Huge pressure on regulator and government over oxford vaccine...if you approve something, which the makers say they need to run further tests on. But to not go with it, will probably mean another 6 months delay in getting UK population done.
The anti-vaxxers are going to leap all over the news.
I've already heard ordinary people worrying about the testing -- "the vaccine's safe for the missus and me but it's not been tested on the right age groups for granny and grandson".
Told you all from the very beginning not to bet the farm on Oxford University saving us.
Wasn't it their incompetence that led them to the 90% regimen?
“The most likely explanation for the divergent efficacy in its interim analysis is either chance or patient demographics,” Sam Fazeli, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst, wrote in a note. “Either way, approval based on current data means people will be inoculated with a vaccine the true efficacy of which is unknown.”
Mr. Dawning, the era of massive political turbulence is not over yet.
Farage may yet wield significant influence. If the PM agrees any deal, the resurgence of Farage seems eminently possible.
I'm not convinced. I think the whole No Deal thing was something of a fad; by now most of its proponents would have moved on to other stuff like QAnon. And Boris is insufficiently serious to portray as a closet Remainer secretly trying to thwart Brexit on behalf of a shadowy metropolitan elite. Boris will implement his deal without much fuss.
Mr. Dawning, the era of massive political turbulence is not over yet.
Farage may yet wield significant influence. If the PM agrees any deal, the resurgence of Farage seems eminently possible.
No it really isn't.
Especially since there is no Proportional Representation European Parliament for him to get publicity in or have elections in. Farage's political career is over.
Depends what you mean by "resurgence".
I doubt he'll ever be elected to anything ever again, unless exactly the right by-election comes up at the right moment. And even then, he'd probably stuff it up.
But he's still capable of making a noise, grabbing attention, and taking 3-5% votes which the Conservatives would really like.
Now, if the Conservatives were solidly ahead, that wouldn't matter much. But if the underlying state of the parties is basically level-pegging...
Farage might be a dead snake. But dead snakes can still kill.
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
I didn't say that.
The aftermath of the pandemic will be with us for years after lockdown. The lockdown itself will have gone already though.
NHS neglect is getting worse when the COVID rate spikes leading to the NHS only being able to handle COVID cases and needing to cancel eg cancer screenings. Lockdown was designed to prevent not cause NHS neglect.
The NHS overwhelmed statement is wearing pretty thin with a population for whom there is little care even when the Dear Service is underwhelmed.
What would the difference be if it were 'overwhelmed?'
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
"Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited"
A reference from the US, where 'The Beltway' is a reference to Washington and in particular the sort of stuff only journos and nerds care about but average voters haven't a clue is even going on. From the 'Capital Beltway', a ring road around DC.
Mr. Punter, it was with the Sportsbook, but I was less than thrilled when Betfair tried not paying out on a Hamilton win bet because he started from the pit lane. When I pointed out this both made it less likely he'd win *and* was public knowledge at the time I made the bet I got a small sum of credit for betting but that was it.
Much prefer Ladbrokes. I think the Betfair Exchange is mostly fine for F1.
Well that's some bullshit right there. Outrageous decision.
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
Yes, the (ETA politico-) economic consequences of the pandemic and Brexit could be 1992-1997 all over again, when the Conservative government screwed over its natural supporters (sky-high interest rates, negative equity) to stay in the ERM only to throw in the towel, leading to a Labour landslide.
The polls show tory support holding up, but I am far less sure. I wonder how many of labour's natural supporters (EG students) are that impressed by their lockdown HARDER stance too.
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
Yes, the (ETA politico-) economic consequences of the pandemic and Brexit could be 1992-1997 all over again, when the Conservative government screwed over its natural supporters (sky-high interest rates, negative equity) to stay in the ERM only to throw in the towel, leading to a Labour landslide.
The polls show tory support holding up, but I am far less sure. I wonder how many of labour's natural supporters (EG students) are that impressed by their lockdown HARDER stance too.
We are in uncharted territory.
But the analogy could work as Labour under John Smith and Tony Blair were more pro-ERM and pro-Europe than the Conservatives were. But they still crushed the Tories at the following election.
Also, not surprised that AZ are going to run a specific trial for the half/full vaccine mode. I suggested they might do it on the day the initial results came out.
If they get recruiting immediately in the UK they could run a 20k trial and get results pretty quickly during the months after Xmas.
It wouldn't even slow down the vaccination programme as we have for 45m doses from Pfizer and Moderna lined up which is about 12-15 weeks worth of vaccinations.
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
"Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited"
What?
Ask yourself why Whitty and Vallance do not appear before cameras any more.
Its because nobody believes a word they say.
Soon nobody will believe a word their replacements, even more obscure scientists with even larger control freak issues, are saying.
Also, not surprised that AZ are going to run a specific trial for the half/full vaccine mode. I suggested they might do it on the day the initial results came out.
If they get recruiting immediately in the UK they could run a 20k trial and get results pretty quickly during the months after Xmas.
It going to be in the US. From the linked article
"Now with those results it’s more likely that we will need the U.S. data."
Also, at the moment so much covid in US, hard to miss it.
Mr. Dawning, the era of massive political turbulence is not over yet.
Farage may yet wield significant influence. If the PM agrees any deal, the resurgence of Farage seems eminently possible.
No it really isn't.
Especially since there is no Proportional Representation European Parliament for him to get publicity in or have elections in. Farage's political career is over.
Depends what you mean by "resurgence".
I doubt he'll ever be elected to anything ever again, unless exactly the right by-election comes up at the right moment. And even then, he'd probably stuff it up.
But he's still capable of making a noise, grabbing attention, and taking 3-5% votes which the Conservatives would really like.
Now, if the Conservatives were solidly ahead, that wouldn't matter much. But if the underlying state of the parties is basically level-pegging...
Farage might be a dead snake. But dead snakes can still kill.
3-5% puts him at the same level of significance as the Green Party or Nick Griffin's BNP before it died.
The Tories will win or lose depending upon how they do versus Labour, not 3% going to cranks.
Gym news. An email from the head of member services at Total Fitness confirming that "in this instance" they are cancelling our memberships at the end of our 12 month period.
Considering that I had them on multiple breaches of contract I replied "in this instance, thanks for confirming"
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
"Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited"
What?
Ask yourself why Whitty and Vallance do not appear before cameras any more.
Its because nobody believes a word they say.
Soon nobody will believe a word their replacements, even more obscure scientists with even larger control freak issues, are saying.
Oh that's brilliant.
They are at today's press conference with the PM.
Boris Johnson will be speaking in a news conference in around 5 minutes - and it will be his first outing since he's been in self-isolation
It will be back to the familiar Downing Street podium, with the prime minister joined by Professor Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
"Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited"
What?
There's an old school friend of my wife, who sends her things about how masks and social distancing don't work.
The now ample evidence that CV19 is a respiratory tract infection that is passed from human to human is of no interest to him.
I think part of the problem is the time lags: humans expect action and result to be aligned. Because infection numbers seen today are for people who got CV19 two weeks ago, it creates these crazy narratives like "lockdown made no difference, it was going to naturally peak anyway."
Mr. Quincel, aye, but I'm glad it was for a modest amount.
Ladbrokes have always played things with a straight bat.
F1: 30% chance of rain during qualifying.
Lewis Hamilton always wins. That will save some time in your preview. (Actually, Hamilton does always hit the podium -- when was the last time you'd have lost a place bet?)
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
"Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited"
What?
Ask yourself why Whitty and Vallance do not appear before cameras any more.
Its because nobody believes a word they say.
Soon nobody will believe a word their replacements, even more obscure scientists with even larger control freak issues, are saying.
Although you don't understand and don't believe them or their honesty, it doesn't mean that others are equally ignorant.
Death Rigby now moaning restrictions are too tough...pre lockdown they were moaning they weren't tough enough to be effective.
Pandering to squawking airheads like Rigby and Morgan has cost this government many billions. On PPE. On lockdown. On Test and Trace. On the overwhelming of the NHS. The list just goes on.
Mr. Quincel, aye, but I'm glad it was for a modest amount.
Ladbrokes have always played things with a straight bat.
F1: 30% chance of rain during qualifying.
Lewis Hamilton always wins. That will save some time in your preview. (Actually, Hamilton does always hit the podium -- when was the last time you'd have lost a place bet?)
Italian GP this year, a few weeks ago. Though he has placed in 12 of 14 this season.
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
"Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited"
What?
Ask yourself why Whitty and Vallance do not appear before cameras any more.
Its because nobody believes a word they say.
Soon nobody will believe a word their replacements, even more obscure scientists with even larger control freak issues, are saying.
That seems implausible. Not merely because they are there today, and have been for the bigger announcements even if they are not needed for more general updates, or cannot attend every single update in the same way Boris is not at every one, but because the mere fact that tough lockdown measures still command a high degree of public support suggests people have not lost faith in what is being advocated by the scientists, and you don't seem to have anything but supposition to suggest otherwise.
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill - Lords has today accepted all Commons reversals of original Lords amendments.
So it's all over - Bill completes passage today.
Key points:
- Report by 1 July 2023 - Then 1 Oct 2031 and then every 8 years - 5% tolerance - ie seats must be between 95% and 105% of quota - 5 protected constuencies - Isle of Wight x2, Anglesey, Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland
Sounds like I underestimated the effect in my morning header. If true then we could have had the first year of net emigration since the 1980s.
It probably shouldn't surprise us if there is net emigration this year. I can't imagine many are immigrating into the UK this year and even if only a small proportion of migrants who have come in recent years "return home" then that would result in net emigration.
There are also a fair few returning Brit expats who lost jobs abroad, but probably not in the numbers of the foreign emigrants from London. Net emigration is a possibility.
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill - Lords has today accepted all Commons reversals of original Lords amendments.
So it's all over - Bill completes passage today.
Key points:
- Report by 1 July 2023 - Then 1 Oct 2031 and then every 8 years - 5% tolerance - ie seats must be between 95% and 105% of quota - 5 protected constuencies - Isle of Wight x2, Anglesey, Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
"Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited"
What?
Ask yourself why Whitty and Vallance do not appear before cameras any more.
Its because nobody believes a word they say.
Soon nobody will believe a word their replacements, even more obscure scientists with even larger control freak issues, are saying.
And what has that got to do with the question? What science has been discredited? The germ theory of disease? That covid is a respiratory tract infection that is passed on by aerosol? You said: "based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited."
Science does not care who said what. Reality doesn't care who said what. The virus doesn't care who said what.
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill - Lords has today accepted all Commons reversals of original Lords amendments.
So it's all over - Bill completes passage today.
Key points:
- Report by 1 July 2023 - Then 1 Oct 2031 and then every 8 years - 5% tolerance - ie seats must be between 95% and 105% of quota - 5 protected constuencies - Isle of Wight x2, Anglesey, Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland
If it reports by 1 July 2023 when will it be voted on? When will it be in force from?
Seems to be cutting it close for the constituencies to be in place in time for selections before May 2024.
Also, not surprised that AZ are going to run a specific trial for the half/full vaccine mode. I suggested they might do it on the day the initial results came out.
If they get recruiting immediately in the UK they could run a 20k trial and get results pretty quickly during the months after Xmas.
It wouldn't even slow down the vaccination programme as we have for 45m doses from Pfizer and Moderna lined up which is about 12-15 weeks worth of vaccinations.
The AZ vaccine will still get approved here as it only has to be 50% effective for approval, and the results show that it is.
It seems bizarre in the extreme, it looks like buying money. There must be more to it, but what could it be? Why aren't shrewd gamblers with millions in the bank making it 1.01?
Or are they laying both sides to artificially back Biden, whilst keeping the price up?
Since election night I think something close to 400-500ish million has gone on Biden.
BTW Sporting Index hasn't settled the ECV markets either.
At least the ECV markets can be affected by a single successful lawsuit. Not that that is on the cards.
Yes, and Sporting have different rules. They are absolutely right, and of course they settled promptly on all the markets where the results, within the terms of their rules, were known.
Mr. Quincel, aye, but I'm glad it was for a modest amount.
Ladbrokes have always played things with a straight bat.
F1: 30% chance of rain during qualifying.
Lewis Hamilton always wins. That will save some time in your preview. (Actually, Hamilton does always hit the podium -- when was the last time you'd have lost a place bet?)
Monza, where he came 7th after a penalty while leading. Before that, back to the first race of the season in Austria when he was 4th.
10 wins, and one each of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 7th, from the 14 races so far this season.
It seems bizarre in the extreme, it looks like buying money. There must be more to it, but what could it be? Why aren't shrewd gamblers with millions in the bank making it 1.01?
Or are they laying both sides to artificially back Biden, whilst keeping the price up?
Since election night I think something close to 400-500ish million has gone on Biden.
Gym news. An email from the head of member services at Total Fitness confirming that "in this instance" they are cancelling our memberships at the end of our 12 month period.
Considering that I had them on multiple breaches of contract I replied "in this instance, thanks for confirming"
Wait until he has to announce that the "save xmas" plan has failed and no one should travel to see extended family in the five days he said we would be able to.
Any guesses for when Lockdown 3 is going to commence? I'm leaning towards Friday 8th January at the moment.
The muddying of the waters on the Oxford vaccine is another thoroughly depressing setback, but entirely predictable (not the specific circumstances, but the fact that something would go horribly wrong. It was bound to go wrong, wasn't it?) Pray God this doesn't end with six more months of faffing about with trials whilst the NHS makes an award-winning hash of trying to lance all the olds with the Pfizer effort, which is bound to involve numerous cold chain collapses. If we find ourselves returning to eight more months of cyclical lockdowns next September then we might as well all reach for the whisky and the pearl-handled pistol.
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill - Lords has today accepted all Commons reversals of original Lords amendments.
So it's all over - Bill completes passage today.
Key points:
- Report by 1 July 2023 - Then 1 Oct 2031 and then every 8 years - 5% tolerance - ie seats must be between 95% and 105% of quota - 5 protected constuencies - Isle of Wight x2, Anglesey, Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill - Lords has today accepted all Commons reversals of original Lords amendments.
So it's all over - Bill completes passage today.
Key points:
- Report by 1 July 2023 - Then 1 Oct 2031 and then every 8 years - 5% tolerance - ie seats must be between 95% and 105% of quota - 5 protected constuencies - Isle of Wight x2, Anglesey, Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland
If it reports by 1 July 2023 when will it be voted on? When will it be in force from?
Seems to be cutting it close for the constituencies to be in place in time for selections before May 2024.
I believe they have (very sensibly) removed the provision for MPs to vote on it, haven't they?
Wait until he has to announce that the "save xmas" plan has failed and no one should travel to see extended family in the five days he said we would be able to.
Laura K pointing out that even ultra-loyalists like Nadhim Zahawi are very unhappy.
Any guesses for when Lockdown 3 is going to commence? I'm leaning towards Friday 8th January at the moment.
The muddying of the waters on the Oxford vaccine is another thoroughly depressing setback, but entirely predictable (not the specific circumstances, but the fact that something would go horribly wrong. It was bound to go wrong, wasn't it?) Pray God this doesn't end with six more months of faffing about with trials whilst the NHS makes an award-winning hash of trying to lance all the olds with the Pfizer effort, which is bound to involve numerous cold chain collapses. If we find ourselves returning to eight more months of cyclical lockdowns next September then we might as well all reach for the whisky and the pearl-handled pistol.
Not sure what Lockdown 3.0 is now. Johnson has found he can implement a series of regional lockdowns and so avoid saying we have a "national" lockdown.
But, yes, the minute xmas is over the regional lockdowns will be back and maybe even tweaked downwards and extended.
Any guesses for when Lockdown 3 is going to commence? I'm leaning towards Friday 8th January at the moment.
The muddying of the waters on the Oxford vaccine is another thoroughly depressing setback, but entirely predictable (not the specific circumstances, but the fact that something would go horribly wrong. It was bound to go wrong, wasn't it?) Pray God this doesn't end with six more months of faffing about with trials whilst the NHS makes an award-winning hash of trying to lance all the olds with the Pfizer effort, which is bound to involve numerous cold chain collapses. If we find ourselves returning to eight more months of cyclical lockdowns next September then we might as well all reach for the whisky and the pearl-handled pistol.
I don't think there will be one. Tier 3 plus mass testing plus Pfizer alone will be enough to take the edge off and have that as a peak.
In fact I predict that almost the entire nation will be Tier 2 or below by 14 February (Valentine's Day).
Well, the graphs didn't look remotely questionable this time. As we said the other day - there's plenty of force in readouts of what has in fact happened without needing projections.
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill - Lords has today accepted all Commons reversals of original Lords amendments.
So it's all over - Bill completes passage today.
Key points:
- Report by 1 July 2023 - Then 1 Oct 2031 and then every 8 years - 5% tolerance - ie seats must be between 95% and 105% of quota - 5 protected constuencies - Isle of Wight x2, Anglesey, Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland
If it reports by 1 July 2023 when will it be voted on? When will it be in force from?
Seems to be cutting it close for the constituencies to be in place in time for selections before May 2024.
Key change - no vote required now in Commons or Lords.
Govt lays Order in Council and implementation then automatic.
Order in Council can be laid as quickly as Govt wants and Govt has to explain if NOT laid within 4 months.
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill - Lords has today accepted all Commons reversals of original Lords amendments.
So it's all over - Bill completes passage today.
Key points:
- Report by 1 July 2023 - Then 1 Oct 2031 and then every 8 years - 5% tolerance - ie seats must be between 95% and 105% of quota - 5 protected constuencies - Isle of Wight x2, Anglesey, Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland
If it reports by 1 July 2023 when will it be voted on? When will it be in force from?
Seems to be cutting it close for the constituencies to be in place in time for selections before May 2024.
I believe they have (very sensibly) removed the provision for MPs to vote on it, haven't they?
Oh good.
So it would come in force automatically? No statutory instrument necessary?
Mr. Punter, it was with the Sportsbook, but I was less than thrilled when Betfair tried not paying out on a Hamilton win bet because he started from the pit lane. When I pointed out this both made it less likely he'd win *and* was public knowledge at the time I made the bet I got a small sum of credit for betting but that was it.
Much prefer Ladbrokes. I think the Betfair Exchange is mostly fine for F1.
Well that's some bullshit right there. Outrageous decision.
I am increasingly of the opinion that Betfair is run by people who don't understand betting and have little experience in the business.
The replies you are apt to receive from even mundane enquiries suggest that not only can they not answer the question but they don't even have a basic grasp of the subject. Do they employ nothing but interns and accountants?
Well, the graphs didn't look remotely questionable this time. As we said the other day - there's plenty of force in readouts of what has in fact happened without needing projections.
Seemed ok to me, but we will see if they unravel in next 24 hours
Hopefully we'll see some data from the US Thanksgiving travels well before Christmas, in case anyone was in any doubt that they really should be cancelling the celebrations.
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill - Lords has today accepted all Commons reversals of original Lords amendments.
So it's all over - Bill completes passage today.
Key points:
- Report by 1 July 2023 - Then 1 Oct 2031 and then every 8 years - 5% tolerance - ie seats must be between 95% and 105% of quota - 5 protected constuencies - Isle of Wight x2, Anglesey, Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland
If it reports by 1 July 2023 when will it be voted on? When will it be in force from?
Seems to be cutting it close for the constituencies to be in place in time for selections before May 2024.
I believe they have (very sensibly) removed the provision for MPs to vote on it, haven't they?
Oh good.
So it would come in force automatically? No statutory instrument necessary?
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill - Lords has today accepted all Commons reversals of original Lords amendments.
So it's all over - Bill completes passage today.
Key points:
- Report by 1 July 2023 - Then 1 Oct 2031 and then every 8 years - 5% tolerance - ie seats must be between 95% and 105% of quota - 5 protected constuencies - Isle of Wight x2, Anglesey, Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland
If it reports by 1 July 2023 when will it be voted on? When will it be in force from?
Seems to be cutting it close for the constituencies to be in place in time for selections before May 2024.
I believe they have (very sensibly) removed the provision for MPs to vote on it, haven't they?
Oh good.
So it would come in force automatically? No statutory instrument necessary?
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill - Lords has today accepted all Commons reversals of original Lords amendments.
So it's all over - Bill completes passage today.
Key points:
- Report by 1 July 2023 - Then 1 Oct 2031 and then every 8 years - 5% tolerance - ie seats must be between 95% and 105% of quota - 5 protected constuencies - Isle of Wight x2, Anglesey, Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland
If it reports by 1 July 2023 when will it be voted on? When will it be in force from?
Seems to be cutting it close for the constituencies to be in place in time for selections before May 2024.
I believe they have (very sensibly) removed the provision for MPs to vote on it, haven't they?
Oh good.
So it would come in force automatically? No statutory instrument necessary?
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
"Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited"
What?
Ask yourself why Whitty and Vallance do not appear before cameras any more.
Its because nobody believes a word they say.
Soon nobody will believe a word their replacements, even more obscure scientists with even larger control freak issues, are saying.
And what has that got to do with the question? What science has been discredited? The germ theory of disease? That covid is a respiratory tract infection that is passed on by aerosol? You said: "based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited."
Science does not care who said what. Reality doesn't care who said what. The virus doesn't care who said what.
What science has been discredited?
See Andy here;s the thing.
Boris's sage committee have one way of responding to the virus.
Heneghan, Gupta, and others, including a nobel prize winner, have another way.
Which way is better? I incline to Heneghan, but I'm not the final arbiter of epidemiological theory, and neither are you and neither is RCS.
What I do know is that the Barrington way does not destroy our economy, culture and well being. And so I'm willing to take a risk. If a few more 82 two year olds with two co-morbidities pass away a few months early, well, that's sad. But what we have now is utterly unsustainable.
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill - Lords has today accepted all Commons reversals of original Lords amendments.
So it's all over - Bill completes passage today.
Key points:
- Report by 1 July 2023 - Then 1 Oct 2031 and then every 8 years - 5% tolerance - ie seats must be between 95% and 105% of quota - 5 protected constuencies - Isle of Wight x2, Anglesey, Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland
If it reports by 1 July 2023 when will it be voted on? When will it be in force from?
Seems to be cutting it close for the constituencies to be in place in time for selections before May 2024.
Not really. The boundary changes which became operative at the June 1983 election were only approved less than a couple of months prior to dissolution in May.
Surely if something happened to Biden the entire market would be voided rather than paying out..
No. If something happened to Biden and then there was a projected winner of a majority on the EC (i.e. Harris) - using whatever criterion Betfair use for "projection" - they'd pay out on her. (The assumption is that no "projection" in Betfair's sense had been made before Biden's disappearance, which is a safe assumption because had there been such a projection they would have already paid out.) If there were no such majority and it went to the House, who would also elect Harris (never mind what is said about "voting by states" - a vote by members would determine procedure and also the rights and wrongs of any decisions by the chair, and that's enough to mean the Dems would get their way), they would also pay out on her, because they say that in the event of there being no projected winner of a majority of ECVs they will go by whoever is elected (actually elected, not "projected" to be elected) under the 12th amendment.
I can't see any path to voiding the market, unless the election itself is voided (e.g. after a military coup, a pre-emptive nuclear strike by a foreign power, or asteroid event) which isn't going to happen.
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
"Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited"
What?
Ask yourself why Whitty and Vallance do not appear before cameras any more.
Its because nobody believes a word they say.
Soon nobody will believe a word their replacements, even more obscure scientists with even larger control freak issues, are saying.
And what has that got to do with the question? What science has been discredited? The germ theory of disease? That covid is a respiratory tract infection that is passed on by aerosol? You said: "based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited."
Science does not care who said what. Reality doesn't care who said what. The virus doesn't care who said what.
What science has been discredited?
See Andy here;s the thing.
Boris's sage committee have one way of responding to the virus.
Heneghan, Gupta, and others, including a nobel prize winner, have another way.
Which way is better? I incline to Heneghan, but I'm not the final arbiter of epidemiological theory, and neither are you and neither is RCS.
What I do know is that the Barrington way does not destroy our economy, culture and well being. And so I'm willing to take a risk. If a few more 82 two year olds with two co-morbidities pass away a few months early, well, that's sad. But what we have now is utterly unsustainable.
Given we have 2-3 confirmed vaccines coming what we have now doesn't need to be sustainable.
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
"Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited"
What?
Ask yourself why Whitty and Vallance do not appear before cameras any more.
Its because nobody believes a word they say.
Soon nobody will believe a word their replacements, even more obscure scientists with even larger control freak issues, are saying.
And what has that got to do with the question? What science has been discredited? The germ theory of disease? That covid is a respiratory tract infection that is passed on by aerosol? You said: "based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited."
Science does not care who said what. Reality doesn't care who said what. The virus doesn't care who said what.
What science has been discredited?
See Andy here;s the thing.
Boris's sage committee have one way of responding to the virus.
Heneghan, Gupta, and others, including a nobel prize winner, have another way.
Which way is better? I incline to Heneghan, but I'm not the final arbiter of epidemiological theory, and neither are you and neither is RCS.
What I do know is that the Barrington way does not destroy our economy, culture and well being. And so I'm willing to take a risk. If a few more 82 two year olds with two co-morbidities pass away a few months early, well, that's sad. But what we have now is utterly unsustainable.
Here's the 'Barrington Way' for you. It doesn't look pretty:
@Peter_the_punter One thing about Betfair, the popular vote market wasn't settled till December in 2016.
That suggests that until the last vote has been counted, all legal action and other queries have been exhausted, and the defeated party has conceded, they are not going to pay out. That could mean we will be waiting years.
I really would write to the Gambling Commission in those circumstances. I might even try my MP. Laurence Robertson has a well-merited reputation for idleness but he is something of a betting man, although I expect he has had enough free lunches from the bookies to ensure he takes the proper view of disputes. Nevertheless, maybe worth a go.
Suppose they pay out on Biden, but then Trump's Supreme Court judges do come out to swing for him?
Most of the world wouldn't pay much notice to Betfair going under in those circumstances, but the cost of settling it the wrong way would surely break them.
If they'd just said that they wouldn't settle until a concession, or the formal vote on the 14th, then it wouldn't seem so bad. It's the woolly language of "projected" without saying who by, that has left them with a degree of doubt.
No.
In the extremely unlikely event it gets as far as the SC and the even unlikelier event that it reverses the result of the election Betfair would STILL be obliged to pay out on Biden under the terms of their own rules. The 'projected' wording actually gives them quite a bit of cover precisely because it is woolly. Within reason they can decide whose projection. By convention, this is the major networks but since all relevant authorities are agreed on the result there's no need to cherry pick.
Any unlikely reversal before a court or similar is easily dispensed with under the 'subsequent events' contingency. They quote 'faithless electors' but that is clearly intended to avoid backtracking from any perverse or unforeseen later event. It's abit like the situation where a horse wins but days later is found to have been doped. The bookies don't pay out on the second.
The result became final when all the networks and similar agencies called it for Biden. Everything since can be disregarded for betting purposes. Betfair are well out of order and if they get into deep shit over it they will deserve it.
I read the 'projected' terminology alongside the following sentence on subsequent events such as faithless electors, to mean they'd settle based on the EC votes from the certified results of the States, rather than the actions of the actual electoral college - where some individual might throw a spanner in the works.
I don't think anyone expected them to settle based on media projections.
Media projections is what Betfair settled all the states on, bar the five that remain open, so I think that is what people expected and what Betfair meant. Trouble is, as I suggested in the other post, maybe in not settling, Betfair might inadvertantly have changed the meaning along the lines you suggest.
Exactly. Betfair are being inconsistent. The way they settled most of the States is exactly the way most of us expected it to be done. If they had something else in mind, or they wished to change the rules mid-event they had to explain themselves. They haven't.
To be honest, I suspect cock-up rather than conspiracy but it is bloody aggravating.
If there's no legal challenge in a state and the loser has conceded that state it seems fair enough to settle those states while leaving only those in dispute to be still in play.
Would have been fair enough if something to that effect had been stated in the rules, but it wasn't. The rules are very clear and the settlements to date have fallen squarely within the rules. The trouble is that the States which have not been settled also fall squarely within the same rules, and no reason has been given for treating them differently. The reason no reason has been given is that there is no reason. They're making the rules up as they go along.
It isn't good Philip. I've been involved in betting all my life, and so have generations of my family before me. This is a breach of trust. If you can't trust the bookie, don't bet them.
The reason I've seen quoted from them is they are waiting for legal challenges to be resolved.
That seems different to there being no reason.
That wasn't stated in their rules, nor even implied by them, nor does it make any kind of sense in its own terms. They may as well have said they are waiting for Santa Claus to arrive. That too would have been 'a reason', of sorts.
To be fair there is a difference between waiting for legal disputes over the results to be resolved and waiting for Santa.
If you'd bet on Trump and the Supreme Court ruled that he was the winner by eg disqualifying enouh "illegal" Biden votes then they'd have to pay out on Trump.
No. Why do so many people think this? The rule is very clear.
'This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election.'
This outcome is now known. It doesn't matter what comes later. The Supreme Court could make Trump President, or you, or me; it wouldn't change the the result according to the principle as stated above.
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
"Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited"
What?
Ask yourself why Whitty and Vallance do not appear before cameras any more.
Its because nobody believes a word they say.
Soon nobody will believe a word their replacements, even more obscure scientists with even larger control freak issues, are saying.
And what has that got to do with the question? What science has been discredited? The germ theory of disease? That covid is a respiratory tract infection that is passed on by aerosol? You said: "based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited."
Science does not care who said what. Reality doesn't care who said what. The virus doesn't care who said what.
What science has been discredited?
See Andy here;s the thing.
Boris's sage committee have one way of responding to the virus.
Heneghan, Gupta, and others, including a nobel prize winner, have another way.
Which way is better? I incline to Heneghan, but I'm not the final arbiter of epidemiological theory, and neither are you and neither is RCS.
What I do know is that the Barrington way does not destroy our economy, culture and well being. And so I'm willing to take a risk. If a few more 82 two year olds with two co-morbidities pass away a few months early, well, that's sad. But what we have now is utterly unsustainable.
We`re not any further from 1 April, when I wrote a header for PB.com - highlighting the three weights on the scales: health, the economy and liberty.
If anything, the latter two will be quashed even further with vaccines very much in sight.
I`ve become much more cautious about the virus myself now that I know a vaccine is coming soon. Seems particularly irrational to catch it now.
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
"Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited"
What?
Ask yourself why Whitty and Vallance do not appear before cameras any more.
Its because nobody believes a word they say.
Soon nobody will believe a word their replacements, even more obscure scientists with even larger control freak issues, are saying.
And what has that got to do with the question? What science has been discredited? The germ theory of disease? That covid is a respiratory tract infection that is passed on by aerosol? You said: "based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited."
Science does not care who said what. Reality doesn't care who said what. The virus doesn't care who said what.
What science has been discredited?
See Andy here;s the thing.
Boris's sage committee have one way of responding to the virus.
Heneghan, Gupta, and others, including a nobel prize winner, have another way.
Which way is better? I incline to Heneghan, but I'm not the final arbiter of epidemiological theory, and neither are you and neither is RCS.
What I do know is that the Barrington way does not destroy our economy, culture and well being. And so I'm willing to take a risk. If a few more 82 two year olds with two co-morbidities pass away a few months early, well, that's sad. But what we have now is utterly unsustainable.
Here's the 'Barrington Way' for you. It doesn't look pretty:
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
"Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited"
What?
Ask yourself why Whitty and Vallance do not appear before cameras any more.
Its because nobody believes a word they say.
Soon nobody will believe a word their replacements, even more obscure scientists with even larger control freak issues, are saying.
And what has that got to do with the question? What science has been discredited? The germ theory of disease? That covid is a respiratory tract infection that is passed on by aerosol? You said: "based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited."
Science does not care who said what. Reality doesn't care who said what. The virus doesn't care who said what.
What science has been discredited?
See Andy here;s the thing.
Boris's sage committee have one way of responding to the virus.
Heneghan, Gupta, and others, including a nobel prize winner, have another way.
Which way is better? I incline to Heneghan, but I'm not the final arbiter of epidemiological theory, and neither are you and neither is RCS.
What I do know is that the Barrington way does not destroy our economy, culture and well being. And so I'm willing to take a risk. If a few more 82 two year olds with two co-morbidities pass away a few months early, well, that's sad. But what we have now is utterly unsustainable.
And the overwhelming weight of scientists is against the “surrender to the virus” route. And talking about “discredited”, Gupta’s theories certainly have been.
For your route, as around a tenth of us have had it, add a zero to the death toll. Simple enough. Which, of course, is no more solely “82 year-olds with two co-morbidities” than is the cancer death toll, or the heart disease death toll. You’d know that if you didn’t desperately want to believe differently.
@Peter_the_punter One thing about Betfair, the popular vote market wasn't settled till December in 2016.
That suggests that until the last vote has been counted, all legal action and other queries have been exhausted, and the defeated party has conceded, they are not going to pay out. That could mean we will be waiting years.
I really would write to the Gambling Commission in those circumstances. I might even try my MP. Laurence Robertson has a well-merited reputation for idleness but he is something of a betting man, although I expect he has had enough free lunches from the bookies to ensure he takes the proper view of disputes. Nevertheless, maybe worth a go.
Suppose they pay out on Biden, but then Trump's Supreme Court judges do come out to swing for him?
Most of the world wouldn't pay much notice to Betfair going under in those circumstances, but the cost of settling it the wrong way would surely break them.
If they'd just said that they wouldn't settle until a concession, or the formal vote on the 14th, then it wouldn't seem so bad. It's the woolly language of "projected" without saying who by, that has left them with a degree of doubt.
No.
In the extremely unlikely event it gets as far as the SC and the even unlikelier event that it reverses the result of the election Betfair would STILL be obliged to pay out on Biden under the terms of their own rules. The 'projected' wording actually gives them quite a bit of cover precisely because it is woolly. Within reason they can decide whose projection. By convention, this is the major networks but since all relevant authorities are agreed on the result there's no need to cherry pick.
Any unlikely reversal before a court or similar is easily dispensed with under the 'subsequent events' contingency. They quote 'faithless electors' but that is clearly intended to avoid backtracking from any perverse or unforeseen later event. It's abit like the situation where a horse wins but days later is found to have been doped. The bookies don't pay out on the second.
The result became final when all the networks and similar agencies called it for Biden. Everything since can be disregarded for betting purposes. Betfair are well out of order and if they get into deep shit over it they will deserve it.
I read the 'projected' terminology alongside the following sentence on subsequent events such as faithless electors, to mean they'd settle based on the EC votes from the certified results of the States, rather than the actions of the actual electoral college - where some individual might throw a spanner in the works.
I don't think anyone expected them to settle based on media projections.
Media projections is what Betfair settled all the states on, bar the five that remain open, so I think that is what people expected and what Betfair meant. Trouble is, as I suggested in the other post, maybe in not settling, Betfair might inadvertantly have changed the meaning along the lines you suggest.
Exactly. Betfair are being inconsistent. The way they settled most of the States is exactly the way most of us expected it to be done. If they had something else in mind, or they wished to change the rules mid-event they had to explain themselves. They haven't.
To be honest, I suspect cock-up rather than conspiracy but it is bloody aggravating.
If there's no legal challenge in a state and the loser has conceded that state it seems fair enough to settle those states while leaving only those in dispute to be still in play.
Would have been fair enough if something to that effect had been stated in the rules, but it wasn't. The rules are very clear and the settlements to date have fallen squarely within the rules. The trouble is that the States which have not been settled also fall squarely within the same rules, and no reason has been given for treating them differently. The reason no reason has been given is that there is no reason. They're making the rules up as they go along.
It isn't good Philip. I've been involved in betting all my life, and so have generations of my family before me. This is a breach of trust. If you can't trust the bookie, don't bet them.
The reason I've seen quoted from them is they are waiting for legal challenges to be resolved.
That seems different to there being no reason.
That wasn't stated in their rules, nor even implied by them, nor does it make any kind of sense in its own terms. They may as well have said they are waiting for Santa Claus to arrive. That too would have been 'a reason', of sorts.
To be fair there is a difference between waiting for legal disputes over the results to be resolved and waiting for Santa.
If you'd bet on Trump and the Supreme Court ruled that he was the winner by eg disqualifying enouh "illegal" Biden votes then they'd have to pay out on Trump.
No. Why do so many people think this? The rule is very clear.
'This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election.'
This outcome is now known. It doesn't matter what comes later. The Supreme Court could make Trump President, or you, or me; it wouldn't change the the result according to the principle as stated above.
No that is your interpretation of the rule.
It doesn't say how or when the projection will be made. They are excluding faithless electors.
If theoretically the Supreme Court rule out a tranche of votes as being illegal votes then Trump could win via the final count and he would have "legitimately" won. No faithless electors needed.
@Peter_the_punter One thing about Betfair, the popular vote market wasn't settled till December in 2016.
That suggests that until the last vote has been counted, all legal action and other queries have been exhausted, and the defeated party has conceded, they are not going to pay out. That could mean we will be waiting years.
I really would write to the Gambling Commission in those circumstances. I might even try my MP. Laurence Robertson has a well-merited reputation for idleness but he is something of a betting man, although I expect he has had enough free lunches from the bookies to ensure he takes the proper view of disputes. Nevertheless, maybe worth a go.
Suppose they pay out on Biden, but then Trump's Supreme Court judges do come out to swing for him?
Most of the world wouldn't pay much notice to Betfair going under in those circumstances, but the cost of settling it the wrong way would surely break them.
If they'd just said that they wouldn't settle until a concession, or the formal vote on the 14th, then it wouldn't seem so bad. It's the woolly language of "projected" without saying who by, that has left them with a degree of doubt.
No.
In the extremely unlikely event it gets as far as the SC and the even unlikelier event that it reverses the result of the election Betfair would STILL be obliged to pay out on Biden under the terms of their own rules. The 'projected' wording actually gives them quite a bit of cover precisely because it is woolly. Within reason they can decide whose projection. By convention, this is the major networks but since all relevant authorities are agreed on the result there's no need to cherry pick.
Any unlikely reversal before a court or similar is easily dispensed with under the 'subsequent events' contingency. They quote 'faithless electors' but that is clearly intended to avoid backtracking from any perverse or unforeseen later event. It's abit like the situation where a horse wins but days later is found to have been doped. The bookies don't pay out on the second.
The result became final when all the networks and similar agencies called it for Biden. Everything since can be disregarded for betting purposes. Betfair are well out of order and if they get into deep shit over it they will deserve it.
I read the 'projected' terminology alongside the following sentence on subsequent events such as faithless electors, to mean they'd settle based on the EC votes from the certified results of the States, rather than the actions of the actual electoral college - where some individual might throw a spanner in the works.
I don't think anyone expected them to settle based on media projections.
Media projections is what Betfair settled all the states on, bar the five that remain open, so I think that is what people expected and what Betfair meant. Trouble is, as I suggested in the other post, maybe in not settling, Betfair might inadvertantly have changed the meaning along the lines you suggest.
Exactly. Betfair are being inconsistent. The way they settled most of the States is exactly the way most of us expected it to be done. If they had something else in mind, or they wished to change the rules mid-event they had to explain themselves. They haven't.
To be honest, I suspect cock-up rather than conspiracy but it is bloody aggravating.
If there's no legal challenge in a state and the loser has conceded that state it seems fair enough to settle those states while leaving only those in dispute to be still in play.
Would have been fair enough if something to that effect had been stated in the rules, but it wasn't. The rules are very clear and the settlements to date have fallen squarely within the rules. The trouble is that the States which have not been settled also fall squarely within the same rules, and no reason has been given for treating them differently. The reason no reason has been given is that there is no reason. They're making the rules up as they go along.
It isn't good Philip. I've been involved in betting all my life, and so have generations of my family before me. This is a breach of trust. If you can't trust the bookie, don't bet them.
The reason I've seen quoted from them is they are waiting for legal challenges to be resolved.
That seems different to there being no reason.
That wasn't stated in their rules, nor even implied by them, nor does it make any kind of sense in its own terms. They may as well have said they are waiting for Santa Claus to arrive. That too would have been 'a reason', of sorts.
To be fair there is a difference between waiting for legal disputes over the results to be resolved and waiting for Santa.
If you'd bet on Trump and the Supreme Court ruled that he was the winner by eg disqualifying enouh "illegal" Biden votes then they'd have to pay out on Trump.
No. Why do so many people think this? The rule is very clear.
'This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election.'
This outcome is now known. It doesn't matter what comes later. The Supreme Court could make Trump President, or you, or me; it wouldn't change the the result according to the principle as stated above.
Totally agree. I've cashed out. I don't trust BF on this market any more. The projection (AP, CNN, FOX etc etc) has been and gone and they haven't settled, so what is the criteria for actually settling?
Farage is standing candidates in the county council elections across England next year on an anti lockdown, anti tier, pro No Deal Brexit ticket which explains it
Brexit and the lockdown will essentially be over by May anyway.
Hundreds of thousands are seeing the small businesses they have dedicated their lives and staked everything on simply going down the drain. By government fiat. from a conservative government. On data that is not reliable. Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited.
Millions of others middle class tories face soaring tax bills, poor health outcomes because of NHS neglect, ongoing mental health issues, a government debt and deficit that is barely controllable, for the foreseeable. Probably for a decade or longer.
The notion that these copper bottomed conservative voters will simply fall into line next May has to be one of the stupidest and most complacent opinions I have read on here in some time.
"Based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited"
What?
Ask yourself why Whitty and Vallance do not appear before cameras any more.
Its because nobody believes a word they say.
Soon nobody will believe a word their replacements, even more obscure scientists with even larger control freak issues, are saying.
And what has that got to do with the question? What science has been discredited? The germ theory of disease? That covid is a respiratory tract infection that is passed on by aerosol? You said: "based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited."
Science does not care who said what. Reality doesn't care who said what. The virus doesn't care who said what.
What science has been discredited?
See Andy here;s the thing.
Boris's sage committee have one way of responding to the virus.
Heneghan, Gupta, and others, including a nobel prize winner, have another way.
Which way is better? I incline to Heneghan, but I'm not the final arbiter of epidemiological theory, and neither are you and neither is RCS.
What I do know is that the Barrington way does not destroy our economy, culture and well being. And so I'm willing to take a risk. If a few more 82 two year olds with two co-morbidities pass away a few months early, well, that's sad. But what we have now is utterly unsustainable.
This isn't complicated.
If Covid is a respiratory tract infection that is passed on by aerosol (hint: it is), then the best way to avoid getting it, is to avoid close contact with people that have it. And if you are going to be in close contact with people that have it, it is best if everyone is wearing proper protection.
Now, if you want to say:
While masks and social distancing clearly reduce the spread of the disease, they come with enormous other costs - economically, socially and to peoples' mental health. We need to be very careful that in constraining the growth of the virus, we do don't do ourselves more harm than the virus itself would cause.
That would be a perfectly fair comment. And we could have a sensible discussion about it.
But when you claim the science is unproven, you're talking utter shit: we know exactly how the disease spreads, and we know how to prevent it spreading.
Comments
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-26/astra-faces-more-vaccine-questions-after-manufacturing-error
I doubt he'll ever be elected to anything ever again, unless exactly the right by-election comes up at the right moment. And even then, he'd probably stuff it up.
But he's still capable of making a noise, grabbing attention, and taking 3-5% votes which the Conservatives would really like.
Now, if the Conservatives were solidly ahead, that wouldn't matter much. But if the underlying state of the parties is basically level-pegging...
Farage might be a dead snake. But dead snakes can still kill.
What would the difference be if it were 'overwhelmed?'
What?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Beltway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Beltway
Mr. Eagles, I am very comfortable admitting that your expertise in the road network of North America is superior to mine.
Rising inequality, lower mobility, contempt for the poor and widespread celibacy — we're returning to the past
By Ed West"
https://unherd.com/2020/11/the-age-of-the-middle-class-is-over/
We are in uncharted territory.
BTW Sporting Index hasn't settled the ECV markets either.
Ladbrokes have always played things with a straight bat.
F1: 30% chance of rain during qualifying.
If they get recruiting immediately in the UK they could run a 20k trial and get results pretty quickly during the months after Xmas.
It wouldn't even slow down the vaccination programme as we have for 45m doses from Pfizer and Moderna lined up which is about 12-15 weeks worth of vaccinations.
https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/1331997204177891328
Could be true, but I also remember Williams rumours before Russell was confirmed to be there next year.
Its because nobody believes a word they say.
Soon nobody will believe a word their replacements, even more obscure scientists with even larger control freak issues, are saying.
"Now with those results it’s more likely that we will need the U.S. data."
Also, at the moment so much covid in US, hard to miss it.
The Tories will win or lose depending upon how they do versus Labour, not 3% going to cranks.
Considering that I had them on multiple breaches of contract I replied "in this instance, thanks for confirming"
They are at today's press conference with the PM.
Boris Johnson will be speaking in a news conference in around 5 minutes - and it will be his first outing since he's been in self-isolation
It will be back to the familiar Downing Street podium, with the prime minister joined by Professor Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-news-latest-uk-updates-london-liverpool-to-be-in-tier-2-coronavirus-restrictions-with-review-before-christmas-12133703
The now ample evidence that CV19 is a respiratory tract infection that is passed from human to human is of no interest to him.
I think part of the problem is the time lags: humans expect action and result to be aligned. Because infection numbers seen today are for people who got CV19 two weeks ago, it creates these crazy narratives like "lockdown made no difference, it was going to naturally peak anyway."
Contrarian wins the 2020 PB Rogerdamus award.
--AS
https://twitter.com/bobscartoons/status/1306647449075961860
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1332007712985673731
And yet still they listen.
I think we just need to be patient (or take the free money on Betfair). Not long now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Italian_Grand_Prix
So it's all over - Bill completes passage today.
Key points:
- Report by 1 July 2023
- Then 1 Oct 2031 and then every 8 years
- 5% tolerance - ie seats must be between 95% and 105% of quota
- 5 protected constuencies - Isle of Wight x2, Anglesey, Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland
What science has been discredited?
The germ theory of disease?
That covid is a respiratory tract infection that is passed on by aerosol?
You said: "based on science that is at best disputed, at worst discredited."
Science does not care who said what. Reality doesn't care who said what. The virus doesn't care who said what.
What science has been discredited?
Seems to be cutting it close for the constituencies to be in place in time for selections before May 2024.
10 wins, and one each of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 7th, from the 14 races so far this season.
The muddying of the waters on the Oxford vaccine is another thoroughly depressing setback, but entirely predictable (not the specific circumstances, but the fact that something would go horribly wrong. It was bound to go wrong, wasn't it?) Pray God this doesn't end with six more months of faffing about with trials whilst the NHS makes an award-winning hash of trying to lance all the olds with the Pfizer effort, which is bound to involve numerous cold chain collapses. If we find ourselves returning to eight more months of cyclical lockdowns next September then we might as well all reach for the whisky and the pearl-handled pistol.
But, yes, the minute xmas is over the regional lockdowns will be back and maybe even tweaked downwards and extended.
In fact I predict that almost the entire nation will be Tier 2 or below by 14 February (Valentine's Day).
Govt lays Order in Council and implementation then automatic.
Order in Council can be laid as quickly as Govt wants and Govt has to explain if NOT laid within 4 months.
So it would come in force automatically? No statutory instrument necessary?
The replies you are apt to receive from even mundane enquiries suggest that not only can they not answer the question but they don't even have a basic grasp of the subject. Do they employ nothing but interns and accountants?
Boris's sage committee have one way of responding to the virus.
Heneghan, Gupta, and others, including a nobel prize winner, have another way.
Which way is better? I incline to Heneghan, but I'm not the final arbiter of epidemiological theory, and neither are you and neither is RCS.
What I do know is that the Barrington way does not destroy our economy, culture and well being. And so I'm willing to take a risk. If a few more 82 two year olds with two co-morbidities pass away a few months early, well, that's sad. But what we have now is utterly unsustainable.
Don't think anyone will be going into Tier One before vaccine rollout has begun.
I can't see any path to voiding the market, unless the election itself is voided (e.g. after a military coup, a pre-emptive nuclear strike by a foreign power, or asteroid event) which isn't going to happen.
Conclusion: it's worth staking £2 on Harris!
https://twitter.com/COVID19Tracking/status/1331757086108106757
'This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election.'
This outcome is now known. It doesn't matter what comes later. The Supreme Court could make Trump President, or you, or me; it wouldn't change the the result according to the principle as stated above.
If anything, the latter two will be quashed even further with vaccines very much in sight.
I`ve become much more cautious about the virus myself now that I know a vaccine is coming soon. Seems particularly irrational to catch it now.
They projected that if we did nothing we would hit 50,000 cases.
We had Tiers, then a national lockdown and we hit 30,000 cases.
Seems like we would have easily hit 50,000 cases had we done nothing. Unless you think the national lockdown and Tiers achieved nothing?
The UK? 11%.
These are statistics, but inside them are a world of misery. An enormous world. In our case, but not in America's. Or Sweden's (less that 4%).
That's the SAGE way. Not for them of course. They are highly paid academics and apparatchiks with gold plated pensions. But for millions of others.
Untold misery that people in other countries will escape.
The trade off? some more 82 year olds dying a few months earlier. Sad, true, but I know where I am on this.
And talking about “discredited”, Gupta’s theories certainly have been.
For your route, as around a tenth of us have had it, add a zero to the death toll. Simple enough.
Which, of course, is no more solely “82 year-olds with two co-morbidities” than is the cancer death toll, or the heart disease death toll.
You’d know that if you didn’t desperately want to believe differently.
It doesn't say how or when the projection will be made. They are excluding faithless electors.
If theoretically the Supreme Court rule out a tranche of votes as being illegal votes then Trump could win via the final count and he would have "legitimately" won. No faithless electors needed.
If Covid is a respiratory tract infection that is passed on by aerosol (hint: it is), then the best way to avoid getting it, is to avoid close contact with people that have it. And if you are going to be in close contact with people that have it, it is best if everyone is wearing proper protection.
Now, if you want to say:
While masks and social distancing clearly reduce the spread of the disease, they come with enormous other costs - economically, socially and to peoples' mental health. We need to be very careful that in constraining the growth of the virus, we do don't do ourselves more harm than the virus itself would cause.
That would be a perfectly fair comment. And we could have a sensible discussion about it.
But when you claim the science is unproven, you're talking utter shit: we know exactly how the disease spreads, and we know how to prevent it spreading.