politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you are betting on the Iowa caucuses be warned – Betfair co

Endillion said:

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

SandyRentool said:

eadric said:

eadric said:

SandyRentool said:

eadric said:

FPT for stocky

Quite a few minor ones but massive brief juddering fever was the first - spasming so hard I couldn’t hold a phone - and also nearly fainting.

Yet now I feel like I am clearly recovering. But the docs still don’t know what it is and I guess they are being super cautious. In case it if corona

I have already given it to my wife and her mum and her best friend so they have a point about contagion

It’s a fascinating insight into what a bad virus might really do. Coronavirus is relatively benign. A death rate of 2%. Ordinary flu is probably worse.

But imagine if avian flu did take off and become humanly contagious. A death rate of 60%????

We are one viral mutation away from societal breakdown

You think >2% of people who catch flu die?

Yes. Flu is underestimated. It kills the old and weak. Still.

Also we’ve got lazy in saying a bad cold is flu. They are quite different.

My bad. I may have exaggerated the stats. I did google it when I was ill with... weird Asian flu. Influenza is nasty but it seems to range from about 3% mortality to 0.03%, tho the severe outbreaks (eg 1918) are at the much higher end.

Imagine if 1918 happened every year.

That could be the future with Mexicanlagervirus.

One of the characteristics of the Spanish Flu of 1918 was that it wasn't just the old and infirm who succumbed. There was an unusually high mortality of the previously fit and well. There was ne excellent docu-drama on it last year, to be repeated shortly.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0blmn5l/clips

I shall look forward to that. One of the Spanish flu issues, AIUI, is that populations of NW & Mid Europe had been weakened by the privations of wartime.
Didn't apply to Spain and Portugal, of course.

The "Spanish" bit is a misnomer - there's no obvious linkage with Spain. But it's clear that WWI had a significant impact on both the severity and spread of the disease.

The link below has some good discussions of Spanish flu, and pandemics more generally (if you filter out the insurance-specific considerations).
https://media.swissre.com/documents/pandemic_influenza_a_21st_century_model_en.pdf

Thanks.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Casino_Royale said:

Here are the committee for BAFTA both for film and television:

http://www.bafta.org/about/key-personnel/television-committee

http://www.bafta.org/about/key-personnel/film-committee

They both have BAME representation, including Noel Clarke who wrote Kidulthood, and the television one is overwhelmingly female.

Do we think (just possibly) that rather than being all ghastly racists there is something else going on? Like, this year the best nominees won??

Ironically your man did get closer to the issue when saying I’m ashamed to say that I’m part of the problem, because I’ve not ensured that the sets I’ve worked on are inclusive. If there are no Black directors or Asian leading actresses then it is leaving it too late to try and fix it at the awards ceremonies.

The bulk of the voters don't watch most of the films is the problem. They would be better off having smaller sections, with the members in those sections required to watch all the films. There's also the weight of numbers. My wife sat out the documentary section this year because there were something like 80 to watch. She couldn't do justice to the films, so felt she couldn't vote.

And much as you would like to think of the membership diligently watching, they mostly just watch the stuff their mates have made. And then compare notes.

A few years back I was probably as diligent as most voters (even though it is the wife who is a member). I watched a lot of movies through to late night. I told her Dallas Buyers Club had two Oscar-winning performances in there. Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto. And they duly went on and won the Oscars.

BAFTA didn't even put either in their five nominees. Embarrassing doesn't begin to cover it.

If it has got Maggie Smith or Judy Dench in it, they'll watch it. Anybody else and it is a crap shoot.

Seriously not fit for purpose.

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1224348074438512640?s=20

So 51% Yes 49% No at weekend and now 50%/50% , easy to see why Boris is running scared. Once they start campaigning that will be 60% - 40% for certain.

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1224381819191222279?s=20

The Constituency / List split on the SNP vote is bonkers massive. Big enough to make the whole electoral system farcical.

Casino_Royale said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Casino_Royale said:

Here are the committee for BAFTA both for film and television:

http://www.bafta.org/about/key-personnel/television-committee

http://www.bafta.org/about/key-personnel/film-committee

They both have BAME representation, including Noel Clarke who wrote Kidulthood, and the television one is overwhelmingly female.

Do we think (just possibly) that rather than being all ghastly racists there is something else going on? Like, this year the best nominees won??

Ironically your man did get closer to the issue when saying I’m ashamed to say that I’m part of the problem, because I’ve not ensured that the sets I’ve worked on are inclusive. If there are no Black directors or Asian leading actresses then it is leaving it too late to try and fix it at the awards ceremonies.

Even that is too late. How are such actresses or directors trained up? And, would such training up be genuinely colour-blind or would they be patronisingly confined to films like urban ghetto ones or BAME history ones?

If race is to become irrelevant in awards then we need to get past cultural appropriation and all that nonsense and just train up very good directors, actors and actresses who are able to put themselves to and perform in any role.

That means being so good that they make people forget what colour or race they are at all in their performances, which matters for front stage nominees, and doesn’t matter at all for back stage ones.

Another problem is that people in their sixties, seventies, eighties even, have learnt their craft over decades and just happen to be bloody brilliant at it as a result. Directors, actors, DoPs, costume, music - they are the go-to people as they get bums on seats. And ultimately, it is a bums on seats industry.

They also happen to be mostly white guys. And because they have been so good before, and have won so many Oscars/BAFTAs before, their next work is keenly awaited. They have box office. Until they die off, it will be a problem.

HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM.....SOME SPAMMER HAS CREATED A SPAM THREAD.

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1224348074438512640?s=20

So 51% Yes 49% No at weekend and now 50%/50% , easy to see why Boris is running scared. Once they start campaigning that will be 60% - 40% for certain.

Except Boris has made clear he will block indyref2 for his full 5 year term as per the Tory manifesto and most Scots oppose indyref2 for 5 years anyway
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1222871398516916224?s=20

Comical.

Alistair said:

The Constituency / List split on the SNP vote is bonkers massive. Big enough to make the whole electoral system farcical.

Yes, SNP up 5% on the constituency vote but down 4% on the list vote compared to 2016

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1224290290900619265?s=20

Next election will deffo be before September 2024.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51318730

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Casino_Royale said:

Here are the committee for BAFTA both for film and television:

http://www.bafta.org/about/key-personnel/television-committee

http://www.bafta.org/about/key-personnel/film-committee

They both have BAME representation, including Noel Clarke who wrote Kidulthood, and the television one is overwhelmingly female.

Do we think (just possibly) that rather than being all ghastly racists there is something else going on? Like, this year the best nominees won??

Ironically your man did get closer to the issue when saying I’m ashamed to say that I’m part of the problem, because I’ve not ensured that the sets I’ve worked on are inclusive. If there are no Black directors or Asian leading actresses then it is leaving it too late to try and fix it at the awards ceremonies.

Even that is too late. How are such actresses or directors trained up? And, would such training up be genuinely colour-blind or would they be patronisingly confined to films like urban ghetto ones or BAME history ones?

If race is to become irrelevant in awards then we need to get past cultural appropriation and all that nonsense and just train up very good directors, actors and actresses who are able to put themselves to and perform in any role.

That means being so good that they make people forget what colour or race they are at all in their performances, which matters for front stage nominees, and doesn’t matter at all for back stage ones.

Another problem is that people in their sixties, seventies, eighties even, have learnt their craft over decades and just happen to be bloody brilliant at it as a result. Directors, actors, DoPs, costume, music - they are the go-to people as they get bums on seats. And ultimately, it is a bums on seats industry.

They also happen to be mostly white guys. And because they have been so good before, and have won so many Oscars/BAFTAs before, their next work is keenly awaited. They have box office. Until they die off, it will be a problem.

e.g. the Irishman....everybody watches it because of the stellar cast / director. I am not even a massive mob film fan, but I watched it because of that.

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1224381586499608579?s=20

https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1224381592493346817?s=20

The Unionist parties could really do with Brexit and UKIP not standing as that 3% is wasted with no chance of either party getting a list seat. On that poll could be on a knife edge if SNP and Green get a majority or not.

MarqueeMark said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Casino_Royale said:

Here are the committee for BAFTA both for film and television:

http://www.bafta.org/about/key-personnel/television-committee

http://www.bafta.org/about/key-personnel/film-committee

They both have BAME representation, including Noel Clarke who wrote Kidulthood, and the television one is overwhelmingly female.

Do we think (just possibly) that rather than being all ghastly racists there is something else going on? Like, this year the best nominees won??

Ironically your man did get closer to the issue when saying I’m ashamed to say that I’m part of the problem, because I’ve not ensured that the sets I’ve worked on are inclusive. If there are no Black directors or Asian leading actresses then it is leaving it too late to try and fix it at the awards ceremonies.

Even that is too late. How are such actresses or directors trained up? And, would such training up be genuinely colour-blind or would they be patronisingly confined to films like urban ghetto ones or BAME history ones?

If race is to become irrelevant in awards then we need to get past cultural appropriation and all that nonsense and just train up very good directors, actors and actresses who are able to put themselves to and perform in any role.

That means being so good that they make people forget what colour or race they are at all in their performances, which matters for front stage nominees, and doesn’t matter at all for back stage ones.

Another problem is that people in their sixties, seventies, eighties even, have learnt their craft over decades and just happen to be bloody brilliant at it as a result. Directors, actors, DoPs, costume, music - they are the go-to people as they get bums on seats. And ultimately, it is a bums on seats industry.

They also happen to be mostly white guys. And because they have been so good before, and have won so many Oscars/BAFTAs before, their next work is keenly awaited. They have box office. Until they die off, it will be a problem.

e.g. the Irishman....everybody watches it because of the stellar cast / director. I am not even a massive mob film fan, but I watched it because of that.

What - ALL of it?

LOL...it really should either have been a mini-series or lopped off 30 mins.

FrancisUrquhart said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Casino_Royale said:

Here are the committee for BAFTA both for film and television:

http://www.bafta.org/about/key-personnel/television-committee

http://www.bafta.org/about/key-personnel/film-committee

They both have BAME representation, including Noel Clarke who wrote Kidulthood, and the television one is overwhelmingly female.

Do we think (just possibly) that rather than being all ghastly racists there is something else going on? Like, this year the best nominees won??

Ironically your man did get closer to the issue when saying I’m ashamed to say that I’m part of the problem, because I’ve not ensured that the sets I’ve worked on are inclusive. If there are no Black directors or Asian leading actresses then it is leaving it too late to try and fix it at the awards ceremonies.

Even that is too late. How are such actresses or directors trained up? And, would such training up be genuinely colour-blind or would they be patronisingly confined to films like urban ghetto ones or BAME history ones?

If race is to become irrelevant in awards then we need to get past cultural appropriation and all that nonsense and just train up very good directors, actors and actresses who are able to put themselves to and perform in any role.

That means being so good that they make people forget what colour or race they are at all in their performances, which matters for front stage nominees, and doesn’t matter at all for back stage ones.

Another problem is that people in their sixties, seventies, eighties even, have learnt their craft over decades and just happen to be bloody brilliant at it as a result. Directors, actors, DoPs, costume, music - they are the go-to people as they get bums on seats. And ultimately, it is a bums on seats industry.

They also happen to be mostly white guys. And because they have been so good before, and have won so many Oscars/BAFTAs before, their next work is keenly awaited. They have box office. Until they die off, it will be a problem.

e.g. the Irishman....everybody watches it because of the stellar cast / director. I am not even a massive mob film fan, but I watched it because of that.

I lasted 30 minutes, it was crap , ancient old guys trying to pretend they were young , garbage.
PS: and wooden acting , De Niro is a one trick pony and should have been put out to grass long ago.

FrancisUrquhart said:

MarqueeMark said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Casino_Royale said:

Here are the committee for BAFTA both for film and television:

http://www.bafta.org/about/key-personnel/television-committee

http://www.bafta.org/about/key-personnel/film-committee

They both have BAME representation, including Noel Clarke who wrote Kidulthood, and the television one is overwhelmingly female.

Do we think (just possibly) that rather than being all ghastly racists there is something else going on? Like, this year the best nominees won??

Ironically your man did get closer to the issue when saying I’m ashamed to say that I’m part of the problem, because I’ve not ensured that the sets I’ve worked on are inclusive. If there are no Black directors or Asian leading actresses then it is leaving it too late to try and fix it at the awards ceremonies.

Even that is too late. How are such actresses or directors trained up? And, would such training up be genuinely colour-blind or would they be patronisingly confined to films like urban ghetto ones or BAME history ones?

If race is to become irrelevant in awards then we need to get past cultural appropriation and all that nonsense and just train up very good directors, actors and actresses who are able to put themselves to and perform in any role.

That means being so good that they make people forget what colour or race they are at all in their performances, which matters for front stage nominees, and doesn’t matter at all for back stage ones.

Another problem is that people in their sixties, seventies, eighties even, have learnt their craft over decades and just happen to be bloody brilliant at it as a result. Directors, actors, DoPs, costume, music - they are the go-to people as they get bums on seats. And ultimately, it is a bums on seats industry.

They also happen to be mostly white guys. And because they have been so good before, and have won so many Oscars/BAFTAs before, their next work is keenly awaited. They have box office. Until they die off, it will be a problem.

e.g. the Irishman....everybody watches it because of the stellar cast / director. I am not even a massive mob film fan, but I watched it because of that.

What - ALL of it?

LOL...it really should either have been a mini-series or lopped off 30 mins.

A mini-series would have looked shit in comparison to say The Sopranos.

It just needed a serious pruning. A produer who could take Scorcese to one side and say "Some good stuff in there, getting smothered, Marty....."

FrancisUrquhart said:

malcolmg said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Casino_Royale said:

Here are the committee for BAFTA both for film and television:

http://www.bafta.org/about/key-personnel/television-committee

http://www.bafta.org/about/key-personnel/film-committee

They both have BAME representation, including Noel Clarke who wrote Kidulthood, and the television one is overwhelmingly female.

Do we think (just possibly) that rather than being all ghastly racists there is something else going on? Like, this year the best nominees won??

Ironically your man did get closer to the issue when saying I’m ashamed to say that I’m part of the problem, because I’ve not ensured that the sets I’ve worked on are inclusive. If there are no Black directors or Asian leading actresses then it is leaving it too late to try and fix it at the awards ceremonies.

Even that is too late. How are such actresses or directors trained up? And, would such training up be genuinely colour-blind or would they be patronisingly confined to films like urban ghetto ones or BAME history ones?

If race is to become irrelevant in awards then we need to get past cultural appropriation and all that nonsense and just train up very good directors, actors and actresses who are able to put themselves to and perform in any role.

That means being so good that they make people forget what colour or race they are at all in their performances, which matters for front stage nominees, and doesn’t matter at all for back stage ones.

Another problem is that people in their sixties, seventies, eighties even, have learnt their craft over decades and just happen to be bloody brilliant at it as a result. Directors, actors, DoPs, costume, music - they are the go-to people as they get bums on seats. And ultimately, it is a bums on seats industry.

They also happen to be mostly white guys. And because they have been so good before, and have won so many Oscars/BAFTAs before, their next work is keenly awaited. They have box office. Until they die off, it will be a problem.

e.g. the Irishman....everybody watches it because of the stellar cast / director. I am not even a massive mob film fan, but I watched it because of that.

I lasted 30 minutes, it was crap , ancient old guys trying to pretend they were young , garbage.

Is there anything you enjoy? Must be exhausting to hate everything.

Slagging off Westminster and the English?

state_go_away said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

Worrying story involving an Air Canada plane developing in Madrid ...
https://twitter.com/matthewbennett/status/1224344633796329474

Landing gear "fell off"...circling to dump fuel.

Edit: burn, not dump.

Over to PPrune we go.

Its down! Safe and sound looks like

You sure about that?

Mysticrose said:

state_go_away said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

Worrying story involving an Air Canada plane developing in Madrid ...
https://twitter.com/matthewbennett/status/1224344633796329474

Landing gear "fell off"...circling to dump fuel.

Edit: burn, not dump.

Over to PPrune we go.

Its down! Safe and sound looks like

You sure about that?

Flight Radar is still showing it at 7,500 feet and continue to circle

Bernie has three problems:

1. He's dependent on youth turnout. Those who believe the young have him on close to 30% in the polling (which will, I'm sure, be enough).

2. Warren is polling a little too highly for him to be comfortable. Bernie's best route to the nomination is if Warren drops out early, and he gets her supporters. If it's a three way A Moderate vs Warren vs Sanders, then it's the left wing vote that gets split.

3. In Iowa, State Delegate Equivalents are rewarded by county, not by vote.

OldKingCole said:

Alistair said:

logical_song said:

Alistair said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

She chose to spend money advertising in California while not spending any more advertising in Wisconsin.
She chose to do repeated visits in the final weeks to California while never visiting Wisconsin.

As you said only an idiot would do that. She did that.

It was even worse than that - the unions had heard from their local contacts that things weren't going too well in Wisconsin, and were organising a GOTV operation to shore up the Dem vote. Hillary's central campaign stopped them from doing it.

Turned the bus round to Iowa which she had no chance in.

Hilary's Campaign staff were seemingly obsessed with proving that Obama had won in the 'wrong' way. They were obsessed with projecting strength, thus the trips to Arizona and the like. I read the strength and assumed Clinton was a lock so did not green out my position.

So furious with them.

In an alternative universe, Hillary wasn't so stupid and we didn't get Trump and Margaret Beckett didn't vote for Corbyn to go on the ballot, so the alternative Labour leader properly backed staying in the EU and we didn't Brexit.
Political chaos theory in practise.

In the alternate universe where Clinton becomes president the 2018 mid terms would have been a massacre for the Dems. You'd have been looking at a Republican senate in super majority territory, Nevada, Montana, ARizona would ahve been near guaranteed Republican pickups in the Senate. The wave of Dem pickups in California would not have happened.

You could have been looking at Clinton impeached and removed by now. What for? Whatever the hell the Republicans wanted.

I wonder if the endeavour to impeach Bill Clinton has opened a Pandoras box in American politics, in that it's now a recognised tactic by the opposition.

I agree. I think it might need an amendment to the constitution, it really is that serious. On the other hand perhaps those who are not completely brain dead will eventually wake up to the fact that neutral members of society are appalled by the use of judicial process for political ends. There is a lesson for the UK Supreme Court hidden in there somewhere as well.

Trump will really have to fuck up now not to be re-elected.

A_View_From_Cumbria5 said:

OldKingCole said:

Alistair said:

logical_song said:

Alistair said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

She chose to spend money advertising in California while not spending any more advertising in Wisconsin.
She chose to do repeated visits in the final weeks to California while never visiting Wisconsin.

As you said only an idiot would do that. She did that.

It was even worse than that - the unions had heard from their local contacts that things weren't going too well in Wisconsin, and were organising a GOTV operation to shore up the Dem vote. Hillary's central campaign stopped them from doing it.

Turned the bus round to Iowa which she had no chance in.

Hilary's Campaign staff were seemingly obsessed with proving that Obama had won in the 'wrong' way. They were obsessed with projecting strength, thus the trips to Arizona and the like. I read the strength and assumed Clinton was a lock so did not green out my position.

So furious with them.

In an alternative universe, Hillary wasn't so stupid and we didn't get Trump and Margaret Beckett didn't vote for Corbyn to go on the ballot, so the alternative Labour leader properly backed staying in the EU and we didn't Brexit.
Political chaos theory in practise.

In the alternate universe where Clinton becomes president the 2018 mid terms would have been a massacre for the Dems. You'd have been looking at a Republican senate in super majority territory, Nevada, Montana, ARizona would ahve been near guaranteed Republican pickups in the Senate. The wave of Dem pickups in California would not have happened.

You could have been looking at Clinton impeached and removed by now. What for? Whatever the hell the Republicans wanted.

I wonder if the endeavour to impeach Bill Clinton has opened a Pandoras box in American politics, in that it's now a recognised tactic by the opposition.

I agree. I think it might need an amendment to the constitution, it really is that serious. On the other hand perhaps those who are not completely brain dead will eventually wake up to the fact that neutral members of society are appalled by the use of judicial process for political ends. There is a lesson for the UK Supreme Court hidden in there somewhere as well.

Trump will really have to fuck up now not to be re-elected.

The UK Supreme Court did nothing of the sort. It was clearly a breach of the law, so much so that it was a bloody unanimous decision. Get a grip.

Okay it's making its approach now

Philip_Thompson said:

Alistair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rpjs said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sanders isn't even a Democrat.

Anyone in 2020 preferring to see the candidature of Sanders over the ejection of Trump should be ashamed of themselves.

Oh please, do I have to post my explanation that American political parties are Not Like British ones, again? Perhaps I should write a macro.

There's a lot of feeling here that the mainstream "moderate" politicians of either party have failed to make any difference. That's why Trump won, and it's why, when Trump's failure is clear as the economy weakens, Sanders or Warren can win as well.

For the record, when the New York primary swings round at the end of April I will be voting for whichever of Sanders or Warren appears to be best placed, and if neither is clearly ahead, I will vote for Sanders.

Trump won because he won swing states in the Midwest because Hillary ignored them and concentrated on maximising votes in places like New York and California.

Believing Sanders is the solution to that is like believing drinking absinthe will sober you up.

Sanders is a terrible campaigner, I can tell this because he lost to Hilary and Hillary is the worst presidential campaigner of all time.

They knew they were in trouble in the rust belt and deliberately chose not to campaign there. It wasn't accidentally leaving them out, it was deliberate strategy.

It was unforgivable madness. To "save face" and not make it look like Trump was close they let Trump win.

Is that true? Or are the entities with the money the state Democratic parties?

It’s downsafely

https://twitter.com/matthewbennett/status/1224394875615031298?s=21

AlastairMeeks said:

For @NorthernPowerhouse:

https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1224373376174772224?s=21

I'm surprised it is that high, though I'm not entirely clear how strong 'bothered' would be in this context.

Gallowgate said:

A_View_From_Cumbria5 said:

OldKingCole said:

Alistair said:

logical_song said:

Alistair said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

She chose to spend money advertising in California while not spending any more advertising in Wisconsin.
She chose to do repeated visits in the final weeks to California while never visiting Wisconsin.

As you said only an idiot would do that. She did that.

It was even worse than that - the unions had heard from their local contacts that things weren't going too well in Wisconsin, and were organising a GOTV operation to shore up the Dem vote. Hillary's central campaign stopped them from doing it.

Turned the bus round to Iowa which she had no chance in.

Hilary's Campaign staff were seemingly obsessed with proving that Obama had won in the 'wrong' way. They were obsessed with projecting strength, thus the trips to Arizona and the like. I read the strength and assumed Clinton was a lock so did not green out my position.

So furious with them.

In an alternative universe, Hillary wasn't so stupid and we didn't get Trump and Margaret Beckett didn't vote for Corbyn to go on the ballot, so the alternative Labour leader properly backed staying in the EU and we didn't Brexit.
Political chaos theory in practise.

In the alternate universe where Clinton becomes president the 2018 mid terms would have been a massacre for the Dems. You'd have been looking at a Republican senate in super majority territory, Nevada, Montana, ARizona would ahve been near guaranteed Republican pickups in the Senate. The wave of Dem pickups in California would not have happened.

You could have been looking at Clinton impeached and removed by now. What for? Whatever the hell the Republicans wanted.

I wonder if the endeavour to impeach Bill Clinton has opened a Pandoras box in American politics, in that it's now a recognised tactic by the opposition.

I agree. I think it might need an amendment to the constitution, it really is that serious. On the other hand perhaps those who are not completely brain dead will eventually wake up to the fact that neutral members of society are appalled by the use of judicial process for political ends. There is a lesson for the UK Supreme Court hidden in there somewhere as well.

Trump will really have to fuck up now not to be re-elected.

The UK Supreme Court did nothing of the sort. It was clearly a breach of the law, so much so that it was a bloody unanimous decision. Get a grip.

Well, the Supreme Court had to overturn the original decision, so it can't have been that clear.

A_View_From_Cumbria5 said:

OldKingCole said:

Alistair said:

In the alternate universe where Clinton becomes president the 2018 mid terms would have been a massacre for the Dems. You'd have been looking at a Republican senate in super majority territory, Nevada, Montana, ARizona would ahve been near guaranteed Republican pickups in the Senate. The wave of Dem pickups in California would not have happened.

You could have been looking at Clinton impeached and removed by now. What for? Whatever the hell the Republicans wanted.

I wonder if the endeavour to impeach Bill Clinton has opened a Pandoras box in American politics, in that it's now a recognised tactic by the opposition.

I agree. I think it might need an amendment to the constitution, it really is that serious. On the other hand perhaps those who are not completely brain dead will eventually wake up to the fact that neutral members of society are appalled by the use of judicial process for political ends. There is a lesson for the UK Supreme Court hidden in there somewhere as well.

Trump will really have to fuck up now not to be re-elected.

In what way is this the use of judicial process for political ends ?
Impeachment is specifically a political process, and was inserted into the Constitution as such. It is supposed to be the ultimate means by which the legislature can keep a corrupt executive in check.

What the framers did not anticipate was a legislature as corrupt as the executive.

"I think it might need an amendment to the constitution..."
Good luck with that - a process which is every bit as political as what you're watching now. And considerably harder to achieve.

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alistair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rpjs said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sanders isn't even a Democrat.

Anyone in 2020 preferring to see the candidature of Sanders over the ejection of Trump should be ashamed of themselves.

Oh please, do I have to post my explanation that American political parties are Not Like British ones, again? Perhaps I should write a macro.

There's a lot of feeling here that the mainstream "moderate" politicians of either party have failed to make any difference. That's why Trump won, and it's why, when Trump's failure is clear as the economy weakens, Sanders or Warren can win as well.

For the record, when the New York primary swings round at the end of April I will be voting for whichever of Sanders or Warren appears to be best placed, and if neither is clearly ahead, I will vote for Sanders.

Trump won because he won swing states in the Midwest because Hillary ignored them and concentrated on maximising votes in places like New York and California.

Believing Sanders is the solution to that is like believing drinking absinthe will sober you up.

Sanders is a terrible campaigner, I can tell this because he lost to Hilary and Hillary is the worst presidential campaigner of all time.

They knew they were in trouble in the rust belt and deliberately chose not to campaign there. It wasn't accidentally leaving them out, it was deliberate strategy.

It was unforgivable madness. To "save face" and not make it look like Trump was close they let Trump win.

Is that true? Or are the entities with the money the state Democratic parties?

I'll dig out the article about the Hilary Campaign decision making and the infamous bus that was turned back to Iowa.

Half of Iowan caucus goers have yet to make up their minds says Guardian.

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

For @NorthernPowerhouse:

https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1224373376174772224?s=21

My kids used to get very annoyed when my parents and myself started speaking Urdu in front of them.

It depends why people are bothered. If it's because people in a conversation they're not a part of are speaking a different language that's absurd. If it's excluding people in a conversation and everyone speaks English then it's rude.

My wife is a native English and Afrikaans speaker (English first). We once bumped into a couple she knew from South Africa and they spoke briefly in Afrikaans before my wife introduced me in English and explained that I don't speak Afrikaans. The other couple continued to speak in Afrikaans so my wife said bye to them and we left. She was annoyed they'd continued to speak in Afrikaans knowing I didn't speak it when she knew they were fluent English speakers.

https://twitter.com/DougieMacM/status/1223572240702300166?s=20

eadric said:

FPT for stocky

Quite a few minor ones but massive brief juddering fever was the first - spasming so hard I couldn’t hold a phone - and also nearly fainting.

Yet now I feel like I am clearly recovering. But the docs still don’t know what it is and I guess they are being super cautious. In case it if corona

I have already given it to my wife and her mum and her best friend so they have a point about contagion

It’s a fascinating insight into what a bad virus might really do. Coronavirus is relatively benign. A death rate of 2%. Ordinary flu is probably worse.

But imagine if avian flu did take off and become humanly contagious. A death rate of 60%????

We are one viral mutation away from societal breakdown

If the number of cases is anything like the HK model the death rate is nearer 0.2 or maybe even 0.1%. Basically if you don’t have preexisting conditions you’re fine. As you say we got lucky, this time.

Alistair said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alistair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rpjs said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sanders isn't even a Democrat.

Anyone in 2020 preferring to see the candidature of Sanders over the ejection of Trump should be ashamed of themselves.

Oh please, do I have to post my explanation that American political parties are Not Like British ones, again? Perhaps I should write a macro.

There's a lot of feeling here that the mainstream "moderate" politicians of either party have failed to make any difference. That's why Trump won, and it's why, when Trump's failure is clear as the economy weakens, Sanders or Warren can win as well.

For the record, when the New York primary swings round at the end of April I will be voting for whichever of Sanders or Warren appears to be best placed, and if neither is clearly ahead, I will vote for Sanders.

Trump won because he won swing states in the Midwest because Hillary ignored them and concentrated on maximising votes in places like New York and California.

Believing Sanders is the solution to that is like believing drinking absinthe will sober you up.

Sanders is a terrible campaigner, I can tell this because he lost to Hilary and Hillary is the worst presidential campaigner of all time.

They knew they were in trouble in the rust belt and deliberately chose not to campaign there. It wasn't accidentally leaving them out, it was deliberate strategy.

It was unforgivable madness. To "save face" and not make it look like Trump was close they let Trump win.

Is that true? Or are the entities with the money the state Democratic parties?

I'll dig out the article about the Hilary Campaign decision making and the infamous bus that was turned back to Iowa.

I do not have a link but remember a story about a states Governor or Senator calling the campaign saying his State needed more from Hillary or she risked losing the State and the Governor was rebuffed being told they didn't want to make it appear close. She lost the state.

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

For @NorthernPowerhouse:

https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1224373376174772224?s=21

My kids used to get very annoyed when my parents and myself started speaking Urdu in front of them.

It depends why people are bothered. If it's because people in a conversation they're not a part of are speaking a different language that's absurd. If it's excluding people in a conversation and everyone speaks English then it's rude.

My wife is a native English and Afrikaans speaker (English first). We once bumped into a couple she knew from South Africa and they spoke briefly in Afrikaans before my wife introduced me in English and explained that I don't speak Afrikaans. The other couple continued to speak in Afrikaans so my wife said bye to them and we left. She was annoyed they'd continued to speak in Afrikaans knowing I didn't speak it when she knew they were fluent English speakers.

In some contexts, it’s rude of the speakers.

In other contexts, it’s xenophobic of the listener.

The difference usually depends on whether you’re being addressed directly or indirectly, and why.

FrancisUrquhart said:

malcolmg said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Casino_Royale said:

Here are the committee for BAFTA both for film and television:

http://www.bafta.org/about/key-personnel/television-committee

http://www.bafta.org/about/key-personnel/film-committee

They both have BAME representation, including Noel Clarke who wrote Kidulthood, and the television one is overwhelmingly female.

Do we think (just possibly) that rather than being all ghastly racists there is something else going on? Like, this year the best nominees won??

Ironically your man did get closer to the issue when saying I’m ashamed to say that I’m part of the problem, because I’ve not ensured that the sets I’ve worked on are inclusive. If there are no Black directors or Asian leading actresses then it is leaving it too late to try and fix it at the awards ceremonies.

Even that is too late. How are such actresses or directors trained up? And, would such training up be genuinely colour-blind or would they be patronisingly confined to films like urban ghetto ones or BAME history ones?

If race is to become irrelevant in awards then we need to get past cultural appropriation and all that nonsense and just train up very good directors, actors and actresses who are able to put themselves to and perform in any role.

That means being so good that they make people forget what colour or race they are at all in their performances, which matters for front stage nominees, and doesn’t matter at all for back stage ones.

off, it will be a problem.

e.g. the Irishman....everybody watches it because of the stellar cast / director. I am not even a massive mob film fan, but I watched it because of that.

I lasted 30 minutes, it was crap , ancient old guys trying to pretend they were young , garbage.

Is there anything you enjoy? Must be exhausting to hate everything.

I enjoy good films , just not a sheep that accepts absolute crap because some arsehole or two happen to be in it, crap is crap.
I enjoy life and all it entails, I am just not a brain dead moron that accepts any crap. It is difficult when you are very intelligent and all around are morons who are unable to think for themselves.

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

Half of Iowan caucus goers have yet to make up their minds says Guardian.

Those people aren't going to go.

I don't think that's necessarily true. You see, if you haven't decided between Hillary and Trump, then you aren't going to vote.

But if you haven't decided if Warren or Klobuchar is the best woman, then you might well turn up. It'll be one of them... you just haven't decided which yet.

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/DougieMacM/status/1223572240702300166?s=20

The EU’s next move is to entice Scotland.

This is a hostile act and all part of their move to punish the UK for leaving, and encourage others not to do the same.

They will wrap it up in language around defending the interests of member states only, and being neutral on potential new accession member states.

Boris should say he’ll immediately guillotine all talks if they encourage - tacitly or otherwise - dismemberment of the UK.

state_go_away said:

TOPPING said:

SouthamObserver said:

Worrying story involving an Air Canada plane developing in Madrid ...
https://twitter.com/matthewbennett/status/1224344633796329474

Landing gear "fell off"...circling to dump fuel.

Edit: burn, not dump.

Over to PPrune we go.

Its down! Safe and sound looks like

Great news

GM foods and chlorinated chicken on their way - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/boris-johnson-dismisses-fears-about-us-food-standards-as-mumbo-jumbo-jhbbnrd2h

Still, to describe obese Americans as “well-nourished” as Boris does, shows that this government will use clever word-smithing to hide the fact that they intend paying no attention to the science or the interests of British consumers or British farmers.

SandyRentool said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

For @NorthernPowerhouse:

https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1224373376174772224?s=21

My kids used to get very annoyed when my parents and myself started speaking Urdu in front of them.

I'm very happy when my inlaws converse in Punjabi. It means that I can ignore them without appearing rude.

Punjabi is one of my favourite languages.

It is the second greatest language in the world to swear in, after French.

Henrietta2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Henrietta2 said:

[Kind of off-topic but...]
Why hasn't the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (that will or won't release the Russia report) been appointed yet? The new Commons has already been sitting for a whole month.

Apparently they are awaiting for the Labour (and possibly the Lib Dem) leadership contests to be concluded.

Once the new leader has been installed then the new Chairman (and committee) be announced.

Is that normal when the leader of the opposition party resigns after losing a general election?

Yes, but there's only a small sample size since the reforms/reorganisation of the Justice & Security Act of 2013.

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/DougieMacM/status/1223572240702300166?s=20

The EU’s next move is to entice Scotland.

This is a hostile act and all part of their move to punish the UK for leaving, and encourage others not to do the same.

They will wrap it up in language around defending the interests of member states only, and being neutral on potential new accession member states.

Boris should say he’ll immediately guillotine all talks if they encourage - tacitly or otherwise - dismemberment of the UK.

Why would Boris do that? He has made a great start at breaking up the UK with his non-border border in the Irish Sea.

eadric said:

Casino_Royale said:

Henrietta2 said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1224348074438512640?s=20

So 51% Yes 49% No at weekend and now 50%/50% , easy to see why Boris is running scared. Once they start campaigning that will be 60% - 40% for certain.

Except Boris has made clear he will block indyref2 for his full 5 year term as per the Tory manifesto and most Scots oppose indyref2 for 5 years anyway

That's not what the Tory manifesto says.

What it says is "We are opposed to a second independence referendum and stand with the majority of people in Scotland, who do not want to return to division and uncertainty. Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP promised that the 2014 referendum would be a ‘once in a generation’ vote and the result was decisive. We believe that outcome should be respected."

If the SNP + Greens win a majority of seats and voteshare in next May's Holyrood election with a promise of an indyref rerun (and both already backed the s30 request), then there will have to be one, because that will be that "the majority of people in Scotland" want. I am sure Boris is well aware of that and he has not ruled it out. It wouldn't surprise me if Dom is even looking forward to indyref2.

(OK OK, I know a majority in Britain as a whole last month voted for not leaving the EU without another Brexit referendum, but there's PR at Holyrood and also independence is a Yes/No issue so it's different.)

There almost certainly will be one, so we will probably get one.

I’m with HYUFD. The Tories will deny a vote even if the Nats get a maj in Holyrood. They will dare Sturgeon to legally overreach, like the catalunyans.

High stakes.

Will Sturgeon then fly to Brussels and demand to be annexed for the sake of "empathy"? Can none of these idiots see beyond the next two moves?

justin124 said:

MarqueeMark said:

Next election will deffo be before September 2024.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51318730

So we are probably talking about May/June 2024 - a mere four years and three months away!

Since it has failed miserably why don't they just cancel Universal Credit and return to the previous system ?

Surely cancelling it would save the jobs of the ministers.

TOPPING said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/DougieMacM/status/1223572240702300166?s=20

The EU’s next move is to entice Scotland.

This is a hostile act and all part of their move to punish the UK for leaving, and encourage others not to do the same.

They will wrap it up in language around defending the interests of member states only, and being neutral on potential new accession member states.

Boris should say he’ll immediately guillotine all talks if they encourage - tacitly or otherwise - dismemberment of the UK.

Why would Boris do that? He has made a great start at breaking up the UK with his non-border border in the Irish Sea.

Yep. Boris has opened up a route to a united Ireland.

Not that it was of course anything that a British Prime Minister could agree to.

Good. A United Ireland will save the Exchequer how many billions each year?

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1224412476156059648

https://twitter.com/NaomiOhReally/status/1224412837583507459

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1224412476156059648

Come on Saj, don’t stop there. Push the useless Oedipus Complexer put altogether.