Interesting on hannity last night Marco Rubio came out in support of trump. This is a guy with every reason to hate trump so it shows which way the wind is blowing in the gop
Biden could shut this down by calling for a full audit of the votes in the disputed states.
If there is no fraud he will be totally vindicated and it will well and truly be the end of Trump.
I doubt Biden would have a problem with the auditing of votes, although that is in the power of the individual states and has nothing to do with the candidates.
Yes that's true, but I think with his backing as well as Trump's there would be too much pressure to avoid doing it.
This seems the most sensible way out of this mess and would uphold the integrity of the election process.
If there is any mess, it's that an idiot is president, but that problem has already been solved, by the people.
FT has reported that £43billion has been spent on moonshot quick covid tests.
22bn over 4 years for this part of it. Looks poorly defined tbh - is that a provision to allow private sector to essentially add in any new tests they fancy?
What's the betting it goes to some company which has never before run a lab?
One for HYFUD Alister Jack was 'joking' when he ruled out indyref2 for 40 years
The Secretary of State for Scotland said he only mentioned the four decade wait for a new vote because the BBC journalist interviewing him had “raised an eyebrow”. Obviously had Govid20 on the blower remonstrating at him upsetting the applecart. Rough wooing indeed.
Well, HYUFD thoroughly approves of Henry VIII's approach to things anyway.
If the government really wanted to get tough with the nationalists it could do what Beijing is doing this morning where it is removing legislators from the Hong Kong legislature for questioning Beijing's authority, or it could have done what Madrid did in Catalonia in 2017 where it refused to allow any independence referendum, suspended the Catalan Parliament and arrested Catalan nationalist leaders.
Nationalists should thank themselves lucky they have already had one independence vote and the government is merely saying it will not grant another one until a generation has elapsed
There's usually a wide range of differing opinions on this site, so I just want to do a quick reality check - is there anyone who doesn't think this kind of comment from HYUFD is completely out of order?
It’s not out of order, it’s short sighted, it displays arrogance and self belief beyond normal but it’s not offensive or factually incorrect.
It is offensive and factually incorrect to suggest that SNP politicians could be arrested or have legislators arbitrarily removed.
HYUFD wants Sturgeon arrested for "sedition" except there is no law against sedition. Sedition is legal.
So factually incorrect. Can't be arrested for something that isn't against the law.
Technically treason is against the law, with a maximum sentence of life in prison under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Seeking independence isn't Treason though! I literally gave you the list of offences that are defined as Treason.
Attempting to murder Her Majesty: Treason Engaging Politics: Not Treason
Killing the Lord High Chancellor: Treason Taking part in elections: Not Treason
Wikipedia says the last UK trial for treason was Lord Haw Haw in 1946.
Most of what was once defined as Treason has now been abolished from that offence. Now it's pretty much just down to crimes against the monarch etc. Or literally fighting against the country.
Politics is neither. Sturgeon can't be arrested for treason or sedition as the former she hasn't done and the latter is legal.
Agree that was why I posted it. 75 years for a wartime offence. Nothing since has qualified.
Interesting on hannity last night Marco Rubio came out in support of trump. This is a guy with every reason to hate trump so it shows which way the wind is blowing in the gop
Election's over, though. Doesn't matter who supports whom, Biden won. Republicans can have another go in four years.
Funny how the media don't seem very interested in other European countries performance during this second wave....the fact Germany said they can't track 75% of cases, not important for any context on just how much of an impossible job manual track and trace is. How many cases, how many tests etc compared to the UK rarely gets much of a mention these days.
The positivity rates in many countries also suggests that they're not testing anywhere near enough - something the UK appears to be (eventually) getting round to.
Ronna McDaniel, Chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC), told FOX News commentator Sean Hannity that she has 234 pages containing 500 sworn affidavits alleging 11,000 incidents of various types of voter fraud.
Oh well, it's all over. Better cooly and objectively award this one to Trump.
It is quite "amusing" (for want of a better and far more appropriate word) how many instinctive Trumpists on here seem to think that we should be impressed by claims of "evidence" of widespread fraud etc from hardcore Trump and GOP loyalists (in this case making the claims on Hannity's show no less - I'm sure he would have gone out of his way and an impartial journalist to challenge the validity of her evidence!)
We've got to the point where 500 peoples' eye witness accounts don't actually count for anything if they benefit Trump.
You certainly can't take them at face value.
For example the main allegation in Erie County Pennsylvania was retracted last night by the person that made it. For all we know all we have is 500 lying Trump supporters trying to do their bit for the liar-in-chief. .
Investigate them by all means but save your anger for if and when they are substantiated. Up till that point stop spreading Trumpton lies and misinformation as though they are facts.
He hasn't recanted at all, see the video I posted down thread of him saying he hasn't, despite the FBI on tape threatening him.
Saying 500 people must be lying because they (possibly) support Trump is crazy, think about what you are saying. If you go down that road then no eye witnesses to anything can be used as an ulterior motive can always be found.
Most people on here believed quotes attributed to Trump about the military were true, despite being a completely anonymous source and not backed up by anyone who was confirmed to actually be there.
Now we have 500 people signing legal documents to confirm what they saw on election night and they are hand waved away without a second thought.
Of course they are because it's a pack of lies.
We have already had a dozen baseless cases with zero evidence thrown out. Simply screeching louder isn't evidence. Hearsay isn't evidence. Hearsay of hearsay of hearsay isn't evidence.
Evidence needs to be put forward or else it's total bullshit. You're just believing the lies because she want to. Just like the already dozen cases lost so far.
Ok you know already that it is all lies, despite not knowing what the allegations are. Move along, nothing to see here.
Meanwhile the plebs aren't buying the narrative.
I'm confused - is the aim to convince the 'plebs' or the (Supreme) Court.
If there was evidence for the allegations, then the aim would be to convince the courts. In the absence of that, all that can be done is to convince the 'plebs'.
Interesting on hannity last night Marco Rubio came out in support of trump. This is a guy with every reason to hate trump so it shows which way the wind is blowing in the gop
PMQs painful to listen to. Starmer kicking Shagger over largesse being sprayed around to contractors who (in one example) deliver zero for £150m spent. Mentions Randox (hmmm I wonder who is involved with that) and contrasts with a lack of cash available for businesses and people in need.
Shagger doing his usual routine - "stop attacking us"
Some 300,000 schoolchildren in Germany and 30,000 teachers are currently self-isolating, according to tabloid Bild. A teachers’ association leader has warned German schools are experiencing a “salami lockdown” - in other words, the gradual closure of more and more schools due to outbreaks.
I see that multiple times fraudster O'Keefe is pushing the back dated postal ballots nonsense in Michigan as well. A state where they do not accept ballots after election day no matter when they are dated.
One for HYFUD Alister Jack was 'joking' when he ruled out indyref2 for 40 years
The Secretary of State for Scotland said he only mentioned the four decade wait for a new vote because the BBC journalist interviewing him had “raised an eyebrow”. Obviously had Govid20 on the blower remonstrating at him upsetting the applecart. Rough wooing indeed.
Well, HYUFD thoroughly approves of Henry VIII's approach to things anyway.
If the government really wanted to get tough with the nationalists it could do what Beijing is doing this morning where it is removing legislators from the Hong Kong legislature for questioning Beijing's authority, or it could have done what Madrid did in Catalonia in 2017 where it refused to allow any independence referendum, suspended the Catalan Parliament and arrested Catalan nationalist leaders.
Nationalists should thank themselves lucky they have already had one independence vote and the government is merely saying it will not grant another one until a generation has elapsed
There's usually a wide range of differing opinions on this site, so I just want to do a quick reality check - is there anyone who doesn't think this kind of comment from HYUFD is completely out of order?
It’s not out of order, it’s short sighted, it displays arrogance and self belief beyond normal but it’s not offensive or factually incorrect.
It is offensive and factually incorrect to suggest that SNP politicians could be arrested or have legislators arbitrarily removed.
HYUFD wants Sturgeon arrested for "sedition" except there is no law against sedition. Sedition is legal.
So factually incorrect. Can't be arrested for something that isn't against the law.
Technically treason is against the law, with a maximum sentence of life in prison under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Seeking independence isn't Treason though! I literally gave you the list of offences that are defined as Treason.
Attempting to murder Her Majesty: Treason Engaging Politics: Not Treason
Killing the Lord High Chancellor: Treason Taking part in elections: Not Treason
Wikipedia says the last UK trial for treason was Lord Haw Haw in 1946.
But he wasn't a UK csubject, was he, so it was a bit dodgy, no?
The prosecution alleged that he was, as he had successfully applied for a British passport based on his Irish ancestry ( this being before Ireland became a republic). He was born in NYC and so held American nationality but for some strange reason the US did not complain about his prosecution. AJP Taylor observed that he could be argued that the case against Joyce rested on a fraudulent passport application, an offence which usually resulted in a fine.
The interim analysis was conducted after 20 participants in the trial developed COVID-19 and examined how many had received the vaccine versus a placebo.
That is significantly lower than the 94 infections in the trial of a vaccine being developed by Pfizer Inc and BioNTech. To confirm the efficacy rate, Pfizer said it would continue its trial until there were 164 COVID-19 cases.
Pfizer dropped their plan to announce results after 32 cases and waited until they had 62 - when they checked was they had 94.
Starmer going on details, Johnson replying on Big Picture. Business as usual. Lots of heat, little light.
Initially Starmer was catching out Johnson on details, now Johnson has found ways to deflect.
Johnson scored a good hit I thought on details when Starmer attacked the vaccine taskforce PR money and Johnson said that the taskforce should be congratulated this week and that money was spent by the vaccine taskforce to get people recruited into vaccine trials and to tackle antivaxxers.
Good answer and Starmer realised it and just moved on without another word on the topic.
Interesting on hannity last night Marco Rubio came out in support of trump. This is a guy with every reason to hate trump so it shows which way the wind is blowing in the gop
More to do with the dyanmics of Florida politics than anything else. Cubans showed up in huge numbers for Trump. If Arizona was the NeverTrump heartland, Florida was the EverTrump counterpoint.
Biden looked doddery even then...... I'm really not sure he's going to make the distance,
Trump was elected in 2016 because he wasn't Clinton. Biden was elected in 2020 because he wasn't Trump.
And the big difference between Clinton and Biden?
Politically they were both top members of Obamas administration. If Biden had run in 2016 his program would have been similar to Clinton's.
Clinton probably has a better record than Biden, though for sure both can be criticised.
Scandals : Clinton used the Clinton private server for government emails - which broke rules and reflects badly on her, but nowhere near as bad as the (admittedly fairly run of the mill) Hunter Biden influence peddling.
Clinton was a bit younger.
So I'm wondering what the big disadvantage Clinton had as a candidate. Can't think of any other blindingly obvious differences between them.
Except for the obvious....
Nobody trusted her ?
and yet she still polled more votes than Trump
but in all the wrong places
hardly her fault that one persons vote in one state is not equal to another person's vote in a different state in the great "democracy" of America.
You have to win with the system you have not the one you want. It is her responsibility as the candidate that for whatever reason she failed to win under that system.
But its fine margins - Biden looks set to win 4 states by less than a percent.
Indeed, the Republican lean in places like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin looks like it's going to be pretty much the same in 2020 as in 2016. So if the argument is that Clinton was rubbish because she underperformed in those states compared to nationally, as many have repeatedly claimed for 4 years, then Biden might be equally rubbish. At best you could argue he might have arrested the trend for those states to lean a bit more Republican as happened in the previous 2 elections, but once all the votes have been counted maybe not even that. FWIW Ohio looks like it's leaning even more Republican than last time.
Clinton neglected the swing states and lost. Biden campaigned in the swing states and won.
How does that make Biden equally rubbish?
OK I'll make it a bit clearer for you:
Last time Clinton won the national vote by 2.1% She lost Pennsylvania by 0.7% In other words, however much she did or didn't campaign in different places, Pennsylvania leaned 2.8% more Republican/Trump than the country. This time Biden is winning the popular vote so far by 3.2% but it will end probably end up higher maybe 4%? He is winning Pennsylvania currently by 0.7% In other words, however much Biden did or didn't campaign in different places, Pennsylvania is leaning 2.5% more Republican/Trump than the country - but will probably end up leaning over 3% more Trump than the country.
It is almost the same calculations for Wisconsin
In other words, Biden is doing relatively worse in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin than Clinton, compared to the country as a whole. Which doesn't support the argument that "Clinton lost because she stupidly piled up votes in the wrong places, whereas Biden smartly won votes in the right places".
Biden could shut this down by calling for a full audit of the votes in the disputed states.
If there is no fraud he will be totally vindicated and it will well and truly be the end of Trump.
Or of course Trump & Co could accept the clear result of a clearly free and fair election.
This would also "shut it down" and tbf is what usually happens in a democracy.
Hillary could have done so in 2016 by saying the Russia claims were baseless but didn't.
As you said, this usually happens in a democracy so I am glad you recognise HRC was in the wrong back then.
A palpably false equivalence offered in blatant bad faith. Clinton lost that election and was right to concede promptly. Obama was right to help the racist who'd "birthered" him with a peaceful Transition. The Authorities were right to investigate and confirm Russian interference. Trump has lost this election and is wrong to not concede.
Biden looked doddery even then...... I'm really not sure he's going to make the distance,
Trump was elected in 2016 because he wasn't Clinton. Biden was elected in 2020 because he wasn't Trump.
And the big difference between Clinton and Biden?
Politically they were both top members of Obamas administration. If Biden had run in 2016 his program would have been similar to Clinton's.
Clinton probably has a better record than Biden, though for sure both can be criticised.
Scandals : Clinton used the Clinton private server for government emails - which broke rules and reflects badly on her, but nowhere near as bad as the (admittedly fairly run of the mill) Hunter Biden influence peddling.
Clinton was a bit younger.
So I'm wondering what the big disadvantage Clinton had as a candidate. Can't think of any other blindingly obvious differences between them.
Except for the obvious....
Nobody trusted her ?
and yet she still polled more votes than Trump
but in all the wrong places
hardly her fault that one persons vote in one state is not equal to another person's vote in a different state in the great "democracy" of America.
You have to win with the system you have not the one you want. It is her responsibility as the candidate that for whatever reason she failed to win under that system.
But its fine margins - Biden looks set to win 4 states by less than a percent.
Indeed, the Republican lean in places like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin looks like it's going to be pretty much the same in 2020 as in 2016. So if the argument is that Clinton was rubbish because she underperformed in those states compared to nationally, as many have repeatedly claimed for 4 years, then Biden might be equally rubbish. At best you could argue he might have arrested the trend for those states to lean a bit more Republican as happened in the previous 2 elections, but once all the votes have been counted maybe not even that. FWIW Ohio looks like it's leaning even more Republican than last time.
Clinton neglected the swing states and lost. Biden campaigned in the swing states and won.
How does that make Biden equally rubbish?
OK I'll make it a bit clearer for you:
Last time Clinton won the national vote by 2.1% She lost Pennsylvania by 0.7% In other words, however much she did or didn't campaign in different places, Pennsylvania leaned 2.8% more Republican/Trump than the country. This time Biden is winning the popular vote so far by 3.2% but it will end probably end up higher maybe 4%? He is winning Pennsylvania currently by 0.7% In other words, however much Biden did or didn't campaign in different places, Pennsylvania is leaning 2.5% more Republican/Trump than the country - but will probably end up leaning over 3% more Trump than the country.
It is almost the same calculations for Wisconsin
In other words, Biden is doing relatively worse in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin than Clinton, compared to the country as a whole. Which doesn't support the argument that "Clinton lost because she stupidly piled up votes in the wrong places, whereas Biden smartly won votes in the right places".
I'll make it simpler for you.
Biden campaigned in the swing states, won them and for that he deserves credit.
Clinton ignored the swing states, lost them and for that she deserves scorn.
That Biden is also getting more votes in the rest of the nation is a bonus for Biden not a criticism against him.
Starmer going on details, Johnson replying on Big Picture. Business as usual. Lots of heat, little light.
Initially Starmer was catching out Johnson on details, now Johnson has found ways to deflect.
Johnson scored a good hit I thought on details when Starmer attacked the vaccine taskforce PR money and Johnson said that the taskforce should be congratulated this week and that money was spent by the vaccine taskforce to get people recruited into vaccine trials and to tackle antivaxxers.
Good answer and Starmer realised it and just moved on without another word on the topic.
Its the same topic as all of the questions - cash spaffed up the wall on nothing. Shagger just doesn't have any of this than waffle. The cash for cronies stinks to high heaven and they simply don't care any more - nor do they try to hide it. Ordinarily a £150m payment for nothing received would be a scandal, but not longer. As with Randox being mentioned its nice "work" if you can get it.
Biden looked doddery even then...... I'm really not sure he's going to make the distance,
Trump was elected in 2016 because he wasn't Clinton. Biden was elected in 2020 because he wasn't Trump.
And the big difference between Clinton and Biden?
Politically they were both top members of Obamas administration. If Biden had run in 2016 his program would have been similar to Clinton's.
Clinton probably has a better record than Biden, though for sure both can be criticised.
Scandals : Clinton used the Clinton private server for government emails - which broke rules and reflects badly on her, but nowhere near as bad as the (admittedly fairly run of the mill) Hunter Biden influence peddling.
Clinton was a bit younger.
So I'm wondering what the big disadvantage Clinton had as a candidate. Can't think of any other blindingly obvious differences between them.
Except for the obvious....
Nobody trusted her ?
and yet she still polled more votes than Trump
but in all the wrong places
hardly her fault that one persons vote in one state is not equal to another person's vote in a different state in the great "democracy" of America.
Yes it is her fault.
She was born and grew up in the USA. She understands it's a federation of states and not a unitary state.
So she needed to campaign in the swing states but spent more time in California than Pennsylvania. Biden virtually camped himself in Pennsylvania.
The person who ignore PA lost it narrowly, the person who campaigned there won it. Entirely fair and within the rules.
Her fault she lost. She knew the rules.
Claiming Hillary should have won the Presidency in 2016 because she got more votes nationwide, ignoring the states results, is like saying Man City should have won last season as they scored more goals, ignoring the match results.
Not just more goals. A better goal difference too. Doesn't technically matter, as you say, but it is nice if the champions are top on those stats too. Goals are very important in football. Indeed it's hard to imagine the game without them.
There must have been countless tennis matches where the player that scored the most points didn’t win.
Starmer going on details, Johnson replying on Big Picture. Business as usual. Lots of heat, little light.
Initially Starmer was catching out Johnson on details, now Johnson has found ways to deflect.
Johnson scored a good hit I thought on details when Starmer attacked the vaccine taskforce PR money and Johnson said that the taskforce should be congratulated this week and that money was spent by the vaccine taskforce to get people recruited into vaccine trials and to tackle antivaxxers.
Good answer and Starmer realised it and just moved on without another word on the topic.
There is going to be a nation wide advertising campaign regarding the vaccine in the various phases of the roll out, I presume.
Biden looked doddery even then...... I'm really not sure he's going to make the distance,
Trump was elected in 2016 because he wasn't Clinton. Biden was elected in 2020 because he wasn't Trump.
And the big difference between Clinton and Biden?
Politically they were both top members of Obamas administration. If Biden had run in 2016 his program would have been similar to Clinton's.
Clinton probably has a better record than Biden, though for sure both can be criticised.
Scandals : Clinton used the Clinton private server for government emails - which broke rules and reflects badly on her, but nowhere near as bad as the (admittedly fairly run of the mill) Hunter Biden influence peddling.
Clinton was a bit younger.
So I'm wondering what the big disadvantage Clinton had as a candidate. Can't think of any other blindingly obvious differences between them.
Except for the obvious....
Nobody trusted her ?
and yet she still polled more votes than Trump
but in all the wrong places
hardly her fault that one persons vote in one state is not equal to another person's vote in a different state in the great "democracy" of America.
You have to win with the system you have not the one you want. It is her responsibility as the candidate that for whatever reason she failed to win under that system.
But its fine margins - Biden looks set to win 4 states by less than a percent.
Indeed, the Republican lean in places like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin looks like it's going to be pretty much the same in 2020 as in 2016. So if the argument is that Clinton was rubbish because she underperformed in those states compared to nationally, as many have repeatedly claimed for 4 years, then Biden might be equally rubbish. At best you could argue he might have arrested the trend for those states to lean a bit more Republican as happened in the previous 2 elections, but once all the votes have been counted maybe not even that. FWIW Ohio looks like it's leaning even more Republican than last time.
Clinton neglected the swing states and lost. Biden campaigned in the swing states and won.
How does that make Biden equally rubbish?
OK I'll make it a bit clearer for you:
Last time Clinton won the national vote by 2.1% She lost Pennsylvania by 0.7% In other words, however much she did or didn't campaign in different places, Pennsylvania leaned 2.8% more Republican/Trump than the country. This time Biden is winning the popular vote so far by 3.2% but it will end probably end up higher maybe 4%? He is winning Pennsylvania currently by 0.7% In other words, however much Biden did or didn't campaign in different places, Pennsylvania is leaning 2.5% more Republican/Trump than the country - but will probably end up leaning over 3% more Trump than the country.
It is almost the same calculations for Wisconsin
In other words, Biden is doing relatively worse in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin than Clinton, compared to the country as a whole. Which doesn't support the argument that "Clinton lost because she stupidly piled up votes in the wrong places, whereas Biden smartly won votes in the right places".
Still lots of votes to be counted in Philly, and the country at large so we can only be sure how to analyse this when the certified totals are in.
On a brief tangent, one of my unpopular opinions is that we should consider making goal difference what determines league position. Think about it: No-one would ever sit on a lead again. Teams would be encouraged to go for it for the whole 90 minutes, and conceding when well ahead would still matter.
One for HYFUD Alister Jack was 'joking' when he ruled out indyref2 for 40 years
The Secretary of State for Scotland said he only mentioned the four decade wait for a new vote because the BBC journalist interviewing him had “raised an eyebrow”. Obviously had Govid20 on the blower remonstrating at him upsetting the applecart. Rough wooing indeed.
Well, HYUFD thoroughly approves of Henry VIII's approach to things anyway.
If the government really wanted to get tough with the nationalists it could do what Beijing is doing this morning where it is removing legislators from the Hong Kong legislature for questioning Beijing's authority, or it could have done what Madrid did in Catalonia in 2017 where it refused to allow any independence referendum, suspended the Catalan Parliament and arrested Catalan nationalist leaders.
Nationalists should thank themselves lucky they have already had one independence vote and the government is merely saying it will not grant another one until a generation has elapsed
For me there are two ways the government could go: 1) stick to its guns that there will be no further referendum until a generation has elapsed, or 2) commence work NOW with the Scottish government to agree a deal for Scotland in event that it splits away - and then put this deal to referendum.
UK Gmt HQ in Edinbuirgh, for the third photo: note visual contribution to the Enlightenment architecture of Edinburgh.
Did they design and build it themselves? Or just found a suitable office space that they could occupy.
The UK Government Hub is part of the award-winning New Waverley development delivered by Artisan Real Estate Investors. As well as the Hub, it includes three hotels, the Arches, shops and 150 homes, in a new quarter set round a public square. It is one of the UK’s most important city-centre regeneration sites, located in the World Heritage Site of Edinburgh’s Old Town. The area is also home to Edinburgh City Council, several international finance companies and the British Council.
You'll have to have a word with HMG's pr guys, they seem to think they've 'delivered' it.
'HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is delivering the Edinburgh Hub on behalf of the UK Government, and will be the largest department based there when the first teams start to move in from April 2020.'
Well that is easily contradicted by the timeline of events. Once they decided to lease it I'm sure they worked closely on getting it ready to be occupied. That doesn't mean it was built by HMG.
You mean HMG wanted to portray itself as Lady Bountiful while in fact only renting a bit of floor space? I can barely credit it.
Looking forward to seeing which bit of Glasgow office space they'll be renting to open their next Ministry of Fear of Independence.
The distance that Fox News and Murdoch are putting in from Trump's fraud claims now might turn out to be crucial. He is the Fox President, and other outlets can't really replace it for him, or have anything like its reach among his core supporters.
Who would have thought Murdoch might save democracy, having done so much to damage it.
It would be true ironic if he were to become the saviour of liberal democracy, having been its scourge for so long.
The distance that Fox News and Murdoch are putting in from Trump's fraud claims now might turn out to be crucial. He is the Fox President, and other outlets can't really replace it for him, or have anything like its reach among his core supporters.
Who would have thought Murdoch might save democracy, having done so much to damage it.
Murdoch saves democracy? I'm pushing back on that!
Biden looked doddery even then...... I'm really not sure he's going to make the distance,
Trump was elected in 2016 because he wasn't Clinton. Biden was elected in 2020 because he wasn't Trump.
And the big difference between Clinton and Biden?
Politically they were both top members of Obamas administration. If Biden had run in 2016 his program would have been similar to Clinton's.
Clinton probably has a better record than Biden, though for sure both can be criticised.
Scandals : Clinton used the Clinton private server for government emails - which broke rules and reflects badly on her, but nowhere near as bad as the (admittedly fairly run of the mill) Hunter Biden influence peddling.
Clinton was a bit younger.
So I'm wondering what the big disadvantage Clinton had as a candidate. Can't think of any other blindingly obvious differences between them.
Except for the obvious....
Nobody trusted her ?
and yet she still polled more votes than Trump
but in all the wrong places
hardly her fault that one persons vote in one state is not equal to another person's vote in a different state in the great "democracy" of America.
Yes it is her fault.
She was born and grew up in the USA. She understands it's a federation of states and not a unitary state.
So she needed to campaign in the swing states but spent more time in California than Pennsylvania. Biden virtually camped himself in Pennsylvania.
The person who ignore PA lost it narrowly, the person who campaigned there won it. Entirely fair and within the rules.
Her fault she lost. She knew the rules.
Claiming Hillary should have won the Presidency in 2016 because she got more votes nationwide, ignoring the states results, is like saying Man City should have won last season as they scored more goals, ignoring the match results.
Not just more goals. A better goal difference too. Doesn't technically matter, as you say, but it is nice if the champions are top on those stats too. Goals are very important in football. Indeed it's hard to imagine the game without them.
There must have been countless tennis matches where the player that scored the most points didn’t win.
Biden looked doddery even then...... I'm really not sure he's going to make the distance,
Trump was elected in 2016 because he wasn't Clinton. Biden was elected in 2020 because he wasn't Trump.
And the big difference between Clinton and Biden?
Politically they were both top members of Obamas administration. If Biden had run in 2016 his program would have been similar to Clinton's.
Clinton probably has a better record than Biden, though for sure both can be criticised.
Scandals : Clinton used the Clinton private server for government emails - which broke rules and reflects badly on her, but nowhere near as bad as the (admittedly fairly run of the mill) Hunter Biden influence peddling.
Clinton was a bit younger.
So I'm wondering what the big disadvantage Clinton had as a candidate. Can't think of any other blindingly obvious differences between them.
Except for the obvious....
Nobody trusted her ?
and yet she still polled more votes than Trump
but in all the wrong places
hardly her fault that one persons vote in one state is not equal to another person's vote in a different state in the great "democracy" of America.
You have to win with the system you have not the one you want. It is her responsibility as the candidate that for whatever reason she failed to win under that system.
But its fine margins - Biden looks set to win 4 states by less than a percent.
Indeed, the Republican lean in places like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin looks like it's going to be pretty much the same in 2020 as in 2016. So if the argument is that Clinton was rubbish because she underperformed in those states compared to nationally, as many have repeatedly claimed for 4 years, then Biden might be equally rubbish. At best you could argue he might have arrested the trend for those states to lean a bit more Republican as happened in the previous 2 elections, but once all the votes have been counted maybe not even that. FWIW Ohio looks like it's leaning even more Republican than last time.
Clinton neglected the swing states and lost. Biden campaigned in the swing states and won.
How does that make Biden equally rubbish?
OK I'll make it a bit clearer for you:
Last time Clinton won the national vote by 2.1% She lost Pennsylvania by 0.7% In other words, however much she did or didn't campaign in different places, Pennsylvania leaned 2.8% more Republican/Trump than the country. This time Biden is winning the popular vote so far by 3.2% but it will end probably end up higher maybe 4%? He is winning Pennsylvania currently by 0.7% In other words, however much Biden did or didn't campaign in different places, Pennsylvania is leaning 2.5% more Republican/Trump than the country - but will probably end up leaning over 3% more Trump than the country.
It is almost the same calculations for Wisconsin
In other words, Biden is doing relatively worse in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin than Clinton, compared to the country as a whole. Which doesn't support the argument that "Clinton lost because she stupidly piled up votes in the wrong places, whereas Biden smartly won votes in the right places".
Yes, also I don't think it's factually true that Clinton didn't campaign much in PA. PA was considered a key swing state and she spent a lot of time and money there.
What's true is that she totally ignored WI and didn't pay much attention to MI, but even if she'd won both those states she'd still have lost if she'd missed PA.
Starmer's problem has always been a lack of umph - he is forensic but with no personality to add any flair it isn't very interesting. Lets understand where we are in the electoral cycle though. All the opposition has to do at this stage is look competent and caring. Patriotic bluster can only get the PM so far when its used to cover over a catastrofuck, and the more that people realise just how screwed we are the more they remember the objections raised...
Starmer going on details, Johnson replying on Big Picture. Business as usual. Lots of heat, little light.
Initially Starmer was catching out Johnson on details, now Johnson has found ways to deflect.
Johnson scored a good hit I thought on details when Starmer attacked the vaccine taskforce PR money and Johnson said that the taskforce should be congratulated this week and that money was spent by the vaccine taskforce to get people recruited into vaccine trials and to tackle antivaxxers.
Good answer and Starmer realised it and just moved on without another word on the topic.
There is going to be a nation wide advertising campaign regarding the vaccine in the various phases of the roll out, I presume.
Yes. Not good timing to be leading on attacking the vaccine taskforce this week. Starmer led with his chin on that one and Boris was clearly ready for it.
Biden looked doddery even then...... I'm really not sure he's going to make the distance,
Trump was elected in 2016 because he wasn't Clinton. Biden was elected in 2020 because he wasn't Trump.
And the big difference between Clinton and Biden?
Politically they were both top members of Obamas administration. If Biden had run in 2016 his program would have been similar to Clinton's.
Clinton probably has a better record than Biden, though for sure both can be criticised.
Scandals : Clinton used the Clinton private server for government emails - which broke rules and reflects badly on her, but nowhere near as bad as the (admittedly fairly run of the mill) Hunter Biden influence peddling.
Clinton was a bit younger.
So I'm wondering what the big disadvantage Clinton had as a candidate. Can't think of any other blindingly obvious differences between them.
Except for the obvious....
Nobody trusted her ?
and yet she still polled more votes than Trump
but in all the wrong places
hardly her fault that one persons vote in one state is not equal to another person's vote in a different state in the great "democracy" of America.
You have to win with the system you have not the one you want. It is her responsibility as the candidate that for whatever reason she failed to win under that system.
But its fine margins - Biden looks set to win 4 states by less than a percent.
Indeed, the Republican lean in places like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin looks like it's going to be pretty much the same in 2020 as in 2016. So if the argument is that Clinton was rubbish because she underperformed in those states compared to nationally, as many have repeatedly claimed for 4 years, then Biden might be equally rubbish. At best you could argue he might have arrested the trend for those states to lean a bit more Republican as happened in the previous 2 elections, but once all the votes have been counted maybe not even that. FWIW Ohio looks like it's leaning even more Republican than last time.
Clinton neglected the swing states and lost. Biden campaigned in the swing states and won.
How does that make Biden equally rubbish?
OK I'll make it a bit clearer for you:
Last time Clinton won the national vote by 2.1% She lost Pennsylvania by 0.7% In other words, however much she did or didn't campaign in different places, Pennsylvania leaned 2.8% more Republican/Trump than the country. This time Biden is winning the popular vote so far by 3.2% but it will end probably end up higher maybe 4%? He is winning Pennsylvania currently by 0.7% In other words, however much Biden did or didn't campaign in different places, Pennsylvania is leaning 2.5% more Republican/Trump than the country - but will probably end up leaning over 3% more Trump than the country.
It is almost the same calculations for Wisconsin
In other words, Biden is doing relatively worse in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin than Clinton, compared to the country as a whole. Which doesn't support the argument that "Clinton lost because she stupidly piled up votes in the wrong places, whereas Biden smartly won votes in the right places".
Alternatively
Biden increased the Democrat vote share by 1.1-1.8% over what Clinton got He increased the Democrat vote share in Pennsylvania by 1.4% over what Clinton got
Starmer going on details, Johnson replying on Big Picture. Business as usual. Lots of heat, little light.
Initially Starmer was catching out Johnson on details, now Johnson has found ways to deflect.
Johnson scored a good hit I thought on details when Starmer attacked the vaccine taskforce PR money and Johnson said that the taskforce should be congratulated this week and that money was spent by the vaccine taskforce to get people recruited into vaccine trials and to tackle antivaxxers.
Good answer and Starmer realised it and just moved on without another word on the topic.
Its the same topic as all of the questions - cash spaffed up the wall on nothing. Shagger just doesn't have any of this than waffle. The cash for cronies stinks to high heaven and they simply don't care any more - nor do they try to hide it. Ordinarily a £150m payment for nothing received would be a scandal, but not longer. As with Randox being mentioned its nice "work" if you can get it.
You think recruiting people into vaccine trials and billions of items of PPE purchased is "nothing"?
Biden looked doddery even then...... I'm really not sure he's going to make the distance,
Trump was elected in 2016 because he wasn't Clinton. Biden was elected in 2020 because he wasn't Trump.
And the big difference between Clinton and Biden?
Politically they were both top members of Obamas administration. If Biden had run in 2016 his program would have been similar to Clinton's.
Clinton probably has a better record than Biden, though for sure both can be criticised.
Scandals : Clinton used the Clinton private server for government emails - which broke rules and reflects badly on her, but nowhere near as bad as the (admittedly fairly run of the mill) Hunter Biden influence peddling.
Clinton was a bit younger.
So I'm wondering what the big disadvantage Clinton had as a candidate. Can't think of any other blindingly obvious differences between them.
Except for the obvious....
Nobody trusted her ?
and yet she still polled more votes than Trump
but in all the wrong places
hardly her fault that one persons vote in one state is not equal to another person's vote in a different state in the great "democracy" of America.
Yes it is her fault.
She was born and grew up in the USA. She understands it's a federation of states and not a unitary state.
So she needed to campaign in the swing states but spent more time in California than Pennsylvania. Biden virtually camped himself in Pennsylvania.
The person who ignore PA lost it narrowly, the person who campaigned there won it. Entirely fair and within the rules.
Her fault she lost. She knew the rules.
Claiming Hillary should have won the Presidency in 2016 because she got more votes nationwide, ignoring the states results, is like saying Man City should have won last season as they scored more goals, ignoring the match results.
Not just more goals. A better goal difference too. Doesn't technically matter, as you say, but it is nice if the champions are top on those stats too. Goals are very important in football. Indeed it's hard to imagine the game without them.
There must have been countless tennis matches where the player that scored the most points didn’t win.
It happens less often than you'd think but a great example was last year's Wimbledon final. Federer was top on every stat but Djokovic won the match.
On a brief tangent, one of my unpopular opinions is that we should consider making goal difference what determines league position. Think about it: No-one would ever sit on a lead again. Teams would be encouraged to go for it for the whole 90 minutes, and conceding when well ahead would still matter.
It would also make the last game of the season even more of a nail-biter as an 8-0 thrashing could sink you from mid table. Like it!
Starmer going on details, Johnson replying on Big Picture. Business as usual. Lots of heat, little light.
Initially Starmer was catching out Johnson on details, now Johnson has found ways to deflect.
Johnson scored a good hit I thought on details when Starmer attacked the vaccine taskforce PR money and Johnson said that the taskforce should be congratulated this week and that money was spent by the vaccine taskforce to get people recruited into vaccine trials and to tackle antivaxxers.
Good answer and Starmer realised it and just moved on without another word on the topic.
There is going to be a nation wide advertising campaign regarding the vaccine in the various phases of the roll out, I presume.
Yes. Not good timing to be leading on attacking the vaccine taskforce this week. Starmer led with his chin on that one and Boris was clearly ready for it.
Given the depth and extent of the anti-vax stuff, which is quite shocking, there will need to be a sustained campaign to promote it.
Only two options here, both of which include Laura Kuenssburg is an absolute joke of a journalist.
Firstly, Either this story is bollox, Carrie Symonds has no Government role and her view are of no consequence, let alone should be being reported breathlessly as pivotal by the BBC's chief political correspondent. This is just gossip peddling.
Or this story is accurate, Carrie Symonds now has the power to block key Government appointments, in which case THAT should be the story, not who gets appointed to the role.
On a brief tangent, one of my unpopular opinions is that we should consider making goal difference what determines league position. Think about it: No-one would ever sit on a lead again. Teams would be encouraged to go for it for the whole 90 minutes, and conceding when well ahead would still matter.
Interesting idea. That's the football equivalent of electoral reform.
No more wasted goals in safe matches. Every goal counts.
On a brief tangent, one of my unpopular opinions is that we should consider making goal difference what determines league position. Think about it: No-one would ever sit on a lead again. Teams would be encouraged to go for it for the whole 90 minutes, and conceding when well ahead would still matter.
Why wouldn't teams "ever sit on a lead again"? If you're two nil up, there's still a calculation about whether you're more likely to concede than score if you push for a third. Additionally, would a team ever go for it against Man City or Liverpool, rather than set up for a one or two nil defeat? As it is, if a team is one down against a good side, they have an incentive to come out and attack - under your system, continued defensiveness is probably the best option.
There might be a case for a rugby union style "bonus point win", although the winning bonus point is more designed to encourage try scoring matches rather than "12-9, all penalties" games.
Also, one of the joys of football is pitting different styles against each other. It isn't just about having two gung-ho teams going at each other. Being a "hard to break down" team isn't just a legitimate tactic - it is actually interesting as a fan to see whether another team can unlock such a team.
Your approach is like looking at cricket and saying, "we need to encourage more sixes and more wickets!" Well, fine, Twenty20 is fun, but Test cricket is fun in a different way.
On a brief tangent, one of my unpopular opinions is that we should consider making goal difference what determines league position. Think about it: No-one would ever sit on a lead again. Teams would be encouraged to go for it for the whole 90 minutes, and conceding when well ahead would still matter.
It would also make the last game of the season even more of a nail-biter as an 8-0 thrashing could sink you from mid table. Like it!
Yes, the concept of being mathematically relegated before the final day would be gone (though in practice not so much).
Only two options here, both of which include Laura Kuenssburg is an absolute joke of a journalist.
Firstly, Either this story is bollox, Carrie Symonds has no Government role and her view are of no consequence, let alone should be being reported breathlessly as pivotal by the BBC's chief political correspondent. This is just gossip peddling.
Or this story is accurate, Carrie Symonds now has the power to block key Government appointments, in which case THAT should be the story, not who gets appointed to the role.
The distance that Fox News and Murdoch are putting in from Trump's fraud claims now might turn out to be crucial. He is the Fox President, and other outlets can't really replace it for him, or have anything like its reach among his core supporters.
Who would have thought Murdoch might save democracy, having done so much to damage it.
Murdoch saves democracy? I'm pushing back on that!
Well i suppose in an authoritarian dictatorship, his power to influence a country's leaders through the use of power of his media outlets in influencing public opinion is... somewhat limited.
On a brief tangent, one of my unpopular opinions is that we should consider making goal difference what determines league position. Think about it: No-one would ever sit on a lead again. Teams would be encouraged to go for it for the whole 90 minutes, and conceding when well ahead would still matter.
Interesting idea. That's the football equivalent of electoral reform.
No more wasted goals in safe matches. Every goal counts.
Starmer going on details, Johnson replying on Big Picture. Business as usual. Lots of heat, little light.
Initially Starmer was catching out Johnson on details, now Johnson has found ways to deflect.
Johnson scored a good hit I thought on details when Starmer attacked the vaccine taskforce PR money and Johnson said that the taskforce should be congratulated this week and that money was spent by the vaccine taskforce to get people recruited into vaccine trials and to tackle antivaxxers.
Good answer and Starmer realised it and just moved on without another word on the topic.
There is going to be a nation wide advertising campaign regarding the vaccine in the various phases of the roll out, I presume.
Yes. Not good timing to be leading on attacking the vaccine taskforce this week. Starmer led with his chin on that one and Boris was clearly ready for it.
Given the depth and extent of the anti-vax stuff, which is quite shocking, there will need to be a sustained campaign to promote it.
Probably then a good idea if the head of the Vaccine taskforce doesn't spend £670k on PR consultants and then find herself quoted as saying that not everyone will be given the vaccine as it will be too dangerous for them.
Biden looked doddery even then...... I'm really not sure he's going to make the distance,
Trump was elected in 2016 because he wasn't Clinton. Biden was elected in 2020 because he wasn't Trump.
And the big difference between Clinton and Biden?
Politically they were both top members of Obamas administration. If Biden had run in 2016 his program would have been similar to Clinton's.
Clinton probably has a better record than Biden, though for sure both can be criticised.
Scandals : Clinton used the Clinton private server for government emails - which broke rules and reflects badly on her, but nowhere near as bad as the (admittedly fairly run of the mill) Hunter Biden influence peddling.
Clinton was a bit younger.
So I'm wondering what the big disadvantage Clinton had as a candidate. Can't think of any other blindingly obvious differences between them.
Except for the obvious....
Nobody trusted her ?
and yet she still polled more votes than Trump
but in all the wrong places
hardly her fault that one persons vote in one state is not equal to another person's vote in a different state in the great "democracy" of America.
Yes it is her fault.
She was born and grew up in the USA. She understands it's a federation of states and not a unitary state.
So she needed to campaign in the swing states but spent more time in California than Pennsylvania. Biden virtually camped himself in Pennsylvania.
The person who ignore PA lost it narrowly, the person who campaigned there won it. Entirely fair and within the rules.
Her fault she lost. She knew the rules.
Claiming Hillary should have won the Presidency in 2016 because she got more votes nationwide, ignoring the states results, is like saying Man City should have won last season as they scored more goals, ignoring the match results.
Not just more goals. A better goal difference too. Doesn't technically matter, as you say, but it is nice if the champions are top on those stats too. Goals are very important in football. Indeed it's hard to imagine the game without them.
There must have been countless tennis matches where the player that scored the most points didn’t win.
It happens less often than you'd think but a great example was last year's Wimbledon final. Federer was top on every stat but Djokovic won the match.
FT has reported that £43billion has been spent on moonshot quick covid tests.
22bn over 4 years for this part of it. Looks poorly defined tbh - is that a provision to allow private sector to essentially add in any new tests they fancy?
What's the betting it goes to some company which has never before run a lab?
It's a completely unnecessary commitment of a vast amount of money. There's no question that public health infrastructure needs improvement, but this really isn't a rational way to go about it.
What's the betting that a cabinet minister's relative, or a Tory MP is on the board of a successful bidder ?
Only two options here, both of which include Laura Kuenssburg is an absolute joke of a journalist.
Firstly, Either this story is bollox, Carrie Symonds has no Government role and her view are of no consequence, let alone should be being reported breathlessly as pivotal by the BBC's chief political correspondent. This is just gossip peddling.
Or this story is accurate, Carrie Symonds now has the power to block key Government appointments, in which case THAT should be the story, not who gets appointed to the role.
To be honest she is likely to better at it than Cummings or Johnson.
Only two options here, both of which include Laura Kuenssburg is an absolute joke of a journalist.
Firstly, Either this story is bollox, Carrie Symonds has no Government role and her view are of no consequence, let alone should be being reported breathlessly as pivotal by the BBC's chief political correspondent. This is just gossip peddling.
Or this story is accurate, Carrie Symonds now has the power to block key Government appointments, in which case THAT should be the story, not who gets appointed to the role.
Brought to you by the same media pack that only 2 days ago were breathlessly reporting Joe Biden hates Boris so much, he would be right at the back of the queue for phone calls and all this would mean for the future of the world.
Only two options here, both of which include Laura Kuenssburg is an absolute joke of a journalist.
Firstly, Either this story is bollox, Carrie Symonds has no Government role and her view are of no consequence, let alone should be being reported breathlessly as pivotal by the BBC's chief political correspondent. This is just gossip peddling.
Or this story is accurate, Carrie Symonds now has the power to block key Government appointments, in which case THAT should be the story, not who gets appointed to the role.
Biden looked doddery even then...... I'm really not sure he's going to make the distance,
Trump was elected in 2016 because he wasn't Clinton. Biden was elected in 2020 because he wasn't Trump.
And the big difference between Clinton and Biden?
Politically they were both top members of Obamas administration. If Biden had run in 2016 his program would have been similar to Clinton's.
Clinton probably has a better record than Biden, though for sure both can be criticised.
Scandals : Clinton used the Clinton private server for government emails - which broke rules and reflects badly on her, but nowhere near as bad as the (admittedly fairly run of the mill) Hunter Biden influence peddling.
Clinton was a bit younger.
So I'm wondering what the big disadvantage Clinton had as a candidate. Can't think of any other blindingly obvious differences between them.
Except for the obvious....
Nobody trusted her ?
and yet she still polled more votes than Trump
but in all the wrong places
hardly her fault that one persons vote in one state is not equal to another person's vote in a different state in the great "democracy" of America.
You have to win with the system you have not the one you want. It is her responsibility as the candidate that for whatever reason she failed to win under that system.
But its fine margins - Biden looks set to win 4 states by less than a percent.
Indeed, the Republican lean in places like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin looks like it's going to be pretty much the same in 2020 as in 2016. So if the argument is that Clinton was rubbish because she underperformed in those states compared to nationally, as many have repeatedly claimed for 4 years, then Biden might be equally rubbish. At best you could argue he might have arrested the trend for those states to lean a bit more Republican as happened in the previous 2 elections, but once all the votes have been counted maybe not even that. FWIW Ohio looks like it's leaning even more Republican than last time.
Clinton neglected the swing states and lost. Biden campaigned in the swing states and won.
How does that make Biden equally rubbish?
OK I'll make it a bit clearer for you:
Last time Clinton won the national vote by 2.1% She lost Pennsylvania by 0.7% In other words, however much she did or didn't campaign in different places, Pennsylvania leaned 2.8% more Republican/Trump than the country. This time Biden is winning the popular vote so far by 3.2% but it will end probably end up higher maybe 4%? He is winning Pennsylvania currently by 0.7% In other words, however much Biden did or didn't campaign in different places, Pennsylvania is leaning 2.5% more Republican/Trump than the country - but will probably end up leaning over 3% more Trump than the country.
It is almost the same calculations for Wisconsin
In other words, Biden is doing relatively worse in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin than Clinton, compared to the country as a whole. Which doesn't support the argument that "Clinton lost because she stupidly piled up votes in the wrong places, whereas Biden smartly won votes in the right places".
That is a fair point, the only states Biden is doing worse than Hillary in with almost all votes now in are Florida, Mississippi, New York (where Hillary was Senator) and Illinois (Hillary's state of birth), it is mainly the slight UNS swing to Biden relative to Hillary in 2016 in the national popular vote has been reflected in enough key swing states for Biden to win the EC
Only two options here, both of which include Laura Kuenssburg is an absolute joke of a journalist.
Firstly, Either this story is bollox, Carrie Symonds has no Government role and her view are of no consequence, let alone should be being reported breathlessly as pivotal by the BBC's chief political correspondent. This is just gossip peddling.
Or this story is accurate, Carrie Symonds now has the power to block key Government appointments, in which case THAT should be the story, not who gets appointed to the role.
Brought to you by the same media pack that only 2 days ago were breathlessly reporting Joe Biden hates Boris so much, he would be right at the back of the queue for phone calls and all this would mean for the future of the world.
Remember that "There will be no financial help for those not working due to COVID"?
All the way from Mexico to Panama and all the islands in the Caribbean must also be wondering how Joe Biden has become their leader. I know Barbados are ditching the Queen, but I don't think they are going to replace her with Joe.
Only two options here, both of which include Laura Kuenssburg is an absolute joke of a journalist.
Firstly, Either this story is bollox, Carrie Symonds has no Government role and her view are of no consequence, let alone should be being reported breathlessly as pivotal by the BBC's chief political correspondent. This is just gossip peddling.
Or this story is accurate, Carrie Symonds now has the power to block key Government appointments, in which case THAT should be the story, not who gets appointed to the role.
Starmer going on details, Johnson replying on Big Picture. Business as usual. Lots of heat, little light.
Initially Starmer was catching out Johnson on details, now Johnson has found ways to deflect.
Johnson scored a good hit I thought on details when Starmer attacked the vaccine taskforce PR money and Johnson said that the taskforce should be congratulated this week and that money was spent by the vaccine taskforce to get people recruited into vaccine trials and to tackle antivaxxers.
Good answer and Starmer realised it and just moved on without another word on the topic.
Starmer not fantastic, but I am not entirely sure you are not viewing Johnson's performance through some top quality rose-tinted Ray-Bans.
Matthew Parris can see the writing on the wall, and is a little miffed by it. Once again, fate has intervened to save Boris the lucky general, and any potential vacancy in the role of PM - if there ever was one - has been foreclosed:
'Good news. I mean the vaccine, of course. Such is one’s happiness for our fellow citizens that I’m almost — but not quite — able to ignore the slightest of twinges of irritation that Boris looks like getting away with it. Again. Again and again and again.'
On a brief tangent, one of my unpopular opinions is that we should consider making goal difference what determines league position. Think about it: No-one would ever sit on a lead again. Teams would be encouraged to go for it for the whole 90 minutes, and conceding when well ahead would still matter.
Interesting idea. That's the football equivalent of electoral reform.
No more wasted goals in safe matches. Every goal counts.
1-0 would still be better that 2-2
Yes. So a win still > a draw. And a draw > a defeat.
And no one cares, or if they do cannot do anything about it. China has gambled that they are strong enough to clamp the fist, and been proven right.
There can therefore be no complaints from Beijing if Westminster blocks indyref2 next year if the SNP get a Holyrood majority, given that would be a much less authoritarian response than Beijing has taken with anti Beijing forces in Hong Kong.
Biden looked doddery even then...... I'm really not sure he's going to make the distance,
Trump was elected in 2016 because he wasn't Clinton. Biden was elected in 2020 because he wasn't Trump.
And the big difference between Clinton and Biden?
Politically they were both top members of Obamas administration. If Biden had run in 2016 his program would have been similar to Clinton's.
Clinton probably has a better record than Biden, though for sure both can be criticised.
Scandals : Clinton used the Clinton private server for government emails - which broke rules and reflects badly on her, but nowhere near as bad as the (admittedly fairly run of the mill) Hunter Biden influence peddling.
Clinton was a bit younger.
So I'm wondering what the big disadvantage Clinton had as a candidate. Can't think of any other blindingly obvious differences between them.
Except for the obvious....
Nobody trusted her ?
and yet she still polled more votes than Trump
but in all the wrong places
hardly her fault that one persons vote in one state is not equal to another person's vote in a different state in the great "democracy" of America.
You have to win with the system you have not the one you want. It is her responsibility as the candidate that for whatever reason she failed to win under that system.
But its fine margins - Biden looks set to win 4 states by less than a percent.
Indeed, the Republican lean in places like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin looks like it's going to be pretty much the same in 2020 as in 2016. So if the argument is that Clinton was rubbish because she underperformed in those states compared to nationally, as many have repeatedly claimed for 4 years, then Biden might be equally rubbish. At best you could argue he might have arrested the trend for those states to lean a bit more Republican as happened in the previous 2 elections, but once all the votes have been counted maybe not even that. FWIW Ohio looks like it's leaning even more Republican than last time.
Clinton neglected the swing states and lost. Biden campaigned in the swing states and won.
How does that make Biden equally rubbish?
OK I'll make it a bit clearer for you:
Last time Clinton won the national vote by 2.1% She lost Pennsylvania by 0.7% In other words, however much she did or didn't campaign in different places, Pennsylvania leaned 2.8% more Republican/Trump than the country. This time Biden is winning the popular vote so far by 3.2% but it will end probably end up higher maybe 4%? He is winning Pennsylvania currently by 0.7% In other words, however much Biden did or didn't campaign in different places, Pennsylvania is leaning 2.5% more Republican/Trump than the country - but will probably end up leaning over 3% more Trump than the country.
It is almost the same calculations for Wisconsin
In other words, Biden is doing relatively worse in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin than Clinton, compared to the country as a whole. Which doesn't support the argument that "Clinton lost because she stupidly piled up votes in the wrong places, whereas Biden smartly won votes in the right places".
Alternatively
Biden increased the Democrat vote share by 1.1-1.8% over what Clinton got He increased the Democrat vote share in Pennsylvania by 1.4% over what Clinton got
Maybe. But he will have increased the Dem winning margin in the national vote by more than he increases the Democrat margin in Pennsylvania. Once all the votes are counted.
Biden wins whereas Clinton because he has done better overall, not because he has done especially well in states like Pennsylvania (he hasn't).
The states he has won (or might win) where he HAS done better than Clinton are Georgia and Arizona, and probably Michigan.
So he should get praise for campaigning in Georgia, if anything.
Re: Biden and Hispanics in the US election. I think there's a lot of guff talked about this. In 2016 Trump's entire campaign could at times be boiled down to two key things - "lock her up" and "Build that wall". The latter of course in detail involved an entire campaign demonising Mexicans and others from South America as rapists, murderers and worse.
Is it hardly surprising that after a four year term where Trump hasn't made notable progress in building his wall, and after a campaign where he didn't spend the entire time demonising Hispanics, that he did rather better?
Only two options here, both of which include Laura Kuenssburg is an absolute joke of a journalist.
Firstly, Either this story is bollox, Carrie Symonds has no Government role and her view are of no consequence, let alone should be being reported breathlessly as pivotal by the BBC's chief political correspondent. This is just gossip peddling.
Or this story is accurate, Carrie Symonds now has the power to block key Government appointments, in which case THAT should be the story, not who gets appointed to the role.
Only two options here, both of which include Laura Kuenssburg is an absolute joke of a journalist.
Firstly, Either this story is bollox, Carrie Symonds has no Government role and her view are of no consequence, let alone should be being reported breathlessly as pivotal by the BBC's chief political correspondent. This is just gossip peddling.
Or this story is accurate, Carrie Symonds now has the power to block key Government appointments, in which case THAT should be the story, not who gets appointed to the role.
To be honest she is likely to better at it than Cummings or Johnson.
On a brief tangent, one of my unpopular opinions is that we should consider making goal difference what determines league position. Think about it: No-one would ever sit on a lead again. Teams would be encouraged to go for it for the whole 90 minutes, and conceding when well ahead would still matter.
Interesting idea. That's the football equivalent of electoral reform.
No more wasted goals in safe matches. Every goal counts.
1-0 would still be better that 2-2
Yes. So a win still > a draw. And a draw > a defeat.
Which should placate the traditionalists.
Not really. My point is that a team would still prefer to sit on a lead than risk losing it.
FT has reported that £43billion has been spent on moonshot quick covid tests.
22bn over 4 years for this part of it. Looks poorly defined tbh - is that a provision to allow private sector to essentially add in any new tests they fancy?
What's the betting it goes to some company which has never before run a lab?
Which has already been awarded. To whom ? While there is no commitment to any value of spend on a framework agreement it has become apparent since contract notice publication that spend is likely to exceed the estimated framework value stated in the contract notice. This is mainly due to the pandemic situation resulting in an immediate overall increased spend in support of Covid-19 testing programme. Future value of spend and procurement route for this programme over the term of the framework agreement cannot be accurately forecast at the time of award publication and the revised value published includes a high-end estimate of this value. In addition, there are further impacts of Covid-19 on the pathology and diagnostics market which may result in an overall increase in spend in the market as demand for services increases. This impact cannot be accurately forecast at the time of award and the revised value published included a high-end estimate of this value. The revised value represents the total value of contracts that could be awarded under the framework during its term and takes into account that these contracts are likely to be multi-year...
And no one cares, or if they do cannot do anything about it. China has gambled that they are strong enough to clamp the fist, and been proven right.
There can therefore be no complaints from Beijing if Westminster blocks indyref2 next year if the SNP get a Holyrood majority, given that would be a much less authoritarian response than Beijing has taken with anti Beijing forces in Hong Kong.
I don't think many people were worried about what the CCP were going to say about it, nor should they be the standard by which we judge ourselves.
But authoritarian dictatorships don't care about obvious hypocrisy anyway.
Starmer going on details, Johnson replying on Big Picture. Business as usual. Lots of heat, little light.
Initially Starmer was catching out Johnson on details, now Johnson has found ways to deflect.
Johnson scored a good hit I thought on details when Starmer attacked the vaccine taskforce PR money and Johnson said that the taskforce should be congratulated this week and that money was spent by the vaccine taskforce to get people recruited into vaccine trials and to tackle antivaxxers.
Good answer and Starmer realised it and just moved on without another word on the topic.
Its the same topic as all of the questions - cash spaffed up the wall on nothing. Shagger just doesn't have any of this than waffle. The cash for cronies stinks to high heaven and they simply don't care any more - nor do they try to hide it. Ordinarily a £150m payment for nothing received would be a scandal, but not longer. As with Randox being mentioned its nice "work" if you can get it.
You think recruiting people into vaccine trials and billions of items of PPE purchased is "nothing"?
There is a specific contract referred to £150m spent. Zero usable PPE received.
Matthew Parris can see the writing on the wall, and is a little miffed by it. Once again, fate has intervened to save Boris the lucky general, and any potential vacancy in the role of PM - if there ever was one - has been foreclosed:
'Good news. I mean the vaccine, of course. Such is one’s happiness for our fellow citizens that I’m almost — but not quite — able to ignore the slightest of twinges of irritation that Boris looks like getting away with it. Again. Again and again and again.'
He won't be jacking it in early and I don't think the party decision to stick with him or not for GE24 will be taken until 2023. So I'm happy with my 1.9 on him to still be PM on 1st July 2022.
Porter Wright are going to get blacklisted by half their clients for picking up this nonsense. They'll have to hope their MAGA clients pick up theslack.
Only two options here, both of which include Laura Kuenssburg is an absolute joke of a journalist.
Firstly, Either this story is bollox, Carrie Symonds has no Government role and her view are of no consequence, let alone should be being reported breathlessly as pivotal by the BBC's chief political correspondent. This is just gossip peddling.
Or this story is accurate, Carrie Symonds now has the power to block key Government appointments, in which case THAT should be the story, not who gets appointed to the role.
Actually to be fair to Carrie, she's a former SPAD/Comms person.
She used to be Head of Comms for the Tory party as well.
I think she might talking from a professional POV,
Biden looked doddery even then...... I'm really not sure he's going to make the distance,
Trump was elected in 2016 because he wasn't Clinton. Biden was elected in 2020 because he wasn't Trump.
And the big difference between Clinton and Biden?
Politically they were both top members of Obamas administration. If Biden had run in 2016 his program would have been similar to Clinton's.
Clinton probably has a better record than Biden, though for sure both can be criticised.
Scandals : Clinton used the Clinton private server for government emails - which broke rules and reflects badly on her, but nowhere near as bad as the (admittedly fairly run of the mill) Hunter Biden influence peddling.
Clinton was a bit younger.
So I'm wondering what the big disadvantage Clinton had as a candidate. Can't think of any other blindingly obvious differences between them.
Except for the obvious....
Nobody trusted her ?
and yet she still polled more votes than Trump
but in all the wrong places
hardly her fault that one persons vote in one state is not equal to another person's vote in a different state in the great "democracy" of America.
Yes it is her fault.
She was born and grew up in the USA. She understands it's a federation of states and not a unitary state.
So she needed to campaign in the swing states but spent more time in California than Pennsylvania. Biden virtually camped himself in Pennsylvania.
The person who ignore PA lost it narrowly, the person who campaigned there won it. Entirely fair and within the rules.
Her fault she lost. She knew the rules.
Claiming Hillary should have won the Presidency in 2016 because she got more votes nationwide, ignoring the states results, is like saying Man City should have won last season as they scored more goals, ignoring the match results.
Not just more goals. A better goal difference too. Doesn't technically matter, as you say, but it is nice if the champions are top on those stats too. Goals are very important in football. Indeed it's hard to imagine the game without them.
There must have been countless tennis matches where the player that scored the most points didn’t win.
Frequent in snooker.
In theory, you could have 10 frames of 147-0 breaks, followed by your competitor with 11 frames won by 1 point on the final black.
(In theoretical theory, you could have a free ball from a foul, followed by 16 reds, 16 blacks and clearing all the colours, for a score of 159-0. I remember Kirk Stevens having a chance of the 155 break at, I think the Crucible - he got over 100 before the break came to an end, but for a good while it did look to be on.)
On a brief tangent, one of my unpopular opinions is that we should consider making goal difference what determines league position. Think about it: No-one would ever sit on a lead again. Teams would be encouraged to go for it for the whole 90 minutes, and conceding when well ahead would still matter.
Why wouldn't teams "ever sit on a lead again"? If you're two nil up, there's still a calculation about whether you're more likely to concede than score if you push for a third. Additionally, would a team ever go for it against Man City or Liverpool, rather than set up for a one or two nil defeat? As it is, if a team is one down against a good side, they have an incentive to come out and attack - under your system, continued defensiveness is probably the best option.
There might be a case for a rugby union style "bonus point win", although the winning bonus point is more designed to encourage try scoring matches rather than "12-9, all penalties" games.
Also, one of the joys of football is pitting different styles against each other. It isn't just about having two gung-ho teams going at each other. Being a "hard to break down" team isn't just a legitimate tactic - it is actually interesting as a fan to see whether another team can unlock such a team.
Your approach is like looking at cricket and saying, "we need to encourage more sixes and more wickets!" Well, fine, Twenty20 is fun, but Test cricket is fun in a different way.
Depends what you mean by 'Sitting on a lead'. I'm not saying teams would always attack but that a team 3-0 up would still have an incentive to do so whereas now teams often pull off the best players to avoid injuries etc.
Fair point on the reversed incentives for underdogs though, who now are encouraged to take fewer risks. On the other hand, top clubs have an even stronger incentive to attack them so it may not matter.
I agree this would change the game to encourage attacking and there is something to be said in the balance we have. But defending well would still be crucial because I'd be making Goal Difference not Goals Scored so I'd hope it wouldn't be a dramatic shift and make the game too one-dimensional.
Only two options here, both of which include Laura Kuenssburg is an absolute joke of a journalist.
Firstly, Either this story is bollox, Carrie Symonds has no Government role and her view are of no consequence, let alone should be being reported breathlessly as pivotal by the BBC's chief political correspondent. This is just gossip peddling.
Or this story is accurate, Carrie Symonds now has the power to block key Government appointments, in which case THAT should be the story, not who gets appointed to the role.
Actually to be fair to Carrie, she's a former SPAD/Comms person.
She used to be Head of Comms for the Tory party as well.
I think she might talking from a professional POV,
On a brief tangent, one of my unpopular opinions is that we should consider making goal difference what determines league position. Think about it: No-one would ever sit on a lead again. Teams would be encouraged to go for it for the whole 90 minutes, and conceding when well ahead would still matter.
Interesting idea. That's the football equivalent of electoral reform.
No more wasted goals in safe matches. Every goal counts.
1-0 would still be better that 2-2
Yes. So a win still > a draw. And a draw > a defeat.
Which should placate the traditionalists.
Not really. My point is that a team would still prefer to sit on a lead than risk losing it.
Plus teams would be likely to sit on deficits as 0-1 > 0-2 > 0-3
So, at the moment, West Brom might well go into a game at Anfield looking to defend deep. If they concede on 5 mins, and perhaps again on 25 mins, they have a strong incentive to abandon their defensiveness and attack the game. It might mean they end up losing five or six nil (more likely indeed than a comeback), and there's SOME incentive to limit the loss as goal difference might come into play at the end of the season, but essentially a defeat is a defeat. Under the goal difference alternative, their incentive NEVER changes - it's ALWAYS to defend.
Comments
Doug Emhoff: Kamala Harris’s husband quits job for White House role
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/doug-emhoff-job-kamala-harris-white-house-biden-administratio-b1720674.html
What's the betting it goes to some company which has never before run a lab?
https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2020/W45/738394145
Republicans can have another go in four years.
Wonder where they got that number from?
Initially Starmer was catching out Johnson on details, now Johnson has found ways to deflect.
Shagger doing his usual routine - "stop attacking us"
Genius.
That is significantly lower than the 94 infections in the trial of a vaccine being developed by Pfizer Inc and BioNTech. To confirm the efficacy rate, Pfizer said it would continue its trial until there were 164 COVID-19 cases.
Pfizer dropped their plan to announce results after 32 cases and waited until they had 62 - when they checked was they had 94.
So very small base....
Good answer and Starmer realised it and just moved on without another word on the topic.
If Arizona was the NeverTrump heartland, Florida was the EverTrump counterpoint.
Last time Clinton won the national vote by 2.1%
She lost Pennsylvania by 0.7%
In other words, however much she did or didn't campaign in different places, Pennsylvania leaned 2.8% more Republican/Trump than the country.
This time Biden is winning the popular vote so far by 3.2% but it will end probably end up higher maybe 4%?
He is winning Pennsylvania currently by 0.7%
In other words, however much Biden did or didn't campaign in different places, Pennsylvania is leaning 2.5% more Republican/Trump than the country - but will probably end up leaning over 3% more Trump than the country.
It is almost the same calculations for Wisconsin
In other words, Biden is doing relatively worse in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin than Clinton, compared to the country as a whole. Which doesn't support the argument that "Clinton lost because she stupidly piled up votes in the wrong places, whereas Biden smartly won votes in the right places".
Biden campaigned in the swing states, won them and for that he deserves credit.
Clinton ignored the swing states, lost them and for that she deserves scorn.
That Biden is also getting more votes in the rest of the nation is a bonus for Biden not a criticism against him.
ICU Numbers Exponential
Deaths - accurate data lags by 14 days and deaths lag Hospitalistion.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1326498365643890695
Looking forward to seeing which bit of Glasgow office space they'll be renting to open their next Ministry of Fear of Independence.
What's true is that she totally ignored WI and didn't pay much attention to MI, but even if she'd won both those states she'd still have lost if she'd missed PA.
Biden increased the Democrat vote share by 1.1-1.8% over what Clinton got
He increased the Democrat vote share in Pennsylvania by 1.4% over what Clinton got
Like it!
Firstly, Either this story is bollox, Carrie Symonds has no Government role and her view are of no consequence, let alone should be being reported breathlessly as pivotal by the BBC's chief political correspondent. This is just gossip peddling.
Or this story is accurate, Carrie Symonds now has the power to block key Government appointments, in which case THAT should be the story, not who gets appointed to the role.
No more wasted goals in safe matches. Every goal counts.
There might be a case for a rugby union style "bonus point win", although the winning bonus point is more designed to encourage try scoring matches rather than "12-9, all penalties" games.
Also, one of the joys of football is pitting different styles against each other. It isn't just about having two gung-ho teams going at each other. Being a "hard to break down" team isn't just a legitimate tactic - it is actually interesting as a fan to see whether another team can unlock such a team.
Your approach is like looking at cricket and saying, "we need to encourage more sixes and more wickets!" Well, fine, Twenty20 is fun, but Test cricket is fun in a different way.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1326499209131024384?s=20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaKWUiiEHgA
There's no question that public health infrastructure needs improvement, but this really isn't a rational way to go about it.
What's the betting that a cabinet minister's relative, or a Tory MP is on the board of a successful bidder ?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-swift-jab-and-boris-gets-away-with-it-again-60pvkp9cg
'Good news. I mean the vaccine, of course. Such is one’s happiness for our fellow citizens that I’m almost — but not quite — able to ignore the slightest of twinges of irritation that Boris looks like getting away with it. Again. Again and again and again.'
Which should placate the traditionalists.
But he will have increased the Dem winning margin in the national vote by more than he increases the Democrat margin in Pennsylvania. Once all the votes are counted.
Biden wins whereas Clinton because he has done better overall, not because he has done especially well in states like Pennsylvania (he hasn't).
The states he has won (or might win) where he HAS done better than Clinton are Georgia and Arizona, and probably Michigan.
So he should get praise for campaigning in Georgia, if anything.
Is it hardly surprising that after a four year term where Trump hasn't made notable progress in building his wall, and after a campaign where he didn't spend the entire time demonising Hispanics, that he did rather better?
https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2020/W45/738131985
Which has already been awarded.
To whom ?
While there is no commitment to any value of spend on a framework agreement it has become apparent since contract notice publication that spend is likely to exceed the estimated framework value stated in the contract notice. This is mainly due to the pandemic situation resulting in an immediate overall increased spend in support of Covid-19 testing programme. Future value of spend and procurement route for this programme over the term of the framework agreement cannot be accurately forecast at the time of award publication and the revised value published includes a high-end estimate of this value. In addition, there are further impacts of Covid-19 on the pathology and diagnostics market which may result in an overall increase in spend in the market as demand for services increases. This impact cannot be accurately forecast at the time of award and the revised value published included a high-end estimate of this value. The revised value represents the total value of contracts that could be awarded under the framework during its term and takes into account that these contracts are likely to be multi-year...
But authoritarian dictatorships don't care about obvious hypocrisy anyway.
She used to be Head of Comms for the Tory party as well.
I think she might talking from a professional POV,
(In theoretical theory, you could have a free ball from a foul, followed by 16 reds, 16 blacks and clearing all the colours, for a score of 159-0. I remember Kirk Stevens having a chance of the 155 break at, I think the Crucible - he got over 100 before the break came to an end, but for a good while it did look to be on.)
Fair point on the reversed incentives for underdogs though, who now are encouraged to take fewer risks. On the other hand, top clubs have an even stronger incentive to attack them so it may not matter.
I agree this would change the game to encourage attacking and there is something to be said in the balance we have. But defending well would still be crucial because I'd be making Goal Difference not Goals Scored so I'd hope it wouldn't be a dramatic shift and make the game too one-dimensional.
NEW THREAD
So, at the moment, West Brom might well go into a game at Anfield looking to defend deep. If they concede on 5 mins, and perhaps again on 25 mins, they have a strong incentive to abandon their defensiveness and attack the game. It might mean they end up losing five or six nil (more likely indeed than a comeback), and there's SOME incentive to limit the loss as goal difference might come into play at the end of the season, but essentially a defeat is a defeat. Under the goal difference alternative, their incentive NEVER changes - it's ALWAYS to defend.