YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
If they do then Biden will be the first President since Bush Snr in 1989 not to enter office without his party in control of both chambers of Congress.
Though Trafalgar has a surprisingly good poll for the Democrats in Georgia today while OpenModel has the GOP ahead
The Dems can hope, but it makes a good case. Perdue in particular got bloody close in November, the senate candidates didnt get as many votes as Biden around Atlanta, and probably more factors to boot.
Fingers crossed they can grab at least one though.
Well, for a start, the whole series is quite a clever and accurate critique of early 19th century misogyny, and patriarchy. It has a feminist character who eloquently bemoans the way women are treated like cattle in the aristocratic marriage market, and the rest of the plot reflects that critical attitude. So this is not some alt-history steampunk fluff.
Also, it randomly picks and chooses when to sexualise black men (and occasionally women) for their blackness, and when to completely ignore it and pretend they are white. There is a poor black boxer who is matched against a white Irishman and race here becomes an issue. Yet there is a black Duke of Hastings (absurdly) whose colour is entirely ignored.
It's fun to watch and I like it, but I can't help feeling that if it had been made by a white production company, the Guardian would be slaughtering it daily as an outrage.
Anyway, back to episode 4. The heroine is luminously beautiful, which helps pass the time.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole thing it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Most people saying that they don't know whether the deal is good or not is remarkably honest! It does imply that the spin operation on Christmas Eve didn't really achieve its goals.
I doubt that we'll ever find out whether the factor driving the "vote for it" support is "... because the alternative is worse", or "... to JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY, please (sobs)"
But if people don't want to hear about Brexit any more (and who can blame them?)... how does BoJo take the credit for his great defining triumph?
Undignified as his position is, Starmer's probably got this one right.
I really don't know what to make of the extraordinary multiracial cast. As in: I don't know what it is trying to do or say to us.
Still good fun, tho.
No, and I can’t be arsed. Isn’t it just pap in Regency costume? Kind of like Emily in Paris, but in farthingales.
The multiracial David Copperfield film was very good, though.
It confuses me because, on the one hand, we are all supposed to be super-aware of race, Black Lives Matter, and all that, and yet here is a series with black Georgian dukes and duchesses and no one mentions their race or colour. So the series is telling us race and colour DON'T matter? So you could have a series about American slavery with whites playing slaves? Or War and Peace set very much in St Petersburg yet entirely cast with Chinese or Inuit actors?
It is extra confusing because in many ways the series strives hard to be historically accurate - it has high production values, it carefully recreates 1813 Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens (tho I am told the costumery is all over the shop, with bits of Regency mixed with bits of mid-Victorian)
Race is such a fucked-up subject, and no one knows quite how to handle it: perhaps the series is simply telling us THAT.
I would say that if the race of the character isn't important to the story, then the race of the actor doesn't matter. You cant have white actors playing slaves in the Deep South, or MLK, but conceivably they could play the role of a black character where their race isn't part of the story... I cant think of one though! So in my eyes, having black Edwardian Londoners doesn't really matter, even if there weren't really any, but it would be weird if their skin colour were mentioned as part of the story
Spot on.
Like you I can't think of a "story involving a black person where their race isn't relevant", I presume that is because we are a white-default country so any story/incident/history we know involving a black person is _beacuse_ it involves a black person interacting with white people in exceptional circumstances.
If we all lived in Nigeria I'm sure we'd be struggling to think of a story involving a white person where their whitness wasn't vitally important to the situation.
I really don't know what to make of the extraordinary multiracial cast. As in: I don't know what it is trying to do or say to us.
Still good fun, tho.
No, and I can’t be arsed. Isn’t it just pap in Regency costume? Kind of like Emily in Paris, but in farthingales.
The multiracial David Copperfield film was very good, though.
It confuses me because, on the one hand, we are all supposed to be super-aware of race, Black Lives Matter, and all that, and yet here is a series with black Georgian dukes and duchesses and no one mentions their race or colour. So the series is telling us race and colour DON'T matter? So you could have a series about American slavery with whites playing slaves? Or War and Peace set very much in St Petersburg yet entirely cast with Chinese or Inuit actors?
It is extra confusing because in many ways the series strives hard to be historically accurate - it has high production values, it carefully recreates 1813 Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens (tho I am told the costumery is all over the shop, with bits of Regency mixed with bits of mid-Victorian)
Race is such a fucked-up subject, and no one knows quite how to handle it: perhaps the series is simply telling us THAT.
You should have seen how angry racists got when black characters turned up in BBC family entertainment Merlin.
Their suspension of disbelief in wizards and dragons was totally shattered by black people being knights.
Reminded me of this.
I've often wondered if all the medieval european artists, and people who viewed their work, genuinely thought it the case that Jesus was not just white but very pale, or if they considered it likely he was not but they used people as existed around them as templates.
Looking at depictions of Christ around the world shows that "God Created Man in His Own Image" gets reflected back on depictions of Christ right down to contemporary clothing choices at times.
I hope that has stopped. Even as a non-believer I'm not sure I could accept a Jesus in skinny jeans in a modern portrayal.
Why not?
The whole point of the incarnation is that God came to live amongst us, as a normal person, to share our lives. It is quite sound to depict him in contemporaneous dress.
Yes, I was making a totally serious point about the soundness of Jesus in contemporary dress and not making a joke about skinny jeans.
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole thing it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Most people saying that they don't know whether the deal is good or not is remarkably honest! It does imply that the spin operation on Christmas Eve didn't really achieve its goals.
I doubt that we'll ever find out whether the factor driving the "vote for it" support is "... because the alternative is worse", or "... to JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY, please (sobs)"
But if people don't want to hear about Brexit any more (and who can blame them?)... how does BoJo take the credit for his great defining triumph?
Undignified as his position is, Starmer's probably got this one right.
Probably. Boris only needs to take credit with the right people within his ranks, and rely on other arguments and events to maintain sufficient support among the rest of the country. Eg focus on having got Brexit done to one group, and focus on the levelling up stuff with others.
Seems like Starmer has called the vote right tomorrow by backing the Deal according to Opinium with both Labour voters and voters as a whole wanting MPs to vote it through and Sturgeon is about to make one of the biggest gaffes of her career as the SNP oppose the Deal despite, according to Opinium's Scottish subsample, Scottish support for its passage.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole thing it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Most people saying that they don't know whether the deal is good or not is remarkably honest! It does imply that the spin operation on Christmas Eve didn't really achieve its goals.
I doubt that we'll ever find out whether the factor driving the "vote for it" support is "... because the alternative is worse", or "... to JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY, please (sobs)"
But if people don't want to hear about Brexit any more (and who can blame them?)... how does BoJo take the credit for his great defining triumph?
Undignified as his position is, Starmer's probably got this one right.
Put me down in the make it go away camp. Now. About that pandemic...
Seems like Starmer has called the vote right tomorrow by backing the Deal according to Opinium with both Labour voters and voters as a whole wanting MPs to vote it through and Sturgeon is about to make one of the biggest gaffes of her career as the SNP oppose the Deal according to Opinium's Scottish subsample despite Scottish support for its passage.
Sturgeon is making a minor error. She should probably have ordered abstention - "we can't vote for this deal but neither can we vote for No Deal". It will barely matter a jot in terms of Scottish politics.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
Yeah, perhaps i over egged it.
Nonetheless, support for voting it through is not the same as support for the deal. That much is obvious, even before the devils in the detail come out.
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole thing it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Most people saying that they don't know whether the deal is good or not is remarkably honest! It does imply that the spin operation on Christmas Eve didn't really achieve its goals.
But the Govt. goal was to prevent people saying it was a shit deal, which would have sunk them. So to that extent, the spin operation worked just fine...
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
But we can safely say that the LibDems backing voting the deal down (and so, by default, getting No Deal) is not a winning formula for them....
Seems like Starmer has called the vote right tomorrow by backing the Deal according to Opinium with both Labour voters and voters as a whole wanting MPs to vote it through and Sturgeon is about to make one of the biggest gaffes of her career as the SNP oppose the Deal according to Opinium's Scottish subsample despite Scottish support for its passage.
Sturgeon is making a minor error. She should probably have ordered abstention - "we can't vote for this deal but neither can we vote for No Deal". It will barely matter a jot in terms of Scottish politics.
It will, having refused to even abstain but instead to positively order a vote against for her to then bleat on for indyref2 because of a Deal a plurality of Scots want passed will look absolutely absurd and lead to a firm shift to Unionist parties in the next Holyrood polls
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
Yeah, perhaps i over egged it.
Nonetheless, support for voting it through is not the same as support for the deal. That much is obvious, even before the devils in the detail come out.
Oh I think 'support' for the deal will reduce significantly over time. Whether that will in time translate to support for those who might suggest closer or more distant EU relationships in the future to get away from the deal arrangements, I do not know.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole thing it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Most people saying that they don't know whether the deal is good or not is remarkably honest! It does imply that the spin operation on Christmas Eve didn't really achieve its goals.
But the Govt. goal was to prevent people saying it was a shit deal, which would have sunk them. So to that extent, the spin operation worked just fine...
Certainly the reaction from ERGers and Faragists seems to have been kinder than they might have anticipated, and it's that group which could prove most unruly. The other side of their support, on EU issues, stuck with them through to now, and is probably on board unless things go completely to hell I assume.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
But we can safely say that the LibDems backing voting the deal down (and so, by default, getting No Deal) is not a winning formula for them....
Not necessarily for the LDs though, 15% of voters want MPs to vote against the Deal and only 11% of voters voted LD in 2019.
Boris, Starmer and maybe Davey have called this right, Sturgeon and Blackford though have clearly called it completely wrong
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
Like most Trusts we currently run two EED departments, one clean and one covid suspect. The covid suspect one is all cubicles* so social distancing is not the issue, it is decanting the patients.
*our estates dept are some unsung heroes. They were putting up walls and screens overnight, within hours of a request going in. I will never complain about them taking weeks to change a light bulb again!
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole thing it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Most people saying that they don't know whether the deal is good or not is remarkably honest! It does imply that the spin operation on Christmas Eve didn't really achieve its goals.
I doubt that we'll ever find out whether the factor driving the "vote for it" support is "... because the alternative is worse", or "... to JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY, please (sobs)"
But if people don't want to hear about Brexit any more (and who can blame them?)... how does BoJo take the credit for his great defining triumph?
Undignified as his position is, Starmer's probably got this one right.
Depends on what alternative you reference. The deal is:
1. Much worse than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines. 4. Could have been better.
Seems like Starmer has called the vote right tomorrow by backing the Deal according to Opinium with both Labour voters and voters as a whole wanting MPs to vote it through and Sturgeon is about to make one of the biggest gaffes of her career as the SNP oppose the Deal despite, according to Opinium's Scottish subsample, Scottish support for its passage.
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
They’ve finally united around the proposition that Grayling is crap ?
They'll be at 70% in the polls if they spread that message.
You can’t campaign on the proposition that water is wet.
People do it all the time - come the local elections have a look at how identical most of the pledges will be from most candidates (except when referencing national issues) - support police, fight local planning development etc.
Seems like Starmer has called the vote right tomorrow by backing the Deal according to Opinium with both Labour voters and voters as a whole wanting MPs to vote it through and Sturgeon is about to make one of the biggest gaffes of her career as the SNP oppose the Deal according to Opinium's Scottish subsample despite Scottish support for its passage.
Sturgeon is making a minor error. She should probably have ordered abstention - "we can't vote for this deal but neither can we vote for No Deal". It will barely matter a jot in terms of Scottish politics.
Would have differentiated the SNP from Starmer's position and yet allowed them more nuance.
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
Flint sex toys should put a spark back into anyone's love-life.
If they do then Biden will be the first President since Bush Snr in 1989 not to enter office without his party in control of both chambers of Congress.
Though Trafalgar has a surprisingly good poll for the Democrats in Georgia today while OpenModel has the GOP ahead
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
But we can safely say that the LibDems backing voting the deal down (and so, by default, getting No Deal) is not a winning formula for them....
I don't know. If they can capture all of that 12% who are against it will be a big boost for their support.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole thing it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Most people saying that they don't know whether the deal is good or not is remarkably honest! It does imply that the spin operation on Christmas Eve didn't really achieve its goals.
I doubt that we'll ever find out whether the factor driving the "vote for it" support is "... because the alternative is worse", or "... to JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY, please (sobs)"
But if people don't want to hear about Brexit any more (and who can blame them?)... how does BoJo take the credit for his great defining triumph?
Undignified as his position is, Starmer's probably got this one right.
Depends on what alternative you reference. The deal is:
1. Much worse than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines. 4. Could have been better.
I would give you a mark of 7/10 for those. The correct answers are
1. Much better than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines if they were serious about them and not just bargaining chips. 4. Could have been better but equally could have been worse.
Seems like Starmer has called the vote right tomorrow by backing the Deal according to Opinium with both Labour voters and voters as a whole wanting MPs to vote it through and Sturgeon is about to make one of the biggest gaffes of her career as the SNP oppose the Deal according to Opinium's Scottish subsample despite Scottish support for its passage.
Sturgeon is making a minor error. She should probably have ordered abstention - "we can't vote for this deal but neither can we vote for No Deal". It will barely matter a jot in terms of Scottish politics.
Would have differentiated the SNP from Starmer's position and yet allowed them more nuance.
Yes. An uncharacteristic mis-step. But, as I say, I doubt it will matter one iota. The scale of this crisis means this vote will be utterly forgotten by next Tuesday
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
I just got the whole flint knapping thing - you’re continually creating and discarding vast numbers of flakes.
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
Yeah, sounds pretty bad in the Smoke from what I hear. In Leicester we have more patients than the first wave, but was fairly steady the last week. I haven't seen this weeks figures yet on our internal communications. The managers don't really expect a fresh wave for another week or so.
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
Better than 84.76% anecdata.
Just curious: how did you wangle getting your job as a freshly knapped flint sex toy manufacturer designated as a key worker?
Should we start guessing those in Government to whom you are a supplier?
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
Flint sex toys should put a spark back into anyone's love-life.
It sounds like a good way to find yourself in an ambulance parked up outside A&E. I'd rather put my willy in a vacuum cleaner.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
But we can safely say that the LibDems backing voting the deal down (and so, by default, getting No Deal) is not a winning formula for them....
I don't know. If they can capture all of that 12% who are against it will be a big boost for their support.
They’ve finally united around the proposition that Grayling is crap ?
They'll be at 70% in the polls if they spread that message.
You can’t campaign on the proposition that water is wet.
People do it all the time - come the local elections have a look at how identical most of the pledges will be from most candidates (except when referencing national issues) - support police, fight local planning development etc.
Fight development. Sigh. Then they moan their towns are "left behind".
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
But we can safely say that the LibDems backing voting the deal down (and so, by default, getting No Deal) is not a winning formula for them....
Not necessarily for the LDs though, 15% of voters want MPs to vote against the Deal and only 11% of voters voted LD in 2019.
Boris, Starmer and maybe Davey have called this right, Sturgeon and Blackford though have clearly called it completely wrong
Have you worked out which way Labour’s sole Scottish MP is voting yet, and has he called it right?
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
Better than 84.76% anecdata.
Just curious: how did you wangle getting your job as a freshly knapped flint sex toy manufacturer designated as a key worker?
Should we start guessing those in Government to whom you are a supplier?
Until you've personally experienced the comforting hardness of a hand made, artisanal, traditional farmhouse Suffolk flint butt-plug, you really haven't lived. That's not just me selling my brand. Tis the case.
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
London has been at the extremes throughout covid.
Hard hit in the spring and winter but mildly in the summer and autumn.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
But we can safely say that the LibDems backing voting the deal down (and so, by default, getting No Deal) is not a winning formula for them....
I don't know. If they can capture all of that 12% who are against it will be a big boost for their support.
Until those 12% twig it means...gulp...No Deal......
They’ve finally united around the proposition that Grayling is crap ?
They'll be at 70% in the polls if they spread that message.
You can’t campaign on the proposition that water is wet.
People do it all the time - come the local elections have a look at how identical most of the pledges will be from most candidates (except when referencing national issues) - support police, fight local planning development etc.
Point.
OTOH, if you’ve spent the previous half decade insisting that this water thing is just what you need for lighting fires ?
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
Flint sex toys should put a spark back into anyone's love-life.
It sounds like a good way to find yourself in an ambulance parked up outside A&E. I'd rather put my willy in a vacuum cleaner.
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
Better than 84.76% anecdata.
Just curious: how did you wangle getting your job as a freshly knapped flint sex toy manufacturer designated as a key worker?
Should we start guessing those in Government to whom you are a supplier?
Until you've personally experienced the comforting hardness of a hand made, artisanal, traditional farmhouse Suffolk flint butt-plug, you really haven't lived. That's not just me selling my brand. Tis the case.
Sorry, I won't be swayed from my usual Norfolk flint. Sourced out of the original Grimes Graves workings, no less....
If they do then Biden will be the first President since Bush Snr in 1989 not to enter office without his party in control of both chambers of Congress.
Though Trafalgar has a surprisingly good poll for the Democrats in Georgia today while OpenModel has the GOP ahead
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
London has been at the extremes throughout covid.
Hard hit in the spring and winter but mildly in the summer and autumn.
Luck or something more fundamental ?
Youth is clearly a major driver in London, which is a relatively youthful place.
Young people are less likely to get ill (and less likely to end up in hospital) but more likely to break the rules and go out partying in Hackney or picnicking in Regents Park, thereby catching it and ultimately spreading it, especially at Xmastide when they visit their older rellies.
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
Flint sex toys should put a spark back into anyone's love-life.
They’ve finally united around the proposition that Grayling is crap ?
They'll be at 70% in the polls if they spread that message.
You can’t campaign on the proposition that water is wet.
People do it all the time - come the local elections have a look at how identical most of the pledges will be from most candidates (except when referencing national issues) - support police, fight local planning development etc.
Fight development. Sigh. Then they moan their towns are "left behind".
Saw some great comments on some local press in my area recently, on dissatisfaction with the council and what they wanted. It was basically more investment (except for the investment that had been announced, which would be wasted or was the wrong sort and not supported by local people), lower council tax, lower business rates and to listen to local people (but not through their local representatives, who did not represent them).
I don't know why so many run for the positions really. I can kind of see why so many go the easy route in responding to local concerns.
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
Flint sex toys should put a spark back into anyone's love-life.
It sounds like a good way to find yourself in an ambulance parked up outside A&E. I'd rather put my willy in a vacuum cleaner.
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
Flint sex toys should put a spark back into anyone's love-life.
It sounds like a good way to find yourself in an ambulance parked up outside A&E. I'd rather put my willy in a vacuum cleaner.
...again?
Could be hazardous now that we’re free of EU regulations on suction power.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
But we can safely say that the LibDems backing voting the deal down (and so, by default, getting No Deal) is not a winning formula for them....
No you can't safely say that.
Only people with an agenda will say voting against the deal is voting for no deal. (By default blah blah)
Potential LibDem voters will know that the LibDems are certainly not in favour of no deal, but are not in favour of this deal either.
The LibDems are the Remain party. They are not pursuing a rejoin policy (at this stage) but favour a much closer relationship such as CU/SM. A lot of people will support that. The LibDems are at about 7% in the polls at the moment. This clear difference from the two major parties may well be a winning formula. You can't safely say that it isn't.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
Yeah, perhaps i over egged it.
Nonetheless, support for voting it through is not the same as support for the deal. That much is obvious, even before the devils in the detail come out.
Oh I think 'support' for the deal will reduce significantly over time. Whether that will in time translate to support for those who might suggest closer or more distant EU relationships in the future to get away from the deal arrangements, I do not know.
This is the most interesting question right now. Will the relatively poor relationship that the UK will have with the EU following Brexit drive a desire for an improved and closer relationship or will it encourage further estrangement?
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
But we can safely say that the LibDems backing voting the deal down (and so, by default, getting No Deal) is not a winning formula for them....
No you can't safely say that.
Only people with an agenda will say voting against the deal is voting for no deal. (By default blah blah)
Potential LibDem voters will know that the LibDems are certainly not in favour of no deal, but are not in favour of this deal either.
The LibDems are the Remain party. They are not pursuing a rejoin policy (at this stage) but favour a much closer relationship such as CU/SM. A lot of people will support that. The LibDems are at about 7% in the polls at the moment. This clear difference from the two major parties may well be a winning formula. You can't safely say that it isn't.
Are they going to out-Remain Next Prime Minister Jo Fuck Brexit Swinson?
It is pathetic for the Lib Dems to try and be a Remain but maybe not Rejoin party. We've left its done. What do the Lib Dems stand for besides refighting an old referendum that has already been fulfilled now? Can anyone say?
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
London has been at the extremes throughout covid.
Hard hit in the spring and winter but mildly in the summer and autumn.
Luck or something more fundamental ?
Youth is clearly a major driver in London, which is a relatively youthful place.
Young people are less likely to get ill (and less likely to end up in hospital) but more likely to break the rules and go out partying in Hackney or picnicking in Regents Park, thereby catching it and ultimately spreading it, especially at Xmastide when they visit their older rellies.
And here we are.
The graph embedded in this tweet is certainly alarming for London, and does fit with things in Leicester being bad but static.
They’ve finally united around the proposition that Grayling is crap ?
They'll be at 70% in the polls if they spread that message.
You can’t campaign on the proposition that water is wet.
People do it all the time - come the local elections have a look at how identical most of the pledges will be from most candidates (except when referencing national issues) - support police, fight local planning development etc.
Fight development. Sigh. Then they moan their towns are "left behind".
Saw some great comments on some local press in my area recently, on dissatisfaction with the council and what they wanted. It was basically more investment (except for the investment that had been announced, which would be wasted or was the wrong sort and not supported by local people), lower council tax, lower business rates and to listen to local people (but not through their local representatives, who did not represent them).
I don't know why so many run for the positions really. I can kind of see why so many go the easy route in responding to local concerns.
The saga of the Workington Sports Village is an absolute doozy. Replicated on a smaller scale up and down the country.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
But we can safely say that the LibDems backing voting the deal down (and so, by default, getting No Deal) is not a winning formula for them....
No you can't safely say that.
Only people with an agenda will say voting against the deal is voting for no deal. (By default blah blah)
Potential LibDem voters will know that the LibDems are certainly not in favour of no deal, but are not in favour of this deal either.
The LibDems are the Remain party. They are not pursuing a rejoin policy (at this stage) but favour a much closer relationship such as CU/SM. A lot of people will support that. The LibDems are at about 7% in the polls at the moment. This clear difference from the two major parties may well be a winning formula. You can't safely say that it isn't.
The Lib Dems' big problem (amongst others) is the near-extinction level event that was the last election. It has left them with a pitiful selection of MPs and thus a terrible leader. Davey is a total wanker. He has a sad backstory, which should inspire affection, but be comes across as a loathsomely mediocre, virtue-signalling idiot. He makes Starmer look like Alexander the Great.
You need an inspiring leader to restore your fortunes. Until that happens, I cannot see a revival, but until you revive, you have no better choice of leaders. Your party is perilously close to termination.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
But we can safely say that the LibDems backing voting the deal down (and so, by default, getting No Deal) is not a winning formula for them....
No you can't safely say that.
Only people with an agenda will say voting against the deal is voting for no deal. (By default blah blah)
Potential LibDem voters will know that the LibDems are certainly not in favour of no deal, but are not in favour of this deal either.
The LibDems are the Remain party. They are not pursuing a rejoin policy (at this stage) but favour a much closer relationship such as CU/SM. A lot of people will support that. The LibDems are at about 7% in the polls at the moment. This clear difference from the two major parties may well be a winning formula. You can't safely say that it isn't.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
But we can safely say that the LibDems backing voting the deal down (and so, by default, getting No Deal) is not a winning formula for them....
I don't know. If they can capture all of that 12% who are against it will be a big boost for their support.
Until those 12% twig it means...gulp...No Deal......
But it doesn't. That's tosh. Albeit a marginally useful line of political tosh. The LDs &c vote against the deal with impunity and in line with their opposition knowing full well it will pass. Labour occupy their niche - I agree with that too. Both positions can stand.
My vote at the last election was a pure protest vote and I would not have voted thus if I'd felt for one minute there was any danger it might help return an MP. Which it didn't. Voted Con, got Keir. Result.
To answer the thread header it's because there are a lot of racists in Georgia. (as well as decent honest hardworking folk too, but just a fantastically huge number or racists.)
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole thing it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Most people saying that they don't know whether the deal is good or not is remarkably honest! It does imply that the spin operation on Christmas Eve didn't really achieve its goals.
I doubt that we'll ever find out whether the factor driving the "vote for it" support is "... because the alternative is worse", or "... to JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY, please (sobs)"
But if people don't want to hear about Brexit any more (and who can blame them?)... how does BoJo take the credit for his great defining triumph?
Undignified as his position is, Starmer's probably got this one right.
Depends on what alternative you reference. The deal is:
1. Much worse than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines. 4. Could have been better.
I would give you a mark of 7/10 for those. The correct answers are
1. Much better than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines if they were serious about them and not just bargaining chips. 4. Could have been better but equally could have been worse.
Dickie you have been living as a slave for the past 40 years I think your perspective is out of whack.
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
All this talk of ambulances being queued up is that because the A&E etc are extremely packed relative to normal . . .
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
100#% anecdata, but today, driving around north London delivering my freshly knapped flint sex toys, I saw more ambulances than I have seen since the peak of Covid 1.0 in the spring. Ominous.
Better than 84.76% anecdata.
Just curious: how did you wangle getting your job as a freshly knapped flint sex toy manufacturer designated as a key worker?
Should we start guessing those in Government to whom you are a supplier?
Until you've personally experienced the comforting hardness of a hand made, artisanal, traditional farmhouse Suffolk flint butt-plug, you really haven't lived. That's not just me selling my brand. Tis the case.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole thing it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Most people saying that they don't know whether the deal is good or not is remarkably honest! It does imply that the spin operation on Christmas Eve didn't really achieve its goals.
I doubt that we'll ever find out whether the factor driving the "vote for it" support is "... because the alternative is worse", or "... to JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY, please (sobs)"
But if people don't want to hear about Brexit any more (and who can blame them?)... how does BoJo take the credit for his great defining triumph?
Undignified as his position is, Starmer's probably got this one right.
Depends on what alternative you reference. The deal is:
1. Much worse than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines. 4. Could have been better.
I would give you a mark of 7/10 for those. The correct answers are
1. Much better than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines if they were serious about them and not just bargaining chips. 4. Could have been better but equally could have been worse.
The deal is only better than EU membership if you see treaties as an expression of your ideology, and not as a set of commitments made by each party to the other. The fact of the matter is that this deal offers far fewer commitments than EU membership, so affords fewer opportunities and imposes more bureaucracy and cost.
To answer the thread header it's because there are a lot of racists in Georgia. (as well as decent honest hardworking folk too, but just a fantastically huge number or racists.)
Read an interview with Reginald D Hunter, a Georgia native. He said racists weren't a problem. They don't give him any trouble cos he's a local. The problem was the large number of white supremacists who want his servitude or his death.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole thing it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Most people saying that they don't know whether the deal is good or not is remarkably honest! It does imply that the spin operation on Christmas Eve didn't really achieve its goals.
I doubt that we'll ever find out whether the factor driving the "vote for it" support is "... because the alternative is worse", or "... to JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY, please (sobs)"
But if people don't want to hear about Brexit any more (and who can blame them?)... how does BoJo take the credit for his great defining triumph?
Undignified as his position is, Starmer's probably got this one right.
Depends on what alternative you reference. The deal is:
1. Much worse than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines. 4. Could have been better.
I would give you a mark of 7/10 for those. The correct answers are
1. Much better than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines if they were serious about them and not just bargaining chips. 4. Could have been better but equally could have been worse.
The deal is only better than EU membership if you see treaties as an expression of your ideology, and not as a set of commitments made by each party to the other. The fact of the matter is that this deal offers far fewer commitments than EU membership, so affords fewer opportunities and imposes more bureaucracy and cost.
No. This deal is better than EU membership if you see commitments made to each other as a bad thing and think international commitments should be the lowest common denominator and national decisions should be made by nation voters in a democratically controlled election rather than internationally devoid from meaningful democratic control.
The fact that you view fewer commitments as a negative rather than positive sums it all up.
Billions in research. To come up with - dad-dancing?
Are you kidding? Robots dancing is about as menacing as it gets. That whole video is OMFG
If they can do the Twist, they can shoulder arms and shoot us all in the head
The military ones haven't felt it necessary to major on entering Strictly......
They can already shoot us all in the head.
We are, genuinely, very close to wars being fought entirely by drones and robots. The footage from Nagorno-Karabakh of Armenian tanks and soldiers being wiped out by (relatively cheap) Turkish drones was very telling.
That is the future. I am sure. I just don't know who wins.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
But we can safely say that the LibDems backing voting the deal down (and so, by default, getting No Deal) is not a winning formula for them....
No you can't safely say that.
Only people with an agenda will say voting against the deal is voting for no deal. (By default blah blah)
Potential LibDem voters will know that the LibDems are certainly not in favour of no deal, but are not in favour of this deal either.
The LibDems are the Remain party. They are not pursuing a rejoin policy (at this stage) but favour a much closer relationship such as CU/SM. A lot of people will support that. The LibDems are at about 7% in the polls at the moment. This clear difference from the two major parties may well be a winning formula. You can't safely say that it isn't.
Are they going to out-Remain Next Prime Minister Jo Fuck Brexit Swinson?
It is pathetic for the Lib Dems to try and be a Remain but maybe not Rejoin party. We've left its done. What do the Lib Dems stand for besides refighting an old referendum that has already been fulfilled now? Can anyone say?
I don't think the LibDems will use the label "Remain" as we've left. It will be something along the lines of a closer relationship with Europe and include a policy of joining the CU/SM.
Brexit isn't over. It has only just begun. The battle will be over convergence (stronger together) versus divergence (sovereignty). It will mirror the Scottish independence battle.
Only the LibDems will be on the Union side in both battles (better together). All the other parties will inconsistently favour sovereignty for one and union for the other.
You, at least, will consistently favour sovereignty both for Scotland and for Britain I think.
Billions in research. To come up with - dad-dancing?
Are you kidding? Robots dancing is about as menacing as it gets. That whole video is OMFG
If they can do the Twist, they can shoulder arms and shoot us all in the head
Although...thinking aloud here....if the UK entered one for Eurovision - how could bastard Johnny Foreigner give us nil points for that? It would just scream everything that is Euro-kitsch.....
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole thing it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Most people saying that they don't know whether the deal is good or not is remarkably honest! It does imply that the spin operation on Christmas Eve didn't really achieve its goals.
I doubt that we'll ever find out whether the factor driving the "vote for it" support is "... because the alternative is worse", or "... to JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY, please (sobs)"
But if people don't want to hear about Brexit any more (and who can blame them?)... how does BoJo take the credit for his great defining triumph?
Undignified as his position is, Starmer's probably got this one right.
Depends on what alternative you reference. The deal is:
1. Much worse than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines. 4. Could have been better.
I would give you a mark of 7/10 for those. The correct answers are
1. Much better than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines if they were serious about them and not just bargaining chips. 4. Could have been better but equally could have been worse.
The deal is only better than EU membership if you see treaties as an expression of your ideology, and not as a set of commitments made by each party to the other. The fact of the matter is that this deal offers far fewer commitments than EU membership, so affords fewer opportunities and imposes more bureaucracy and cost.
No. This deal is better than EU membership if you see commitments made to each other as a bad thing and think international commitments should be the lowest common denominator and national decisions should be made by nation voters in a democratically controlled election rather than internationally devoid from meaningful democratic control.
The fact that you view fewer commitments as a negative rather than positive sums it all up.
... This deal is better than EU membership if you see commitments made to each other as a bad thing...
Billions in research. To come up with - dad-dancing?
Are you kidding? Robots dancing is about as menacing as it gets. That whole video is OMFG
If they can do the Twist, they can shoulder arms and shoot us all in the head
The military ones haven't felt it necessary to major on entering Strictly......
They can already shoot us all in the head.
We are, genuinely, very close to wars being fought entirely by drones and robots. The footage from Nagorno-Karabakh of Armenian tanks and soldiers being wiped out by (relatively cheap) Turkish drones was very telling.
That is the future. I am sure. I just don't know who wins.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
But we can safely say that the LibDems backing voting the deal down (and so, by default, getting No Deal) is not a winning formula for them....
No you can't safely say that.
Only people with an agenda will say voting against the deal is voting for no deal. (By default blah blah)
Potential LibDem voters will know that the LibDems are certainly not in favour of no deal, but are not in favour of this deal either.
The LibDems are the Remain party. They are not pursuing a rejoin policy (at this stage) but favour a much closer relationship such as CU/SM. A lot of people will support that. The LibDems are at about 7% in the polls at the moment. This clear difference from the two major parties may well be a winning formula. You can't safely say that it isn't.
The Lib Dems' big problem (amongst others) is the near-extinction level event that was the last election. It has left them with a pitiful selection of MPs and thus a terrible leader. Davey is a total wanker. He has a sad backstory, which should inspire affection, but be comes across as a loathsomely mediocre, virtue-signalling idiot. He makes Starmer look like Alexander the Great.
You need an inspiring leader to restore your fortunes. Until that happens, I cannot see a revival, but until you revive, you have no better choice of leaders. Your party is perilously close to termination.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole thing it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Most people saying that they don't know whether the deal is good or not is remarkably honest! It does imply that the spin operation on Christmas Eve didn't really achieve its goals.
I doubt that we'll ever find out whether the factor driving the "vote for it" support is "... because the alternative is worse", or "... to JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY, please (sobs)"
But if people don't want to hear about Brexit any more (and who can blame them?)... how does BoJo take the credit for his great defining triumph?
Undignified as his position is, Starmer's probably got this one right.
Depends on what alternative you reference. The deal is:
1. Much worse than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines. 4. Could have been better.
I would give you a mark of 7/10 for those. The correct answers are
1. Much better than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines if they were serious about them and not just bargaining chips. 4. Could have been better but equally could have been worse.
The deal is only better than EU membership if you see treaties as an expression of your ideology, and not as a set of commitments made by each party to the other. The fact of the matter is that this deal offers far fewer commitments than EU membership, so affords fewer opportunities and imposes more bureaucracy and cost.
No. This deal is better than EU membership if you see commitments made to each other as a bad thing and think international commitments should be the lowest common denominator and national decisions should be made by nation voters in a democratically controlled election rather than internationally devoid from meaningful democratic control.
The fact that you view fewer commitments as a negative rather than positive sums it all up.
... This deal is better than EU membership if you see commitments made to each other as a bad thing...
Apropos of nothing, are you married, Philip... ?
Yes to my wife whom I chose to marry and she chose to marry me.
Nobody compelled us to get married. It wasn't an arranged marriage. It was freely and voluntarily entered into rather than a commitment foisted upon us by others.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
But we can safely say that the LibDems backing voting the deal down (and so, by default, getting No Deal) is not a winning formula for them....
No you can't safely say that.
Only people with an agenda will say voting against the deal is voting for no deal. (By default blah blah)
Potential LibDem voters will know that the LibDems are certainly not in favour of no deal, but are not in favour of this deal either.
The LibDems are the Remain party. They are not pursuing a rejoin policy (at this stage) but favour a much closer relationship such as CU/SM. A lot of people will support that. The LibDems are at about 7% in the polls at the moment. This clear difference from the two major parties may well be a winning formula. You can't safely say that it isn't.
The Lib Dems' big problem (amongst others) is the near-extinction level event that was the last election. It has left them with a pitiful selection of MPs and thus a terrible leader. Davey is a total wanker. He has a sad backstory, which should inspire affection, but be comes across as a loathsomely mediocre, virtue-signalling idiot. He makes Starmer look like Alexander the Great.
You need an inspiring leader to restore your fortunes. Until that happens, I cannot see a revival, but until you revive, you have no better choice of leaders. Your party is perilously close to termination.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole thing it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Most people saying that they don't know whether the deal is good or not is remarkably honest! It does imply that the spin operation on Christmas Eve didn't really achieve its goals.
I doubt that we'll ever find out whether the factor driving the "vote for it" support is "... because the alternative is worse", or "... to JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY, please (sobs)"
But if people don't want to hear about Brexit any more (and who can blame them?)... how does BoJo take the credit for his great defining triumph?
Undignified as his position is, Starmer's probably got this one right.
Depends on what alternative you reference. The deal is:
1. Much worse than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines. 4. Could have been better.
I would give you a mark of 7/10 for those. The correct answers are
1. Much better than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines if they were serious about them and not just bargaining chips. 4. Could have been better but equally could have been worse.
The deal is only better than EU membership if you see treaties as an expression of your ideology, and not as a set of commitments made by each party to the other. The fact of the matter is that this deal offers far fewer commitments than EU membership, so affords fewer opportunities and imposes more bureaucracy and cost.
No. This deal is better than EU membership if you see commitments made to each other as a bad thing and think international commitments should be the lowest common denominator and national decisions should be made by nation voters in a democratically controlled election rather than internationally devoid from meaningful democratic control.
The fact that you view fewer commitments as a negative rather than positive sums it all up.
... This deal is better than EU membership if you see commitments made to each other as a bad thing...
Apropos of nothing, are you married, Philip... ?
Yes to my wife whom I chose to marry and she chose to marry me.
Nobody compelled us to get married. It wasn't an arranged marriage. It was freely and voluntarily entered into rather than a commitment foisted upon us by others.
And presumably to maintain your personal sovereignty you can go out whoring seven nights a week?
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole think it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Yes, the view that it is neither good nor bad is the plurality.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
No, that's why I agreed it wasn't a ringing endorsement. Yet it's also not a sound base for presuming people agree it is crap.
More people think it a bad deal than a good one, the remainder are neutral. Perhaps it is just a fart rather than a crap...
How very HYUFD (if he'll forgive the expression). 'Basically voters think (like me) it is crap' has transmogrified to 'more people think it a bad deal than a good one'.
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
But we can safely say that the LibDems backing voting the deal down (and so, by default, getting No Deal) is not a winning formula for them....
No you can't safely say that.
Only people with an agenda will say voting against the deal is voting for no deal. (By default blah blah)
Potential LibDem voters will know that the LibDems are certainly not in favour of no deal, but are not in favour of this deal either.
The LibDems are the Remain party. They are not pursuing a rejoin policy (at this stage) but favour a much closer relationship such as CU/SM. A lot of people will support that. The LibDems are at about 7% in the polls at the moment. This clear difference from the two major parties may well be a winning formula. You can't safely say that it isn't.
The Lib Dems' big problem (amongst others) is the near-extinction level event that was the last election. It has left them with a pitiful selection of MPs and thus a terrible leader. Davey is a total wanker. He has a sad backstory, which should inspire affection, but be comes across as a loathsomely mediocre, virtue-signalling idiot. He makes Starmer look like Alexander the Great.
You need an inspiring leader to restore your fortunes. Until that happens, I cannot see a revival, but until you revive, you have no better choice of leaders. Your party is perilously close to termination.
We are cockroaches.
Rentokil waves from the SW.....
If you compare the Lib Dem seats won in 2015 and in 2019 there are only 2 common seats. The current mix of seats and MPs are better than before.
Also there are more seats with potential for the Lib Dems to win next time.
YouGov daily has 63% backing for voting for the deal, 12% against. In the second question only 18% think it a good deal, and 29% a bad one.
Basically voters think (like me) it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap.
It really isn't a ringing endorsement.
No it isn't, but if what you quote is right then is it saying voters think it is crap, but the alternative is even more crap? Since only 29% say it is bad and presumably most said 'don't know' given only 18% said it wsa good. So wouldn't it be that most people don't know if it is crap or not, but on the whole thing it should be approved regardless, not that they think it is crap?
Most people saying that they don't know whether the deal is good or not is remarkably honest! It does imply that the spin operation on Christmas Eve didn't really achieve its goals.
I doubt that we'll ever find out whether the factor driving the "vote for it" support is "... because the alternative is worse", or "... to JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY, please (sobs)"
But if people don't want to hear about Brexit any more (and who can blame them?)... how does BoJo take the credit for his great defining triumph?
Undignified as his position is, Starmer's probably got this one right.
Depends on what alternative you reference. The deal is:
1. Much worse than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines. 4. Could have been better.
I would give you a mark of 7/10 for those. The correct answers are
1. Much better than membership / status quo 2. Much better than No Deal 3. Mostly meets UK government red lines if they were serious about them and not just bargaining chips. 4. Could have been better but equally could have been worse.
The deal is only better than EU membership if you see treaties as an expression of your ideology, and not as a set of commitments made by each party to the other. The fact of the matter is that this deal offers far fewer commitments than EU membership, so affords fewer opportunities and imposes more bureaucracy and cost.
No. This deal is better than EU membership if you see commitments made to each other as a bad thing and think international commitments should be the lowest common denominator and national decisions should be made by nation voters in a democratically controlled election rather than internationally devoid from meaningful democratic control.
The fact that you view fewer commitments as a negative rather than positive sums it all up.
... This deal is better than EU membership if you see commitments made to each other as a bad thing...
Apropos of nothing, are you married, Philip... ?
Yes to my wife whom I chose to marry and she chose to marry me.
Nobody compelled us to get married. It wasn't an arranged marriage. It was freely and voluntarily entered into rather than a commitment foisted upon us by others.
And presumably to maintain your personal sovereignty you can go out whoring seven nights a week?
If I wanted to I could but ethically at the very least I would need to end my union first.
International commitments aren't voluntary personal ones, they compel everyone to abide by someone else's choices in a method that wasn't chosen by them and can't be changed by them.
Democracy is superior to others pre-arranging things for you. It means the nation gets to choose its path just as I chose mine when I proposed to my wife, rather than having others make the choice for you.
Comments
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1344044279782502401
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1344045566418800641
Though Trafalgar has a surprisingly good poll for the Democrats in Georgia today while OpenModel has the GOP ahead
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1344018431805448196?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1344019079615623169?s=20
Fingers crossed they can grab at least one though.
Well, for a start, the whole series is quite a clever and accurate critique of early 19th century misogyny, and patriarchy. It has a feminist character who eloquently bemoans the way women are treated like cattle in the aristocratic marriage market, and the rest of the plot reflects that critical attitude. So this is not some alt-history steampunk fluff.
Also, it randomly picks and chooses when to sexualise black men (and occasionally women) for their blackness, and when to completely ignore it and pretend they are white. There is a poor black boxer who is matched against a white Irishman and race here becomes an issue. Yet there is a black Duke of Hastings (absurdly) whose colour is entirely ignored.
It's fun to watch and I like it, but I can't help feeling that if it had been made by a white production company, the Guardian would be slaughtering it daily as an outrage.
Anyway, back to episode 4. The heroine is luminously beautiful, which helps pass the time.
Not really a sound base for triumphilism is it?
I doubt that we'll ever find out whether the factor driving the "vote for it" support is "... because the alternative is worse", or "... to JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY, please (sobs)"
But if people don't want to hear about Brexit any more (and who can blame them?)... how does BoJo take the credit for his great defining triumph?
Undignified as his position is, Starmer's probably got this one right.
Incidentally, the "minors" part of our EED was quiet today, but the bed state is looking bad. I counted 14 ambulances parked up with lights on inside, meaning patients on board for whom there is no space in "majors".
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1344029212605374464?s=20
https://twitter.com/UKBriefing/status/1344028455864848384?s=20
Both seemingly the same point, true to a point, but one implying a lot more than the other.
Now. About that pandemic...
Nonetheless, support for voting it through is not the same as support for the deal. That much is obvious, even before the devils in the detail come out.
. . . or is it because of social distancing meaning that normally these ambulances could be emptied into a busy A&E etc packing people in like sardines but due to social distancing they're needing to stay outside?
Boris, Starmer and maybe Davey have called this right, Sturgeon and Blackford though have clearly called it completely wrong
*our estates dept are some unsung heroes. They were putting up walls and screens overnight, within hours of a request going in. I will never complain about them taking weeks to change a light bulb again!
1. Much worse than membership / status quo
2. Much better than No Deal
3. Mostly meets UK government red lines.
4. Could have been better.
Starmer has foolishly fallen into your fiendish trap. He has just lost GE2024!
1. Much better than membership / status quo
2. Much better than No Deal
3. Mostly meets UK government red lines if they were serious about them and not just bargaining chips.
4. Could have been better but equally could have been worse.
Just curious: how did you wangle getting your job as a freshly knapped flint sex toy manufacturer designated as a key worker?
Should we start guessing those in Government to whom you are a supplier?
Then they moan their towns are "left behind".
Hard hit in the spring and winter but mildly in the summer and autumn.
Luck or something more fundamental ?
OTOH, if you’ve spent the previous half decade insisting that this water thing is just what you need for lighting fires ?
https://twitter.com/GovofCO/status/1344031800230780933
Now, now, you know Trafalgar is the gold standard.
Young people are less likely to get ill (and less likely to end up in hospital) but more likely to break the rules and go out partying in Hackney or picnicking in Regents Park, thereby catching it and ultimately spreading it, especially at Xmastide when they visit their older rellies.
And here we are.
I don't know why so many run for the positions really. I can kind of see why so many go the easy route in responding to local concerns.
Only people with an agenda will say voting against the deal is voting for no deal. (By default blah blah)
Potential LibDem voters will know that the LibDems are certainly not in favour of no deal, but are not in favour of this deal either.
The LibDems are the Remain party. They are not pursuing a rejoin policy (at this stage) but favour a much closer relationship such as CU/SM. A lot of people will support that. The LibDems are at about 7% in the polls at the moment. This clear difference from the two major parties may well be a winning formula. You can't safely say that it isn't.
https://twitter.com/MackayIM/status/1344050366640390146
https://twitter.com/Reza_Zadeh/status/1344009123004747778
It is pathetic for the Lib Dems to try and be a Remain but maybe not Rejoin party. We've left its done. What do the Lib Dems stand for besides refighting an old referendum that has already been fulfilled now? Can anyone say?
https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1343982937193254917?s=19
Replicated on a smaller scale up and down the country.
You need an inspiring leader to restore your fortunes. Until that happens, I cannot see a revival, but until you revive, you have no better choice of leaders. Your party is perilously close to termination.
My vote at the last election was a pure protest vote and I would not have voted thus if I'd felt for one minute there was any danger it might help return an MP. Which it didn't. Voted Con, got Keir. Result.
If they can do the Twist, they can shoulder arms and shoot us all in the head
They can already shoot us all in the head.
He said racists weren't a problem. They don't give him any trouble cos he's a local.
The problem was the large number of white supremacists who want his servitude or his death.
At least, not quoted...
The Worst Predictions of 2020
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/29/worst-predictions-about-2020-451444
The fact that you view fewer commitments as a negative rather than positive sums it all up.
Disappointing for the likes of @FrancisUrquhart et al.
https://www.wheretoskiandsnowboard.com/blogs/what-really-happened-in-verbier/
That is the future. I am sure. I just don't know who wins.
Brexit isn't over. It has only just begun. The battle will be over convergence (stronger together) versus divergence (sovereignty). It will mirror the Scottish independence battle.
Only the LibDems will be on the Union side in both battles (better together). All the other parties will inconsistently favour sovereignty for one and union for the other.
You, at least, will consistently favour sovereignty both for Scotland and for Britain I think.
Apropos of nothing, are you married, Philip... ?
Nobody compelled us to get married. It wasn't an arranged marriage. It was freely and voluntarily entered into rather than a commitment foisted upon us by others.
Who said 2021 couldn't be worse...
Also there are more seats with potential for the Lib Dems to win next time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JgEptmz_eE
International commitments aren't voluntary personal ones, they compel everyone to abide by someone else's choices in a method that wasn't chosen by them and can't be changed by them.
Democracy is superior to others pre-arranging things for you. It means the nation gets to choose its path just as I chose mine when I proposed to my wife, rather than having others make the choice for you.