Very unusual pattern to the lagged data in deaths by date of death today. Other analysis by this guy on the case data today suggests that there's a change in the reporting pattern, so we probably should wait a few days for that to shake itself out of the system and would be a greater than normal mistake to overreact to today's relatively low case numbers and relatively high death numbers.
I'd be on the dems big time for the Georgia run-offs.
The republican party is going to crack like a nut.
Like a "nut" is very apt.
Yeah well I was thinking watermelon...but that would have been more apt for the greens.....
The Trumpistas are furious with the RINOS for not fighting. That much I do know.
I wonder what the split is of his vote between trad Republican partisans and Trumpers. This is important for assessing how things will pan out over the next 4 years. My sense is that right now he has about 25m who are loyal to him and his brand. It's a lot. But I see it dwindling once he and the clan lose the trappings of the presidency. We've had peak Trump, I think.
Good question but I reckon its probably more. Trump got more votes than any pretty much any republican.
Its just that Biden also got far more votes than Obama.
The repubs could go back to a Romney/McCain type, but they just lose by more.
Looking at the numbers, the repubs don't win again. Ever.
I hope this big fall in announced positive cases isn't some excel glitch!
Yes, a remarkable drop if the figures are kosher. Lots still round my way...
The problem is some cling to the statistics and the graphs and the bar charts like a drowning man to a life-raft. All the figures tell you are numbers of positive cases - the number of people actually with the virus now is completely unknown. We have used incredibly deficient data to shape public policy for months.
I've been told the figures are much worse than those publicised but I don't believe it. I do believe some have had the virus and suffered with it and recovered and never taken a test.
Sure, but why has that behaviour changed so much in a week? Getting a test is no longer difficult.
And hasn't been since the beginning of November, when the latest expansion of testing capacity has left "spare" capacity of 200K per day
Don't forget Trump supporters don't like to talk to pollsters particularly either. So his support amongst grassroots GOP is likely still higher.
Four years and long time springs to mind though.
It must be remembered that Trump was always a bolter for the republicans. He never had a real network power base and many, many trad republicans in important roles cannot abide him. Many are happy to see him go.
Heard this morning from various local news programming that so far the advertising spend on the Jan 5th Georgia runoff is already over $257 million - in 2 weeks.
They are running out of advertising inventory. This is bad news for some - while the political parties get a special low rate, others such as PACS etc, get to pay the gong rate, which is currently bidding up the going rate to 10 times normal due to the demand for slots.
I can attest to this - pretty much every ad on local commercials is a political ad. It makes TV almost unwatchable.
I'd be on the dems big time for the Georgia run-offs.
The republican party is going to crack like a nut.
Like a "nut" is very apt.
Yeah well I was thinking watermelon...but that would have been more apt for the greens.....
The Trumpistas are furious with the RINOS for not fighting. That much I do know.
I wonder what the split is of his vote between trad Republican partisans and Trumpers. This is important for assessing how things will pan out over the next 4 years. My sense is that right now he has about 25m who are loyal to him and his brand. It's a lot. But I see it dwindling once he and the clan lose the trappings of the presidency. We've had peak Trump, I think.
Good question but I reckon its probably more. Trump got more votes than any pretty much any republican.
Its just that Biden also got far more votes than Obama.
The repubs could go back to a Romney/McCain type, but they just lose by more.
Looking at the numbers, the repubs don't win again. Ever.
America? One party state now.
Would you like to bet on that last statement?
I don't see how we could, given the next presidential is four years away. But I'll happily go with the democrat candidate then if you like. If I'm still here!
Heard this morning from various local news programming that so far the advertising spend on the Jan 5th Georgia runoff is already over $257 million - in 2 weeks.
They are running out of advertising inventory. This is bad news for some - while the political parties get a special low rate, others such as PACS etc, get to pay the gong rate, which is currently bidding up the going rate to 10 times normal due to the demand for slots.
I can attest to this - pretty much every ad on local commercials is a political ad. It makes TV almost unwatchable.
- and there are 6 more weeks to go....
Is the advertising more focused on the individual candidates or on which party controls the senate?
I'm really not convinced that this three household mixing for the 23rd to 27th is a good idea. It's going to end in disaster two weeks later and in January we're going to start up the vaccination programme for real. This really makes no sense at all. I know people want to be with their families at Christmas, and it is an important time of year but with the vaccine right around the corner the sacrifice seems small.
The view of the medical experts I know think the government view is that the people who were going to meet up over Christmas are going to meet up regardless of what the government said, this way they have at least set some parameters.
Based on my friends most of them aren't going to risk killing granny especially with a vaccine on the horizon.
I think this is right. I don't see what the big fuss is about either way really, either on the Health & Safety side or with the "Libertarians". The Rules won't be enforced anyway and people will by and large make their own decisions. Hopefully most will choose prudence and I expect they will. Exactly what the Rules are is imo not of massive importance. Just having them will have a positive influence on the margins and so this is better in practice than not bothering with any.
Good question but I reckon its probably more. Trump got more votes than any pretty much any republican.
Its just that Biden also got far more votes than Obama.
The repubs could go back to a Romney/McCain type, but they just lose by more.
Looking at the numbers, the repubs don't win again. Ever.
America? One party state now.
That's as wrong as those who claimed Labour could never win again after 1992.
It's possible the Trump fan club will break from the GOP and run a third party candidate (perhaps the ex-President himself) in 2024. As happened with Theodore Roosevelt, that will hand the WH to the Democrats for another four years but the humiliation will end Trumpism and as happened with both the Labour and Conservatives here after long periods in opposition, the desire to win will overcome any petty ideological differences.
In 2028, the GOP will re-unite around a moderate conservative and likely win.
Nope
The only reason the dems need the repubs around is to maintain the notion that America is a first world country capable of running a first world election....
I don;t believe the Sidney Powell boll8cks but there's plenty of other evidence that is really, really is not.
I'd be on the dems big time for the Georgia run-offs.
The republican party is going to crack like a nut.
Like a "nut" is very apt.
Yeah well I was thinking watermelon...but that would have been more apt for the greens.....
The Trumpistas are furious with the RINOS for not fighting. That much I do know.
I wonder what the split is of his vote between trad Republican partisans and Trumpers. This is important for assessing how things will pan out over the next 4 years. My sense is that right now he has about 25m who are loyal to him and his brand. It's a lot. But I see it dwindling once he and the clan lose the trappings of the presidency. We've had peak Trump, I think.
Good question but I reckon its probably more. Trump got more votes than any pretty much any republican.
Its just that Biden also got far more votes than Obama.
The repubs could go back to a Romney/McCain type, but they just lose by more.
Looking at the numbers, the repubs don't win again. Ever.
America? One party state now.
Would you like to bet on that last statement?
I don't see how we could, given the next presidential is four years away. But I'll happily go with the democrat candidate then if you like. If I'm still here!
The GOP has still has bias in its favour for the senate, house and likely the presidency too next 2/4 years. Mind you if the "write in Trump" campaign catches on in GA...
I'm really not convinced that this three household mixing for the 23rd to 27th is a good idea. It's going to end in disaster two weeks later and in January we're going to start up the vaccination programme for real. This really makes no sense at all. I know people want to be with their families at Christmas, and it is an important time of year but with the vaccine right around the corner the sacrifice seems small.
I've not gone nine months without seeing my grandparents only to kill see them at Christmas with vaccinations coming in a matter of weeks.
Parents in my case but exactly the same. Its beyond irresponsible from the government to be encouraging people to kill their Granny at Christmas.
For years my wife and I have gone to share Thanksgiving dinner with a family friend and his family, together with our daughter and son in law. We are both over 65 and have the odd health issue. He is the general manager of a restaurant, she is a high school teacher, 2 of their kids are college students, and the other 3 are high school students. So reluctantly we have had to decline this year, and will have our own thanksgiving for just the two of us. My daughter and son in law are still going however, so all is not lost. So roll on December 10th, when hopefully this nightmare will start to end.
You're probably right, given he's stopped thousands of young American soldiers getting killed, maimed and mentally traumatised in pointless overseas wars.
Good question but I reckon its probably more. Trump got more votes than any pretty much any republican.
Its just that Biden also got far more votes than Obama.
The repubs could go back to a Romney/McCain type, but they just lose by more.
Looking at the numbers, the repubs don't win again. Ever.
America? One party state now.
That's as wrong as those who claimed Labour could never win again after 1992.
It's possible the Trump fan club will break from the GOP and run a third party candidate (perhaps the ex-President himself) in 2024. As happened with Theodore Roosevelt, that will hand the WH to the Democrats for another four years but the humiliation will end Trumpism and as happened with both the Labour and Conservatives here after long periods in opposition, the desire to win will overcome any petty ideological differences.
In 2028, the GOP will re-unite around a moderate conservative and likely win.
Nope
The only reason the dems need the repubs around is to maintain the notion that America is a first world country capable of running a first world election....
I don;t believe the Sidney Powell boll8cks but there's plenty of other evidence that is really, really is not.
America isn't capable of running a first world election and that is thanks to the GOP gutting the voting rights act. The Democrats won despite election irregularities designed to suppress voting, not because of it.
I'd be on the dems big time for the Georgia run-offs.
The republican party is going to crack like a nut.
Like a "nut" is very apt.
Yeah well I was thinking watermelon...but that would have been more apt for the greens.....
The Trumpistas are furious with the RINOS for not fighting. That much I do know.
I wonder what the split is of his vote between trad Republican partisans and Trumpers. This is important for assessing how things will pan out over the next 4 years. My sense is that right now he has about 25m who are loyal to him and his brand. It's a lot. But I see it dwindling once he and the clan lose the trappings of the presidency. We've had peak Trump, I think.
Good question but I reckon its probably more. Trump got more votes than any pretty much any republican.
Its just that Biden also got far more votes than Obama.
The repubs could go back to a Romney/McCain type, but they just lose by more.
Looking at the numbers, the repubs don't win again. Ever.
America? One party state now.
I doubt it @contrarian, I think, if the States is going to be one party, it will be the Republicans in charge, really for several reasons:
1. Trump has, in effect, emasculated the whole Romney / McCain types in the GOP. Beyond the Trumpers, there are plenty who are unhappy with the likes of The Lincoln Project and even more who recognise that the coalition he built has real electoral legs. The end result is the Republican party is far more united than the Democrats. Biden's picks so far are centrist. While the Left does not have that many Congressional seats, it has provided a lot of the power on the ground in terms of voter activation.
2. The Democrats face significant secular problems regarding the Hispanic block, which is not just limited to Florida or southern Texas. There is a big fight brewing in California at the moment over Harris' appointment with both the Black and the Hispanic caucuses demanding their candidate be selected. If it is a Black candidate is selected, expect the Hispanic caucus to be upset. Note also immigration reform / DACA is not the slam dunk for the Democrats it was assumed;
3. Less commented on has been the 18% of Black men who (apparently) voted for Trump. Given older Black voters were unlikely to switch because of historical resonance / souls to the polls etc etc, that probably means a decent chunk of younger Black men went for Trump.
4. Higher Education enrolment is declining (mid single digits probably this year) and has been declining for a few years with stagnation before that. Given education is a defining feature of likely vote intention, that growth engine is less powerful than it was;
5. The Republicans kept state legislatures, which mean they have a big advantage going into 2022 Congressional elections. Down party election results also generally favoured them as well. That gives a big advantage.
6. Many Republicans generally believe the silver lining around the fraud claims is that procedures will be tightened for the next elections. The complaints re mail-in ballots in 2020 largely mirror those in California in 2018 when the Republicans lost a number of House seats where they had comfortable majorities on the night which were then whittled away by mail in ballots. There is a view the focus from 2018 may have acted as a deterrent for 2020. Worth noting, of the 10 seats the Republicans have picked up so far, 3 have been in California, with a fourth one possible.
Heard this morning from various local news programming that so far the advertising spend on the Jan 5th Georgia runoff is already over $257 million - in 2 weeks.
They are running out of advertising inventory. This is bad news for some - while the political parties get a special low rate, others such as PACS etc, get to pay the gong rate, which is currently bidding up the going rate to 10 times normal due to the demand for slots.
I can attest to this - pretty much every ad on local commercials is a political ad. It makes TV almost unwatchable.
- and there are 6 more weeks to go....
Is the advertising more focused on the individual candidates or on which party controls the senate?
11299 new cases....only 9854 in England...that's basically 60% of what it was 7 days ago.
79 for Northern Ireland today isn't credible, and that England number seems surprisingly low as well compared to 17,549 last Tuesday. Previous days had more like 25% falls compared to last week.
Number 10 cherry-picked 'spurious' coronavirus data to justify England's second lockdown and may have intended to frightened the public, according to one of Britain's top experts.
Eminent statistician Sir David Spiegelhalter said ministers had 'broken pretty much every code of conduct' by choosing only to show worst-case scenarios, which were often based on out of date data.
Reality involves fake people faking fake COVID in fake hospitals.
Just like the most of Europe.......
This latest claim is the weirdest of the lot...the well PCR tests were fine and so deaths were correct in wave #1, but now at scale there are too many false positives, so loads of these deaths in wave #2 aren't COVID....other than the fact by the time when you get to hospital, COVID has very clear and different signs to normal flu / pneumonia, which hospitals are now well aware of. The chances of a misdiagnosis now seem very low, given we know things like blood clots, the rate of progressive from a bit short of breath to in the holy shit its serious territory etc.
And people given a positive result on covid are dying at many times the normal rate, for some reason. Occam's Razor very strongly points to the positive covid response being linked; anyone suggesting differently needs to come up with another cause behind all those deaths.
So we have people
- faking testing positive - faking symptoms - faking symptoms so bad they require hospitalisation - faking recovering from the fake systems as a result treatment - faking dying of the fake illness - faking evidence on autopsy of fake illness
At some point fake becomes the real thing, surely?
I am doing my damndest to avoid any hint of sarcasm. With the false positives misinformation, that is exceptionally difficult.
Very unusual pattern to the lagged data in deaths by date of death today. Other analysis by this guy on the case data today suggests that there's a change in the reporting pattern, so we probably should wait a few days for that to shake itself out of the system and would be a greater than normal mistake to overreact to today's relatively low case numbers and relatively high death numbers.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Good question but I reckon its probably more. Trump got more votes than any pretty much any republican.
Its just that Biden also got far more votes than Obama.
The repubs could go back to a Romney/McCain type, but they just lose by more.
Looking at the numbers, the repubs don't win again. Ever.
America? One party state now.
That's as wrong as those who claimed Labour could never win again after 1992.
It's possible the Trump fan club will break from the GOP and run a third party candidate (perhaps the ex-President himself) in 2024. As happened with Theodore Roosevelt, that will hand the WH to the Democrats for another four years but the humiliation will end Trumpism and as happened with both the Labour and Conservatives here after long periods in opposition, the desire to win will overcome any petty ideological differences.
In 2028, the GOP will re-unite around a moderate conservative and likely win.
Nope
The only reason the dems need the repubs around is to maintain the notion that America is a first world country capable of running a first world election....
I don;t believe the Sidney Powell boll8cks but there's plenty of other evidence that is really, really is not.
The worst state of the lot, New York has had vote reform blocked by the GOP. The Dems now have a supermajority in the state house and state senate there which will enable them to change the constitution there to sort it.
It is stories like this that makes me wonder just how many people are going to refuse to take the vaccine because of something they read on social media?
It's same kind of idiocy Extinction Rebellion advocated yesterday.
I know contrarian, er, contrarily, took the view that the commentariat was sneering at someone desperately trying to keep their business open, but the thing is, it's not brave or noble to take a principled stand on a completely mistaken view of the principles, it just wastes everyone's time and won't help you at all.
It's like when decision makers go against policy to be 'democratic' knowing full well it will get ovreturned on appeal, at cost to the people they were seeking to placate, in order to take some kind of stand, when taking a stand was not a good thing to do there.
The law is a complex beast in many ways, its why we need those pesky lawyers, but we really need to do a better job of general education of how the law works and is made in this country, as most of us haven't got a clue and it just leads to stuff like this.
I'd be on the dems big time for the Georgia run-offs.
The republican party is going to crack like a nut.
Like a "nut" is very apt.
Yeah well I was thinking watermelon...but that would have been more apt for the greens.....
The Trumpistas are furious with the RINOS for not fighting. That much I do know.
I wonder what the split is of his vote between trad Republican partisans and Trumpers. This is important for assessing how things will pan out over the next 4 years. My sense is that right now he has about 25m who are loyal to him and his brand. It's a lot. But I see it dwindling once he and the clan lose the trappings of the presidency. We've had peak Trump, I think.
Good question but I reckon its probably more. Trump got more votes than any pretty much any republican.
Its just that Biden also got far more votes than Obama.
The repubs could go back to a Romney/McCain type, but they just lose by more.
Looking at the numbers, the repubs don't win again. Ever.
America? One party state now.
I doubt it @contrarian, I think, if the States is going to be one party, it will be the Republicans in charge, really for several reasons:
1. Trump has, in effect, emasculated the whole Romney / McCain types in the GOP. Beyond the Trumpers, there are plenty who are unhappy with the likes of The Lincoln Project and even more who recognise that the coalition he built has real electoral legs. The end result is the Republican party is far more united than the Democrats. Biden's picks so far are centrist. While the Left does not have that many Congressional seats, it has provided a lot of the power on the ground in terms of voter activation.
2. The Democrats face significant secular problems regarding the Hispanic block, which is not just limited to Florida or southern Texas. There is a big fight brewing in California at the moment over Harris' appointment with both the Black and the Hispanic caucuses demanding their candidate be selected. If it is a Black candidate is selected, expect the Hispanic caucus to be upset. Note also immigration reform / DACA is not the slam dunk for the Democrats it was assumed;
3. Less commented on has been the 18% of Black men who (apparently) voted for Trump. Given older Black voters were unlikely to switch because of historical resonance / souls to the polls etc etc, that probably means a decent chunk of younger Black men went for Trump.
4. Higher Education enrolment is declining (mid single digits probably this year) and has been declining for a few years with stagnation before that. Given education is a defining feature of likely vote intention, that growth engine is less powerful than it was;
5. The Republicans kept state legislatures, which mean they have a big advantage going into 2022 Congressional elections. Down party election results also generally favoured them as well. That gives a big advantage.
6. Many Republicans generally believe the silver lining around the fraud claims is that procedures will be tightened for the next elections. The complaints re mail-in ballots in 2020 largely mirror those in California in 2018 when the Republicans lost a number of House seats where they had comfortable majorities on the night which were then whittled away by mail in ballots. There is a view the focus from 2018 may have acted as a deterrent for 2020. Worth noting, of the 10 seats the Republicans have picked up so far, 3 have been in California, with a fourth one possible.
You are an outstanding poster Mr Ed but I fear you may be clutching at straws here.
The glaring discrepancies between the Dems presidential and down ticket performances only go to show where their 'emphasis' went this time. Bag the elephant
Soon their 'emphasis' will be down ticket. Starting with Georgia. They aim to change America totally, radically and permanently.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Believing that an FTA should be between equal partners with a neutral ISDS etc is not a "purists" viewpoint.
Number 10 cherry-picked 'spurious' coronavirus data to justify England's second lockdown and may have intended to frightened the public, according to one of Britain's top experts.
Eminent statistician Sir David Spiegelhalter said ministers had 'broken pretty much every code of conduct' by choosing only to show worst-case scenarios, which were often based on out of date data.
Reality involves fake people faking fake COVID in fake hospitals.
Just like the most of Europe.......
This latest claim is the weirdest of the lot...the well PCR tests were fine and so deaths were correct in wave #1, but now at scale there are too many false positives, so loads of these deaths in wave #2 aren't COVID....other than the fact by the time when you get to hospital, COVID has very clear and different signs to normal flu / pneumonia, which hospitals are now well aware of. The chances of a misdiagnosis now seem very low, given we know things like blood clots, the rate of progressive from a bit short of breath to in the holy shit its serious territory etc.
And people given a positive result on covid are dying at many times the normal rate, for some reason. Occam's Razor very strongly points to the positive covid response being linked; anyone suggesting differently needs to come up with another cause behind all those deaths.
So we have people
- faking testing positive - faking symptoms - faking symptoms so bad they require hospitalisation - faking recovering from the fake systems as a result treatment - faking dying of the fake illness - faking evidence on autopsy of fake illness
At some point fake becomes the real thing, surely?
I am doing my damndest to avoid any hint of sarcasm. With the false positives misinformation, that is exceptionally difficult.
You are obviously faking, not faking, faking, not faking sarcasm.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Indeed, otherwise he can go back to voting for Farage as he did last May
I'm really not convinced that this three household mixing for the 23rd to 27th is a good idea. It's going to end in disaster two weeks later and in January we're going to start up the vaccination programme for real. This really makes no sense at all. I know people want to be with their families at Christmas, and it is an important time of year but with the vaccine right around the corner the sacrifice seems small.
I've not gone nine months without seeing my grandparents only to kill see them at Christmas with vaccinations coming in a matter of weeks.
Parents in my case but exactly the same. Its beyond irresponsible from the government to be encouraging people to kill their Granny at Christmas.
But this is Boris, Mr Rochdale. He is only doing it because it is fun..... "At least a Boris government will be fun," the PB Tories all told us......
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Indeed, otherwise he can go back to voting for Farage as he did last May
I never voted for Farage. I dislike Farage and he is irrelevant and immaterial.
I'd be on the dems big time for the Georgia run-offs.
The republican party is going to crack like a nut.
Like a "nut" is very apt.
Yeah well I was thinking watermelon...but that would have been more apt for the greens.....
The Trumpistas are furious with the RINOS for not fighting. That much I do know.
I wonder what the split is of his vote between trad Republican partisans and Trumpers. This is important for assessing how things will pan out over the next 4 years. My sense is that right now he has about 25m who are loyal to him and his brand. It's a lot. But I see it dwindling once he and the clan lose the trappings of the presidency. We've had peak Trump, I think.
Good question but I reckon its probably more. Trump got more votes than any pretty much any republican.
Its just that Biden also got far more votes than Obama.
The repubs could go back to a Romney/McCain type, but they just lose by more.
Looking at the numbers, the repubs don't win again. Ever.
America? One party state now.
The circle always turns eventually, the longest period out of the White House for any party since 1952 was the Democrats for 12 years from 1980 to 1992 and they still got back with Bill Clinton in 1992, in the last 100 years the longest period out of power was the Republicans from 1932 to 1952 and they still eventually got back with Eisenhower in 1952
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Indeed, otherwise he can go back to voting for Farage as he did last May
I never voted for Farage. I dislike Farage and he is irrelevant and immaterial.
You voted Brexit Party last May in the European elections under their leader Farage, you voted for Farage
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Indeed, otherwise he can go back to voting for Farage as he did last May
I never voted for Farage. I dislike Farage and he is irrelevant and immaterial.
You voted Brexit Party last May in the European elections under their leader Farage, you voted for Farage
A protest vote against Theresa "GO HOME" May, there were no good options. 🤷🏻♂️
Don't forget Trump supporters don't like to talk to pollsters particularly either. So his support amongst grassroots GOP is likely still higher.
Four years and long time springs to mind though.
He has to sustain their adoration without the glow of the presidency, up to his neck in legal jeopardy, whilst all the time hitting them for money. I don't see it myself.
I hope this big fall in announced positive cases isn't some excel glitch!
Yes, a remarkable drop if the figures are kosher. Lots still round my way...
The problem is some cling to the statistics and the graphs and the bar charts like a drowning man to a life-raft. All the figures tell you are numbers of positive cases - the number of people actually with the virus now is completely unknown. We have used incredibly deficient data to shape public policy for months.
I've been told the figures are much worse than those publicised but I don't believe it. I do believe some have had the virus and suffered with it and recovered and never taken a test.
Sure, but why has that behaviour changed so much in a week? Getting a test is no longer difficult.
I'll be honest - if I had the symptoms and I know what the symptoms are I wouldn't need to rush out to get a test to tell me what I already knew.
Until and unless my condition got so serious as to need hospitalisation, I would self-isolate at home and once I was well again, I would carry on. At no point would I have gone to have a test. The overwhelming of testing in September was caused by families believing their child's cough and runny nose was Covid and getting the whole family tested.
Is this unprompted or are people given a list? As I am intrigued by those few who would go for Trump Jr over Trump himself. Because Trump is a loser now (albeit one cheated out of a win, no doubt), or because Trump Jr is more appealing (in some way)?
Most importantly, though, without knowing delivery dates on those vaccines, it's all a bit irrelevant. If you've ordered 100m doses of Moderna for delivery in January 2021, then that's one thing; if it's for 2H2022, that's something entirely different.
My gut, FWIW, is that the UK and Japan will look pretty smart at the end of this, the US will look pretty good, and the EU will look OK. Brazil, India an a bunch of smaller countries will probably look like utter disasters with ongoing waves and issues of long Covid for years.
However, the proof is going to be in the vaccinating. Let's see where we are in six months time.
It is stories like this that makes me wonder just how many people are going to refuse to take the vaccine because of something they read on social media?
It's same kind of idiocy Extinction Rebellion advocated yesterday.
I know contrarian, er, contrarily, took the view that the commentariat was sneering at someone desperately trying to keep their business open, but the thing is, it's not brave or noble to take a principled stand on a completely mistaken view of the principles, it just wastes everyone's time and won't help you at all.
It's like when decision makers go against policy to be 'democratic' knowing full well it will get ovreturned on appeal, at cost to the people they were seeking to placate, in order to take some kind of stand, when taking a stand was not a good thing to do there.
The law is a complex beast in many ways, its why we need those pesky lawyers, but we really need to do a better job of general education of how the law works and is made in this country, as most of us haven't got a clue and it just leads to stuff like this.
Garbage
Hancock and Johnson grabbed arbitrary powers no peacetime PM would have dreamed of taking and have completely abused them.
They then turned law abiding tax paying wealth generating citizens into criminals.
It is stories like this that makes me wonder just how many people are going to refuse to take the vaccine because of something they read on social media?
It's same kind of idiocy Extinction Rebellion advocated yesterday.
I know contrarian, er, contrarily, took the view that the commentariat was sneering at someone desperately trying to keep their business open, but the thing is, it's not brave or noble to take a principled stand on a completely mistaken view of the principles, it just wastes everyone's time and won't help you at all.
It's like when decision makers go against policy to be 'democratic' knowing full well it will get ovreturned on appeal, at cost to the people they were seeking to placate, in order to take some kind of stand, when taking a stand was not a good thing to do there.
The law is a complex beast in many ways, its why we need those pesky lawyers, but we really need to do a better job of general education of how the law works and is made in this country, as most of us haven't got a clue and it just leads to stuff like this.
If she'd said THE Magna Carta, those fines would have properly been doubled.....
I'd be on the dems big time for the Georgia run-offs.
The republican party is going to crack like a nut.
Like a "nut" is very apt.
Yeah well I was thinking watermelon...but that would have been more apt for the greens.....
The Trumpistas are furious with the RINOS for not fighting. That much I do know.
I wonder what the split is of his vote between trad Republican partisans and Trumpers. This is important for assessing how things will pan out over the next 4 years. My sense is that right now he has about 25m who are loyal to him and his brand. It's a lot. But I see it dwindling once he and the clan lose the trappings of the presidency. We've had peak Trump, I think.
Good question but I reckon its probably more. Trump got more votes than any pretty much any republican.
Its just that Biden also got far more votes than Obama.
The repubs could go back to a Romney/McCain type, but they just lose by more.
Looking at the numbers, the repubs don't win again. Ever.
America? One party state now.
I can very easily see the Republicans winning 2024 by 68 million to 64 million, if they have a candidate who doesn't scare the horses, Biden doesn't run again and the Democrat candidate is poor.
I'd expect low enthusiasm for Democrat turnout if Trump isn't the Republican candidate.
Worth remembering that Obama and Biden are the only Democrat candidates for President since Carter 1976 to receive more than 50% of the popular vote - and I think Biden only did so because Trump drove turnout to vote against him.
Doesn't that depend on (a) who the most likely to spread the virus are? (Are they bar staff or doctors?) And (b) what are the relative numbers?
FWIW, I think it would be massively more useful to get doctors, nurses and care home staff vaccinated first, as a single one of those can knock off twenty oldies and spread it around their friends and family.
I'd be on the dems big time for the Georgia run-offs.
The republican party is going to crack like a nut.
Like a "nut" is very apt.
Yeah well I was thinking watermelon...but that would have been more apt for the greens.....
The Trumpistas are furious with the RINOS for not fighting. That much I do know.
I wonder what the split is of his vote between trad Republican partisans and Trumpers. This is important for assessing how things will pan out over the next 4 years. My sense is that right now he has about 25m who are loyal to him and his brand. It's a lot. But I see it dwindling once he and the clan lose the trappings of the presidency. We've had peak Trump, I think.
Good question but I reckon its probably more. Trump got more votes than any pretty much any republican.
Its just that Biden also got far more votes than Obama.
The repubs could go back to a Romney/McCain type, but they just lose by more.
Looking at the numbers, the repubs don't win again. Ever.
America? One party state now.
The circle always turns eventually, the longest period out of the White House for any party since 1952 was the Democrats for 12 years from 1980 to 1992 and they still got back with Bill Clinton in 1992, in the last 100 years the longest period out of power was the Republicans from 1932 to 1952 and they still eventually got back with Eisenhower in 1952
It does in a democracy mate. America? Joe Biden 80 million votes? really? Kamala Harris, about as popular in her own party as a f8rt in a space suit? 80m votes?
I hope this big fall in announced positive cases isn't some excel glitch!
Yes, a remarkable drop if the figures are kosher. Lots still round my way...
The problem is some cling to the statistics and the graphs and the bar charts like a drowning man to a life-raft. All the figures tell you are numbers of positive cases - the number of people actually with the virus now is completely unknown. We have used incredibly deficient data to shape public policy for months.
I've been told the figures are much worse than those publicised but I don't believe it. I do believe some have had the virus and suffered with it and recovered and never taken a test.
Sure, but why has that behaviour changed so much in a week? Getting a test is no longer difficult.
I'll be honest - if I had the symptoms and I know what the symptoms are I wouldn't need to rush out to get a test to tell me what I already knew.
Until and unless my condition got so serious as to need hospitalisation, I would self-isolate at home and once I was well again, I would carry on. At no point would I have gone to have a test. The overwhelming of testing in September was caused by families believing their child's cough and runny nose was Covid and getting the whole family tested.
Most importantly, though, without knowing delivery dates on those vaccines, it's all a bit irrelevant. If you've ordered 100m doses of Moderna for delivery in January 2021, then that's one thing; if it's for 2H2022, that's something entirely different.
My gut, FWIW, is that the UK and Japan will look pretty smart at the end of this, the US will look pretty good, and the EU will look OK. Brazil, India an a bunch of smaller countries will probably look like utter disasters with ongoing waves and issues of long Covid for years.
However, the proof is going to be in the vaccinating. Let's see where we are in six months time.
Four months not six months.
The deadline for me is where we are by Mothers Day in the Spring.
After an awful retched year for hospitality that is the start of the golden goose that hospitality needs to be operating normally for. If we're still in restrictions by then, then it is going to the death warrant for even more businesses. If we're out of restrictions and can have packed businesses celebrating a return of life to normal then that will save many people's livelihoods.
If some countries can have a spring and others can't then that is going to be a dramatic difference.
Is this unprompted or are people given a list? As I am intrigued by those few who would go for Trump Jr over Trump himself. Because Trump is a loser now (albeit one cheated out of a win, no doubt), or because Trump Jr is more appealing (in some way)?
If anything, that poll only goes to prove my point.
Trump is the only game in town, and he will never, ever beat a democrat, any democrat, in a presidential race again.
Good question but I reckon its probably more. Trump got more votes than any pretty much any republican.
Its just that Biden also got far more votes than Obama.
The repubs could go back to a Romney/McCain type, but they just lose by more.
Looking at the numbers, the repubs don't win again. Ever.
America? One party state now.
That's as wrong as those who claimed Labour could never win again after 1992.
It's possible the Trump fan club will break from the GOP and run a third party candidate (perhaps the ex-President himself) in 2024. As happened with Theodore Roosevelt, that will hand the WH to the Democrats for another four years but the humiliation will end Trumpism and as happened with both the Labour and Conservatives here after long periods in opposition, the desire to win will overcome any petty ideological differences.
In 2028, the GOP will re-unite around a moderate conservative and likely win.
Nope
The only reason the dems need the repubs around is to maintain the notion that America is a first world country capable of running a first world election....
I don;t believe the Sidney Powell boll8cks but there's plenty of other evidence that is really, really is not.
But the Dems overcame the Republican attempts to steal the election so you can relax.
Most importantly, though, without knowing delivery dates on those vaccines, it's all a bit irrelevant. If you've ordered 100m doses of Moderna for delivery in January 2021, then that's one thing; if it's for 2H2022, that's something entirely different.
My gut, FWIW, is that the UK and Japan will look pretty smart at the end of this, the US will look pretty good, and the EU will look OK. Brazil, India an a bunch of smaller countries will probably look like utter disasters with ongoing waves and issues of long Covid for years.
However, the proof is going to be in the vaccinating. Let's see where we are in six months time.
Thankfully the UK and other sensibly minded countries are cooperating in planning to help provide COVID vaccines to the countries further down that list (and to the many not on that list). Since multiple vaccines are working there will be a glut in Europe and the UK, eventually from the over-ordering.
In addition production facilities are being setup round the world for a number of the vaccines. IIRC there is a place in Thailand making the Oxford one?
Is this unprompted or are people given a list? As I am intrigued by those few who would go for Trump Jr over Trump himself. Because Trump is a loser now (albeit one cheated out of a win, no doubt), or because Trump Jr is more appealing (in some way)?
If anything, that poll only goes to prove my point.
Trump is the only game in town, and he will never, ever beat a democrat, any democrat, in a presidential race again.
He couldn't beat Joe Biden.
Because Joe Biden was a much better candidate than Trump. Which is why millions more voted for him.
It is stories like this that makes me wonder just how many people are going to refuse to take the vaccine because of something they read on social media?
It's same kind of idiocy Extinction Rebellion advocated yesterday.
I know contrarian, er, contrarily, took the view that the commentariat was sneering at someone desperately trying to keep their business open, but the thing is, it's not brave or noble to take a principled stand on a completely mistaken view of the principles, it just wastes everyone's time and won't help you at all.
It's like when decision makers go against policy to be 'democratic' knowing full well it will get ovreturned on appeal, at cost to the people they were seeking to placate, in order to take some kind of stand, when taking a stand was not a good thing to do there.
The law is a complex beast in many ways, its why we need those pesky lawyers, but we really need to do a better job of general education of how the law works and is made in this country, as most of us haven't got a clue and it just leads to stuff like this.
Garbage
Hancock and Johnson grabbed arbitrary powers no peacetime PM would have dreamed of taking and have completely abused them.
They then turned law abiding tax paying wealth generating citizens into criminals.
B8stards. This is completely their fault.
I'm at a loss as to what you consider to be garbage in my post. Whether they have abused the law in a disgraceful way, whoever's fault it is, really has nothing to do with it being absurd posturing or idiocy to think that sticking magna carta in your window will mean anything of substance in a legal sense.
Parliamentarians and others are arguing against various measures, some are seeking to legally challenge various measures I believe, but whether that's a view which carries majority support (it isn't), and whether those making those arguments and challenges are doing so with merit (it probably varies, some arguments are much better than others), people who believe what that woman apparently believed are just plain wrong, and her refusal to accept reality has only made things worse for herself, not better.
I might applaud someone's attempt to storm the castle of their oppressors, if they are indeed oppressed, but at the least I'd advise them to take some ladders with them, not just hack at the wall with a spoon.
What I won't do is pretend someone doing something stupid is a brave hero. Whether it's their fault they are so stupid is another matter altogether. Not enough of us know enough about our rights, I sure don't, but I cannot just invent what I think they are and expect not to mocked and punished if I break the actual law, even if I think that law is stupid.
I have pointed out to him on a few occasions that Scots were the most enthusiastic of colonialists and were massively overrepresented as major figures in the British Empire and they and their descendants have been hugely overrepresented in the British establishment ever since. Nationalists generally deny historical facts prior to frenzied book burning.
Is this unprompted or are people given a list? As I am intrigued by those few who would go for Trump Jr over Trump himself. Because Trump is a loser now (albeit one cheated out of a win, no doubt), or because Trump Jr is more appealing (in some way)?
If anything, that poll only goes to prove my point.
Trump is the only game in town, and he will never, ever beat a democrat, any democrat, in a presidential race again.
He couldn't beat Joe Biden.
Things may well look different in a few months. Trump is going nowhere at the moment and that's a problem for the Republicans, but as his loss has shown even he cannot defy gravity forever.
I'd be on the dems big time for the Georgia run-offs.
The republican party is going to crack like a nut.
Like a "nut" is very apt.
Yeah well I was thinking watermelon...but that would have been more apt for the greens.....
The Trumpistas are furious with the RINOS for not fighting. That much I do know.
I wonder what the split is of his vote between trad Republican partisans and Trumpers. This is important for assessing how things will pan out over the next 4 years. My sense is that right now he has about 25m who are loyal to him and his brand. It's a lot. But I see it dwindling once he and the clan lose the trappings of the presidency. We've had peak Trump, I think.
Good question but I reckon its probably more. Trump got more votes than any pretty much any republican.
Its just that Biden also got far more votes than Obama.
The repubs could go back to a Romney/McCain type, but they just lose by more.
Looking at the numbers, the repubs don't win again. Ever.
America? One party state now.
The circle always turns eventually, the longest period out of the White House for any party since 1952 was the Democrats for 12 years from 1980 to 1992 and they still got back with Bill Clinton in 1992, in the last 100 years the longest period out of power was the Republicans from 1932 to 1952 and they still eventually got back with Eisenhower in 1952
It does in a democracy mate. America? Joe Biden 80 million votes? really? Kamala Harris, about as popular in her own party as a f8rt in a space suit? 80m votes?
Maybe.
Yes really 80m votes. Because that's just how deeply despised Trump was.
You don't spend four years trying to "pwn" everyone else, without everyone else then gladly taking the opportunity to remove you when they can.
I'd be on the dems big time for the Georgia run-offs.
The republican party is going to crack like a nut.
Like a "nut" is very apt.
Yeah well I was thinking watermelon...but that would have been more apt for the greens.....
The Trumpistas are furious with the RINOS for not fighting. That much I do know.
I wonder what the split is of his vote between trad Republican partisans and Trumpers. This is important for assessing how things will pan out over the next 4 years. My sense is that right now he has about 25m who are loyal to him and his brand. It's a lot. But I see it dwindling once he and the clan lose the trappings of the presidency. We've had peak Trump, I think.
Good question but I reckon its probably more. Trump got more votes than any pretty much any republican.
Its just that Biden also got far more votes than Obama.
The repubs could go back to a Romney/McCain type, but they just lose by more.
Looking at the numbers, the repubs don't win again. Ever.
America? One party state now.
I doubt it @contrarian, I think, if the States is going to be one party, it will be the Republicans in charge, really for several reasons:
1. Trump has, in effect, emasculated the whole Romney / McCain types in the GOP. Beyond the Trumpers, there are plenty who are unhappy with the likes of The Lincoln Project and even more who recognise that the coalition he built has real electoral legs. The end result is the Republican party is far more united than the Democrats. Biden's picks so far are centrist. While the Left does not have that many Congressional seats, it has provided a lot of the power on the ground in terms of voter activation.
2. The Democrats face significant secular problems regarding the Hispanic block, which is not just limited to Florida or southern Texas. There is a big fight brewing in California at the moment over Harris' appointment with both the Black and the Hispanic caucuses demanding their candidate be selected. If it is a Black candidate is selected, expect the Hispanic caucus to be upset. Note also immigration reform / DACA is not the slam dunk for the Democrats it was assumed;
3. Less commented on has been the 18% of Black men who (apparently) voted for Trump. Given older Black voters were unlikely to switch because of historical resonance / souls to the polls etc etc, that probably means a decent chunk of younger Black men went for Trump.
4. Higher Education enrolment is declining (mid single digits probably this year) and has been declining for a few years with stagnation before that. Given education is a defining feature of likely vote intention, that growth engine is less powerful than it was;
5. The Republicans kept state legislatures, which mean they have a big advantage going into 2022 Congressional elections. Down party election results also generally favoured them as well. That gives a big advantage.
6. Many Republicans generally believe the silver lining around the fraud claims is that procedures will be tightened for the next elections. The complaints re mail-in ballots in 2020 largely mirror those in California in 2018 when the Republicans lost a number of House seats where they had comfortable majorities on the night which were then whittled away by mail in ballots. There is a view the focus from 2018 may have acted as a deterrent for 2020. Worth noting, of the 10 seats the Republicans have picked up so far, 3 have been in California, with a fourth one possible.
You are an outstanding poster Mr Ed but I fear you may be clutching at straws here.
The glaring discrepancies between the Dems presidential and down ticket performances only go to show where their 'emphasis' went this time. Bag the elephant
Soon their 'emphasis' will be down ticket. Starting with Georgia. They aim to change America totally, radically and permanently.
I think you overestimate the cohesiveness of the Dems. Look at their Senators - both Kysten Sistema (Arizona) and Joe Manchin (West Virginia) could easily be Republicans. And in Manchin's case, he's in a deep Red state, and he values his seat far more than the identity politics of some of the Dems.
It's also worth remembering that the 2020 election were an utter disaster for AOC and the Squad. They endorsed 19 Senatorial and Congressional candidates.
Three were nominated.
Only one (Jamaal Bowman in the Congressional District for Harlem) was elected.
Think you mean looking after Scotland's interests halfwit. Days of just kissing the feet of the turnips in Westminster is gone , they can F*** up England all they want but we will vote in people who look after our interests. Just doing her job.
Malc, bor, (East Anglian for mate) that sounds awfully like what an idiot Brexiteer would say!.
OKC, I am happy to brexit the union any day, it is bust and getting worse by the day.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Indeed, otherwise he can go back to voting for Farage as he did last May
I never voted for Farage. I dislike Farage and he is irrelevant and immaterial.
You voted Brexit Party last May in the European elections under their leader Farage, you voted for Farage
A protest vote against Theresa "GO HOME" May, there were no good options. 🤷🏻♂️
As AA Gill so memorably put it - when people sit around and watch, say, Eastenders or Jeremy Kyle, there is no button to press to show that they are watching ironically. They are all counted in the audience figures.
I'd be on the dems big time for the Georgia run-offs.
The republican party is going to crack like a nut.
Like a "nut" is very apt.
Yeah well I was thinking watermelon...but that would have been more apt for the greens.....
The Trumpistas are furious with the RINOS for not fighting. That much I do know.
I wonder what the split is of his vote between trad Republican partisans and Trumpers. This is important for assessing how things will pan out over the next 4 years. My sense is that right now he has about 25m who are loyal to him and his brand. It's a lot. But I see it dwindling once he and the clan lose the trappings of the presidency. We've had peak Trump, I think.
Good question but I reckon its probably more. Trump got more votes than any pretty much any republican.
Its just that Biden also got far more votes than Obama.
The repubs could go back to a Romney/McCain type, but they just lose by more.
Looking at the numbers, the repubs don't win again. Ever.
America? One party state now.
I doubt it @contrarian, I think, if the States is going to be one party, it will be the Republicans in charge, really for several reasons:
1. Trump has, in effect, emasculated the whole Romney / McCain types in the GOP. Beyond the Trumpers, there are plenty who are unhappy with the likes of The Lincoln Project and even more who recognise that the coalition he built has real electoral legs. The end result is the Republican party is far more united than the Democrats. Biden's picks so far are centrist. While the Left does not have that many Congressional seats, it has provided a lot of the power on the ground in terms of voter activation.
2. The Democrats face significant secular problems regarding the Hispanic block, which is not just limited to Florida or southern Texas. There is a big fight brewing in California at the moment over Harris' appointment with both the Black and the Hispanic caucuses demanding their candidate be selected. If it is a Black candidate is selected, expect the Hispanic caucus to be upset. Note also immigration reform / DACA is not the slam dunk for the Democrats it was assumed;
3. Less commented on has been the 18% of Black men who (apparently) voted for Trump. Given older Black voters were unlikely to switch because of historical resonance / souls to the polls etc etc, that probably means a decent chunk of younger Black men went for Trump.
4. Higher Education enrolment is declining (mid single digits probably this year) and has been declining for a few years with stagnation before that. Given education is a defining feature of likely vote intention, that growth engine is less powerful than it was;
5. The Republicans kept state legislatures, which mean they have a big advantage going into 2022 Congressional elections. Down party election results also generally favoured them as well. That gives a big advantage.
6. Many Republicans generally believe the silver lining around the fraud claims is that procedures will be tightened for the next elections. The complaints re mail-in ballots in 2020 largely mirror those in California in 2018 when the Republicans lost a number of House seats where they had comfortable majorities on the night which were then whittled away by mail in ballots. There is a view the focus from 2018 may have acted as a deterrent for 2020. Worth noting, of the 10 seats the Republicans have picked up so far, 3 have been in California, with a fourth one possible.
You are an outstanding poster Mr Ed but I fear you may be clutching at straws here.
The glaring discrepancies between the Dems presidential and down ticket performances only go to show where their 'emphasis' went this time. Bag the elephant
Soon their 'emphasis' will be down ticket. Starting with Georgia. They aim to change America totally, radically and permanently.
Only one (Jamaal Bowman in the Congressional District for Harlem) was elected.
I'd be on the dems big time for the Georgia run-offs.
The republican party is going to crack like a nut.
Like a "nut" is very apt.
Yeah well I was thinking watermelon...but that would have been more apt for the greens.....
The Trumpistas are furious with the RINOS for not fighting. That much I do know.
I wonder what the split is of his vote between trad Republican partisans and Trumpers. This is important for assessing how things will pan out over the next 4 years. My sense is that right now he has about 25m who are loyal to him and his brand. It's a lot. But I see it dwindling once he and the clan lose the trappings of the presidency. We've had peak Trump, I think.
Good question but I reckon its probably more. Trump got more votes than any pretty much any republican.
Its just that Biden also got far more votes than Obama.
The repubs could go back to a Romney/McCain type, but they just lose by more.
Looking at the numbers, the repubs don't win again. Ever.
America? One party state now.
I doubt it @contrarian, I think, if the States is going to be one party, it will be the Republicans in charge, really for several reasons:
1. Trump has, in effect, emasculated the whole Romney / McCain types in the GOP. Beyond the Trumpers, there are plenty who are unhappy with the likes of The Lincoln Project and even more who recognise that the coalition he built has real electoral legs. The end result is the Republican party is far more united than the Democrats. Biden's picks so far are centrist. While the Left does not have that many Congressional seats, it has provided a lot of the power on the ground in terms of voter activation.
2. The Democrats face significant secular problems regarding the Hispanic block, which is not just limited to Florida or southern Texas. There is a big fight brewing in California at the moment over Harris' appointment with both the Black and the Hispanic caucuses demanding their candidate be selected. If it is a Black candidate is selected, expect the Hispanic caucus to be upset. Note also immigration reform / DACA is not the slam dunk for the Democrats it was assumed;
3. Less commented on has been the 18% of Black men who (apparently) voted for Trump. Given older Black voters were unlikely to switch because of historical resonance / souls to the polls etc etc, that probably means a decent chunk of younger Black men went for Trump.
4. Higher Education enrolment is declining (mid single digits probably this year) and has been declining for a few years with stagnation before that. Given education is a defining feature of likely vote intention, that growth engine is less powerful than it was;
5. The Republicans kept state legislatures, which mean they have a big advantage going into 2022 Congressional elections. Down party election results also generally favoured them as well. That gives a big advantage.
6. Many Republicans generally believe the silver lining around the fraud claims is that procedures will be tightened for the next elections. The complaints re mail-in ballots in 2020 largely mirror those in California in 2018 when the Republicans lost a number of House seats where they had comfortable majorities on the night which were then whittled away by mail in ballots. There is a view the focus from 2018 may have acted as a deterrent for 2020. Worth noting, of the 10 seats the Republicans have picked up so far, 3 have been in California, with a fourth one possible.
I`ve been laying Trump - big - well before Covid was heard of. I was confident that Trump was toast. However, the dust having settled, I admit that I was wrong. Trump would have won if it wasn`t for Covid. My bets have come in but I was lucky.
The decisive factor was the increased use of postal voting due to Covid. I`m not for a moment suggesting fraud, just that postal voting increased the turnout and benefited the Dems deferentially. (Plus, maybe, a higher proportion of Trump voters died from Covid.)
What about future elections? It all depends on postal voting going back to previous rules. If 2020 was a one-off, and the methodology of voting returns to normal, then I expect the Republicans to bounce back next time assuming that have a half-sharp candidate. Especially if Biden become beholden to any sort of BLM or woke agenda from that wing of his party.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Indeed, otherwise he can go back to voting for Farage as he did last May
I never voted for Farage. I dislike Farage and he is irrelevant and immaterial.
You voted Brexit Party last May in the European elections under their leader Farage, you voted for Farage
A protest vote against Theresa "GO HOME" May, there were no good options. 🤷🏻♂️
As AA Gill so memorably put it - when people sit around and watch, say, Eastenders or Jeremy Kyle, there is no button to press to show that they are watching ironically. They are all counted in the audience figures.
You voted for Farage. Yuck.
Granted, but that sort of approach also suggests a kind of Corbynite level purity is what we want, and that floating voters should not exist as any vote for X is an endorsement of everything X has ever said or done.
I'd be on the dems big time for the Georgia run-offs.
The republican party is going to crack like a nut.
Like a "nut" is very apt.
Yeah well I was thinking watermelon...but that would have been more apt for the greens.....
The Trumpistas are furious with the RINOS for not fighting. That much I do know.
I wonder what the split is of his vote between trad Republican partisans and Trumpers. This is important for assessing how things will pan out over the next 4 years. My sense is that right now he has about 25m who are loyal to him and his brand. It's a lot. But I see it dwindling once he and the clan lose the trappings of the presidency. We've had peak Trump, I think.
Good question but I reckon its probably more. Trump got more votes than any pretty much any republican.
Its just that Biden also got far more votes than Obama.
The repubs could go back to a Romney/McCain type, but they just lose by more.
Looking at the numbers, the repubs don't win again. Ever.
America? One party state now.
The circle always turns eventually, the longest period out of the White House for any party since 1952 was the Democrats for 12 years from 1980 to 1992 and they still got back with Bill Clinton in 1992, in the last 100 years the longest period out of power was the Republicans from 1932 to 1952 and they still eventually got back with Eisenhower in 1952
It does in a democracy mate. America? Joe Biden 80 million votes? really? Kamala Harris, about as popular in her own party as a f8rt in a space suit? 80m votes?
Maybe.
Biden won 80 million votes, had Harris been the candidate she certainly would not have won as many as 80 million votes
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Indeed, otherwise he can go back to voting for Farage as he did last May
I never voted for Farage. I dislike Farage and he is irrelevant and immaterial.
You voted Brexit Party last May in the European elections under their leader Farage, you voted for Farage
A protest vote against Theresa "GO HOME" May, there were no good options. 🤷🏻♂️
As AA Gill so memorably put it - when people sit around and watch, say, Eastenders or Jeremy Kyle, there is no button to press to show that they are watching ironically. They are all counted in the audience figures.
You voted for Farage. Yuck.
Granted, but that sort of approach also suggests a kind of Corbynite level purity is what we want, and that floating voters should not exist as any vote for X is an endorsement of everything X has ever said or done.
It also a priori denies the concept of tactical voting.
I hope this big fall in announced positive cases isn't some excel glitch!
Yes, a remarkable drop if the figures are kosher. Lots still round my way...
The Melton R was 0.86 as per yday's Malmesbury charts...That is pretty low.
Still above the English average, and some other parts of my patch not looking too chipper.
Interesting thanks - all on a downward trend, that said, which is good to see.
Edit: where is that chart from btw?
I'm cautiously optimistic this might now be the lockdown turn in case figures nationwide, increases slowing and decreases accelerating nearly across the piece. Hospitalisations a week behind and flattening, deaths a couple of weeks behind and will probably increase this week, flatten next, and start going down the week after just as lockdown ends. Suggests that lockdown release will be a cautious affair with lots of high tier places.
I was in favour of a modest relaxation over Christmas, just worried HMG and all are going to go for an immodest one. I certainly wouldn't be looking at allowing overnight stays or encouraging a full on meal.
We should be mercilessly trailing Easter as a mahoossive blow out though - Easter Tuesday as an additional bank holiday anyone?
I hope this big fall in announced positive cases isn't some excel glitch!
Yes, a remarkable drop if the figures are kosher. Lots still round my way...
The problem is some cling to the statistics and the graphs and the bar charts like a drowning man to a life-raft. All the figures tell you are numbers of positive cases - the number of people actually with the virus now is completely unknown. We have used incredibly deficient data to shape public policy for months.
I've been told the figures are much worse than those publicised but I don't believe it. I do believe some have had the virus and suffered with it and recovered and never taken a test.
Sure, but why has that behaviour changed so much in a week? Getting a test is no longer difficult.
I'll be honest - if I had the symptoms and I know what the symptoms are I wouldn't need to rush out to get a test to tell me what I already knew.
Until and unless my condition got so serious as to need hospitalisation, I would self-isolate at home and once I was well again, I would carry on. At no point would I have gone to have a test. The overwhelming of testing in September was caused by families believing their child's cough and runny nose was Covid and getting the whole family tested.
Yes, and many people think like that so obviously the number of positive tests is an underestimate. It still doesn't explain why such behavior changes in a week.
You can see why Scotland has proportionally the highest number of people infected out of the four nations.
Explain why and perhaps you can add why much lower death rate at same time
I already have, also, like many of the Covid-19 deniers, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean you're ok after catching it.
You don't need to tell me that, but I have not seen any huge increase in deaths relative to England and it was previously running at 65% in Scotland v England. Must be some reason if more people have had it yet less have died , especially given the crap we get about life spans here and how we are all malnourished , drug addict , alcoholics that die at 50. Sounds contrary.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Indeed, otherwise he can go back to voting for Farage as he did last May
We'll see. I am merely an interested observer. FWIW I sense that his loyalty is almost as strong as yours but it's focused differently. Yours is to the Tory Party, his is to Boris Johnson.
Reminds me of the Rayner 'Scum' debacle - yes, there was poor behaviour here, but it can be milked too far.
It is good picture editor work though.
Hoots Mon! Priti looks like she got dressed in the dark, but Crivens! Wee Nicola looks so bonnie!
You want to be taken seriously by anyone north of the border? it would help not to sound like someone out of the Broons. Which was dated, seriously dated, when I were a bairn, and that was a long time ago.
Comments
https://mobile.twitter.com/RP131/status/1331271688219189251
They are running out of advertising inventory. This is bad news for some - while the political parties get a special low rate, others such as PACS etc, get to pay the gong rate, which is currently bidding up the going rate to 10 times normal due to the demand for slots.
I can attest to this - pretty much every ad on local commercials is a political ad. It makes TV almost unwatchable.
- and there are 6 more weeks to go....
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1331145338057617408
and the front
https://twitter.com/Banxcartoons/status/1331272416581054467
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1331228373666902017
The only reason the dems need the repubs around is to maintain the notion that America is a first world country capable of running a first world election....
I don;t believe the Sidney Powell boll8cks but there's plenty of other evidence that is really, really is not.
Mind you if the "write in Trump" campaign catches on in GA...
WE haven't even thought about Christmas yet.
From case data
From hospital admissions
1. Trump has, in effect, emasculated the whole Romney / McCain types in the GOP. Beyond the Trumpers, there are plenty who are unhappy with the likes of The Lincoln Project and even more who recognise that the coalition he built has real electoral legs. The end result is the Republican party is far more united than the Democrats. Biden's picks so far are centrist. While the Left does not have that many Congressional seats, it has provided a lot of the power on the ground in terms of voter activation.
2. The Democrats face significant secular problems regarding the Hispanic block, which is not just limited to Florida or southern Texas. There is a big fight brewing in California at the moment over Harris' appointment with both the Black and the Hispanic caucuses demanding their candidate be selected. If it is a Black candidate is selected, expect the Hispanic caucus to be upset. Note also immigration reform / DACA is not the slam dunk for the Democrats it was assumed;
3. Less commented on has been the 18% of Black men who (apparently) voted for Trump. Given older Black voters were unlikely to switch because of historical resonance / souls to the polls etc etc, that probably means a decent chunk of younger Black men went for Trump.
4. Higher Education enrolment is declining (mid single digits probably this year) and has been declining for a few years with stagnation before that. Given education is a defining feature of likely vote intention, that growth engine is less powerful than it was;
5. The Republicans kept state legislatures, which mean they have a big advantage going into 2022 Congressional elections. Down party election results also generally favoured them as well. That gives a big advantage.
6. Many Republicans generally believe the silver lining around the fraud claims is that procedures will be tightened for the next elections. The complaints re mail-in ballots in 2020 largely mirror those in California in 2018 when the Republicans lost a number of House seats where they had comfortable majorities on the night which were then whittled away by mail in ballots. There is a view the focus from 2018 may have acted as a deterrent for 2020. Worth noting, of the 10 seats the Republicans have picked up so far, 3 have been in California, with a fourth one possible.
It's like when decision makers go against policy to be 'democratic' knowing full well it will get ovreturned on appeal, at cost to the people they were seeking to placate, in order to take some kind of stand, when taking a stand was not a good thing to do there.
The law is a complex beast in many ways, its why we need those pesky lawyers, but we really need to do a better job of general education of how the law works and is made in this country, as most of us haven't got a clue and it just leads to stuff like this.
The glaring discrepancies between the Dems presidential and down ticket performances only go to show where their 'emphasis' went this time. Bag the elephant
Soon their 'emphasis' will be down ticket. Starting with Georgia. They aim to change America totally, radically and permanently.
Or have I got a false negative for sarcasm?
Edit: where is that chart from btw?
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1331276105219772419?s=20
https://twitter.com/Lewistweeters/status/1331280609772269573?s=20
It is good picture editor work though.
Until and unless my condition got so serious as to need hospitalisation, I would self-isolate at home and once I was well again, I would carry on. At no point would I have gone to have a test. The overwhelming of testing in September was caused by families believing their child's cough and runny nose was Covid and getting the whole family tested.
My gut, FWIW, is that the UK and Japan will look pretty smart at the end of this, the US will look pretty good, and the EU will look OK. Brazil, India an a bunch of smaller countries will probably look like utter disasters with ongoing waves and issues of long Covid for years.
However, the proof is going to be in the vaccinating. Let's see where we are in six months time.
Hancock and Johnson grabbed arbitrary powers no peacetime PM would have dreamed of taking and have completely abused them.
They then turned law abiding tax paying wealth generating citizens into criminals.
B8stards. This is completely their fault.
I'd expect low enthusiasm for Democrat turnout if Trump isn't the Republican candidate.
Worth remembering that Obama and Biden are the only Democrat candidates for President since Carter 1976 to receive more than 50% of the popular vote - and I think Biden only did so because Trump drove turnout to vote against him.
FWIW, I think it would be massively more useful to get doctors, nurses and care home staff vaccinated first, as a single one of those can knock off twenty oldies and spread it around their friends and family.
Maybe.
Spoiler alert. Was a disaster.
The deadline for me is where we are by Mothers Day in the Spring.
After an awful retched year for hospitality that is the start of the golden goose that hospitality needs to be operating normally for. If we're still in restrictions by then, then it is going to the death warrant for even more businesses. If we're out of restrictions and can have packed businesses celebrating a return of life to normal then that will save many people's livelihoods.
If some countries can have a spring and others can't then that is going to be a dramatic difference.
Trump is the only game in town, and he will never, ever beat a democrat, any democrat, in a presidential race again.
He couldn't beat Joe Biden.
In addition production facilities are being setup round the world for a number of the vaccines. IIRC there is a place in Thailand making the Oxford one?
Parliamentarians and others are arguing against various measures, some are seeking to legally challenge various measures I believe, but whether that's a view which carries majority support (it isn't), and whether those making those arguments and challenges are doing so with merit (it probably varies, some arguments are much better than others), people who believe what that woman apparently believed are just plain wrong, and her refusal to accept reality has only made things worse for herself, not better.
I might applaud someone's attempt to storm the castle of their oppressors, if they are indeed oppressed, but at the least I'd advise them to take some ladders with them, not just hack at the wall with a spoon.
What I won't do is pretend someone doing something stupid is a brave hero. Whether it's their fault they are so stupid is another matter altogether. Not enough of us know enough about our rights, I sure don't, but I cannot just invent what I think they are and expect not to mocked and punished if I break the actual law, even if I think that law is stupid.
This is another one of theirs:
https://twitter.com/CovidLeics/status/1330931988908437514?s=19
You don't spend four years trying to "pwn" everyone else, without everyone else then gladly taking the opportunity to remove you when they can.
https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1331286538739703809?s=20
It's also worth remembering that the 2020 election were an utter disaster for AOC and the Squad. They endorsed 19 Senatorial and Congressional candidates.
Three were nominated.
Only one (Jamaal Bowman in the Congressional District for Harlem) was elected.
You voted for Farage. Yuck.
The decisive factor was the increased use of postal voting due to Covid. I`m not for a moment suggesting fraud, just that postal voting increased the turnout and benefited the Dems deferentially. (Plus, maybe, a higher proportion of Trump voters died from Covid.)
What about future elections? It all depends on postal voting going back to previous rules. If 2020 was a one-off, and the methodology of voting returns to normal, then I expect the Republicans to bounce back next time assuming that have a half-sharp candidate. Especially if Biden become beholden to any sort of BLM or woke agenda from that wing of his party.
I hate to say it but Trump was unlucky.
A majority across all demographics and geographies. The least opposed (but still opposed) London: -26, Labour -29 and the young (18-24) -28
I was in favour of a modest relaxation over Christmas, just worried HMG and all are going to go for an immodest one. I certainly wouldn't be looking at allowing overnight stays or encouraging a full on meal.
We should be mercilessly trailing Easter as a mahoossive blow out though - Easter Tuesday as an additional bank holiday anyone?