NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.
"Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."
He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
Joe Manchin is an odd one, his voting goes way beyond what his Trumper constituents care about (Guns (In favour of), abortion (Against), climate change (Against)), . I expect the average W Va voter would probably be in favour of big Gov't spending in fact, yet because the GOP opposes it he votes that way. Sinema is even worse - her state is a blue state now, she doesn't need to vote with the GOP on anything in particular.
Manchin and Sinema are right.
Remember Trump actually got a higher voteshare in 2020 than 2016, Biden only won by squeezing the over 3% Libertarian vote in 2016 to 1% in 2020 with almost all those fiscally conservative Libertarian voters voting for him.
If Biden had not won those 2016 Libertarian voters he would have lost Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia and the EC so the Democrats cannot afford to be too tax and spend or they will lose them again
Trumpism is about many things, a small state is not one of them.
No but Biden didn't win by winning Trump voters from 2016, as I said Trump even increased his voteshare on 2016 in 2020.
Biden only won in 2020 by getting small state voters who voted Libertarian Party in 2016 to vote for him in 2020
Is their polling to back that up? Because instinctively it feels more likely that those voters went back to Trump or split fairly evenly (third party voters in the US often being more general protest-y than their votes superficially suggest) and Biden took a few votes from suburban Republicans. So Trump gains vote share, but Biden (who gets some GOP votes and some Green voters coming 'home') gains more.
But there may be polling I've forgotten about which strongly suggests otherwise. Our intuitions about how voters behave are often wrong in my experience.
Even so suburban Republicans are fiscally conservative, socially moderate.
If they voted for Biden they did so to remove Trump not for socialism.
It was Democratic overreach after their wins in 1992 and 2008 which saw the GOP midterm landslides of 1994 and 2010 as fiscally conservative suburbanites revolted
Again, do you have evidence for this? Because in polls the bill does very well. Even pretty well among Trump 2020 voters.
It depends on the question asked, other polls find 75% of Americans are worried about the debt and that too much debt could hurt the economy. We also know most Americans never vote to raise their taxes to fund extra spending even if they may support extra funding on certain projects in theory
Sure, but I think the question 'Do you support this specific bill which does these specific things' is a better judge than 'Do you generally worry about a related issue'.
Well don't come crying to me then when the usual big spending, debt building Democratic Presidency and Congress leads to another GOP landslide in the midterms in 2022, as it did in 2010, as it did in 1994.
Manchin and Sinema however have better political antennae and know the average American does not want socialism and thus will veto any proposals which lead to a big increase in debt and taxes
Even now is anyone actually offering socialism?
Boris Johnson.
He is hardly nationalising industries is he and he is also now cutting spending on UC, if he was a socialist he would be increasing spending on UC as well as increasing income tax and inheritance tax
Yesterday's papers were saying IH tax will be targeted in the budget on the 27th
They did not say IHT would be raised, just some reliefs to offset it like investing in charities or businesses will be ended.
If Sunak actually raised IHT and lowered the threshold for it then the Tory poll rating would plunge
Of course it is raised if more income is forthcoming
And I really do not care about ratings, I care about doing the right thing
It would be raised if the rate was increased from 40% and the threshold was lowered from £325,000 (and £1 million for married couples). It is not being
I million is far too high
Do you have any justification other than it being the status quo or electorally unpopular for it being any higher than the tax-free allowance for incomes people work for?
And for National Insurance (both version of it) not to apply to it?
I know your view on NI but I do not agree pensioners should pay NI unless they are working, as the pension is paid by NI and on all pension planning it has been based on this and any change would cause serious disruption for pensioners with no ability to recover lost income
Indeed apart from yourself, I have not heard anyone else promote this policy and certainly it is not the policy of any UK party
On IHT I believe it should be graded to those who have wealth in property purely as it is only fair
If it causes disruption to pensioners, then it causes disruption to employees too. And when today's pensioners were working you never paid NI at the rates you expect us to pay so while I have sympathy for the disruption it causes to people who may now have to pay for it - but it entirely equally causes disruption to those who are paying for it.
I paid 5.5% in 1975 which rose incrementally to 10% in 1994 and then to 11% in 2003 before I retired in 2009
I do not see a substantial difference in todays rates
So for the vast majority of your working life it was 5.5%?
Its now going to 13.25+15.05% = 28.3%
If you seriously don't see a substantial difference between 5.5% and 28.3% then you shouldn't see any difference between 0 and the tax being applied in full either. Apply Employers NIC to whoever is paying you, and Employee NIC to whatever you're receiving. Since 5% -> 28.3% isn't substantial then neither will be 0% to that either. 🤷♂️
I am sorry but that is not true
These are the rates plus the starting rate for payment has also increased
That's one of the rates, yes. The Employees element and again if you don't see a difference between 5% and 13.25% then why should you see a difference between 0% and 13.25%?
But you've completely omitted from that list the 1.25% supplement payable from 2023 onwards that needs paying from actually earned incomes, plus the 15.05% tax on incomes paid by the employers by actually earned incomes too.
If you don't see a difference between 5% and all that, then why would you object to pension providers being obliged to pay a 15% tax on whatever they pay you like employers have to do on wages?
Phil, I agree with you that employers NI is an effective tax on wages - but it has been around since 1979 at 10% with a 3.5% surcharge at that time, it seemingly was lowest in 1997 - 99 at just 10%. But it has been around since before you were born.
The two combined rates will be 28% next year. That's never been the case before and is absolutely shocking.
I will continue to urge that it gets paid by pensioners in full if they're expecting employees to constantly see the rates jacked up. If the rates get reversed to what they used to be, then that'd be a compromise to meet in the middle but otherwise if one side demands it all, why shouldn't the other side return fire?
When was the last time positive tests, admissions and deaths were all falling?
Monday and all that, but given the slowing down in the rate of increase of cases recently, was somewhat inevitable
Good news week on week. A modest huzzah
Let#s wait till tommorow to break out the champers...
4 October 2021 LOG CATEGORY:DATA ISSUE England deaths within 28 days of positive test affected by delay Daily counts of deaths in England rely on multiple data sources. Data from one source was delayed on 4 October 2021.
This will have a small impact on the total number of deaths reported today. Any additional deaths related to this delay will be included in the numbers published on 5 October 2021.
FPT @Selebian. I think you're blind to the issue here - I'll highlight two main points the article makes:
(1) "In a recent report on academic freedom in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada for the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, I found that 40 percent of American academics would not hire a known Trump supporter, and 33 percent of British academics would avoid hiring a known Brexit supporter. When it comes to refereeing papers, grant bids, and promotion applications, my own work and that of others indicates that the likelihood of an academic’s discriminating against an openly conservative submission is as high as 45 percent. On a four-person panel, that makes discrimination a near certainty."
(2) "In the 1960s there were only one and a half journalists and academics on the left for every one on the right. Today that ratio is between four to one and six to one, and considerably higher among political journalists and social-science and humanities academics. In a report on academia for the Manhattan Institute, I noted that left-leaning social-science and humanities academics now outnumber those on the right in Britain by nine to one, and in the U.S. by 14 to one. Work by Mitchell Langbert using voter-registration data for the top liberal-arts colleges and universities (for five disciplines) also shows lopsided ratios. At Harvard, for instance, a recent inquiry reported a $250-to-$1 Democrat-to-Republican donation ratio among the staff."
It's not enough for there to be "legal" protections - hard to access, prove and leverage - because an institutional culture of intolerance creates an environment that is suffocating to those already employed and inhibits any future recruitment to correct it. This means even fewer conservatives apply in the first place and thus reinforces a monoculture.
Those that are employed (like my friend at the University of Bath, for example, or me at the Woke firm I've just left) "fear losing (their) job or missing out on job opportunities if (their) political views became known.” And so, as in authoritarian regimes, dissenters keep their views to themselves through preference falsification. This has been precisely my experience.
It's a problem for all of us because these institutions form a large part of our civic society - arbitrating between the citizen and the state - and thus contributes to polarisation within it.
It needs to be addressed.
The website would only let me read the opening few paragraphs of the article, sadly, but the overall tone struck me as dishonest. It started with this dramatic statistic from the dating site, then extrapolated this to discrimination in hiring, despite these being completely different and indeed unrelated things (for instance, I wouldn't date a man but I would hire one). In my own field of economics there is a range of political views. In academia there is a left wing skew, in markets there is a right wing skew. This seems entirely understandable when you think of the likely difference in motivations and values between the two industries. Academia has got more left wing over the years, but then it has also become much worse paid, in relative terms, and those facts are probably related (we might argue over the direction of causation!). As a left wing person working in the markets I don't complain about the dearth of ideological soulmates, I don't know why right wing academics are so snowflakey about it. I have collaborated in academic research with people of various political stripes including Conservative US Republicans. In my experience, research with a clear ideological skew, left or right, is most likely bad research. The goal should be uncovering the truth, not advancing an agenda. Of course, if I were an ideological hack flogging policy-based evidence-making I might feel like I was getting discriminated when my research got rejected by top journals - but the likelihood is that the research was just bad. I do recall attending a very right-leaning conference where there was a lot of moaning about the Liberal bias in US academia, but the conference was lavishly funded by Conservative benefactors and hosted at a top Ivy League school so the whole complaint rang a little hollow to me. It had a strong whiff of privileges being defended.
There's some good points in here - including your admirable acknowledgement that research with a clear ideological skew is poor research - but why is your first instinct to attack Eric Kauffman's honesty?
He's a respected Canadian Academic (of mixed Chinese, Hispanic and European ancestry) working in a British university. He cited a variety of studies in making his points, and they're all respectable ones.
We need to get past the ad hominum into the specifics. Far too many of the responses to articles like this run along the lines of "he's making it up" and "I don't see any of this, so it can't be true".
What I'm interested in is everyone feeling able and willing to discuss their views and differences openly. That has to start with less prejudgement, more listening, and more forgiveness, and it's that I'm interested in.
It's the only way to confine polarisation to the fringes where it belongs, rather than it being part of the mainstream, and we have to work harder and harder at it in the social media age, not less.
All great points but I think you cut too much slack to Trumpery. It shouldn't be viewed like, say, being a Tory, a Brexiter, a social democrat, a "classic liberal", a small state libertarian, or whatever. He's a hate monger and those who lap that up can't expect it not to be held against them by those who don't.
I would judge Trump very differently from one of his voters, who include plenty of ordinary Americans, and give them the benefit of the doubt.
Of course lots of decent people voted for him. This must be the case given the numbers. Nevertheless he has colonized the Republican party, which is both chastening and frightening to somebody like me who takes a broadly sunny-side-up view of humanity, so I'm afraid I'm the other way around to you in that I'd be a touch wary of a person who I know voted for him until I get some evidence they did it reluctantly and despite the hate he throws out and for want of (in their eyes) a viable alternative. Pls note I do NOT feel this way about Leavers and Tories etc. It's a Trump thing.
So, in your eyes they are guilty until proven innocent?
Charming.
The reason you might not feel that way about Leavers and Tories is because you've been engaging with so many of us on here for so long that you realise the world isn't that simple.
That's precisely my point.
From my point of view I can see rational reasons for voting Tory and although many who voted leave I think did so for irrational* reasons, there are clearly many who did for completely rational reasons.
It is difficult to see any rational reason for voting for Trump, which is why the scale of his vote is so scary.
* Two of my favourites from personal conversations were: There are too many 'coloureds' here already and the criminal gangs are all Albanian.
If you were living in small town Hicksville, Flyover State in 2016, and had seen either a) your wages remain static since the previous century while the millionaires on the coast became billionaires, and/or b) the only major employer in your town decamp elsewhere while more and more of the stuff you used to make get imported from China and/or c) the social fabric of your town fraying, do you vote for a) more of the same, in the person and party of a candidate who appears to view you and your ilk as at best something of an embarrassment, or b) Trump? I don't like the man. But I can see why people voted for him.
I actually understand voting for Trump more than voting for Brexit. In that the US in 2016 was clearly a broken society failing the majority of its citizens, as evident in phenomena like falling life expectancy and the opioid epidemic. I don't think the UK was experiencing the same level of political failure and social fracture before 2016. Although, interestingly, it seems to be now!
That you couldn't see the broken social fracture here before Brexit is the reason Brexit happened.
I'm not sure I can take sole responsibility! I'm not saying there were no problems in the UK - far from it. But I'd moved back from the US about 5 or 6 years earlier and the US was just a much more obviously broken place, to me at least.
NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.
"Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."
He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
Joe Manchin is an odd one, his voting goes way beyond what his Trumper constituents care about (Guns (In favour of), abortion (Against), climate change (Against)), . I expect the average W Va voter would probably be in favour of big Gov't spending in fact, yet because the GOP opposes it he votes that way. Sinema is even worse - her state is a blue state now, she doesn't need to vote with the GOP on anything in particular.
Manchin and Sinema are right.
Remember Trump actually got a higher voteshare in 2020 than 2016, Biden only won by squeezing the over 3% Libertarian vote in 2016 to 1% in 2020 with almost all those fiscally conservative Libertarian voters voting for him.
If Biden had not won those 2016 Libertarian voters he would have lost Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia and the EC so the Democrats cannot afford to be too tax and spend or they will lose them again
Trumpism is about many things, a small state is not one of them.
No but Biden didn't win by winning Trump voters from 2016, as I said Trump even increased his voteshare on 2016 in 2020.
Biden only won in 2020 by getting small state voters who voted Libertarian Party in 2016 to vote for him in 2020
Is their polling to back that up? Because instinctively it feels more likely that those voters went back to Trump or split fairly evenly (third party voters in the US often being more general protest-y than their votes superficially suggest) and Biden took a few votes from suburban Republicans. So Trump gains vote share, but Biden (who gets some GOP votes and some Green voters coming 'home') gains more.
But there may be polling I've forgotten about which strongly suggests otherwise. Our intuitions about how voters behave are often wrong in my experience.
Even so suburban Republicans are fiscally conservative, socially moderate.
If they voted for Biden they did so to remove Trump not for socialism.
It was Democratic overreach after their wins in 1992 and 2008 which saw the GOP midterm landslides of 1994 and 2010 as fiscally conservative suburbanites revolted
Again, do you have evidence for this? Because in polls the bill does very well. Even pretty well among Trump 2020 voters.
It depends on the question asked, other polls find 75% of Americans are worried about the debt and that too much debt could hurt the economy. We also know most Americans never vote to raise their taxes to fund extra spending even if they may support extra funding on certain projects in theory
Sure, but I think the question 'Do you support this specific bill which does these specific things' is a better judge than 'Do you generally worry about a related issue'.
Well don't come crying to me then when the usual big spending, debt building Democratic Presidency and Congress leads to another GOP landslide in the midterms in 2022, as it did in 2010, as it did in 1994.
Manchin and Sinema however have better political antennae and know the average American does not want socialism and thus will veto any proposals which lead to a big increase in debt and taxes
Even now is anyone actually offering socialism?
Boris Johnson.
He is hardly nationalising industries is he and he is also now cutting spending on UC, if he was a socialist he would be increasing spending on UC as well as increasing income tax and inheritance tax
Yesterday's papers were saying IH tax will be targeted in the budget on the 27th
They did not say IHT would be raised, just some reliefs to offset it like investing in charities or businesses will be ended.
If Sunak actually raised IHT and lowered the threshold for it then the Tory poll rating would plunge
Of course it is raised if more income is forthcoming
And I really do not care about ratings, I care about doing the right thing
It would be raised if the rate was increased from 40% and the threshold was lowered from £325,000 (and £1 million for married couples). It is not being
I million is far too high
Do you have any justification other than it being the status quo or electorally unpopular for it being any higher than the tax-free allowance for incomes people work for?
And for National Insurance (both version of it) not to apply to it?
I know your view on NI but I do not agree pensioners should pay NI unless they are working, as the pension is paid by NI and on all pension planning it has been based on this and any change would cause serious disruption for pensioners with no ability to recover lost income
Indeed apart from yourself, I have not heard anyone else promote this policy and certainly it is not the policy of any UK party
On IHT I believe it should be graded to those who have wealth in property purely as it is only fair
If it causes disruption to pensioners, then it causes disruption to employees too. And when today's pensioners were working you never paid NI at the rates you expect us to pay so while I have sympathy for the disruption it causes to people who may now have to pay for it - but it entirely equally causes disruption to those who are paying for it.
I paid 5.5% in 1975 which rose incrementally to 10% in 1994 and then to 11% in 2003 before I retired in 2009
I do not see a substantial difference in todays rates
So for the vast majority of your working life it was 5.5%?
Its now going to 13.25+15.05% = 28.3%
If you seriously don't see a substantial difference between 5.5% and 28.3% then you shouldn't see any difference between 0 and the tax being applied in full either. Apply Employers NIC to whoever is paying you, and Employee NIC to whatever you're receiving. Since 5% -> 28.3% isn't substantial then neither will be 0% to that either. 🤷♂️
I am sorry but that is not true
These are the rates plus the starting rate for payment has also increased
That's one of the rates, yes. The Employees element and again if you don't see a difference between 5% and 13.25% then why should you see a difference between 0% and 13.25%?
But you've completely omitted from that list the 1.25% supplement payable from 2023 onwards that needs paying from actually earned incomes, plus the 15.05% tax on incomes paid by the employers by actually earned incomes too.
If you don't see a difference between 5% and all that, then why would you object to pension providers being obliged to pay a 15% tax on whatever they pay you like employers have to do on wages?
The 1.25% tax is a hypothecated tax for NHS and social care from 2023
It is a new tax
I think we just have to respect each others views on making non working pensioners pay NI
Why shouldn't the new hypothecated tax for NHS and social care be charged to pensioners as well as employees?
Should we exclude pensioners eligibility to the NHS and social care if they're not prepared to pay for it? I don't think so.
I'm afraid no I can not respect the view of a generation of pensioners who had it all voting to see income taxes they'd be liable to getting cut, while national insurances they're not liable to is increased. It is disgusting and I have zero respect for it. Reverse rates back to what they were previously and I'd be happy to meet you in the middle, otherwise I'll continue to campaign for it to be charged equitably to everyone.
I know you feel strongly on this and you will need to persuade the parties to agree with you for it to happen
When was the last time positive tests, admissions and deaths were all falling?
Monday and all that, but given the slowing down in the rate of increase of cases recently, was somewhat inevitable
Good news week on week. A modest huzzah
Let#s wait till tommorow to break out the champers...
4 October 2021 LOG CATEGORY:DATA ISSUE England deaths within 28 days of positive test affected by delay Daily counts of deaths in England rely on multiple data sources. Data from one source was delayed on 4 October 2021.
This will have a small impact on the total number of deaths reported today. Any additional deaths related to this delay will be included in the numbers published on 5 October 2021.
The key metric for me is hospitalisations. They have now been falling for some time
Conservative 40% (-1) Labour 37% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (–) Green 4% (-1) Scottish National Party 4% (–) Reform UK 3% (–) Other 1% (-1)
Changes +/- 27 Sept
Conference bounce!
Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s net approval rating stands at -6%, a figure which has not changed in the last week. This week’s poll finds 42% disapproving (no change) of his overall job performance, against 36% approving (no change).
Keir Starmer’s net approval rating stands at -11%, a two-point increase from last week’s poll. 36% disapprove of Keir Starmer’s job performance (down 1%), while 25% approve (up 1%). Meanwhile, 32% neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer’s job performance (no change).
NY Times outlines what election rules reform is needed to stop the kind of potential coup Trump was pressing for.
"Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."
He's obviously going to try again and the USA is going to let him.
Democrats in the USA has seem to be remarkably relaxed about Trump stealing the 2024 election. If the 2022 midterms go badly for the Democrats, it's on like Donkey Kong.
To be fair I think Congressional Dems are suitably concerned, the lack of concern by certain Dem Senators about this is absolutely suicidal.
Joe Manchin is an odd one, his voting goes way beyond what his Trumper constituents care about (Guns (In favour of), abortion (Against), climate change (Against)), . I expect the average W Va voter would probably be in favour of big Gov't spending in fact, yet because the GOP opposes it he votes that way. Sinema is even worse - her state is a blue state now, she doesn't need to vote with the GOP on anything in particular.
Manchin and Sinema are right.
Remember Trump actually got a higher voteshare in 2020 than 2016, Biden only won by squeezing the over 3% Libertarian vote in 2016 to 1% in 2020 with almost all those fiscally conservative Libertarian voters voting for him.
If Biden had not won those 2016 Libertarian voters he would have lost Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia and the EC so the Democrats cannot afford to be too tax and spend or they will lose them again
Trumpism is about many things, a small state is not one of them.
No but Biden didn't win by winning Trump voters from 2016, as I said Trump even increased his voteshare on 2016 in 2020.
Biden only won in 2020 by getting small state voters who voted Libertarian Party in 2016 to vote for him in 2020
Is their polling to back that up? Because instinctively it feels more likely that those voters went back to Trump or split fairly evenly (third party voters in the US often being more general protest-y than their votes superficially suggest) and Biden took a few votes from suburban Republicans. So Trump gains vote share, but Biden (who gets some GOP votes and some Green voters coming 'home') gains more.
But there may be polling I've forgotten about which strongly suggests otherwise. Our intuitions about how voters behave are often wrong in my experience.
Even so suburban Republicans are fiscally conservative, socially moderate.
If they voted for Biden they did so to remove Trump not for socialism.
It was Democratic overreach after their wins in 1992 and 2008 which saw the GOP midterm landslides of 1994 and 2010 as fiscally conservative suburbanites revolted
Again, do you have evidence for this? Because in polls the bill does very well. Even pretty well among Trump 2020 voters.
It depends on the question asked, other polls find 75% of Americans are worried about the debt and that too much debt could hurt the economy. We also know most Americans never vote to raise their taxes to fund extra spending even if they may support extra funding on certain projects in theory
Sure, but I think the question 'Do you support this specific bill which does these specific things' is a better judge than 'Do you generally worry about a related issue'.
Well don't come crying to me then when the usual big spending, debt building Democratic Presidency and Congress leads to another GOP landslide in the midterms in 2022, as it did in 2010, as it did in 1994.
Manchin and Sinema however have better political antennae and know the average American does not want socialism and thus will veto any proposals which lead to a big increase in debt and taxes
Even now is anyone actually offering socialism?
Boris Johnson.
He is hardly nationalising industries is he and he is also now cutting spending on UC, if he was a socialist he would be increasing spending on UC as well as increasing income tax and inheritance tax
Yesterday's papers were saying IH tax will be targeted in the budget on the 27th
They did not say IHT would be raised, just some reliefs to offset it like investing in charities or businesses will be ended.
If Sunak actually raised IHT and lowered the threshold for it then the Tory poll rating would plunge
Of course it is raised if more income is forthcoming
And I really do not care about ratings, I care about doing the right thing
It would be raised if the rate was increased from 40% and the threshold was lowered from £325,000 (and £1 million for married couples). It is not being
I million is far too high
Do you have any justification other than it being the status quo or electorally unpopular for it being any higher than the tax-free allowance for incomes people work for?
And for National Insurance (both version of it) not to apply to it?
I know your view on NI but I do not agree pensioners should pay NI unless they are working, as the pension is paid by NI and on all pension planning it has been based on this and any change would cause serious disruption for pensioners with no ability to recover lost income
Indeed apart from yourself, I have not heard anyone else promote this policy and certainly it is not the policy of any UK party
On IHT I believe it should be graded to those who have wealth in property purely as it is only fair
If it causes disruption to pensioners, then it causes disruption to employees too. And when today's pensioners were working you never paid NI at the rates you expect us to pay so while I have sympathy for the disruption it causes to people who may now have to pay for it - but it entirely equally causes disruption to those who are paying for it.
I paid 5.5% in 1975 which rose incrementally to 10% in 1994 and then to 11% in 2003 before I retired in 2009
I do not see a substantial difference in todays rates
So for the vast majority of your working life it was 5.5%?
Its now going to 13.25+15.05% = 28.3%
If you seriously don't see a substantial difference between 5.5% and 28.3% then you shouldn't see any difference between 0 and the tax being applied in full either. Apply Employers NIC to whoever is paying you, and Employee NIC to whatever you're receiving. Since 5% -> 28.3% isn't substantial then neither will be 0% to that either. 🤷♂️
I am sorry but that is not true
These are the rates plus the starting rate for payment has also increased
That's one of the rates, yes. The Employees element and again if you don't see a difference between 5% and 13.25% then why should you see a difference between 0% and 13.25%?
But you've completely omitted from that list the 1.25% supplement payable from 2023 onwards that needs paying from actually earned incomes, plus the 15.05% tax on incomes paid by the employers by actually earned incomes too.
If you don't see a difference between 5% and all that, then why would you object to pension providers being obliged to pay a 15% tax on whatever they pay you like employers have to do on wages?
The 1.25% tax is a hypothecated tax for NHS and social care from 2023
It is a new tax
I think we just have to respect each others views on making non working pensioners pay NI
Why shouldn't the new hypothecated tax for NHS and social care be charged to pensioners as well as employees?
Should we exclude pensioners eligibility to the NHS and social care if they're not prepared to pay for it? I don't think so.
I'm afraid no I can not respect the view of a generation of pensioners who had it all voting to see income taxes they'd be liable to getting cut, while national insurances they're not liable to is increased. It is disgusting and I have zero respect for it. Reverse rates back to what they were previously and I'd be happy to meet you in the middle, otherwise I'll continue to campaign for it to be charged equitably to everyone.
I know you feel strongly on this and you will need to persuade the parties to agree with you for it to happen
Hopefully it happens. Its disreputable to not have equal taxation across society. It is an absolute travesty that right now four different people on the exact same income can be on 0%, 20%, 50% or 75% income tax depending upon how they're getting their incomes.
The same rates should apply to everyone. Any party, even Labour, that embraced flat taxes would earn my vote.
When was the last time positive tests, admissions and deaths were all falling?
Monday and all that, but given the slowing down in the rate of increase of cases recently, was somewhat inevitable
Good news week on week. A modest huzzah
Let#s wait till tommorow to break out the champers...
4 October 2021 LOG CATEGORY:DATA ISSUE England deaths within 28 days of positive test affected by delay Daily counts of deaths in England rely on multiple data sources. Data from one source was delayed on 4 October 2021.
This will have a small impact on the total number of deaths reported today. Any additional deaths related to this delay will be included in the numbers published on 5 October 2021.
The key metric for me is hospitalisations. They have now been falling for some time
Just reread what I wrote, it's deaths which are a bit undercounted today - not cases which is what I thought I'd written. All good.
When was the last time positive tests, admissions and deaths were all falling?
Monday and all that, but given the slowing down in the rate of increase of cases recently, was somewhat inevitable
Good news week on week. A modest huzzah
Let#s wait till tommorow to break out the champers...
4 October 2021 LOG CATEGORY:DATA ISSUE England deaths within 28 days of positive test affected by delay Daily counts of deaths in England rely on multiple data sources. Data from one source was delayed on 4 October 2021.
This will have a small impact on the total number of deaths reported today. Any additional deaths related to this delay will be included in the numbers published on 5 October 2021.
It's not going to make much of a material difference – the overall deaths figure today is -18%, so it's still going to be comfortably in the green zone by my maths.
Between Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer, 42% say they think Boris Johnson would be a better Prime Minister for the United Kingdom at this moment than Keir Starmer, a figure which has increased marginally from 41% last week. Conversely, 32% think Keir Starmer would be the better Prime Minister when compared to Boris Johnson (up 1%).
More specifically, Boris Johnson continues to lead over Keir Starmer as being the one who best embodies the following descriptions: ‘can build a strong economy’ (41% to 29%), ‘stands up for the interests of the United Kingdom’ (41% to 32%), ‘can tackle the coronavirus pandemic’ (40% to 27%), and ‘knows how to get things done’ (39% to 29%).
Keir Starmer continues to lead over Boris Johnson when it comes to best embodying the descriptions of ‘being in good physical and mental health’ (41% to 27%) and ‘is willing to work with other parties when possible’ (36% to 30%). Starmer also now leads for best embodying ‘represents change’ (38% to 31%).
Substantial proportions of respondents say they do not know which of the two ‘tells the truth’ (47%), ‘is creative’ (45%), or ‘prioritises the environment’ (44%).
FPT @Selebian. I think you're blind to the issue here - I'll highlight two main points the article makes:
(1) "In a recent report on academic freedom in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada for the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, I found that 40 percent of American academics would not hire a known Trump supporter, and 33 percent of British academics would avoid hiring a known Brexit supporter. When it comes to refereeing papers, grant bids, and promotion applications, my own work and that of others indicates that the likelihood of an academic’s discriminating against an openly conservative submission is as high as 45 percent. On a four-person panel, that makes discrimination a near certainty."
(2) "In the 1960s there were only one and a half journalists and academics on the left for every one on the right. Today that ratio is between four to one and six to one, and considerably higher among political journalists and social-science and humanities academics. In a report on academia for the Manhattan Institute, I noted that left-leaning social-science and humanities academics now outnumber those on the right in Britain by nine to one, and in the U.S. by 14 to one. Work by Mitchell Langbert using voter-registration data for the top liberal-arts colleges and universities (for five disciplines) also shows lopsided ratios. At Harvard, for instance, a recent inquiry reported a $250-to-$1 Democrat-to-Republican donation ratio among the staff."
It's not enough for there to be "legal" protections - hard to access, prove and leverage - because an institutional culture of intolerance creates an environment that is suffocating to those already employed and inhibits any future recruitment to correct it. This means even fewer conservatives apply in the first place and thus reinforces a monoculture.
Those that are employed (like my friend at the University of Bath, for example, or me at the Woke firm I've just left) "fear losing (their) job or missing out on job opportunities if (their) political views became known.” And so, as in authoritarian regimes, dissenters keep their views to themselves through preference falsification. This has been precisely my experience.
It's a problem for all of us because these institutions form a large part of our civic society - arbitrating between the citizen and the state - and thus contributes to polarisation within it.
It needs to be addressed.
The website would only let me read the opening few paragraphs of the article, sadly, but the overall tone struck me as dishonest. It started with this dramatic statistic from the dating site, then extrapolated this to discrimination in hiring, despite these being completely different and indeed unrelated things (for instance, I wouldn't date a man but I would hire one). In my own field of economics there is a range of political views. In academia there is a left wing skew, in markets there is a right wing skew. This seems entirely understandable when you think of the likely difference in motivations and values between the two industries. Academia has got more left wing over the years, but then it has also become much worse paid, in relative terms, and those facts are probably related (we might argue over the direction of causation!). As a left wing person working in the markets I don't complain about the dearth of ideological soulmates, I don't know why right wing academics are so snowflakey about it. I have collaborated in academic research with people of various political stripes including Conservative US Republicans. In my experience, research with a clear ideological skew, left or right, is most likely bad research. The goal should be uncovering the truth, not advancing an agenda. Of course, if I were an ideological hack flogging policy-based evidence-making I might feel like I was getting discriminated when my research got rejected by top journals - but the likelihood is that the research was just bad. I do recall attending a very right-leaning conference where there was a lot of moaning about the Liberal bias in US academia, but the conference was lavishly funded by Conservative benefactors and hosted at a top Ivy League school so the whole complaint rang a little hollow to me. It had a strong whiff of privileges being defended.
There's some good points in here - including your admirable acknowledgement that research with a clear ideological skew is poor research - but why is your first instinct to attack Eric Kauffman's honesty?
He's a respected Canadian Academic (of mixed Chinese, Hispanic and European ancestry) working in a British university. He cited a variety of studies in making his points, and they're all respectable ones.
We need to get past the ad hominum into the specifics. Far too many of the responses to articles like this run along the lines of "he's making it up" and "I don't see any of this, so it can't be true".
What I'm interested in is everyone feeling able and willing to discuss their views and differences openly. That has to start with less prejudgement, more listening, and more forgiveness, and it's that I'm interested in.
It's the only way to confine polarisation to the fringes where it belongs, rather than it being part of the mainstream, and we have to work harder and harder at it in the social media age, not less.
All great points but I think you cut too much slack to Trumpery. It shouldn't be viewed like, say, being a Tory, a Brexiter, a social democrat, a "classic liberal", a small state libertarian, or whatever. He's a hate monger and those who lap that up can't expect it not to be held against them by those who don't.
I would judge Trump very differently from one of his voters, who include plenty of ordinary Americans, and give them the benefit of the doubt.
Of course lots of decent people voted for him. This must be the case given the numbers. Nevertheless he has colonized the Republican party, which is both chastening and frightening to somebody like me who takes a broadly sunny-side-up view of humanity, so I'm afraid I'm the other way around to you in that I'd be a touch wary of a person who I know voted for him until I get some evidence they did it reluctantly and despite the hate he throws out and for want of (in their eyes) a viable alternative. Pls note I do NOT feel this way about Leavers and Tories etc. It's a Trump thing.
So, in your eyes they are guilty until proven innocent?
Charming.
The reason you might not feel that way about Leavers and Tories is because you've been engaging with so many of us on here for so long that you realise the world isn't that simple.
That's precisely my point.
From my point of view I can see rational reasons for voting Tory and although many who voted leave I think did so for irrational* reasons, there are clearly many who did for completely rational reasons.
It is difficult to see any rational reason for voting for Trump, which is why the scale of his vote is so scary.
* Two of my favourites from personal conversations were: There are too many 'coloureds' here already and the criminal gangs are all Albanian.
If you were living in small town Hicksville, Flyover State in 2016, and had seen either a) your wages remain static since the previous century while the millionaires on the coast became billionaires, and/or b) the only major employer in your town decamp elsewhere while more and more of the stuff you used to make get imported from China and/or c) the social fabric of your town fraying, do you vote for a) more of the same, in the person and party of a candidate who appears to view you and your ilk as at best something of an embarrassment, or b) Trump? I don't like the man. But I can see why people voted for him.
I actually understand voting for Trump more than voting for Brexit. In that the US in 2016 was clearly a broken society failing the majority of its citizens, as evident in phenomena like falling life expectancy and the opioid epidemic. I don't think the UK was experiencing the same level of political failure and social fracture before 2016. Although, interestingly, it seems to be now!
That you couldn't see the broken social fracture here before Brexit is the reason Brexit happened.
I'm not sure I can take sole responsibility! I'm not saying there were no problems in the UK - far from it. But I'd moved back from the US about 5 or 6 years earlier and the US was just a much more obviously broken place, to me at least.
No, we've had a chat, taken a vote - and it was you alone that caused Brexit.
When was the last time positive tests, admissions and deaths were all falling?
Monday and all that, but given the slowing down in the rate of increase of cases recently, was somewhat inevitable
Good news week on week. A modest huzzah
Let#s wait till tommorow to break out the champers...
4 October 2021 LOG CATEGORY:DATA ISSUE England deaths within 28 days of positive test affected by delay Daily counts of deaths in England rely on multiple data sources. Data from one source was delayed on 4 October 2021.
This will have a small impact on the total number of deaths reported today. Any additional deaths related to this delay will be included in the numbers published on 5 October 2021.
The key metric for me is hospitalisations. They have now been falling for some time
Just reread what I wrote, it's deaths which are a bit undercounted today - not cases which is what I thought I'd written. All good.
I made the same slip earlier (but didn't post) – I read it as positive tests initially before I re-read it.
I'm sure many thought that in the 80's too. They are not, but not enough at the top of labour have grasped that you need to actually get voted in to be able to enact new laws and change the country. The need to be prepared to stop revelling in the internal fights and frame a vision of the country that the centre of the nation can vote for. Frankly, people like me. Don't have a joke candidate in charge - Corbyn, for all his passion, seems a fairly stupid person. I don't particularly like Kier Starmer, but as least his is a sensible, erudite person. He needs more such people around him.
When was the last time positive tests, admissions and deaths were all falling?
Monday and all that, but given the slowing down in the rate of increase of cases recently, was somewhat inevitable
Good news week on week. A modest huzzah
Let#s wait till tommorow to break out the champers...
4 October 2021 LOG CATEGORY:DATA ISSUE England deaths within 28 days of positive test affected by delay Daily counts of deaths in England rely on multiple data sources. Data from one source was delayed on 4 October 2021.
This will have a small impact on the total number of deaths reported today. Any additional deaths related to this delay will be included in the numbers published on 5 October 2021.
It's not going to make much of a material difference – the overall deaths figure today is -18%, so it's still going to be comfortably in the green zone by my maths.
One thing about the cases, they look like they're at a plateau which won't drop for love nor money - but it's a bit of a false enemy because the kids are sky high within the current case count so there is loads of potential to drop. We might hit endemic oscillation at some point in the future, but we're not there yet.
Between Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer, 42% say they think Boris Johnson would be a better Prime Minister for the United Kingdom at this moment than Keir Starmer, a figure which has increased marginally from 41% last week. Conversely, 32% think Keir Starmer would be the better Prime Minister when compared to Boris Johnson (up 1%).
So much for all that Conference self-congratulation, New Labour types.....
When was the last time positive tests, admissions and deaths were all falling?
Monday and all that, but given the slowing down in the rate of increase of cases recently, was somewhat inevitable
Good news week on week. A modest huzzah
Let#s wait till tommorow to break out the champers...
4 October 2021 LOG CATEGORY:DATA ISSUE England deaths within 28 days of positive test affected by delay Daily counts of deaths in England rely on multiple data sources. Data from one source was delayed on 4 October 2021.
This will have a small impact on the total number of deaths reported today. Any additional deaths related to this delay will be included in the numbers published on 5 October 2021.
It's not going to make much of a material difference – the overall deaths figure today is -18%, so it's still going to be comfortably in the green zone by my maths.
One thing about the cases, they look like they're at a plateau which won't drop for love nor money - but it's a bit of a false enemy because the kids are sky high within the current case count so there is loads of potential to drop. We might hit endemic oscillation at some point in the future, but we're not there yet.
The rate at which covid is going through the schools suggest that the U18 ages cannot be sustained that high for long. I strongly suspect that by christmas almost all the kids will have had this and that rates in those ages will have crashed. The danger is probably if we get too much leak out to the parents and grandparents.
When was the last time positive tests, admissions and deaths were all falling?
Monday and all that, but given the slowing down in the rate of increase of cases recently, was somewhat inevitable
Good news week on week. A modest huzzah
Let#s wait till tommorow to break out the champers...
4 October 2021 LOG CATEGORY:DATA ISSUE England deaths within 28 days of positive test affected by delay Daily counts of deaths in England rely on multiple data sources. Data from one source was delayed on 4 October 2021.
This will have a small impact on the total number of deaths reported today. Any additional deaths related to this delay will be included in the numbers published on 5 October 2021.
The key metric for me is hospitalisations. They have now been falling for some time
Just reread what I wrote, it's deaths which are a bit undercounted today - not cases which is what I thought I'd written. All good.
Cases marginally down but essentially flat.
Hospitalisations down 10%.
Funny, I seem to recall 'the smartest person in the room' adamantly insisting that there was a fixed relationship between cases and hospitalisations. Doesn't look like it looking at the charts.
I'm sure many thought that in the 80's too. They are not, but not enough at the top of labour have grasped that you need to actually get voted in to be able to enact new laws and change the country. The need to be prepared to stop revelling in the internal fights and frame a vision of the country that the centre of the nation can vote for. Frankly, people like me. Don't have a joke candidate in charge - Corbyn, for all his passion, seems a fairly stupid person. I don't particularly like Kier Starmer, but as least his is a sensible, erudite person. He needs more such people around him.
He does have one major flaw –– PBers, with all their certificates, professional accreditations and degrees, are seemingly incapable of spelling his name correctly!
I'm sure many thought that in the 80's too. They are not, but not enough at the top of labour have grasped that you need to actually get voted in to be able to enact new laws and change the country. The need to be prepared to stop revelling in the internal fights and frame a vision of the country that the centre of the nation can vote for. Frankly, people like me. Don't have a joke candidate in charge - Corbyn, for all his passion, seems a fairly stupid person. I don't particularly like Kier Starmer, but as least his is a sensible, erudite person. He needs more such people around him.
He does have one major flaw –– PBers, with all their certificates, professional accreditations and degrees, are seemingly incapable of spelling his name correctly!
K
E
I
R
I thought it was Kier Is Exactly Right? Weird. Or is it Wierd?
When was the last time positive tests, admissions and deaths were all falling?
Monday and all that, but given the slowing down in the rate of increase of cases recently, was somewhat inevitable
Good news week on week. A modest huzzah
Let#s wait till tommorow to break out the champers...
4 October 2021 LOG CATEGORY:DATA ISSUE England deaths within 28 days of positive test affected by delay Daily counts of deaths in England rely on multiple data sources. Data from one source was delayed on 4 October 2021.
This will have a small impact on the total number of deaths reported today. Any additional deaths related to this delay will be included in the numbers published on 5 October 2021.
It's not going to make much of a material difference – the overall deaths figure today is -18%, so it's still going to be comfortably in the green zone by my maths.
One thing about the cases, they look like they're at a plateau which won't drop for love nor money - but it's a bit of a false enemy because the kids are sky high within the current case count so there is loads of potential to drop. We might hit endemic oscillation at some point in the future, but we're not there yet.
Indeed, thousands of children appear in the data because of compulsory schools testing: in many case, they'd be none the wiser were it not for the test. Lots of schoolchildren around here have picked up a positive test without any symptoms whatsoever.
I'm sure many thought that in the 80's too. They are not, but not enough at the top of labour have grasped that you need to actually get voted in to be able to enact new laws and change the country. The need to be prepared to stop revelling in the internal fights and frame a vision of the country that the centre of the nation can vote for. Frankly, people like me. Don't have a joke candidate in charge - Corbyn, for all his passion, seems a fairly stupid person. I don't particularly like Kier Starmer, but as least his is a sensible, erudite person. He needs more such people around him.
He does have one major flaw –– PBers, with all their certificates, professional accreditations and degrees, are seemingly incapable of spelling his name correctly!
If Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer want my vote and thus a landslide at the next election then they will pass a law allowing drivers run over the insulate Britain types.
I just interviewed Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
Discussing the incident of the Insulate Britain protesters blocking a woman in tears trying to get to a hospital - he says he’d do the same.
Unlikely I will actually read it though, I haven't finished a book in a long while. Not even "The Old Man & The Sea" which is less than 100 pages long and I started 3 months ago
Read 'Moon' as a teenager and I remember loving it. Very funny. Don't know if I'd still think that now. Never reread it. Found 'Sea' a struggle. Ditto the other 2 Hemmingways I've read. Can't quite see what others do in him. My fault, no doubt.
I watched the Hemingway documentaries on BBC recently and loved them, so bought "the Old Man..."
I just don't get it, and I dont know if I will bother to finish it - is there a twist? Does he lose the fish???
I buy lots of books I will never read. Sad but true
Yes, really good doc, that. Amazing how often he bumped his head. In fact has a bloke ever bumped his head as often as old Ernest did? I doubt it.
Ernest is another name that I suggested, and was vetoed, for our new baby. Although I don't like "Ernie" and he would get called that I guess. More of a middle name perhaps
I have bumped my head a few times. A couple of drunken falls resulting in 2 new front teeth and 27 stitches in my head. Nothing on old EH though
Survived 2 plane crashes in one day! He made lots of things up to feed the legend but that was true. Good call imo to reject Ernest for the baby. Like you say, risk of "Ernie" which you probably wouldn't want. What about Enoch? That can't be shortened into anything lacking gravitas.
I think that name would be a burden on him.
A bit old-fashioned, you mean? Ok, but such names are making a comeback. Still, I suppose you don't really need my input on the matter. I'll butt out.
I'm sure many thought that in the 80's too. They are not, but not enough at the top of labour have grasped that you need to actually get voted in to be able to enact new laws and change the country. The need to be prepared to stop revelling in the internal fights and frame a vision of the country that the centre of the nation can vote for. Frankly, people like me. Don't have a joke candidate in charge - Corbyn, for all his passion, seems a fairly stupid person. I don't particularly like Kier Starmer, but as least his is a sensible, erudite person. He needs more such people around him.
He does have one major flaw –– PBers, with all their certificates, professional accreditations and degrees, are seemingly incapable of spelling his name correctly!
K
E
I
R
I thought it was Kier Is Exactly Right? Weird. Or is it Wierd?
Ha! I bloody love it when a meme takes off, especially one as subversive as that.
If Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer want my vote and thus a landslide at the next election then they will pass a law allowing drivers run over the insulate Britain types.
I just interviewed Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
Discussing the incident of the Insulate Britain protesters blocking a woman in tears trying to get to a hospital - he says he’d do the same.
The Government really needs to make blockading roads a criminal offence given the way Insulate Britain are behaving. They're utterly scummy and abusing the 'right' to protest to the point that it should be criminal.
Protest at the side of the road etc, but no blockading ambulances. People could die from this.
If Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer want my vote and thus a landslide at the next election then they will pass a law allowing drivers run over the insulate Britain types.
I just interviewed Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
Discussing the incident of the Insulate Britain protesters blocking a woman in tears trying to get to a hospital - he says he’d do the same.
In a way I respect him for admitting that. If you only think a mild disruption that doesn't do more than annoy some people is enough then perhaps the issue is not all that serious. "I'm prepared to contribute to people dying as a result of my actions" at least shows he probably believes in what he says, even if he's nutty.
If Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer want my vote and thus a landslide at the next election then they will pass a law allowing drivers run over the insulate Britain types.
I just interviewed Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
Discussing the incident of the Insulate Britain protesters blocking a woman in tears trying to get to a hospital - he says he’d do the same.
In a way I respect him for admitting that. If you only think a mild disruption that doesn't do more than annoy some people is enough then perhaps the issue is not all that serious. "I'm prepared to contribute to people dying as a result of my actions" at least shows he probably believes in what he says, even if he's nutty.
I'd have more respect if he were prepared to be incarcerated for a year or go on a hunger strike.
He just wants to go on his jollies and have others die, not himself.
When was the last time positive tests, admissions and deaths were all falling?
Monday and all that, but given the slowing down in the rate of increase of cases recently, was somewhat inevitable
Good news week on week. A modest huzzah
Let#s wait till tommorow to break out the champers...
4 October 2021 LOG CATEGORY:DATA ISSUE England deaths within 28 days of positive test affected by delay Daily counts of deaths in England rely on multiple data sources. Data from one source was delayed on 4 October 2021.
This will have a small impact on the total number of deaths reported today. Any additional deaths related to this delay will be included in the numbers published on 5 October 2021.
The key metric for me is hospitalisations. They have now been falling for some time
Just reread what I wrote, it's deaths which are a bit undercounted today - not cases which is what I thought I'd written. All good.
Cases marginally down but essentially flat.
Hospitalisations down 10%.
Funny, I seem to recall 'the smartest person in the room' adamantly insisting that there was a fixed relationship between cases and hospitalisations. Doesn't look like it looking at the charts.
Leaving TSPITR aside for one moment, one of the my nominees for Innumerate Mantra of the Pandemic award is the oft trotted "the link between cases and hospitalisations has been weakened, but it has not been severed".
It can never be severed.
In order to record one Covid hospitalisation, one must also record a Covid case! Sure, the rate of conversion from case to hospitalisation can vary (and seems to be falling as you say), but it is mathematically and logically impossible for the link to be severed!
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
I'm sure many thought that in the 80's too. They are not, but not enough at the top of labour have grasped that you need to actually get voted in to be able to enact new laws and change the country. The need to be prepared to stop revelling in the internal fights and frame a vision of the country that the centre of the nation can vote for. Frankly, people like me. Don't have a joke candidate in charge - Corbyn, for all his passion, seems a fairly stupid person. I don't particularly like Kier Starmer, but as least his is a sensible, erudite person. He needs more such people around him.
He does have one major flaw –– PBers, with all their certificates, professional accreditations and degrees, are seemingly incapable of spelling his name correctly!
The Government really needs to make blockading roads a criminal offence given the way Insulate Britain are behaving. They're utterly scummy and abusing the 'right' to protest to the point that it should be criminal.
If Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer want my vote and thus a landslide at the next election then they will pass a law allowing drivers run over the insulate Britain types.
I just interviewed Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
Discussing the incident of the Insulate Britain protesters blocking a woman in tears trying to get to a hospital - he says he’d do the same.
In a way I respect him for admitting that. If you only think a mild disruption that doesn't do more than annoy some people is enough then perhaps the issue is not all that serious. "I'm prepared to contribute to people dying as a result of my actions" at least shows he probably believes in what he says, even if he's nutty.
I'd have more respect if he were prepared to be incarcerated for a year or go on a hunger strike.
He just wants to go on his jollies and have others die, not himself.
I did say 'in a way', it doesn't make mean on balance I respect him, there's plenty in the disrespect column. I just appreciate he didn't fudge there.
I do find it odd when they plead not guilty to things or whinge about being arrested, when the whole point is they say they are prepared to do that to get attention on the cause.
If Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer want my vote and thus a landslide at the next election then they will pass a law allowing drivers run over the insulate Britain types.
I just interviewed Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
Discussing the incident of the Insulate Britain protesters blocking a woman in tears trying to get to a hospital - he says he’d do the same.
Yes, but what would that mean for SCOTLAND? And the chances of another indyref?
You constantly avoid this question. It's beyond a joke now.
Still no indyref2 obviously if Boris forms a government with DUP support.
Probably also direct rule from London over NI, even more funds for NI and definitely invocation of the Article 16 safeguarding clause of the NI Protocol
If Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer want my vote and thus a landslide at the next election then they will pass a law allowing drivers run over the insulate Britain types.
I just interviewed Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
Discussing the incident of the Insulate Britain protesters blocking a woman in tears trying to get to a hospital - he says he’d do the same.
The Government really needs to make blockading roads a criminal offence given the way Insulate Britain are behaving. They're utterly scummy and abusing the 'right' to protest to the point that it should be criminal.
Protest at the side of the road etc, but no blockading ambulances. People could die from this.
I find it somewhat hard to believe, given that non negligible risk, that there is no existing offence they could reasonably be charged with.
Labour majority government is finished for at least the next 6 years, and perhaps more, but Labour are not remotely finished. They are placed as one of only two parties who could plausibly lead a government and are likely to be the only party that could lead an alliance/rainbow/ coalition. It is obviously that towards which they are aiming, and their chance of achieving it are high - about 40% in my view.
If we get inflation and interest rate rises that figure of 40% will rise.
All this has virtually nothing to do with policy - the parties have no major differences on non-unicorn issues. It's about being able to occupy a remaining chair when the music stops.
FPT @Selebian. I think you're blind to the issue here - I'll highlight two main points the article makes:
(1) "In a recent report on academic freedom in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada for the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, I found that 40 percent of American academics would not hire a known Trump supporter, and 33 percent of British academics would avoid hiring a known Brexit supporter. When it comes to refereeing papers, grant bids, and promotion applications, my own work and that of others indicates that the likelihood of an academic’s discriminating against an openly conservative submission is as high as 45 percent. On a four-person panel, that makes discrimination a near certainty."
(2) "In the 1960s there were only one and a half journalists and academics on the left for every one on the right. Today that ratio is between four to one and six to one, and considerably higher among political journalists and social-science and humanities academics. In a report on academia for the Manhattan Institute, I noted that left-leaning social-science and humanities academics now outnumber those on the right in Britain by nine to one, and in the U.S. by 14 to one. Work by Mitchell Langbert using voter-registration data for the top liberal-arts colleges and universities (for five disciplines) also shows lopsided ratios. At Harvard, for instance, a recent inquiry reported a $250-to-$1 Democrat-to-Republican donation ratio among the staff."
It's not enough for there to be "legal" protections - hard to access, prove and leverage - because an institutional culture of intolerance creates an environment that is suffocating to those already employed and inhibits any future recruitment to correct it. This means even fewer conservatives apply in the first place and thus reinforces a monoculture.
Those that are employed (like my friend at the University of Bath, for example, or me at the Woke firm I've just left) "fear losing (their) job or missing out on job opportunities if (their) political views became known.” And so, as in authoritarian regimes, dissenters keep their views to themselves through preference falsification. This has been precisely my experience.
It's a problem for all of us because these institutions form a large part of our civic society - arbitrating between the citizen and the state - and thus contributes to polarisation within it.
It needs to be addressed.
The website would only let me read the opening few paragraphs of the article, sadly, but the overall tone struck me as dishonest. It started with this dramatic statistic from the dating site, then extrapolated this to discrimination in hiring, despite these being completely different and indeed unrelated things (for instance, I wouldn't date a man but I would hire one). In my own field of economics there is a range of political views. In academia there is a left wing skew, in markets there is a right wing skew. This seems entirely understandable when you think of the likely difference in motivations and values between the two industries. Academia has got more left wing over the years, but then it has also become much worse paid, in relative terms, and those facts are probably related (we might argue over the direction of causation!). As a left wing person working in the markets I don't complain about the dearth of ideological soulmates, I don't know why right wing academics are so snowflakey about it. I have collaborated in academic research with people of various political stripes including Conservative US Republicans. In my experience, research with a clear ideological skew, left or right, is most likely bad research. The goal should be uncovering the truth, not advancing an agenda. Of course, if I were an ideological hack flogging policy-based evidence-making I might feel like I was getting discriminated when my research got rejected by top journals - but the likelihood is that the research was just bad. I do recall attending a very right-leaning conference where there was a lot of moaning about the Liberal bias in US academia, but the conference was lavishly funded by Conservative benefactors and hosted at a top Ivy League school so the whole complaint rang a little hollow to me. It had a strong whiff of privileges being defended.
There's some good points in here - including your admirable acknowledgement that research with a clear ideological skew is poor research - but why is your first instinct to attack Eric Kauffman's honesty?
He's a respected Canadian Academic (of mixed Chinese, Hispanic and European ancestry) working in a British university. He cited a variety of studies in making his points, and they're all respectable ones.
We need to get past the ad hominum into the specifics. Far too many of the responses to articles like this run along the lines of "he's making it up" and "I don't see any of this, so it can't be true".
What I'm interested in is everyone feeling able and willing to discuss their views and differences openly. That has to start with less prejudgement, more listening, and more forgiveness, and it's that I'm interested in.
It's the only way to confine polarisation to the fringes where it belongs, rather than it being part of the mainstream, and we have to work harder and harder at it in the social media age, not less.
All great points but I think you cut too much slack to Trumpery. It shouldn't be viewed like, say, being a Tory, a Brexiter, a social democrat, a "classic liberal", a small state libertarian, or whatever. He's a hate monger and those who lap that up can't expect it not to be held against them by those who don't.
I would judge Trump very differently from one of his voters, who include plenty of ordinary Americans, and give them the benefit of the doubt.
Of course lots of decent people voted for him. This must be the case given the numbers. Nevertheless he has colonized the Republican party, which is both chastening and frightening to somebody like me who takes a broadly sunny-side-up view of humanity, so I'm afraid I'm the other way around to you in that I'd be a touch wary of a person who I know voted for him until I get some evidence they did it reluctantly and despite the hate he throws out and for want of (in their eyes) a viable alternative. Pls note I do NOT feel this way about Leavers and Tories etc. It's a Trump thing.
So, in your eyes they are guilty until proven innocent?
Charming.
The reason you might not feel that way about Leavers and Tories is because you've been engaging with so many of us on here for so long that you realise the world isn't that simple.
That's precisely my point.
From my point of view I can see rational reasons for voting Tory and although many who voted leave I think did so for irrational* reasons, there are clearly many who did for completely rational reasons.
It is difficult to see any rational reason for voting for Trump, which is why the scale of his vote is so scary.
* Two of my favourites from personal conversations were: There are too many 'coloureds' here already and the criminal gangs are all Albanian.
Reasons given by voters for going Trump were (a) that America was going in the wrong direction and needed shaking up (kick ass). Trump was an outsider who could do this. (b) Trump was a successful businessman, who could get the deals and make stuff happen.
I would say the motivations for voting Trump and voting Brexit were not so different. The voters may be misinformed, but rational.
The bit that bothers me are the majority that stuck with Trump and Brexit/Tories long after their original rationales were clearly shown to be nonsense.
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
They will want indyref2, which Starmer will have to give them as they will string him along until he does, unless there is a sudden shift in the polls he would be unlikely to get a working majority from a snap election anyway.
Though I would enjoy the sight of a Starmer government being as pitiful as the May government from 2017-2019 Labour did so much to destroy, poetic justice
When was the last time positive tests, admissions and deaths were all falling?
Monday and all that, but given the slowing down in the rate of increase of cases recently, was somewhat inevitable
Good news week on week. A modest huzzah
Let#s wait till tommorow to break out the champers...
4 October 2021 LOG CATEGORY:DATA ISSUE England deaths within 28 days of positive test affected by delay Daily counts of deaths in England rely on multiple data sources. Data from one source was delayed on 4 October 2021.
This will have a small impact on the total number of deaths reported today. Any additional deaths related to this delay will be included in the numbers published on 5 October 2021.
The key metric for me is hospitalisations. They have now been falling for some time
Just reread what I wrote, it's deaths which are a bit undercounted today - not cases which is what I thought I'd written. All good.
Cases marginally down but essentially flat.
Hospitalisations down 10%.
Funny, I seem to recall 'the smartest person in the room' adamantly insisting that there was a fixed relationship between cases and hospitalisations. Doesn't look like it looking at the charts.
You need to break it down by country to get a better view.
Scotland hospitalisations have been high but steeply falling (matching the steep fall in cases) England hospitalisations have been flat since 20th of September when cases have also been flat.
WhatsApp is a pita, you join groups you don't much want to join and then can't leave without looking rude cos it tells everyone you left. Also it does that creepy last seen at stalking thing. Also you think your girlfriend has dumped you during her dubai stopover because you don't realise its illegal there.
WhatsApp is a pita, you join groups you don't much want to join and then can't leave without looking rude cos it tells everyone you left. Also it does that creepy last seen at stalking thing. Also you think your girlfriend has dumped you during her dubai stopover because you don't realise its illegal there.
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
They will want indyref2, which Starmer will have to give them, unless there is a sudden shift in the polls he would be unlikely to get a working majority from a snap election anyway
If Labour looked like they had left behind Corbyn and his nutty followers and were indeed something much more akin to Blair's New Labour, then I don't see why a majority would be at all unlikely. It would partly depend on whether the Tories went bat-shit crazy and booted Boris for Nadine, but Labour in power and looking sensible - I reckon folk would vote to continue that.
IndyRef 2 that sees Scotland depart might not be such a good look for Labour - especially if they then faced a Tory Party with a majority of seats. Labour therefore needs to win more seats than the Tories, IMHO.
Yes, but what would that mean for SCOTLAND? And the chances of another indyref?
You constantly avoid this question. It's beyond a joke now.
Still no indyref2 obviously if Boris forms a government with DUP support.
Probably also direct rule from London over NI, even more funds for NI and definitely invocation of the Article 16 safeguarding clause of the NI Protocol
'In a separate interview, Nick Allen, the chief executive of the British Meat Processors Association, told Sky News that while the government criticised producers for paying low wages, it was happy for meat to be imported from countries that paid low wages. He said:
"What’s interesting is [the government is] happy to ban the import of non-UK labour in this country, but they continue to actually aid and abet imported food from countries that have got access to this labour.
At the end of the day someone has to pay for these increased wages and they somewhat get in the way of that by aiding and abetting imported food."'
The revealing bit of that Boris interview was what he said about this being a transition. We are about to destructively test the drive of the last 20 years where consumers actively choose British products. Frankly a "buy British, eat British, build British" campaign is the obvious thing missing from the government's strategy - why aren't they doing so?
Instead we are going to see our stuff get a lot more expensive, making imports more appealing than ever. People want to buy local but if they can't because it costs too much then the choice of import vs nothing will push import for many.
Which will literally fuck farming to death. Philip and some free market ideologues may welcome this, most people won't. The government will try and blame farmers until as with all the other "lets blame industry" attempts the actual numbers get published and the minister is shown up to be an absolute spanner. At which point the government caves in.
Exactly, I can't work out if the government are autarkists (like Germany in 1930s) or free range marketeers (like the UK in the C19 and early C20, which wrecked farming also).
Why the heck should the government get involved in a "buy British, eat British, build British" campaign? How is that the government's responsibility? Advertising and marketing is not the government's responsibility, that's not what we pay our taxes for.
Buying British when its economically competitive so why not buy British is easy to do. Buying British when it costs a premium ... that's actually then up to the consumers to make their choice.
If British farming gets fucked to death, then quite frankly I don't see why we should care - any more than when British mining got fucked to death. How are farmers any different to miners?
Farming takes up 70% of this countries land, but agriculture represents 0.59% of GDP. I'm not sure if that includes the 0.1% of GDP that the fisheries represent.
If we import more, we import more, but what we should not be importing is slavesserfspeasants minimum wage employees.
That's what the Tories and free market liberals said until the Great War. Which the UK very nearly lost if the Germans hadn't been so pusillanimous with the U-boats.
Amazing the Brexiters love to go on about Spitfires but forget the Battle of the Atlantic.
Yes and the liberals were right then and even more right now.
We didn't lose the war and we're not at any real risk in the 21st century of being blockaded so get real. We are a wealthy nation, especially if we stop deflating our economy by importing from the third world, or dedicating 70% of land to 0.49% of GDP.
We spent decades relying upon imported coal for our electricity and we didn't get impoverished as a nation or blockaded by U-Boats when that happened. Special pleading by vested interests should be treated with the same amount of respect as the NUM got in the 80s.
Plenty of hostages to fortune there.
Why was it OK to import coal for our electricity but not import meat?
In the modern world electricity is just as important as food.
Miners voted Labour.
Farmers vote Conservative. And put bloody big signs in their fields during election campaigns.
I think PT has forgotten the Tory Party was the party who introduced the Corn Laws in 1815.
Peel was only able to repeal them with the support of the Whigs. Most of his party still backed them and so his fellow free trading Peelites who were a minority in the Tory party ended up forming the Liberal party with the Whigs and Radicals in the 1850s
The Tories implemented them, and the Conservatives repealed them. The old Tory party you back is dead, it died in the 19th century.
I would be a Whig if we had Tory v Whig old-school. But the Conservatives absorbed a lot of the old Whig thinking.
No the Conservatives did not repeal them.
Most Tory MPs voted against repealing the Corn Laws, as I said Peel was only able to repeal them with the support of Whig MPs.
Brexit has revived the protectionist Tory party in terms of the party's core vote. Many middle class professional, pro free trade Remainers who voted for Cameron are now voting LD or Starmer Labour. Most protectionist working class UKIP voters from 2015 are now voting Conservative
Some very interesting content in this series of posts, which has got me thinking more about the journey the conservatives have been on.
Yesterday you made some - seemingly tongue in cheek - remarks along the lines of ladies cycling to holy communion, farms shops and so on. There is a rich and long established mercantilist, anti-free trade tradition in the Tory party dating back to the corn laws and beyond. This is the traditional ideology of the landed class on which the party was based. Some of the rhetoric now (possibly accidentally) coming from ministers could arguably look like a return to the old roots. This would make the politics our version of Gaullism - protect the domestic producers, don't be shy of red tape, and encourage a society of artisan production, with state control over heavy industry.
At the same time other forces are at work in the party too. The populism that sees the EU as the enemy (e.g. Truss neglecting even to mention the bloc among the UK's allies), rails against the urban elites and seeks out a bonfire of regulations. That's a different tradition - to keep with the French theme it's what they would call Poujadisme - the politics of Pierre Poujade. Its British archetype is the White Van Man. That + a hint of cronyism and we're also in the world of Berlusconi. This is a very different tradition from the old Tory one above.
Both of these share one thing in common though which is the protection of the small producer - the artisan, the yeoman farmer, the tradesman - and the skilled manual employee. The trouble is, as people have noted, for this to work for the client group it represents you need protection from both imported labour and imported goods, otherwise the latter will undercut domestic production. At the moment we have one and not the other and that feels inherently unstable. Either you go the free trade route and keep labour on tap, or you go properly protectionist.
There is one magic bullet that would resolve the conundrum, which is automation and technological innovation. Then you see wage growth and margin growth while costs remain competitive. I'm just not sure where and how that will come about here, but we do desperately need it and for that we need major catch up capital investment by business.
Personally I consider myself a British Gaullist to some extent. Trump combined some elements of Gaullist economics with Poujadist populism. That is now largely the conservative coalition in much of the western world.
Automation is effective if it keeps down costs without rising unemployment.
Andrew Neil talking about the new Tory coalition on BBC2 now
No true Tory/Brit would ever compare themselves to any French person, least of all De Gaulle.
Some of my ancestors were French Huguenots, I am a little bit French genetically
After 40 generations, statistically any one ancestor represents 1 trillionth of your DNA. Which is to say, nil.
FPT but I have to point out that that is so unfair to HYUFD - we're not talking about the Norman Conquest but French Protestants in the early modern era
1. For him a generation is 50 years 2. Epping, so probably a Spitalfields Huguenot - who came over here in 1570s or 1680s.
So let's say he's 21 and that gives us 6-8 generations = 1/2exp8 = 3.9 x 10exp-3 at worst = 0.4% say
That also assumes no endogamy within the Huguenot community, but there was in fact, so that could easily be doubled or quadrupled.
The maths of genetic inheritance is considerably more complicated than that. You get half of your DNA from each parent, but this doesn't mean that you have a quarter from each grandparent, because the half of reach parents DNA that you inherit is chosen in large chunks, and so you could inherit a lot more from one grandparent than the other, on each side.
This means that, while we might all be able to trace descent from a common ancestor (Charlemagne for Europeans, say) we won't all have DNA passed down from Charlemagne - and those of us that do might have surprisingly large quantities of it.
But doesn't that even out? Regression to the mean and all that.
If the chunks of DNA were small enough then the law of large numbers would apply, but they aren't, so it doesn't. See this blog post on it, which also mentions a difference between male and female genetic inheritance variability.
Thanks for that! I realised later my reply was silly - I was assuming very high levels of recombination despite your warning. The law of large numbers won't compensate for lumpy chromosomal recombination right at the start, which is what counts here. But your reply has been much more specific than that.
If Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer want my vote and thus a landslide at the next election then they will pass a law allowing drivers run over the insulate Britain types.
I just interviewed Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
Discussing the incident of the Insulate Britain protesters blocking a woman in tears trying to get to a hospital - he says he’d do the same.
The Government really needs to make blockading roads a criminal offence given the way Insulate Britain are behaving. They're utterly scummy and abusing the 'right' to protest to the point that it should be criminal.
Protest at the side of the road etc, but no blockading ambulances. People could die from this.
I find it somewhat hard to believe, given that non negligible risk, that there is no existing offence they could reasonably be charged with.
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
They will want indyref2, which Starmer will have to give them as they will string him along until he does, unless there is a sudden shift in the polls he would be unlikely to get a working majority from a snap election anyway.
Though I would enjoy the sight of a Starmer government being as pitiful as the May government from 2017-2019 Labour did so much to destroy, poetic justice
In any case the SNP wouldn't vote on English-only matters, so Westminster would be a midden right from the start simply because of that abstention (compare UK vs English matters).
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
They will want indyref2, which Starmer will have to give them, unless there is a sudden shift in the polls he would be unlikely to get a working majority from a snap election anyway
If Labour looked like they had left behind Corbyn and his nutty followers and were indeed something much more akin to Blair's New Labour, then I don't see why a majority would be at all unlikely. It would partly depend on whether the Tories went bat-shit crazy and booted Boris for Nadine, but Labour in power and looking sensible - I reckon folk would vote to continue that.
IndyRef 2 that sees Scotland depart might not be such a good look for Labour - especially if they then faced a Tory Party with a majority of seats. Labour therefore needs to win more seats than the Tories, IMHO.
If Labour had to give the SNP indyref2 as they were second on seats in a hung parliament and even despite a devomax offer etc then Scotland voted Yes then once SNP MPs left the Commons, the Tories would automatically return to government without a general election as they would almost certainly have a majority in rUK.
English voters would also want as hard a line as possible taken with the SNP government in Edinburgh in Scexit talks, just as EU voters wanted as hard a line as possible taken with the UK government in London in Brexit talks
Yes, but what would that mean for SCOTLAND? And the chances of another indyref?
You constantly avoid this question. It's beyond a joke now.
Still no indyref2 obviously if Boris forms a government with DUP support.
Probably also direct rule from London over NI, even more funds for NI and definitely invocation of the Article 16 safeguarding clause of the NI Protocol
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
They will want indyref2, which Starmer will have to give them, unless there is a sudden shift in the polls he would be unlikely to get a working majority from a snap election anyway
If Labour looked like they had left behind Corbyn and his nutty followers and were indeed something much more akin to Blair's New Labour, then I don't see why a majority would be at all unlikely. It would partly depend on whether the Tories went bat-shit crazy and booted Boris for Nadine, but Labour in power and looking sensible - I reckon folk would vote to continue that.
IndyRef 2 that sees Scotland depart might not be such a good look for Labour - especially if they then faced a Tory Party with a majority of seats. Labour therefore needs to win more seats than the Tories, IMHO.
If Labour had to give the SNP indyref2 as they were second on seats in a hung parliament and even despite a devomax offer etc then Scotland voted Yes then once SNP MPs left the Commons, the Tories would automatically return to government without a general election as they would almost certainly have a majority in rUK
Which is why I say Labour needs more seats than the Tories. Or else the SNP will know Labour won't deliver on indyref 2. To go back into Opposition???
Between Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer, 42% say they think Boris Johnson would be a better Prime Minister for the United Kingdom at this moment than Keir Starmer, a figure which has increased marginally from 41% last week. Conversely, 32% think Keir Starmer would be the better Prime Minister when compared to Boris Johnson (up 1%).
More specifically, Boris Johnson continues to lead over Keir Starmer as being the one who best embodies the following descriptions: ‘can build a strong economy’ (41% to 29%), ‘stands up for the interests of the United Kingdom’ (41% to 32%), ‘can tackle the coronavirus pandemic’ (40% to 27%), and ‘knows how to get things done’ (39% to 29%).
Keir Starmer continues to lead over Boris Johnson when it comes to best embodying the descriptions of ‘being in good physical and mental health’ (41% to 27%) and ‘is willing to work with other parties when possible’ (36% to 30%). Starmer also now leads for best embodying ‘represents change’ (38% to 31%).
Substantial proportions of respondents say they do not know which of the two ‘tells the truth’ (47%), ‘is creative’ (45%), or ‘prioritises the environment’ (44%).
Polling says Johnson is better at ruining the economy than Starmer. Which is a joke...
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
They will want indyref2, which Starmer will have to give them as they will string him along until he does, unless there is a sudden shift in the polls he would be unlikely to get a working majority from a snap election anyway.
Though I would enjoy the sight of a Starmer government being as pitiful as the May government from 2017-2019 Labour did so much to destroy, poetic justice
In any case the SNP wouldn't vote on English-only matters, so Westminster would be a midden right from the start simply because of that abstention (compare UK vs English matters).
Yes it would be 2 governments, Starmer PM of the UK government but the Tories still effectively governing England and deciding English domestic policy.
The West Lothian question would come to the fore and on current polls it is very possible
"at the moment there is no 5G coverage in your area"
Get two sims into your phone.
Are you on Vodafone or Three?
I have o2 and EE in my phone and between those two I get 5G coverage in most of the big towns and cities.
I have a dual device strategy
My main phone is Vodafone which gets an upgrade in a few weeks. This is my secondary device, which has just been upgraded to 5G and iPhone 13. But no 5G in my area
Re the article, in almost all the midlands and north of England there are exactly two relevant parties, except lots of them where there is only one. Leaving aside safe seats those two parties are Labour and Tory. When the government is having a hard time Labour is where you go. There is nowhere else.
Which is why while SKS has no chance of a Labour government in 2023/4, he has as good a chance as the Tories of forming an (alliance) government. As these polls show. I still put it at 40%, but current trends suggest it maybe should be higher.
Labour gain 35, LD gain 12. SNP gain 3. Done.
The SNP would not even give C&S to Labour in that situation. They'd just say to Starmer, OK laddie, off yer go to Downing Street. And then milk every possible amount they could, before slamming the door. The most unstable period in UK governing history would end with a clamour for the Scots to be booted out the Union. They hope.
Or else an election - and a strong new Government with a majority to consign them to oblivion.
To form a stable government Starmer certainly needs Labour to win most seats, agreed, even if not a majority. If Labour has more seats than the Tories he can afford to ignore the SNP as the SNP will not vote with the Tories on most legislation.
If the Tories lose their majority but still have most seats however then Starmer could become PM but the SNP would demand a high price for their support for a Labour minority government, including devomax and indyref2
You are a bright guy. Which of these two do you think the SNP would want from a minority Labour Govt:
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
They will want indyref2, which Starmer will have to give them, unless there is a sudden shift in the polls he would be unlikely to get a working majority from a snap election anyway
If Labour looked like they had left behind Corbyn and his nutty followers and were indeed something much more akin to Blair's New Labour, then I don't see why a majority would be at all unlikely. It would partly depend on whether the Tories went bat-shit crazy and booted Boris for Nadine, but Labour in power and looking sensible - I reckon folk would vote to continue that.
IndyRef 2 that sees Scotland depart might not be such a good look for Labour - especially if they then faced a Tory Party with a majority of seats. Labour therefore needs to win more seats than the Tories, IMHO.
If Labour had to give the SNP indyref2 as they were second on seats in a hung parliament and even despite a devomax offer etc then Scotland voted Yes then once SNP MPs left the Commons, the Tories would automatically return to government without a general election as they would almost certainly have a majority in rUK
Which is why I say Labour needs more seats than the Tories. Or else the SNP will know Labour won't deliver on indyref 2. To go back into Opposition???
Only if Labour lose indyref2, Starmer will believe he can win indyref2 with devomax, he will have to to get SNP support to become PM
Comments
I will continue to urge that it gets paid by pensioners in full if they're expecting employees to constantly see the rates jacked up. If the rates get reversed to what they used to be, then that'd be a compromise to meet in the middle but otherwise if one side demands it all, why shouldn't the other side return fire?
@RedfieldWilton
·
Westminster Voting Intention (4 Oct):
Conservative 40% (-1)
Labour 37% (+2)
Liberal Democrat 10% (–)
Green 4% (-1)
Scottish National Party 4% (–)
Reform UK 3% (–)
Other 1% (-1)
Changes +/- 27 Sept
I suspect Chancellor is maybe the peak of his career, and the right place for him
4 October 2021
LOG CATEGORY:DATA ISSUE
England deaths within 28 days of positive test affected by delay
Daily counts of deaths in England rely on multiple data sources. Data from one source was delayed on 4 October 2021.
This will have a small impact on the total number of deaths reported today. Any additional deaths related to this delay will be included in the numbers published on 5 October 2021.
"US tech billionaire Jeff Bezos's space travel company Blue Origin confirmed that William Shatner would be blasting off from Texas on 12 October.
Aged 90, the actor will become the oldest person to have flown into space."
I'm not saying there were no problems in the UK - far from it. But I'd moved back from the US about 5 or 6 years earlier and the US was just a much more obviously broken place, to me at least.
I know you feel strongly on this and you will need to persuade the parties to agree with you for it to happen
Con 40 (-1)
Lab 37 (+2)
LD 10
Green 4 (-1)
SNP 4
Reform 3
Leader Ratings
Boris 36/42
Sir Keir 25/36 (+2)
Best PM
Boris 41 (+1)
Sir Keir 32 (+!)
Keir Starmer’s net approval rating stands at -11%, a two-point increase from last week’s poll. 36% disapprove of Keir Starmer’s job performance (down 1%), while 25% approve (up 1%). Meanwhile, 32% neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer’s job performance (no change).
Good in one of the Great Offices of State but PM and party leader may be beyond him
The same rates should apply to everyone. Any party, even Labour, that embraced flat taxes would earn my vote.
Between Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer, 42% say they think Boris Johnson would be a better Prime Minister for the United Kingdom at this moment than Keir Starmer, a figure which has increased marginally from 41% last week. Conversely, 32% think Keir Starmer would be the better Prime Minister when compared to Boris Johnson (up 1%).
More specifically, Boris Johnson continues to lead over Keir Starmer as being the one who best embodies the following descriptions: ‘can build a strong economy’ (41% to 29%), ‘stands up for the interests of the United Kingdom’ (41% to 32%), ‘can tackle the coronavirus pandemic’ (40% to 27%), and ‘knows how to get things done’ (39% to 29%).
Keir Starmer continues to lead over Boris Johnson when it comes to best embodying the descriptions of ‘being in good physical and mental health’ (41% to 27%) and ‘is willing to work with other parties when possible’ (36% to 30%). Starmer also now leads for best embodying ‘represents change’ (38% to 31%).
Substantial proportions of respondents say they do not know which of the two ‘tells the truth’ (47%), ‘is creative’ (45%), or ‘prioritises the environment’ (44%).
Some folk want you knighted. Others however......
Hospitalisations down 10%.
Funny, I seem to recall 'the smartest person in the room' adamantly insisting that there was a fixed relationship between cases and hospitalisations. Doesn't look like it looking at the charts.
So Boris would need DUP and Unionist support to stay PM
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=40&LAB=37&LIB=10&Reform=3&Green=4&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=22.3&SCOTLAB=18.3&SCOTLIB=6.3&SCOTReform=0.7&SCOTGreen=0.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48.3&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019base
K
E
I
R
Is there any point to life now?
You constantly avoid this question. It's beyond a joke now.
https://twitter.com/MikeAmesburyMP/status/1444629893187244033
I just interviewed Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
Discussing the incident of the Insulate Britain protesters blocking a woman in tears trying to get to a hospital - he says he’d do the same.
… and he would block an ambulance.
https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1445004052232867843
That was a bit of mischeif from mio.
Protest at the side of the road etc, but no blockading ambulances. People could die from this.
My only question is whether it is before or after the next election.
He just wants to go on his jollies and have others die, not himself.
No WhatsApp, no Insta, and no Facebook.
It can never be severed.
In order to record one Covid hospitalisation, one must also record a Covid case! Sure, the rate of conversion from case to hospitalisation can vary (and seems to be falling as you say), but it is mathematically and logically impossible for the link to be severed!
a) calm, stable Government for the whole of the UK, such that Starmer can call an early election where he gets a working majority and hence no longer any need of the SNP - or of any further independence referendum: or
b) an absolute shit show?
https://twitter.com/darrengrimes_/status/1444948339359879171?s=21
I do find it odd when they plead not guilty to things or whinge about being arrested, when the whole point is they say they are prepared to do that to get attention on the cause.
Probably also direct rule from London over NI, even more funds for NI and definitely invocation of the Article 16 safeguarding clause of the NI Protocol
2 intelligent nerds who became Cabinet ministers then party leader but lost the subsequent general election.
David Miliband and Rishi Sunak are a bit cooler than Hague and Ed but still geeky
If we get inflation and interest rate rises that figure of 40% will rise.
All this has virtually nothing to do with policy - the parties have no major differences on non-unicorn issues. It's about being able to occupy a remaining chair when the music stops.
I would say the motivations for voting Trump and voting Brexit were not so different. The voters may be misinformed, but rational.
The bit that bothers me are the majority that stuck with Trump and Brexit/Tories long after their original rationales were clearly shown to be nonsense.
Though I would enjoy the sight of a Starmer government being as pitiful as the May government from 2017-2019 Labour did so much to destroy, poetic justice
Environment minister Victoria Prentis tries to reassure MPs on WhatsApp that government is working to resolve abattoir workers shortage.
But she admits: "This is a very difficult time for the pig world."
https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1445051180338622468
Shortly thereafter WhatsApp went down, coincidence?
Scotland hospitalisations have been high but steeply falling (matching the steep fall in cases)
England hospitalisations have been flat since 20th of September when cases have also been flat.
WhatsApp is a pita, you join groups you don't much want to join and then can't leave without looking rude cos it tells everyone you left. Also it does that creepy last seen at stalking thing. Also you think your girlfriend has dumped you during her dubai stopover because you don't realise its illegal there.
As for the last seen, I disable that.
IndyRef 2 that sees Scotland depart might not be such a good look for Labour - especially if they then faced a Tory Party with a majority of seats. Labour therefore needs to win more seats than the Tories, IMHO.
Very nice video included - highlighting a subtlety I had completely missed.
English voters would also want as hard a line as possible taken with the SNP government in Edinburgh in Scexit talks, just as EU voters wanted as hard a line as possible taken with the UK government in London in Brexit talks
The Germans had looked at a similar layout, but until a chap came up with that simple change, the timing was a puzzle....
"at the moment there is no 5G coverage in your area"
The West Lothian question would come to the fore and on current polls it is very possible
Are you on Vodafone or Three?
I have o2 and EE in my phone and between those two I get 5G coverage in most of the big towns and cities.
My main phone is Vodafone which gets an upgrade in a few weeks. This is my secondary device, which has just been upgraded to 5G and iPhone 13. But no 5G in my area
It's not exactly The Somme, as disasters go