Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

With 98% of the votes counted the Dems looks set to gain both Georgia US Senate seats – politicalbet

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited January 6 in General
imageWith 98% of the votes counted the Dems looks set to gain both Georgia US Senate seats – politicalbetting.com

The above from the New York Times shows the big American news overnight that the Democrats look all set to take the two Georgia runoffs seats. This is hugely significant as it means that in the new Senate the split will be 50/50 between the Democrats and the Republicans. Because the casting vote goes to to the Vice President, Kamala Harris from January 20th, Biden will become a President in 2 weeks time with his party controlling both parts of Congress as well as the White House.

Read the full story here

«13456712

Comments

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 10,115
    edited January 6
    First - unlike Republicans.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,251
    First!

    This claim is disputed!
  • Thanks Donald.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 18,912
    So does the GOP fall into civil war or does it reorganise and retake the House in 2022 ?
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 621
    edited January 6
    Stunningly close all the same. Biden is going to have his work cut out. Left wing Dems are more interested in Trans rights than Transport, the Trump Rump nihilists simply playing to the far right and then the conventional divisions between right and left... Building a moderate consensus with these divisions would be hard for a younger President with the potential 8 years ahead, but for a senior with only one term? A wafer thin majority in the Senate, a worried congressional caucus after losses in the House, a potentially highly disruptive Supreme Court... The whole country in crisis. Any of these could cause the wheels to fall off.
    If Biden can make any progress at all after such a catastrophic inheritance then he would already be heading to be a great President. The chances, however, are weighed strongly against him. Still at least the US has a chance of turning the corner... The UK is going to be in a mess for a lot longer.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,354
    Hopefully not even Betfair will dispute my 3/1 win on Jon Ossoff placed (twice) in October and widely tipped by me on here.

    You can get 250/1 on him for the 2024 Presidency but I regard that as fanciful, even though I've placed a tenner. He's a very good debater and will be an asset to the party in Congress.

    What a fantastic result this is. A quite remarkable achievement by the Democrats.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 12,184
    So around 18,000 people voted a Warnock / Perdue split ticket.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 6,003

    Ambitious is a good thing not a bad thing.

    We shouldn't have expectations management, we should have ambition.
    You really are the son of Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 63,352

    So does the GOP fall into civil war or does it reorganise and retake the House in 2022 ?

    I'm not sure the traditional midterm logic will entirely hold. Democrats are favoured in lower turnout elections now I think.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,030
    edited January 6

    So does the GOP fall into civil war or does it reorganise and retake the House in 2022 ?

    I expect it to fall into civil war *and* retake the House in 2022. Which will be interesting.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 39,210
    So, I got this wrong. I thought the Republicans would nab both of them. I see only Ossoff was really close.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,714
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/06/uk-car-sales-fall-to-lowest-level-since-1992

    The coronavirus pandemic pushed UK car sales in 2020 down to the lowest level since 1992, the biggest annual slump since the second world war despite surging sales of electric cars, according to industry data.

    I was surprised to see that the new car market was actually quite strong pre-COVID, and the figure for this year isn't all that bad.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,030

    So, I got this wrong. I thought the Republicans would nab both of them. I see only Ossoff was really close.

    Yes, I had money on the GOP winning both seats, trying to prioritise head over heart. Luckily I was able to cash out and limit my losses.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,354

    So around 18,000 people voted a Warnock / Perdue split ticket.

    No even with my maths you can't make that case. You're mixing up the difference in Warnock-Ossoff votes with the actual Warnock-Perdue votes. Current numbers are 2,223,649 voted for Warnock and 2,192,276 voted for Perdue.

    Anyway, there are interesting demographic reasons which we don't really need to mine right now: black votes, Jewish votes, male-female etc.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,030

    So around 18,000 people voted a Warnock / Perdue split ticket.

    You could make a case for Perdue being sunk by Loeffler's general awfulness as a candidate
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 18,912
    Pulpstar said:

    So does the GOP fall into civil war or does it reorganise and retake the House in 2022 ?

    I'm not sure the traditional midterm logic will entirely hold. Democrats are favoured in lower turnout elections now I think.
    Perhaps in 'ordinary' times.

    But things are too 'eventful' at present.

    Much depends on what those events are.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 18,912

    So does the GOP fall into civil war or does it reorganise and retake the House in 2022 ?

    I expect it to fall into civil war *and* retake the House in 2022. Which will be interesting.
    In that scenario I would expect the Dems to retain the Presidency in 2024.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 4,904
    Enters. Morning all.

    Don't think it has been used yet.

    You Only Die Twice.
    https://news.sky.com/story/tanya-roberts-bond-girls-death-confirmed-a-day-after-mistaken-announcement-12180022

    Gets coat.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Mitch McConnell blocking $2000 was an amazing closing argument for the Democrats.

    Trump is in an odd position on this. He'll undoubtedly say, "you see, Mitch, I was right". But ironically he gave McConnell the problem by sending back the agreed package.

    Another example of Trump selfishness. A move purely designed to underline his own importance but which threw GOP colleagues under the bus (a matter he'll care nothing about, of course).
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 22,548
    FPT
    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    felix said:

    You know, it could also be that voters in Georgia have rather liked what they have seen and heard from Joe Biden since he won the Presidential election. The Democrats may now have a real opportunity as the GOP is likely to go to war with itself for the next few years.

    A commentator on CNN - a democrat - said it would be still very difficult to get the more extreme agenda of the left-wing of the Democratic party through the Senate as they would need a 60/40 majority. I think thar is a useful tool for Biden to plot a centrist course.
    An agenda so extreme, that approaches the middle of the UK Conservative party. From the right.
    That is rubbish, AOC et al are left of Starmer, they would certainly never be in Boris Johnson's Conservative Party, they are closer to Corbyn than Boris
    Can you point to an AOC policy position that is to the left of Starmer? I admit that Starmer's policy positions are thin on the ground at the moment but you are making the assertion so must have examples.
    AOC wants a 70% top rate of income tax, Starmer does not for one

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-70-percent-tax-rich
    The article you link to says "Ocasio-Cortez suggested offhandedly that income above $10m (my emphasis) may need to be taxed up to 70%" that's not the same as the "top rate" which is 45% on income above a mere £150,000 (or about $200,000) even under Johnson. It's an arresting suggestion but doesn't necessarily put her to the left of Starmer. I can't see him adopting it but I could see, for example, a mansion tax targetting similar wealth brackets.
    It doesn't even put her to the left of many post war US presidents. A quick google shows that the marginal highest tax rates in the US were:

    1944 - 1951 : 91% (Truman)
    1952 - 1953 : 92% (Truman)
    1954 - 1963 : 91% (Eisenhower/Kennedy)
    1964 : 77% (Johnson)

    The highest rates of US tax didn't come down below 70% until 1981.

    I mean I am not actually advocating these levels of tax but the idea they are either unusual or only enacted by raving left wingers is clearly fanciful.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 621
    edited January 6

    Ambitious is a good thing not a bad thing.

    We shouldn't have expectations management, we should have ambition.
    The problem with this relentless Tory boosterism is that it is not rooted in the practical realities of administration. The facts are not amenable to PR Bullshit or social media barrack room lawyers.

    This is what the Tory-media cabal simply don´t get. Not one of them, from Johnson, to Gove, to Kuenssberg has professional experience in getting things done. They are great at propaganda and spin, and lousy managers.

    In the private sector (and actually most of the public) Patel would have been fired, Jenrick probably under criminal investigation and most of the other members of the cabinet would have failed to graduate the most basic business degree course.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 18,912

    So around 18,000 people voted a Warnock / Perdue split ticket.

    You could make a case for Perdue being sunk by Loeffler's general awfulness as a candidate
    She didn't help him but wasn't Perdue involved in dodgy share dealing as well ?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,678
    These elections pile pressure on Pence today. He’s in a difficult spot.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 34,732
    Does Biden have an agenda? I must have missed that. His principal point seemed to be that he was not Donald Trump. Which was, in fairness, a pretty compelling line.

    The one thing that I would agree with is that this should help him get his cabinet in position somewhat faster. That would be a good thing. American administrations seem to take an age to get going despite the completely absurd time gap from November 3rd to January 20th. If our PM, and pretty much every other elected official worldwide, can appoint nearly all his or her cabinet within 24 hours of the election, having moved into Downing Street, it is just remarkable that Americans accept this level of inefficiency. Not being dependent upon McConnell for the timetabling is the biggest single win in these results.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 63,352

    So, I got this wrong. I thought the Republicans would nab both of them. I see only Ossoff was really close.

    There was a third race on the ballot, the GOP won that one. That's a very clear sign these races were most definitely winnable for better candidates than the appalling Loeffler and the not so great Purdue.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 81,377
    edited January 6
    Warnock has clearly won, though the Ossoff and Perdue race is still within the 0.5% margin needed for a recount with 98% of the vote in
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 81,377

    FPT

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    felix said:

    You know, it could also be that voters in Georgia have rather liked what they have seen and heard from Joe Biden since he won the Presidential election. The Democrats may now have a real opportunity as the GOP is likely to go to war with itself for the next few years.

    A commentator on CNN - a democrat - said it would be still very difficult to get the more extreme agenda of the left-wing of the Democratic party through the Senate as they would need a 60/40 majority. I think thar is a useful tool for Biden to plot a centrist course.
    An agenda so extreme, that approaches the middle of the UK Conservative party. From the right.
    That is rubbish, AOC et al are left of Starmer, they would certainly never be in Boris Johnson's Conservative Party, they are closer to Corbyn than Boris
    Can you point to an AOC policy position that is to the left of Starmer? I admit that Starmer's policy positions are thin on the ground at the moment but you are making the assertion so must have examples.
    AOC wants a 70% top rate of income tax, Starmer does not for one

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-70-percent-tax-rich
    The article you link to says "Ocasio-Cortez suggested offhandedly that income above $10m (my emphasis) may need to be taxed up to 70%" that's not the same as the "top rate" which is 45% on income above a mere £150,000 (or about $200,000) even under Johnson. It's an arresting suggestion but doesn't necessarily put her to the left of Starmer. I can't see him adopting it but I could see, for example, a mansion tax targetting similar wealth brackets.
    It doesn't even put her to the left of many post war US presidents. A quick google shows that the marginal highest tax rates in the US were:

    1944 - 1951 : 91% (Truman)
    1952 - 1953 : 92% (Truman)
    1954 - 1963 : 91% (Eisenhower/Kennedy)
    1964 : 77% (Johnson)

    The highest rates of US tax didn't come down below 70% until 1981.

    I mean I am not actually advocating these levels of tax but the idea they are either unusual or only enacted by raving left wingers is clearly fanciful.
    They came in under FDR and the Democrats in the 1930s and 1940s and were largely kept because of the WW2 debts until the tax slashing agenda of Reagan, same with Thatcher here, both leaving office with the top rate of income tax well under 50%.

    However notable Eisenhower and JFK in particular still cut the top income tax rate
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 63,352
    Jonathan said:

    These elections pile pressure on Pence today. He’s in a difficult spot.

    I think it would have been more difficult had the GOP held the senate actually. Think what you like about Pence but he was laser focussed on trying to win this for Loeffler and Purdue, unlike a certain other "republican"
  • So around 18,000 people voted a Warnock / Perdue split ticket.

    You could make a case for Perdue being sunk by Loeffler's general awfulness as a candidate
    A shade unfair. She was forced to run to the extreme by a strong challenge to her right in the first round, so had weeks of savage ads from BOTH Warnock AND Collins.

    It was always a bit easier for Perdue, plus he had a longer record to run on so no doubt there were a few "well, I'm basically Democrat but David saved the factory that time" people.

    Not saying she was a good candidate by any means, but it is in no way surprising Perdue outperformed her.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 6,005

    So around 18,000 people voted a Warnock / Perdue split ticket.

    You could make a case for Perdue being sunk by Loeffler's general awfulness as a candidate
    She didn't help him but wasn't Perdue involved in dodgy share dealing as well ?
    Perdue's fate was sealed when he was falcon punched by Ossoff in first debate then was too much of a poltroon to turn up to any of the others.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 893
    Brutal but compelling doctor’s account of a day on a Covid ward. Frightening.

    https://unherd.com/2021/01/inside-the-covid-ward/
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 18,912
    Pulpstar said:

    So, I got this wrong. I thought the Republicans would nab both of them. I see only Ossoff was really close.

    There was a third race on the ballot, the GOP won that one. That's a very clear sign these races were most definitely winnable for better candidates than the appalling Loeffler and the not so great Purdue.
    The GOP do seem to pick some terrible candidates for Senate elections.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349

    Ambitious is a good thing not a bad thing.

    We shouldn't have expectations management, we should have ambition.
    You really are the son of Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf
    Why? Because I'm not some twisted gibbering wreck like you?

    I want this wretched virus over. Ambition to get rid of it is a good thing.

    The UK has set an "ambitious target" for 14 million by 14 February.
    France has set an "ambitious target" for 1 million by 31 January.

    I know which target I'd prefer. What about you?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 10,115

    FPT

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    felix said:

    You know, it could also be that voters in Georgia have rather liked what they have seen and heard from Joe Biden since he won the Presidential election. The Democrats may now have a real opportunity as the GOP is likely to go to war with itself for the next few years.

    A commentator on CNN - a democrat - said it would be still very difficult to get the more extreme agenda of the left-wing of the Democratic party through the Senate as they would need a 60/40 majority. I think thar is a useful tool for Biden to plot a centrist course.
    An agenda so extreme, that approaches the middle of the UK Conservative party. From the right.
    That is rubbish, AOC et al are left of Starmer, they would certainly never be in Boris Johnson's Conservative Party, they are closer to Corbyn than Boris
    Can you point to an AOC policy position that is to the left of Starmer? I admit that Starmer's policy positions are thin on the ground at the moment but you are making the assertion so must have examples.
    AOC wants a 70% top rate of income tax, Starmer does not for one

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-70-percent-tax-rich
    The article you link to says "Ocasio-Cortez suggested offhandedly that income above $10m (my emphasis) may need to be taxed up to 70%" that's not the same as the "top rate" which is 45% on income above a mere £150,000 (or about $200,000) even under Johnson. It's an arresting suggestion but doesn't necessarily put her to the left of Starmer. I can't see him adopting it but I could see, for example, a mansion tax targetting similar wealth brackets.
    It doesn't even put her to the left of many post war US presidents. A quick google shows that the marginal highest tax rates in the US were:

    1944 - 1951 : 91% (Truman)
    1952 - 1953 : 92% (Truman)
    1954 - 1963 : 91% (Eisenhower/Kennedy)
    1964 : 77% (Johnson)

    The highest rates of US tax didn't come down below 70% until 1981.

    I mean I am not actually advocating these levels of tax but the idea they are either unusual or only enacted by raving left wingers is clearly fanciful.
    The problem is that these tax rates never actually result in people paying the tax mentioned.

    Instead, what happened was

    - Populist "I am squeezing the rich" votes in Congress
    - "Give me contributions and I'll give you tax breaks" - voted through in Congress. Often in the same bill to raise tax.

    Net result - *less* tax raised every time.

    This is how the US tax code came into existence. And it's carefully defended by the fact that everyone gets tax breaks. Even a jobbing carpenter.... So when the Republicans suggested flattening the system in the 90s, the tax industry funded a campaign of "EVUL Republicans are here to steal your tax breaks".

    It's not especially difficult to pay no federal income tax in the US - if you are rich enough to play the games with assets and charitable contributions. Hence the problem.

    By comparison, the UK tax rates are hard to avoid.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 81,377
    edited January 6
    Pulpstar said:

    So does the GOP fall into civil war or does it reorganise and retake the House in 2022 ?

    I'm not sure the traditional midterm logic will entirely hold. Democrats are favoured in lower turnout elections now I think.
    That depends entirely on the Biden Harris approval ratings in 2022, if they are low the GOP will almost certainly take back the House and maybe even the Senate too in the 2022 midterms.
  • Jonathan said:

    These elections pile pressure on Pence today. He’s in a difficult spot.

    It's painful for Pence but not a three pipe problem. Trump is asking for something he can't give. So he'll just have to bite the pillow and take it from the big man - no tough decisions to make.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,965
    edited January 6
    I don't know why you think Ireland is screwed by this.

    The point is, a distribution hub in the EU can supply goods produced locally or substitute with goods from outside the EU after importing according to whatever preferential trade agreement the source country has with the EU. The end customer doesn't care which is which.

    Out of the EU, a UK hub can only supply third country products at the full tax MFN rates, even if the EU has a preferential arrangement with that third country. Effectively this means the UK hub can no longer carry on. The business can only supply UK made goods to a hub based in the EU. Given the predominance of supply chains this is a much smaller business.
  • No, thats the UK logistics industry screwed. We have transformed our manufacturing economy into one that moves digital money around and shops. Retail needs somewhere to store stuff before going to stores hence the aircraft hangar warehouses that have sprung up everywhere.

    Whatever easement may get agreed between the EU/UK/ROI it still won't change the new reality that what had been free and frictionless trade is now expensive and labourious.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 2,711

    The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

    What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?
    There is a balance though. Targets do motivate, but they can also distract and the target becomes the goal even if there is a long term loss by doing so eg by diverting resources from elsewhere that are of a higher priority (difficult to think that possible in this case), producing a substandard or dangerous product, or by loss of reputation.

    The 100K target was a classic of that. Matt Hancock and the Govt rubbished their reputation for being honest on the pandemic. Up until then the Govt had done (or appeared to be doing a decent job). The blatant manipulating of the numbers was the start of the population not trusting the Govt over the pandemic. Up to that point they had done ok.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,248

    Jonathan said:

    These elections pile pressure on Pence today. He’s in a difficult spot.

    It's painful for Pence but not a three pipe problem. Trump is asking for something he can't give. So he'll just have to bite the pillow and take it from the big man - no tough decisions to make.
    Who presides over the Senate if Pence has an urgent dentist's appointment?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 63,352

    Jonathan said:

    These elections pile pressure on Pence today. He’s in a difficult spot.

    It's painful for Pence but not a three pipe problem. Trump is asking for something he can't give. So he'll just have to bite the pillow and take it from the big man - no tough decisions to make.
    Who presides over the Senate if Pence has an urgent dentist's appointment?
    Chuck Grassley
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 3,726
    edited January 6
    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    These elections pile pressure on Pence today. He’s in a difficult spot.

    I think it would have been more difficult had the GOP held the senate actually. Think what you like about Pence but he was laser focussed on trying to win this for Loeffler and Purdue, unlike a certain other "republican"
    Trump strikes me as being in a much more NIxon-like post-Watergate situation with the Republican Party now, after both the tapes and the defeat - albeit he's going soon, anyway. He still has a strong base among the membership, and until yesterday he was intimidating large sections of the GOP's representatives, but many will now probably be thinking they will have much less to lose by breaking with him.

    He's suddenly looking like a serial political loser and liability, and as we know, our U.S. friends tend to hate "losers" at the best of times.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 2,020

    The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

    What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?
    The classic example of this is Kennedy's Moonshot speech;

    First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth...

    But notice, it's a goal. And JFK spent the rest of the speech outlining what would be needed to be in a position to achieve that goal.

    BoJo does something different. Much higher confidence that what he says will happen, and nothing on what will be needed.

    And that's a potential problem. Throughout this crisis, the UK has gone for technologies- massive testing, the app, fast vaccines. They're not bad in themselves, but I wonder if they've given us an excuse to not get the basics right and tempt the government to relax controls too early because tech will save us. Mostly, it hasn't, which links with the UK not doing well at keeping people alive.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,043
    Cicero said:

    Ambitious is a good thing not a bad thing.

    We shouldn't have expectations management, we should have ambition.
    The problem with this relentless Tory boosterism is that it is not rooted in the practical realities of administration. The facts are not amenable to PR Bullshit or social media barrack room lawyers.

    This is what the Tory-media cabal simply don´t get. Not one of them, from Johnson, to Gove, to Kuenssberg has professional experience in getting things done. They are great at propaganda and spin, and lousy managers.

    In the private sector (and actually most of the public) Patel would have been fired, Jenrick probably under criminal investigation and most of the other members of the cabinet would have failed to graduate the most basic business degree course.
    Thanks for the bulletin from the Tallinn Liberal Democrats.

    It is perfectly reasonable to set an ambitious target -- I do it all the time.

    Boris' vaccination program will be judged against those in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, etc.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 39,210
    Pulpstar said:

    So, I got this wrong. I thought the Republicans would nab both of them. I see only Ossoff was really close.

    There was a third race on the ballot, the GOP won that one. That's a very clear sign these races were most definitely winnable for better candidates than the appalling Loeffler and the not so great Purdue.
    Yes, and Trump soiled the sheets for them too.

    It's a wafer-thin majority in the Senate, and not much better in the House, for the Dems. If they try and overreach with a "radical" programme - and I suspect they might be tempted - they'll lose both in 2022.

    I'm of the view that most (not all) of the Republican Party will return to some level of sanity once Trump has been expunged, albeit they will learn the lessons on changing their politics given his original appeal.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    kjh said:

    The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

    What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?
    There is a balance though. Targets do motivate, but they can also distract and the target becomes the goal even if there is a long term loss by doing so eg by diverting resources from elsewhere that are of a higher priority (difficult to think that possible in this case), producing a substandard or dangerous product, or by loss of reputation.

    The 100K target was a classic of that. Matt Hancock and the Govt rubbished their reputation for being honest on the pandemic. Up until then the Govt had done (or appeared to be doing a decent job). The blatant manipulating of the numbers was the start of the population not trusting the Govt over the pandemic. Up to that point they had done ok.
    This target should be the goal though. That is not a bad thing.

    Getting people vaccinated is the route out of this. If the entire machinery of government gets a bloody minded focus to get this target achieved then that is not a bad thing, it is a good one!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 39,210

    So, I got this wrong. I thought the Republicans would nab both of them. I see only Ossoff was really close.

    Yes, I had money on the GOP winning both seats, trying to prioritise head over heart. Luckily I was able to cash out and limit my losses.
    Wise. The UK sentiment is very heavily anti-Trump and Republican at present.

    The trick is not to let that influence your betting.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 6,266
    edited January 6
    14 million by 14 February is easy to remember and a perfectly reasonable target.

    I do hope the government isn’t going to roll back on it, after failing to monitor the supply pipeline and work closely and daily with the supplier to unblock any bottlenecks.

    Of course, many on PB seek to absolve the government of any responsibility for supply failure.
  • Anyone got a list of the senate seats up in 2022?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,714

    The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

    What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?
    The classic example of this is Kennedy's Moonshot speech;

    First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth...

    But notice, it's a goal. And JFK spent the rest of the speech outlining what would be needed to be in a position to achieve that goal.

    BoJo does something different. Much higher confidence that what he says will happen, and nothing on what will be needed.

    And that's a potential problem. Throughout this crisis, the UK has gone for technologies- massive testing, the app, fast vaccines. They're not bad in themselves, but I wonder if they've given us an excuse to not get the basics right and tempt the government to relax controls too early because tech will save us. Mostly, it hasn't, which links with the UK not doing well at keeping people alive.
    It's certainly true that the UK suffers from wanting easy solutions in life. But that's not just a Tory problem. I suppose one could argue that the opposition has the right to say "okay, you've promised that test, track and trace will solve our problems. Make it work."

    Personally I would much prefer it if the opposition had the balls to say "this isn't going to work unless you get the public to behave. Either do more on that side or don't waste the money."
  • kjhkjh Posts: 2,711

    kjh said:

    The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

    What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?
    There is a balance though. Targets do motivate, but they can also distract and the target becomes the goal even if there is a long term loss by doing so eg by diverting resources from elsewhere that are of a higher priority (difficult to think that possible in this case), producing a substandard or dangerous product, or by loss of reputation.

    The 100K target was a classic of that. Matt Hancock and the Govt rubbished their reputation for being honest on the pandemic. Up until then the Govt had done (or appeared to be doing a decent job). The blatant manipulating of the numbers was the start of the population not trusting the Govt over the pandemic. Up to that point they had done ok.
    This target should be the goal though. That is not a bad thing.

    Getting people vaccinated is the route out of this. If the entire machinery of government gets a bloody minded focus to get this target achieved then that is not a bad thing, it is a good one!
    I said it was a balance. I'm not against targets. Just pointing out the dangers and politicians of all colours (for obvious reasons) have a very bad reputation for manipulation to hit a target regardless of the damage it may cause.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,248
    edited January 6
    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    These elections pile pressure on Pence today. He’s in a difficult spot.

    It's painful for Pence but not a three pipe problem. Trump is asking for something he can't give. So he'll just have to bite the pillow and take it from the big man - no tough decisions to make.
    Who presides over the Senate if Pence has an urgent dentist's appointment?
    Chuck Grassley
    Seems like that works for everybody, he'll be 90 next time he's up for reelection so probably not too terrified of a Trumpist primary.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,386
    Ossoff's lead now up to almost 16,400.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 5,983
    Cicero said:

    Ambitious is a good thing not a bad thing.

    We shouldn't have expectations management, we should have ambition.
    The problem with this relentless Tory boosterism is that it is not rooted in the practical realities of administration. The facts are not amenable to PR Bullshit or social media barrack room lawyers.

    This is what the Tory-media cabal simply don´t get. Not one of them, from Johnson, to Gove, to Kuenssberg has professional experience in getting things done. They are great at propaganda and spin, and lousy managers.

    In the private sector (and actually most of the public) Patel would have been fired, Jenrick probably under criminal investigation and most of the other members of the cabinet would have failed to graduate the most basic business degree course.
    One telling aside from Boris's next-day reversal on lockdown is that updated guidelines on gov.uk were not ready and sometimes linked to the wrong places, despite it always having been the case that on any future date restrictions might be tightened or relaxed.

    Another is that, as the Telegraph sketch points out, Boris had no answer to the obvious question, what changed?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/01/05/single-biggest-question-boris-johnson-had-answer-alas-couldnt/
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 18,912

    The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

    What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?
    He's persistently misleading the country, normality by Christmas etc.

    IIRC you were quite enraged by bad forecasts, particularly the Whitty/Vallance projections of 50,000 cases in October without further action.

    Turns out they were right.
    The 50k forecast was a ridiculous extrapolate to infinity and it was wrong.

    And as you've not answered my question I'll ask it again:

    What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

    The issue currently is to get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible.

    And its more important that happens than politicians being able to say they reached their targets.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,146

    So does the GOP fall into civil war or does it reorganise and retake the House in 2022 ?

    The GOP have got themselves into a dire position. Many of them know that the Trump core are batshit crazy / QAnon types but there are too many of them to ignore so they keep quiet because they are scared of them.

    I don't see an easy path for any moderately sane Republican to win a GOP Primary. That's why we still have 10 GOP Senators about to humiliate themselves by still pretending Trump won the election.
  • I've always liked Lord Patten, I wonder if he might have become Tory leader in 1997 (or earlier) if he hadn't have lost his seat.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 44,520
    FF43 said:

    I don't know why you think Ireland is screwed by this.


    See also "mince".
  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 346
    HYUFD said:

    Warnock has clearly won, though the Ossoff and Perdue race is still within the 0.5% margin needed for a recount with 98% of the vote in

    The approx 2% remaining is from predominately DEM voting areas - Gwinett, Fulton, DeKalb and Chatham. Ossoff's lead will expand past the 0.5 threshold.
  • Anyone got a list of the senate seats up in 2022?

    https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections,_2022

    Hopefully helpful
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 28,312
    Cicero said:

    Stunningly close all the same. Biden is going to have his work cut out. Left wing Dems are more interested in Trans rights than Transport...

    Is that true ?
    They would seem pretty well on board with any likely infrastructure projects - indeed are advocates for them.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 8,498

    The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

    What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?
    The classic example of this is Kennedy's Moonshot speech;

    First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth...

    But notice, it's a goal. And JFK spent the rest of the speech outlining what would be needed to be in a position to achieve that goal.

    BoJo does something different. Much higher confidence that what he says will happen, and nothing on what will be needed.

    And that's a potential problem. Throughout this crisis, the UK has gone for technologies- massive testing, the app, fast vaccines. They're not bad in themselves, but I wonder if they've given us an excuse to not get the basics right and tempt the government to relax controls too early because tech will save us. Mostly, it hasn't, which links with the UK not doing well at keeping people alive.
    Would we have as many lockdown sceptics if targets for lockdown were more realistic? On vaccines though, I do think the key constraint is simply manufacturing supply.
  • The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

    What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?
    He's persistently misleading the country, normality by Christmas etc.

    IIRC you were quite enraged by bad forecasts, particularly the Whitty/Vallance projections of 50,000 cases in October without further action.

    Turns out they were right.
    The 50k forecast was a ridiculous extrapolate to infinity and it was wrong.

    And as you've not answered my question I'll ask it again:

    What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

    The issue currently is to get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible.

    And its more important that happens than politicians being able to say they reached their targets.

    If it is really important to vaccinate as many people as possible why is the government not allowing pharmacists and former docs to join the vaccination rollout, and why are they taking breaks on Sunday?
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 9,268
    edited January 6

    So, I got this wrong. I thought the Republicans would nab both of them. I see only Ossoff was really close.

    Yes, I had money on the GOP winning both seats, trying to prioritise head over heart. Luckily I was able to cash out and limit my losses.
    Pollsters had a good nite. I think they were pretty good on Georgia back in November too.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 28,312

    Ambitious is a good thing not a bad thing.

    We shouldn't have expectations management, we should have ambition.
    We should have management rather than airy aspirations.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 38,775

    The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

    What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?
    He's persistently misleading the country, normality by Christmas etc.

    IIRC you were quite enraged by bad forecasts, particularly the Whitty/Vallance projections of 50,000 cases in October without further action.

    Turns out they were right.
    The 50k forecast was a ridiculous extrapolate to infinity and it was wrong.

    And as you've not answered my question I'll ask it again:

    What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

    The issue currently is to get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible.

    And its more important that happens than politicians being able to say they reached their targets.

    If it is really important to vaccinate as many people as possible why is the government not allowing pharmacists and former docs to join the vaccination rollout, and why are they taking breaks on Sunday?
    This was asked on TalkRadio. I am none the wiser, but maybe I am being thick. Just bluster and waffle.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 36,845

    Ambitious is a good thing not a bad thing.

    We shouldn't have expectations management, we should have ambition.
    Who would the Boris-haters rather have in charge of our vaccine roll-out - Macron?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 8,335
    Are the armed forces going to be helping to administer the vaccine? I hope so. We need to get these 12 million vaccinations done as quickly as possible.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 44,520
    Carnyx said:

    The other lesson is when you do move, move quickly. In the first lockdown Guernsey announced at noon that pubs would be closing at 6pm that day. In its second lockdown (Guernsey hasn't had one) Jersey announced that pubs would be closing at closing time the following day. You can guess how busy the pubs were over the next two nights.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 26,009

    Cicero said:

    Ambitious is a good thing not a bad thing.

    We shouldn't have expectations management, we should have ambition.
    The problem with this relentless Tory boosterism is that it is not rooted in the practical realities of administration. The facts are not amenable to PR Bullshit or social media barrack room lawyers.

    This is what the Tory-media cabal simply don´t get. Not one of them, from Johnson, to Gove, to Kuenssberg has professional experience in getting things done. They are great at propaganda and spin, and lousy managers.

    In the private sector (and actually most of the public) Patel would have been fired, Jenrick probably under criminal investigation and most of the other members of the cabinet would have failed to graduate the most basic business degree course.
    Thanks for the bulletin from the Tallinn Liberal Democrats.

    It is perfectly reasonable to set an ambitious target -- I do it all the time.

    Boris' vaccination program will be judged against those in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, etc.
    Ambitious targets are useless for planning purposes although make everyone feel good at the time they are set.

    Suppose you are a widget firm needing to make forecasts of widget sales this year in order to plan resources, marketing, etc. Those forecasts need to be realistic otherwise you have huge waste on your hands. Plus credibility is lost if you consistently make claims which transparently obviously are unrealistic.

    Whatever happened to under promise and over deliver although again, for planning purposes too modest ambition can be destructive.

    Realistic is your watchword. I doubt that Boris has spent one minute actually understanding the challenges of the things he is announcing. Do you?
  • Leon said:

    Brutal but compelling doctor’s account of a day on a Covid ward. Frightening.

    https://unherd.com/2021/01/inside-the-covid-ward/

    Jesus Christ. And they are doing this day in day out.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 53,302
    edited January 6
    We are already seeing the problem. The government have promised this vaccination target linked to how long the lockdown will be, but it requires forces beyond their control to work perfectly.

    What will happen is we don't do anywhere near 2 million a week for the next 4-5 weeks, be well behind target, then the man from delmonte get a call again and finally all stops are pulled out.

    The result is we get those groups vaccinated by mid March and the government gets smashed from pillar to post for again over promising....rather than set the target for end of March (well ahead of rest of Europe) and then beat it by the minister in charge keeping the pressure up to constantly be beating the official pace.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 28,312

    Hopefully not even Betfair will dispute my 3/1 win on Jon Ossoff placed (twice) in October and widely tipped by me on here.

    You can get 250/1 on him for the 2024 Presidency but I regard that as fanciful, even though I've placed a tenner. He's a very good debater and will be an asset to the party in Congress...

    The latter bet is probably a waste of money even as a trading bet (though you might get lucky on that).
    Abrams is a far more likely (long odds) bet for the 2024 nomination.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,248
    edited January 6
    OllyT said:

    So does the GOP fall into civil war or does it reorganise and retake the House in 2022 ?

    The GOP have got themselves into a dire position. Many of them know that the Trump core are batshit crazy / QAnon types but there are too many of them to ignore so they keep quiet because they are scared of them.

    I don't see an easy path for any moderately sane Republican to win a GOP Primary. That's why we still have 10 GOP Senators about to humiliate themselves by still pretending Trump won the election.
    IDK, parties nearly always pick a moderate against an incumbent, not least because if the governing side isn't contested then politics enthusiasts vote in the opposition race, especially where there are open primaries. It's not clear that Trump will be willing and able to run, and if he's not then it's not clear that anybody similar can pull off what he did.
  • Anyone got a list of the senate seats up in 2022?

    https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections,_2022

    Hopefully helpful
    Thanks, so 21 GOP held seats and 13 Dem held seats.

    South Dakota could be fun if Trump sticks his oar in.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 893
    Another good, clear article - this time about the transmission of coronavirus. All that hand-washing and surfaces stuff is minor. You catch it by sitting indoors with other people, breathing. That’s it

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 34,732
    Quite a good piece about what is supposed to happen today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55555074

    Have to say Al Gore comes across pretty well in it, being the losing candidate under far more fraught circumstances than Trump.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 2,020
    tlg86 said:

    The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

    What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?
    The classic example of this is Kennedy's Moonshot speech;

    First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth...

    But notice, it's a goal. And JFK spent the rest of the speech outlining what would be needed to be in a position to achieve that goal.

    BoJo does something different. Much higher confidence that what he says will happen, and nothing on what will be needed.

    And that's a potential problem. Throughout this crisis, the UK has gone for technologies- massive testing, the app, fast vaccines. They're not bad in themselves, but I wonder if they've given us an excuse to not get the basics right and tempt the government to relax controls too early because tech will save us. Mostly, it hasn't, which links with the UK not doing well at keeping people alive.
    It's certainly true that the UK suffers from wanting easy solutions in life. But that's not just a Tory problem. I suppose one could argue that the opposition has the right to say "okay, you've promised that test, track and trace will solve our problems. Make it work."

    Personally I would much prefer it if the opposition had the balls to say "this isn't going to work unless you get the public to behave. Either do more on that side or don't waste the money."
    It's an interesting question- how much is the desire for easy solutions just fallen human nature and how much it is British exceptionalism.

    Given that it's there, the wise course for a government that really wants to make a difference is to gently nudge and steer against that tendency. The easy path for someone whose priority is sitting in the big chair is to pander to it.

    In that sense, this government is quinticencially British.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 5,983
    edited January 6

    FF43 said:

    I don't know why you think Ireland is screwed by this.


    See also "mince".
    Ireland will know it is screwed when someone suggests the problem can be solved using blockchain.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 26,009
    edited January 6

    Cicero said:

    Ambitious is a good thing not a bad thing.

    We shouldn't have expectations management, we should have ambition.
    The problem with this relentless Tory boosterism is that it is not rooted in the practical realities of administration. The facts are not amenable to PR Bullshit or social media barrack room lawyers.

    This is what the Tory-media cabal simply don´t get. Not one of them, from Johnson, to Gove, to Kuenssberg has professional experience in getting things done. They are great at propaganda and spin, and lousy managers.

    In the private sector (and actually most of the public) Patel would have been fired, Jenrick probably under criminal investigation and most of the other members of the cabinet would have failed to graduate the most basic business degree course.
    Thanks for the bulletin from the Tallinn Liberal Democrats.

    It is perfectly reasonable to set an ambitious target -- I do it all the time.

    Boris' vaccination program will be judged against those in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, etc.
    Oh and did you manage to get a case or two of the Chateau Leoville Barton 2017?

    :wink::smile:
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,965

    Cicero said:

    Ambitious is a good thing not a bad thing.

    We shouldn't have expectations management, we should have ambition.
    The problem with this relentless Tory boosterism is that it is not rooted in the practical realities of administration. The facts are not amenable to PR Bullshit or social media barrack room lawyers.

    This is what the Tory-media cabal simply don´t get. Not one of them, from Johnson, to Gove, to Kuenssberg has professional experience in getting things done. They are great at propaganda and spin, and lousy managers.

    In the private sector (and actually most of the public) Patel would have been fired, Jenrick probably under criminal investigation and most of the other members of the cabinet would have failed to graduate the most basic business degree course.
    Thanks for the bulletin from the Tallinn Liberal Democrats.

    It is perfectly reasonable to set an ambitious target -- I do it all the time.

    Boris' vaccination program will be judged against those in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, etc.
    The big risk, I think, is not that the UK vaccination programme misses its ambitious target. It probably will. The risk is that the ambitious target is set to fix an early end date to strict social distancing interventions under pressure from the anti-lockdown brigade. And that these interventions will in fact be removed too early, in the same way the November English lockdown was removed too early, resulting in a catastrophic resumption of the epidemic,

  • HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    So does the GOP fall into civil war or does it reorganise and retake the House in 2022 ?

    I'm not sure the traditional midterm logic will entirely hold. Democrats are favoured in lower turnout elections now I think.
    That depends entirely on the Biden Harris approval ratings in 2022, if they are low the GOP will almost certainly take back the House and maybe even the Senate too in the 2022 midterms.
    Hyufd, don't the Republicans have a difficult slate in 2022 - more seats to defend than attack?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 36,845
    MattW said:

    Enters. Morning all.

    Don't think it has been used yet.

    You Only Die Twice.
    https://news.sky.com/story/tanya-roberts-bond-girls-death-confirmed-a-day-after-mistaken-announcement-12180022

    Gets coat.

    Shades of Monty Python's Mary, Queen of Scots....

    "I think she's didd."

    "Noo I'm not......."
  • LeonLeon Posts: 893

    Leon said:

    Brutal but compelling doctor’s account of a day on a Covid ward. Frightening.

    https://unherd.com/2021/01/inside-the-covid-ward/

    Jesus Christ. And they are doing this day in day out.
    Yes. The almost matter-of-fact tone somehow makes it scarier.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 8,335
    Boris Johnson: "An end to lockdown before the tulip season is over"

    https://thecritic.co.uk/what-boris-johnson-told-the-22/
  • On topic, one things the DNC should do is get Stacey Abrams in charge of the campaigns team/GOTV/registering voters.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 2,531

    Anyone got a list of the senate seats up in 2022?

    Wikipedia
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,030

    Anyone got a list of the senate seats up in 2022?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections

    The GOP incumbents in NC and PA are retiring so may be pickup opportunities for the Dems. Maybe WI too.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 8,690

    The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

    What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?
    We need a touch of realism rather than schoolboy ambition. Johnson can quite easily couch his ambition in terms of its aim, but also highlight things might go wrong.

    I am grateful for the vaccine, and don't underestimate that Johnson's gamble on the vaccine will ultimately pay dividends. But that is for the near future, I am concerned that the vaccine is now being used as an invisibllity cloak for all else, thereby diluting the current "stay at home" message. The vaccine is important news but at yesterday's presser it should have played second fiddle to the story of the day which was "stay at home"

    Johnson did this through Lockdown One. Chaos over PPE and test and trace was brushed under the carpet of the success of the Nightingale Hospitals.

    Anyway, back on topic. If Ossoff wins the spectre of Trump can be exorcised with less difficulty than might have been the case with Mitch running the show.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 44,520

    The same people who said it was impossible to do 100k tests per day ?

    What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?
    He's persistently misleading the country, normality by Christmas etc.

    IIRC you were quite enraged by bad forecasts, particularly the Whitty/Vallance projections of 50,000 cases in October without further action.

    Turns out they were right.
    The 50k forecast was a ridiculous extrapolate to infinity and it was wrong.

    And as you've not answered my question I'll ask it again:

    What would you prefer - aim for 14m vaccinations and get 10m or aim for 7m and get 7m ?

    The issue currently is to get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible.

    And its more important that happens than politicians being able to say they reached their targets.

    If it is really important to vaccinate as many people as possible why is the government not allowing pharmacists and former docs to join the vaccination rollout, and why are they taking breaks on Sunday?
    This was asked on TalkRadio. I am none the wiser, but maybe I am being thick. Just bluster and waffle.

    He wasn't much cop on R4 either. "You are absolutely right to question us on this..." then proceeded to not answer the question.
  • eekeek Posts: 10,100
    Andy_JS said:

    Are the armed forces going to be helping to administer the vaccine? I hope so. We need to get these 12 million vaccinations done as quickly as possible.

    Well we aren't letting pharmacies do it so why wouldn't we use untrained armed forces to do it instead.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 5,983

    On topic, one things the DNC should do is get Stacey Abrams in charge of the campaigns team/GOTV/registering voters.

    What the incoming President can now do is get Stacey Abrams a proper job without Senate approval getting stalled in Mitch McConnell's in-tray.
  • FF43 said:

    I don't know why you think Ireland is screwed by this.


    See also "mince".
    Can only speak for the food industry but there really is a problem here for Ireland. The island has a decent spread of UK supermarkets, with Tesco ROI a major retailer. All of these pull stock from the UK with Tesco ROI literally a sub-market of the UK. Their buying team do source Irish-only products to add to their range but so much comes from elsewhere.

    Other major retailers - the Dunnes of this world - share the same kind of products as Tesco Ireland carry. Why? Because Ireland and the UK have similar tastes and a similar diet. Which means they pull a lot of products from a territory that is largely described as "UK&I".

    Ireland can decouple from the UK and source from elsewhere. But it won't be to the same taste as what they necessarily want and would be a relatively low volume add-on for a French company if they wanted to step in. And if they do this and "UK&I" becomes "UK" then inevitably lower volumes means higher prices for UK consumers.
Sign In or Register to comment.