Howdy, Stranger!

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

The next G20 leader to leave – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 2 in General
imageThe next G20 leader to leave – politicalbetting.com

This is a very interesting market from William Hill and I also like the terms of this bet which makes what happens in certain circumstances. If you look at the list below which shows when each of the next country has their next election you can understand why Suga of Japan is the favourite in this market.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 39,164
    I am reluctant to bet in a market where I do not know enough to judge the outcomes. Its one thing to be wrong, another not to know.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 6,499
    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,117
    Look at the header. Long, long time before the Canadian election!
  • Look at the header. Long, long time before the Canadian election!

    Well done for spotting my deliberate typo.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 41,639
    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    Yes.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,354
    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    I am surprised that they had time.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852
    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    And "Within the ambit of my information and control this extends to other products and medicines. I refused all pain medication when broke my wrist in that outstandingly excellent MTB accident last year." How far does this principle extend? People have given alcohol, and probably tap water, to all sorts of animals to see what it does to them. If the product predates the experimenting I assume you are OK, so can't you take non synthetic opiates?
  • Site notice.

    I'm in conclave until 7pm tonight so I've scheduled a thread to go up around 4pm, so if there's any major breaking news like Raab resigning or Gavin Williamson doing something competent I'm not ignoring it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 33,666
    @Alasdair

    I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.

    So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,117
    IanB2 said:

    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    I am surprised that they had time.
    Suspect that there was a quick run round some rhesus monkeys or similar to see if there was anything rapid and obvious.Of course, apart from the specific virus-related ingredient, there's nothing new in there.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 6,499
    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    And "Within the ambit of my information and control this extends to other products and medicines. I refused all pain medication when broke my wrist in that outstandingly excellent MTB accident last year." How far does this principle extend? People have given alcohol, and probably tap water, to all sorts of animals to see what it does to them. If the product predates the experimenting I assume you are OK, so can't you take non synthetic opiates?
    Apologies if I'm wrong but I seem to recall that @Dura_Ace 's first post telling us that he won't have the vaccine was citing "capitalist big pharma" not animal testing. Or perhaps both. Unfortunately I can't find the post.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,117
    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    And "Within the ambit of my information and control this extends to other products and medicines. I refused all pain medication when broke my wrist in that outstandingly excellent MTB accident last year." How far does this principle extend? People have given alcohol, and probably tap water, to all sorts of animals to see what it does to them. If the product predates the experimenting I assume you are OK, so can't you take non synthetic opiates?
    I always had a quiet smile to myself when people wanted to buy cosmetic products 'which hadn't been tested on animals'. Most of the ingredients had been before being used by whatever company was assuring it's customers that no animal testing was carried out by them.
  • A strange mixture of heads of state and heads of government but I suppose that's politics.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 6,499
    edited September 2
    Stocky said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    And "Within the ambit of my information and control this extends to other products and medicines. I refused all pain medication when broke my wrist in that outstandingly excellent MTB accident last year." How far does this principle extend? People have given alcohol, and probably tap water, to all sorts of animals to see what it does to them. If the product predates the experimenting I assume you are OK, so can't you take non synthetic opiates?
    Apologies if I'm wrong but I seem to recall that @Dura_Ace 's first post telling us that he won't have the vaccine was citing "capitalist big pharma" not animal testing. Or perhaps both. Unfortunately I can't find the post.
    But anyway the bottom line is this: There was always going to be some who didn't take the jab for reasons of principle, health, laziness. I recall conversations on here months ago speculating about the extent of take up, and in the UK take-up has comfortably exceeded those expectations.

    Secondly, regarding efficacy I remember posting that a 75% effective vaccine would be a result whereas another poster replied that a 75% vaccine wouldn't leave the shelf, we needed 85% plus.

    So we now have vaccines which are more efficacious than expected and have been taken up by a higher percentage of people than expected.

    I suggest that the take-away should be to cease hectoring those that choose not to be vaccinated and accept that the situation is the best we could have hoped for and get on with our lives.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,402

    IanB2 said:

    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    I am surprised that they had time.
    Suspect that there was a quick run round some rhesus monkeys or similar to see if there was anything rapid and obvious.Of course, apart from the specific virus-related ingredient, there's nothing new in there.
    I recall a study on AZ that showed it reduced viral load/infection severity in chimps. I think it was at the start, before they started testing it on people "does this stuff even work?"
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 56,664
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Pioneers, presumably we'll find out by the plume of salmon pink smoke?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 6,499
    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    Yes.
    I wonder whether DA would object if the vaccines had been tested on Tories?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 5,523
    Is the question "next G20 leader to leave" or "next G20 leader from the list below to leave"? Merkel is surely the answer to the first question.
    Suga seems a reasonable favourite for the second question, there seems to be a head of steam building inside the LDP to get rid of him owing to his poor handling of the Covid crisis - Japan being one of those functioning countries where poor leadership carries consequences.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 6,499
    Re header: I'm slightly tempted by the 9/2 Bolsonaro.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,470
    Macron should be longer than 8/1. It's basically a bet that Trudeau survives and Macron loses.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 5,523
    Stocky said:

    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    Yes.
    I wonder whether DA would object if the vaccines had been tested on Tories?
    No point. Only trials on humans can really prove vaccine efficacy. 😉
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 50,983
    Raab took the "Baby Boris Jet" to Doha:

    https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-xatw
  • eekeek Posts: 14,198
    edited September 2
    Dura_Ace said:

    Macron should be longer than 8/1. It's basically a bet that Trudeau survives and Macron loses.

    Reading https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58389802 Trudeau's odds seem a decent bet...

    He does appear to have May'ed the election.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852

    Site notice.

    I'm in conclave until 7pm tonight so I've scheduled a thread to go up around 4pm, so if there's any major breaking news like Raab resigning or Gavin Williamson doing something competent I'm not ignoring it.

    I am. In my book it hasn't happened till it's happened on pb.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,094
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
    I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
    Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
    I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.
    This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu

    However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence

    Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary
    How many times do we have to do this?
    1. Scottish voters are ready for the referendum having voted for parties to deliver it
    2. A comfortable majority of MSPs pledged to deliver it were elected in a record turnout

    We cannot have a "votes cast count, seats elected don't count" argument without also accepting that the Labour / LibDem / Green / SNP group won the UK election.
    As many times as you need to understand

    The composition of seats in Westminster does not determine Switzerland’s foreign policy because it is not within their sphere of competence no matter how interesting it might be

    The composition of seats in Holyrood does not determine whether there will be a referendum because it is not within their sphere of competence

    It is purely a political argument that the UK government has been willing to ignore. A clear majority of votes cast would be more compelling to demonstrate that there is a demand from the voters of Scotland
    I am not making an argument as to whether such a thing is a devolved matter or not (and it isn't) so most of your post is irrelevant.

    The latter point is fascinating though. If members elected is not the correct measure and votes cast is, then Jeremy Corbyn would be prime minister as the Labour / LD / SNP / Green block received more votes than the Tory / Brexit / UKIP / DUP one
    No, it’s a totally different thing.

    The election of representatives is, for Westminster, on an FPTP basis

    Indyref2 is about a clear desire to change the rules of the game. That needs polpukar support. There was a referendum recently so the 50 point something than SNP+Greens achieved in the Holyrood elections isn’t - in my view - sufficient but it’s a political tussle: there’s no right or wrong
    I hear you. Don't change the rules of the game. So in Scotland the game is Holyrood and the rules are the electoral system. In May two parties ran on a manifesto pledge to hold a new referendum. A record turnout of voters elected a record number of MSPs to that pledge with a clear majority.

    This is popular support. As mandated by the electoral system. Yet you want to now negate this result and propose a different bar set by opinion polls. This is somehow more democratic than actual elections.

    You want to keep the union? So why are you working so hard to cement the case for independence?
    Holyrood MSPs have no authority over the topic so the number is irrelevant.

    The votes cast at the Holyrood elections is relevant. But was only marginally in favour of independence supporting parties.
    So if MSPs are irrelevant why are votes cast for MSPs relevant?

    Again. "MSPs are irrelevant" is not an argument to maintain union. It is the opposite.
    MSPs are irrelevant in this specific situation because it is outside the scope of their powers.

    Votes cast for MSPs are relevant because it is the most recent datapoint on popular support for a second indyref.

    marginally over 50% of votes were cast for Indyref supporting parties but not an overwhelming level of support so easy to dismiss.
    Marginally over 50% of votes were cast for Brexit but not an overwhelming level of support. Not easy to dismiss.

    English majority = respected
    Scottish majority = not respected

    Would the English put up with being second-class citizens?
    So why should Scots?
    Brexit was a case where politicians asked a question and got an answer. So the answer should be respected

    For indyref2 the status quo is that it is up to Westminster and the government has made clear they won’t. So you need to come up with an argument to change their mind.

    All I’m saying is that I don’t think 50.1% is a very strong argument.
    50.1% is a majority
    51.9% is a majority
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 50,983
    Back to the 1950s...

    #China TV overhaul announced today banning mass "vote him/her off the island" type voting. Only a live audience can make selections. Shows training young performers to be stars: banned. Actors with "incorrect" political views: banned. "Effeminate" style male actors: banned.

    https://twitter.com/StephenMcDonell/status/1433321937778978820?s=20
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 56,664
    Miss Vance, it's an interesting shift. The 3 hour weekly limit on videogaming was quite something. I think a previous statement (games are spiritual opium) wiped some $60bn off Tencent (a Chinese gaming giant).

    I wonder what's driving the shift. Could be ideology. Tightening grip because Xi's powerful. Or trying to head off risk.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 6,499
    IshmaelZ said:

    Site notice.

    I'm in conclave until 7pm tonight so I've scheduled a thread to go up around 4pm, so if there's any major breaking news like Raab resigning or Gavin Williamson doing something competent I'm not ignoring it.

    I am. In my book it hasn't happened till it's happened on pb.
    Cheers to that
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    And "Within the ambit of my information and control this extends to other products and medicines. I refused all pain medication when broke my wrist in that outstandingly excellent MTB accident last year." How far does this principle extend? People have given alcohol, and probably tap water, to all sorts of animals to see what it does to them. If the product predates the experimenting I assume you are OK, so can't you take non synthetic opiates?
    I always had a quiet smile to myself when people wanted to buy cosmetic products 'which hadn't been tested on animals'. Most of the ingredients had been before being used by whatever company was assuring it's customers that no animal testing was carried out by them.
    It infuriates me that anti depressants are tested on animals, because obviously you don't get depressed animals unless you make them depressed by, let's be clear, torturing them, and being tortured is not a good enough proxy for depression to tell you anything useful. But I can't get by without them...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 50,983

    Miss Vance, it's an interesting shift. The 3 hour weekly limit on videogaming was quite something. I think a previous statement (games are spiritual opium) wiped some $60bn off Tencent (a Chinese gaming giant).

    I wonder what's driving the shift. Could be ideology. Tightening grip because Xi's powerful. Or trying to head off risk.

    I think EiT summed it up best - the world is full of elderly politicians who don't understand the internet/contemporary culture and want to "do something about it". The only real difference with China is they can....
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 25,429
    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    And "Within the ambit of my information and control this extends to other products and medicines. I refused all pain medication when broke my wrist in that outstandingly excellent MTB accident last year." How far does this principle extend? People have given alcohol, and probably tap water, to all sorts of animals to see what it does to them. If the product predates the experimenting I assume you are OK, so can't you take non synthetic opiates?
    Apologies if I'm wrong but I seem to recall that @Dura_Ace 's first post telling us that he won't have the vaccine was citing "capitalist big pharma" not animal testing. Or perhaps both. Unfortunately I can't find the post.
    But anyway the bottom line is this: There was always going to be some who didn't take the jab for reasons of principle, health, laziness. I recall conversations on here months ago speculating about the extent of take up, and in the UK take-up has comfortably exceeded those expectations.

    Secondly, regarding efficacy I remember posting that a 75% effective vaccine would be a result whereas another poster replied that a 75% vaccine wouldn't leave the shelf, we needed 85% plus.

    So we now have vaccines which are more efficacious than expected and have been taken up by a higher percentage of people than expected.

    I suggest that the take-away should be to cease hectoring those that choose not to be vaccinated and accept that the situation is the best we could have hoped for and get on with our lives.
    I agree with all of that, except for your last paragraph. People who choose not to take the vaccines - as opposed to those who cannot - are not helping society. This is particularly the case since Delta showed up and made the situation much more difficult.

    If they don't care about society in this respect, society shouldn't care for them in this respect. Worse, they spread their poison - not just Covid when they get it, but their false and mendacious reasons for not taking the vaccine. Dura_Ace, Contrarian etc are just adding to the anti-vaxxery twattery online.

    (runs for cover).

    But since anti-maskers have started moralising against maskers on here, I feel perfectly able to call out the selfish shits who choose not to get vaccinated. ;)
  • eekeek Posts: 14,198

    Back to the 1950s...

    #China TV overhaul announced today banning mass "vote him/her off the island" type voting. Only a live audience can make selections. Shows training young performers to be stars: banned. Actors with "incorrect" political views: banned. "Effeminate" style male actors: banned.

    https://twitter.com/StephenMcDonell/status/1433321937778978820?s=20

    Not quite - audience voting is very much how the chinese political system works.

    Clearly they don't want democracy being visible in any shape or form.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 32,735
    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    It's true of pretty well all new medicines.
    They don't get into people before they been given to animals.

    Drugs companies are making efforts to reduce the amount of animal testing (largely because it's costly, though there is more interest in the ethics of animal testing than previously), but it's both required by law, and scientifically useful to them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 32,735
    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    And "Within the ambit of my information and control this extends to other products and medicines. I refused all pain medication when broke my wrist in that outstandingly excellent MTB accident last year." How far does this principle extend? People have given alcohol, and probably tap water, to all sorts of animals to see what it does to them. If the product predates the experimenting I assume you are OK, so can't you take non synthetic opiates?
    There is a difference when animal testing is part of the development process for products.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,117
    Nigelb said:

    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    It's true of pretty well all new medicines.
    They don't get into people before they been given to animals.

    Drugs companies are making efforts to reduce the amount of animal testing (largely because it's costly, though there is more interest in the ethics of animal testing than previously), but it's both required by law, and scientifically useful to them.
    I was explaining the LD50* process for the standardisation of insulin used in my youth to some family members the other day.
    They were horrified, although not particularly pro-animal.

    * 50% of mice convulsed and died during the testing process.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,355
    Nigelb said:

    It's true of pretty well all new medicines.
    They don't get into people before they been given to animals.

    It's also true of surgeons.

    They cut up animals before they are let loose on live humans
  • Site notice.

    I'm in conclave until 7pm tonight so I've scheduled a thread to go up around 4pm, so if there's any major breaking news like Raab resigning or Gavin Williamson doing something competent I'm not ignoring it.

    Good luck and God Willing you will be the new Pope at the end of the conclave.
    I'm already at the stage where I'm shortlisting my regnal name. Hasn't been a Pope Innocent for a while. Although I might go for Boniface because that sounds like a blatant sexual innuendo.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 32,735
    Charles said:

    @Alasdair

    I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.

    So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.

    It's not set by the constitution, which is silent on the matter.
    It has been changed by Congress legislating, more than once. That is not in the least bit controversial.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,221

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    And "Within the ambit of my information and control this extends to other products and medicines. I refused all pain medication when broke my wrist in that outstandingly excellent MTB accident last year." How far does this principle extend? People have given alcohol, and probably tap water, to all sorts of animals to see what it does to them. If the product predates the experimenting I assume you are OK, so can't you take non synthetic opiates?
    Apologies if I'm wrong but I seem to recall that @Dura_Ace 's first post telling us that he won't have the vaccine was citing "capitalist big pharma" not animal testing. Or perhaps both. Unfortunately I can't find the post.
    But anyway the bottom line is this: There was always going to be some who didn't take the jab for reasons of principle, health, laziness. I recall conversations on here months ago speculating about the extent of take up, and in the UK take-up has comfortably exceeded those expectations.

    Secondly, regarding efficacy I remember posting that a 75% effective vaccine would be a result whereas another poster replied that a 75% vaccine wouldn't leave the shelf, we needed 85% plus.

    So we now have vaccines which are more efficacious than expected and have been taken up by a higher percentage of people than expected.

    I suggest that the take-away should be to cease hectoring those that choose not to be vaccinated and accept that the situation is the best we could have hoped for and get on with our lives.
    I agree with all of that, except for your last paragraph. People who choose not to take the vaccines - as opposed to those who cannot - are not helping society. This is particularly the case since Delta showed up and made the situation much more difficult.

    If they don't care about society in this respect, society shouldn't care for them in this respect. Worse, they spread their poison - not just Covid when they get it, but their false and mendacious reasons for not taking the vaccine. Dura_Ace, Contrarian etc are just adding to the anti-vaxxery twattery online.

    (runs for cover).

    But since anti-maskers have started moralising against maskers on here, I feel perfectly able to call out the selfish shits who choose not to get vaccinated. ;)
    Right, let's start ostracising people with whom we don't agree, shall we?

    And before you start going on "yes, but it's a public health hazard!", let's take a look at the broad facts. The people who tend to suffer most from the ant-vaxxers are....the anti-vaxxers. If that is a risk they want to take, then so be it.

    What about to whom they spread the virus? The evidence suggests that if you are vaccinated, the risks of serious illness and death are severely limited. Yes, it is not pleasant if you catch it but it might not be pleasant if I caught the flu from someone who didn't receive their flu jab.

    Then there is the hypocrisy of it. You want to stop the number of deaths. For example, why don't we start cracking down on those who are obese who have been shown to be disproportionately impacted? Their selfishness - and why shouldn't we call it selfishness under the same principle - is leading to vital resources being used when, if they had kept themselves healthy, the chances of serious illness would have been reduced greatly. But we can't do that because "ooohhh, you are bodyshaming people". It's hypocritical.

    Finally, where do you stop with your principle? Shall we ostracise people who drive cars because they are impacting public health by throwing off dangerous particles into the air? What about those who take flights? In many countries, homosexuality is / was illegal because it was seen as detrimental to society, the same with mixed-race marriages in the American South.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 50,983
    "Sissy" men, "vulgar influencers" and those with "lapsed morals" have been banned from television shows in #China. Programme makers have been urged to steer away from "abnormal aesthetics" and inflating the pay of stars....

    On the other hand, TV programmers in #China have been encouraged to vigorously promote traditional Chinese culture and "advanced socialist culture". The public should be guided on the "correct" political direction and correct values via "spiritual leadership".


    https://twitter.com/StephenMcDonell/status/1433328551030411265?s=20
  • Interesting generational divide here:

    Data from hospitality technology firm Zonal said one in seven customers have not turned up for a reservation without telling the venue since April.

    It said 18-34-year-olds were the "worst offenders" for no-shows, with more than a quarter not honouring bookings.

    ...

    Although younger people were found to be the most likely out of the sample to fail to turn up to bookings, compared to just 1% of those aged 55 and over, younger adults were more frequent bookers and ate out more often.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58413919
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,117
    Scott_xP said:

    Nigelb said:

    It's true of pretty well all new medicines.
    They don't get into people before they been given to animals.

    It's also true of surgeons.

    They cut up animals before they are let loose on live humans
    We used to kill and dissect animals such as rabbits in A level Zoology back in the day. And, while studying pharmacy. I and my fellow students used to kill frogs to get muscles to measure drug effects.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 67,843
    Dura_Ace said:

    I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    1. I believe vaccines are safe and effective.
    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals. Within the ambit of my information and control this extends to other products and medicines. I refused all pain medication when broke my wrist in that outstandingly excellent MTB accident last year.
    3. You're all wasting pixels discussing it because I don't give a fuck what 90% of the people (and 100% of the tories) on here think or write about me. I am not one of these softcocks who will primly demand retractions or apologies if they feel traduced.

    Amusing, as you obviously do give a fuck to some degree or youd not bother to set the record straight on where you stand. I fear you are not a unique independent rebel on this - Every day on the internet there are millions of 'I dont care about this like you but I will respond about it anyway, proving otherwise' posts.

    Happy that everyone leave it there, but come on Dura, people dont set out their position like that if they give zero fucks, and that's fine.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 26,013
    Scott_xP said:

    Nigelb said:

    It's true of pretty well all new medicines.
    They don't get into people before they been given to animals.

    It's also true of surgeons.

    They cut up animals before they are let loose on live humans
    Not something required in the UK, though has been done in some countries.

    A bit of time on the simulators, then supervised assisting on the great British public is how it is done.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,398
    What's the story with Suga in Japan?
  • Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    @Alasdair

    I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.

    So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.

    It's not set by the constitution, which is silent on the matter.
    It has been changed by Congress legislating, more than once. That is not in the least bit controversial.
    It seems to have been 9 since 1837.

    Anything that long lasting is always controversial to change.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 25,429
    MrEd said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    And "Within the ambit of my information and control this extends to other products and medicines. I refused all pain medication when broke my wrist in that outstandingly excellent MTB accident last year." How far does this principle extend? People have given alcohol, and probably tap water, to all sorts of animals to see what it does to them. If the product predates the experimenting I assume you are OK, so can't you take non synthetic opiates?
    Apologies if I'm wrong but I seem to recall that @Dura_Ace 's first post telling us that he won't have the vaccine was citing "capitalist big pharma" not animal testing. Or perhaps both. Unfortunately I can't find the post.
    But anyway the bottom line is this: There was always going to be some who didn't take the jab for reasons of principle, health, laziness. I recall conversations on here months ago speculating about the extent of take up, and in the UK take-up has comfortably exceeded those expectations.

    Secondly, regarding efficacy I remember posting that a 75% effective vaccine would be a result whereas another poster replied that a 75% vaccine wouldn't leave the shelf, we needed 85% plus.

    So we now have vaccines which are more efficacious than expected and have been taken up by a higher percentage of people than expected.

    I suggest that the take-away should be to cease hectoring those that choose not to be vaccinated and accept that the situation is the best we could have hoped for and get on with our lives.
    I agree with all of that, except for your last paragraph. People who choose not to take the vaccines - as opposed to those who cannot - are not helping society. This is particularly the case since Delta showed up and made the situation much more difficult.

    If they don't care about society in this respect, society shouldn't care for them in this respect. Worse, they spread their poison - not just Covid when they get it, but their false and mendacious reasons for not taking the vaccine. Dura_Ace, Contrarian etc are just adding to the anti-vaxxery twattery online.

    (runs for cover).

    But since anti-maskers have started moralising against maskers on here, I feel perfectly able to call out the selfish shits who choose not to get vaccinated. ;)
    Right, let's start ostracising people with whom we don't agree, shall we?

    And before you start going on "yes, but it's a public health hazard!", let's take a look at the broad facts. The people who tend to suffer most from the ant-vaxxers are....the anti-vaxxers. If that is a risk they want to take, then so be it.

    What about to whom they spread the virus? The evidence suggests that if you are vaccinated, the risks of serious illness and death are severely limited. Yes, it is not pleasant if you catch it but it might not be pleasant if I caught the flu from someone who didn't receive their flu jab.

    Then there is the hypocrisy of it. You want to stop the number of deaths. For example, why don't we start cracking down on those who are obese who have been shown to be disproportionately impacted? Their selfishness - and why shouldn't we call it selfishness under the same principle - is leading to vital resources being used when, if they had kept themselves healthy, the chances of serious illness would have been reduced greatly. But we can't do that because "ooohhh, you are bodyshaming people". It's hypocritical.

    Finally, where do you stop with your principle? Shall we ostracise people who drive cars because they are impacting public health by throwing off dangerous particles into the air? What about those who take flights? In many countries, homosexuality is / was illegal because it was seen as detrimental to society, the same with mixed-race marriages in the American South.
    There's lots to say about your screed.

    Nut nah, let's just say that people who refuse to take the vaccine during this crisis are selfish shits. It's a great deal simpler. And accurate. ;)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 95,999
    edited September 2

    What's the story with Suga in Japan?

    Generally shit show over Covid-19 and the fact most Japanese wanted him to cancel the Olympics/Paralympics which have became superspreader events in Japan.

    Plus he's not very good, been in office for a year as well.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,626
    On topic what is the mechanism by which Suga loses his position? Looks like his government is unpopular but his party is leading the polls. Do the public vote for a party and then the winning party chooses their PM?

    My hunch is Bolsanaro is the best bet but I need to have a stab at Suga's chance of holding on first.


    If Suga holds on I reckon Trudeau has maybe a 40% chance of losing. Then Bolsanaro about 70% chance of losing.

    With no better info available to me, WH odds suggest Suga has maybe 40% chance of losing. If so my figures make Trudeau 24% chance of being the winner (.6×.4) and Bolsanaro 25% (.6×.6×.7).

    So on those numbers 9/2 bolsanaro is the bet but only just value. But GIGO and all that.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,198

    What's the story with Suga in Japan?

    https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-pm-suga-considering-party-reshuffle-nikkei-2021-08-31/ is a decent overview.

    He isn't popular and from memory in the recent past, Japanese leaders don't stay very long - and there is already internal party moves to replace Suga.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 9,371
    edited September 2
    Morning all.

    FPT:
    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

    However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

    It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.

    Surely we wouldn't Scotland to be a member of NATO, because that would prevent us from invading if they looked at us funny.
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if they went neutral like the Irish, actually.
    Being a little cynical, freeloading saves money...
    Not necessariuly. Ask the Swiss, Swedes and Finns.
    None of those are in a position to freeload.

    But the ROI. Hmm. :smile:

    (Defence expenditure: approx 0.25% of GDP)
    The RoI are not freeloaders. The only country that has invaded them in the last millennium is us, and they won that one.

    NATO is an obsolete cold war relic and should have been dissolved decades ago.
    I think the comment is reasonable of a rich country - the systems are not even in place effectively to manage the Irish Air Identification Area, hence RAF overlight, hence the recent dust-up in ROI. I'll give you that it is a little blunt.

    I'd also make the same comment about the whole of Western Europe basically since 1950. We act to dangle off USA apron strings, then complain that they won't let us stand on our own feet.

    As for NATO being a Cold War relic - we have been back in a Cold War for about the last decade. The suggested alternative?

    The statement that we are freeloading off - hiding behind - the EU wrt refugee movements is also defensible imo.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,398
    eek said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Macron should be longer than 8/1. It's basically a bet that Trudeau survives and Macron loses.

    Reading https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58389802 Trudeau's odds seem a decent bet...

    He does appear to have May'ed the election.
    It's not enough for the Conservatives to be ahead on votes or even on seats. They need to be north of 150 seats for Erin O'Toole to take office.

    I'd say it's a 60% shot Trudeau is still in office by the end of the month, and if he is he will last another 6-9 months.

    Macron is probably about 60% chance to win re-election as well. And then you've got the possibility of "events" over the next 7 months meaning someone else goes, like Suga or even Biden.

    So I'm not really attracted by the 8/1 on Macron, but there's a smidgen of value in Trudeau given the Canadian election is now less than 3 weeks away.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,398
    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    1. I believe vaccines are safe and effective.
    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals. Within the ambit of my information and control this extends to other products and medicines. I refused all pain medication when broke my wrist in that outstandingly excellent MTB accident last year.
    3. You're all wasting pixels discussing it because I don't give a fuck what 90% of the people (and 100% of the tories) on here think or write about me. I am not one of these softcocks who will primly demand retractions or apologies if they feel traduced.

    Amusing, as you obviously do give a fuck to some degree or youd not bother to set the record straight on where you stand. I fear you are not a unique independent rebel on this - Every day on the internet there are millions of 'I dont care about this like you but I will respond about it anyway, proving otherwise' posts.

    Happy that everyone leave it there, but come on Dura, people dont set out their position like that if they give zero fucks, and that's fine.
    I suspect he's a very different person offline. He stood for local election. He's also given a talk on the Sea Harrier to people in Hartlepool, which I've no doubt would have been fascinating.

    He wouldn't have done that if he gave zero fucks and hated everyone, so I take what he says with a pinch of salt.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,094
    Dura_Ace said:

    FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

    However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

    It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.

    Devonport is too shallow.

    The T boats and the Swiftsures before them were based at Devonport so the harbour could be made to work. What the Armchair Admirals are missing is the relevance of RNAD Coulport which is adjacent to Faslane. This the where the weapons are stored and the boats armed. It's impossible to build such a secure and isolated facility at Devonport unless they demolish half of Plymouth. (Possible tick in the pro column.)

    The destination of the Vanguards/Dreadnoughts depends on who is government at the time. A Lab/SNP/LD coalition of the unthrilling would probably put them into Île Longue. This wouldn't be possible for a tory government who would not be able to weather the Daily Mail/Telegraph stink over English/Welsh submarines being based in France so they'd go for Kings Bay.
    In my experience, knowledge of the UK’s “independent” (ho ho) nuclear deterrent is woeful. The biggest black hole is how dependent the whole system is on the US, but closely followed by Coulport.

    No Coulport = no Faslane = no nukes
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,221

    MrEd said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    And "Within the ambit of my information and control this extends to other products and medicines. I refused all pain medication when broke my wrist in that outstandingly excellent MTB accident last year." How far does this principle extend? People have given alcohol, and probably tap water, to all sorts of animals to see what it does to them. If the product predates the experimenting I assume you are OK, so can't you take non synthetic opiates?
    Apologies if I'm wrong but I seem to recall that @Dura_Ace 's first post telling us that he won't have the vaccine was citing "capitalist big pharma" not animal testing. Or perhaps both. Unfortunately I can't find the post.
    But anyway the bottom line is this: There was always going to be some who didn't take the jab for reasons of principle, health, laziness. I recall conversations on here months ago speculating about the extent of take up, and in the UK take-up has comfortably exceeded those expectations.

    Secondly, regarding efficacy I remember posting that a 75% effective vaccine would be a result whereas another poster replied that a 75% vaccine wouldn't leave the shelf, we needed 85% plus.

    So we now have vaccines which are more efficacious than expected and have been taken up by a higher percentage of people than expected.

    I suggest that the take-away should be to cease hectoring those that choose not to be vaccinated and accept that the situation is the best we could have hoped for and get on with our lives.
    I agree with all of that, except for your last paragraph. People who choose not to take the vaccines - as opposed to those who cannot - are not helping society. This is particularly the case since Delta showed up and made the situation much more difficult.

    If they don't care about society in this respect, society shouldn't care for them in this respect. Worse, they spread their poison - not just Covid when they get it, but their false and mendacious reasons for not taking the vaccine. Dura_Ace, Contrarian etc are just adding to the anti-vaxxery twattery online.

    (runs for cover).

    But since anti-maskers have started moralising against maskers on here, I feel perfectly able to call out the selfish shits who choose not to get vaccinated. ;)
    Right, let's start ostracising people with whom we don't agree, shall we?

    And before you start going on "yes, but it's a public health hazard!", let's take a look at the broad facts. The people who tend to suffer most from the ant-vaxxers are....the anti-vaxxers. If that is a risk they want to take, then so be it.

    What about to whom they spread the virus? The evidence suggests that if you are vaccinated, the risks of serious illness and death are severely limited. Yes, it is not pleasant if you catch it but it might not be pleasant if I caught the flu from someone who didn't receive their flu jab.

    Then there is the hypocrisy of it. You want to stop the number of deaths. For example, why don't we start cracking down on those who are obese who have been shown to be disproportionately impacted? Their selfishness - and why shouldn't we call it selfishness under the same principle - is leading to vital resources being used when, if they had kept themselves healthy, the chances of serious illness would have been reduced greatly. But we can't do that because "ooohhh, you are bodyshaming people". It's hypocritical.

    Finally, where do you stop with your principle? Shall we ostracise people who drive cars because they are impacting public health by throwing off dangerous particles into the air? What about those who take flights? In many countries, homosexuality is / was illegal because it was seen as detrimental to society, the same with mixed-race marriages in the American South.
    There's lots to say about your screed.

    Nut nah, let's just say that people who refuse to take the vaccine during this crisis are selfish shits. It's a great deal simpler. And accurate. ;)
    And far shorter to type :)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,398

    What's the story with Suga in Japan?

    Generally shit show over Covid-19 and the fact most Japanese wanted him to cancel the Olympics/Paralympics which have became superspreader events in Japan.

    Plus he's not very good, been in office for a year as well.
    Thanks.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,626

    On topic what is the mechanism by which Suga loses his position? Looks like his government is unpopular but his party is leading the polls. Do the public vote for a party and then the winning party chooses their PM?

    My hunch is Bolsanaro is the best bet but I need to have a stab at Suga's chance of holding on first.


    If Suga holds on I reckon Trudeau has maybe a 40% chance of losing. Then Bolsanaro about 70% chance of losing.

    With no better info available to me, WH odds suggest Suga has maybe 40% chance of losing. If so my figures make Trudeau 24% chance of being the winner (.6×.4) and Bolsanaro 25% (.6×.6×.7).

    So on those numbers 9/2 bolsanaro is the bet but only just value. But GIGO and all that.

    My error. Got the Japanese and Canadian elections wrong way round time wise.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,198

    eek said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Macron should be longer than 8/1. It's basically a bet that Trudeau survives and Macron loses.

    Reading https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58389802 Trudeau's odds seem a decent bet...

    He does appear to have May'ed the election.
    It's not enough for the Conservatives to be ahead on votes or even on seats. They need to be north of 150 seats for Erin O'Toole to take office.

    I'd say it's a 60% shot Trudeau is still in office by the end of the month, and if he is he will last another 6-9 months.

    Macron is probably about 60% chance to win re-election as well. And then you've got the possibility of "events" over the next 7 months meaning someone else goes, like Suga or even Biden.

    So I'm not really attracted by the 8/1 on Macron, but there's a smidgen of value in Trudeau given the Canadian election is now less than 3 weeks away.
    I suspect the order is all important here.

    Trudeau has the first election but given what you say is going to remain as PM

    So Suga is the value bet as he isn't going to survive until April 2022

    The only unknown then is Biden but nothing except illness is going to remember him before November 2022.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,355
    Exclusive: The food & drink industry is £2bn worse off after a "disastrous" fall in EU sales this year

    The new @Foodanddrinkfed report, shared with
    @politicshome, said meat & dairy exports were hit hardest in first 6 months of 2021


    Full figures here... https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/post-brexit-trade-down-2-biliion-fall-eu-sales-food-drink-federation-report
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 32,735

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    @Alasdair

    I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.

    So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.

    It's not set by the constitution, which is silent on the matter.
    It has been changed by Congress legislating, more than once. That is not in the least bit controversial.
    It seems to have been 9 since 1837.

    Anything that long lasting is always controversial to change.
    The power of Congress to effect the change isn't, though, which is what we were discussing.
    The only reason this might be on the table is that the Republicans completely blew away convention in the way they gamed the last two SC appointments - and there justification was no more than 'it is within our power'.

    I'm deeply sceptical of plans to change the court numbers, but the sensible alternative - terms limits - would require a constitutional amendment.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 32,735
    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    1. I believe vaccines are safe and effective.
    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals. Within the ambit of my information and control this extends to other products and medicines. I refused all pain medication when broke my wrist in that outstandingly excellent MTB accident last year.
    3. You're all wasting pixels discussing it because I don't give a fuck what 90% of the people (and 100% of the tories) on here think or write about me. I am not one of these softcocks who will primly demand retractions or apologies if they feel traduced.

    Amusing, as you obviously do give a fuck to some degree or you'd not bother to set the record straight on where you stand...
    He was pretty explicit about that - "...because I don't give a fuck what 90% of the people (and 100% of the tories)..." - which renders the rest of your comment redundant.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,355
    Here is how Sotomayor's dissent wraps up. Read this. https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1433282616627589125/photo/1
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,626

    On topic what is the mechanism by which Suga loses his position? Looks like his government is unpopular but his party is leading the polls. Do the public vote for a party and then the winning party chooses their PM?

    My hunch is Bolsanaro is the best bet but I need to have a stab at Suga's chance of holding on first.


    If Suga holds on I reckon Trudeau has maybe a 40% chance of losing. Then Bolsanaro about 70% chance of losing.

    With no better info available to me, WH odds suggest Suga has maybe 40% chance of losing. If so my figures make Trudeau 24% chance of being the winner (.6×.4) and Bolsanaro 25% (.6×.6×.7).

    So on those numbers 9/2 bolsanaro is the bet but only just value. But GIGO and all that.

    My error. Got the Japanese and Canadian elections wrong way round time wise.
    In fact I got so much wrong I should have just shut up!
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,214
    Scott_xP said:

    Exclusive: The food & drink industry is £2bn worse off after a "disastrous" fall in EU sales this year

    The new @Foodanddrinkfed report, shared with
    @politicshome, said meat & dairy exports were hit hardest in first 6 months of 2021


    Full figures here... https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/post-brexit-trade-down-2-biliion-fall-eu-sales-food-drink-federation-report

    Thats probably because we consumed it at home.. endless negativity as usual from Scottn paste
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    @Alasdair

    I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.

    So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.

    It's not set by the constitution, which is silent on the matter.
    It has been changed by Congress legislating, more than once. That is not in the least bit controversial.
    It seems to have been 9 since 1837.

    Anything that long lasting is always controversial to change.
    The power of Congress to effect the change isn't, though, which is what we were discussing.
    The only reason this might be on the table is that the Republicans completely blew away convention in the way they gamed the last two SC appointments - and there justification was no more than 'it is within our power'.

    I'm deeply sceptical of plans to change the court numbers, but the sensible alternative - terms limits - would require a constitutional amendment.
    Congress has the power to change the numbers but its clearly a 'fallen out of traditional usage' situation.

    So any attempt to use it would be controversial in a way that 'ordinary' acts of congress wouldn't be.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,355
    More leaking from FCDO officials against Dominic Raab -- arguably that's biggest argument for sacking him. Given the level of leaking, he's clearly lost control of his department, which can't be sustainable.

    It's what happens when a lot of folk don't like you...
    https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1433339321688510466/photo/1
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 56,664
    F1: can't remember if I said this before, but Raikkonen's retiring at the end of the season.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 25,429

    Dura_Ace said:

    FPT - on Trident the subs would go to Devonport or Milford Haven, after a very long transition from Faslane of 10+ years. Scotland would have to be reasonable over this as a condition of its ascension to NATO.

    However, Scottish independence would hugely complicate patrols around the island of Great Britain by rUK forces regardless, including patrol routes to access the north Atlantic and across the GIUK gap. That's a huge space to lose free sovereign access to.

    It's one of the key reasons why Scottish independence would be such a disaster and gravely compromise our defence.

    Devonport is too shallow.

    The T boats and the Swiftsures before them were based at Devonport so the harbour could be made to work. What the Armchair Admirals are missing is the relevance of RNAD Coulport which is adjacent to Faslane. This the where the weapons are stored and the boats armed. It's impossible to build such a secure and isolated facility at Devonport unless they demolish half of Plymouth. (Possible tick in the pro column.)

    The destination of the Vanguards/Dreadnoughts depends on who is government at the time. A Lab/SNP/LD coalition of the unthrilling would probably put them into Île Longue. This wouldn't be possible for a tory government who would not be able to weather the Daily Mail/Telegraph stink over English/Welsh submarines being based in France so they'd go for Kings Bay.
    In my experience, knowledge of the UK’s “independent” (ho ho) nuclear deterrent is woeful. The biggest black hole is how dependent the whole system is on the US, but closely followed by Coulport.

    No Coulport = no Faslane = no nukes
    I walked past Coulport once. There's this very well-made road heading down to it, with fences behind the trees and men with BFGs riding quadbikes. It's like I stepped onto the set of a James Bond film.

    It's also interesting to see the POL bases there are around there - Petroleum, Oil, Lubricants - for ships, with the tanks hidden on the hillsides.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,355

    Thats probably because we consumed it at home..

    Which part of "£2bn worse off " is confusing you?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,355

    Site notice.

    I'm in conclave until 7pm tonight so I've scheduled a thread to go up around 4pm, so if there's any major breaking news like Raab resigning or Gavin Williamson doing something competent I'm not ignoring it.

    The future of ABBA begins today.

    Join the livestream.

    #AbbaVoyage #ABBA
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 17,572

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    @Alasdair

    I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.

    So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.

    It's not set by the constitution, which is silent on the matter.
    It has been changed by Congress legislating, more than once. That is not in the least bit controversial.
    It seems to have been 9 since 1837.

    Anything that long lasting is always controversial to change.
    The last attempt at increasing numbers on the Supreme Court casts a long shadow, in American politics -

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 32,735

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    @Alasdair

    I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.

    So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.

    It's not set by the constitution, which is silent on the matter.
    It has been changed by Congress legislating, more than once. That is not in the least bit controversial.
    It seems to have been 9 since 1837.

    Anything that long lasting is always controversial to change.
    The power of Congress to effect the change isn't, though, which is what we were discussing.
    The only reason this might be on the table is that the Republicans completely blew away convention in the way they gamed the last two SC appointments - and there justification was no more than 'it is within our power'.

    I'm deeply sceptical of plans to change the court numbers, but the sensible alternative - terms limits - would require a constitutional amendment.
    Congress has the power to change the numbers but its clearly a 'fallen out of traditional usage' situation.

    So any attempt to use it would be controversial in a way that 'ordinary' acts of congress wouldn't be.
    Tradition and convention have been defenestrated in recent years, which is regrettable, but that's the reality.
    Of course it would be controversial, and even if the Democrats had the numbers, which they don't, I'm sceptical that it would be a useful solution. The point remains that it is within Congress's powers.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 32,735

    F1: can't remember if I said this before, but Raikkonen's retiring at the end of the season.

    And Russell is destined for Mercedes, with Bottas to replace Raikkonen.
  • YoungTurkYoungTurk Posts: 158
    edited September 2
    tlg86 said:

    If the government tries to impose another lockdown then I think @contrarian will have been proved right. But I don’t expect it to happen, because all the government can do is shutdown the economy. Trying to stop household mixing would be a waste of time.

    You gravely understimate the level of obedience in most of the population when the "You'll All Die Horribly if You Don't Obey" lever is pulled. Some here opined last spring that a ban on visits to other people's homes wouldn't last longer than 6 weeks, or 4 weeks, or whatever, and when making their pronouncements they sounded awfully knowledgeable as if they were super-skilled data jockeys. Sadly I doubt a single one of them had read Gustave Le Bon, let alone Stanley Milgram or Robert Cialdini. We're talking big-time ignorance of social psychology and the psychology of crowds and hierarchies - fields which can't be understood through data other than superficially. Vaxortestports have already been introduced for some international purposes and also in some countries (such as France) for internal purposes. It's nailed on that they will morph into straightforward vaxports and it will get harder to do the stuff you want to do unless you're carrying one. Many will stop wanting to do what they used to want to do, or at least except insofar as they might pine for the old days or criticise the authorities in a going-nowhere sense as if dreaming or as if going through the motions in between focusing their eyes on their smartphones. "Mission creep"? Mission avalanche is more like it. Wait and see.


  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 5,523

    What's the story with Suga in Japan?

    Generally shit show over Covid-19 and the fact most Japanese wanted him to cancel the Olympics/Paralympics which have became superspreader events in Japan.

    Plus he's not very good, been in office for a year as well.
    A Japanese analyst who I read for work and whose judgement on these things is generally pretty good puts Suga's survival at around 50:50. DYOR.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 32,735
    Scott_xP said:

    Here is how Sotomayor's dissent wraps up. Read this. https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1433282616627589125/photo/1

    She is correct that the law is blatantly unconstitutional (even setting aside the issue of Roe v Wade). I note that Roberts joined Breyer's dissent, as he too sees it for what it is, despite having the opposite view on abortion.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,195
    edited September 2
    For those who couldn't bring themselves to watch Raab at the Select Committee yesterday, Lisa Nandy has helpfully put together short clips of the highlights, which is worth a watch:

    https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1433173220937580545

    It's obviously selective, but does suggest that Dom is struggling for credibility.
    Incidentally, I reckon Nandy is having quite a good Afghanistan crisis, though I don't expect many to agree.
  • Looking at abortion rates per country the USA is higher than all but communist / ex communist countries:

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/abortion-rates-by-country

    Compared to western countries the abortion rate per 1,000 15-44 women is:

    USA 20.8
    Australia 19.7
    NZ 19.7
    UK 17.0
    France 16.9
    Canada 15.2
    Japan 12.3
    Italy 10.6
    Spain 8.3
    Germany 7.8
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,417
    edited September 2
    uh....ohhhhh...

    #Evergrande - China’s and world’s largest RE developer, with $ 15-16bn in offshore debt and more than $300bn in total liability - is on the verge of default and it’s bonds trading at 27c on the dollar. This is not making enough headlines given the systemic risk involved here imho https://t.co/MdgIcshWRx

    https://twitter.com/niko_baki/status/1433103289055391750?t=AUxZBty2TYAKzTou6wUZBQ&s=19

    They should have invested in NFTs instead....
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 16,895
    edited September 2
    Nigelb said:

    Stocky said:

    FPT:

    Dura_Ace said:

    "I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals."

    Do we know this for sure? Is it true of all the vaccines?

    It's true of pretty well all new medicines.
    They don't get into people before they been given to animals.

    Drugs companies are making efforts to reduce the amount of animal testing (largely because it's costly, though there is more interest in the ethics of animal testing than previously), but it's both required by law, and scientifically useful to them.
    Broadly agree that's the case. As an MP I chaired a year-long working group with the ABPI (pharma industry), BUAV (anti-animal testing), RSPCA and some vets, with the aim of finding areas where both industry and critics could agree that tests served no useful purpose and were merely being done as a box-ticking exercise because the law hadn't been updated to reflect current science. It was surprisingly productive - as I recall we reached 15-20 agreed recommendations for specialised areas where the requirements were no longer all needed. The Home Office said oh, thanks, and (as far as I could tell) binned it.

    A side-effect was that a couple of years later I lost my seat and Cruelty Free International (BUAV's successor), who had been impressed that my group had managed to reach agreement, appointed me as Director of Policy, with a mandate to do the same sort of thing globally. We focused on cosmetics as the relatively easy one and I visited 20 countries to talk to policy-makers, including 3 trips to China, where I organised a conference of scientists and civil servants. They were all generally agnostic to start with - "we don't insist on animal testing but the alternatives need to be adequate" - and we made moderate progress in getting a lot of countries to accept non-animal testing for cosmetics, though we didn't get it banned anywhere. I'd still like to see the same sort of review that my group did repeated and actually implemented. There are animals who are suffering for no useful purpose.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,417
    edited September 2
    Looking at the list of world leaders....the western world really is seriously lacking good leader.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 32,735

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    @Alasdair

    I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.

    So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.

    It's not set by the constitution, which is silent on the matter.
    It has been changed by Congress legislating, more than once. That is not in the least bit controversial.
    It seems to have been 9 since 1837.

    Anything that long lasting is always controversial to change.
    The last attempt at increasing numbers on the Supreme Court casts a long shadow, in American politics -

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937
    It worked last time around, though - the SC backed down.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 26,013

    For those who couldn't bring themselves to watch Raab at the Select Committee yesterday, Lisa Nandy has helpfully put together short clips of the highlights, which is worth a watch:

    https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1433173220937580545

    It's obviously selective, but does suggest that Dom is struggling for credibility.
    Incidentally, I reckon Nandy is having quite a good Afghanistan crisis, though I don't expect many to agree.

    Indeed, I have topped up on her as next Leader. She has shown a competency unusual for a frontbencher on either side. Not that competency helps in a leadership bid...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,417
    edited September 2
    This is rather concerning...

    More students turn to crypto investing to plug financial gap
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58409442.amp

    Day trading crypto is the highway to ruin.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,417
    edited September 2
    Foxy said:

    For those who couldn't bring themselves to watch Raab at the Select Committee yesterday, Lisa Nandy has helpfully put together short clips of the highlights, which is worth a watch:

    https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1433173220937580545

    It's obviously selective, but does suggest that Dom is struggling for credibility.
    Incidentally, I reckon Nandy is having quite a good Afghanistan crisis, though I don't expect many to agree.

    Indeed, I have topped up on her as next Leader. She has shown a competency unusual for a frontbencher on either side. Not that competency helps in a leadership bid...
    Nandy is Uncle Vince type....on the surface in isolation often sounds quite good, but then when you look has often advocated every side of the argument at some point.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 26,013

    Looking at abortion rates per country the USA is higher than all but communist / ex communist countries:

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/abortion-rates-by-country

    Compared to western countries the abortion rate per 1,000 15-44 women is:

    USA 20.8
    Australia 19.7
    NZ 19.7
    UK 17.0
    France 16.9
    Canada 15.2
    Japan 12.3
    Italy 10.6
    Spain 8.3
    Germany 7.8

    Isn't that just a parallel with fertility rates? Fewer pregnancies = fewer unwanted pregnancies?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 32,735

    Foxy said:

    For those who couldn't bring themselves to watch Raab at the Select Committee yesterday, Lisa Nandy has helpfully put together short clips of the highlights, which is worth a watch:

    https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1433173220937580545

    It's obviously selective, but does suggest that Dom is struggling for credibility.
    Incidentally, I reckon Nandy is having quite a good Afghanistan crisis, though I don't expect many to agree.

    Indeed, I have topped up on her as next Leader. She has shown a competency unusual for a frontbencher on either side. Not that competency helps in a leadership bid...
    Nandy is Uncle Vince type....on the surface in isolation often sounds quite good, but then when you look has often advocated every side of the argument at some point.
    Bit like Boris, then, in that respect.
  • Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    For those who couldn't bring themselves to watch Raab at the Select Committee yesterday, Lisa Nandy has helpfully put together short clips of the highlights, which is worth a watch:

    https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1433173220937580545

    It's obviously selective, but does suggest that Dom is struggling for credibility.
    Incidentally, I reckon Nandy is having quite a good Afghanistan crisis, though I don't expect many to agree.

    Indeed, I have topped up on her as next Leader. She has shown a competency unusual for a frontbencher on either side. Not that competency helps in a leadership bid...
    Nandy is Uncle Vince type....on the surface in isolation often sounds quite good, but then when you look has often advocated every side of the argument at some point.
    Bit like Boris, then, in that respect.
    I don't think Boris even sounds good in isolation.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 67,572

    This is rather concerning...

    More students turn to crypto investing to plug financial gap
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58409442.amp

    Day trading crypto is the highway to ruin.

    Crypto looks positively sane compared with NFTs
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 26,013

    Foxy said:

    For those who couldn't bring themselves to watch Raab at the Select Committee yesterday, Lisa Nandy has helpfully put together short clips of the highlights, which is worth a watch:

    https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1433173220937580545

    It's obviously selective, but does suggest that Dom is struggling for credibility.
    Incidentally, I reckon Nandy is having quite a good Afghanistan crisis, though I don't expect many to agree.

    Indeed, I have topped up on her as next Leader. She has shown a competency unusual for a frontbencher on either side. Not that competency helps in a leadership bid...
    Nandy is Uncle Vince type....on the surface in isolation often sounds quite good, but then when you look has often advocated every side of the argument at some point.
    So, you are saying that she has political skills?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852

    For those who couldn't bring themselves to watch Raab at the Select Committee yesterday, Lisa Nandy has helpfully put together short clips of the highlights, which is worth a watch:

    https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1433173220937580545

    It's obviously selective, but does suggest that Dom is struggling for credibility.
    Incidentally, I reckon Nandy is having quite a good Afghanistan crisis, though I don't expect many to agree.

    Principal Risk Report is a killer.
  • A sentence I never thought I would hear...

    Greggs opens al fresco dining in Stoke

    https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/greggs-open-new-bakery-al-5858403
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923

    Scott_xP said:

    Exclusive: The food & drink industry is £2bn worse off after a "disastrous" fall in EU sales this year

    The new @Foodanddrinkfed report, shared with
    @politicshome, said meat & dairy exports were hit hardest in first 6 months of 2021


    Full figures here... https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/post-brexit-trade-down-2-biliion-fall-eu-sales-food-drink-federation-report

    Thats probably because we consumed it at home.. endless negativity as usual from Scottn paste
    That would imply very drastic changes in consuming habits - for instance, specific fishes and crustaceans, and specific cuts of meat (well, you were the one who mentioned 'cut'. It will be interesting to see if that is borne out as the data emerge.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 67,572
    Pulpstar said:

    This is rather concerning...

    More students turn to crypto investing to plug financial gap
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58409442.amp

    Day trading crypto is the highway to ruin.

    Crypto looks positively sane compared with NFTs
    Particularly Eth and BTC. Those are the big two tbh.
    I switched my DOGE for 0.16 eth, feels more stable
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 56,664
    Mr. B, certainly seems to be the case.

    Someone got me the Raikkonen biography a year or two ago for Christmas. Normally not a fan of such things but it was quite interesting, not least his understanding of engineering which might be worth a lot to a team. Unsure what Bottas brings in that regard.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 32,735

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    For those who couldn't bring themselves to watch Raab at the Select Committee yesterday, Lisa Nandy has helpfully put together short clips of the highlights, which is worth a watch:

    https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1433173220937580545

    It's obviously selective, but does suggest that Dom is struggling for credibility.
    Incidentally, I reckon Nandy is having quite a good Afghanistan crisis, though I don't expect many to agree.

    Indeed, I have topped up on her as next Leader. She has shown a competency unusual for a frontbencher on either side. Not that competency helps in a leadership bid...
    Nandy is Uncle Vince type....on the surface in isolation often sounds quite good, but then when you look has often advocated every side of the argument at some point.
    Bit like Boris, then, in that respect.
    I don't think Boris even sounds good in isolation.
    No, but one has to acknowledge that he won the leadership - which is what Foxy's bet is about.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923

    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I was surprised to see such an extended debate about my vaccination proclivities on the previous thread. Just so we all know...

    1. I believe vaccines are safe and effective.
    2. I choose not to have one because they are tested on animals. Within the ambit of my information and control this extends to other products and medicines. I refused all pain medication when broke my wrist in that outstandingly excellent MTB accident last year.
    3. You're all wasting pixels discussing it because I don't give a fuck what 90% of the people (and 100% of the tories) on here think or write about me. I am not one of these softcocks who will primly demand retractions or apologies if they feel traduced.

    Amusing, as you obviously do give a fuck to some degree or youd not bother to set the record straight on where you stand. I fear you are not a unique independent rebel on this - Every day on the internet there are millions of 'I dont care about this like you but I will respond about it anyway, proving otherwise' posts.

    Happy that everyone leave it there, but come on Dura, people dont set out their position like that if they give zero fucks, and that's fine.
    I suspect he's a very different person offline. He stood for local election. He's also given a talk on the Sea Harrier to people in Hartlepool, which I've no doubt would have been fascinating.

    He wouldn't have done that if he gave zero fucks and hated everyone, so I take what he says with a pinch of salt.
    We're not potential voters for DA (slightly to my regret: it would be interesting).
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,417
    edited September 2
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    This is rather concerning...

    More students turn to crypto investing to plug financial gap
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58409442.amp

    Day trading crypto is the highway to ruin.

    Crypto looks positively sane compared with NFTs
    Particularly Eth and BTC. Those are the big two tbh.
    I switched my DOGE for 0.16 eth, feels more stable
    Actually the NFT craze is showing up the massive problem with Ethereum, it can't handle significant traffic. Its so bad now that with these NFT flips, people are often paying $500 per transaction in gas fees (exsctly what crypto is supposed to improve upon compared to traditional banking). Juat like Bitcoin won't become the digital currency in your pocket, as it can't handle the volume of transactions.

    There are all sorts of add-ons to Ethereum to enable expansion of low cost transactions, side chains, off chain, layer 2....but most is still barely working, theoretical or vaperware.

    Bitcoin has become the "digital gold" of crytpo. Now Ethereum might get patched / these side projects might work, but if they don't there are a number of direct alternatives to Ethereum that by design can handle massive volume, so i think Ethereum is still very risky (in a space that is very risky).
  • It's weird they have only included some G20 leaders. For example, Australia has an election next year. I guess they have left out Merkel as everyone knows she is leaving
This discussion has been closed.