politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Journal Of The Plague Year. The politics of Covid-19

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Seems like Boris has screwed this up. Not a surprise.

No he has not

Big G! I think HYUFD might have hijacked your PB account! Unless you too have now joined the Boris fan club.

I have my reservation about Boris but I expect the new immigration policy to be popular but some amendments will be needed during it's progress through the HOC

That is one of my many beefs with Boris. The key indicator is not does it work? but is it popular?

It was in the manifesto and will work with some adjustments

Boris loves to be loved so expect more of what we want to hear, rather than more of what is good for us.

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cyclefree said:

Let’s hope this new virus does not spread.

Quite how we are going to attract all the NHS workers we will need under the government’s new immigration policy is another matter. The starting salaries for most of them are below the minimum salary required.

twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/1230043859167666176?s=21

It would also be interesting to know how “innovation in technology and automation” is going to help provide services in the social care sector and what this will mean for elderly sick patients. If wages have to raise will the government provide the additional funding needed to local authorities?

Oh - and where is the plan for social care that Boris announced he had when he became PM?

Disingenious tweet....From the link itself, all those earning £24k like a nurse get enough points from the category of "designated shortage occupation".

But not, for instance, in social care, which is one of the biggest domestic concerns we have and which has a huge impact on NHS care. The other three questions on this area have been carefully avoided, I notice.

There is a predictable response from those who oppose Brexit but the devil will be in the detail and I have no doubt the legislation will be amended in some areas as it passes through the HOC

However, it will be popular in the electorate and does put labour on the spot especially in those red wall seats that collapsed like a pack of cards in december

Furthermore, this system levels the playing field from across the world and is similar to many other countries

Social care is a big issue. Wages are low. If they are low, the new immigration system will not help.

If wages have to rise, how will councils fund social care? How will private clients?

If the funding is not there, immigrant labour is not available then the brutal reality is that social care will not be available for those who need it.

An answer to these practical questions would be helpful.

Looks like a racket to me:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/23/revealed-companies-running-inadequate-uk-care-homes-make-113m-profit

On topic: I appreciate that this point has already been touched on, but the seasonality factor is really very significant indeed. If the behaviour and effect of Covid-19 is anything like flu, which seems likely, then in Europe at least the immediate mass contagion risk will largely disappear by around the end of March, which isn't long. Thus if we can successfully contain the virus in Europe over the few weeks, which seems near-certain given that so far there are tiny numbers of cases in Europe, then we'll have bought ourselves nine or ten months before the risk starts rising again here.

That will be absolutely invaluable time for gaining a better understanding of the virus, evaluating the best treatments, and potentially even developing a vaccine (although getting a vaccine tested and approved in that time would requite a major relaxation of normal regulatory approval).

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cyclefree said:

Let’s hope this new virus does not spread.

Quite how we are going to attract all the NHS workers we will need under the government’s new immigration policy is another matter. The starting salaries for most of them are below the minimum salary required.

twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/1230043859167666176?s=21

It would also be interesting to know how “innovation in technology and automation” is going to help provide services in the social care sector and what this will mean for elderly sick patients. If wages have to raise will the government provide the additional funding needed to local authorities?

Oh - and where is the plan for social care that Boris announced he had when he became PM?

Disingenious tweet....From the link itself, all those earning £24k like a nurse get enough points from the category of "designated shortage occupation".

But not, for instance, in social care, which is one of the biggest domestic concerns we have and which has a huge impact on NHS care. The other three questions on this area have been carefully avoided, I notice.

There is a predictable response from those who oppose Brexit but the devil will be in the detail and I have no doubt the legislation will be amended in some areas as it passes through the HOC

However, it will be popular in the electorate and does put labour on the spot especially in those red wall seats that collapsed like a pack of cards in december

Furthermore, this system levels the playing field from across the world and is similar to many other countries

Social care is a big issue. Wages are low. If they are low, the new immigration system will not help.

If wages have to rise, how will councils fund social care? How will private clients?

If the funding is not there, immigrant labour is not available then the brutal reality is that social care will not be available for those who need it.

An answer to these practical questions would be helpful.

I agree social care is the most important issue for immigration.

However looking at the detail the points based system is much more flexible than the politicians are saying.

Approved sponsor, Job at skill level, Speaks English, Salary £20480 and Job in a shortage occupation qualifies. Min Wage 40 hrs a week is £18k from April 2020, so by April 2021 the gap between min salary and full time min wage salary will be negligible.

Its all smoke and mirrors, the govt has no intention of actually reducing immigration as its obvious we need it, they just need to lie to their voter base for political reasons.

SouthamObserver said:

Pulpstar said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cyclefree said:

Let’s hope this new virus does not spread.

Quite how we are going to attract all the NHS workers we will need under the government’s new immigration policy is another matter. The starting salaries for most of them are below the minimum salary required.

twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/1230043859167666176?s=21

It would also be interesting to know how “innovation in technology and automation” is going to help provide services in the social care sector and what this will mean for elderly sick patients. If wages have to raise will the government provide the additional funding needed to local authorities?

Oh - and where is the plan for social care that Boris announced he had when he became PM?

Disingenious tweet....From the link itself, all those earning £24k like a nurse get enough points from the category of "designated shortage occupation".

But not, for instance, in social care, which is one of the biggest domestic concerns we have and which has a huge impact on NHS care. The other three questions on this area have been carefully avoided, I notice.

snip

Social care is a big issue. Wages are low. If they are low, the new immigration system will not help.

If wages have to rise, how will councils fund social care? How will private clients?

If the funding is not there, immigrant labour is not available then the brutal reality is that social care will not be available for those who need it.

An answer to these practical questions would be helpful.

Looks like a racket to me:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/23/revealed-companies-running-inadequate-uk-care-homes-make-113m-profit

Isn't the point here that they are inadequate?

I posted just before Christmas about my mother-in-law. She has dementia and is currently living with us. At the moment we get three hours care for her a day. It costs £150 a day (all UK nationals doing it, by the way). For live-in, 24 hours care - which we get when we have to go away - it is £250 a day. At some point,she may need a home and we have had a look around. The cheapest option was £750 a week, most were over £1,000.

Sorry to hear about your mother in law. I have to say it is the one political issue at the moment that really makes my blood boil. Generations of politicians have failed to sort out social care. It is a disgrace and should bring shame on the whole lot of them for failing in this way.

noneoftheabove said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cyclefree said:

Let’s hope this new virus does not spread.

Quite how we are going to attract all the NHS workers we will need under the government’s new immigration policy is another matter. The starting salaries for most of them are below the minimum salary required.

twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/1230043859167666176?s=21

It authorities?

Oh - and where is the plan for social care that Boris announced he had when he became PM?

Disingenious tweet....From the link itself, all those earning £24k like a nurse get enough points from the category of "designated shortage occupation".

But I notice.

There is a predictable response from those who oppose Brexit but the devil will be in the detail and I have no doubt the legislation will be amended in some areas as it passes through the HOC

However, it will be popular in the electorate and does put labour on the spot especially in those red wall seats that collapsed like a pack of cards in december

Furthermore, this system levels the playing field from across the world and is similar to many other countries

Social care is a big issue. Wages are low. If they are low, the new immigration system will not help.

If wages have to rise, how will councils fund social care? How will private clients?

If the funding is not there, immigrant labour is not available then the brutal reality is that social care will not be available for those who need it.

An answer to these practical questions would be helpful.

I agree social care is the most important issue for immigration.

However looking at the detail the points based system is much more flexible than the politicians are saying.

Approved sponsor, Job at skill level, Speaks English, Salary £20480 and Job in a shortage occupation qualifies. Min Wage 40 hrs a week is £18k from April 2020, so by April 2021 the gap between min salary and full time min wage salary will be negligible.

Its all smoke and mirrors, the govt has no intention of actually reducing immigration as its obvious we need it, they just need to lie to their voter base for political reasons.

Yep, I think that's right. Immigration is not going to fall because we need it. And, for me, it's a shame that we are giving up a lot of benefits for UK citizens in order for the government to get a few headlines. There must have been a more imaginative way to do it that could have largely retained what British citizens have had for 30 years. Maybe there will be in the future once we are over all the politics that surrounds Brexit.

noneoftheabove said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cyclefree said:

Let’s hope this new virus does not spread.

Quite how we are going to attract all the NHS workers we will need under the government’s new immigration policy is another matter. The starting salaries for most of them are below the minimum salary required.

twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/1230043859167666176?s=21

It would also be interesting to know how “innovation in technology and automation” is going to help provide services in the social care sector and what this will mean for elderly sick patients. If wages have to raise will the government provide the additional funding needed to local authorities?

Oh - and where is the plan for social care that Boris announced he had when he became PM?

Disingenious tweet....From the link itself, all those earning £24k like a nurse get enough points from the category of "designated shortage occupation".

snip
However, it will be popular in the electorate and does put labour on the spot especially in those red wall seats that collapsed like a pack of cards in december

Furthermore, this system levels the playing field from across the world and is similar to many other countries

Social care is a big issue. Wages are low. If they are low, the new immigration system will not help.

If wages have to rise, how will councils fund social care? How will private clients?

If the funding is not there, immigrant labour is not available then the brutal reality is that social care will not be available for those who need it.

An answer to these practical questions would be helpful.

I agree social care is the most important issue for immigration.

However looking at the detail the points based system is much more flexible than the politicians are saying.

Approved sponsor, Job at skill level, Speaks English, Salary £20480 and Job in a shortage occupation qualifies. Min Wage 40 hrs a week is £18k from April 2020, so by April 2021 the gap between min salary and full time min wage salary will be negligible.

Its all smoke and mirrors, the govt has no intention of actually reducing immigration as its obvious we need it, they just need to lie to their voter base for political reasons.

We will you could argue that such a system will allow adjustments in the future.

There will always be voters who want zero migration. They aren't going to get what they want.

rottenborough said:

SouthamObserver said:

Pulpstar said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cyclefree said:

Let’s hope this new virus does not spread.

Quite how we are going to attract all the NHS workers we will need under the government’s new immigration policy is another matter. The starting salaries for most of them are below the minimum salary required.

twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/1230043859167666176?s=21

It local authorities?

Oh - and where is the plan for social care that Boris announced he had when he became PM?

Disingenious tweet....From the link itself, all those earning £24k like a nurse get enough points from the category of "designated shortage occupation".

But I notice.

snip

Social care is a big issue. Wages are low. If they are low, the new immigration system will not help.

If wages have to rise, how will councils fund social care? How will private clients?

If the funding is not there, immigrant labour is not available then the brutal reality is that social care will not be available for those who need it.

An answer to these practical questions would be helpful.

Looks like a racket to me:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/23/revealed-companies-running-inadequate-uk-care-homes-make-113m-profit

Isn't the point here that they are inadequate?

I posted just before Christmas about my mother-in-law. She has dementia and is currently living with us. At the moment we get three hours care for her a day. It costs £150 a day (all UK nationals doing it, by the way). For live-in, 24 hours care - which we get when we have to go away - it is £250 a day. At some point,she may need a home and we have had a look around. The cheapest option was £750 a week, most were over £1,000.

Sorry to hear about your mother in law. I have to say it is the one political issue at the moment that really makes my blood boil. Generations of politicians have failed to sort out social care. It is a disgrace and should bring shame on the whole lot of them for failing in this way.

The costs and the implications are so huge that it is easier to push the can down the road. At some point, though, the road is going to run out. Unless, perhaps, we get Alastair's worse case coronavirus scenario.

noneoftheabove said:

SouthamObserver said:

Pulpstar said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cyclefree said:

Let’s hope this new virus does not spread.

?

Disingenious tweet....From the link itself, all those earning £24k like a nurse get enough points from the category of "designated shortage occupation".

But I notice.

There iHOC

Howeverdecember

Furthermore, tcountries

Social help.

If wages have to rise, how will councils fund social care? How will private clients?

If the funding is not there, immigrant labour is not available then the brutal reality is that social care will not be available for those who need it.

An answer to these practical questions would be helpful.

Looks like a racket to me:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/23/revealed-companies-running-inadequate-uk-care-homes-make-113m-profit

Isn't the point here that they are inadequate?

I £1,000.

There was a 5-live interview on the radio this week about someone who couldnt find good dementia care for their parent so opened up a dementia focused care home in Thailand targeting the UK. Worth listening to if any interest in the subject. They get 1 to 1 care 24 hours a day as opposed to 4 staff across the day to 40 people in the UK at the same price or cheaper.

The problem with that is that moving dementia patients from places they are familiar with can be incredibly distressing. It's one of the reasons why we still have the wife's Mum with us - the fear that a move would destroy what little reality she still has. She had a fall a couple fo months ago that required 26 stitches in her head, but she came back home the same day because the advixe was that being in hospital overnight would be so disorientating to her that it would outweigh the benefits.

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1230086078339653634

SouthamObserver said:

noneoftheabove said:

SouthamObserver said:

Pulpstar said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cyclefree said:

Let’s hope this new virus does not spread.

?

Disingenious tweet....From the link itself, all those earning £24k like a nurse get enough points from the category of "designated shortage occupation".

But I notice.

There iHOC

Howeverdecember

Furthermore, tcountries

Social help.

If wages have to rise, how will councils fund social care? How will private clients?

If the funding is not there, immigrant labour is not available then the brutal reality is that social care will not be available for those who need it.

An answer to these practical questions would be helpful.

Looks like a racket to me:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/23/revealed-companies-running-inadequate-uk-care-homes-make-113m-profit

Isn't the point here that they are inadequate?

I £1,000.

There was a 5-live interview on the radio this week about someone who couldnt find good dementia care for their parent so opened up a dementia focused care home in Thailand targeting the UK. Worth listening to if any interest in the subject. They get 1 to 1 care 24 hours a day as opposed to 4 staff across the day to 40 people in the UK at the same price or cheaper.

The problem with that is that moving dementia patients from places they are familiar with can be incredibly distressing. It's one of the reasons why we still have the wife's Mum with us - the fear that a move would destroy what little reality she still has. She had a fall a couple fo months ago that required 26 stitches in her head, but she came back home the same day because the advixe was that being in hospital overnight would be so disorientating to her that it would outweigh the benefits.

It definitely wont suit all, and will depend upon the stage the patient is at, personality, finances and family dynamics. The difference in social interaction between being effectively locked up from 1800-0800 in the UK to having one to one nursing care plus a more social environment in his care home sounded like a dramatic benefit though.

isam said:

Well I like the new immigration policy that’s been outlined, I hope Boris makes good on his promise to level up the country and that’s the main thing he can do.

Good to hear. As to "leveling up", I am skeptical. But we will see. I will probe you again on this matter at a suitable point in the future.

noneoftheabove said:

SouthamObserver said:

noneoftheabove said:

SouthamObserver said:

Pulpstar said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cyclefree said:

Let’s hope this new virus does not spread.

?

Disingenious tweet....From the link itself, all those earning £24k like a nurse get enough points from the category of "designated shortage occupation".

But I notice.

There iHOC

Howeverdecember

Furthermore, tcountries

Social help.

If wages have to rise, how will councils fund social care? How will private clients?

If the funding is not there, immigrant labour is not available then the brutal reality is that social care will not be available for those who need it.

An answer to these practical questions would be helpful.

Looks like a racket to me:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/23/revealed-companies-running-inadequate-uk-care-homes-make-113m-profit

Isn't the point here that they are inadequate?

I £1,000.

There was a 5-live interview on the radio this week about someone who couldnt find good dementia care for their parent so opened up a dementia focused care home in Thailand targeting the UK. Worth listening to if any interest in the subject. They get 1 to 1 care 24 hours a day as opposed to 4 staff across the day to 40 people in the UK at the same price or cheaper.

The problem with that is that moving dementia patients from places they are familiar with can be incredibly distressing. It's one of the reasons why we still have the wife's Mum with us - the fear that a move would destroy what little reality she still has. She had a fall a couple fo months ago that required 26 stitches in her head, but she came back home the same day because the advixe was that being in hospital overnight would be so disorientating to her that it would outweigh the benefits.

It definitely wont suit all, and will depend upon the stage the patient is at, personality, finances and family dynamics. The difference in social interaction between being effectively locked up from 1800-0800 in the UK to having one to one nursing care plus a more social environment in his care home sounded like a dramatic benefit though.

Yep, social care is so expensive because of the number of people that are required to ensure it is not a matter of locking people up. All the homes we looked at allowed patients to move around freely, if they were capable of doing so, but that means you need a lot of staff making sure they are OK.

northernpowerhouse2 said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Cyclefree said:

Let’s hope this new virus does not spread.

Quite how we are going to attract all the NHS workers we will need under the government’s new immigration policy is another matter. The starting salaries for most of them are below the minimum salary required.

twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/1230043859167666176?s=21

It would also be interesting to know how “innovation in technology and automation” is going to help provide services in the social care sector and what this will mean for elderly sick patients. If wages have to raise will the government provide the additional funding needed to local authorities?

Oh - and where is the plan for social care that Boris announced he had when he became PM?

Disingenious tweet....From the link itself, all those earning £24k like a nurse get enough points from the category of "designated shortage occupation".

However, it will be popular in the electorate and does put labour on the spot especially in those red wall seats that collapsed like a pack of cards in december

Furthermore, this system levels the playing field from across the world and is similar to many other countries

Social care is a big issue. Wages are low. If they are low, the new immigration system will not help.

If wages have to rise, how will councils fund social care? How will private clients?

If the funding is not there, immigrant labour is not available then the brutal reality is that social care will not be available for those who need it.

An answer to these practical questions would be helpful.

Looks like a racket to me:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/23/revealed-companies-running-inadequate-uk-care-homes-make-113m-profit

No. It really isn’t. They might make £113 million but on what turnover? I have a friend who runs a series of homes that are not for profit. Every time the national living wage goes up it adds hugely to the wage bill. Our local county council pay themselves more per resident then they do the private/voluntary. It really does cost £500 a week to provide residential care with low level nursing support.

Who knows ?
That article doesn't make it clear (though in one case the bulk of the declared profit was claimed to be from asset disposals). AFAIK, the reality is that most care homes struggle to make large profits, and paying patients tend to subsidise Local Authority ones in private care homes (the LA gets charged a significantly lower per capita rate).

rottenborough said:

brokenwheel said:

rottenborough said:

Four more years for Trump looking increasingly likely on that ABC poll.

Self-indulgent Dems.

Something to bear in mind; many states have open primaries, meaning that Republicans can vote. Polling has performed poorly so far, and it may get even worse.

Republicans maybe will vote Sanders, in order to scupper Dems?

I doubt anything that coordinated, people will vote for who they prefer in case they do beat Trump, and it isn't obvious voting for Sanders would be the best course of action anyway (e.g. a contested convention may be far more damaging to the Dems).

Many Trumpy Republicans are likely sympathetic to Sanders' message, even if they'd prefer Trump in November. Establishment Republicans...not so much, my guess is Bloomberg would be their ideal preference.

This is probably the most unexpected video you will see today:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2020/feb/19/woman-plays-violin-undergoing-brain-surgery-london-video

Not the best look ahead of the Nevada caucuses, where around a fifth of the population is of Mexican origin:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/amy-klobuchar-mexico-president-latino-vote.html
...Steyer couldn’t remember Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Mexico’s president since late 2018. “I forget,” Steyer acknowledged. That Steyer, a billionaire who has never held elected office, could not recall the name of a foreign leader might be forgivable, but Amy Klobuchar, a sitting U.S. Senator, is another matter. “I’m sorry to ask this,” Venegas told Klobuchar. “But do you know who he is?” Klobuchar hesitated, looked to her right (perhaps in search of a lifeline), and tried to respond. “I know that he is the Mexican president,” she said, awkwardly. Venegas would not relent. “But would you tell me his name?” he followed up. Klobuchar was forced to admit that she couldn’t, even though she had recently voted for the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, a trade treaty Mexico’s president had lobbied for. Pete Buttigieg fared better, sweating through the correct answer. “President López Obrador, I hope,” he said, blushing slightly....

rottenborough said:

Four more years for Trump looking increasingly likely on that ABC poll.

Self-indulgent Dems.

Surely self-indulgent would be not voting for the candidate who polls best against Trump head-to-head?

Currently the US's biggest trading partner....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZsWWkCzR-c

Afternoon all

A few random thoughts this Wednesday lunch hour - what is it about young men and extreme opinions? Sabisky looks about 16 and he's said some daft things - well, I know I did when I was 16. It must be wonderful to have such certainty about things and to know you are right about it all.

A few decades on and I am continually amazed by the breadth and depth of my own ignorance.

Immigration - this is where it's going to get difficult. I see it up close and personal in my part of London which seems a dormitory for construction workers (like Pharaoh, we rely on foreign labour to build our monuments it seems). With unemployment supposedly 3.6%, I can see why those who argue restricting the labour supply makes no sense have their view but views on immigration completely transcend economics.

As has been pointed out, we rely on cheap imported labour to care for our elderly and for so much else and yet I imagine closing the door on unskilled labour will be wildly popular. Perhaps the price of growth is a price some no longer wish to pay.

After one or two Government announcements which I thought reasonable it's back to reality with the hit for savers announced on Monday. It's quite clear that Johnson is the Viv Nicholson de nos jours except he wants us to do the spending to keep the economy stimulated just in case leaving the EU isn't the panacea we have been to led to believe.

Savers have had a rough time since 2008 and now NS&I are slashing rates and reducing premium bond prizes which is in effect a spending cut. This is against a background of a halving of household income saved from 10% to just 5% since 2010 and a reduction of a third in those choosing to put money into a cash ISA.

We were supposed after the GFC to be moving to a more balanced economy where saving was encouraged but it looks like a return to the bad old days of consumption and debt leaving us ill-prepared for the next economic shock.

There was some inexplicable resistance to my suggestion last night that current UK residents who were EU migrants might find the tone of yesterday's immigration announcement unwelcoming:

https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/1230100754003828737

Stereotomy said:

rottenborough said:

Four more years for Trump looking increasingly likely on that ABC poll.

Self-indulgent Dems.

Surely self-indulgent would be not voting for the candidate who polls best against Trump head-to-head?

The record of hypothetical polls is diabolical to the extent that they should be almost entirely ignored. Remember the polling that said the Conservatives would be hammered if they failed to get Brexit through by 31st October, for example?

In the US, the vast majority simply haven't paid all that much attention to the Presidential race yet, and won't until the summer. Democrats need to be totally focused on a candidate who will be genuinely marketable to independents in the Autumn, and polls based on mere passing knowledge of characters in the race at this stage are a massive bum steer.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Stereotomy said:

rottenborough said:

Four more years for Trump looking increasingly likely on that ABC poll.

Self-indulgent Dems.

Surely self-indulgent would be not voting for the candidate who polls best against Trump head-to-head?

The record of hypothetical polls is diabolical to the extent that they should be almost entirely ignored. Remember the polling that said the Conservatives would be hammered if they failed to get Brexit through by 31st October, for example?

In the US, the vast majority simply haven't paid all that much attention to the Presidential race yet, and won't until the summer. Democrats need to be totally focused on a candidate who will be genuinely marketable to independents in the Autumn, and polls based on mere passing knowledge of characters in the race at this stage are a massive bum steer.

It's not a hypothetical poll any more than "If there was a general election today..." is a hypothetical poll.

But okay, what indicator do you think we should use to determine who'd do best against Trump? Winning primaries? Diversity of support over different states and demographic groups? Fundraising?

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Stereotomy said:

rottenborough said:

Four more years for Trump looking increasingly likely on that ABC poll.

Self-indulgent Dems.

Surely self-indulgent would be not voting for the candidate who polls best against Trump head-to-head?

The record of hypothetical polls is diabolical to the extent that they should be almost entirely ignored. Remember the polling that said the Conservatives would be hammered if they failed to get Brexit through by 31st October, for example?

In the US, the vast majority simply haven't paid all that much attention to the Presidential race yet, and won't until the summer. Democrats need to be totally focused on a candidate who will be genuinely marketable to independents in the Autumn, and polls based on mere passing knowledge of characters in the race at this stage are a massive bum steer.

Utter rubbish.

During the Tory leadership campaign most polls had Boris winning a majority against Corbyn and he did. Voters voted for Boris and against the Brexit blocking Commons.

By this stage all the Democratic candidates are getting lots of publicity as the primaries proceed so in the US too hypothetical polls are becoming increasingly useful

Stereotomy said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Stereotomy said:

rottenborough said:

Four more years for Trump looking increasingly likely on that ABC poll.

Self-indulgent Dems.

Surely self-indulgent would be not voting for the candidate who polls best against Trump head-to-head?

The record of hypothetical polls is diabolical to the extent that they should be almost entirely ignored. Remember the polling that said the Conservatives would be hammered if they failed to get Brexit through by 31st October, for example?

In the US, the vast majority simply haven't paid all that much attention to the Presidential race yet, and won't until the summer. Democrats need to be totally focused on a candidate who will be genuinely marketable to independents in the Autumn, and polls based on mere passing knowledge of characters in the race at this stage are a massive bum steer.

It's not a hypothetical poll any more than "If there was a general election today..." is a hypothetical poll.

But okay, what indicator do you think we should use to determine who'd do best against Trump? Winning primaries? Diversity of support over different states and demographic groups? Fundraising?

Indeed, why not just ban polls altogether given as 2015 and 2017 and the EUref showed they do not always predict the result

SouthamObserver said:

In the markets animal carcasses and live fish were chopped up by blokes in filthy clothes with fags hanging out of their mouths.

Is that bad because recently my builder brought a wild boar carcass over and Mrs in Tokyo helped him skin it and cut it up on a bit of cardboard in front of the house in the clothes she'd meant to be plastering in

AlastairMeeks said:

There was some inexplicable resistance to my suggestion last night that current UK residents who were EU migrants might find the tone of yesterday's immigration announcement unwelcoming:

https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/1230100754003828737

The notion that our millions of UK based EU workers are about to flee for the bountiful job opportunities available on the continent is one of the more delusional things I have read on this site.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Stereotomy said:

rottenborough said:

Four more years for Trump looking increasingly likely on that ABC poll.

Self-indulgent Dems.

Surely self-indulgent would be not voting for the candidate who polls best against Trump head-to-head?

The record of hypothetical polls is diabolical to the extent that they should be almost entirely ignored. Remember the polling that said the Conservatives would be hammered if they failed to get Brexit through by 31st October, for example?

In the US, the vast majority simply haven't paid all that much attention to the Presidential race yet, and won't until the summer. Democrats need to be totally focused on a candidate who will be genuinely marketable to independents in the Autumn, and polls based on mere passing knowledge of characters in the race at this stage are a massive bum steer.

Hypothetical polling may be generally crap, but there is no record against which to measure this kind of possible head-to-head matchup polling. Maybe the head to head matchups in 2016 showing Sanders doing better against Trump than Clinton were right, and he would have won, maybe not. But you can't say those polls were wrong.

What do voters have to go on that's better? Speculation? Punditry? Arguably, many Democrat primary voters believed the pundits who were saying Clinton was more electable than Sanders (and ignored the polls) and perhaps got it wrong. I guess they would have probably done better to ignore the pundits and go with polls, if they were most concerned with voting for someone to defeat the likely Republican candidate.

I would be happy if the Dems managed to pick a candidate who would beat Trump. It's not obvious to me that any of the likely candidates would do any better or worse than any of the others, but nobody getting a majority of delegates with Sanders and Bloomberg coming first and second, and neither willing to concede gracefully, looks like an awful (and very possible) scenario for the Dems.

HYUFD said:

They are not being deported, whether they disagree with the policy is irrelevant

But the point technically stands. If, for example, we were to have a total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming into the UK - because, sorry folks, we have no choice, no choice - then even though Muslims already here would not be facing deportation they would have every right to feel a little threatened.

Sanders isn't persuaded, of course...
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1229526201619951617

Richard_Nabavi said:

(although getting a vaccine tested and approved in that time would requite a major relaxation of normal regulatory approval).

If I had a brexit that I was trying to impress people with I'd perform quite a major relaxation of normal regulatory approval, followed by a great patriotic vaccination that made all my citizens safe while the foreigners wrapped themselves up in red tape.

isam said:

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

AlastairMeeks said:

There was some inexplicable resistance to my suggestion last night that current UK residents who were EU migrants might find the tone of yesterday's immigration announcement unwelcoming:

https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/1230100754003828737

"current UK residents who were EU migrants".. who are also Guardian journalists!

Always inspect the source

Contrary to popular belief, journalists are people too. He doesn't hide that he's a journalist and he is clear (from other tweets) that for him this is very personal.

Of course. It just seemed a waste of time for you to quote him as if he wasn’t a Guardian journalist, which is probably more relevant than him being an EU immigrant

Oh come on - he has a big blue tick. I was hardly hiding that. He is expressing his views as a Polish national, see here:

https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/1230073158977359873

His views are, I expect, completely mainstream among EU residents in the UK right now. The government has told them what it thinks of them and they've heard the message.

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

They are not being deported, whether they disagree with the policy is irrelevant

But the point technically stands. If, for example, we were to have a total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming into the UK - because, sorry folks, we have no choice, no choice - then even though Muslims already here would not be facing deportation they would have every right to feel a little threatened.

Don't the immigration proposals in actual fact aim to do that by another name (ie stipulate speaking english, job offer?)

Its a a de facto total ban on women from certain rural areas of the Indian subcontinent for example, isn;t it?

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

They are not being deported, whether they disagree with the policy is irrelevant

But the point technically stands. If, for example, we were to have a total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming into the UK - because, sorry folks, we have no choice, no choice - then even though Muslims already here would not be facing deportation they would have every right to feel a little threatened.

Except we are not having a shutdown of immigration and certainly not racially or religiously focused, just a skills based system

Its a de facto racial/religious ban though because its known to everybody that under cetain regimes its impossible to acquire those skills - especially for women.

Nigelb said:

Sanders isn't persuaded, of course...
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1229526201619951617

I think Trump is absolubtely telling the truth* when he says he'd prefer to run against Bloomberg. I've watched their rallies, Trump is a far more engaging speaker and superior debater. His Daytona PR stunt & speech (And College football Nat Champs) shows he knows what makes middle America tick still.

The case for Bloomberg seems to be entirely based on people believing that other people would vote for Bloomberg, it looks built on sand and would not stand up in a general I think.

* Loads assume he's lieing of course because he tells so many porkies !

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

There was some inexplicable resistance to my suggestion last night that current UK residents who were EU migrants might find the tone of yesterday's immigration announcement unwelcoming:

https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/1230100754003828737

They are not being deported, whether they disagree with the policy is irrelevant

https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/1230107290063249408

I suppose you're entirely happy making fellow residents feel unwelcome.

They are not unwelcome otherwise they would be deported.

We are just in future having an immigration system more focused on those whose skills we need

Wow, so you can't feel unwelcome unless you're actually being deported!?

I personally know EU doctors and nurses who are no longer considering working in the UK precisely because they feel unwelcome.

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

There was some inexplicable resistance to my suggestion last night that current UK residents who were EU migrants might find the tone of yesterday's immigration announcement unwelcoming:

https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/1230100754003828737

They are not being deported, whether they disagree with the policy is irrelevant

https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/1230107290063249408

I suppose you're entirely happy making fellow residents feel unwelcome.

Of course he is. He is a fanbois of the Populist in Chief. If "Boris" as he so sycophantically likes to call him, or "Dom" says it is good, it must be!

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

AlastairMeeks said:

There was some inexplicable resistance to my suggestion last night that current UK residents who were EU migrants might find the tone of yesterday's immigration announcement unwelcoming:

https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/1230100754003828737

"current UK residents who were EU migrants".. who are also Guardian journalists!

Always inspect the source

Contrary to popular belief, journalists are people too. He doesn't hide that he's a journalist and he is clear (from other tweets) that for him this is very personal.

Of course. It just seemed a waste of time for you to quote him as if he wasn’t a Guardian journalist, which is probably more relevant than him being an EU immigrant

Oh come on - he has a big blue tick. I was hardly hiding that. He is expressing his views as a Polish national, see here:

https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/1230073158977359873

His views are, I expect, completely mainstream among EU residents in the UK right now. The government has told them what it thinks of them and they've heard the message.

Well call me a overly sceptical if you like, but introducing him under the umbrella of ‘current UK residents who were EU migrants’ when he is a Guardian journalist with an anti Brexit agenda seemed quite insincere, and I’d say stupid as we can all check easily.

HYUFD said:

Except we are not having a shutdown of immigration and certainly not racially or religiously focused, just a skills based system

No, but I was just rebutting the point that it won't make them feel threatened or unwelcome because they are not being deported.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

My big concern about Covid-19 is Africa.

All the maps of spread show no incidents in Africa at all. And yet we know there is a huge amount of economic movement between China and Africa with the Chinese investing heavily in African infrastructure making use of Chinese labour. I find it hard to believe that the virus has not spread there and fear it is simply not being detected.

Someone "in the know" told me that keeping it out of Africa is the WHO top priority because once it is there it will be impossible to contain

I do hope that is the case.

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1230049491979526144?s=20

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

The case for Bloomberg (it's very well argued, even if I don't agree with it):
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/18/21135149/mike-bloomberg-democrat-polls-debate-new-york-mayor-record

If he gets the nomination I will obviously become his most fervent supporter between then and November, but I must admit it feels all wrong to me.

Sentiments I share.
It's not entirely his fault that he can spend so much money on his campaign - US campaign finance laws are nuts - but it is democratically troubling.
He is preferable to Trump in most respects, though, and even the most left liberal ought to prefer him, if only for his stance on climate change.

https://twitter.com/Jackson_Carlaw/status/1230066322157002752?s=20

isam said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

They are not being deported, whether they disagree with the policy is irrelevant

But the point technically stands. If, for example, we were to have a total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming into the UK - because, sorry folks, we have no choice, no choice - then even though Muslims already here would not be facing deportation they would have every right to feel a little threatened.

Or if we were having a total and complete open door to cheap Eastern European labour, the people in the country who pay the mortgage and feed the kids by selling their labour would have every right to feel a little threatened.

Got to say I don't get this argument.

We have had a complete open door to cheap Eastern European labour for the last 20 or more years. And yet we have some of the lowest rates of unemployment in modern history.

The idea that lots of foreigners are stopping good old Brits getting plum jobs - or even shitty jobs - just doesn't seem to be borne out by the facts.

Nigel_Foremain said:

kamski said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

There was some inexplicable resistance to my suggestion last night that current UK residents who were EU migrants might find the tone of yesterday's immigration announcement unwelcoming:

https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/1230100754003828737

They are not being deported, whether they disagree with the policy is irrelevant

https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/1230107290063249408

I suppose you're entirely happy making fellow residents feel unwelcome.

They are not unwelcome otherwise they would be deported.

We are just in future having an immigration system more focused on those whose skills we need

Wow, so you can't feel unwelcome unless you're actually being deported!?

I personally know EU doctors and nurses who are no longer considering working in the UK precisely because they feel unwelcome.

I have spoken to many top professionals who have said the same. They can chose anywhere, so why would they chose to work somewhere where 52% of the population has told them to fuck off?

So why did so many of them apply for the settled status rather than leave?

.

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1230049491979526144?s=20

So fucking naïve. No wonder the Conservatives are no longer the party of business. Most of them just do not understand how the real world works.

Given you believe that the only role for doctorates is in academia, I do wonder about how in touch you are with the real world.

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Jackson_Carlaw/status/1230066322157002752?s=20

Arguably, this is almost how the system should be working. We should be sending smaller proportions of our youth to university, but paying for them to study [the subjects we consider it useful for the country to have more graduates of]. But if universities also want to sell places commercially, all well and good.

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1230049491979526144?s=20

So fucking naïve. No wonder the Conservatives are no longer the party of business. Most of them just do not understand how the real world works.

https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1230068222189326336?s=20

And yet there are lots of current vacancies for low skilled jobs at the moment and people don't seem to be wanting to take them....

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1230049491979526144?s=20

So fucking naïve. No wonder the Conservatives are no longer the party of business. Most of them just do not understand how the real world works.

https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1230068222189326336?s=20

And yet there are lots of current vacancies for low skilled jobs at the moment and people don't seem to be wanting to take them....

You nailed it Richard. The "skill" gap that needs often to be filled is, ironically, the unskilled

kinabalu said:

isam said:

Or, if we were having a total and complete open door to cheap Eastern European labour, the people in the country who pay the mortgage and feed the kids by selling their labour would have every right to feel a little threatened.

I will leave you to debate this with your fellow Leaver @Richard_Tyndall.

Not all leavers are the same. Richard hates the EU in the way that many Tories have for years, and have intellectual arguments that the public don’t really care about. I don’t hate the EU and, like most of the leave vote, just didn’t like open door immigration & it’s effect on the British low wage group. The latter was the reason we had a referendum and why leave won, the former was an argument for academics to pass the time with.