much as it is of this one. When an extremely liquid individual who is being ruthlessly PR'd as an 'activist' makes a demand of the taxpayer, I think it's entirely right that they be asked to support the activity by raising some of the money.
A PB was asking yesterday what we thought of 'Roadkill'.
Here's Simon Heffer's view:
"One doesn’t need to be steeped in the realities of British politics (and I have written about them for 35 years) to discern on the briefest acquaintance that this series is one of the greatest turkeys even in the recent inglorious history of the BBC’s drama department."
(telegraph)
And Hugh Laurie did not even need the paycheque, after House he was the highest paid TV actor in the world.
Watched the first episode but watched Rebecca on Netflix instead rather than the second episode, may watch on iplayer if really bored
What was the Netflix Rebacca like? Every remake seems to suffer in comparison to Hitchcock's film.
It was watchable, certainly more so than Roadkill and beautifully shot, even if not as good as the Hitchcock version
Starmer ought to put out a virtually identical copy of that ad just with a Labour logo in the right hand bottom corner.
The Brexit Party would sue, Labour would settle, there would be quite a bit of publicity, and a lot of Leave voters would conclude that Labour are on their side after all.
Full details here 'Trump earns 84% support among Republicans. Biden has 77% of the Democrat vote and leads by seven among voters not affiliated with either major party.'
On Lindsay Graham, Nate Silver had a piece on why it is so difficult for the Democrats to get over the line in SC.
I think if he is going to be defeated, it would need a larger than usual Black turnout to do so. There are few signs anywhere in the US that the Black vote is seeing a big upswing vs 2016
The AA early vote is down marginally (percentage-wise) in North Carolina, so one would expect something similar in South Carolina.
Trump won NC by about 160,000 votes.
So far 85,000 people who did vote in 2012 and did not vote in 2016 have voted early in 2020
Full details here 'Trump earns 84% support among Republicans. Biden has 77% of the Democrat vote and leads by seven among voters not affiliated with either major party.'
On Lindsay Graham, Nate Silver had a piece on why it is so difficult for the Democrats to get over the line in SC.
I think if he is going to be defeated, it would need a larger than usual Black turnout to do so. There are few signs anywhere in the US that the Black vote is seeing a big upswing vs 2016
The AA early vote is down marginally (percentage-wise) in North Carolina, so one would expect something similar in South Carolina.
What that means in reality depends on how much AA voter-registration increased between 2016 and now.
What I was saying (badly) is that the percentage of the early vote in NC from African Americans has declined about half a point relative to 2012. That being said... If AA voters are more likely to early vote, and the early vote is larger proportionally in 2020 (both of which seen plausible statistics), then this might cancel that out.
A PB was asking yesterday what we thought of 'Roadkill'.
Here's Simon Heffer's view:
"One doesn’t need to be steeped in the realities of British politics (and I have written about them for 35 years) to discern on the briefest acquaintance that this series is one of the greatest turkeys even in the recent inglorious history of the BBC’s drama department."
(telegraph)
And Hugh Laurie did not even need the paycheque, after House he was the highest paid TV actor in the world.
Watched the first episode but watched Rebecca on Netflix instead rather than the second episode, may watch on iplayer if really bored
Hugh Laurie shows the value of the BBC brand which can land international stars for far less than Hollywood pays. St Hugh is by far the greatest thing about Roadkill (and he went to Eton; is he a contemporary of any leading politicians?).
But Roadkill is dire because the story keeps tripping over what ought to be incidental details. Barristers do not investigate their clients once the case is over. Second generation Irish women who grew up in London do not speak with Irish accents.
Investigative reporters who withdraw their evidence in libel actions would not be astonished to discover this does not impress their newspaper or its insurance (for libel) company. Nor then fly to America to research the story they printed based on evidence they no longer believe.
Tory MPs being paid to make speeches, or to favour privatisation, is not the stuff of scandal.
And so on and so forth. David Hare is a famous writer and this seems to have deterred any attempt at script-editing. It is a shame because there is a good story struggling to get out.
Biden is going to be complete crap, but he's not Trump and so will win.
We’ve all been there.
Indeed, we are there.
I don't think Biden will be as rubbish as Boris.
He'll have a better team around him, I guess.
Yes as a basic minimum there will be more politically savvy operators in the team, I also expect the hard left to be marginalised from day one which I'm sure they scream about.
A PB was asking yesterday what we thought of 'Roadkill'.
Here's Simon Heffer's view:
"One doesn’t need to be steeped in the realities of British politics (and I have written about them for 35 years) to discern on the briefest acquaintance that this series is one of the greatest turkeys even in the recent inglorious history of the BBC’s drama department."
(telegraph)
And Hugh Laurie did not even need the paycheque, after House he was the highest paid TV actor in the world.
Watched the first episode but watched Rebecca on Netflix instead rather than the second episode, may watch on iplayer if really bored
What was the Netflix Rebacca like? Every remake seems to suffer in comparison to Hitchcock's film.
It was watchable, certainly more so than Roadkill and beautifully shot, even if not as good as the Hitchcock version
We watched Mrs America over a few nights last week - really enjoyable. Great production values - seemed to capture the 60s and 70s so well. Very nuanced characters too.
It's also rather late to bet the Brexitanian farm on this hypothetical industry.
But give him credit for addressing the inconvenient truth that the UK are bigger fans of fishing than of eating fish. Though smearing it on our faces may not be the answer.
Starmer ought to put out a virtually identical copy of that ad just with a Labour logo in the right hand bottom corner.
The Brexit Party would sue, Labour would settle, there would be quite a bit of publicity, and a lot of Leave voters would conclude that Labour are on their side after all.
It's also rather late to bet the Brexitanian farm on this hypothetical industry.
But give him credit for addressing the inconvenient truth that the UK are bigger fans of fishing than of eating fish. Though smearing it on our faces may not be the answer.
Also a bit late for him and his ilk to admit that inconvenient truth, I suppose.
I'm somehow reminded of the exhibition which I once saw at Berwick-upon-Tweed, of sculpture made from discarded salmon skins . It was visually - but also olfactorily - striking. Not that that is any moral for the above, of course.
As I said at the time of the original row, the PM should have priced up the cost, and offered to match fund anything raised by Rashford and his friends. That would have shut down the argument pretty sharpish.
No, if the government did announce the cost, people would see it is far less than has been wasted on paying Boris's cronies for whatever happens to be in the news this week.
And because the argument is not with Rashford but with the public. Even if CCHQ eviscerated the messenger, people would still think we ought to feed the children.
This isn't a serious contribution to the discussion. We should 'feed the children', 'treat the sick', 'look after the elderly', 'house the homeless', etc., but there are still practical limits on the degree to which we do all these things based on what the public purse can afford. That is true of left wing governments as much as it is of this one. When an extremely liquid individual who is being ruthlessly PR'd as an 'activist' makes a demand of the taxpayer, I think it's entirely right that they be asked to support the activity by raising some of the money.
You miss the point. Think of Jim Hacker saving the dog in Yes, Prime Minister. This is not about ending child poverty. It is about feeding poor children for a week or two. Rashford is on the side of the angels. As Churchill said of America, the government will do the right thing but only after trying everything else.
A PB was asking yesterday what we thought of 'Roadkill'.
Here's Simon Heffer's view:
"One doesn’t need to be steeped in the realities of British politics (and I have written about them for 35 years) to discern on the briefest acquaintance that this series is one of the greatest turkeys even in the recent inglorious history of the BBC’s drama department."
(telegraph)
And Hugh Laurie did not even need the paycheque, after House he was the highest paid TV actor in the world.
Watched the first episode but watched Rebecca on Netflix instead rather than the second episode, may watch on iplayer if really bored
What was the Netflix Rebacca like? Every remake seems to suffer in comparison to Hitchcock's film.
It was watchable, certainly more so than Roadkill and beautifully shot, even if not as good as the Hitchcock version
We watched Mrs America over a few nights last week - really enjoyable. Great production values - seemed to capture the 60s and 70s so well. Very nuanced characters too.
Still available on iPlayer.
Yes, watched that too, was far superior to Roadkill
A PB was asking yesterday what we thought of 'Roadkill'.
Here's Simon Heffer's view:
"One doesn’t need to be steeped in the realities of British politics (and I have written about them for 35 years) to discern on the briefest acquaintance that this series is one of the greatest turkeys even in the recent inglorious history of the BBC’s drama department."
(telegraph)
And Hugh Laurie did not even need the paycheque, after House he was the highest paid TV actor in the world.
Watched the first episode but watched Rebecca on Netflix instead rather than the second episode, may watch on iplayer if really bored
Quite a lot of poor lighting. And the Whitehall scenes are strange. One thing I noted was that at the PM's SPAD, in bed with her boyfriend just after 'lovemaking' still had quite a substantial bra on. It's a long long time since I had practical experience of pre-marital experiences such as that, but IIRC, normally the bra got in the way of foreplay.
A PB was asking yesterday what we thought of 'Roadkill'.
Here's Simon Heffer's view:
"One doesn’t need to be steeped in the realities of British politics (and I have written about them for 35 years) to discern on the briefest acquaintance that this series is one of the greatest turkeys even in the recent inglorious history of the BBC’s drama department."
(telegraph)
And Hugh Laurie did not even need the paycheque, after House he was the highest paid TV actor in the world.
Watched the first episode but watched Rebecca on Netflix instead rather than the second episode, may watch on iplayer if really bored
Hugh Laurie shows the value of the BBC brand which can land international stars for far less than Hollywood pays. St Hugh is by far the greatest thing about Roadkill (and he went to Eton; is he a contemporary of any leading politicians?).
But Roadkill is dire because the story keeps tripping over what ought to be incidental details. Barristers do not investigate their clients once the case is over. Second generation Irish women who grew up in London do not speak with Irish accents.
Investigative reporters who withdraw their evidence in libel actions would not be astonished to discover this does not impress their newspaper or its insurance (for libel) company. Nor then fly to America to research the story they printed based on evidence they no longer believe.
Tory MPs being paid to make speeches, or to favour privatisation, is not the stuff of scandal.
And so on and so forth. David Hare is a famous writer and this seems to have deterred any attempt at script-editing. It is a shame because there is a good story struggling to get out.
If the story is badly put together I'm not sure that's a ringing endorsement of the BBC.
The age of the Beeb making the best of British drama has long since passed. Yet still the licence fee costs far more than Netflix.
It's also rather late to bet the Brexitanian farm on this hypothetical industry.
But give him credit for addressing the inconvenient truth that the UK are bigger fans of fishing than of eating fish. Though smearing it on our faces may not be the answer.
IMO this is the big "bUt FiSH" thing that the Tories are happy to ignore. A very large amount of our catches go to Europe. If we end up in a no deal situation we'll have fish mountains that suddenly become much more expensive to their buyers and continental fisheries will go bust. It's in no ones interest, least of all the salty sailor, to crash out because the clown show wants to look well 'ard on fisheries.
It's also rather late to bet the Brexitanian farm on this hypothetical industry.
But give him credit for addressing the inconvenient truth that the UK are bigger fans of fishing than of eating fish. Though smearing it on our faces may not be the answer.
IMO this is the big "bUt FiSH" thing that the Tories are happy to ignore. A very large amount of our catches go to Europe. If we end up in a no deal situation we'll have fish mountains that suddenly become much more expensive to their buyers and continental fisheries will go bust. It's in no ones interest, least of all the salty sailor, to crash out because the clown show wants to look well 'ard on fisheries.
Indeed. Here's an example re Scottish coastal fisheries.
Full details here 'Trump earns 84% support among Republicans. Biden has 77% of the Democrat vote and leads by seven among voters not affiliated with either major party.'
Looking at those figures, clearly Biden is too low 77% of Dems sounds wrong . So the question more is are they right about Trump......I still think the actual national is around +5/+6 Biden but again its a case of is he racking up votes in Texas, Georgia , even Alaska, but not in the really tight swing states.
Also in regards the size of crowds, Trumps base are always going to show up in force, even if he was on 35% not 45% so a huge crowd in say NH which he only narrowly lost last time means very little, Enthusiasm and large crowds are baked in, and prove nothing people didnt already know.
In all the debate re: fish & Brexit, has anyone noticed that worldwide there is a HUGE problem with depleted fish stocks and declining fisheries?
OR is the North Sea & eastern North Atlantic immune from such environmental problems?
Problem here is that the EU played a major role in stopping, or at least slowing, overfishing. Now we don't know what will happen. Or of the fish can be exported at all, come to think of it.
Excellent news, especially if it's safer among the older population.
Indeed. Hooray for boffins. Going from a virus not existing to (touch wood) a working vaccine in about a year is brilliant if you stop and think about it. I wonder how far back in history you'd have to go for that to be a pipe dream?
We sometimes miss the under-the-radar things that science quietly delivers that make life better and cleaner. LED lights, which got mentioned this morning, are another.
10 years ago despite a big marketing push from apple not many people had smartphones. They were popular with under 40 professionals with a high enough income to afford it. Now a very high proportion of adults have a smartphone, and I would guess the proportion of smartphone users is as high as the proportion of mobile phone users was in 2010. Just on example where STEM has had a huge impact on our lives.
I've noticed that a lot of the contemporary genre novels I've read recently have been set in the 90s or earlier to get around ubiquitous cell-phone usage derailing the plot where the protagonists get into trouble somewhere.
Well known author S.K.Tremayne sets his novel "The Ice Twins" on a remote Scottish island to achieve the same effect.
Full details here 'Trump earns 84% support among Republicans. Biden has 77% of the Democrat vote and leads by seven among voters not affiliated with either major party.'
Looking at those figures, clearly Biden is too low 77% of Dems sounds wrong . So the question more is are they right about Trump......I still think the actual national is around +5/+6 Biden but again its a case of is he racking up votes in Texas, Georgia , even Alaska, but not in the really tight swing states.
Also in regards the size of crowds, Trumps base are always going to show up in force, even if he was on 35% not 45% so a huge crowd in say NH which he only narrowly lost last time means very little, Enthusiasm and large crowds are baked in, and prove nothing people didnt already know.
I am still finding it hard not to be spooked by those crowds tbh.
Question to PB Tories: Did the 2017 Corbyn rallies spook you at all?
Excellent news, especially if it's safer among the older population.
Indeed. Hooray for boffins. Going from a virus not existing to (touch wood) a working vaccine in about a year is brilliant if you stop and think about it. I wonder how far back in history you'd have to go for that to be a pipe dream?
We sometimes miss the under-the-radar things that science quietly delivers that make life better and cleaner. LED lights, which got mentioned this morning, are another.
10 years ago despite a big marketing push from apple not many people had smartphones. They were popular with under 40 professionals with a high enough income to afford it. Now a very high proportion of adults have a smartphone, and I would guess the proportion of smartphone users is as high as the proportion of mobile phone users was in 2010. Just on example where STEM has had a huge impact on our lives.
I've noticed that a lot of the contemporary genre novels I've read recently have been set in the 90s or earlier to get around ubiquitous cell-phone usage derailing the plot where the protagonists get into trouble somewhere.
Well known author S.K.Tremayne sets his novel "The Ice Twins" on a remote Scottish island to achieve the same effect.
Same effect could have been achieved in parts of North Dorset... or along most of the Waterloo to Exeter train line west of Basingstoke.
As I said at the time of the original row, the PM should have priced up the cost, and offered to match fund anything raised by Rashford and his friends. That would have shut down the argument pretty sharpish.
No, if the government did announce the cost, people would see it is far less than has been wasted on paying Boris's cronies for whatever happens to be in the news this week.
And because the argument is not with Rashford but with the public. Even if CCHQ eviscerated the messenger, people would still think we ought to feed the children.
This isn't a serious contribution to the discussion. We should 'feed the children', 'treat the sick', 'look after the elderly', 'house the homeless', etc., but there are still practical limits on the degree to which we do all these things based on what the public purse can afford. That is true of left wing governments as much as it is of this one. When an extremely liquid individual who is being ruthlessly PR'd as an 'activist' makes a demand of the taxpayer, I think it's entirely right that they be asked to support the activity by raising some of the money.
You miss the point. Think of Jim Hacker saving the dog in Yes, Prime Minister. This is not about ending child poverty. It is about feeding poor children for a week or two. Rashford is on the side of the angels. As Churchill said of America, the government will do the right thing but only after trying everything else.
I don't think I am missing the point. As I see it, there are two 'rights', what is morally right and what is expedient politically. My solution is both. Yours is merely expedient, and in the long term, not even that, because you'll soon have every pampered millionaire with a Twitter account demanding the taxpayer funds their pet cause.
In all the debate re: fish & Brexit, has anyone noticed that worldwide there is a HUGE problem with depleted fish stocks and declining fisheries?
OR is the North Sea & eastern North Atlantic immune from such environmental problems?
When these issues are raised generally the CFP is blamed for the decline in fish stocks too.
Offshore wind might be our best hope for the fisheries. It will create areas that are hard for trawlers to fish, providing a safe zone in which stocks may recover, to spillover into the neighbouring fished areas.
Full details here 'Trump earns 84% support among Republicans. Biden has 77% of the Democrat vote and leads by seven among voters not affiliated with either major party.'
Looking at those figures, clearly Biden is too low 77% of Dems sounds wrong . So the question more is are they right about Trump......I still think the actual national is around +5/+6 Biden but again its a case of is he racking up votes in Texas, Georgia , even Alaska, but not in the really tight swing states.
Also in regards the size of crowds, Trumps base are always going to show up in force, even if he was on 35% not 45% so a huge crowd in say NH which he only narrowly lost last time means very little, Enthusiasm and large crowds are baked in, and prove nothing people didnt already know.
Rasmussen paywall their crossbreaks... I'd love to know what % of respondents HAVE already voted and if so how they voted.
In all the debate re: fish & Brexit, has anyone noticed that worldwide there is a HUGE problem with depleted fish stocks and declining fisheries?
OR is the North Sea & eastern North Atlantic immune from such environmental problems?
Problem here is that the EU played a major role in stopping, or at least slowing, overfishing. Now we don't know what will happen. Or of the fish can be exported at all, come to think of it.
Unusually, my wife and I, ,lunching out the other day were offered haddock and chips.Normally, of course it's cod, which don't swim in British waters, whereas haddock do. Sign of the time.perhaps. My venison was excellent; did ask if it was local (muntjac) but the waitress didn't know.
A PB was asking yesterday what we thought of 'Roadkill'.
Here's Simon Heffer's view:
"One doesn’t need to be steeped in the realities of British politics (and I have written about them for 35 years) to discern on the briefest acquaintance that this series is one of the greatest turkeys even in the recent inglorious history of the BBC’s drama department."
(telegraph)
And Hugh Laurie did not even need the paycheque, after House he was the highest paid TV actor in the world.
Watched the first episode but watched Rebecca on Netflix instead rather than the second episode, may watch on iplayer if really bored
Hugh Laurie shows the value of the BBC brand which can land international stars for far less than Hollywood pays. St Hugh is by far the greatest thing about Roadkill (and he went to Eton; is he a contemporary of any leading politicians?).
But Roadkill is dire because the story keeps tripping over what ought to be incidental details. Barristers do not investigate their clients once the case is over. Second generation Irish women who grew up in London do not speak with Irish accents.
Investigative reporters who withdraw their evidence in libel actions would not be astonished to discover this does not impress their newspaper or its insurance (for libel) company. Nor then fly to America to research the story they printed based on evidence they no longer believe.
Tory MPs being paid to make speeches, or to favour privatisation, is not the stuff of scandal.
And so on and so forth. David Hare is a famous writer and this seems to have deterred any attempt at script-editing. It is a shame because there is a good story struggling to get out.
If the story is badly put together I'm not sure that's a ringing endorsement of the BBC.
The age of the Beeb making the best of British drama has long since passed. Yet still the licence fee costs far more than Netflix.
Amazon and Netflix often seem to make rather heavy weather of their in house produced dramas.
That said, Netflix is filming one down the seafront here from tomorrow. 'The Beast must die'. Apparently.
Excellent news, especially if it's safer among the older population.
Indeed. Hooray for boffins. Going from a virus not existing to (touch wood) a working vaccine in about a year is brilliant if you stop and think about it. I wonder how far back in history you'd have to go for that to be a pipe dream?
We sometimes miss the under-the-radar things that science quietly delivers that make life better and cleaner. LED lights, which got mentioned this morning, are another.
10 years ago despite a big marketing push from apple not many people had smartphones. They were popular with under 40 professionals with a high enough income to afford it. Now a very high proportion of adults have a smartphone, and I would guess the proportion of smartphone users is as high as the proportion of mobile phone users was in 2010. Just on example where STEM has had a huge impact on our lives.
I've noticed that a lot of the contemporary genre novels I've read recently have been set in the 90s or earlier to get around ubiquitous cell-phone usage derailing the plot where the protagonists get into trouble somewhere.
Well known author S.K.Tremayne sets his novel "The Ice Twins" on a remote Scottish island to achieve the same effect.
In my experience it doesn't even have to be a remote island. Or an island
Excellent news, especially if it's safer among the older population.
Indeed. Hooray for boffins. Going from a virus not existing to (touch wood) a working vaccine in about a year is brilliant if you stop and think about it. I wonder how far back in history you'd have to go for that to be a pipe dream?
We sometimes miss the under-the-radar things that science quietly delivers that make life better and cleaner. LED lights, which got mentioned this morning, are another.
10 years ago despite a big marketing push from apple not many people had smartphones. They were popular with under 40 professionals with a high enough income to afford it. Now a very high proportion of adults have a smartphone, and I would guess the proportion of smartphone users is as high as the proportion of mobile phone users was in 2010. Just on example where STEM has had a huge impact on our lives.
I've noticed that a lot of the contemporary genre novels I've read recently have been set in the 90s or earlier to get around ubiquitous cell-phone usage derailing the plot where the protagonists get into trouble somewhere.
Well known author S.K.Tremayne sets his novel "The Ice Twins" on a remote Scottish island to achieve the same effect.
Full details here 'Trump earns 84% support among Republicans. Biden has 77% of the Democrat vote and leads by seven among voters not affiliated with either major party.'
Looking at those figures, clearly Biden is too low 77% of Dems sounds wrong . So the question more is are they right about Trump......I still think the actual national is around +5/+6 Biden but again its a case of is he racking up votes in Texas, Georgia , even Alaska, but not in the really tight swing states.
Also in regards the size of crowds, Trumps base are always going to show up in force, even if he was on 35% not 45% so a huge crowd in say NH which he only narrowly lost last time means very little, Enthusiasm and large crowds are baked in, and prove nothing people didnt already know.
I am still finding it hard not to be spooked by those crowds tbh.
Question to PB Tories: Did the 2017 Corbyn rallies spook you at all?
As a certified PB Tory (tm), "oh Jeremy Corbyn", if anything, made everything clearer. It demonstrated that the people inside the rally/festival etc. were so unlike any normal person on the street they could be disregarded. Rallies would be more impactful if the crowd appeared to be floating voters.
A PB was asking yesterday what we thought of 'Roadkill'.
Here's Simon Heffer's view:
"One doesn’t need to be steeped in the realities of British politics (and I have written about them for 35 years) to discern on the briefest acquaintance that this series is one of the greatest turkeys even in the recent inglorious history of the BBC’s drama department."
(telegraph)
And Hugh Laurie did not even need the paycheque, after House he was the highest paid TV actor in the world.
Watched the first episode but watched Rebecca on Netflix instead rather than the second episode, may watch on iplayer if really bored
Hugh Laurie shows the value of the BBC brand which can land international stars for far less than Hollywood pays. St Hugh is by far the greatest thing about Roadkill (and he went to Eton; is he a contemporary of any leading politicians?).
But Roadkill is dire because the story keeps tripping over what ought to be incidental details. Barristers do not investigate their clients once the case is over. Second generation Irish women who grew up in London do not speak with Irish accents.
Investigative reporters who withdraw their evidence in libel actions would not be astonished to discover this does not impress their newspaper or its insurance (for libel) company. Nor then fly to America to research the story they printed based on evidence they no longer believe.
Tory MPs being paid to make speeches, or to favour privatisation, is not the stuff of scandal.
And so on and so forth. David Hare is a famous writer and this seems to have deterred any attempt at script-editing. It is a shame because there is a good story struggling to get out.
If the story is badly put together I'm not sure that's a ringing endorsement of the BBC.
The age of the Beeb making the best of British drama has long since passed. Yet still the licence fee costs far more than Netflix.
I'm not sure it wasn't ITV that used to make the best drama. Rumpole, Brideshead, The Sweeney, but perhaps I am showing my age.
In all the debate re: fish & Brexit, has anyone noticed that worldwide there is a HUGE problem with depleted fish stocks and declining fisheries?
OR is the North Sea & eastern North Atlantic immune from such environmental problems?
Problem here is that the EU played a major role in stopping, or at least slowing, overfishing. Now we don't know what will happen. Or of the fish can be exported at all, come to think of it.
Unusually, my wife and I, ,lunching out the other day were offered haddock and chips.Normally, of course it's cod, which don't swim in British waters, whereas haddock do. Sign of the time.perhaps. My venison was excellent; did ask if it was local (muntjac) but the waitress didn't know.
Interesting! (Actually, the default fish in Scotland is haddock. Unless in Montrose where a 'fush' in 'fush supper' is salmon.)
Now if they start offering battered scampi/langoustines rather than cod ...
Full details here 'Trump earns 84% support among Republicans. Biden has 77% of the Democrat vote and leads by seven among voters not affiliated with either major party.'
Looking at those figures, clearly Biden is too low 77% of Dems sounds wrong . So the question more is are they right about Trump......I still think the actual national is around +5/+6 Biden but again its a case of is he racking up votes in Texas, Georgia , even Alaska, but not in the really tight swing states.
Also in regards the size of crowds, Trumps base are always going to show up in force, even if he was on 35% not 45% so a huge crowd in say NH which he only narrowly lost last time means very little, Enthusiasm and large crowds are baked in, and prove nothing people didnt already know.
I am still finding it hard not to be spooked by those crowds tbh.
Question to PB Tories: Did the 2017 Corbyn rallies spook you at all?
The thing about Trump rallies is they are always huge, they were in 2016 and yet he lost the popular vote by 2%, (yes i know he won the election!) my point is +2 Biden, +10 Biden or +2 Trump, his rallies will still look much the same. Unless Trumps national polls were showing him at 25% i dobut the crowd sizes would change tbh. His base worship him, so those images worry me less than Trafalgar and Rasmussen funnily enough, despite the flaws pointed out in their polling.
Full details here 'Trump earns 84% support among Republicans. Biden has 77% of the Democrat vote and leads by seven among voters not affiliated with either major party.'
Looking at those figures, clearly Biden is too low 77% of Dems sounds wrong . So the question more is are they right about Trump......I still think the actual national is around +5/+6 Biden but again its a case of is he racking up votes in Texas, Georgia , even Alaska, but not in the really tight swing states.
Also in regards the size of crowds, Trumps base are always going to show up in force, even if he was on 35% not 45% so a huge crowd in say NH which he only narrowly lost last time means very little, Enthusiasm and large crowds are baked in, and prove nothing people didnt already know.
I am still finding it hard not to be spooked by those crowds tbh.
Question to PB Tories: Did the 2017 Corbyn rallies spook you at all?
I think they are only spooking so much as the Dems are not holding traditional rallies, they are social distancing them. So the difference in size is very obvious. If this was none covid times then the crowds would be much bigger and people would not really be talking about it
Full details here 'Trump earns 84% support among Republicans. Biden has 77% of the Democrat vote and leads by seven among voters not affiliated with either major party.'
Looking at those figures, clearly Biden is too low 77% of Dems sounds wrong . So the question more is are they right about Trump......I still think the actual national is around +5/+6 Biden but again its a case of is he racking up votes in Texas, Georgia , even Alaska, but not in the really tight swing states.
Also in regards the size of crowds, Trumps base are always going to show up in force, even if he was on 35% not 45% so a huge crowd in say NH which he only narrowly lost last time means very little, Enthusiasm and large crowds are baked in, and prove nothing people didnt already know.
I am still finding it hard not to be spooked by those crowds tbh.
Question to PB Tories: Did the 2017 Corbyn rallies spook you at all?
What was more spooking was people singing "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" bizarrely. It showed that he had genuinely jumped the barrier and was becoming a (fairly) popular figure. I just wish I had trusted my instincts on that on the 2017 betting
Full details here 'Trump earns 84% support among Republicans. Biden has 77% of the Democrat vote and leads by seven among voters not affiliated with either major party.'
Looking at those figures, clearly Biden is too low 77% of Dems sounds wrong . So the question more is are they right about Trump......I still think the actual national is around +5/+6 Biden but again its a case of is he racking up votes in Texas, Georgia , even Alaska, but not in the really tight swing states.
Also in regards the size of crowds, Trumps base are always going to show up in force, even if he was on 35% not 45% so a huge crowd in say NH which he only narrowly lost last time means very little, Enthusiasm and large crowds are baked in, and prove nothing people didnt already know.
I am still finding it hard not to be spooked by those crowds tbh.
Question to PB Tories: Did the 2017 Corbyn rallies spook you at all?
As a certified PB Tory (tm), "oh Jeremy Corbyn", if anything, made everything clearer. It demonstrated that the people inside the rally/festival etc. were so unlike any normal person on the street they could be disregarded. Rallies would be more impactful if the crowd appeared to be floating voters.
What do we want - 'Not quite certain.' When do we want it - 'Oh, no rush.'
On Lindsay Graham, Nate Silver had a piece on why it is so difficult for the Democrats to get over the line in SC.
I think if he is going to be defeated, it would need a larger than usual Black turnout to do so. There are few signs anywhere in the US that the Black vote is seeing a big upswing vs 2016
The AA early vote is down marginally (percentage-wise) in North Carolina, so one would expect something similar in South Carolina.
Trump won NC by about 160,000 votes.
So far 85,000 people who did vote in 2012 and did not vote in 2016 have voted early in 2020
What's their party registration ?
Don't forget to add on the 18 - 21 year olds too !
A PB was asking yesterday what we thought of 'Roadkill'.
Here's Simon Heffer's view:
"One doesn’t need to be steeped in the realities of British politics (and I have written about them for 35 years) to discern on the briefest acquaintance that this series is one of the greatest turkeys even in the recent inglorious history of the BBC’s drama department."
(telegraph)
And Hugh Laurie did not even need the paycheque, after House he was the highest paid TV actor in the world.
Watched the first episode but watched Rebecca on Netflix instead rather than the second episode, may watch on iplayer if really bored
Hugh Laurie shows the value of the BBC brand which can land international stars for far less than Hollywood pays. St Hugh is by far the greatest thing about Roadkill (and he went to Eton; is he a contemporary of any leading politicians?).
But Roadkill is dire because the story keeps tripping over what ought to be incidental details. Barristers do not investigate their clients once the case is over. Second generation Irish women who grew up in London do not speak with Irish accents.
Investigative reporters who withdraw their evidence in libel actions would not be astonished to discover this does not impress their newspaper or its insurance (for libel) company. Nor then fly to America to research the story they printed based on evidence they no longer believe.
Tory MPs being paid to make speeches, or to favour privatisation, is not the stuff of scandal.
And so on and so forth. David Hare is a famous writer and this seems to have deterred any attempt at script-editing. It is a shame because there is a good story struggling to get out.
Have to say I'm mightily disappointed. It is just so clunky and utterly predictable at every step.
What was Mrs Borgen thinking getting involved in this?
A PB was asking yesterday what we thought of 'Roadkill'.
Here's Simon Heffer's view:
"One doesn’t need to be steeped in the realities of British politics (and I have written about them for 35 years) to discern on the briefest acquaintance that this series is one of the greatest turkeys even in the recent inglorious history of the BBC’s drama department."
(telegraph)
And Hugh Laurie did not even need the paycheque, after House he was the highest paid TV actor in the world.
Watched the first episode but watched Rebecca on Netflix instead rather than the second episode, may watch on iplayer if really bored
Hugh Laurie shows the value of the BBC brand which can land international stars for far less than Hollywood pays. St Hugh is by far the greatest thing about Roadkill (and he went to Eton; is he a contemporary of any leading politicians?).
But Roadkill is dire because the story keeps tripping over what ought to be incidental details. Barristers do not investigate their clients once the case is over. Second generation Irish women who grew up in London do not speak with Irish accents.
Investigative reporters who withdraw their evidence in libel actions would not be astonished to discover this does not impress their newspaper or its insurance (for libel) company. Nor then fly to America to research the story they printed based on evidence they no longer believe.
Tory MPs being paid to make speeches, or to favour privatisation, is not the stuff of scandal.
And so on and so forth. David Hare is a famous writer and this seems to have deterred any attempt at script-editing. It is a shame because there is a good story struggling to get out.
Have to say I'm mightily disappointed. It is just so clunky and utterly predictable at every step.
What was Mrs Borgen thinking getting involved in this?
I believe Netflix are doing a new Borgen for 2022. I'm assuming Covid will be a big actor in the plot.
Excellent news, especially if it's safer among the older population.
Indeed. Hooray for boffins. Going from a virus not existing to (touch wood) a working vaccine in about a year is brilliant if you stop and think about it. I wonder how far back in history you'd have to go for that to be a pipe dream?
We sometimes miss the under-the-radar things that science quietly delivers that make life better and cleaner. LED lights, which got mentioned this morning, are another.
10 years ago despite a big marketing push from apple not many people had smartphones. They were popular with under 40 professionals with a high enough income to afford it. Now a very high proportion of adults have a smartphone, and I would guess the proportion of smartphone users is as high as the proportion of mobile phone users was in 2010. Just on example where STEM has had a huge impact on our lives.
I've noticed that a lot of the contemporary genre novels I've read recently have been set in the 90s or earlier to get around ubiquitous cell-phone usage derailing the plot where the protagonists get into trouble somewhere.
Well known author S.K.Tremayne sets his novel "The Ice Twins" on a remote Scottish island to achieve the same effect.
Same effect could have been achieved in parts of North Dorset... or along most of the Waterloo to Exeter train line west of Basingstoke.
Or here. In the shadow of the hill, you can't get a Vodaphone signal at all, and when there's high pressure our car radios on FM jump to French stations.
Full details here 'Trump earns 84% support among Republicans. Biden has 77% of the Democrat vote and leads by seven among voters not affiliated with either major party.'
Looking at those figures, clearly Biden is too low 77% of Dems sounds wrong . So the question more is are they right about Trump......I still think the actual national is around +5/+6 Biden but again its a case of is he racking up votes in Texas, Georgia , even Alaska, but not in the really tight swing states.
Also in regards the size of crowds, Trumps base are always going to show up in force, even if he was on 35% not 45% so a huge crowd in say NH which he only narrowly lost last time means very little, Enthusiasm and large crowds are baked in, and prove nothing people didnt already know.
I am still finding it hard not to be spooked by those crowds tbh.
Question to PB Tories: Did the 2017 Corbyn rallies spook you at all?
What was more spooking was people singing "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" bizarrely. It showed that he had genuinely jumped the barrier and was becoming a (fairly) popular figure. I just wish I had trusted my instincts on that on the 2017 betting
It started at a festival at Tranmere Rovers. People who were there insist it began as 'Vote Jeremy Corbyn."
Hold music must be the most irritating thing known to man. Currently on hold and they've chosen to play a snippet of music (about 20 seconds of a tune) that then abruptly stops, goes silent for a second then restarts. Heard the same snippet of music about 40 times already and who knows how long will be on hold for? Absolutely jarring and irritating.
I'd far rather silence and an intermittent voiceover of "your call is important to us" despite the fact that if the call was truly important to them then they'd answer the phone.
Full details here 'Trump earns 84% support among Republicans. Biden has 77% of the Democrat vote and leads by seven among voters not affiliated with either major party.'
Looking at those figures, clearly Biden is too low 77% of Dems sounds wrong . So the question more is are they right about Trump......I still think the actual national is around +5/+6 Biden but again its a case of is he racking up votes in Texas, Georgia , even Alaska, but not in the really tight swing states.
Also in regards the size of crowds, Trumps base are always going to show up in force, even if he was on 35% not 45% so a huge crowd in say NH which he only narrowly lost last time means very little, Enthusiasm and large crowds are baked in, and prove nothing people didnt already know.
I am still finding it hard not to be spooked by those crowds tbh.
Question to PB Tories: Did the 2017 Corbyn rallies spook you at all?
Yes they did especially as May was drawing barely any crowd at all, by 2019 Boris was drawing a crowd so it was less of a worry (and Corbyn's crowds were smaller).
Even accounting for Covid Biden's drive in events seem to be closer to May's in size while Trump's are more like Corbyn's in 2017
Full details here 'Trump earns 84% support among Republicans. Biden has 77% of the Democrat vote and leads by seven among voters not affiliated with either major party.'
Looking at those figures, clearly Biden is too low 77% of Dems sounds wrong . So the question more is are they right about Trump......I still think the actual national is around +5/+6 Biden but again its a case of is he racking up votes in Texas, Georgia , even Alaska, but not in the really tight swing states.
Also in regards the size of crowds, Trumps base are always going to show up in force, even if he was on 35% not 45% so a huge crowd in say NH which he only narrowly lost last time means very little, Enthusiasm and large crowds are baked in, and prove nothing people didnt already know.
I am still finding it hard not to be spooked by those crowds tbh.
Question to PB Tories: Did the 2017 Corbyn rallies spook you at all?
The thing about Trump rallies is they are always huge, they were in 2016 and yet he lost the popular vote by 2%, (yes i know he won the election!) my point is +2 Biden, +10 Biden or +2 Trump, his rallies will still look much the same. Unless Trumps national polls were showing him at 25% i dobut the crowd sizes would change tbh. His base worship him, so those images worry me less than Trafalgar and Rasmussen funnily enough, despite the flaws pointed out in their polling.
Good point - I will try to ignore the rallies and hope that Trump's polling doesn't, er, rally.
Full details here 'Trump earns 84% support among Republicans. Biden has 77% of the Democrat vote and leads by seven among voters not affiliated with either major party.'
Looking at those figures, clearly Biden is too low 77% of Dems sounds wrong . So the question more is are they right about Trump......I still think the actual national is around +5/+6 Biden but again its a case of is he racking up votes in Texas, Georgia , even Alaska, but not in the really tight swing states.
Also in regards the size of crowds, Trumps base are always going to show up in force, even if he was on 35% not 45% so a huge crowd in say NH which he only narrowly lost last time means very little, Enthusiasm and large crowds are baked in, and prove nothing people didnt already know.
I am still finding it hard not to be spooked by those crowds tbh.
Question to PB Tories: Did the 2017 Corbyn rallies spook you at all?
Yes they did especially as May was drawing barely any crowd at all, by 2019 Boris was drawing a crowd so it was less of a worry (and Corbyn's crowds were smaller).
Even accounting for Covid Biden's drive in events seem to be closer to May's in size while Trump's are more like Corbyn's in 2017
A PB was asking yesterday what we thought of 'Roadkill'.
Here's Simon Heffer's view:
"One doesn’t need to be steeped in the realities of British politics (and I have written about them for 35 years) to discern on the briefest acquaintance that this series is one of the greatest turkeys even in the recent inglorious history of the BBC’s drama department."
(telegraph)
And Hugh Laurie did not even need the paycheque, after House he was the highest paid TV actor in the world.
Watched the first episode but watched Rebecca on Netflix instead rather than the second episode, may watch on iplayer if really bored
Hugh Laurie shows the value of the BBC brand which can land international stars for far less than Hollywood pays. St Hugh is by far the greatest thing about Roadkill (and he went to Eton; is he a contemporary of any leading politicians?).
But Roadkill is dire because the story keeps tripping over what ought to be incidental details. Barristers do not investigate their clients once the case is over. Second generation Irish women who grew up in London do not speak with Irish accents.
Investigative reporters who withdraw their evidence in libel actions would not be astonished to discover this does not impress their newspaper or its insurance (for libel) company. Nor then fly to America to research the story they printed based on evidence they no longer believe.
Tory MPs being paid to make speeches, or to favour privatisation, is not the stuff of scandal.
And so on and so forth. David Hare is a famous writer and this seems to have deterred any attempt at script-editing. It is a shame because there is a good story struggling to get out.
Have to say I'm mightily disappointed. It is just so clunky and utterly predictable at every step.
What was Mrs Borgen thinking getting involved in this?
I believe Netflix are doing a new Borgen for 2022. I'm assuming Covid will be a big actor in the plot.
Hold music must be the most irritating thing known to man. Currently on hold and they've chosen to play a snippet of music (about 20 seconds of a tune) that then abruptly stops, goes silent for a second then restarts. Heard the same snippet of music about 40 times already and who knows how long will be on hold for? Absolutely jarring and irritating.
I'd far rather silence and an intermittent voiceover of "your call is important to us" despite the fact that if the call was truly important to them then they'd answer the phone.
I like it when you hear someone reading the news headlines. At least it is useful.
In all the debate re: fish & Brexit, has anyone noticed that worldwide there is a HUGE problem with depleted fish stocks and declining fisheries?
OR is the North Sea & eastern North Atlantic immune from such environmental problems?
Problem here is that the EU played a major role in stopping, or at least slowing, overfishing. Now we don't know what will happen. Or of the fish can be exported at all, come to think of it.
Unusually, my wife and I, ,lunching out the other day were offered haddock and chips.Normally, of course it's cod, which don't swim in British waters, whereas haddock do. Sign of the time.perhaps. My venison was excellent; did ask if it was local (muntjac) but the waitress didn't know.
Interesting! (Actually, the default fish in Scotland is haddock. Unless in Montrose where a 'fush' in 'fush supper' is salmon.)
Now if they start offering battered scampi/langoustines rather than cod ...
Battered scampi is quite commonly offered in N Essex eateries. Frequently alleged to be monkfish scraps.
Full details here 'Trump earns 84% support among Republicans. Biden has 77% of the Democrat vote and leads by seven among voters not affiliated with either major party.'
Looking at those figures, clearly Biden is too low 77% of Dems sounds wrong . So the question more is are they right about Trump......I still think the actual national is around +5/+6 Biden but again its a case of is he racking up votes in Texas, Georgia , even Alaska, but not in the really tight swing states.
Also in regards the size of crowds, Trumps base are always going to show up in force, even if he was on 35% not 45% so a huge crowd in say NH which he only narrowly lost last time means very little, Enthusiasm and large crowds are baked in, and prove nothing people didnt already know.
I am still finding it hard not to be spooked by those crowds tbh.
Question to PB Tories: Did the 2017 Corbyn rallies spook you at all?
I think they are only spooking so much as the Dems are not holding traditional rallies, they are social distancing them. So the difference in size is very obvious. If this was none covid times then the crowds would be much bigger and people would not really be talking about it
Precisely.
With Trump it is all about his ego. Massive rallies without social distancing to stroke the big man's ego - which rational people look at, think "are you mad, we are in the middle of a pandemic you idiots" and roll their eyes.
With Biden and the Democrats they are saying "Go and vote, make sure you are counted, vote early".
The numbers seem to say that Trump is getting thousands of people in a crowd and Biden is getting millions of votes in the ballot box.
Interesting poll of Florida's 15th Congressional District by "Change Research". They have the GOP 2 points ahead. For context this district has been won by the GOP since 1995, often by large margins.
Perhaps not. When in Chile a few years ago I discovered that there is a thriving farmed salmon industry which makes use of every bit of the salmon. Apart from the flesh for eating, the skin is made into leather and the eyes are used to produce Vitamin E supplements.
Full details here 'Trump earns 84% support among Republicans. Biden has 77% of the Democrat vote and leads by seven among voters not affiliated with either major party.'
Looking at those figures, clearly Biden is too low 77% of Dems sounds wrong . So the question more is are they right about Trump......I still think the actual national is around +5/+6 Biden but again its a case of is he racking up votes in Texas, Georgia , even Alaska, but not in the really tight swing states.
Also in regards the size of crowds, Trumps base are always going to show up in force, even if he was on 35% not 45% so a huge crowd in say NH which he only narrowly lost last time means very little, Enthusiasm and large crowds are baked in, and prove nothing people didnt already know.
I am still finding it hard not to be spooked by those crowds tbh.
Question to PB Tories: Did the 2017 Corbyn rallies spook you at all?
Yes they did especially as May was drawing barely any crowd at all, by 2019 Boris was drawing a crowd so it was less of a worry (and Corbyn's crowds were smaller).
Even accounting for Covid Biden's drive in events seem to be closer to May's in size while Trump's are more like Corbyn's in 2017
On which basis, Trump is going to lose
Trump lost the US popular vote in 2016 by the same margin Corbyn lost the UK popular vote in 2017, true.
Also we must not forget there was no mass switch of Labour to Tory voters from 2017 to 2019, Boris only increased the Tory voteshare by 1.2%, a similar increase for Biden would not guarantee an EC win.
Most of the movement in 2019 was Labour to LD, SNP and Brexit Party, there are no third party candidates as strong in the US
A PB was asking yesterday what we thought of 'Roadkill'.
Here's Simon Heffer's view:
"One doesn’t need to be steeped in the realities of British politics (and I have written about them for 35 years) to discern on the briefest acquaintance that this series is one of the greatest turkeys even in the recent inglorious history of the BBC’s drama department."
(telegraph)
And Hugh Laurie did not even need the paycheque, after House he was the highest paid TV actor in the world.
Watched the first episode but watched Rebecca on Netflix instead rather than the second episode, may watch on iplayer if really bored
Hugh Laurie shows the value of the BBC brand which can land international stars for far less than Hollywood pays. St Hugh is by far the greatest thing about Roadkill (and he went to Eton; is he a contemporary of any leading politicians?).
But Roadkill is dire because the story keeps tripping over what ought to be incidental details. Barristers do not investigate their clients once the case is over. Second generation Irish women who grew up in London do not speak with Irish accents.
Investigative reporters who withdraw their evidence in libel actions would not be astonished to discover this does not impress their newspaper or its insurance (for libel) company. Nor then fly to America to research the story they printed based on evidence they no longer believe.
Tory MPs being paid to make speeches, or to favour privatisation, is not the stuff of scandal.
And so on and so forth. David Hare is a famous writer and this seems to have deterred any attempt at script-editing. It is a shame because there is a good story struggling to get out.
Have to say I'm mightily disappointed. It is just so clunky and utterly predictable at every step.
What was Mrs Borgen thinking getting involved in this?
I believe Netflix are doing a new Borgen for 2022. I'm assuming Covid will be a big actor in the plot.
In all the debate re: fish & Brexit, has anyone noticed that worldwide there is a HUGE problem with depleted fish stocks and declining fisheries?
OR is the North Sea & eastern North Atlantic immune from such environmental problems?
Problem here is that the EU played a major role in stopping, or at least slowing, overfishing. Now we don't know what will happen. Or of the fish can be exported at all, come to think of it.
Unusually, my wife and I, ,lunching out the other day were offered haddock and chips.Normally, of course it's cod, which don't swim in British waters, whereas haddock do. Sign of the time.perhaps. My venison was excellent; did ask if it was local (muntjac) but the waitress didn't know.
Interesting! (Actually, the default fish in Scotland is haddock. Unless in Montrose where a 'fush' in 'fush supper' is salmon.)
Now if they start offering battered scampi/langoustines rather than cod ...
Haddock is the standard offering for Fish & Chips in Leeds. They don't trust cod round those parts - full of worms!
Comments
Elissa Slotkin Wants to Know Who’ll Stand Up to Trump If He Loses
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/26/elissa-slotkin-michigan-election-day-431853
...And what was interesting is, in a number of these scenarios, the president couldn’t do it by himself. He would need the support of his cabinet, particularly the attorney general, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs and the department head of Homeland Security. And with my perch of being on the Armed Services Committee and the Homeland Security Committee we started trying to get these guys on record, trying to get them to think through their own red lines, what are they going to be willing to do and not do if, indeed, the president refuses to accept a loss.
So, we originally tried to ask [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark] Milley and [Defense Secretary Mark] Esper in a hearing in July, but we were so junior that we didn’t get turns. So we did it in questions for the record. Then, I followed up and sent one to Chad Wolf, the acting head of [the Department of] Homeland Security. And then, when the [Director of National Intelligence] started to politicize election-related intelligence, I sent one to the DNI. I wasn’t thinking that their answers would turn the tide on anything, but from my congressional perch, this is what I could do to force these senior leaders into thinking through that they’re going to have to make a call based on what’s greater, their loyalty to the president or their belief in democracy. I was very happy that Milley got back to us and he had fulsome answers. Esper’s answers, I wasn’t so thrilled with; he basically handed it off to a lawyer to give the de minimis response. The DHS got back to us and said, ‘We’re going to be happy to answer your questions after the election,’ which I thought was an interesting approach. All we know about DNI is that they acknowledged receipt....
...Alberta: Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find it worrisome that a freshman congresswoman is laying this out in more detail than anyone else I’ve heard from in Washington. You would think this might be an all-consuming priority, even though it’s a hypothetical to some extent. Why aren’t we hearing more about this?...
And because the argument is not with Rashford but with the public. Even if CCHQ eviscerated the messenger, people would still think we ought to feed the children.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/20/science/coronavirus-vaccine-development.html
Rasmussen National poll 47-48 Trump +1
Trump 48% (+2)
Biden 47% (-2)
Changes from 20th October.
Their polling will be daily now until the election.
I think that's up to 3 foiled plots against governors now.
There was a recent Trump supporters parade in West Brighton not long ago.
NY-11 is an interesting contest.
The Brexit Party would sue, Labour would settle, there would be quite a bit of publicity, and a lot of Leave voters would conclude that Labour are on their side after all.
https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1320731924328042498?s=20
So far 85,000 people who did vote in 2012 and did not vote in 2016 have voted early in 2020
Sorry.
But Roadkill is dire because the story keeps tripping over what ought to be incidental details. Barristers do not investigate their clients once the case is over. Second generation Irish women who grew up in London do not speak with Irish accents.
Investigative reporters who withdraw their evidence in libel actions would not be astonished to discover this does not impress their newspaper or its insurance (for libel) company. Nor then fly to America to research the story they printed based on evidence they no longer believe.
Tory MPs being paid to make speeches, or to favour privatisation, is not the stuff of scandal.
And so on and so forth. David Hare is a famous writer and this seems to have deterred any attempt at script-editing. It is a shame because there is a good story struggling to get out.
Still available on iPlayer.
I'm somehow reminded of the exhibition which I once saw at Berwick-upon-Tweed, of sculpture made from discarded salmon skins . It was visually - but also olfactorily - striking. Not that that is any moral for the above, of course.
One thing I noted was that at the PM's SPAD, in bed with her boyfriend just after 'lovemaking' still had quite a substantial bra on.
It's a long long time since I had practical experience of pre-marital experiences such as that, but IIRC, normally the bra got in the way of foreplay.
The age of the Beeb making the best of British drama has long since passed. Yet still the licence fee costs far more than Netflix.
OR is the North Sea & eastern North Atlantic immune from such environmental problems?
https://apnews.com/article/acf2ab5cfd6a440191ce728f608f7e78
Also in regards the size of crowds, Trumps base are always going to show up in force, even if he was on 35% not 45% so a huge crowd in say NH which he only narrowly lost last time means very little, Enthusiasm and large crowds are baked in, and prove nothing people didnt already know.
The EU side of the North Sea is terribly depleted but our side is fine. We hold all the cods.
Question to PB Tories: Did the 2017 Corbyn rallies spook you at all?
Offshore wind might be our best hope for the fisheries. It will create areas that are hard for trawlers to fish, providing a safe zone in which stocks may recover, to spillover into the neighbouring fished areas.
Sign of the time.perhaps.
My venison was excellent; did ask if it was local (muntjac) but the waitress didn't know.
That said, Netflix is filming one down the seafront here from tomorrow. 'The Beast must die'. Apparently.
A remake of this, I think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_Must_Die_(1952_film)
Or an island
Now if they start offering battered scampi/langoustines rather than cod ...
When do we want it - 'Oh, no rush.'
Don't forget to add on the 18 - 21 year olds too !
What was Mrs Borgen thinking getting involved in this?
I'd far rather silence and an intermittent voiceover of "your call is important to us" despite the fact that if the call was truly important to them then they'd answer the phone.
Even accounting for Covid Biden's drive in events seem to be closer to May's in size while Trump's are more like Corbyn's in 2017
Please explain the significance to the uninitiated.
With Trump it is all about his ego. Massive rallies without social distancing to stroke the big man's ego - which rational people look at, think "are you mad, we are in the middle of a pandemic you idiots" and roll their eyes.
With Biden and the Democrats they are saying "Go and vote, make sure you are counted, vote early".
The numbers seem to say that Trump is getting thousands of people in a crowd and Biden is getting millions of votes in the ballot box.
I know which I'd prefer!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54690174
Also we must not forget there was no mass switch of Labour to Tory voters from 2017 to 2019, Boris only increased the Tory voteshare by 1.2%, a similar increase for Biden would not guarantee an EC win.
Most of the movement in 2019 was Labour to LD, SNP and Brexit Party, there are no third party candidates as strong in the US
https://www.radiotimes.com/news/on-demand/2020-04-29/borgen-season-4-netflix/
Trump 50% (-)
Biden 45% (-)
Changes with 8th October.
And cutting spend on consultants would be letting down one's friends.