Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
His speaking is mixed hence the mixed reviews and opinions. Great for 30 second sound bites and prepared sunny uplands speeches with a few jolly jokes. Not great on debating or being challenged.
Presumably every UK newsworthy event in the next 24 months will be attributed to Brexit, either as good news from the leavers or as bad newsfrom the remainers.
May 2021 "Huge jump in the number of nesting yellow spotted fagtails" -> Tory MP tweets "Birds prefer Brexit Britain"
It's a deeply depressing scenario but the truth is that everything in UK politics has been looked at through this lens for at least 3 years already.
Five and a half years since the 2015 election that started it all.
That wasn't the start. But it was the pernicious remainer Parliament of 2017-19 that must bear a lot of responsibility for where we are now. There's plenty of blame to go around of course and the fantasists in the ERG have more than played their part. If that Parliament had accepted Mrs May's deal I think the country would undoubtedly be in a much better place. For me, Rory Stewart had this spot on and articulated it well. All our MPs should have listened.
May lost her majority for trying to address long term care which her base didn’t like, if she’d left it in the long grass things would have been different.
So you're just totally ignoring other issues that blew her credibility like the fact that she called an early election despite having a majority then didn't bother to turn up to the debates?
Long term care is a nettle which will have to be grasped one day.
Gavin Williamson's (surely in at least part jest) overblown nationalism on the radio is the first time I've ever seen him in a positive light. Clearly the memo was 'don't blame the EU at this stage of negotiations', so he just went tonto and blamed all other nations for not being Britain.
"We have the gold standard of a regulatory approach with the FDA (Food and Drug Administration).
"The UK did not do it as carefully......
"Brave" from the country that gave us the FAA and the Boeing 737 MAX.
He's been working close to Trump for too long! Although, to be fair, the FDA has high standards, and, although a long time ago, spotted the problem with Thalidomide. The bog-up over which, of course, led to the standards we now have in the MHRA and EMA.
The FAA is not what it was, nor is the FDA.
The FAA has become way to cosy with Boeing - which is a symptom of Too Big To Fail.
The FDA has been turned into a political football by Trump. Same with the CDC.
UK supermarkets pay back £1.3 billion of covid relief to HMRC
Big decision coming up for Asda, the new owners probably counted the rates relief into their operating budget, would be tough for them to give it back.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
Excellent post. I think he is comparable to SeanT in many ways.
It is unfortunate, but understandable that those with a way with words, both verbal and written and who are quick on their feet (but often come up with the superficial answer) are the ones who will get to the top of the ladder, whereas someone with deep logical thought, or someone who listens to all the facts and decides after thoughtful consideration make better decisionmakers.
I only want rapid decisionmakers when on my flight all 4 engines have stopped, otherwise I would them to think about it.
Betfair seem to have got themselves into a bit of a pickle when they stopped settling states according to projections, following their own rules, after President Trump did not concede immediately it was obvious that he had lost. Now they just seem to be hoping something will turn up.
'Never attribute to malice anything that can more readily be explained by incompetence.'
Yes, I think Betfair have screwed up, and are looking now for a face-saving out. I expect they will get one on December 14th, but that doesn't alter the fact that they had perfectly sensible market rules and changed them after the event.
But the rules say explicitly projection in the context of excluding faithless electors, in the same paragraph. Surely you have to take the projection in context of the full paragraph, the projection is excluding faithless electors not going prematurely.
The rules also explicitly state about waiting for it to be official, if there is any ambiguity. It isn't official yet since the law explicitly gives an opportunity for the projection to change between now and 14/12/20. Since people are betting on both sides there is by definition some ambiguity still.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
That sounds a fair summary, though I'd emphasise that his lack of fundamental principles extends to a unusual readiness to tell outright lies when it suits his purposes.
Presumably every UK newsworthy event in the next 24 months will be attributed to Brexit, either as good news from the leavers or as bad newsfrom the remainers.
May 2021 "Huge jump in the number of nesting yellow spotted fagtails" -> Tory MP tweets "Birds prefer Brexit Britain"
It's a deeply depressing scenario but the truth is that everything in UK politics has been looked at through this lens for at least 3 years already.
Five and a half years since the 2015 election that started it all.
That wasn't the start. But it was the pernicious remainer Parliament of 2017-19 that must bear a lot of responsibility for where we are now. There's plenty of blame to go around of course and the fantasists in the ERG have more than played their part. If that Parliament had accepted Mrs May's deal I think the country would undoubtedly be in a much better place. For me, Rory Stewart had this spot on and articulated it well. All our MPs should have listened.
May lost her majority for trying to address long term care which her base didn’t like, if she’d left it in the long grass things would have been different.
So you're just totally ignoring other issues that blew her credibility like the fact that she called an early election despite having a majority then didn't bother to turn up to the debates?
Long term care is a nettle which will have to be grasped one day.
Totally agreed, but its far from the only thing wrong with May.
May's popularity was a mile wide but an inch deep and more than just the care issue came up during the campaign, in fact her lead had started to collapse in the polls before the care policy even came up!
Presumably every UK newsworthy event in the next 24 months will be attributed to Brexit, either as good news from the leavers or as bad newsfrom the remainers.
May 2021 "Huge jump in the number of nesting yellow spotted fagtails" -> Tory MP tweets "Birds prefer Brexit Britain"
It's a deeply depressing scenario but the truth is that everything in UK politics has been looked at through this lens for at least 3 years already.
Five and a half years since the 2015 election that started it all.
That wasn't the start. But it was the pernicious remainer Parliament of 2017-19 that must bear a lot of responsibility for where we are now. There's plenty of blame to go around of course and the fantasists in the ERG have more than played their part. If that Parliament had accepted Mrs May's deal I think the country would undoubtedly be in a much better place. For me, Rory Stewart had this spot on and articulated it well. All our MPs should have listened.
May lost her majority for trying to address long term care which her base didn’t like, if she’d left it in the long grass things would have been different.
So you're just totally ignoring other issues that blew her credibility like the fact that she called an early election despite having a majority then didn't bother to turn up to the debates?
Long term care is a nettle which will have to be grasped one day.
Yes, at the start of a parliament with a government with a cast iron majority to see it through, the lack of a financially vested membership would help.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
Excellent post. I think he is comparable to SeanT in many ways.
It is unfortunate, but understandable that those with a way with words, both verbal and written and who are quick on their feet (but often come up with the superficial answer) are the ones who will get to the top of the ladder, whereas someone with deep logical thought, or someone who listens to all the facts and decides after thoughtful consideration make better decisionmakers.
I only want rapid decisionmakers when on my flight all 4 engines have stopped, otherwise I would them to think about it.
Well, the classic of the that decision making genre was Sully - who *quickly* thought about (and answered) the energy management problem based on a lifetime of experience.....
The problem is that for politicians we elect those who give the speeches we like. As a certain former advisor pointed out, this has no actual bearing on the ability to govern.
A favourite was in a memoir of a junior official - Obama was startled to learn that a problem was still occurring .. He actually said "But I did a speech on that last year!"
Since people are betting on both sides there is by definition some ambiguity still.
People would still be betting on Trump even if they left the market open after Biden's inauguration. The 75 million+ vote market for Biden is still open, and there is zero ambiguity over that one.
UK supermarkets pay back £1.3 billion of covid relief to HMRC
Big decision coming up for Asda, the new owners probably counted the rates relief into their operating budget, would be tough for them to give it back.
I suspect they will offer something like the Co-op's holding pattern comment "Given the huge uncertainty we're facing... and the ongoing costs we are incurring, we'll consider our approach in terms of the government support we've received at year end."
Presumably every UK newsworthy event in the next 24 months will be attributed to Brexit, either as good news from the leavers or as bad newsfrom the remainers.
May 2021 "Huge jump in the number of nesting yellow spotted fagtails" -> Tory MP tweets "Birds prefer Brexit Britain"
It's a deeply depressing scenario but the truth is that everything in UK politics has been looked at through this lens for at least 3 years already.
Five and a half years since the 2015 election that started it all.
That wasn't the start. But it was the pernicious remainer Parliament of 2017-19 that must bear a lot of responsibility for where we are now. There's plenty of blame to go around of course and the fantasists in the ERG have more than played their part. If that Parliament had accepted Mrs May's deal I think the country would undoubtedly be in a much better place. For me, Rory Stewart had this spot on and articulated it well. All our MPs should have listened.
May lost her majority for trying to address long term care which her base didn’t like, if she’d left it in the long grass things would have been different.
So you're just totally ignoring other issues that blew her credibility like the fact that she called an early election despite having a majority then didn't bother to turn up to the debates?
Long term care is a nettle which will have to be grasped one day.
Yes, at the start of a parliament with a government with a cast iron majority to see it through, the lack of a financially vested membership would help.
"We have the gold standard of a regulatory approach with the FDA (Food and Drug Administration).
"The UK did not do it as carefully......
"Brave" from the country that gave us the FAA and the Boeing 737 MAX.
He's been working close to Trump for too long! Although, to be fair, the FDA has high standards, and, although a long time ago, spotted the problem with Thalidomide. The bog-up over which, of course, led to the standards we now have in the MHRA and EMA.
The FAA is not what it was, nor is the FDA.
The FAA has become way to cosy with Boeing - which is a symptom of Too Big To Fail.
The FDA has been turned into a political football by Trump. Same with the CDC.
F1: considered backing Russell at 3.6 to win qualifying but decided against it.
If Verstappen or Bottas wins that's great. If one of those is second then I'm also ahead. If Albon or Perez wins or comes second I get something extra.
Preference is very much for a Verstappen-Bottas 1-2. So long as one of them is at least 2nd I think that'll be ok.
Does Russell have any experience in the Mercedes? Haven't been following closely enough. Big factor I am guessing one way or another.
Since people are betting on both sides there is by definition some ambiguity still.
People would still be betting on Trump even if they left the market open after Biden's inauguration. The 75 million+ vote market for Biden is still open, and there is zero ambiguity over that one.
If the courts throw out millions of "illegal" Biden votes there is ambiguity over that one.
A key problem with the article is that the "simple", "well known" original rules, are not the original rules, they are a partial snapshot as the author knows, indeed he has said the rules must be read in the whole. So why not include a line such as "Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled." which seems exceedingly relevant?
Simply because it weakens the case of a delay down to a frustration and annoyance, nothing more serious than that.
A key problem with the article is that the "simple", "well known" original rules, are not the original rules, they are a partial snapshot as the author knows, indeed he has said the rules must be read in the whole. So why not include a line such as "Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled." which seems exceedingly relevant?
Simply because it weakens the case of a delay down to a frustration and annoyance, nothing more serious than that.
The extract is obviously 'partial' - the article was long enough as it is! There was no need to duplicate all the rules because most were not germane to the issue, but of course people can aways check them themselves.
It is common for organisations to cover themselves with a 'reserves the right clause' and it is obvious why. It cannot be abused though. There would have to be some credible reason for implementing it. This is where Betfair are struggling.
They had a perfectly intelligible and sensible set of rules. They settled according to those rules on very many markets. Then they stopped, and are now floundering.
I think they panicked, unnecessarily in my view, and are getting themselves in deeper and deeper doo-do by the day.
A key problem with the article is that the "simple", "well known" original rules, are not the original rules, they are a partial snapshot as the author knows, indeed he has said the rules must be read in the whole. So why not include a line such as "Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled." which seems exceedingly relevant?
Simply because it weakens the case of a delay down to a frustration and annoyance, nothing more serious than that.
A key problem with the article is that the "simple", "well known" original rules, are not the original rules, they are a partial snapshot as the author knows, indeed he has said the rules must be read in the whole. So why not include a line such as "Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled." which seems exceedingly relevant?
Simply because it weakens the case of a delay down to a frustration and annoyance, nothing more serious than that.
The extract is obviously 'partial' - the article was long enough as it is! There was no need to duplicate all the rules because most were not germane to the issue, but of course people can aways check them themselves.
It is common for organisations to cover themselves with a 'reserves the right clause' and it is obvious why. It cannot be abused though. There would have to be some credible reason for implementing it. This is where Betfair are struggling.
They had a perfectly intelligible and sensible set of rules. They settled according to those rules on very many markets. Then they stopped, and are now floundering.
I think they panicked, unnecessarily in my view, and are getting themselves in deeper and deeper doo-do by the day.
They settled consistently: Those without ambiguity are settled, those with ambiguity are open. As per their rules.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
Excellent post. I think he is comparable to SeanT in many ways.
It is unfortunate, but understandable that those with a way with words, both verbal and written and who are quick on their feet (but often come up with the superficial answer) are the ones who will get to the top of the ladder, whereas someone with deep logical thought, or someone who listens to all the facts and decides after thoughtful consideration make better decisionmakers.
I only want rapid decisionmakers when on my flight all 4 engines have stopped, otherwise I would them to think about it.
Well, the classic of the that decision making genre was Sully - who *quickly* thought about (and answered) the energy management problem based on a lifetime of experience.....
The problem is that for politicians we elect those who give the speeches we like. As a certain former advisor pointed out, this has no actual bearing on the ability to govern.
A favourite was in a memoir of a junior official - Obama was startled to learn that a problem was still occurring .. He actually said "But I did a speech on that last year!"
Yep I was thinking of him. I am very much in the evaluator category. I would have still been reading the manuals 2 hours later if it wasn't for the fact that I would have been dead.
Presumably every UK newsworthy event in the next 24 months will be attributed to Brexit, either as good news from the leavers or as bad newsfrom the remainers.
May 2021 "Huge jump in the number of nesting yellow spotted fagtails" -> Tory MP tweets "Birds prefer Brexit Britain"
It's a deeply depressing scenario but the truth is that everything in UK politics has been looked at through this lens for at least 3 years already.
Five and a half years since the 2015 election that started it all.
That wasn't the start. But it was the pernicious remainer Parliament of 2017-19 that must bear a lot of responsibility for where we are now. There's plenty of blame to go around of course and the fantasists in the ERG have more than played their part. If that Parliament had accepted Mrs May's deal I think the country would undoubtedly be in a much better place. For me, Rory Stewart had this spot on and articulated it well. All our MPs should have listened.
May lost her majority for trying to address long term care which her base didn’t like, if she’d left it in the long grass things would have been different.
So you're just totally ignoring other issues that blew her credibility like the fact that she called an early election despite having a majority then didn't bother to turn up to the debates?
Yes. Lynton Crosby ran a misconceived presidential campaign which undermined itself because Theresa May hated meeting voters and you cannot square "strong and stable" with a mid-campaign U-turn.
But perhaps more important were the two major terrorist incidents (London Bridge and the Ariana Grande concert) during the campaign, and (as Jeremy Corbyn pointed out) after Theresa May herself had axed 20,000 coppers.
Boris won on Corbyn's 2017 platform, including reversing May's police cuts by the exact same number.
Betfair should settle on the 8th. This is safe harbour date beyond which challenges to certification can't be entertained by the courts
That's a very good suggestion - you ought to propose it to them, as it gives them a sensible way out of this mess of their own making.
Their statement says they are getting advice from leading US lawyers on the issue. Those lawyers probably have a better understanding of the electoral calendar and potential challenges than even well informed opinion on here.
A key problem with the article is that the "simple", "well known" original rules, are not the original rules, they are a partial snapshot as the author knows, indeed he has said the rules must be read in the whole. So why not include a line such as "Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled." which seems exceedingly relevant?
Simply because it weakens the case of a delay down to a frustration and annoyance, nothing more serious than that.
I believe that, when tested in court, “reserves the right” is deemed an u fair contract because it is one sided and open ended
A key problem with the article is that the "simple", "well known" original rules, are not the original rules, they are a partial snapshot as the author knows, indeed he has said the rules must be read in the whole. So why not include a line such as "Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled." which seems exceedingly relevant?
Simply because it weakens the case of a delay down to a frustration and annoyance, nothing more serious than that.
I believe that, when tested in court, “reserves the right” is deemed an u fair contract because it is one sided and open ended
Thank you, Charles. That is my understanding too.
The clause is really there to protect the firm from skulduggery, not to give them the right to make unfair and arbitrary decisions.
A key problem with the article is that the "simple", "well known" original rules, are not the original rules, they are a partial snapshot as the author knows, indeed he has said the rules must be read in the whole. So why not include a line such as "Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled." which seems exceedingly relevant?
Simply because it weakens the case of a delay down to a frustration and annoyance, nothing more serious than that.
A key problem with the article is that the "simple", "well known" original rules, are not the original rules, they are a partial snapshot as the author knows, indeed he has said the rules must be read in the whole. So why not include a line such as "Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled." which seems exceedingly relevant?
Simply because it weakens the case of a delay down to a frustration and annoyance, nothing more serious than that.
The extract is obviously 'partial' - the article was long enough as it is! There was no need to duplicate all the rules because most were not germane to the issue, but of course people can aways check them themselves.
It is common for organisations to cover themselves with a 'reserves the right clause' and it is obvious why. It cannot be abused though. There would have to be some credible reason for implementing it. This is where Betfair are struggling.
They had a perfectly intelligible and sensible set of rules. They settled according to those rules on very many markets. Then they stopped, and are now floundering.
I think they panicked, unnecessarily in my view, and are getting themselves in deeper and deeper doo-do by the day.
Arguing that "Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled." is not germane to the question of can Betfair wait for further official announcements before settling the market is positively Trumpian!
"We have the gold standard of a regulatory approach with the FDA (Food and Drug Administration).
"The UK did not do it as carefully......
"Brave" from the country that gave us the FAA and the Boeing 737 MAX.
He's been working close to Trump for too long! Although, to be fair, the FDA has high standards, and, although a long time ago, spotted the problem with Thalidomide. The bog-up over which, of course, led to the standards we now have in the MHRA and EMA.
The FAA is not what it was, nor is the FDA.
The FAA has become way to cosy with Boeing - which is a symptom of Too Big To Fail.
The FDA has been turned into a political football by Trump. Same with the CDC.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
A key problem with the article is that the "simple", "well known" original rules, are not the original rules, they are a partial snapshot as the author knows, indeed he has said the rules must be read in the whole. So why not include a line such as "Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled." which seems exceedingly relevant?
Simply because it weakens the case of a delay down to a frustration and annoyance, nothing more serious than that.
You`re not quoting fully either. That sentence comes from this whole, stand-alone paragraph:
"If there is any material change to the established role or any ambiguity as to who occupies the position, then Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time. Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled."
There is no material change or ambiguity. If BF try to use this as an excuse they will be complicit in a conspiracy theory.
There is ambiguity. Some people think Trump should be the projected winner and the issue is before the courts.
Exactly the same as Florida 2000 legally.
The merits of the lawsuit are different but that's for the courts to determine.
Philip, I think you are confusing the result and court action.
The result is determined in accordance with the rules of the event, usually a sport but in this case politics. The appropriate officials determine the result according to their rules and the usual consequences follow, including the settlement of bets.
Court action is what follows after the declaration of the result. It is open to anybody take it, but it does not alter the official result for betting purposes (unless of course the market rules somewhat improbably specified it should.) It has to be this way for the obvious practical reasons. It would never be safe for any bookie to settle because the possibility of court action always remains open.
In most sports the procedure for declaring the final result is clear and uncontroversial. It's a little trickier in politics but the market maker can generally overcome this by suitable wording, as Betfair did in this case. The phrase 'projected Electoral votes' is one that would be readily understood by most punters likely to bet on this kind of thing but if Betfair wished they could have elaborated and been more specific. As it happened, I don't think it caused much problem at first because Betfair paid out, in many instances, on the conventional interpretation. The problem only arose when they stopped, and began to introduce new rules and consideration, such as a 'Trump concession' amongst other things.
Should they be able to do that? I don't think so. I am far from alone in so thinking.
UK supermarkets pay back £1.3 billion of covid relief to HMRC
I think they should have divvied it up between their frontline staff and delivery drivers who have taken on significant personal risk for the benefit of the country for very low pay. Returning it to HMRC is certainly better than paying the board big bonuses with it at least.
The British government can use that £1.3 billion to help out the hospitality sector then.
Takings last night in the Cyclefree Hostelry were 20% down on the worst Wednesday takings there have been. This is not good.
Bit worrying that Fauci has said the UK regulator didn't do approval as carefully. Can't really see how he can make that judgment though. And as long as all the regulators come to the same decision - should be okay.
Dr Anthony Fauci, the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said: “If you go quickly and you do it superficially, people are not going to want to get vaccinated.
"We have the gold standard of a regulatory approach with the FDA (Food and Drug Administration).
"The UK did not do it as carefully. They got a couple of days ahead. I don’t think that makes much difference.
"We’ll be there, we’ll be there very soon.”
Hmmm . . . starts with "If"
But he then outright claims the UK did not do it as carefully, no ifs there, strongly implying it has done it poorly. That's a rather bold and incendiary claim unless he has evidence.
Newsnight totally lost it last night on the vaccine announcement....a great day with great news....wall to wall should we be worried, is it dangerous, why have the government done this so quickly, it is too quick, have they done the proper checks, the Europeans are taking longer, thus we should have too, isn't good to be first.
I didn’t see it, so cannot comment.
But imagine a scenario where officials spell out to the clown various risks, then offer him the chance to be the first in the world to start vaccinating people. How much consideration do any of us seriously think Bozo would give before giving the go ahead?
We just have to take the apparently excellent news on trust, for now.
IT’S NOT HIS FUCKING DECISION
Apologies for both shouting and swearing
That is an unbelievable irresponsible approach to adopt and I hope to God it’s not LibDem strategy
The MHRA is an independent regulator. I was surprised how fast they moved, but it’s a good thing
The last thing we need is idiots trying to politicise vaccines
Then stay away from here - the Boris haters have completely lost their minds on him & Brexit. Stirring up the anti-vaxxers is just part of the game, with Jo Public as collateral damage.
One of the great pleasures of PB is the view from the Costa Blanca. A Felix 'like' is as informative as the post he's liking. There used to be a journalist called John Junor who would 'splutter over his cornflakes'. Daft as a brush but he never a doubt what 'middle england' was thinking
As ever Roger gets it wrong - live nowhere near the Costa Blanca despite your obesssion with me.
A key problem with the article is that the "simple", "well known" original rules, are not the original rules, they are a partial snapshot as the author knows, indeed he has said the rules must be read in the whole. So why not include a line such as "Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled." which seems exceedingly relevant?
Simply because it weakens the case of a delay down to a frustration and annoyance, nothing more serious than that.
You`re not quoting fully either. That sentence comes from this whole, stand-alone paragraph:
"If there is any material change to the established role or any ambiguity as to who occupies the position, then Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time. Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled."
There is no material change or ambiguity. If BF try to use this as an excuse they will be complicit in a conspiracy theory.
There is ambiguity. Some people think Trump should be the projected winner and the issue is before the courts.
Exactly the same as Florida 2000 legally.
The merits of the lawsuit are different but that's for the courts to determine.
Philip, I think you are confusing the result and court action.
The result is determined in accordance with the rules of the event, usually a sport but in this case politics. The appropriate officials determine the result according to their rules and the usual consequences follow, including the settlement of bets.
Court action is what follows after the declaration of the result. It is open to anybody take it, but it does not alter the official result for betting purposes (unless of course the market rules somewhat improbably specified it should.) It has to be this way for the obvious practical reasons. It would never be safe for any bookie to settle because the possibility of court action always remains open.
In most sports the procedure for declaring the final result is clear and uncontroversial. It's a little trickier in politics but the market maker can generally overcome this by suitable wording, as Betfair did in this case. The phrase 'projected Electoral votes' is one that would be readily understood by most punters likely to bet on this kind of thing but if Betfair wished they could have elaborated and been more specific. As it happened, I don't think it caused much problem at first because Betfair paid out, in many instances, on the conventional interpretation. The problem only arose when they stopped, and began to introduce new rules and consideration, such as a 'Trump concession' amongst other things.
Should they be able to do that? I don't think so. I am far from alone in so thinking.
You read projection how you want to read it, I read it in context of the following sentence as meaning the electors chosen by the voters and not faithless electors.
The problem is that the projection isn't finalised yet as the law in the United States explicitly allows post-certification challenges until 08/12/20, the projection can thus change between now and 14 December. As of 14/12/20 it will be impossible for the projection to change, depending upon the state of the lawsuits it might be impossible from 08/12/20.
What "new rule" do you think has been introduced? Trump concession is neither here nor here, the fact of the matter is that without a Trump concession and with outstanding lawsuits then Biden's status as being the projected winner is not "officially" confirmed yet. It will be officially confirmed by 14/12/20 or if sooner then when the lawsuits that can be filed until 08/12/20 are all settled.
The "official" projection is not the call made by CNN. The "official" projection is the state of the projected electoral college votes not taking into account faithless electors when that is officially finalised, which hasn't happened yet.
Presumably every UK newsworthy event in the next 24 months will be attributed to Brexit, either as good news from the leavers or as bad newsfrom the remainers.
May 2021 "Huge jump in the number of nesting yellow spotted fagtails" -> Tory MP tweets "Birds prefer Brexit Britain"
It's a deeply depressing scenario but the truth is that everything in UK politics has been looked at through this lens for at least 3 years already.
Five and a half years since the 2015 election that started it all.
That wasn't the start. But it was the pernicious remainer Parliament of 2017-19 that must bear a lot of responsibility for where we are now. There's plenty of blame to go around of course and the fantasists in the ERG have more than played their part. If that Parliament had accepted Mrs May's deal I think the country would undoubtedly be in a much better place. For me, Rory Stewart had this spot on and articulated it well. All our MPs should have listened.
May lost her majority for trying to address long term care which her base didn’t like, if she’d left it in the long grass things would have been different.
So you're just totally ignoring other issues that blew her credibility like the fact that she called an early election despite having a majority then didn't bother to turn up to the debates?
Since Boris called an election and did things like avoid scrutiny in interviews those things May did may not be determinative (though I know people very unimpressed about her not doing the debate). Trying to address long term care and the grey vote going nuts was definitely a factor as well.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
Presumably every UK newsworthy event in the next 24 months will be attributed to Brexit, either as good news from the leavers or as bad newsfrom the remainers.
May 2021 "Huge jump in the number of nesting yellow spotted fagtails" -> Tory MP tweets "Birds prefer Brexit Britain"
It's a deeply depressing scenario but the truth is that everything in UK politics has been looked at through this lens for at least 3 years already.
Five and a half years since the 2015 election that started it all.
That wasn't the start. But it was the pernicious remainer Parliament of 2017-19 that must bear a lot of responsibility for where we are now. There's plenty of blame to go around of course and the fantasists in the ERG have more than played their part. If that Parliament had accepted Mrs May's deal I think the country would undoubtedly be in a much better place. For me, Rory Stewart had this spot on and articulated it well. All our MPs should have listened.
May lost her majority for trying to address long term care which her base didn’t like, if she’d left it in the long grass things would have been different.
So you're just totally ignoring other issues that blew her credibility like the fact that she called an early election despite having a majority then didn't bother to turn up to the debates?
Long term care is a nettle which will have to be grasped one day.
Yes, at the start of a parliament with a government with a cast iron majority to see it through, the lack of a financially vested membership would help.
So 2029 then?
I support the idea that there ought to be some sort of commission of inquiry, to try and obtain some sort of cross-party support for whatever was proposed. I'm willing to be told I'm wrong, but surely the essence of the NHS was agreed on all sides prior to the 1945 Election. Putting Bevan in charge meant that a red-blooded Socialist was in charge who went further than the Conservatives wanted to go. In Education no-one did much to the 1944 Butler Act for many years.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
Excellent post. I think he is comparable to SeanT in many ways.
It is unfortunate, but understandable that those with a way with words, both verbal and written and who are quick on their feet (but often come up with the superficial answer) are the ones who will get to the top of the ladder, whereas someone with deep logical thought, or someone who listens to all the facts and decides after thoughtful consideration make better decisionmakers.
I only want rapid decisionmakers when on my flight all 4 engines have stopped, otherwise I would them to think about it.
Well, the classic of the that decision making genre was Sully - who *quickly* thought about (and answered) the energy management problem based on a lifetime of experience.....
The problem is that for politicians we elect those who give the speeches we like. As a certain former advisor pointed out, this has no actual bearing on the ability to govern.
A favourite was in a memoir of a junior official - Obama was startled to learn that a problem was still occurring .. He actually said "But I did a speech on that last year!"
Politics has always favoured charismatic shysters. Perhaps the biggest exception was Attlee, who was really chosen as a safe pair of hands rather than campaigning rhetoric as the Nazi threat escalated.
I think Ed Davey is under rated, but was an excellent minister, with real ability to negotiate and implement change. Not a showman, but I am sticking with the Party because of him. I have confidence in his ability and values.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
Do we know what capacity for weekly vaccinations will be?
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
So I'm 99% confident that if you get the flu jab as I do for medical reasons you'll be in tranche 3 or 6 depending on how severe your medical condition is.
Gavin Williamson's (surely in at least part jest) overblown nationalism on the radio is the first time I've ever seen him in a positive light. Clearly the memo was 'don't blame the EU at this stage of negotiations', so he just went tonto and blamed all other nations for not being Britain.
For not being England. His type of Tory couldn't give a rat fuck about the rest of the UK. As witnessed by the approach to maintaining the Union.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
I would presume the same criteria as those officially informed to shield earlier in the year.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
Excellent post. I think he is comparable to SeanT in many ways.
It is unfortunate, but understandable that those with a way with words, both verbal and written and who are quick on their feet (but often come up with the superficial answer) are the ones who will get to the top of the ladder, whereas someone with deep logical thought, or someone who listens to all the facts and decides after thoughtful consideration make better decisionmakers.
I only want rapid decisionmakers when on my flight all 4 engines have stopped, otherwise I would them to think about it.
Well, the classic of the that decision making genre was Sully - who *quickly* thought about (and answered) the energy management problem based on a lifetime of experience.....
The problem is that for politicians we elect those who give the speeches we like. As a certain former advisor pointed out, this has no actual bearing on the ability to govern.
A favourite was in a memoir of a junior official - Obama was startled to learn that a problem was still occurring .. He actually said "But I did a speech on that last year!"
I actually think it very hard to near impossible to tell if someone will govern well. Even if a great LOTO or expert in some other field they not be well suited to governing, even if they were a great minister even, and some populist nutter might actually show unexpected aptitude for it.
Obviously we judge it as best we can on what they say and background experience, but it's a bit of a crapshoot.
Newsnight totally lost it last night on the vaccine announcement....a great day with great news....wall to wall should we be worried, is it dangerous, why have the government done this so quickly, it is too quick, have they done the proper checks, the Europeans are taking longer, thus we should have too, isn't good to be first.
I didn’t see it, so cannot comment.
But imagine a scenario where officials spell out to the clown various risks, then offer him the chance to be the first in the world to start vaccinating people. How much consideration do any of us seriously think Bozo would give before giving the go ahead?
We just have to take the apparently excellent news on trust, for now.
IT’S NOT HIS FUCKING DECISION
Apologies for both shouting and swearing
That is an unbelievable irresponsible approach to adopt and I hope to God it’s not LibDem strategy
The MHRA is an independent regulator. I was surprised how fast they moved, but it’s a good thing
The last thing we need is idiots trying to politicise vaccines
Then stay away from here - the Boris haters have completely lost their minds on him & Brexit. Stirring up the anti-vaxxers is just part of the game, with Jo Public as collateral damage.
One of the great pleasures of PB is the view from the Costa Blanca. A Felix 'like' is as informative as the post he's liking. There used to be a journalist called John Junor who would 'splutter over his cornflakes'. Daft as a brush but he never a doubt what 'middle england' was thinking
As ever Roger gets it wrong - live nowhere near the Costa Blanca despite your obesssion with me.
It’s me who lives on the Southern Costa Blanca there will be similarities and differences between the two, I’m 100m off the sea but not in a Brit dominated holiday resort, most houses owned by spanish families for their summer break.
Presumably every UK newsworthy event in the next 24 months will be attributed to Brexit, either as good news from the leavers or as bad newsfrom the remainers.
May 2021 "Huge jump in the number of nesting yellow spotted fagtails" -> Tory MP tweets "Birds prefer Brexit Britain"
It's a deeply depressing scenario but the truth is that everything in UK politics has been looked at through this lens for at least 3 years already.
Five and a half years since the 2015 election that started it all.
That wasn't the start. But it was the pernicious remainer Parliament of 2017-19 that must bear a lot of responsibility for where we are now. There's plenty of blame to go around of course and the fantasists in the ERG have more than played their part. If that Parliament had accepted Mrs May's deal I think the country would undoubtedly be in a much better place. For me, Rory Stewart had this spot on and articulated it well. All our MPs should have listened.
May lost her majority for trying to address long term care which her base didn’t like, if she’d left it in the long grass things would have been different.
So you're just totally ignoring other issues that blew her credibility like the fact that she called an early election despite having a majority then didn't bother to turn up to the debates?
Since Boris called an election and did things like avoid scrutiny in interviews those things May did may not be determinative (though I know people very unimpressed about her not doing the debate). Trying to address long term care and the grey vote going nuts was definitely a factor as well.
Boris didn't call an election with a majority, he had no majority and was being constrained by the 2017-19 Parliament. Nobody can accuse the 2019 of being unnecessary unlike 2017.
Boris turned up to the debates with Corbyn, unlike May. Not turning up to Andrew Neil is a different matter.
Care was a factor but her lead had dramatically slipped before the care policy was even announced.
@Ishmael_Z 'All good fun complaining to Betfair but it won't do any good.'
I don't agree.
The GC may be prohibited in dealing with individual complaints but they have an important role in licensing of gambling businesses. They would have a perfect right, an obligation even, to inquire into the complaints procedures of a firm like Betfair to see if they were adequate and reasonable. Any evidence that they were just fobbing customers off would be of concern.
The GC has extensive powers. I don't want to see Betfair's license suspended, and it would be fanciful to imagine that would happen over something like this. They could however be warned and instructed to smarten up their act and they would have to pay attention to that.
If that happened, I think that would be a decent result, don't you?
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
Excellent post. I think he is comparable to SeanT in many ways.
It is unfortunate, but understandable that those with a way with words, both verbal and written and who are quick on their feet (but often come up with the superficial answer) are the ones who will get to the top of the ladder, whereas someone with deep logical thought, or someone who listens to all the facts and decides after thoughtful consideration make better decisionmakers.
I only want rapid decisionmakers when on my flight all 4 engines have stopped, otherwise I would them to think about it.
Well, the classic of the that decision making genre was Sully - who *quickly* thought about (and answered) the energy management problem based on a lifetime of experience.....
The problem is that for politicians we elect those who give the speeches we like. As a certain former advisor pointed out, this has no actual bearing on the ability to govern.
A favourite was in a memoir of a junior official - Obama was startled to learn that a problem was still occurring .. He actually said "But I did a speech on that last year!"
Politics has always favoured charismatic shysters. Perhaps the biggest exception was Attlee, who was really chosen as a safe pair of hands rather than campaigning rhetoric as the Nazi threat escalated.
I think Ed Davey is under rated, but was an excellent minister, with real ability to negotiate and implement change. Not a showman, but I am sticking with the Party because of him. I have confidence in his ability and values.
Re header: " ‘Inauguration day’ was mentioned, but when I went ballistic they backtracked and mentioned December 14th although they couldn’t actually say for sure. "
I thought someone had established (maybe OGH) that Bf had committed to 14 December following a news release. Is this right?
BF have made some fluffy references to it but nothing too committal. It's all nonsense anyway. They may as well say Christmas, New Years Eve or Pancake Tuesday for all the relevance it has to the rules as originally framed.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
Do we know what capacity for weekly vaccinations will be?
I don’t know, but the Times also publishes these milestones. No idea what their source is.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
I would presume the same criteria as those officially informed to shield earlier in the year.
That appears to be the criteria for tranche 4. Tranche 6 cribs the flu jab sheet.
UK supermarkets pay back £1.3 billion of covid relief to HMRC
I think they should have divvied it up between their frontline staff and delivery drivers who have taken on significant personal risk for the benefit of the country for very low pay. Returning it to HMRC is certainly better than paying the board big bonuses with it at least.
The British government can use that £1.3 billion to help out the hospitality sector then.
Takings last night in the Cyclefree Hostelry were 20% down on the worst Wednesday takings there have been. This is not good.
Yes agree with that, the spare money should be used to help pubs, bars, hotels and other entertainment venues. It could end up at close to £2bn returned which is more than enough to see the sector through to March when the restrictions on household mixing indoors can be eased.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
I thought that front-line NHS and care workers were being done before the 80 year olds, if only because it appeared easier to gather them together in one place. Although community pharmacists and their dispensing staff could present a problem.
But I don't mind; soon as for me, and for my 79 year old wife as soon as possible afterwards. Plus certificates to say we've been done at such a place at such and such a time that we can wave at border officials and airline staff.
@Ishmael_Z 'All good fun complaining to Betfair but it won't do any good.'
I don't agree.
The GC may be prohibited in dealing with individual complaints but they have an important role in licensing of gambling businesses. They would have a perfect right, an obligation even, to inquire into the complaints procedures of a firm like Betfair to see if they were adequate and reasonable. Any evidence that they were just fobbing customers off would be of concern.
The GC has extensive powers. I don't want to see Betfair's license suspended, and it would be fanciful to imagine that would happen over something like this. They could however be warned and instructed to smarten up their act and they would have to pay attention to that.
If that happened, I think that would be a decent result, don't you?
Agreed. I should have said "It won't result in an earlier payout."
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
I would presume the same criteria as those officially informed to shield earlier in the year.
Shielders are presumably priority 4? "Extremely vulnerable"
I would assume "underlying health conditions" is conditions like diabetes which don't require shielding but do require a flu jab.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
I would presume the same criteria as those officially informed to shield earlier in the year.
Yes, it's the same list as those who received letters to shield aiui.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
Excellent post. I think he is comparable to SeanT in many ways.
It is unfortunate, but understandable that those with a way with words, both verbal and written and who are quick on their feet (but often come up with the superficial answer) are the ones who will get to the top of the ladder, whereas someone with deep logical thought, or someone who listens to all the facts and decides after thoughtful consideration make better decisionmakers.
I only want rapid decisionmakers when on my flight all 4 engines have stopped, otherwise I would them to think about it.
Well, the classic of the that decision making genre was Sully - who *quickly* thought about (and answered) the energy management problem based on a lifetime of experience.....
The problem is that for politicians we elect those who give the speeches we like. As a certain former advisor pointed out, this has no actual bearing on the ability to govern.
A favourite was in a memoir of a junior official - Obama was startled to learn that a problem was still occurring .. He actually said "But I did a speech on that last year!"
Coincidentally been reading about the DC-10 incident at Ontario where a blown-out cabin door caused the floor to collapse and jam controls to the tail. The pilot had spotted the potential issue and off his own bat had asked for training in the simulator to cope with that case. He needed every bit of that prior thought and prep to land using throttles only ...
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
Excellent post. I think he is comparable to SeanT in many ways.
It is unfortunate, but understandable that those with a way with words, both verbal and written and who are quick on their feet (but often come up with the superficial answer) are the ones who will get to the top of the ladder, whereas someone with deep logical thought, or someone who listens to all the facts and decides after thoughtful consideration make better decisionmakers.
I only want rapid decisionmakers when on my flight all 4 engines have stopped, otherwise I would them to think about it.
Well, the classic of the that decision making genre was Sully - who *quickly* thought about (and answered) the energy management problem based on a lifetime of experience.....
The problem is that for politicians we elect those who give the speeches we like. As a certain former advisor pointed out, this has no actual bearing on the ability to govern.
A favourite was in a memoir of a junior official - Obama was startled to learn that a problem was still occurring .. He actually said "But I did a speech on that last year!"
I actually think it very hard to near impossible to tell if someone will govern well. Even if a great LOTO or expert in some other field they not be well suited to governing, even if they were a great minister even, and some populist nutter might actually show unexpected aptitude for it.
Obviously we judge it as best we can on what they say and background experience, but it's a bit of a crapshoot.
A federalist system, such as they have in Germany, can help here. Prospective leaders get a chance to prove their governing abilities or lack thereof by being let loose on part of the country first.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
Excellent post. I think he is comparable to SeanT in many ways.
It is unfortunate, but understandable that those with a way with words, both verbal and written and who are quick on their feet (but often come up with the superficial answer) are the ones who will get to the top of the ladder, whereas someone with deep logical thought, or someone who listens to all the facts and decides after thoughtful consideration make better decisionmakers.
I only want rapid decisionmakers when on my flight all 4 engines have stopped, otherwise I would them to think about it.
Well, the classic of the that decision making genre was Sully - who *quickly* thought about (and answered) the energy management problem based on a lifetime of experience.....
The problem is that for politicians we elect those who give the speeches we like. As a certain former advisor pointed out, this has no actual bearing on the ability to govern.
A favourite was in a memoir of a junior official - Obama was startled to learn that a problem was still occurring .. He actually said "But I did a speech on that last year!"
Politics has always favoured charismatic shysters. Perhaps the biggest exception was Attlee, who was really chosen as a safe pair of hands rather than campaigning rhetoric as the Nazi threat escalated.
I think Ed Davey is under rated, but was an excellent minister, with real ability to negotiate and implement change. Not a showman, but I am sticking with the Party because of him. I have confidence in his ability and values.
Only since the invention of popular campaigning - radio and TV have magnified the effect.
Can't imagine that Pitt the Younger would have got anywhere in the age of popular democracy....
When Lincoln was elected, for example, it wasn't the "done" thing for the candidate to do much campaigning. Too much like seeking the office, apparently. It was all down by surrogates....
Newsnight totally lost it last night on the vaccine announcement....a great day with great news....wall to wall should we be worried, is it dangerous, why have the government done this so quickly, it is too quick, have they done the proper checks, the Europeans are taking longer, thus we should have too, isn't good to be first.
I didn’t see it, so cannot comment.
But imagine a scenario where officials spell out to the clown various risks, then offer him the chance to be the first in the world to start vaccinating people. How much consideration do any of us seriously think Bozo would give before giving the go ahead?
We just have to take the apparently excellent news on trust, for now.
I wouldn't think that the MRHA would be susceptible to political pressure, but it does seem that the European Agency has asked for more detail. Are they gilding the lily, or just being more thorough? Time will tell.
Or did the MRHA simply take the line that with several thousand dying every week plus a significant number of long term impaired health, is even a couple of weeks gathering and analysing further data too much cost?
A risk, but a risk worth taking, is a reasonable position. Vaccine complications are rare, but on the other hand quite damaging to confidence. Not an easy decision.
You know far more about this than my but FWIW my perception is that the key to this early decision has been the real time sharing of data as it came in by Pfizer and others so that a lot of the work had been done by the time that the government asked them to make the formal decision. I don't know if the EMA did the same but if they started later they will finish later, that is inevitable.
With over 10k a day deaths being recorded worldwide I do agree that cautious risk taking is appropriate but no doubt they will be watching the outcome of this first wave of vaccinations very carefully.
I would hope that the MRHA wouldn't take any risks that could be avoided by taking an extra 2 weeks. The damage done to confidence in vaccines if approval has to be withdrawn or modified would have terrible long-term consequences. Whereas would the 2 weeks really be lost - wouldn't they be used anyway to increase supplies and prepare logistics?
So I'm not sure why the EMA is taking longer, someone suggested losing the MRHA is part of the reason - in which case those of us in the rest of Europe would have yet another thing to blame Brexit for!
There does seem to be a lot of circumstantial evidence that the EMA has been weakened by its move from London. This is no doubt a temporary thing and the timing is unfortunate. I am yet to be convinced that taking longer is either "safer" or "better". It may just mean that the same work had been done less quickly.
I think both sides are 'right' on this.
Yes, technically the UK could have used emergency national powers to temporarily approve the vaccine had it still been a member of the EU. In that sense Brexit hasn't given it new powers to do so, especially since all the current EU regulations will apply until at least 1st January 2021.
However, as we've seen from the somewhat emotional and defensive reaction across the channel in the last 24 hours, to have done so whilst we were still an EU member would have been seen as extremely bad form. Therefore, just as "in theory" we'd have had powers to suspend aspects of free movement in certain emergency situations we would not have done here either for political reasons.
For the EU and its institutions the EU is all about 'solidarity' so for the UK to "get ahead" of all the members by nationally approving first would have been seen as about as polite as lopping the nose off the end of the brie and eating it all by ourselves. They'd have been horrified.
So, yes, we could have done this whilst being a member of the EU - but we never would have.
‘The U.S. Is No Longer a More “Developed” Country Than Us’ https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/02/the-us-is-no-longer-a-more-developed-country-than-us-442407 ...It’s a shocking development for a country that has, for decades, largely viewed the United States almost like an older sibling—a model of success and progress that Koreans were proud to emulate. Now, many Koreans see the U.S. as a failing country, deeply divided and unable to meet basic challenges. The shift began after President Donald Trump’s 2016 win, when many Koreans were shocked to see him claim the presidency after a string of scandals. But the clincher has been America’s bungled response to Covid-19, followed by Trump and the GOP’s recent efforts to contest the legitimate results of the 2020 U.S. election. For Koreans, the past year has exposed the deep problems within the American system, from hyperpartisanship and deep distrust in government to a poor health care system—issues that have long been familiar to Americans, but not to Koreans, many of whom have maintained the idea of American exceptionalism far longer and livelier than many Americans...
That's an interesting and salutary lesson for the UK. A country is also a brand and like any brand it's image can make a significant difference to its bottom line. The MD of one of the UK's foremost ad agencies wrote at the time of Brexit how damaging it would be if our world beating industry was now seen as inward looking and parochial.
The connection with Brexit in this vaccine approval is also that it can be seen as an example of regulatory competition. In other words, the non-level playing field. The EU decided to move as one despite having opt-outs for member countries who could invoke an emergency clause. But in a pandemic speedy action is essential. This is not achieved by all moving together. As Pieter Cleppe points out, in providing a spur to other regulators this may benefit the EU and the USA despite the EMA's and the FDA's annoyance.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
So I'm 99% confident that if you get the flu jab as I do for medical reasons you'll be in tranche 3 or 6 depending on how severe your medical condition is.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
Excellent post. I think he is comparable to SeanT in many ways.
It is unfortunate, but understandable that those with a way with words, both verbal and written and who are quick on their feet (but often come up with the superficial answer) are the ones who will get to the top of the ladder, whereas someone with deep logical thought, or someone who listens to all the facts and decides after thoughtful consideration make better decisionmakers.
I only want rapid decisionmakers when on my flight all 4 engines have stopped, otherwise I would them to think about it.
Well, the classic of the that decision making genre was Sully - who *quickly* thought about (and answered) the energy management problem based on a lifetime of experience.....
The problem is that for politicians we elect those who give the speeches we like. As a certain former advisor pointed out, this has no actual bearing on the ability to govern.
A favourite was in a memoir of a junior official - Obama was startled to learn that a problem was still occurring .. He actually said "But I did a speech on that last year!"
Politics has always favoured charismatic shysters. Perhaps the biggest exception was Attlee, who was really chosen as a safe pair of hands rather than campaigning rhetoric as the Nazi threat escalated.
I think Ed Davey is under rated, but was an excellent minister, with real ability to negotiate and implement change. Not a showman, but I am sticking with the Party because of him. I have confidence in his ability and values.
There have always been charismatic shysters, and charisma and shystering have always been an essential part of the politician's toolkit. John Major had it, which is why he survived as long as he did, TMay didn't so she didn't. What's unusual is the extent to which we have top politicians who are charismatic shysters and nothing else. In previous times, Party Chairman or Minister for Fun was about as far as they rose.
Now the only member of the top team who isn't just a charismatic shyster is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I've got increasing doubts about him.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
Interesting to see the numbers. Looks like I am approximately number 33 million in the queue.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
Do we know what capacity for weekly vaccinations will be?
I don’t know, but the Times also publishes these milestones. No idea what their source is.
That’s one hell of a rate given it’s the 3/12 already and there are 8m in front of 65+ and we only currently have 800,000 doses I believe.
Presumably every UK newsworthy event in the next 24 months will be attributed to Brexit, either as good news from the leavers or as bad newsfrom the remainers.
May 2021 "Huge jump in the number of nesting yellow spotted fagtails" -> Tory MP tweets "Birds prefer Brexit Britain"
It's a deeply depressing scenario but the truth is that everything in UK politics has been looked at through this lens for at least 3 years already.
Five and a half years since the 2015 election that started it all.
That wasn't the start. But it was the pernicious remainer Parliament of 2017-19 that must bear a lot of responsibility for where we are now. There's plenty of blame to go around of course and the fantasists in the ERG have more than played their part. If that Parliament had accepted Mrs May's deal I think the country would undoubtedly be in a much better place. For me, Rory Stewart had this spot on and articulated it well. All our MPs should have listened.
May lost her majority for trying to address long term care which her base didn’t like, if she’d left it in the long grass things would have been different.
So you're just totally ignoring other issues that blew her credibility like the fact that she called an early election despite having a majority then didn't bother to turn up to the debates?
Long term care is a nettle which will have to be grasped one day.
Yes, at the start of a parliament with a government with a cast iron majority to see it through, the lack of a financially vested membership would help.
So 2029 then?
I support the idea that there ought to be some sort of commission of inquiry, to try and obtain some sort of cross-party support for whatever was proposed. I'm willing to be told I'm wrong, but surely the essence of the NHS was agreed on all sides prior to the 1945 Election. Putting Bevan in charge meant that a red-blooded Socialist was in charge who went further than the Conservatives wanted to go. In Education no-one did much to the 1944 Butler Act for many years.
On the NHS - it was a long standing issue in all the political parties. Generally talked of as national medical insurance or similar. It was on Chamberlins ToDo list IIRC...
In the 1945 manifestos - Labour went for option A from the report, the Conservatives went for option B. Option B was the "national insurance paying for private health provision" option.
‘The U.S. Is No Longer a More “Developed” Country Than Us’ https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/02/the-us-is-no-longer-a-more-developed-country-than-us-442407 ...It’s a shocking development for a country that has, for decades, largely viewed the United States almost like an older sibling—a model of success and progress that Koreans were proud to emulate. Now, many Koreans see the U.S. as a failing country, deeply divided and unable to meet basic challenges. The shift began after President Donald Trump’s 2016 win, when many Koreans were shocked to see him claim the presidency after a string of scandals. But the clincher has been America’s bungled response to Covid-19, followed by Trump and the GOP’s recent efforts to contest the legitimate results of the 2020 U.S. election. For Koreans, the past year has exposed the deep problems within the American system, from hyperpartisanship and deep distrust in government to a poor health care system—issues that have long been familiar to Americans, but not to Koreans, many of whom have maintained the idea of American exceptionalism far longer and livelier than many Americans...
That's an interesting and salutary lesson for the UK. A country is also a brand and like any brand it's image can make a significant difference to its bottom line. The MD of one of the UK's foremost ad agencies wrote at the time of Brexit how damaging it would be if our world beating industry was now seen as inward looking and parochial.
You make the UK sound like it shoul dbe renamed Ratneria ...
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
So I'm 99% confident that if you get the flu jab as I do for medical reasons you'll be in tranche 3 or 6 depending on how severe your medical condition is.
Thank you, that is very helpful.
No problem. Glad to help. I was wondering this myself the other day and most of the responses (such as the others in the last half an hour) were based on intuition rather than documentary evidence so I went hunting on gov.uk
Newsnight totally lost it last night on the vaccine announcement....a great day with great news....wall to wall should we be worried, is it dangerous, why have the government done this so quickly, it is too quick, have they done the proper checks, the Europeans are taking longer, thus we should have too, isn't good to be first.
I didn’t see it, so cannot comment.
But imagine a scenario where officials spell out to the clown various risks, then offer him the chance to be the first in the world to start vaccinating people. How much consideration do any of us seriously think Bozo would give before giving the go ahead?
We just have to take the apparently excellent news on trust, for now.
I wouldn't think that the MRHA would be susceptible to political pressure, but it does seem that the European Agency has asked for more detail. Are they gilding the lily, or just being more thorough? Time will tell.
Or did the MRHA simply take the line that with several thousand dying every week plus a significant number of long term impaired health, is even a couple of weeks gathering and analysing further data too much cost?
A risk, but a risk worth taking, is a reasonable position. Vaccine complications are rare, but on the other hand quite damaging to confidence. Not an easy decision.
You know far more about this than my but FWIW my perception is that the key to this early decision has been the real time sharing of data as it came in by Pfizer and others so that a lot of the work had been done by the time that the government asked them to make the formal decision. I don't know if the EMA did the same but if they started later they will finish later, that is inevitable.
With over 10k a day deaths being recorded worldwide I do agree that cautious risk taking is appropriate but no doubt they will be watching the outcome of this first wave of vaccinations very carefully.
I would hope that the MRHA wouldn't take any risks that could be avoided by taking an extra 2 weeks. The damage done to confidence in vaccines if approval has to be withdrawn or modified would have terrible long-term consequences. Whereas would the 2 weeks really be lost - wouldn't they be used anyway to increase supplies and prepare logistics?
So I'm not sure why the EMA is taking longer, someone suggested losing the MRHA is part of the reason - in which case those of us in the rest of Europe would have yet another thing to blame Brexit for!
There does seem to be a lot of circumstantial evidence that the EMA has been weakened by its move from London. This is no doubt a temporary thing and the timing is unfortunate. I am yet to be convinced that taking longer is either "safer" or "better". It may just mean that the same work had been done less quickly.
I think both sides are 'right' on this.
Yes, technically the UK could have used emergency national powers to temporarily approve the vaccine had it still been a member of the EU. In that sense Brexit hasn't given it new powers to do so, especially since all the current EU regulations will apply until at least 1st January 2021.
However, as we've seen from the somewhat emotional and defensive reaction across the channel in the last 24 hours, to have done so whilst we were still an EU member would have been seen as extremely bad form. Therefore, just as "in theory" we'd have had powers to suspend aspects of free movement in certain emergency situations we would not have done here either for political reasons.
For the EU and its institutions the EU is all about 'solidarity' so for the UK to "get ahead" of all the members by nationally approving first would have been seen as about as polite as lopping the nose off the end of the brie and eating it all by ourselves. They'd have been horrified.
So, yes, we could have done this whilst being a member of the EU - but we never would have.
The Times also mention that the MHRA has seen a large influx of expertise from the relocation of the EMA and UK based scientific regulators (many of them EU citizens) not wanting to relocate with it to Amsterdam. They say this has been a factor on both sides, giving the MHRA a huge amount of capacity at exactly the right time and leaving the EMA short staffed during a pandemic.
I'd speculate that if the MHRA hadn't split off from the EMA until the end of next year the whole EU would have benefited from the rapid approval. Everyone talking about it being rushed is chatting shit, even Fauci unless he's suggesting that Pfizer submitted it for approval with any chance of it being rejected.
If I was a European politician I'd be pointing out that Moderna hasn't sent it's vaccine data to the MHRA for approval yet while the EMA has already got it and this could be because of the relative size of the markets. It's bullshit but would be the perfect kind of remainer Twitter fodder that we see posted on here by the usual suspects.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
Excellent post. I think he is comparable to SeanT in many ways.
It is unfortunate, but understandable that those with a way with words, both verbal and written and who are quick on their feet (but often come up with the superficial answer) are the ones who will get to the top of the ladder, whereas someone with deep logical thought, or someone who listens to all the facts and decides after thoughtful consideration make better decisionmakers.
I only want rapid decisionmakers when on my flight all 4 engines have stopped, otherwise I would them to think about it.
Well, the classic of the that decision making genre was Sully - who *quickly* thought about (and answered) the energy management problem based on a lifetime of experience.....
The problem is that for politicians we elect those who give the speeches we like. As a certain former advisor pointed out, this has no actual bearing on the ability to govern.
A favourite was in a memoir of a junior official - Obama was startled to learn that a problem was still occurring .. He actually said "But I did a speech on that last year!"
Politics has always favoured charismatic shysters. Perhaps the biggest exception was Attlee, who was really chosen as a safe pair of hands rather than campaigning rhetoric as the Nazi threat escalated.
I think Ed Davey is under rated, but was an excellent minister, with real ability to negotiate and implement change. Not a showman, but I am sticking with the Party because of him. I have confidence in his ability and values.
There have always been charismatic shysters, and charisma and shystering have always been an essential part of the politician's toolkit. John Major had it, which is why he survived as long as he did, TMay didn't so she didn't. What's unusual is the extent to which we have top politicians who are charismatic shysters and nothing else. In previous times, Party Chairman or Minister for Fun was about as far as they rose.
Now the only member of the top team who isn't just a charismatic shyster is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I've got increasing doubts about him.
Not sure either Gavin Williamson or Suella Braverman can be described even as 'charismatic'
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
Excellent post. I think he is comparable to SeanT in many ways.
It is unfortunate, but understandable that those with a way with words, both verbal and written and who are quick on their feet (but often come up with the superficial answer) are the ones who will get to the top of the ladder, whereas someone with deep logical thought, or someone who listens to all the facts and decides after thoughtful consideration make better decisionmakers.
I only want rapid decisionmakers when on my flight all 4 engines have stopped, otherwise I would them to think about it.
Well, the classic of the that decision making genre was Sully - who *quickly* thought about (and answered) the energy management problem based on a lifetime of experience.....
The problem is that for politicians we elect those who give the speeches we like. As a certain former advisor pointed out, this has no actual bearing on the ability to govern.
A favourite was in a memoir of a junior official - Obama was startled to learn that a problem was still occurring .. He actually said "But I did a speech on that last year!"
Politics has always favoured charismatic shysters. Perhaps the biggest exception was Attlee, who was really chosen as a safe pair of hands rather than campaigning rhetoric as the Nazi threat escalated.
I think Ed Davey is under rated, but was an excellent minister, with real ability to negotiate and implement change. Not a showman, but I am sticking with the Party because of him. I have confidence in his ability and values.
I rejoined the LibDems to back Davey.
On the latest Electoral Calculus poll averages projection the 2024 general election would produce a hung parliament and a result of Tories 307, Labour 255, SNP 58 , DUP 8 and LDs 7. https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
So Ed Davey would hold the balance of power as neither the Tories + DUP or Labour + SNP would have a majority and determine whether Boris or Starmer became PM, this time unlike 2010 I would expect the LDs to back Labour, at least on confidence and supply
Very amused by Peter's email address. Is he still waiting for a payout on Arkle?
I've had that address since the early days of email. When the system was explained to me I tried to set mine up using my surname, but as a Smith I found it difficult to create one without numerous numbers and letters which I would never have been able to remember. A friend of mine suggested as an alternative I should use a favorite place name. My mind sprang immediately to the Arkle Bar, located just behind the Members Lawn at Cheltenham.
It works a treat. I have never forgotten it, and most people find it easy to spell and remember.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
Do we know what capacity for weekly vaccinations will be?
I don’t know, but the Times also publishes these milestones. No idea what their source is.
That’s one hell of a rate given it’s the 3/12 already and there are 8m in front of 65+ and we only currently have 800,000 doses I believe.
We have the capability now to test over 500K per day, giving someone an injection is much quicker and simpler.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
Wasn't this data collected via GPs and hospitals at the beginning of the crisis? Such that, if you qualify, you'll already have this confirmed. New conditions excepted, I guess.
Presumably every UK newsworthy event in the next 24 months will be attributed to Brexit, either as good news from the leavers or as bad newsfrom the remainers.
May 2021 "Huge jump in the number of nesting yellow spotted fagtails" -> Tory MP tweets "Birds prefer Brexit Britain"
It's a deeply depressing scenario but the truth is that everything in UK politics has been looked at through this lens for at least 3 years already.
Five and a half years since the 2015 election that started it all.
That wasn't the start. But it was the pernicious remainer Parliament of 2017-19 that must bear a lot of responsibility for where we are now. There's plenty of blame to go around of course and the fantasists in the ERG have more than played their part. If that Parliament had accepted Mrs May's deal I think the country would undoubtedly be in a much better place. For me, Rory Stewart had this spot on and articulated it well. All our MPs should have listened.
May lost her majority for trying to address long term care which her base didn’t like, if she’d left it in the long grass things would have been different.
So you're just totally ignoring other issues that blew her credibility like the fact that she called an early election despite having a majority then didn't bother to turn up to the debates?
Long term care is a nettle which will have to be grasped one day.
Yes, at the start of a parliament with a government with a cast iron majority to see it through, the lack of a financially vested membership would help.
So 2029 then?
I support the idea that there ought to be some sort of commission of inquiry, to try and obtain some sort of cross-party support for whatever was proposed. I'm willing to be told I'm wrong, but surely the essence of the NHS was agreed on all sides prior to the 1945 Election. Putting Bevan in charge meant that a red-blooded Socialist was in charge who went further than the Conservatives wanted to go. In Education no-one did much to the 1944 Butler Act for many years.
On the NHS - it was a long standing issue in all the political parties. Generally talked of as national medical insurance or similar. It was on Chamberlins ToDo list IIRC...
In the 1945 manifestos - Labour went for option A from the report, the Conservatives went for option B. Option B was the "national insurance paying for private health provision" option.
Much obliged; makes sense, in the light of developments. Too young to remember much at the time, although I remember my parents disagreeing; mother, daughter of 'shire Tories' wanted to vote Conservative, father, still in the RAF and from the Valleys wanted her to vote Labour, as he was going to.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
Interesting to see the numbers. Looks like I am approximately number 33 million in the queue.
Looks to me like those aged 65+ will get the Pfizer and the rest of us the AZ.
Bottom line: Biden didn't do much better on average than Dem candidates for House and Senate.
Reading this, it's no surprise that most voters stick with the same party for both President and the Senate/House. But there do appear to be flaws in the analysis.
Firstly, it's based on a subset of states only, since not all of them had concurrent elections.
Secondly, it's using the term "outperformance" to analyse the absolute difference in vote share between Presidential and Senate/House results. More meaningful would be the difference in SWING between last time and this time? Maybe (as we see in the UK) there's always a difference between how some people vote at different levels - this is particularly likely where there's a popular incumbent who draws support across the aisle, for example.
What I'd be interested to know is whether more people swung DEM at the 2020 Presidential compared to 2016, now having seen Trump's performance in office and during the campaign? This the analysis simply doesn't tell us - because it can't, the electoral cycles being out of sync.
Nevertheless the data in this article does suggest there was overperformance by Biden - look at the graph for the House Democrats, and by eye I'd put the average outperformance at 1% of the vote. For the Senate it's less clear, but there's a batch of Trump outperformances that are at fractions of a % almost on the line; there's probably a net 0.5% outperformance for Biden. And he is fortunate that he outperformed in some of the key states such as Michigan, Georgia, NC (delivering a near miss), Ohio, Minnesota. Trump chalked up his apparent larger overperformances mostly where it wasn't much use - Hawaii, California, Montana, New York, WV, RI, Alabama.
That extra 0.5% to 1.0% of the total vote, focused where it mattered, will have been important.
Yes, not all states had senate elections, but everywhere voted for the House - so it's probably OK to compare national House vote share with presidential vote share - although not all House seats had both D and R candidates to vote for so it's still not entirely comparable (8 races with no Dem and 19 with no Republican). Biden's lead in the national vote is currently 4.4% Democrat's House national vote lead is currently 2.9%
So Biden is outperforming House Dems by 1.5% in terms of vote share lead. In 2016 Clinton outperformed House Dems by 3.2% in terms of vote share lead.
As for the senate: Georgia seems to be the only state where Biden's slightly better performance actually gained him any EC votes. OTOH Collins' big overperformance vs Trump in Maine cost the Democrats a critical Senate seat.
That comparison with Clinton's performance suggests that the article's authors may indeed have a point, tbf.
The other factor missing is the strong tendency of US voters to give their presidents second terms - a factor we simply don't have in the UK, where seeing a government in office normally repels a chunk of those who first elected it. I think we look at Trump through our own lens and wonder why someone so abysmal wasn't more easily ejected from office, when in US terms being denied re-election is actually a big deal.
I wouldn't describe it as a "strong" tendency given that three of the last seven Presidents have tried and failed to win reelection (Carter, Bush I, Trump).
You can go back a little further and argue that five of the last ten Presidents haven't had a second term if you include Ford and assume that Johnson wouldn't have won one.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
Do we know what capacity for weekly vaccinations will be?
I don’t know, but the Times also publishes these milestones. No idea what their source is.
That’s one hell of a rate given it’s the 3/12 already and there are 8m in front of 65+ and we only currently have 800,000 doses I believe.
If you're confident you're getting 5-6m doses before year end (Pfizer suggested this yesterday) you can start vaccinating on those doses since you can't put the second dose in place until the end of December. The Pfizer doses that they're getting before YE should cover NHS frontline staff and a big chunk of over 80s and care home residents who are able to come into hospital to have their jag.
I think they're banking on Oxford/AZ being approved (although that one is still up in the air) before the end of December.
UK supermarkets pay back £1.3 billion of covid relief to HMRC
I think they should have divvied it up between their frontline staff and delivery drivers who have taken on significant personal risk for the benefit of the country for very low pay. Returning it to HMRC is certainly better than paying the board big bonuses with it at least.
The British government can use that £1.3 billion to help out the hospitality sector then.
Takings last night in the Cyclefree Hostelry were 20% down on the worst Wednesday takings there have been. This is not good.
Yes agree with that, the spare money should be used to help pubs, bars, hotels and other entertainment venues. It could end up at close to £2bn returned which is more than enough to see the sector through to March when the restrictions on household mixing indoors can be eased.
Bottom line: Biden didn't do much better on average than Dem candidates for House and Senate.
Reading this, it's no surprise that most voters stick with the same party for both President and the Senate/House. But there do appear to be flaws in the analysis.
Firstly, it's based on a subset of states only, since not all of them had concurrent elections.
Secondly, it's using the term "outperformance" to analyse the absolute difference in vote share between Presidential and Senate/House results. More meaningful would be the difference in SWING between last time and this time? Maybe (as we see in the UK) there's always a difference between how some people vote at different levels - this is particularly likely where there's a popular incumbent who draws support across the aisle, for example.
What I'd be interested to know is whether more people swung DEM at the 2020 Presidential compared to 2016, now having seen Trump's performance in office and during the campaign? This the analysis simply doesn't tell us - because it can't, the electoral cycles being out of sync.
Nevertheless the data in this article does suggest there was overperformance by Biden - look at the graph for the House Democrats, and by eye I'd put the average outperformance at 1% of the vote. For the Senate it's less clear, but there's a batch of Trump outperformances that are at fractions of a % almost on the line; there's probably a net 0.5% outperformance for Biden. And he is fortunate that he outperformed in some of the key states such as Michigan, Georgia, NC (delivering a near miss), Ohio, Minnesota. Trump chalked up his apparent larger overperformances mostly where it wasn't much use - Hawaii, California, Montana, New York, WV, RI, Alabama.
That extra 0.5% to 1.0% of the total vote, focused where it mattered, will have been important.
Yes, not all states had senate elections, but everywhere voted for the House - so it's probably OK to compare national House vote share with presidential vote share - although not all House seats had both D and R candidates to vote for so it's still not entirely comparable (8 races with no Dem and 19 with no Republican). Biden's lead in the national vote is currently 4.4% Democrat's House national vote lead is currently 2.9%
So Biden is outperforming House Dems by 1.5% in terms of vote share lead. In 2016 Clinton outperformed House Dems by 3.2% in terms of vote share lead.
As for the senate: Georgia seems to be the only state where Biden's slightly better performance actually gained him any EC votes. OTOH Collins' big overperformance vs Trump in Maine cost the Democrats a critical Senate seat.
That comparison with Clinton's performance suggests that the article's authors may indeed have a point, tbf.
The other factor missing is the strong tendency of US voters to give their presidents second terms - a factor we simply don't have in the UK, where seeing a government in office normally repels a chunk of those who first elected it. I think we look at Trump through our own lens and wonder why someone so abysmal wasn't more easily ejected from office, when in US terms being denied re-election is actually a big deal.
I wouldn't describe it as a "strong" tendency given that three of the last seven Presidents have tried and failed to win reelection (Carter, Bush I, Trump).
You can go back a little further and argue that five of the last ten Presidents haven't had a second term if you include Ford and assume that Johnson wouldn't have won one.
Bush 1 and Ford lost after 3 and 2 terms of their party in the White House and LBJ in 1968 would have been running after 8 years of his party in power too, Carter and Trump are the only Presidents since 1900 in the USA to lose after only 1 term and 4 years of their party in the White House
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
Excellent post. I think he is comparable to SeanT in many ways.
It is unfortunate, but understandable that those with a way with words, both verbal and written and who are quick on their feet (but often come up with the superficial answer) are the ones who will get to the top of the ladder, whereas someone with deep logical thought, or someone who listens to all the facts and decides after thoughtful consideration make better decisionmakers.
I only want rapid decisionmakers when on my flight all 4 engines have stopped, otherwise I would them to think about it.
Well, the classic of the that decision making genre was Sully - who *quickly* thought about (and answered) the energy management problem based on a lifetime of experience.....
The problem is that for politicians we elect those who give the speeches we like. As a certain former advisor pointed out, this has no actual bearing on the ability to govern.
A favourite was in a memoir of a junior official - Obama was startled to learn that a problem was still occurring .. He actually said "But I did a speech on that last year!"
Politics has always favoured charismatic shysters. Perhaps the biggest exception was Attlee, who was really chosen as a safe pair of hands rather than campaigning rhetoric as the Nazi threat escalated.
I think Ed Davey is under rated, but was an excellent minister, with real ability to negotiate and implement change. Not a showman, but I am sticking with the Party because of him. I have confidence in his ability and values.
There have always been charismatic shysters, and charisma and shystering have always been an essential part of the politician's toolkit. John Major had it, which is why he survived as long as he did, TMay didn't so she didn't. What's unusual is the extent to which we have top politicians who are charismatic shysters and nothing else. In previous times, Party Chairman or Minister for Fun was about as far as they rose.
Now the only member of the top team who isn't just a charismatic shyster is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I've got increasing doubts about him.
Not sure either Gavin Williamson or Suella Braverman can be described even as 'charismatic'
Only the leader need be charismatic. Anyone can enough of a spod to be an MP, particularly if well connected, and other skills help you rise through the parliamentary ranks.
But even the leader I dont think they absolutely require positive charisma, defending on opponent, but they do need to not put people off more than they draw them in.
Bottom line: Biden didn't do much better on average than Dem candidates for House and Senate.
Reading this, it's no surprise that most voters stick with the same party for both President and the Senate/House. But there do appear to be flaws in the analysis.
Firstly, it's based on a subset of states only, since not all of them had concurrent elections.
Secondly, it's using the term "outperformance" to analyse the absolute difference in vote share between Presidential and Senate/House results. More meaningful would be the difference in SWING between last time and this time? Maybe (as we see in the UK) there's always a difference between how some people vote at different levels - this is particularly likely where there's a popular incumbent who draws support across the aisle, for example.
What I'd be interested to know is whether more people swung DEM at the 2020 Presidential compared to 2016, now having seen Trump's performance in office and during the campaign? This the analysis simply doesn't tell us - because it can't, the electoral cycles being out of sync.
Nevertheless the data in this article does suggest there was overperformance by Biden - look at the graph for the House Democrats, and by eye I'd put the average outperformance at 1% of the vote. For the Senate it's less clear, but there's a batch of Trump outperformances that are at fractions of a % almost on the line; there's probably a net 0.5% outperformance for Biden. And he is fortunate that he outperformed in some of the key states such as Michigan, Georgia, NC (delivering a near miss), Ohio, Minnesota. Trump chalked up his apparent larger overperformances mostly where it wasn't much use - Hawaii, California, Montana, New York, WV, RI, Alabama.
That extra 0.5% to 1.0% of the total vote, focused where it mattered, will have been important.
Yes, not all states had senate elections, but everywhere voted for the House - so it's probably OK to compare national House vote share with presidential vote share - although not all House seats had both D and R candidates to vote for so it's still not entirely comparable (8 races with no Dem and 19 with no Republican). Biden's lead in the national vote is currently 4.4% Democrat's House national vote lead is currently 2.9%
So Biden is outperforming House Dems by 1.5% in terms of vote share lead. In 2016 Clinton outperformed House Dems by 3.2% in terms of vote share lead.
As for the senate: Georgia seems to be the only state where Biden's slightly better performance actually gained him any EC votes. OTOH Collins' big overperformance vs Trump in Maine cost the Democrats a critical Senate seat.
That comparison with Clinton's performance suggests that the article's authors may indeed have a point, tbf.
The other factor missing is the strong tendency of US voters to give their presidents second terms - a factor we simply don't have in the UK, where seeing a government in office normally repels a chunk of those who first elected it. I think we look at Trump through our own lens and wonder why someone so abysmal wasn't more easily ejected from office, when in US terms being denied re-election is actually a big deal.
I wouldn't describe it as a "strong" tendency given that three of the last seven Presidents have tried and failed to win reelection (Carter, Bush I, Trump).
You can go back a little further and argue that five of the last ten Presidents haven't had a second term if you include Ford and assume that Johnson wouldn't have won one.
Bush I was arguably a third Republican term already, Bush II would have been a fourth not a second.
If you look by party rather than individual the Americans absolutely do give second terms normally. There have been a dozen times since the start of the 20th century that a first-term party has had the President seeking re-election. Of those dozen times 10 were re-elected, the only exceptions being Carter and Trump.
The Pfizer doses that they're getting before YE should cover NHS frontline staff and a big chunk of over 80s and care home residents who are able to come into hospital to have their jag.
Re header: " ‘Inauguration day’ was mentioned, but when I went ballistic they backtracked and mentioned December 14th although they couldn’t actually say for sure. "
I thought someone had established (maybe OGH) that Bf had committed to 14 December following a news release. Is this right?
BF have made some fluffy references to it but nothing too committal. It's all nonsense anyway. They may as well say Christmas, New Years Eve or Pancake Tuesday for all the relevance it has to the rules as originally framed.
I`ve found the news release. It was 6 days ago. here it is:
"Update on settlement of the US election markets on the Betfair Exchange (dated Friday, 27th November, [17:00])
We have not settled certain markets on the Betfair Exchange relating to the U.S. election because of the uncertainty about the outcome of the results caused by ongoing recounts and potential legal challenges.
Given our responsibility to both backers and layers to ensure that the markets are settled correctly and given the unprecedented amount of money that has been traded on these markets, we have sought advice from leading U.S. lawyers to determine the appropriate time to settle the markets.
We currently anticipate that we will wait until the outcome of the Electoral College votes on 14 December 2020 is known before we settle the markets. This, of course, assumes that there is no conclusive outcome before this date.
The Exchange was briefly suspended at [17:00] this afternoon (Nov 27) to clear unmatched bets. It has now reopened for customers to trade their positions."
I suspect that their responses to our email complaints will be simply to refer us to this press release.
At least then we shall further confirmation that 14 Dec is the latest settlement date.
I`m waiting for @Mysticrose to respond to my question following her post earlier this morning : that she , following a complaint, had got BF Exchange to settle one of the disputed markets. I`m struggling to believe this and have asked her to confirm, preferably with the date of this settlement. If I find that they have settled some punters bets but not others just because they complained then I`m off to the betting regulator myself.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
Wasn't this data collected via GPs and hospitals at the beginning of the crisis? Such that, if you qualify, you'll already have this confirmed. New conditions excepted, I guess.
There were different definitions of "vulnerable" and "extremely vulnerable" around back in April etc, eg between the Legislation and the Process for Registration.
eg Type 1 diabetes was in the first, but on its own did not qualify eg for priotity slots at supermarkets.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
Excellent post. I think he is comparable to SeanT in many ways.
It is unfortunate, but understandable that those with a way with words, both verbal and written and who are quick on their feet (but often come up with the superficial answer) are the ones who will get to the top of the ladder, whereas someone with deep logical thought, or someone who listens to all the facts and decides after thoughtful consideration make better decisionmakers.
I only want rapid decisionmakers when on my flight all 4 engines have stopped, otherwise I would them to think about it.
Well, the classic of the that decision making genre was Sully - who *quickly* thought about (and answered) the energy management problem based on a lifetime of experience.....
The problem is that for politicians we elect those who give the speeches we like. As a certain former advisor pointed out, this has no actual bearing on the ability to govern.
A favourite was in a memoir of a junior official - Obama was startled to learn that a problem was still occurring .. He actually said "But I did a speech on that last year!"
Politics has always favoured charismatic shysters. Perhaps the biggest exception was Attlee, who was really chosen as a safe pair of hands rather than campaigning rhetoric as the Nazi threat escalated.
I think Ed Davey is under rated, but was an excellent minister, with real ability to negotiate and implement change. Not a showman, but I am sticking with the Party because of him. I have confidence in his ability and values.
I rejoined the LibDems to back Davey.
On the latest Electoral Calculus poll averages projection the 2024 general election would produce a hung parliament and a result of Tories 307, Labour 255, SNP 58 , DUP 8 and LDs 7. https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
So Ed Davey would hold the balance of power as neither the Tories + DUP or Labour + SNP would have a majority and determine whether Boris or Starmer became PM, this time unlike 2010 I would expect the LDs to back Labour, at least on confidence and supply
Given the way Boris mucked the DUP about I'd doubt they'll keep his successor in Downing Street, even with another massive bribe. And I doubt Ed Davey would take the LD's into coalition. C&S, or a pact, as Steel had, possibly.
Since people are betting on both sides there is by definition some ambiguity still.
People would still be betting on Trump even if they left the market open after Biden's inauguration. The 75 million+ vote market for Biden is still open, and there is zero ambiguity over that one.
There's an intriguing possible explanation for that peculiar phenomenon, Pulpy.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
I am still waiting for the scientific paper on how Long Covid effects the mind so that one endlessly uses crappy metaphors and analogies.
That appears to be innate.
He was emitting them years ago like a farmer's trailer scattering liquid shite across the polity.
Oratorical dung spreader is the term.
Is this some sort of venting?
Boris is an amusing and interesting speaker, highly skilled at both entertaining and persuading his audience. His use of the English language is vivid if not always precise. Is it so hard to recognise that whist maintaining that he lacks deeper insight, long term planning, often says what he thinks people want to hear, is lacking in consistency and has few, if any, fundamental principles?
Excellent post. I think he is comparable to SeanT in many ways.
It is unfortunate, but understandable that those with a way with words, both verbal and written and who are quick on their feet (but often come up with the superficial answer) are the ones who will get to the top of the ladder, whereas someone with deep logical thought, or someone who listens to all the facts and decides after thoughtful consideration make better decisionmakers.
I only want rapid decisionmakers when on my flight all 4 engines have stopped, otherwise I would them to think about it.
Well, the classic of the that decision making genre was Sully - who *quickly* thought about (and answered) the energy management problem based on a lifetime of experience.....
The problem is that for politicians we elect those who give the speeches we like. As a certain former advisor pointed out, this has no actual bearing on the ability to govern.
A favourite was in a memoir of a junior official - Obama was startled to learn that a problem was still occurring .. He actually said "But I did a speech on that last year!"
Politics has always favoured charismatic shysters. Perhaps the biggest exception was Attlee, who was really chosen as a safe pair of hands rather than campaigning rhetoric as the Nazi threat escalated.
I think Ed Davey is under rated, but was an excellent minister, with real ability to negotiate and implement change. Not a showman, but I am sticking with the Party because of him. I have confidence in his ability and values.
There have always been charismatic shysters, and charisma and shystering have always been an essential part of the politician's toolkit. John Major had it, which is why he survived as long as he did, TMay didn't so she didn't. What's unusual is the extent to which we have top politicians who are charismatic shysters and nothing else. In previous times, Party Chairman or Minister for Fun was about as far as they rose.
Now the only member of the top team who isn't just a charismatic shyster is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I've got increasing doubts about him.
Not sure either Gavin Williamson or Suella Braverman can be described even as 'charismatic'
To be fair to Gavin W, he used to sell things for a living, which is an honourable position and requires a certain charisma to do well; I couldn't do it for toffee. Unfortunately, being in charge of a government department is a big job, and he's not up to it. So he flounders and comes out with utter nonsense.
Bottom line: Biden didn't do much better on average than Dem candidates for House and Senate.
Reading this, it's no surprise that most voters stick with the same party for both President and the Senate/House. But there do appear to be flaws in the analysis.
Firstly, it's based on a subset of states only, since not all of them had concurrent elections.
Secondly, it's using the term "outperformance" to analyse the absolute difference in vote share between Presidential and Senate/House results. More meaningful would be the difference in SWING between last time and this time? Maybe (as we see in the UK) there's always a difference between how some people vote at different levels - this is particularly likely where there's a popular incumbent who draws support across the aisle, for example.
What I'd be interested to know is whether more people swung DEM at the 2020 Presidential compared to 2016, now having seen Trump's performance in office and during the campaign? This the analysis simply doesn't tell us - because it can't, the electoral cycles being out of sync.
Nevertheless the data in this article does suggest there was overperformance by Biden - look at the graph for the House Democrats, and by eye I'd put the average outperformance at 1% of the vote. For the Senate it's less clear, but there's a batch of Trump outperformances that are at fractions of a % almost on the line; there's probably a net 0.5% outperformance for Biden. And he is fortunate that he outperformed in some of the key states such as Michigan, Georgia, NC (delivering a near miss), Ohio, Minnesota. Trump chalked up his apparent larger overperformances mostly where it wasn't much use - Hawaii, California, Montana, New York, WV, RI, Alabama.
That extra 0.5% to 1.0% of the total vote, focused where it mattered, will have been important.
Yes, not all states had senate elections, but everywhere voted for the House - so it's probably OK to compare national House vote share with presidential vote share - although not all House seats had both D and R candidates to vote for so it's still not entirely comparable (8 races with no Dem and 19 with no Republican). Biden's lead in the national vote is currently 4.4% Democrat's House national vote lead is currently 2.9%
So Biden is outperforming House Dems by 1.5% in terms of vote share lead. In 2016 Clinton outperformed House Dems by 3.2% in terms of vote share lead.
As for the senate: Georgia seems to be the only state where Biden's slightly better performance actually gained him any EC votes. OTOH Collins' big overperformance vs Trump in Maine cost the Democrats a critical Senate seat.
That comparison with Clinton's performance suggests that the article's authors may indeed have a point, tbf.
The other factor missing is the strong tendency of US voters to give their presidents second terms - a factor we simply don't have in the UK, where seeing a government in office normally repels a chunk of those who first elected it. I think we look at Trump through our own lens and wonder why someone so abysmal wasn't more easily ejected from office, when in US terms being denied re-election is actually a big deal.
I wouldn't describe it as a "strong" tendency given that three of the last seven Presidents have tried and failed to win reelection (Carter, Bush I, Trump).
You can go back a little further and argue that five of the last ten Presidents haven't had a second term if you include Ford and assume that Johnson wouldn't have won one.
Bush I was arguably a third Republican term already, Bush II would have been a fourth not a second.
If you look by party rather than individual the Americans absolutely do give second terms normally. There have been a dozen times since the start of the 20th century that a first-term party has had the President seeking re-election. Of those dozen times 10 were re-elected, the only exceptions being Carter and Trump.
Indeed and after Carter lost in 1980 it took the Democrats 12 years to regain the White House again, which is not a good omen for Republicans at least in terms of future presidential elections.
I can only think that Williamson got kept in post after the shambles over the summer because Johnson thought he could quietly shuffle him out once COVID was past us in a couple of months. Of course COVID didn’t go away and now we are stuck with him presiding over another shambles next year. Which will be even worse because he won’t even have a semi plausible excuse that he couldn’t have seen it coming.
Why must he use such ridiculous analogies though, searchlights this time, when do we launch the barrage balloons to stop a third wave. It doesn’t add to the message let’s have some plain fair English to convey difficult concepts.
I did think Johnson was particularly poor in using the searchlight analogy, but only caught the first few minutes, as had a busy evening session.
"A searchlight picking out an invisible enemy" or something on those lines. No amount of light can help see something truly invisible!
Like most of our politicians he has no understanding of science, he is a wordsmith and nothing more. Ignorance expressed in tortured wartime rhetoric.
It all depends on one's definition of a wordsmith. Johnson is more a word-wrangler or even word-mangler.
Johnson the writer, like Johnson the statesman seems to be another over hyped product for his self-salesmanship portfolio.
He is better at politics than he is a writer/journalist!
P.S. Very informative header from PtP.
That's PR for you. Pompous arse has transformed into 'wordsmith'
If PB has taught us nothing else, we ought to be well aware that people who write for a living have some very wacko views. And an over inflated view of themselves.
Indeed, one of the pleasures of PB is that amateur commentators often, but not always, write and analyse to a much higher standard.
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
Here is the priority listing as it appears in the Times today.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
So I'm 99% confident that if you get the flu jab as I do for medical reasons you'll be in tranche 3 or 6 depending on how severe your medical condition is.
I am slightly surprised to note that asthmatics on inhaled steroids qualify for the flu jab, but not the covid-19 one.
Bit worrying that Fauci has said the UK regulator didn't do approval as carefully. Can't really see how he can make that judgment though. And as long as all the regulators come to the same decision - should be okay.
Dr Anthony Fauci, the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said: “If you go quickly and you do it superficially, people are not going to want to get vaccinated.
"We have the gold standard of a regulatory approach with the FDA (Food and Drug Administration).
"The UK did not do it as carefully. They got a couple of days ahead. I don’t think that makes much difference.
"We’ll be there, we’ll be there very soon.”
Hmmm . . . starts with "If"
Kle4: 'But he then outright claims the UK did not do it as carefully, no ifs there, strongly implying it has done it poorly. That's a rather bold and incendiary claim unless he has evidence.'
"The UK did not do it as carefully" is a somewhat surprising and careless statement from Fauci. Hopefully everyone will see it in the context of allegations by Trump that the FDA are needlessly delaying the vaccine as part of a plot against Trump. Otherwise "people are not going to want to get vaccinated" becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
But it shows the danger of politicising vaccine approval, as Trump has done
Bottom line: Biden didn't do much better on average than Dem candidates for House and Senate.
Reading this, it's no surprise that most voters stick with the same party for both President and the Senate/House. But there do appear to be flaws in the analysis.
Firstly, it's based on a subset of states only, since not all of them had concurrent elections.
Secondly, it's using the term "outperformance" to analyse the absolute difference in vote share between Presidential and Senate/House results. More meaningful would be the difference in SWING between last time and this time? Maybe (as we see in the UK) there's always a difference between how some people vote at different levels - this is particularly likely where there's a popular incumbent who draws support across the aisle, for example.
What I'd be interested to know is whether more people swung DEM at the 2020 Presidential compared to 2016, now having seen Trump's performance in office and during the campaign? This the analysis simply doesn't tell us - because it can't, the electoral cycles being out of sync.
Nevertheless the data in this article does suggest there was overperformance by Biden - look at the graph for the House Democrats, and by eye I'd put the average outperformance at 1% of the vote. For the Senate it's less clear, but there's a batch of Trump outperformances that are at fractions of a % almost on the line; there's probably a net 0.5% outperformance for Biden. And he is fortunate that he outperformed in some of the key states such as Michigan, Georgia, NC (delivering a near miss), Ohio, Minnesota. Trump chalked up his apparent larger overperformances mostly where it wasn't much use - Hawaii, California, Montana, New York, WV, RI, Alabama.
That extra 0.5% to 1.0% of the total vote, focused where it mattered, will have been important.
Yes, not all states had senate elections, but everywhere voted for the House - so it's probably OK to compare national House vote share with presidential vote share - although not all House seats had both D and R candidates to vote for so it's still not entirely comparable (8 races with no Dem and 19 with no Republican). Biden's lead in the national vote is currently 4.4% Democrat's House national vote lead is currently 2.9%
So Biden is outperforming House Dems by 1.5% in terms of vote share lead. In 2016 Clinton outperformed House Dems by 3.2% in terms of vote share lead.
As for the senate: Georgia seems to be the only state where Biden's slightly better performance actually gained him any EC votes. OTOH Collins' big overperformance vs Trump in Maine cost the Democrats a critical Senate seat.
That comparison with Clinton's performance suggests that the article's authors may indeed have a point, tbf.
The other factor missing is the strong tendency of US voters to give their presidents second terms - a factor we simply don't have in the UK, where seeing a government in office normally repels a chunk of those who first elected it. I think we look at Trump through our own lens and wonder why someone so abysmal wasn't more easily ejected from office, when in US terms being denied re-election is actually a big deal.
I wouldn't describe it as a "strong" tendency given that three of the last seven Presidents have tried and failed to win reelection (Carter, Bush I, Trump).
You can go back a little further and argue that five of the last ten Presidents haven't had a second term if you include Ford and assume that Johnson wouldn't have won one.
Bush 1 and Ford lost after 3 and 2 terms of their party in the White House and LBJ in 1968 would have been running after 8 years of his party in power too, Carter and Trump are the only Presidents since 1900 in the USA to lose after only 1 term and 4 years of their party in the White House
But Ian's post said "Presidents", not "President's parties".
Comments
The FAA has become way to cosy with Boeing - which is a symptom of Too Big To Fail.
The FDA has been turned into a political football by Trump. Same with the CDC.
It is unfortunate, but understandable that those with a way with words, both verbal and written and who are quick on their feet (but often come up with the superficial answer) are the ones who will get to the top of the ladder, whereas someone with deep logical thought, or someone who listens to all the facts and decides after thoughtful consideration make better decisionmakers.
I only want rapid decisionmakers when on my flight all 4 engines have stopped, otherwise I would them to think about it.
The rules also explicitly state about waiting for it to be official, if there is any ambiguity. It isn't official yet since the law explicitly gives an opportunity for the projection to change between now and 14/12/20. Since people are betting on both sides there is by definition some ambiguity still.
May's popularity was a mile wide but an inch deep and more than just the care issue came up during the campaign, in fact her lead had started to collapse in the polls before the care policy even came up!
The problem is that for politicians we elect those who give the speeches we like. As a certain former advisor pointed out, this has no actual bearing on the ability to govern.
A favourite was in a memoir of a junior official - Obama was startled to learn that a problem was still occurring .. He actually said "But I did a speech on that last year!"
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-basics/when-and-why-was-fda-formed
Which is fox in henhouse sort of stuff really isn't it?
It is common for organisations to cover themselves with a 'reserves the right clause' and it is obvious why. It cannot be abused though. There would have to be some credible reason for implementing it. This is where Betfair are struggling.
They had a perfectly intelligible and sensible set of rules. They settled according to those rules on very many markets. Then they stopped, and are now floundering.
I think they panicked, unnecessarily in my view, and are getting themselves in deeper and deeper doo-do by the day.
But perhaps more important were the two major terrorist incidents (London Bridge and the Ariana Grande concert) during the campaign, and (as Jeremy Corbyn pointed out) after Theresa May herself had axed 20,000 coppers.
Boris won on Corbyn's 2017 platform, including reversing May's police cuts by the exact same number.
The clause is really there to protect the firm from skulduggery, not to give them the right to make unfair and arbitrary decisions.
On email addresses, is the "arkle" for the horse?
For default horses I tend to use Flying Childers, which is also a tiny pub in Derbyshire.
Bit like the FBI improved on its origins and the behaviour of its founders...
Journalism and Op-Ed writing in the age of the Internet has a real problem. The free stuff can be appalling, ignorant click bait, but can also be far better.
The result is determined in accordance with the rules of the event, usually a sport but in this case politics. The appropriate officials determine the result according to their rules and the usual consequences follow, including the settlement of bets.
Court action is what follows after the declaration of the result. It is open to anybody take it, but it does not alter the official result for betting purposes (unless of course the market rules somewhat improbably specified it should.) It has to be this way for the obvious practical reasons. It would never be safe for any bookie to settle because the possibility of court action always remains open.
In most sports the procedure for declaring the final result is clear and uncontroversial. It's a little trickier in politics but the market maker can generally overcome this by suitable wording, as Betfair did in this case. The phrase 'projected Electoral votes' is one that would be readily understood by most punters likely to bet on this kind of thing but if Betfair wished they could have elaborated and been more specific. As it happened, I don't think it caused much problem at first because Betfair paid out, in many instances, on the conventional interpretation. The problem only arose when they stopped, and began to introduce new rules and consideration, such as a 'Trump concession' amongst other things.
Should they be able to do that? I don't think so. I am far from alone in so thinking.
Takings last night in the Cyclefree Hostelry were 20% down on the worst Wednesday takings there have been. This is not good.
But he then outright claims the UK did not do it as carefully, no ifs there, strongly implying it has done it poorly. That's a rather bold and incendiary claim unless he has evidence.
The problem is that the projection isn't finalised yet as the law in the United States explicitly allows post-certification challenges until 08/12/20, the projection can thus change between now and 14 December. As of 14/12/20 it will be impossible for the projection to change, depending upon the state of the lawsuits it might be impossible from 08/12/20.
What "new rule" do you think has been introduced? Trump concession is neither here nor here, the fact of the matter is that without a Trump concession and with outstanding lawsuits then Biden's status as being the projected winner is not "officially" confirmed yet. It will be officially confirmed by 14/12/20 or if sooner then when the lawsuits that can be filed until 08/12/20 are all settled.
The "official" projection is not the call made by CNN. The "official" projection is the state of the projected electoral college votes not taking into account faithless electors when that is officially finalised, which hasn't happened yet.
Do you know where I can find a definitive definition of “underlying health conditions” as referenced in priority 6? Thanks.
I'm willing to be told I'm wrong, but surely the essence of the NHS was agreed on all sides prior to the 1945 Election. Putting Bevan in charge meant that a red-blooded Socialist was in charge who went further than the Conservatives wanted to go.
In Education no-one did much to the 1944 Butler Act for many years.
I think Ed Davey is under rated, but was an excellent minister, with real ability to negotiate and implement change. Not a showman, but I am sticking with the Party because of him. I have confidence in his ability and values.
You've done us all a great service here.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/939119/Greenbook_chapter_14a___provisional_guidance_subject_to_MHRA_approval_of_vaccine_supply_.pdf
The part on underlying health conditions is lifted almost verbatim from the Flu jab green book
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/931139/Green_book_chapter_19_influenza_V7_OCT_2020.pdf
So I'm 99% confident that if you get the flu jab as I do for medical reasons you'll be in tranche 3 or 6 depending on how severe your medical condition is.
Obviously we judge it as best we can on what they say and background experience, but it's a bit of a crapshoot.
Boris turned up to the debates with Corbyn, unlike May. Not turning up to Andrew Neil is a different matter.
Care was a factor but her lead had dramatically slipped before the care policy was even announced.
'All good fun complaining to Betfair but it won't do any good.'
I don't agree.
The GC may be prohibited in dealing with individual complaints but they have an important role in licensing of gambling businesses. They would have a perfect right, an obligation even, to inquire into the complaints procedures of a firm like Betfair to see if they were adequate and reasonable. Any evidence that they were just fobbing customers off would be of concern.
The GC has extensive powers. I don't want to see Betfair's license suspended, and it would be fanciful to imagine that would happen over something like this. They could however be warned and instructed to smarten up their act and they would have to pay attention to that.
If that happened, I think that would be a decent result, don't you?
Although community pharmacists and their dispensing staff could present a problem.
But I don't mind; soon as for me, and for my 79 year old wife as soon as possible afterwards. Plus certificates to say we've been done at such a place at such and such a time that we can wave at border officials and airline staff.
And restaurateurs and publicans
I would assume "underlying health conditions" is conditions like diabetes which don't require shielding but do require a flu jab.
Could all run at 100 mph!
Can't imagine that Pitt the Younger would have got anywhere in the age of popular democracy....
When Lincoln was elected, for example, it wasn't the "done" thing for the candidate to do much campaigning. Too much like seeking the office, apparently. It was all down by surrogates....
Yes, technically the UK could have used emergency national powers to temporarily approve the vaccine had it still been a member of the EU. In that sense Brexit hasn't given it new powers to do so, especially since all the current EU regulations will apply until at least 1st January 2021.
However, as we've seen from the somewhat emotional and defensive reaction across the channel in the last 24 hours, to have done so whilst we were still an EU member would have been seen as extremely bad form. Therefore, just as "in theory" we'd have had powers to suspend aspects of free movement in certain emergency situations we would not have done here either for political reasons.
For the EU and its institutions the EU is all about 'solidarity' so for the UK to "get ahead" of all the members by nationally approving first would have been seen as about as polite as lopping the nose off the end of the brie and eating it all by ourselves. They'd have been horrified.
So, yes, we could have done this whilst being a member of the EU - but we never would have.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/did-brexit-lead-to-the-uk-s-vaccine-success-
Now the only member of the top team who isn't just a charismatic shyster is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I've got increasing doubts about him.
In the 1945 manifestos - Labour went for option A from the report, the Conservatives went for option B. Option B was the "national insurance paying for private health provision" option.
I'd speculate that if the MHRA hadn't split off from the EMA until the end of next year the whole EU would have benefited from the rapid approval. Everyone talking about it being rushed is chatting shit, even Fauci unless he's suggesting that Pfizer submitted it for approval with any chance of it being rejected.
If I was a European politician I'd be pointing out that Moderna hasn't sent it's vaccine data to the MHRA for approval yet while the EMA has already got it and this could be because of the relative size of the markets. It's bullshit but would be the perfect kind of remainer Twitter fodder that we see posted on here by the usual suspects.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
So Ed Davey would hold the balance of power as neither the Tories + DUP or Labour + SNP would have a majority and determine whether Boris or Starmer became PM, this time unlike 2010 I would expect the LDs to back Labour, at least on confidence and supply
It works a treat. I have never forgotten it, and most people find it easy to spell and remember.
You can go back a little further and argue that five of the last ten Presidents haven't had a second term if you include Ford and assume that Johnson wouldn't have won one.
I think they're banking on Oxford/AZ being approved (although that one is still up in the air) before the end of December.
But even the leader I dont think they absolutely require positive charisma, defending on opponent, but they do need to not put people off more than they draw them in.
If you look by party rather than individual the Americans absolutely do give second terms normally. There have been a dozen times since the start of the 20th century that a first-term party has had the President seeking re-election. Of those dozen times 10 were re-elected, the only exceptions being Carter and Trump.
"Update on settlement of the US election markets on the Betfair Exchange (dated Friday, 27th November, [17:00])
We have not settled certain markets on the Betfair Exchange relating to the U.S. election because of the uncertainty about the outcome of the results caused by ongoing recounts and potential legal challenges.
Given our responsibility to both backers and layers to ensure that the markets are settled correctly and given the unprecedented amount of money that has been traded on these markets, we have sought advice from leading U.S. lawyers to determine the appropriate time to settle the markets.
We currently anticipate that we will wait until the outcome of the Electoral College votes on 14 December 2020 is known before we settle the markets. This, of course, assumes that there is no conclusive outcome before this date.
The Exchange was briefly suspended at [17:00] this afternoon (Nov 27) to clear unmatched bets. It has now reopened for customers to trade their positions."
I suspect that their responses to our email complaints will be simply to refer us to this press release.
At least then we shall further confirmation that 14 Dec is the latest settlement date.
I`m waiting for @Mysticrose to respond to my question following her post earlier this morning : that she , following a complaint, had got BF Exchange to settle one of the disputed markets. I`m struggling to believe this and have asked her to confirm, preferably with the date of this settlement. If I find that they have settled some punters bets but not others just because they complained then I`m off to the betting regulator myself.
eg Type 1 diabetes was in the first, but on its own did not qualify eg for priotity slots at supermarkets.
And I doubt Ed Davey would take the LD's into coalition. C&S, or a pact, as Steel had, possibly.
Drop me an email.
"The UK did not do it as carefully" is a somewhat surprising and careless statement from Fauci. Hopefully everyone will see it in the context of allegations by Trump that the FDA are needlessly delaying the vaccine as part of a plot against Trump. Otherwise "people are not going to want to get vaccinated" becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
But it shows the danger of politicising vaccine approval, as Trump has done