Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Trump becoming an even stronger betting favourite for the WH2024 Republican nomination – politicalbe

SystemSystem Posts: 12,219
edited June 2021 in General
imageTrump becoming an even stronger betting favourite for the WH2024 Republican nomination – politicalbetting.com

Although we have largely igonored US politic since Biden was inaugurated the former president continues to work hard to undermine the WH2020 outcome and remains the most powerful political force in his party.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    First.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,196

    gealbhan said:

    gealbhan said:

    The third UK wave is starting. Is Boris going to lock down late again?

    I don’t want to come over all Keir Starmer, but there is a pattern of criminality developing here, isn’t there

    Where the 3rd wave is different from 1 and 2 is a small thing called vaccination. As of yesterday over 73% of adults have had one shot, and nearly 50% both. Plus existing immunity from infection and we have by now almost, if not entirely, decoupled cases from hospitalization. In fact despite the increase in cases, the numbers in hospital continue a gentle decline, and are under 900 for the entire 66 million people in the country.
    So you are saying

    in Third Wave thanks to vaccination there will be very few deaths in UK?

    Or that running at xx daily deaths for a while is okay with you chaps as the price for your freedom from restriction - remember that is loved ones of people hearing your response you are piling up there.

    Or that when it hits xxx daily deaths even you want some restrictions back, recognising you are late again at this point?

    Basically are you making clear, if you were in government yourself, your first option like Boris would always be the lazy to have cake and eat it wherever possible, that is how you would govern?
    We already accept xx daily deaths from all sorts of causes as the price of freedom. We even accept a maximum price for treatment of individuals. What is different about Covid?

    We had to lock down when it became clear we couldn't cope otherwise. There's absolutely no sign of that here.
    True. To give a simple example, we could take a leaf out of Mussolini's book and simply lock up anyone who vaguely looks like they might be in a gang. He kicked the shit out of the Mafia and the Camorra with such tactics. Lock up a few thousand people without trial - knife and gun crime would collapse - the postcode war bollocks would be gone.

    Why don't we do that - it would save dozens of lives?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,314

    If Trump pursues his claim that he won in 2020 won't he be term-limited in 2024?

    But he didn't get to serve his term, so if he wins in 2024, he could argue that he should serve 8 years to make up for it. :neutral:
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,046
    Lay the favourite!
  • eekeek Posts: 28,592
    FPT and now remarkable on topic
    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    edited June 2021
    If Trump runs again he will win the GOP nomination, he has already said he will do so if his health allows.

    https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-promises-re-run-in-us-election-2024-if-his-health-allows-reports-388427

    If Biden does not run for re election and he faces Harris he could even win the general election too, a Mclaughlin poll last month had Trump winning 57% of Republican primary voters support and beating Harris 49% to 45% in the general election.

    Trump won 10% of 2020 Biden voters in the poll and held 92% of his own 2020 vote, Harris only won 84% of the 2020 Biden vote however and just 3% of 2020 Trump voters

    https://mclaughlinonline.com/pols/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/National-Monthly-Omnibus-MAY-Release-1.pdf (p12 and 14)

  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,755
    Will be interesting to see how Trump reaches his voters with his social media still suspended.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Probably more interested in laying than backing that. Age must be a factor too, though that didn't stop Biden and Sanders contesting the blue gig.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    I've got a feeling it will be one of his extended clan (and not him) but I don't know yet.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    I'm surprised that Greg Abbot, Govern of Texas is not up there.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    I have stopped claiming any insight into the party that used to be the GOP. My only 2 cents is that whoever is the runaway favorite at this stage in the betting is highly unlikely to end up as the candidate. I truly hope that holds in this case.

    There was an interesting interview on NPR about a guy who has researched and written a book on celebrity. He had some very interesting things to say about Trump, and the brilliance with which he leveraged his Apprentice fame and social media. The gist was that fame - and capitalizing on it - is all about grabbing people's attention, not about whether the impression is good or bad, and that Trump was the master of grabbing attention. I can't see any of his clan emulating him on that level, thank god.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    edited June 2021

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    In UK terms Boris' vote is similar to Trump's vote, in 2019 Boris lost graduates heavily as did Trump in 2016 and 2020 and did poorly in London much as Trump also did poorly in NYC and California in 2016 and 2020.

    However it was Boris' inroads amongst the white working class that won him the 2019 election (plus facing Corbyn, the UK Bernie Sanders) much as it was Trump's inroads in white working class areas that won him the 2016 election.

    Trump was also a social liberal on issues like abortion and homosexuality, although he paid lip service to the evangelical right to win the GOP nomination. It was more immigration controls that he and Boris used to win white working class support plus promises of greater sovereignty in a globalist world
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    Metropolitan Police chief Dame Cressida Dick has sparked fury by lobbying the Government for a law change to allow the force to favour ethnic minority candidates.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9639289/Met-Police-chief-Cressida-Dick-calls-change-allow-force-favour-ethnic-minority-recruits.html
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Mr. Urquhart, great way of making every non-white copper look like someone hired because of skin colour rather than competence, while at the same time racially discriminating against white people.

    What a damned fool.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,782
    I can't think of a reason why he wouldn’t run. The Trump Force One 757 is being repainted right now which might mean something.

    The election itself is going to be an absolute derecho of diarrhoea. Maricopa x 1,000 with lawsuits and exchanges of small arms fire. It's going to be brilliantly entertaining.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    gealbhan said:

    gealbhan said:

    The third UK wave is starting. Is Boris going to lock down late again?

    I don’t want to come over all Keir Starmer, but there is a pattern of criminality developing here, isn’t there

    Where the 3rd wave is different from 1 and 2 is a small thing called vaccination. As of yesterday over 73% of adults have had one shot, and nearly 50% both. Plus existing immunity from infection and we have by now almost, if not entirely, decoupled cases from hospitalization. In fact despite the increase in cases, the numbers in hospital continue a gentle decline, and are under 900 for the entire 66 million people in the country.
    So you are saying

    in Third Wave thanks to vaccination there will be very few deaths in UK?

    Or that running at xx daily deaths for a while is okay with you chaps as the price for your freedom from restriction - remember that is loved ones of people hearing your response you are piling up there.

    Or that when it hits xxx daily deaths even you want some restrictions back, recognising you are late again at this point?

    Basically are you making clear, if you were in government yourself, your first option like Boris would always be the lazy to have cake and eat it wherever possible, that is how you would govern?
    We already accept xx daily deaths from all sorts of causes as the price of freedom. We even accept a maximum price for treatment of individuals. What is different about Covid?

    We had to lock down when it became clear we couldn't cope otherwise. There's absolutely no sign of that here.
    True. To give a simple example, we could take a leaf out of Mussolini's book and simply lock up anyone who vaguely looks like they might be in a gang. He kicked the shit out of the Mafia and the Camorra with such tactics. Lock up a few thousand people without trial - knife and gun crime would collapse - the postcode war bollocks would be gone.

    Why don't we do that - it would save dozens of lives?
    Not to forget that the vast proportion of hospitalisations and deaths will be from people who were eligible for the vaccine but declined to take it.

    If you're in favour of stripping away civil liberties then compelling the vaccine on people who don't want it, by force, would save more lives than imprisoning people in their own homes by force.

    But it's wrong to compel medical treatments on those who don't want it, and it's wrong to have a lockdown if it's not absolutely needed. If a few primarily antivaxxers die every day going forwards then that's their choice and their freedom as they wanted.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    Brexit was the final defeat of the Wets.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,106
    My bit on people who simply can’t handle Naomi Osaka not doing a press conference - and the tennis tour’s idiotic hypocrisies on health https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/01/sport-athletes-mental-health-tennis-naomi-osaka
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    England:
    May 13,605,851
    April 11,304,404
    March 12,160,585
    February 9,269,477
    January ~ 7,700,000
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    edited June 2021

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    Brexit was the final defeat of the Wets.
    Trump was of course a Clinton supporting socially liberal New Yorker in the 1990s too, much as Boris was when he was Mayor of London. However they are now populists.

    Trump's win in 2016 and Boris' delivery of Brexit was a defeat for the old school fiscally conservative, internationalist and globalist establishment in the GOP just as it was for the fiscally conservative, pro EU establishment in the Tory Party
  • eekeek Posts: 28,592
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    In UK terms Boris' vote is similar to Trump's vote, in 2019 Boris lost graduates heavily as did Trump in 2016 and 2020 and did poorly in London much as Trump also did poorly in NYC and California in 2016 and 2020.

    However it was Boris' inroads amongst the white working class that won him the 2019 election (plus facing Corbyn, the UK Bernie Sanders) much as it was Trump's inroads in white working class areas that won him the 2016 election.

    Trump was also a social liberal on issues like abortion and homosexuality, although he paid lip service to the evangelical right to win the GOP nomination. It was more immigration controls that he and Boris used to win white working class support plus promises of greater sovereignty in a globalist world
    The point is that Boris carried the core Tory party vote with him.

    I don't think Trump has done so - for if he had he would still be President
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    Brexit was the final defeat of the Wets.
    How? Besides Europe, which in 1979/80 when Thatcher used the term was not a wet versus dry issue.

    Economically I'd prefer a drier Government. Take away Brexit and economically this is quite a wet government.

    Many who self identified as wets had tied themselves to the European mast, so yes they were defeated. Heseltine etc. But worth remembering in 1980 just how pro Europe Thatcher was too.

    Looking at the Treasury right now I'm struggling to see much that is dry.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    edited June 2021
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    In UK terms Boris' vote is similar to Trump's vote, in 2019 Boris lost graduates heavily as did Trump in 2016 and 2020 and did poorly in London much as Trump also did poorly in NYC and California in 2016 and 2020.

    However it was Boris' inroads amongst the white working class that won him the 2019 election (plus facing Corbyn, the UK Bernie Sanders) much as it was Trump's inroads in white working class areas that won him the 2016 election.

    Trump was also a social liberal on issues like abortion and homosexuality, although he paid lip service to the evangelical right to win the GOP nomination. It was more immigration controls that he and Boris used to win white working class support plus promises of greater sovereignty in a globalist world
    The point is that Boris carried the core Tory party vote with him.

    I don't think Trump has done so - for if he had he would still be President
    Trump got just under 47% of the popular vote in 2020, even more than the 44% Boris got in 2019 and the same voteshare even as the combined Tory and Brexit Party vote.

    Only the divided liberal left in the UK ensured the Boris landslide
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    I see China, is modifying their chilled policy,

    The one child policy, that was relaxed to a two child policy in 2015, is now going to be a 3 child policy.

    As I understand it, the relaxation to 2 has resulted in a smaller baby boom that was expected, and combined with a shrinking working are population, this would be a sensible policy. but unlikely to have a big impact, if only a small number of people have taken the opportunity to have 2, and even smaller number are likely to have 3.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-allow-couples-have-three-children-cope-aging-society-n1269140?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1399696845274746882?s=20
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited June 2021
    Carlo Ancelotti to Real Madrid is a done deal - Source - David Ornstein

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,173
    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    Shock poll reveals more US Republicans are able to spot a wrong’un than UK Tory voters

    .
  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 788

    The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1399696845274746882?s=20

    Note the Zero COVID obsessives (Deepti Gurdasani and Pagel) on the attack in the replies because it doesn't fit with their panic laden doom mongering.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,921
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    In UK terms Boris' vote is similar to Trump's vote, in 2019 Boris lost graduates heavily as did Trump in 2016 and 2020 and did poorly in London much as Trump also did poorly in NYC and California in 2016 and 2020.

    However it was Boris' inroads amongst the white working class that won him the 2019 election (plus facing Corbyn, the UK Bernie Sanders) much as it was Trump's inroads in white working class areas that won him the 2016 election.

    Trump was also a social liberal on issues like abortion and homosexuality, although he paid lip service to the evangelical right to win the GOP nomination. It was more immigration controls that he and Boris used to win white working class support plus promises of greater sovereignty in a globalist world
    The point is that Boris carried the core Tory party vote with him.

    I don't think Trump has done so - for if he had he would still be President
    Trump got just under 47% of the popular vote in 2020, even more than the 44% Boris got in 2019 and the same voteshare even as the combined Tory and Brexit Party vote.

    Only the divided liberal left in the UK ensured the Boris landslide
    Why are you describing the Labour Party as liberal, young HY? It is as authoritarian as the Conservative Party, or indeed the Green Party.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,699
    RH1992 said:

    The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1399696845274746882?s=20

    Note the Zero COVID obsessives (Deepti Gurdasani and Pagel) on the attack in the replies because it doesn't fit with their panic laden doom mongering.
    Indeed Gurdasani post a picture of % that is b.1.617.2, and not how many cases. I am sure it is widespread, but it is not taking off in most places.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,844
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    In UK terms Boris' vote is similar to Trump's vote, in 2019 Boris lost graduates heavily as did Trump in 2016 and 2020 and did poorly in London much as Trump also did poorly in NYC and California in 2016 and 2020.

    However it was Boris' inroads amongst the white working class that won him the 2019 election (plus facing Corbyn, the UK Bernie Sanders) much as it was Trump's inroads in white working class areas that won him the 2016 election.

    Trump was also a social liberal on issues like abortion and homosexuality, although he paid lip service to the evangelical right to win the GOP nomination. It was more immigration controls that he and Boris used to win white working class support plus promises of greater sovereignty in a globalist world
    The point is that Boris carried the core Tory party vote with him.

    I don't think Trump has done so - for if he had he would still be President
    Trump got just under 47% of the popular vote in 2020, even more than the 44% Boris got in 2019 and the same voteshare even as the combined Tory and Brexit Party vote.

    Only the divided liberal left in the UK ensured the Boris landslide
    I think that one can refine that to the divided Labour Party shafted themselves.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    ClippP said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    In UK terms Boris' vote is similar to Trump's vote, in 2019 Boris lost graduates heavily as did Trump in 2016 and 2020 and did poorly in London much as Trump also did poorly in NYC and California in 2016 and 2020.

    However it was Boris' inroads amongst the white working class that won him the 2019 election (plus facing Corbyn, the UK Bernie Sanders) much as it was Trump's inroads in white working class areas that won him the 2016 election.

    Trump was also a social liberal on issues like abortion and homosexuality, although he paid lip service to the evangelical right to win the GOP nomination. It was more immigration controls that he and Boris used to win white working class support plus promises of greater sovereignty in a globalist world
    The point is that Boris carried the core Tory party vote with him.

    I don't think Trump has done so - for if he had he would still be President
    Trump got just under 47% of the popular vote in 2020, even more than the 44% Boris got in 2019 and the same voteshare even as the combined Tory and Brexit Party vote.

    Only the divided liberal left in the UK ensured the Boris landslide
    Why are you describing the Labour Party as liberal, young HY? It is as authoritarian as the Conservative Party, or indeed the Green Party.
    The modern left thinks "liberal" means the same as "progressive", and use the terms interchangeably.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    edited June 2021
    ClippP said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    In UK terms Boris' vote is similar to Trump's vote, in 2019 Boris lost graduates heavily as did Trump in 2016 and 2020 and did poorly in London much as Trump also did poorly in NYC and California in 2016 and 2020.

    However it was Boris' inroads amongst the white working class that won him the 2019 election (plus facing Corbyn, the UK Bernie Sanders) much as it was Trump's inroads in white working class areas that won him the 2016 election.

    Trump was also a social liberal on issues like abortion and homosexuality, although he paid lip service to the evangelical right to win the GOP nomination. It was more immigration controls that he and Boris used to win white working class support plus promises of greater sovereignty in a globalist world
    The point is that Boris carried the core Tory party vote with him.

    I don't think Trump has done so - for if he had he would still be President
    Trump got just under 47% of the popular vote in 2020, even more than the 44% Boris got in 2019 and the same voteshare even as the combined Tory and Brexit Party vote.

    Only the divided liberal left in the UK ensured the Boris landslide
    Why are you describing the Labour Party as liberal, young HY? It is as authoritarian as the Conservative Party, or indeed the Green Party.
    It is socially liberal even if not fiscally liberal, though of course the Tories are not fiscally liberal either now, Boris leads a fiscally statist, socially populist government, Davey's LDs are more classically liberal than either main party
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,196
    Endillion said:

    ClippP said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    In UK terms Boris' vote is similar to Trump's vote, in 2019 Boris lost graduates heavily as did Trump in 2016 and 2020 and did poorly in London much as Trump also did poorly in NYC and California in 2016 and 2020.

    However it was Boris' inroads amongst the white working class that won him the 2019 election (plus facing Corbyn, the UK Bernie Sanders) much as it was Trump's inroads in white working class areas that won him the 2016 election.

    Trump was also a social liberal on issues like abortion and homosexuality, although he paid lip service to the evangelical right to win the GOP nomination. It was more immigration controls that he and Boris used to win white working class support plus promises of greater sovereignty in a globalist world
    The point is that Boris carried the core Tory party vote with him.

    I don't think Trump has done so - for if he had he would still be President
    Trump got just under 47% of the popular vote in 2020, even more than the 44% Boris got in 2019 and the same voteshare even as the combined Tory and Brexit Party vote.

    Only the divided liberal left in the UK ensured the Boris landslide
    Why are you describing the Labour Party as liberal, young HY? It is as authoritarian as the Conservative Party, or indeed the Green Party.
    The modern left thinks "liberal" means the same as "progressive", and use the terms interchangeably.
    There was a hilarious Guardian column from Polly Toynbee - she was upset at all the good press "libertarians" got. She wanted them rebranded as something else, so that lefties could have the libertarian label - liberty for the collective, not the individual....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    In UK terms Boris' vote is similar to Trump's vote, in 2019 Boris lost graduates heavily as did Trump in 2016 and 2020 and did poorly in London much as Trump also did poorly in NYC and California in 2016 and 2020.

    However it was Boris' inroads amongst the white working class that won him the 2019 election (plus facing Corbyn, the UK Bernie Sanders) much as it was Trump's inroads in white working class areas that won him the 2016 election.

    Trump was also a social liberal on issues like abortion and homosexuality, although he paid lip service to the evangelical right to win the GOP nomination. It was more immigration controls that he and Boris used to win white working class support plus promises of greater sovereignty in a globalist world
    The point is that Boris carried the core Tory party vote with him.

    I don't think Trump has done so - for if he had he would still be President
    Trump got just under 47% of the popular vote in 2020, even more than the 44% Boris got in 2019 and the same voteshare even as the combined Tory and Brexit Party vote.

    Only the divided liberal left in the UK ensured the Boris landslide
    I think that one can refine that to the divided Labour Party shafted themselves.
    Plus the LDs got 11% which under FPTP split the anti Boris vote, add the Labour and LD votes and you got to 43% ie about the same as the Tory vote
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    Brexit was the final defeat of the Wets.
    How? Besides Europe, which in 1979/80 when Thatcher used the term was not a wet versus dry issue.

    Economically I'd prefer a drier Government. Take away Brexit and economically this is quite a wet government.

    Many who self identified as wets had tied themselves to the European mast, so yes they were defeated. Heseltine etc. But worth remembering in 1980 just how pro Europe Thatcher was too.

    Looking at the Treasury right now I'm struggling to see much that is dry.
    Thatcher was never as pro Europe as people think she was. Never.

    Just read the Dominic Sandbrook histories of the time, or Charles Moore's biographies of her. She was in favour purely as a market economics tool and was deeply suspicious of political integration throughout.

    So many sources.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited June 2021
    Central belt stays in Level 2 as Glasgow rules ease

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-57315436

    Sturgeon as usual going for the slightly different approach. Slight slowing of the roadmap, so she will be able to play the we were more cautious than England and faster to the punch, if it all goes tits up.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    Endillion said:

    ClippP said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    In UK terms Boris' vote is similar to Trump's vote, in 2019 Boris lost graduates heavily as did Trump in 2016 and 2020 and did poorly in London much as Trump also did poorly in NYC and California in 2016 and 2020.

    However it was Boris' inroads amongst the white working class that won him the 2019 election (plus facing Corbyn, the UK Bernie Sanders) much as it was Trump's inroads in white working class areas that won him the 2016 election.

    Trump was also a social liberal on issues like abortion and homosexuality, although he paid lip service to the evangelical right to win the GOP nomination. It was more immigration controls that he and Boris used to win white working class support plus promises of greater sovereignty in a globalist world
    The point is that Boris carried the core Tory party vote with him.

    I don't think Trump has done so - for if he had he would still be President
    Trump got just under 47% of the popular vote in 2020, even more than the 44% Boris got in 2019 and the same voteshare even as the combined Tory and Brexit Party vote.

    Only the divided liberal left in the UK ensured the Boris landslide
    Why are you describing the Labour Party as liberal, young HY? It is as authoritarian as the Conservative Party, or indeed the Green Party.
    The modern left thinks "liberal" means the same as "progressive", and use the terms interchangeably.
    There was a hilarious Guardian column from Polly Toynbee - she was upset at all the good press "libertarians" got. She wanted them rebranded as something else, so that lefties could have the libertarian label - liberty for the collective, not the individual....
    Probably got them confused with librarians.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,937
    HYUFD said:

    ClippP said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    In UK terms Boris' vote is similar to Trump's vote, in 2019 Boris lost graduates heavily as did Trump in 2016 and 2020 and did poorly in London much as Trump also did poorly in NYC and California in 2016 and 2020.

    However it was Boris' inroads amongst the white working class that won him the 2019 election (plus facing Corbyn, the UK Bernie Sanders) much as it was Trump's inroads in white working class areas that won him the 2016 election.

    Trump was also a social liberal on issues like abortion and homosexuality, although he paid lip service to the evangelical right to win the GOP nomination. It was more immigration controls that he and Boris used to win white working class support plus promises of greater sovereignty in a globalist world
    The point is that Boris carried the core Tory party vote with him.

    I don't think Trump has done so - for if he had he would still be President
    Trump got just under 47% of the popular vote in 2020, even more than the 44% Boris got in 2019 and the same voteshare even as the combined Tory and Brexit Party vote.

    Only the divided liberal left in the UK ensured the Boris landslide
    Why are you describing the Labour Party as liberal, young HY? It is as authoritarian as the Conservative Party, or indeed the Green Party.
    It is socially liberal even if not fiscally liberal, though of course the Tories are not fiscally liberal either now, Boris leads a fiscally statist, socially populist government, Davey's LDs are more classically liberal than either main party
    Your LD membership card is in the post.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    RH1992 said:

    The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1399696845274746882?s=20

    Note the Zero COVID obsessives (Deepti Gurdasani and Pagel) on the attack in the replies because it doesn't fit with their panic laden doom mongering.
    Indeed Gurdasani post a picture of % that is b.1.617.2, and not how many cases. I am sure it is widespread, but it is not taking off in most places.
    Wow how dishonest.

    So 100% of 3 cases per 100,000 would be "widespread" by her logic, but 10% of 1000 cases per 100,000 would not. 🤔
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,082
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    In UK terms Boris' vote is similar to Trump's vote, in 2019 Boris lost graduates heavily as did Trump in 2016 and 2020 and did poorly in London much as Trump also did poorly in NYC and California in 2016 and 2020.

    However it was Boris' inroads amongst the white working class that won him the 2019 election (plus facing Corbyn, the UK Bernie Sanders) much as it was Trump's inroads in white working class areas that won him the 2016 election.

    Trump was also a social liberal on issues like abortion and homosexuality, although he paid lip service to the evangelical right to win the GOP nomination. It was more immigration controls that he and Boris used to win white working class support plus promises of greater sovereignty in a globalist world
    The point is that Boris carried the core Tory party vote with him.

    I don't think Trump has done so - for if he had he would still be President
    Trump got just under 47% of the popular vote in 2020, even more than the 44% Boris got in 2019 and the same voteshare even as the combined Tory and Brexit Party vote.

    Only the divided liberal left in the UK ensured the Boris landslide
    I think that one can refine that to the divided Labour Party shafted themselves.
    Plus the LDs got 11% which under FPTP split the anti Boris vote, add the Labour and LD votes and you got to 43% ie about the same as the Tory vote
    Or alternatively, the LDs got 11% which under FPTP split the anti-Corbyn vote, add the Con and LD votes and you get to 55% ie an absolute majority.

    No, I'm not seriously suggesting we do this. But I think simply adding Lab to LD is just as problematic.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,956

    RH1992 said:

    The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1399696845274746882?s=20

    Note the Zero COVID obsessives (Deepti Gurdasani and Pagel) on the attack in the replies because it doesn't fit with their panic laden doom mongering.
    Indeed Gurdasani post a picture of % that is b.1.617.2, and not how many cases. I am sure it is widespread, but it is not taking off in most places.
    Yes that is a misleading chart there. If deaths are the most important number, followed by hospitalisation, illness, then cases, the last thing we ought to care about is which strain is the most common. We are not trying to eliminate a particular strain, we are trying to limit the harm.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,657
    At last some common sense from a very unlikely source

    Nicola today

    Sturgeon says that public health experts are warning that the UK could be at the start of a third wave and says that the R number is almost certainly above one - meaning the epidemic is growing.

    But she says the considerable upside is that we "now have a significant advantage that we didn't have in the first or second wave" - referring to the vaccine.

    "We do now have evidence that the link between cases and serious illness, hospitalisation and death does appear to be weakening," the first minister says, adding that the number of cases linked to hospital admission has reduced from 10% to 5%.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,196
    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    ClippP said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    In UK terms Boris' vote is similar to Trump's vote, in 2019 Boris lost graduates heavily as did Trump in 2016 and 2020 and did poorly in London much as Trump also did poorly in NYC and California in 2016 and 2020.

    However it was Boris' inroads amongst the white working class that won him the 2019 election (plus facing Corbyn, the UK Bernie Sanders) much as it was Trump's inroads in white working class areas that won him the 2016 election.

    Trump was also a social liberal on issues like abortion and homosexuality, although he paid lip service to the evangelical right to win the GOP nomination. It was more immigration controls that he and Boris used to win white working class support plus promises of greater sovereignty in a globalist world
    The point is that Boris carried the core Tory party vote with him.

    I don't think Trump has done so - for if he had he would still be President
    Trump got just under 47% of the popular vote in 2020, even more than the 44% Boris got in 2019 and the same voteshare even as the combined Tory and Brexit Party vote.

    Only the divided liberal left in the UK ensured the Boris landslide
    Why are you describing the Labour Party as liberal, young HY? It is as authoritarian as the Conservative Party, or indeed the Green Party.
    The modern left thinks "liberal" means the same as "progressive", and use the terms interchangeably.
    There was a hilarious Guardian column from Polly Toynbee - she was upset at all the good press "libertarians" got. She wanted them rebranded as something else, so that lefties could have the libertarian label - liberty for the collective, not the individual....
    Probably got them confused with librarians.
    It was the way she said - "What they believe is all wrong. But I want the label - because progressives are entitled to all the good labels..."
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    The Zero Covidian are as bad as the likes of Alister Haimes used to be with twisting of every set of facts to fit their narrative.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492

    Endillion said:

    ClippP said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    In UK terms Boris' vote is similar to Trump's vote, in 2019 Boris lost graduates heavily as did Trump in 2016 and 2020 and did poorly in London much as Trump also did poorly in NYC and California in 2016 and 2020.

    However it was Boris' inroads amongst the white working class that won him the 2019 election (plus facing Corbyn, the UK Bernie Sanders) much as it was Trump's inroads in white working class areas that won him the 2016 election.

    Trump was also a social liberal on issues like abortion and homosexuality, although he paid lip service to the evangelical right to win the GOP nomination. It was more immigration controls that he and Boris used to win white working class support plus promises of greater sovereignty in a globalist world
    The point is that Boris carried the core Tory party vote with him.

    I don't think Trump has done so - for if he had he would still be President
    Trump got just under 47% of the popular vote in 2020, even more than the 44% Boris got in 2019 and the same voteshare even as the combined Tory and Brexit Party vote.

    Only the divided liberal left in the UK ensured the Boris landslide
    Why are you describing the Labour Party as liberal, young HY? It is as authoritarian as the Conservative Party, or indeed the Green Party.
    The modern left thinks "liberal" means the same as "progressive", and use the terms interchangeably.
    There was a hilarious Guardian column from Polly Toynbee - she was upset at all the good press "libertarians" got. She wanted them rebranded as something else, so that lefties could have the libertarian label - liberty for the collective, not the individual....
    I would be interested to read that, I'm really not sure what good press she thinks we get, but I tend to only see ridicule and out right hostility to Libertarians.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Thanks for the article Mike.

    On topic, I still think, on balance, Trump won't run in 2024 but I am less confident than before. One, because of the possible charges which he may try to drag out with the hope he becomes President and then is immune for 4 years. Two, because I suspect he is looking at Biden and Harris, and thinking he can take both on and win - the former because his physical and mental state looks increasingly frail and the latter because she is a poor candidate but, being Black and female, she will get a free run at the nomination if Biden steps down. Three, because especially if the Chinese lab theory is proven to be true, Trump will be able to say "I told you so" and use it to discredit the Media and the Tech giants who pushed back against the theory, and then use that to claim that the Media / Tech was lying about all their other claims. And, fourth, because the Democrats' own behaviour on the cultural / social / economic fronts is more radical than many Republican-turned-Democrat voters would have thought, which may lead to gains.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    In UK terms Boris' vote is similar to Trump's vote, in 2019 Boris lost graduates heavily as did Trump in 2016 and 2020 and did poorly in London much as Trump also did poorly in NYC and California in 2016 and 2020.

    However it was Boris' inroads amongst the white working class that won him the 2019 election (plus facing Corbyn, the UK Bernie Sanders) much as it was Trump's inroads in white working class areas that won him the 2016 election.

    Trump was also a social liberal on issues like abortion and homosexuality, although he paid lip service to the evangelical right to win the GOP nomination. It was more immigration controls that he and Boris used to win white working class support plus promises of greater sovereignty in a globalist world
    The point is that Boris carried the core Tory party vote with him.

    I don't think Trump has done so - for if he had he would still be President
    Trump got just under 47% of the popular vote in 2020, even more than the 44% Boris got in 2019 and the same voteshare even as the combined Tory and Brexit Party vote.

    Only the divided liberal left in the UK ensured the Boris landslide
    I think that one can refine that to the divided Labour Party shafted themselves.
    Plus the LDs got 11% which under FPTP split the anti Boris vote, add the Labour and LD votes and you got to 43% ie about the same as the Tory vote
    Or alternatively, the LDs got 11% which under FPTP split the anti-Corbyn vote, add the Con and LD votes and you get to 55% ie an absolute majority.

    No, I'm not seriously suggesting we do this. But I think simply adding Lab to LD is just as problematic.
    The LD vote was anti Corbyn but also anti Boris, in a way it was not anti Cameron for example in 2015.

    The LD vote next time will be pro Starmer on the whole however
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008

    HYUFD said:

    ClippP said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    In UK terms Boris' vote is similar to Trump's vote, in 2019 Boris lost graduates heavily as did Trump in 2016 and 2020 and did poorly in London much as Trump also did poorly in NYC and California in 2016 and 2020.

    However it was Boris' inroads amongst the white working class that won him the 2019 election (plus facing Corbyn, the UK Bernie Sanders) much as it was Trump's inroads in white working class areas that won him the 2016 election.

    Trump was also a social liberal on issues like abortion and homosexuality, although he paid lip service to the evangelical right to win the GOP nomination. It was more immigration controls that he and Boris used to win white working class support plus promises of greater sovereignty in a globalist world
    The point is that Boris carried the core Tory party vote with him.

    I don't think Trump has done so - for if he had he would still be President
    Trump got just under 47% of the popular vote in 2020, even more than the 44% Boris got in 2019 and the same voteshare even as the combined Tory and Brexit Party vote.

    Only the divided liberal left in the UK ensured the Boris landslide
    Why are you describing the Labour Party as liberal, young HY? It is as authoritarian as the Conservative Party, or indeed the Green Party.
    It is socially liberal even if not fiscally liberal, though of course the Tories are not fiscally liberal either now, Boris leads a fiscally statist, socially populist government, Davey's LDs are more classically liberal than either main party
    Your LD membership card is in the post.
    I am fiscally centrist, moderately socially conservative
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,699

    RH1992 said:

    The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1399696845274746882?s=20

    Note the Zero COVID obsessives (Deepti Gurdasani and Pagel) on the attack in the replies because it doesn't fit with their panic laden doom mongering.
    Indeed Gurdasani post a picture of % that is b.1.617.2, and not how many cases. I am sure it is widespread, but it is not taking off in most places.
    Wow how dishonest.

    So 100% of 3 cases per 100,000 would be "widespread" by her logic, but 10% of 1000 cases per 100,000 would not. 🤔
    Correct. Sophistry. I know this because Wiltshire looks concerning, but the number of cases is tiny.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    MrEd said:

    Thanks for the article Mike.

    On topic, I still think, on balance, Trump won't run in 2024 but I am less confident than before. One, because of the possible charges which he may try to drag out with the hope he becomes President and then is immune for 4 years. Two, because I suspect he is looking at Biden and Harris, and thinking he can take both on and win - the former because his physical and mental state looks increasingly frail and the latter because she is a poor candidate but, being Black and female, she will get a free run at the nomination if Biden steps down. Three, because especially if the Chinese lab theory is proven to be true, Trump will be able to say "I told you so" and use it to discredit the Media and the Tech giants who pushed back against the theory, and then use that to claim that the Media / Tech was lying about all their other claims. And, fourth, because the Democrats' own behaviour on the cultural / social / economic fronts is more radical than many Republican-turned-Democrat voters would have thought, which may lead to gains.

    As the poll I posted earlier showed Trump could beat Harris, in my view Biden was the only candidate who could beat Trump in 2020 and the Democrats may need Biden to run again in 2024 to prevent Trump returning to the White House
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,139
    It is interesting how so many of those who worry about American democracy were entirely willing and indeed eager to frustrate the largest popular vote in UK history.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    Brexit was the final defeat of the Wets.
    How? Besides Europe, which in 1979/80 when Thatcher used the term was not a wet versus dry issue.

    Economically I'd prefer a drier Government. Take away Brexit and economically this is quite a wet government.

    Many who self identified as wets had tied themselves to the European mast, so yes they were defeated. Heseltine etc. But worth remembering in 1980 just how pro Europe Thatcher was too.

    Looking at the Treasury right now I'm struggling to see much that is dry.
    Thatcher was never as pro Europe as people think she was. Never.

    Just read the Dominic Sandbrook histories of the time, or Charles Moore's biographies of her. She was in favour purely as a market economics tool and was deeply suspicious of political integration throughout.

    So many sources.
    Of course. But the point is surely that wet versus dry was never a pro-Europe or anti-Europe issue, though latterly many "wets" wrapped themselves in the European flag which confused matters.

    Set aside the European issue and look what the government is doing economically: high spending, planning to "invest" more, raising corporation taxes, looking to make it easier to hand out state aid . . . how is that anything other than a wet government?

    Its my biggest problem with Boris. I like some of what he does, but he's far too wet for my tastes. I'd much prefer a drier economy than what we have coming forwards.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    edited June 2021
    Fishing said:

    It is interesting how so many of those who worry about American democracy were entirely willing and indeed eager to frustrate the largest popular vote in UK history.

    Yes but frustrating democracy is fine when you are denying the vote of poorly educated oiks who did not know what they were voting for
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,974



    Sturgeon says that public health experts are warning that the UK could be at the start of a third wave and says that the R number is almost certainly above one - meaning the epidemic is growing.

    But she says the considerable upside is that we "now have a significant advantage that we didn't have in the first or second wave" - referring to the vaccine.

    Thanks to Boris, eh Nicola?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,971

    The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1399696845274746882?s=20

    Is that the Indian variant?
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    Brexit was the final defeat of the Wets.
    How? Besides Europe, which in 1979/80 when Thatcher used the term was not a wet versus dry issue.

    Economically I'd prefer a drier Government. Take away Brexit and economically this is quite a wet government.

    Many who self identified as wets had tied themselves to the European mast, so yes they were defeated. Heseltine etc. But worth remembering in 1980 just how pro Europe Thatcher was too.

    Looking at the Treasury right now I'm struggling to see much that is dry.
    Thatcher was never as pro Europe as people think she was. Never.

    Just read the Dominic Sandbrook histories of the time, or Charles Moore's biographies of her. She was in favour purely as a market economics tool and was deeply suspicious of political integration throughout.

    So many sources.
    Of course. But the point is surely that wet versus dry was never a pro-Europe or anti-Europe issue, though latterly many "wets" wrapped themselves in the European flag which confused matters.

    Set aside the European issue and look what the government is doing economically: high spending, planning to "invest" more, raising corporation taxes, looking to make it easier to hand out state aid . . . how is that anything other than a wet government?

    Its my biggest problem with Boris. I like some of what he does, but he's far too wet for my tastes. I'd much prefer a drier economy than what we have coming forwards.
    Well, that explains your willingness to throw the fishing industry under the bus over Brexit.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    glw said:

    RH1992 said:

    The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1399696845274746882?s=20

    Note the Zero COVID obsessives (Deepti Gurdasani and Pagel) on the attack in the replies because it doesn't fit with their panic laden doom mongering.
    Indeed Gurdasani post a picture of % that is b.1.617.2, and not how many cases. I am sure it is widespread, but it is not taking off in most places.
    Yes that is a misleading chart there. If deaths are the most important number, followed by hospitalisation, illness, then cases, the last thing we ought to care about is which strain is the most common. We are not trying to eliminate a particular strain, we are trying to limit the harm.
    One start way of looking at this is to look at the ranking site wouldmeater:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/weekly-trends/#weekly_table

    Not the only or even the best tracking site, I know but its able to rank nations so im using it for this.

    If you listed the nations by deaths per million averaged over the last week, how many places are doing worse than the UK?


    119


    Yes 119 nations are doing worse than the UK, and many of the better are really small places like the Vatican on 0. or places where the numbers may not be reliable.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,699
    Andy_JS said:

    The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1399696845274746882?s=20

    Is that the Indian variant?
    Yes WHO have renamed B.1.617.2, sorry the Indian Variant, sorry the April02 variant as the the delta variant.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,971
    edited June 2021
    BigRich said:

    glw said:

    RH1992 said:

    The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1399696845274746882?s=20

    Note the Zero COVID obsessives (Deepti Gurdasani and Pagel) on the attack in the replies because it doesn't fit with their panic laden doom mongering.
    Indeed Gurdasani post a picture of % that is b.1.617.2, and not how many cases. I am sure it is widespread, but it is not taking off in most places.
    Yes that is a misleading chart there. If deaths are the most important number, followed by hospitalisation, illness, then cases, the last thing we ought to care about is which strain is the most common. We are not trying to eliminate a particular strain, we are trying to limit the harm.
    One start way of looking at this is to look at the ranking site wouldmeater:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/weekly-trends/#weekly_table

    Not the only or even the best tracking site, I know but its able to rank nations so im using it for this.

    If you listed the nations by deaths per million averaged over the last week, how many places are doing worse than the UK?


    119


    Yes 119 nations are doing worse than the UK, and many of the better are really small places like the Vatican on 0. or places where the numbers may not be reliable.
    The UK probably has almost the lowest ratio of deaths to population in the world. Australia and New Zealand are probably the only countries below us with reliable data.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    Andy_JS said:

    The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1399696845274746882?s=20

    Is that the Indian variant?
    Yes WHO have renamed B.1.617.2, sorry the Indian Variant, sorry the April02 variant as the the delta variant.
    Of the Ganges, or the Indus?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,156
    Any thoughts on how the Trumpists taking over the US through undemocratic means would impact the global economy, the relationship between the major power blocs and particularly foreign (non US) holders of US shares over the next decade?

    Is the current global economy sustainable with an undemocratic USA and the tensions that will create?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,955
    Catching up on Nottinghamshire / Ashfield politics.

    Mansfield Independents may be over the hill after about 4 terms of Mayoralty and two (?) of running the Council. But still 14 seats on Council.

    Ashfield Independents now have 10 seats on County, which is all of them in Ashfield. In these seats lowest AI vote share was 45%. Lab highest vote share in these seats was 24%.

    County: Tory 37, Lab 15, AI 10, Independent 3, LD 1. Tory-run, now.
    Where do AI go next, having all the County seats, and 27/35 of the District seats, down from 31?

    Looks like a long-term change.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Andy_JS said:

    The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1399696845274746882?s=20

    Is that the Indian variant?
    Yes WHO have renamed B.1.617.2, sorry the Indian Variant, sorry the April02 variant as the the delta variant.
    While B.117 (the Kent/UK variant) is now the Alpha variant.

    It will be interesting to see if Sturgeon continues to use the term Kent variant or uses the term Alpha variant instead.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    Brexit was the final defeat of the Wets.
    How? Besides Europe, which in 1979/80 when Thatcher used the term was not a wet versus dry issue.

    Economically I'd prefer a drier Government. Take away Brexit and economically this is quite a wet government.

    Many who self identified as wets had tied themselves to the European mast, so yes they were defeated. Heseltine etc. But worth remembering in 1980 just how pro Europe Thatcher was too.

    Looking at the Treasury right now I'm struggling to see much that is dry.
    Thatcher was never as pro Europe as people think she was. Never.

    Just read the Dominic Sandbrook histories of the time, or Charles Moore's biographies of her. She was in favour purely as a market economics tool and was deeply suspicious of political integration throughout.

    So many sources.
    Of course. But the point is surely that wet versus dry was never a pro-Europe or anti-Europe issue, though latterly many "wets" wrapped themselves in the European flag which confused matters.

    Set aside the European issue and look what the government is doing economically: high spending, planning to "invest" more, raising corporation taxes, looking to make it easier to hand out state aid . . . how is that anything other than a wet government?

    Its my biggest problem with Boris. I like some of what he does, but he's far too wet for my tastes. I'd much prefer a drier economy than what we have coming forwards.
    Ragen, talked a good talk on freedom and free markets, in a way that sounded like he believed it, but when you look at actions, so much extra spending, and increasing the war on drudge, but very little actual liberalisation under his watch. Carter, on the other had achally did a lot of liberalisation, Airlines, trucking and Beer, being three examples, but gets little prase for it.

    Boris is more like Ragen, talks good or at lest OK, but less keen on what he does. Sadly we have not had a Carter,
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,699
    MaxPB said:

    I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.

    Ah - personal choice, the scourge of all right thinking liberals everywhere! Combined with personal responsibility, its a heady mix. Far better to lock everyone up for ever, just in case...
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049
    edited June 2021
    MaxPB said:

    I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.

    As we all know on here, the government, any government simply cannot bring itself to admit an error (unless it is any cabinet minister talking about Matt Hancock).

    Just as the nation has become institutionally scared of Covid so has the government painted itself into a corner whereby it is releasing daily the fact that eight or 80 people have died of Covid.

    It will very difficult for them to move to a place whereby those numbers don't matter; those stats will continue to be a stick with which the opposition (or anyone) can beat them.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    MaxPB said:

    I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.

    Well said.

    The only distinction I'd make is that I think it is fair enough to continue with "work from home" advice/support for those who haven't had their vaccine yet.

    Let people choose though. If they choose to go back to clubs and pubs cheek to jowl despite being unvaccinated then so be it, that's their choice. If they choose to work from home and avoid hospitality for another couple of month until they've had both jabs that's their choice too.

    But it should be about freedom of choice now. Not others making choices on other people's behalf.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,082
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.

    As we all know on here, the government, any government simply cannot bring itself to admit an error (unless it is any cabinet minister talking about Matt Hancock).

    Just as the nation has become institutionally scared of Covid so has the government painted itself into a corner whereby it is releasing daily the fact that eight or 80 people have died of Covid.

    It will very difficult for them to move to a place whereby those numbers don't matter and those stats will continue to be a stick with which the opposition (or anyone) can beat them.
    Aren't they compelled to release those figures due to covid being a notifiable disease? I am very far from being an expert in these matters, but my understanding was that there were some WHO requirements that required every government to release daily(ish) covid stats. Though under pain of what I am not sure!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited June 2021
    MaxPB said:

    I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.

    There has been a total detachment from just how many people die every day....I don't think the public realise just how many people die of all sorts of things on a daily basis, but it has become a national talking point over COVID deaths even when it is down to low 10s.

    The most important fact we need to know is how many vaccinated people end up in hospital / dying and how many of those weren't 105 and had a laundry list of other conditions.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,352
    Endillion said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    Brexit was the final defeat of the Wets.
    How? Besides Europe, which in 1979/80 when Thatcher used the term was not a wet versus dry issue.

    Economically I'd prefer a drier Government. Take away Brexit and economically this is quite a wet government.

    Many who self identified as wets had tied themselves to the European mast, so yes they were defeated. Heseltine etc. But worth remembering in 1980 just how pro Europe Thatcher was too.

    Looking at the Treasury right now I'm struggling to see much that is dry.
    Thatcher was never as pro Europe as people think she was. Never.

    Just read the Dominic Sandbrook histories of the time, or Charles Moore's biographies of her. She was in favour purely as a market economics tool and was deeply suspicious of political integration throughout.

    So many sources.
    Of course. But the point is surely that wet versus dry was never a pro-Europe or anti-Europe issue, though latterly many "wets" wrapped themselves in the European flag which confused matters.

    Set aside the European issue and look what the government is doing economically: high spending, planning to "invest" more, raising corporation taxes, looking to make it easier to hand out state aid . . . how is that anything other than a wet government?

    Its my biggest problem with Boris. I like some of what he does, but he's far too wet for my tastes. I'd much prefer a drier economy than what we have coming forwards.
    Well, that explains your willingness to throw the fishing industry under the bus over Brexit.
    Keyboard warriors are quite comfortable throwing all sorts of people under buses as long as it doesn't affect them. Slight problem with being totally divorced form reality or experience.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049
    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.

    As we all know on here, the government, any government simply cannot bring itself to admit an error (unless it is any cabinet minister talking about Matt Hancock).

    Just as the nation has become institutionally scared of Covid so has the government painted itself into a corner whereby it is releasing daily the fact that eight or 80 people have died of Covid.

    It will very difficult for them to move to a place whereby those numbers don't matter and those stats will continue to be a stick with which the opposition (or anyone) can beat them.
    Aren't they compelled to release those figures due to covid being a notifiable disease? I am very far from being an expert in these matters, but my understanding was that there were some WHO requirements that required every government to release daily(ish) covid stats. Though under pain of what I am not sure!
    Interesting. In which case they are in a world of pain. As are we.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.

    As we all know on here, the government, any government simply cannot bring itself to admit an error (unless it is any cabinet minister talking about Matt Hancock).

    Just as the nation has become institutionally scared of Covid so has the government painted itself into a corner whereby it is releasing daily the fact that eight or 80 people have died of Covid.

    It will very difficult for them to move to a place whereby those numbers don't matter; those stats will continue to be a stick with which the opposition (or anyone) can beat them.
    One thing they could/should do would be to change the repotting, so that they put out weekly numbers not daily, A first step in that direction could be to stop releasing numbers at weekends, in the way that Spain, Sweden and some other places have done.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,082
    BigRich said:

    glw said:

    RH1992 said:

    The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1399696845274746882?s=20

    Note the Zero COVID obsessives (Deepti Gurdasani and Pagel) on the attack in the replies because it doesn't fit with their panic laden doom mongering.
    Indeed Gurdasani post a picture of % that is b.1.617.2, and not how many cases. I am sure it is widespread, but it is not taking off in most places.
    Yes that is a misleading chart there. If deaths are the most important number, followed by hospitalisation, illness, then cases, the last thing we ought to care about is which strain is the most common. We are not trying to eliminate a particular strain, we are trying to limit the harm.
    One start way of looking at this is to look at the ranking site wouldmeater:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/weekly-trends/#weekly_table

    Not the only or even the best tracking site, I know but its able to rank nations so im using it for this.

    If you listed the nations by deaths per million averaged over the last week, how many places are doing worse than the UK?


    119


    Yes 119 nations are doing worse than the UK, and many of the better are really small places like the Vatican on 0. or places where the numbers may not be reliable.
    I'm slightly wary of worldometers (not least because it's owned by the Chinese). But it does source its data.
    It doesn't appear, yet, to have included the update to the Peru data which elevates them to the top of the mortality rate table.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    edited June 2021
    BigRich said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    Brexit was the final defeat of the Wets.
    How? Besides Europe, which in 1979/80 when Thatcher used the term was not a wet versus dry issue.

    Economically I'd prefer a drier Government. Take away Brexit and economically this is quite a wet government.

    Many who self identified as wets had tied themselves to the European mast, so yes they were defeated. Heseltine etc. But worth remembering in 1980 just how pro Europe Thatcher was too.

    Looking at the Treasury right now I'm struggling to see much that is dry.
    Thatcher was never as pro Europe as people think she was. Never.

    Just read the Dominic Sandbrook histories of the time, or Charles Moore's biographies of her. She was in favour purely as a market economics tool and was deeply suspicious of political integration throughout.

    So many sources.
    Of course. But the point is surely that wet versus dry was never a pro-Europe or anti-Europe issue, though latterly many "wets" wrapped themselves in the European flag which confused matters.

    Set aside the European issue and look what the government is doing economically: high spending, planning to "invest" more, raising corporation taxes, looking to make it easier to hand out state aid . . . how is that anything other than a wet government?

    Its my biggest problem with Boris. I like some of what he does, but he's far too wet for my tastes. I'd much prefer a drier economy than what we have coming forwards.
    Ragen, talked a good talk on freedom and free markets, in a way that sounded like he believed it, but when you look at actions, so much extra spending, and increasing the war on drudge, but very little actual liberalisation under his watch. Carter, on the other had achally did a lot of liberalisation, Airlines, trucking and Beer, being three examples, but gets little prase for it.

    Boris is more like Ragen, talks good or at lest OK, but less keen on what he does. Sadly we have not had a Carter,
    The top income tax rate under Carter was 70%, he was no fiscal liberal, even if he was no socialist either.

    Carter was also socially quite conservative, he was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of evangelical votes for instance, which he managed to do in 1976 when he beat President Ford
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    BigRich said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.

    As we all know on here, the government, any government simply cannot bring itself to admit an error (unless it is any cabinet minister talking about Matt Hancock).

    Just as the nation has become institutionally scared of Covid so has the government painted itself into a corner whereby it is releasing daily the fact that eight or 80 people have died of Covid.

    It will very difficult for them to move to a place whereby those numbers don't matter; those stats will continue to be a stick with which the opposition (or anyone) can beat them.
    One thing they could/should do would be to change the repotting, so that they put out weekly numbers not daily, A first step in that direction could be to stop releasing numbers at weekends, in the way that Spain, Sweden and some other places have done.
    Hiding the data is the last thing that should be done. It will fuel idiots like Pagel with a "what have they got to hide" narrative.

    Proper explanation and context is needed instead. 600,000 people die a year on average approximately, which is 1,644 a day. So if 8 people have died in a day then Covid is responsible for less than half a percent of entirely normal daily deaths.

    That context is missing.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited June 2021

    BigRich said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.

    As we all know on here, the government, any government simply cannot bring itself to admit an error (unless it is any cabinet minister talking about Matt Hancock).

    Just as the nation has become institutionally scared of Covid so has the government painted itself into a corner whereby it is releasing daily the fact that eight or 80 people have died of Covid.

    It will very difficult for them to move to a place whereby those numbers don't matter; those stats will continue to be a stick with which the opposition (or anyone) can beat them.
    One thing they could/should do would be to change the repotting, so that they put out weekly numbers not daily, A first step in that direction could be to stop releasing numbers at weekends, in the way that Spain, Sweden and some other places have done.
    Hiding the data is the last thing that should be done. It will fuel idiots like Pagel with a "what have they got to hide" narrative.

    Proper explanation and context is needed instead. 600,000 people die a year on average approximately, which is 1,644 a day. So if 8 people have died in a day then Covid is responsible for less than half a percent of entirely normal daily deaths.

    That context is missing.
    Remember when the nutters on the tw@tter were claiming Boris was personally burying bodies in the gardens of Chequers.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    Cookie said:

    BigRich said:

    glw said:

    RH1992 said:

    The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1399696845274746882?s=20

    Note the Zero COVID obsessives (Deepti Gurdasani and Pagel) on the attack in the replies because it doesn't fit with their panic laden doom mongering.
    Indeed Gurdasani post a picture of % that is b.1.617.2, and not how many cases. I am sure it is widespread, but it is not taking off in most places.
    Yes that is a misleading chart there. If deaths are the most important number, followed by hospitalisation, illness, then cases, the last thing we ought to care about is which strain is the most common. We are not trying to eliminate a particular strain, we are trying to limit the harm.
    One start way of looking at this is to look at the ranking site wouldmeater:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/weekly-trends/#weekly_table

    Not the only or even the best tracking site, I know but its able to rank nations so im using it for this.

    If you listed the nations by deaths per million averaged over the last week, how many places are doing worse than the UK?


    119


    Yes 119 nations are doing worse than the UK, and many of the better are really small places like the Vatican on 0. or places where the numbers may not be reliable.
    I'm slightly wary of worldometers (not least because it's owned by the Chinese). But it does source its data.
    It doesn't appear, yet, to have included the update to the Peru data which elevates them to the top of the mortality rate table.
    I did not relies it was owned by the Chinese, I might start to quote it less often now,

    who owns 'OurWouldInDate'? or are there other places I should look at?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,038
    BigRich said:

    Cookie said:

    BigRich said:

    glw said:

    RH1992 said:

    The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1399696845274746882?s=20

    Note the Zero COVID obsessives (Deepti Gurdasani and Pagel) on the attack in the replies because it doesn't fit with their panic laden doom mongering.
    Indeed Gurdasani post a picture of % that is b.1.617.2, and not how many cases. I am sure it is widespread, but it is not taking off in most places.
    Yes that is a misleading chart there. If deaths are the most important number, followed by hospitalisation, illness, then cases, the last thing we ought to care about is which strain is the most common. We are not trying to eliminate a particular strain, we are trying to limit the harm.
    One start way of looking at this is to look at the ranking site wouldmeater:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/weekly-trends/#weekly_table

    Not the only or even the best tracking site, I know but its able to rank nations so im using it for this.

    If you listed the nations by deaths per million averaged over the last week, how many places are doing worse than the UK?


    119


    Yes 119 nations are doing worse than the UK, and many of the better are really small places like the Vatican on 0. or places where the numbers may not be reliable.
    I'm slightly wary of worldometers (not least because it's owned by the Chinese). But it does source its data.
    It doesn't appear, yet, to have included the update to the Peru data which elevates them to the top of the mortality rate table.
    I did not relies it was owned by the Chinese, I might start to quote it less often now,

    who owns 'OurWouldInDate'? or are there other places I should look at?
    I didn't know that either. Learn something every day.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    BigRich said:

    Cookie said:

    BigRich said:

    glw said:

    RH1992 said:

    The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1399696845274746882?s=20

    Note the Zero COVID obsessives (Deepti Gurdasani and Pagel) on the attack in the replies because it doesn't fit with their panic laden doom mongering.
    Indeed Gurdasani post a picture of % that is b.1.617.2, and not how many cases. I am sure it is widespread, but it is not taking off in most places.
    Yes that is a misleading chart there. If deaths are the most important number, followed by hospitalisation, illness, then cases, the last thing we ought to care about is which strain is the most common. We are not trying to eliminate a particular strain, we are trying to limit the harm.
    One start way of looking at this is to look at the ranking site wouldmeater:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/weekly-trends/#weekly_table

    Not the only or even the best tracking site, I know but its able to rank nations so im using it for this.

    If you listed the nations by deaths per million averaged over the last week, how many places are doing worse than the UK?


    119


    Yes 119 nations are doing worse than the UK, and many of the better are really small places like the Vatican on 0. or places where the numbers may not be reliable.
    I'm slightly wary of worldometers (not least because it's owned by the Chinese). But it does source its data.
    It doesn't appear, yet, to have included the update to the Peru data which elevates them to the top of the mortality rate table.
    I did not relies it was owned by the Chinese, I might start to quote it less often now,

    who owns 'OurWouldInDate'? or are there other places I should look at?
    A team of scientists, with the head ones being at the University of Oxford: https://ourworldindata.org/team
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    HYUFD said:

    BigRich said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    Brexit was the final defeat of the Wets.
    How? Besides Europe, which in 1979/80 when Thatcher used the term was not a wet versus dry issue.

    Economically I'd prefer a drier Government. Take away Brexit and economically this is quite a wet government.

    Many who self identified as wets had tied themselves to the European mast, so yes they were defeated. Heseltine etc. But worth remembering in 1980 just how pro Europe Thatcher was too.

    Looking at the Treasury right now I'm struggling to see much that is dry.
    Thatcher was never as pro Europe as people think she was. Never.

    Just read the Dominic Sandbrook histories of the time, or Charles Moore's biographies of her. She was in favour purely as a market economics tool and was deeply suspicious of political integration throughout.

    So many sources.
    Of course. But the point is surely that wet versus dry was never a pro-Europe or anti-Europe issue, though latterly many "wets" wrapped themselves in the European flag which confused matters.

    Set aside the European issue and look what the government is doing economically: high spending, planning to "invest" more, raising corporation taxes, looking to make it easier to hand out state aid . . . how is that anything other than a wet government?

    Its my biggest problem with Boris. I like some of what he does, but he's far too wet for my tastes. I'd much prefer a drier economy than what we have coming forwards.
    Ragen, talked a good talk on freedom and free markets, in a way that sounded like he believed it, but when you look at actions, so much extra spending, and increasing the war on drudge, but very little actual liberalisation under his watch. Carter, on the other had achally did a lot of liberalisation, Airlines, trucking and Beer, being three examples, but gets little prase for it.

    Boris is more like Ragen, talks good or at lest OK, but less keen on what he does. Sadly we have not had a Carter,
    The top income tax rate under Carter was 70%, he was no fiscal liberal, even if he was no socialist either.

    Carter was also socially quite conservative, he was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of evangelical votes for instance, which he managed to do in 1976 when he beat President Ford
    70% tax is not good, but to me Deficits are even worse than tax,
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    HYUFD said:

    BigRich said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    Brexit was the final defeat of the Wets.
    How? Besides Europe, which in 1979/80 when Thatcher used the term was not a wet versus dry issue.

    Economically I'd prefer a drier Government. Take away Brexit and economically this is quite a wet government.

    Many who self identified as wets had tied themselves to the European mast, so yes they were defeated. Heseltine etc. But worth remembering in 1980 just how pro Europe Thatcher was too.

    Looking at the Treasury right now I'm struggling to see much that is dry.
    Thatcher was never as pro Europe as people think she was. Never.

    Just read the Dominic Sandbrook histories of the time, or Charles Moore's biographies of her. She was in favour purely as a market economics tool and was deeply suspicious of political integration throughout.

    So many sources.
    Of course. But the point is surely that wet versus dry was never a pro-Europe or anti-Europe issue, though latterly many "wets" wrapped themselves in the European flag which confused matters.

    Set aside the European issue and look what the government is doing economically: high spending, planning to "invest" more, raising corporation taxes, looking to make it easier to hand out state aid . . . how is that anything other than a wet government?

    Its my biggest problem with Boris. I like some of what he does, but he's far too wet for my tastes. I'd much prefer a drier economy than what we have coming forwards.
    Ragen, talked a good talk on freedom and free markets, in a way that sounded like he believed it, but when you look at actions, so much extra spending, and increasing the war on drudge, but very little actual liberalisation under his watch. Carter, on the other had achally did a lot of liberalisation, Airlines, trucking and Beer, being three examples, but gets little prase for it.

    Boris is more like Ragen, talks good or at lest OK, but less keen on what he does. Sadly we have not had a Carter,
    The top income tax rate under Carter was 70%, he was no fiscal liberal, even if he was no socialist either.

    Carter was also socially quite conservative, he was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of evangelical votes for instance, which he managed to do in 1976 when he beat President Ford
    The top rate of real taxation is even higher than 70% in the UK today. 👎
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064

    BigRich said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.

    As we all know on here, the government, any government simply cannot bring itself to admit an error (unless it is any cabinet minister talking about Matt Hancock).

    Just as the nation has become institutionally scared of Covid so has the government painted itself into a corner whereby it is releasing daily the fact that eight or 80 people have died of Covid.

    It will very difficult for them to move to a place whereby those numbers don't matter; those stats will continue to be a stick with which the opposition (or anyone) can beat them.
    One thing they could/should do would be to change the repotting, so that they put out weekly numbers not daily, A first step in that direction could be to stop releasing numbers at weekends, in the way that Spain, Sweden and some other places have done.
    Hiding the data is the last thing that should be done. It will fuel idiots like Pagel with a "what have they got to hide" narrative.

    Proper explanation and context is needed instead. 600,000 people die a year on average approximately, which is 1,644 a day. So if 8 people have died in a day then Covid is responsible for less than half a percent of entirely normal daily deaths.

    That context is missing.
    There will come a time when it needs to be rolled up as a weekly ONS release and I think a good way to do it would be to change death reporting statistics for it from absolute numbers to a proportion of people who died on that day. If 900 people die of COVID in a week is sounds bad, but if it's just 5% of overall deaths then no one is going to care. It would also be good to roll COVID deaths into other respiratory deaths so we look at it as a whole. We're going to be in a place where fewer people are dying of the flu because more are dying of COVID but with very little change overall as COVID will outcompete the flu for vulnerable people.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049
    BigRich said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.

    As we all know on here, the government, any government simply cannot bring itself to admit an error (unless it is any cabinet minister talking about Matt Hancock).

    Just as the nation has become institutionally scared of Covid so has the government painted itself into a corner whereby it is releasing daily the fact that eight or 80 people have died of Covid.

    It will very difficult for them to move to a place whereby those numbers don't matter; those stats will continue to be a stick with which the opposition (or anyone) can beat them.
    One thing they could/should do would be to change the repotting, so that they put out weekly numbers not daily, A first step in that direction could be to stop releasing numbers at weekends, in the way that Spain, Sweden and some other places have done.
    Yep they need to wean us off those (now tiny) numbers.
  • There are several reasons why I continue to think there is value betting against Trump at anything above 20% implied probability to be GOP nominee:

    1. Trump's statements now about standing in 2024 have almost no informative value. If he doesn't make that claim, he loses a huge amount of his remaining ability to command the spotlight, and a lot of power in the GOP. Of course he says he's standing - it costs nothing to say it and would be a disaster not to. Will he still say it two and a half years from now if the prospects look poor?

    2. The circus has already, to a large extent, moved on. He's still extensively discussed amongst people who are very political, but Trump's musings just don't shape the news as they once did and provoke huge debate - he's no longer President, no longer on Twitter, and he's frankly a much diminished force.

    3. Punters tend to underestimate the legal jeopardy for Trump now he's a private citizen. The news has been universally terrible for him over the past four months.

    4. Punters also tend to underestimate the medical side. It's Trump's 75th birthday in a fortnight, and he's an obese man. His successor is older, of course, but a person's late 70s is a time when serious declining health is very common.

    5. Whilst commentary on polls focuses on the remarkable number of Republicans who buy the Big Lie, it's worth reflecting on the substantial minority who don't. Polls show about 30% of Republicans who consider Trump is at least partly to blame for a violent attempted insurrection, and 60% of Independents. That is, ultimately, a big problem for Trump going again. To put it mildly, he burned some bridges there.

    None of this makes it impossible that Trump would go again. I just think the likelihood is overstated.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049

    BigRich said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.

    As we all know on here, the government, any government simply cannot bring itself to admit an error (unless it is any cabinet minister talking about Matt Hancock).

    Just as the nation has become institutionally scared of Covid so has the government painted itself into a corner whereby it is releasing daily the fact that eight or 80 people have died of Covid.

    It will very difficult for them to move to a place whereby those numbers don't matter; those stats will continue to be a stick with which the opposition (or anyone) can beat them.
    One thing they could/should do would be to change the repotting, so that they put out weekly numbers not daily, A first step in that direction could be to stop releasing numbers at weekends, in the way that Spain, Sweden and some other places have done.
    Hiding the data is the last thing that should be done. It will fuel idiots like Pagel with a "what have they got to hide" narrative.

    Proper explanation and context is needed instead. 600,000 people die a year on average approximately, which is 1,644 a day. So if 8 people have died in a day then Covid is responsible for less than half a percent of entirely normal daily deaths.

    That context is missing.
    They are simply not going to be able to say "XXX deaths is fine" which is what you are implying and what they would have to do.

    Somehow they have to change the narrative.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    edited June 2021

    HYUFD said:

    BigRich said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    Brexit was the final defeat of the Wets.
    How? Besides Europe, which in 1979/80 when Thatcher used the term was not a wet versus dry issue.

    Economically I'd prefer a drier Government. Take away Brexit and economically this is quite a wet government.

    Many who self identified as wets had tied themselves to the European mast, so yes they were defeated. Heseltine etc. But worth remembering in 1980 just how pro Europe Thatcher was too.

    Looking at the Treasury right now I'm struggling to see much that is dry.
    Thatcher was never as pro Europe as people think she was. Never.

    Just read the Dominic Sandbrook histories of the time, or Charles Moore's biographies of her. She was in favour purely as a market economics tool and was deeply suspicious of political integration throughout.

    So many sources.
    Of course. But the point is surely that wet versus dry was never a pro-Europe or anti-Europe issue, though latterly many "wets" wrapped themselves in the European flag which confused matters.

    Set aside the European issue and look what the government is doing economically: high spending, planning to "invest" more, raising corporation taxes, looking to make it easier to hand out state aid . . . how is that anything other than a wet government?

    Its my biggest problem with Boris. I like some of what he does, but he's far too wet for my tastes. I'd much prefer a drier economy than what we have coming forwards.
    Ragen, talked a good talk on freedom and free markets, in a way that sounded like he believed it, but when you look at actions, so much extra spending, and increasing the war on drudge, but very little actual liberalisation under his watch. Carter, on the other had achally did a lot of liberalisation, Airlines, trucking and Beer, being three examples, but gets little prase for it.

    Boris is more like Ragen, talks good or at lest OK, but less keen on what he does. Sadly we have not had a Carter,
    The top income tax rate under Carter was 70%, he was no fiscal liberal, even if he was no socialist either.

    Carter was also socially quite conservative, he was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of evangelical votes for instance, which he managed to do in 1976 when he beat President Ford
    The top rate of real taxation is even higher than 70% in the UK today. 👎
    The top rate of real taxation was nearly 90% in the 1970s
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,782

    Any thoughts on how the Trumpists taking over the US through undemocratic means would impact the global economy, the relationship between the major power blocs and particularly foreign (non US) holders of US shares over the next decade?

    Is the current global economy sustainable with an undemocratic USA and the tensions that will create?

    Trump is essentially only interested in personal aggrandisement and enriching his loathsome family so it probably won't make much difference to the unchallenged supremacy of capital.

    The most significant impact for the UK will be the continuing lobotomisation of NATO.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,592

    HYUFD said:

    BigRich said:

    eek said:

    FPT and now remarkable on topic

    MrEd said:
    Reading that it's worth noting that Trump seems to put off some former Republican voters from voting (and in seemingly far bigger numbers than Boris has with the Tory party as he swallowed up Farage's Brexit Party votes).

    So while supporting Trump is essential to ensure you win the Republican nominations for your seat, it may equally be scoring potential voters away.
    The massive difference between Trump and Boris is that Boris is a moderate, socially liberal and longstanding Conservative who Europe aside from the issue of Europe might have even been called a "wet" who has won over Farages voters. Boris's Tories took Farages voters without losing who they are while locking out Farage himself.

    Trump is an extreme outsider who was never a Republican who has infiltrated and taken over the GOP.

    Both completely different and it's only superficial to compare the two.
    Brexit was the final defeat of the Wets.
    How? Besides Europe, which in 1979/80 when Thatcher used the term was not a wet versus dry issue.

    Economically I'd prefer a drier Government. Take away Brexit and economically this is quite a wet government.

    Many who self identified as wets had tied themselves to the European mast, so yes they were defeated. Heseltine etc. But worth remembering in 1980 just how pro Europe Thatcher was too.

    Looking at the Treasury right now I'm struggling to see much that is dry.
    Thatcher was never as pro Europe as people think she was. Never.

    Just read the Dominic Sandbrook histories of the time, or Charles Moore's biographies of her. She was in favour purely as a market economics tool and was deeply suspicious of political integration throughout.

    So many sources.
    Of course. But the point is surely that wet versus dry was never a pro-Europe or anti-Europe issue, though latterly many "wets" wrapped themselves in the European flag which confused matters.

    Set aside the European issue and look what the government is doing economically: high spending, planning to "invest" more, raising corporation taxes, looking to make it easier to hand out state aid . . . how is that anything other than a wet government?

    Its my biggest problem with Boris. I like some of what he does, but he's far too wet for my tastes. I'd much prefer a drier economy than what we have coming forwards.
    Ragen, talked a good talk on freedom and free markets, in a way that sounded like he believed it, but when you look at actions, so much extra spending, and increasing the war on drudge, but very little actual liberalisation under his watch. Carter, on the other had achally did a lot of liberalisation, Airlines, trucking and Beer, being three examples, but gets little prase for it.

    Boris is more like Ragen, talks good or at lest OK, but less keen on what he does. Sadly we have not had a Carter,
    The top income tax rate under Carter was 70%, he was no fiscal liberal, even if he was no socialist either.

    Carter was also socially quite conservative, he was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of evangelical votes for instance, which he managed to do in 1976 when he beat President Ford
    The top rate of real taxation is even higher than 70% in the UK today. 👎
    That's a separate issue (and technically it's not all tax because a lot of it is tampering of benefits).

    And in Britain at the time the highest rate wasn't 70% but 83%.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    Worldometer...is it Chinese, perhaps, maybe, maybe not...

    https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2020/05/world/worldometer-coronavirus-mystery/
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492

    BigRich said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.

    As we all know on here, the government, any government simply cannot bring itself to admit an error (unless it is any cabinet minister talking about Matt Hancock).

    Just as the nation has become institutionally scared of Covid so has the government painted itself into a corner whereby it is releasing daily the fact that eight or 80 people have died of Covid.

    It will very difficult for them to move to a place whereby those numbers don't matter; those stats will continue to be a stick with which the opposition (or anyone) can beat them.
    One thing they could/should do would be to change the repotting, so that they put out weekly numbers not daily, A first step in that direction could be to stop releasing numbers at weekends, in the way that Spain, Sweden and some other places have done.
    Hiding the data is the last thing that should be done. It will fuel idiots like Pagel with a "what have they got to hide" narrative.

    Proper explanation and context is needed instead. 600,000 people die a year on average approximately, which is 1,644 a day. So if 8 people have died in a day then Covid is responsible for less than half a percent of entirely normal daily deaths.

    That context is missing.
    Defiantly agree the contest is missing, and that we should just more on.

    But I'm not taking about hiding date, just releasing a weeks worth at ones, possibly on a Thursday, to avoid the weekend/bank holiday effect.

    It should stop somebody saying we have gone form 3 deaths yesterday to 6 today, that's doubling daily, the hospitals will be overrun by the weekend.......
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,731
    The elephant in the corner as far as Trump is concerned is the possibility of being having to defend himself in court at the same time as campaigning.

    I understand, too, that his finances are not particularly soundly based.

    It’s all a bit like a Jenga tower; pull out the wrong piece and down it comes.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,038

    BigRich said:

    Cookie said:

    BigRich said:

    glw said:

    RH1992 said:

    The U.K. hotspots clearly tell the story . The Delta variant has taken a hold of these areas but numbers are around 4000 per day and is not taking hold more widely. Virtually all cases are aged under 50 or unvaccinated - so vaccines work. Thanks for your vital logging with ZOE

    https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1399696845274746882?s=20

    Note the Zero COVID obsessives (Deepti Gurdasani and Pagel) on the attack in the replies because it doesn't fit with their panic laden doom mongering.
    Indeed Gurdasani post a picture of % that is b.1.617.2, and not how many cases. I am sure it is widespread, but it is not taking off in most places.
    Yes that is a misleading chart there. If deaths are the most important number, followed by hospitalisation, illness, then cases, the last thing we ought to care about is which strain is the most common. We are not trying to eliminate a particular strain, we are trying to limit the harm.
    One start way of looking at this is to look at the ranking site wouldmeater:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/weekly-trends/#weekly_table

    Not the only or even the best tracking site, I know but its able to rank nations so im using it for this.

    If you listed the nations by deaths per million averaged over the last week, how many places are doing worse than the UK?


    119


    Yes 119 nations are doing worse than the UK, and many of the better are really small places like the Vatican on 0. or places where the numbers may not be reliable.
    I'm slightly wary of worldometers (not least because it's owned by the Chinese). But it does source its data.
    It doesn't appear, yet, to have included the update to the Peru data which elevates them to the top of the mortality rate table.
    I did not relies it was owned by the Chinese, I might start to quote it less often now,

    who owns 'OurWouldInDate'? or are there other places I should look at?
    A team of scientists, with the head ones being at the University of Oxford: https://ourworldindata.org/team
    The problem is that their data is not particularly user friendly. I think that they try to do too much. The Worldometer presentation is much better in that regard.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,971
    MaxPB said:

    I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.

    +1
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    New terms of use for eBay have come into effect which mean the online auction house will now pay sellers directly rather than through PayPal.

    Weird decision.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    TOPPING said:

    BigRich said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    I really want the government to start coordinating a message that there is an acceptable level of death from COVID. Lockdowns are not a solution, they were only ever a delaying tactic to get people vaccinated and now we're at a stage where 75% of adults are partially vaccinated and 50% are fully vaccinated with another 5% to be partially vaccinated and another 12-15% to be fully vaccinated by June 21st the need for lockdown has passed. The need for any NPIs has passed and we can declare COVID defeated to the extent that the NHS won't be overwhelmed therefore the old normal must resume. People who aren't happy to do so can choose to keep themselves locked up forever and people who aren't vaccinated will have to live with the consequences of rejecting the vaccine and dying with COVID.

    As we all know on here, the government, any government simply cannot bring itself to admit an error (unless it is any cabinet minister talking about Matt Hancock).

    Just as the nation has become institutionally scared of Covid so has the government painted itself into a corner whereby it is releasing daily the fact that eight or 80 people have died of Covid.

    It will very difficult for them to move to a place whereby those numbers don't matter; those stats will continue to be a stick with which the opposition (or anyone) can beat them.
    One thing they could/should do would be to change the repotting, so that they put out weekly numbers not daily, A first step in that direction could be to stop releasing numbers at weekends, in the way that Spain, Sweden and some other places have done.
    Hiding the data is the last thing that should be done. It will fuel idiots like Pagel with a "what have they got to hide" narrative.

    Proper explanation and context is needed instead. 600,000 people die a year on average approximately, which is 1,644 a day. So if 8 people have died in a day then Covid is responsible for less than half a percent of entirely normal daily deaths.

    That context is missing.
    They are simply not going to be able to say "XXX deaths is fine" which is what you are implying and what they would have to do.

    Somehow they have to change the narrative.
    They could find some controversial former assistant and get them to come up with a lode of contentious accusations, that should distract the media for 48 hours or so?



    To soon?
This discussion has been closed.