politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At least TMay and Jezza have one record they can claim
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At least TMay and Jezza have one record they can claim
In terms of their Ipsos MORI leader satisfactions ratings TMay and Corbyn are now the most unpopular PM and opposition leader duo of all time with an aggregate net negative of -96. They beat the 1981 Thatcher/Foot negative of -89
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
> @logical_song said:
> > @williamglenn said:
> > https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1134008889660325888?s=21
>
> Like when they refuse to vaccinate them?
That's an interesting point. Do the authorities have the power to vaccinate children without the consent of parents? They really ought to.
Even if 94.2% of the comments will be.
Do you mean, 'suffer the loss of a seat to the government?' The Conservatives lost the Romsey by-election to the Liberal Democrats in 2000.
Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children against measles in Germany could be punished with fines of up to €2,500 (£2,130), according to a draft law presented by the health minister, Jens Spahn.
The law, which is set to come into effect from 1 March 2022 if it passes through parliament before the end of this year, would make vaccination against measles mandatory for all children attending nurseries and schools, as well as teachers, educators and medical staff at hospitals and surgeries.
By July 2020, parents signing up their children for kindergartens or schools would need to either provide evidence that their children have been vaccinated or proof of a medical condition that prevents their offspring from getting the jab.
According to estimates by the health ministry, the law would also affect about 361,000 non-vaccinated children already attending a school or kindergarten, as well as about 220,000 adults.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/06/german-parents-face-fine-for-refusing-measles-vaccination
#Esther4Leader
If you ever meet/know an anti vaxxers just ask them how was smallpox eradicated.
> Would not describe Corbyn's position as "rock solid".
No. If Labour is found to be institutionally antisemitic by the EHRC then he may well have to go. His equivocation on Brexit is also undermining his position.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/29/israel-to-hold-snap-election-after-netanyahu-coalition-talks-fail
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1134044837148274688
> It is reassuring to know that our next PM believes that homophobic parents have the right to indoctrinate their children with homophobia.
>
>
>
> #Esther4Leader
>
> Am waiting for the usual suspects to accuse of her pandering to the Muslim bloc vote the way they do when it comes to Labour politicians.
To be fair, I think Esther is an equal opportunities offender. Some in the Labour Party are happy to sacrifice their principles depending on the community involved.
You are effectively saying that the interests of the group (herd immunity) trumps the rights of the individual
I am very uncomfortable with the state having that authority
Arsenal = TSE
Arguably the previous 80 years were a blind alley in oncology research (“poison kills cancer”)
It looks like Coley was right all along
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Coley
> FPT:
>
>
>
> > @logical_song said:
>
> > > @williamglenn said:
>
> > > https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1134008889660325888
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Like when they refuse to vaccinate them?
>
>
>
> That's an interesting point. Do the authorities have the power to vaccinate children without the consent of parents? They really ought to.
>
> Why ought they?
>
> You are effectively saying that the interests of the group (herd immunity) trumps the rights of the individual
>
> I am very uncomfortable with the state having that authority
All part of the social contract.
> FPT:
>
>
>
> > @logical_song said:
>
> > > @williamglenn said:
>
> > > https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1134008889660325888
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Like when they refuse to vaccinate them?
>
>
>
> That's an interesting point. Do the authorities have the power to vaccinate children without the consent of parents? They really ought to.
>
> Why ought they?
>
> You are effectively saying that the interests of the group (herd immunity) trumps the rights of the individual
>
> I am very uncomfortable with the state having that authority
Fair enough, but I'd cut off access to state education, the NHS and benefits to anyone who doesn't do it.
> I have to say that it takes a special kind of genius to come up with a proposal to cut tuition fees that will see the majority of graduates paying more.
And universities receive less..
It is the reason we prosecute people with HIV/AIDS who have unprotected sex with other people without telling them they have HIV/AIDS.
> A Brexiteer writes:
>
> https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1134044837148274688
Does he still want to depose the Queen?
Thank goodness there's nobody in British politics stupid enough to do that, eh?
(Edit - you are right of course. The problem is nobody is telling the universities to manage their budgets properly, and the state alone cannot bear the burden.)
> > @logical_song said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> > > https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1134008889660325888?s=21
> >
> > Like when they refuse to vaccinate them?
>
> Oh, well that is just great Esther. Does that include parents who hold vile bigoted views? Racists? Terrorist sympathisers? Let's just make our schools moral vacuums shall we? "Sorry I cant teach you about evolution because your parents believe in there being a flat earth". FFS we have the politicians we, or at least some, deserve.
I think she might also want to except child abusers who keep children locked in the cellar for their sexual gratification. Though maybe she really does think parents know best?
> FPT:
>
>
>
> > @logical_song said:
>
> > > @williamglenn said:
>
> > > https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1134008889660325888
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Like when they refuse to vaccinate them?
>
>
>
> That's an interesting point. Do the authorities have the power to vaccinate children without the consent of parents? They really ought to.
>
> Why ought they?
>
> You are effectively saying that the interests of the group (herd immunity) trumps the rights of the individual
>
> I am very uncomfortable with the state having that authority
In which case how do you ensure those who cannot be immunised (for whatever reason) are protected from measles..?
https://twitter.com/tracey_crouch/status/1134072191744651264?s=21
https://www.who.int/csr/disease/smallpox/en/
Can Archer, who is quite green, and Plunkett, who is quite past it, hold their nerve?
> This is a disaster for England.
>
> It's certainly light of par.
>
> Can Archer, who is quite green, and Plunkett, who is quite past it, hold their nerve?
Well we now need Archer and Woakes to get wickets. Just hoping the likes of Plunkett, Rashid and Ali will keep the runs down won't cut it.
> FPT:
> That's an interesting point. Do the authorities have the power to vaccinate children without the consent of parents? They really ought to.
>
> Why ought they?
>
> You are effectively saying that the interests of the group (herd immunity) trumps the rights of the individual
>
> I am very uncomfortable with the state having that authority
And if it were ebola and we had an effective vaccine ?
Clearly the state should have the authority in some situations; measles is a little lower down the scale.
A fine to recover the healthcare costs of treating epidemics would be reasonable.
Had she not resigned as Sports Minister she would have been able to go Madrid to watch her beloved Spurs in the Champions League final as Sports Minister she'd have gone to represent the government,
> > @ydoethur said:
> > This is a disaster for England.
> >
> > It's certainly light of par.
> >
> > Can Archer, who is quite green, and Plunkett, who is quite past it, hold their nerve?
>
> Well we now need Archer and Woakes to get wickets. Just hoping the likes of Plunkett, Rashid and Ali will keep the runs down won't cut it.
Are you actually enjoying this? If you aren't, have you considered doing something else with your afternoon?
That's 20 short of par, 30 short of good, and 50 short of certainty. If SA bat through you would expect them to win.
> > @FrancisUrquhart said:
> > > @ydoethur said:
> > > This is a disaster for England.
> > >
> > > It's certainly light of par.
> > >
> > > Can Archer, who is quite green, and Plunkett, who is quite past it, hold their nerve?
> >
> > Well we now need Archer and Woakes to get wickets. Just hoping the likes of Plunkett, Rashid and Ali will keep the runs down won't cut it.
>
> Are you actually enjoying this? If you aren't, have you considered doing something else with your afternoon?
I am currently running a load of Machine Learning experiments, which can be equally frustrating....
311 is OK, isn't it?EDIT: Oops, er, I mean Cricket is boring!
Hunt 30
Johnson 29
Gove 26
Raab 22
Javid 15
Hancock 12
Malthouse 6
McVey 6
Leadsom 4
Stewart 3
Cleverley 2
(Total 155)
Remains a puzzle why Leadsom has so few yet is so short in the betting. OK, half MPs haven't declared but why would her supporters remain silent - surely it's better to get public endorsements to generate momentum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election#Candidates
What the state should do is provide the monovalent alternative as an option.
> Well we now need Archer and Woakes to get wickets. Just hoping the likes of Plunkett, Rashid and Ali will keep the runs down won't cut it.
>
> That's what I meant, although ironically they were batting together at the time.
>
> That's 20 short of par, 30 short of good, and 50 short of certainty. If SA bat through you would expect them to win.
Looks very evenly poised to me. IF England can bowl to the conditions, they should win.
> Why ought they?
>
> You are effectively saying that the interests of the group (herd immunity) trumps the rights of the individual
>
> I am very uncomfortable with the state having that authority
>
> Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusion. Where do you stand on this one Charles?
>
> I think they are idiots. But I don’t see why the government should have the right to compel treatment
Because in the case of JWs the child has rights too.
Is there any politician, other than Jess Phillips, with the courage to stand up to bullies and bigots?
>
> Remains a puzzle why Leadsom has so few yet is so short in the betting. OK, half MPs haven't declared but why would her supporters remain silent - surely it's better to get public endorsements to generate momentum.
>
-------
Perhaps like last time, Boris will pull out and back Leadsom.
The fiver I accidentally left up to close out my position on him at 890.0 has been taken..
It’s more to do with some of the side effects I’ve seen with multivalent combos in fish and pigs.
Got to go though. Off to talk to someone about autogenous vaccines
1. Why trading on WTO rules - like Afghanistan (cf: Rory Stewart’s video ealier) - is a good idea for Britain
2. Whether they will have zero tariffs on goods coming into the country and if so what they are going to do in relation to the industries which will be destroyed by this and if this is a price worth paying.
3. What impact on GDP and tax revenues the loss of such industries would have.
4. If they have mitigating measures in mind what those are and how they are going to be paid for.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B008C2KV48
The government forced the use of MMR despite some concerns about the side effect profile. It was cheaper and, they believed, would have better compliance.
Yet no one argues for the right to let their toddler stand up on the back seat while barrelling down a country road. Both cases would appear to be the assertion of a parent's right to know what is best for their child.
> Why ought they?
>
> You are effectively saying that the interests of the group (herd immunity) trumps the rights of the individual
>
> I am very uncomfortable with the state having that authority
>
> Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusion. Where do you stand on this one Charles?
>
> I think they are idiots. But I don’t see why the government should have the right to compel treatment
>
> Because the government would be failing in its duty to protect others from the harm caused by the spread of diseases as a result of non-vaccination, including to the children of these parents.
>
> Most of the arguments come down to use of MMR vs the mono vaccines.
>
> The government forced the use of MMR despite some concerns about the side effect profile. It was cheaper and, they believed, would have better compliance.
And after many years of use, what does the data now say about your concerns ?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/30/bernie-sanders-older-voters-1346590
> What's the difference between not vaccinating your child and not applying their seat belt in a car? Both prevent harm, and the application of each has a negligible risk of harm (tinfoil-hat related cases aside).
>
> Yet no one argues for the right to let their toddler stand up on the back seat while barrelling down a country road. Both cases would appear to be the assertion of a parent's right to know what is best for their child.
Difference is that it's the law for everyone to wear a seatbelt. No one is suggesting that all people should be forced to have all vaccines. Other than some of the more extreme socialists
That gives you two options:
1. Force (either directly or indirectly via withholding benefits) people to do what the state wants them to
2. Provide the option of vaccines that people actually want to use*
(* these vaccines exist and are approved, although - I believe - that the master seed for the mumps vaccine needs renewal. It’s been a few years since I checked though)
> > @Anorak said:
> > What's the difference between not vaccinating your child and not applying their seat belt in a car? Both prevent harm, and the application of each has a negligible risk of harm (tinfoil-hat related cases aside).
> >
> > Yet no one argues for the right to let their toddler stand up on the back seat while barrelling down a country road. Both cases would appear to be the assertion of a parent's right to know what is best for their child.
>
> Difference is that it's the law for everyone to wear a seatbelt. No one is suggesting that all people should be forced to have all vaccines. Other than some of the more extreme socialists
I'm not a socialist (extreme or otherwise) and I'd absolutely make vaccination mandatory.
> Why ought they?
>
> You are effectively saying that the interests of the group (herd immunity) trumps the rights of the individual
>
> I am very uncomfortable with the state having that authority
>
> Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusion. Where do you stand on this one Charles?
>
> I think they are idiots. But I don’t see why the government should have the right to compel treatment
>
> Because the government would be failing in its duty to protect others from the harm caused by the spread of diseases as a result of non-vaccination, including to the children of these parents.
>
> The alternative isn’t non vaccination - it’s use of monovalent vaccines
And like a lot of health-care related decisions, MMR was selected on a cost-risk-benefit analysis. If you want to save your pennies for separate jabs - incidentally causing more psychological stress to your child - then go right ahead. There is no reason for it to be made available on the NHS, as far as I am aware.
> IIt is reassuring to know that our next PM believes that homophobic parents have the right to indoctrinate their children with homophobia.
>
>
>
> #Esther4Leader
>
> Am waiting for the usual suspects to accuse of her pandering to the Muslim bloc vote the way they do when it comes to Labour politicians.
>
> Presumably her view is that social and moral values should be taught by parents rather than schools - as opposed to thinking that we should make exceptions to such compulsory education because a particular group of parents object to it?
>
> For the nth time, nothing and no-one is stopping them doing that. The children are being taught matters which are not available in the home which is the essence of education.
>
> Is there any politician, other than Jess Phillips, with the courage to stand up to bullies and bigots?
>
> My point was that Ms McVey comes at this from a libertarian standpoint - that we don’t need to be giving explicit sex-ed to primary school children, rather than that Ms McVey is taking sides in the woke culture wars, as Mr Eagles was getting at.
>
> I believe the explicit sex education is actually a book that has two male penguins bringing up a baby penguin.
I think this is a root cause of a lot of the negative reaction to LGBT education. It morphs in the mind of a reactionary subset into "teaching 5 year olds about anal sex and cottaging". Says a lot more about them then anything else IMO.