politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Biden still trails in the WH2020 betting in spite of opening d

Ave_it said:

Cyclefree said:

Ave_it said:

Well done Boris and Carrie

LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!

Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.

Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.

The reports emanating from government sources of Boris being away from PMQ (and which the hard left halfwits were commenting on) would have been in the knowledge of the (then) imminent birth which couldn't be made public at the time.

Not sure the Telegraph is a hot bed of anti-Johnson leftyism ...
https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1255396596025569296?s=21

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Ave_it said:

Well done Boris and Carrie

LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!

I'm not a hard left halfwit (well not two out of three). And I was criticising him for not attending PMQs. And I am still criticising him for not attending PMQs. He doesn't get to be like a normal dad. He is PM. Apparently.

PM not President. We have a cabinet government in this country.

Even you don't believe that anything of import happens without the PM. And there are one or two important bits and bobs going on right now in the country.

Boris was apparently raring to go and to take charge as of a few days ago.

In the meantime there is no one in charge.

Indeed and going and taking charge does not mean that he does everything. It is possible to delegate some elements of his role and every PM ever has done that - including PMQs. Every PM in my adult lifetime has not attended every 100% of PMQs.

The problem for the Boris Johnson apologists and supporters is that he has a history of laziness and "back of a fag packet" approach to work. He will be given the benefit of the doubt for a couple more weeks perhaps. After that the weaknesses in his style will come to the fore. Being a good leader is different form having appeal at an election where the opposition is weak. I do not believe he will surprise any of us that have always thought him massively unsuited to the role.

RobD said:

isam said:

Spending the last half hour reading the last thread knowing that Boris was missing PMQs because his fiancée had just given birth was fabulous!!!!

How they must hate him!

BDS is a terrible condition.

One of the symptoms appears to be clown like feet, that cause the sufferer to continually trip themselves up and fall flat on their face!

Congrats to Boris and Carrie. Best wishes to the newborn who I hope is healthy - must have been a very stressful time for their family.

On topic - Biden has to be favourite and I have a nice green next to him.
I plan to keep laying Trump whenever he drops below evens. I'm also massively up if somehow next President ends up being Warren, Harris or Klobuchar.

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Ave_it said:

Well done Boris and Carrie

LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!

I'm not a hard left halfwit (well not two out of three). And I was criticising him for not attending PMQs. And I am still criticising him for not attending PMQs. He doesn't get to be like a normal dad. He is PM. Apparently.

PM not President. We have a cabinet government in this country.

Even you don't believe that anything of import happens without the PM. And there are one or two important bits and bobs going on right now in the country.

Boris was apparently raring to go and to take charge as of a few days ago.

In the meantime there is no one in charge.

Indeed and going and taking charge does not mean that he does everything. It is possible to delegate some elements of his role and every PM ever has done that - including PMQs. Every PM in my adult lifetime has not attended every 100% of PMQs.

Perhaps “No PM in my adult lifetime has...”?

Yes sorry, distracted by children.

Zing. Bet you’re proud of that one.

No zing, I was distracted and I said sorry for the typing mistake.

Paristonda said:

UK coronavirus deaths in hospitals is over 21000, whereas France hospital deaths are at about 15000 (the rest is care home deaths) despite France having been further ahead in its outbreak. It really doesn't seem to be getting enough analysis, why does the UK have so many dead despite seemingly not suffering overwhelming of hospitals? Its not like France has done well out of this crisis so its not an "unfair" comparison either (France had a similar number of ventilators to the UK at the start, they were slow to act, as bad at testing as the UK, not enough PPE). France also did actually see overwhelming of its Eastern region hot-spot whereas London never seemed to become quite as severe.

It is genuinely strange. Is it because there is less obesity in France?

Obesity will be one factor 19.8% of men in the UK are obese, in France its 15.3. Overweight is 60.2 vs 53.8. Among women its (UK vs France) Obesity: 20.4 : 15.3, overweight: 51.8 : 41.3.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Overweight_and_obesity_-_BMI_statistics#Obesity_by_age_group

Another will be population density - near identical populations, in France spread over 2.3 times more land, although urbanisation (83.4 vs 80.4) is not that different.

Cyclefree said:

Ave_it said:

Well done Boris and Carrie

LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!

Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.

Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.

The point is they were attacking him for something, based on speculation, that suited their bias - they didn’t know the whole story, as always.

Cyclefree said:

Ave_it said:

Cyclefree said:

Ave_it said:

Well done Boris and Carrie

LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!

Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.

Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.

The reports emanating from government sources of Boris being away from PMQ (and which the hard left halfwits were commenting on) would have been in the knowledge of the (then) imminent birth which couldn't be made public at the time.

Knowledge which was not known to those commenting who were commenting on here on the basis of what was publicly said, namely that Boris was not yet full fit. Note that when he made his speech on Monday some commented that he seemed not be 100% well. Unsurprisingly.

Best he gets properly better then returns to work full-time.

If he's not 100% well then a staged return to work would be entirely appropriate would it not?

SouthamObserver said:

Loving the fact Peston doesn’t realise Johnson already has at least six kids ...
https://twitter.com/peston/status/1255428334323990528?s=21

@HYUFD assured us he isn’t going to change one bit and he’s going to continue to be Silvio Berlusconi redux so nothing to see here.

TOPPING said:

isam said:

Spending the last half hour reading the last thread knowing that Boris was missing PMQs because his fiancée had just given birth was fabulous!!!!

How they must hate him!

I don't think he should miss PMQs because of his baby and neither do I think he should take paternity leave.

It's all there in the terms and conditions of being a crisis PM.

And I don't hate him. I think he is, as I have always thought, a solipsistic, lazy, useless twat.

Even though it sounds harsh I tend to agree.

Nobody begrudged him his 10 days in the Caribbean over Christmas but is anybody going to defend him spending the last two weeks of Feb holed up at Chevening trying to sort out his private life? At the very time he should have been watching Covid-19 developments worldwide like a hawk he was MIA

Very unfortunate he then caught the virus himself. But should he have not taken it more seriously and made sure he took all the necessary precautions to avoid it instead of tripping off to Twickenham, ignoring social distancing and continuing to shake hands with people.

Did he think, hang on a minute, we are in a crisis here and I am the PM so I really can't afford to go down with this? I doubt it even crossed his mind so we end up with him going MIA again for another two or 3 weeks.

He comes back on Monday and by Wednesday he's missing PMQs because his wife's had a baby and no doubt that is now going to distract him regardless of whether he takes another 2 weeks off for maternity leave.

FFS we are in the middle of the worst crisis the country has faced in most of our lifetimes and we appear to have a part-time PM. Could things have worked out better if we had a PM clearly focussed on this since Feb? We shall never really know.l

One thing is certain no-one can say they were unaware of his flaws and reputation for laziness before they made him PM.

DougSeal said:

SouthamObserver said:

Loving the fact Peston doesn’t realise Johnson already has at least six kids ...
https://twitter.com/peston/status/1255428334323990528?s=21

Not sure he has had a near death experience before this though

Well, yes. He’s got plenty experience of kids.

rottenborough said:

Stirrings of trouble on the backbenches.

https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/1255413299874799617

By having a massively lower population density?

isam said:

Cyclefree said:

Ave_it said:

Well done Boris and Carrie

LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!

Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.

Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.

The point is they were attacking him for something, based on speculation, that suited their bias - they didn’t know the whole story, as always.

Doesn't change who we are talking about. A man typified by laziness. Those that criticise him are not somehow disallowed from doing so because he has had yet another child by yet another partner, and that he has recently recovered from illness.

Alistair said:

rottenborough said:

Stirrings of trouble on the backbenches.

https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/1255413299874799617

By having a massively lower population density?

Bugger, Austria is the same as us.

rkrkrk said:

Congrats to Boris and Carrie. Best wishes to the newborn who I hope is healthy - must have been a very stressful time for their family.

Let's just rejoice at that news.

It's good for morale. The only people keeping up our morale now are Boris, Carrie and Captain Tom.

OllyT said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

Spending the last half hour reading the last thread knowing that Boris was missing PMQs because his fiancée had just given birth was fabulous!!!!

How they must hate him!

I don't think he should miss PMQs because of his baby and neither do I think he should take paternity leave.

It's all there in the terms and conditions of being a crisis PM.

And I don't hate him. I think he is, as I have always thought, a solipsistic, lazy, useless twat.

Even though it sounds harsh I tend to agree.

Nobody begrudged him his 10 days in the Caribbean over Christmas but is anybody going to defend him spending the last two weeks of Feb holed up at Chevening trying to sort out his private life? At the very time he should have been watching Covid-19 developments worldwide like a hawk he was MIA

Very unfortunate he then caught the virus himself. But should he have not taken it more seriously and made sure he took all the necessary precautions to avoid it instead of tripping off to Twickenham, ignoring social distancing and continuing to shake hands with people.

Did he think, hang on a minute, we are in a crisis here and I am the PM so I really can't afford to go down with this? I doubt it even crossed his mind so we end up with him going MIA again for another two or 3 weeks.

He comes back on Monday and by Wednesday he's missing PMQs because his wife's had a baby and no doubt that is now going to distract him regardless of whether he takes another 2 weeks off for maternity leave.

FFS we are in the middle of the worst crisis the country has faced in most of our lifetimes and we appear to have a part-time PM. Could things have worked out better if we had a PM clearly focussed on this since Feb? We shall never really know.l

One thing is certain no-one can say they were unaware of his flaws and reputation for laziness before they made him PM.

Parliament was in Recess in February. Entirely appropriate for him to be in Chequers while Parliament was in Recess.

Social distancing rules followed the scientific advice and there was no scientific advice against Twickenham or (at the time) shaking hands. He stopped shaking hands when the advice changed and caught it, it seems, after that point.

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

Loving the fact Peston doesn’t realise Johnson already has at least six kids ...
https://twitter.com/peston/status/1255428334323990528?s=21

Thought it was eight?

Not sure even Boris is 100% certain.

CarlottaVance said:

Paristonda said:

UK coronavirus deaths in hospitals is over 21000, whereas France hospital deaths are at about 15000 (the rest is care home deaths) despite France having been further ahead in its outbreak. It really doesn't seem to be getting enough analysis, why does the UK have so many dead despite seemingly not suffering overwhelming of hospitals? Its not like France has done well out of this crisis so its not an "unfair" comparison either (France had a similar number of ventilators to the UK at the start, they were slow to act, as bad at testing as the UK, not enough PPE). France also did actually see overwhelming of its Eastern region hot-spot whereas London never seemed to become quite as severe.

It is genuinely strange. Is it because there is less obesity in France?

Obesity will be one factor 19.8% of men in the UK are obese, in France its 15.3. Overweight is 60.2 vs 53.8. Among women its (UK vs France) Obesity: 20.4 : 15.3, overweight: 51.8 : 41.3.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Overweight_and_obesity_-_BMI_statistics#Obesity_by_age_group

Another will be population density - near identical populations, in France spread over 2.3 times more land, although urbanisation (83.4 vs 80.4) is not that different.

And how deaths are recorded... France is only recording deaths directly caused by Coronavirus, while the UK is using a broader definition so that if you died of something else but also were Covid positive then you are noted in the figures.

As mentioned before, the post hoc measures of excess mortality will be the only reliable measure. Comparing the current figures is really contrasting apples with oranges and I'm not sure quite what it reveals.

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Ave_it said:

Well done Boris and Carrie

LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!

I'm not a hard left halfwit (well not two out of three). And I was criticising him for not attending PMQs. And I am still criticising him for not attending PMQs. He doesn't get to be like a normal dad. He is PM. Apparently.

PM not President. We have a cabinet government in this country.

Even you don't believe that anything of import happens without the PM. And there are one or two important bits and bobs going on right now in the country.

Boris was apparently raring to go and to take charge as of a few days ago.

In the meantime there is no one in charge.

Indeed and going and taking charge does not mean that he does everything. It is possible to delegate some elements of his role and every PM ever has done that - including PMQs. Every PM in my adult lifetime has not attended every 100% of PMQs.

Perhaps “No PM in my adult lifetime has...”?

Yes sorry, distracted by children.

Zing. Bet you’re proud of that one.

No zing, I was distracted and I said sorry for the typing mistake.

Absolute complete and utter bollocks given your reprehensible comments last night.

No it was the truth.

What reprehensible comments?

Sounds like you've got a grudge for something that is playing on your mind perhaps but not mine.

Ave_it said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

isam said:

Cyclefree said:

Ave_it said:

Well done Boris and Carrie

LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!

Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.

Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.

The point is they were attacking him for something, based on speculation, that suited their bias - they didn’t know the whole story, as always.

Doesn't change who we are talking about. A man typified by laziness. Those that criticise him are not somehow disallowed from doing so because he has had yet another child by yet another partner, and that he has recently recovered from illness.

The hard left on here don't understand anything. They post their drivel on here everyday, anything to do this country and the ordinary people down. Can you imagine what it would be like if Corbyn was running this?

Almost certainly a significantly lower UK death toll from Covid-19.

SouthamObserver said:

Ave_it said:

Cyclefree said:

Ave_it said:

Well done Boris and Carrie

LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!

Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.

Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.

The reports emanating from government sources of Boris being away from PMQ (and which the hard left halfwits were commenting on) would have been in the knowledge of the (then) imminent birth which couldn't be made public at the time.

Not sure the Telegraph is a hot bed of anti-Johnson leftyism ...
https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/1255396596025569296?s=21

The Torygraph is off its trolly these days
My neighbour bought me one when she could not get me a Times amd it was v low in content and i thought a aaste of money.

Alistair said:

rottenborough said:

Stirrings of trouble on the backbenches.

https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/1255413299874799617

By having a massively lower population density?

Total tosh. Germany has major centres of high population density, and one of the areas that initially had one of the highest infections was Bavaria which other than Munich is low density. You are clutching at straws to prevent the obvious questions being asked.

The most obvious conclusion is that Germany has handled the crisis politically and administratively much better than we have, combined with a much less bureaucratic heath system that is better funded than ours. There will be monumental spinning attempts on behalf of the government no doubt, but they are culpable and I hope they are held to account.

FrancisUrquhart said:

OldKingCole said:

SouthamObserver said:

Loving the fact Peston doesn’t realise Johnson already has at least six kids ...
https://twitter.com/peston/status/1255428334323990528?s=21

Thought it was eight?

Not sure even Boris is 100% certain.

Let's just be thankful we have a fecund genius in charge at this crucial time.

kinabalu said:

Stocky said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

On the face of it Biden has a clear poll lead against Trump so should be favourite.
However punters may be sticking with Trump as his supporters seem much more enthusiastic than Biden's. Biden faces the problem that John Kerry or Mitt Romney faced, a vote for him seems to be more against the incumbent than for them

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1255310629629542401?s=19

In the current climate, excitement is just not a particularly important metric.

Prospective Democratic voters are pretty damned determined to get rid of Trump; they'd vote for a ham sandwich in preference.

And who but fools are excited about an election when the economy is crashing and there are millions of unemployed, and while the pandemic still menaces ?

Well, our very own kinabalu has said that he thinks that a re-elected Trump would be more worrisome than a global pandemic.

- I'll revise down to "equally worrying" but no further.

But just to say again, I cannot see a 2nd term for Trump. To re-elect him having seen how he behaves in office and when he has zero tangible achievements to his name apart from appointing a misogynist drunk to the Supreme Court, would mean that America has gone completely loco. It would render them a rogue nation. Beyond the pale. It could happen - of course it could, he's the incumbent - but I'd be wanting a LOT longer than even money on it.

Why does re electing Trump render the US more rogue than Brazil electing Bolsonaro, India re electing Modi, Russia re electing Putin, Israel re electing Netanyahu, Russia re electing Putin, Hungary re electing Orban, Italy electing Berlusconi or even us re electing Boris?

If voters want to elect or re elect a populist that is up to them, the US will still be the largest economy and military on earth and we will still have to deal with them

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

Spending the last half hour reading the last thread knowing that Boris was missing PMQs because his fiancée had just given birth was fabulous!!!!

How they must hate him!

I don't think he should miss PMQs because of his baby and neither do I think he should take paternity leave.

It's all there in the terms and conditions of being a crisis PM.

And I don't hate him. I think he is, as I have always thought, a solipsistic, lazy, useless twat.

Speaks highly of you, I’m sure!

He hasn't had to worry about me while Jezza was in charge of Lab. Almost certainly still won't but I'll certainly read through SKS' manifesto.

@Philip_Thompson - For the point of your information - It was your comment that children should enjoy unique inheritance tax privilege.

I don't hold a strong view on this one either way, but remember the exchange from last night.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Andy_JS said:

rottenborough said:

Stirrings of trouble on the backbenches.

https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/1255413299874799617

(a) Lower population density.
(b) Fewer obese people.

Our urbanisation is about the same as Norway and Finland but higher than Austria by a fair margin. Population density is flawed by averaging cities and villages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country

But I think David Davis is talking about death rates of infected people, not infection rates.

Not sure averaging is valid given that London and Birmingham make up the vast bulk of deaths.

TGOHF666 said:

kinabalu said:

Ave_it said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

isam said:

Cyclefree said:

Ave_it said:

Well done Boris and Carrie

LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!

Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.

Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.

The point is they were attacking him for something, based on speculation, that suited their bias - they didn’t know the whole story, as always.

Doesn't change who we are talking about. A man typified by laziness. Those that criticise him are not somehow disallowed from doing so because he has had yet another child by yet another partner, and that he has recently recovered from illness.

The hard left on here don't understand anything. They post their drivel on here everyday, anything to do this country and the ordinary people down. Can you imagine what it would be like if Corbyn was running this?

Almost certainly a significantly lower UK death toll from Covid-19.

Corbyn:

wouldnt have used the army
wouldn't have engaged the private sector to help on testing, ventilators and PPE.
would have nationalised Astra Zeneca to search for a vaccine and scratched his head when the staff resigned en mass.
would have nationalised supermarkets and toilet paper production
would have drafted in the Russian army to enforce the lockdown

Ridiculous. He would have drafted in the yellow, slitty-eyed, disease-spreading Chinese army to enforce the lockdown.

He is a communist, after all!

Philip_Thompson said:

OllyT said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

Spending the last half hour reading the last thread knowing that Boris was missing PMQs because his fiancée had just given birth was fabulous!!!!

How they must hate him!

I don't think he should miss PMQs because of his baby and neither do I think he should take paternity leave.

It's all there in the terms and conditions of being a crisis PM.

And I don't hate him. I think he is, as I have always thought, a solipsistic, lazy, useless twat.

Even though it sounds harsh I tend to agree.

Nobody begrudged him his 10 days in the Caribbean over Christmas but is anybody going to defend him spending the last two weeks of Feb holed up at Chevening trying to sort out his private life? At the very time he should have been watching Covid-19 developments worldwide like a hawk he was MIA

Very unfortunate he then caught the virus himself. But should he have not taken it more seriously and made sure he took all the necessary precautions to avoid it instead of tripping off to Twickenham, ignoring social distancing and continuing to shake hands with people.

Did he think, hang on a minute, we are in a crisis here and I am the PM so I really can't afford to go down with this? I doubt it even crossed his mind so we end up with him going MIA again for another two or 3 weeks.

He comes back on Monday and by Wednesday he's missing PMQs because his wife's had a baby and no doubt that is now going to distract him regardless of whether he takes another 2 weeks off for maternity leave.

FFS we are in the middle of the worst crisis the country has faced in most of our lifetimes and we appear to have a part-time PM. Could things have worked out better if we had a PM clearly focussed on this since Feb? We shall never really know.l

One thing is certain no-one can say they were unaware of his flaws and reputation for laziness before they made him PM.

Parliament was in Recess in February. Entirely appropriate for him to be in Chequers while Parliament was in Recess.

Social distancing rules followed the scientific advice and there was no scientific advice against Twickenham or (at the time) shaking hands. He stopped shaking hands when the advice changed and caught it, it seems, after that point.

He could have been anywhere my point is that he was MIA sorting out his divorce and his marriage to his pregnant girlfriend for 2 weeks at a time when the pandemic was clearly heading our way.

Johnson should have been taking every precaution as PM to avoid being out of action. He didn't, he did not act responsibly. Trying to hide behind the scientific advice is pathetic. We expect more of a PM than the man in the street. Even the idiot across the Atlantic managed to avoid getting infected.

This pandemic is huge threat to the nation and to the PM personally, but he failed to take it seriously soon enough. Sadly that is entirely in keeping with his character.

Ave_it said:

kinabalu said:

Ave_it said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

isam said:

Cyclefree said:

Ave_it said:

Well done Boris and Carrie

LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!

Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.

Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.

The point is they were attacking him for something, based on speculation, that suited their bias - they didn’t know the whole story, as always.

Doesn't change who we are talking about. A man typified by laziness. Those that criticise him are not somehow disallowed from doing so because he has had yet another child by yet another partner, and that he has recently recovered from illness.

The hard left on here don't understand anything. They post their drivel on here everyday, anything to do this country and the ordinary people down. Can you imagine what it would be like if Corbyn was running this?

Almost certainly a significantly lower UK death toll from Covid-19.

LOL you wouldn't even have had a response yet from a Corbyn government

What if a bear and a crocodile had fought in the House of Commons for the right to be PM?

What would the response to Covid-19 have been in that case?

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

Stocky said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

On the face of it Biden has a clear poll lead against Trump so should be favourite.
However punters may be sticking with Trump as his supporters seem much more enthusiastic than Biden's. Biden faces the problem that John Kerry or Mitt Romney faced, a vote for him seems to be more against the incumbent than for them

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1255310629629542401?s=19

In the current climate, excitement is just not a particularly important metric.

Prospective Democratic voters are pretty damned determined to get rid of Trump; they'd vote for a ham sandwich in preference.

And who but fools are excited about an election when the economy is crashing and there are millions of unemployed, and while the pandemic still menaces ?

Well, our very own kinabalu has said that he thinks that a re-elected Trump would be more worrisome than a global pandemic.

- I'll revise down to "equally worrying" but no further.

But just to say again, I cannot see a 2nd term for Trump. To re-elect him having seen how he behaves in office and when he has zero tangible achievements to his name apart from appointing a misogynist drunk to the Supreme Court, would mean that America has gone completely loco. It would render them a rogue nation. Beyond the pale. It could happen - of course it could, he's the incumbent - but I'd be wanting a LOT longer than even money on it.

Why does re electing Trump render the US more rogue than Brazil electing Bolsonaro, India re electing Modi, Russia re electing Putin, Israel re electing Netanyahu, Russia re electing Putin, Hungary re electing Orban, Italy electing Berlusconi or even us re electing Boris?

If voters want to elect or re elect a populist that is up to them, the US will still be the largest economy and military on earth and we will still have to deal with them

Trump is not a populist imo. Rather, he ran as a populist but has governed as an elitist GOP insider.

Given how unwilling jezza was to ever make a decision tough issues like trident, brexit or antisemitism without months and months of can kicking biding behind process, before even considering he is a man of limited intelligence surrounded by a cabinet of even less brain power...we would still be waiting for the result of a labour party membership vote on how to proceed with coronavirus.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

Stocky said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

On the face of it Biden has a clear poll lead against Trump so should be favourite.
However punters may be sticking with Trump as his supporters seem much more enthusiastic than Biden's. Biden faces the problem that John Kerry or Mitt Romney faced, a vote for him seems to be more against the incumbent than for them

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1255310629629542401?s=19

In the current climate, excitement is just not a particularly important metric.

Prospective Democratic voters are pretty damned determined to get rid of Trump; they'd vote for a ham sandwich in preference.

And who but fools are excited about an election when the economy is crashing and there are millions of unemployed, and while the pandemic still menaces ?

Well, our very own kinabalu has said that he thinks that a re-elected Trump would be more worrisome than a global pandemic.

- I'll revise down to "equally worrying" but no further.

But just to say again, I cannot see a 2nd term for Trump. To re-elect him having seen how he behaves in office and when he has zero tangible achievements to his name apart from appointing a misogynist drunk to the Supreme Court, would mean that America has gone completely loco. It would render them a rogue nation. Beyond the pale. It could happen - of course it could, he's the incumbent - but I'd be wanting a LOT longer than even money on it.

Why does re electing Trump render the US more rogue than Brazil electing Bolsonaro, India re electing Modi, Russia re electing Putin, Israel re electing Netanyahu, Russia re electing Putin, Hungary re electing Orban, Italy electing Berlusconi or even us re electing Boris?

If voters want to elect or re elect a populist that is up to them, the US will still be the largest economy and military on earth and we will still have to deal with them

Trump is not a populist imo. Rather, he ran as a populist but has governed as an elitist GOP insider.

No, Romney or Jeb Bush would have governed as elitist GOP insiders, Trump has not

Ave_it said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

isam said:

Cyclefree said:

Ave_it said:

Well done Boris and Carrie

LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!

Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.

Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.

The point is they were attacking him for something, based on speculation, that suited their bias - they didn’t know the whole story, as always.

Doesn't change who we are talking about. A man typified by laziness. Those that criticise him are not somehow disallowed from doing so because he has had yet another child by yet another partner, and that he has recently recovered from illness.

The hard left on here don't understand anything. They post their drivel on here everyday, anything to do this country and the ordinary people down. Can you imagine what it would be like if Corbyn was running this?

Except that the alternative would have been a Conservative leader with more gravitas. The Tory membership are responsible for Boris, anyone they chose would have beaten Corbyn in December. The members wanted the most Brexity candidate possible and the real irony is that I doubt Boris is much bothered by Brexit either way other than it providing him with a vehicle to the leadership.

felix said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Mundo said:

MarqueeMark said:

Baby names - Young Winston?

(Always assuming there isn't a previous Winston in the brood. In which case - Youngest Winston?)

Would not be amazed to see “Aneurin” in there somewhere

I suspect Dominic Cummings will decide on the baby's name and Johnson, like the pathetic puppy he is, will acquiesce. Perhaps the poor child will be called Brexit Johnson.

Lol - this is all proving to be very trying for those who hate Johnson. Very amusing for the rest of us.

Only for those in the centre for whom politics is just a dazzling blizzard of events with absolutely no guiding principle connecting them them. For them this is just another Thing That Happened, and like all Things That Happen their only available response is to just find a partisan take on it.

Philip_Thompson said:

Searched the threads last night and found this post that I missed last night, I'm assuming this is what upset you Dougseal. Missed it with the change of thread last night.

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

eadric said:

NickPalmer said:

ydoethur said:

Irving Berlin once famously told his accountant off for trying to reduce his tax bill. ‘Are you crazy? I love this country! I WANT to pay my share of tax.’

At a more modest level I had the same conversation when I came back to Britain after being elected, and asked an accountant to recommend a fund for my savings that didn't use any tax avoidance or offshore havens. He was genuinely baffled by the stipulation - not opposed to it, but just bemused, as though I'd said I only wanted to invest in Bulgarian bonds.

As for IHT, I'm with Kinabalu - part of the deal of living in Britain is to pay a fair share, not avoid it. If that's mostly when I'm dead, so much the better.

You don’t have kids tho. So there’s that.

Why is that in any way relevant to Nick’s point?

Its easy not to want to pass something to your kids if you don't have any.

This is a discussion about IHT which taxes estates not offspring. You don’t need to have children to pass on an estate. Unless you are suggesting people without kids care less than those with?

Yes I am suggesting that.

Then you are an ignorant arsehole with no sense of empathy. You have no idea that the pain many people without children go through and then to be told, constantly, that we are somehow further emotionally defective by shits like you just rubs their noses in it. You have kids. Good for you. Wallow in your self righteousness and your sense of superiority.

I'm not self-righteous, I have no sense of superiority and I never once said that anyone is emotionally defective. That is all on you not me, you're putting words in my mouth I never said.

Of course anyone who doesn't have children can care for others whether it be pets, nieces or nephews, brothers or sisters etc - but caring for a child, looking after them every day etc as they grow up is simply different to a relationship with a sibling you grew up with or someone you see every now and then.

And so on the topic of inheritance which is what we were talking about parents will care more to pass on something to their children than non-parents will who can't pass anything to their children because they don't have any. That's not a defect its just what it is! And caring to pass something on to a sibling or niece or nephew is different to passing something on to your child - again it just is what it is. That's not defective.

PS you can be a parent without biologically having a child of your own genes. Anyone who adopts a child etc is a parent. Similarly someone who fathers a child biologically but never has anything to do with them is not a parent. Being a parent is not about genetics.

That’s not what you said. Don’t backtrack. You suggested, by your own admission, that people with kids care more than those without. You are a man who cannot envisage anything beyond his own experience and openly suggested people without that experience are less able to “care”. Have you ever stood in a hospital while your dreams of children literally, quite literally, died in your arms? You, tosser that you are, suggest that that tragedy makes such people less likely to care. You have no empathy and such lack of empathy is highly suggestive of psychopathy. You are, as I said, an arsehole.

OllyT said:

Ave_it said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

isam said:

Cyclefree said:

Ave_it said:

Well done Boris and Carrie

LOL at all the hard left halfwits posting on here earlier criticising him for not attending PMQs!

Point of order. That was before the news about the baby was known. Perfectly fine for him to miss PMQs to be with his child. Not fine for him to be back at work and miss crucial aspects of his work if he is not yet well enough to work. He should use his paternity leave to get himself fully well again and then, when he is back at work, he needs to do the key aspects of the job, including PMQs.

Accountability for the PM is essential in a Parliamentary democracy.

The point is they were attacking him for something, based on speculation, that suited their bias - they didn’t know the whole story, as always.

Doesn't change who we are talking about. A man typified by laziness. Those that criticise him are not somehow disallowed from doing so because he has had yet another child by yet another partner, and that he has recently recovered from illness.

The hard left on here don't understand anything. They post their drivel on here everyday, anything to do this country and the ordinary people down. Can you imagine what it would be like if Corbyn was running this?

Except that the alternative would have been a Conservative leader with more gravitas. The Tory membership are responsible for Boris, anyone they chose would have beaten Corbyn in December. The members wanted the most Brexity candidate possible and the real irony is that I doubt Boris is much bothered by Brexit either way other than it providing him with a vehicle to the leadership.

Yeah because May did such a good job beating Corbyn and a Continuity May option like Hunt would have done well wouldn't they?

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

Stocky said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

On the face of it Biden has a clear poll lead against Trump so should be favourite.
However punters may be sticking with Trump as his supporters seem much more enthusiastic than Biden's. Biden faces the problem that John Kerry or Mitt Romney faced, a vote for him seems to be more against the incumbent than for them

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1255310629629542401?s=19

In the current climate, excitement is just not a particularly important metric.

Prospective Democratic voters are pretty damned determined to get rid of Trump; they'd vote for a ham sandwich in preference.

And who but fools are excited about an election when the economy is crashing and there are millions of unemployed, and while the pandemic still menaces ?

Well, our very own kinabalu has said that he thinks that a re-elected Trump would be more worrisome than a global pandemic.

- I'll revise down to "equally worrying" but no further.

But just to say again, I cannot see a 2nd term for Trump. To re-elect him having seen how he behaves in office and when he has zero tangible achievements to his name apart from appointing a misogynist drunk to the Supreme Court, would mean that America has gone completely loco. It would render them a rogue nation. Beyond the pale. It could happen - of course it could, he's the incumbent - but I'd be wanting a LOT longer than even money on it.

Why does re electing Trump render the US more rogue than Brazil electing Bolsonaro, India re electing Modi, Russia re electing Putin, Israel re electing Netanyahu, Russia re electing Putin, Hungary re electing Orban, Italy electing Berlusconi or even us re electing Boris?

If voters want to elect or re elect a populist that is up to them, the US will still be the largest economy and military on earth and we will still have to deal with them

It would not make them worse than other rogue nations. They would be joining the club. But we expect rather more of America. Or I do anyway. Perhaps others do not feel this.

Baby names - Young Winston?

(Always assuming there isn't a previous Winston in the brood. In which case - Youngest Winston?)

LostPassword said:

Argh

isam said:

MarqueeMark said:

Baby names - Young Winston?

(Always assuming there isn't a previous Winston in the brood. In which case - Youngest Winston?)

Initials NHS maybe?

Nero Horace Stanley Johnson.

Better that than the poor nipper being called Social Distancing Johnson....

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Searched the threads last night and found this post that I missed last night, I'm assuming this is what upset you Dougseal. Missed it with the change of thread last night.

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DougSeal said:

eadric said:

NickPalmer said:

ydoethur said:

Irving Berlin once famously told his accountant off for trying to reduce his tax bill. ‘Are you crazy? I love this country! I WANT to pay my share of tax.’

At a more modest level I had the same conversation when I came back to Britain after being elected, and asked an accountant to recommend a fund for my savings that didn't use any tax avoidance or offshore havens. He was genuinely baffled by the stipulation - not opposed to it, but just bemused, as though I'd said I only wanted to invest in Bulgarian bonds.

As for IHT, I'm with Kinabalu - part of the deal of living in Britain is to pay a fair share, not avoid it. If that's mostly when I'm dead, so much the better.

You don’t have kids tho. So there’s that.

Why is that in any way relevant to Nick’s point?

Its easy not to want to pass something to your kids if you don't have any.

This is a discussion about IHT which taxes estates not offspring. You don’t need to have children to pass on an estate. Unless you are suggesting people without kids care less than those with?

Yes I am suggesting that.

Then you are an ignorant arsehole with no sense of empathy. You have no idea that the pain many people without children go through and then to be told, constantly, that we are somehow further emotionally defective by shits like you just rubs their noses in it. You have kids. Good for you. Wallow in your self righteousness and your sense of superiority.

I'm not self-righteous, I have no sense of superiority and I never once said that anyone is emotionally defective. That is all on you not me, you're putting words in my mouth I never said.

Of course anyone who doesn't have children can care for others whether it be pets, nieces or nephews, brothers or sisters etc - but caring for a child, looking after them every day etc as they grow up is simply different to a relationship with a sibling you grew up with or someone you see every now and then.

And so on the topic of inheritance which is what we were talking about parents will care more to pass on something to their children than non-parents will who can't pass anything to their children because they don't have any. That's not a defect its just what it is! And caring to pass something on to a sibling or niece or nephew is different to passing something on to your child - again it just is what it is. That's not defective.

PS you can be a parent without biologically having a child of your own genes. Anyone who adopts a child etc is a parent. Similarly someone who fathers a child biologically but never has anything to do with them is not a parent. Being a parent is not about genetics.

That’s not what you said. Don’t backtrack. You suggested, by your own admission, that people with kids care more than those without. You are a man who cannot envisage anything beyond his own experience and openly suggested people without that experience are less able to “care”. Have you ever stood in a hospital while your dreams of children literally, quite literally, died in your arms? You, tosser that you are, suggest that that tragedy makes such people less likely to care. You have no empathy and such lack of empathy is highly suggestive of psychopathy. You are, as I said, an arsehole.

Its called context. Care to pass something on the subject of inheritance tax that we were talking about yes absolutely.

If you misread what I wrote then I'm sorry it offended you. Of course non-parents can care about other things other people, I never said otherwise. Of course people who have undergone tragedy can care about that.

And again anyone who adopts or otherwise looks after a child that isn't biologically theirs is a parent. But in the context you asked my answer was and remains yes.

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

Stocky said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

On the face of it Biden has a clear poll lead against Trump so should be favourite.
However punters may be sticking with Trump as his supporters seem much more enthusiastic than Biden's. Biden faces the problem that John Kerry or Mitt Romney faced, a vote for him seems to be more against the incumbent than for them

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1255310629629542401?s=19

In the current climate, excitement is just not a particularly important metric.

Prospective Democratic voters are pretty damned determined to get rid of Trump; they'd vote for a ham sandwich in preference.

And who but fools are excited about an election when the economy is crashing and there are millions of unemployed, and while the pandemic still menaces ?

Well, our very own kinabalu has said that he thinks that a re-elected Trump would be more worrisome than a global pandemic.

- I'll revise down to "equally worrying" but no further.

But just to say again, I cannot see a 2nd term for Trump. To re-elect him having seen how he behaves in office and when he has zero tangible achievements to his name apart from appointing a misogynist drunk to the Supreme Court, would mean that America has gone completely loco. It would render them a rogue nation. Beyond the pale. It could happen - of course it could, he's the incumbent - but I'd be wanting a LOT longer than even money on it.

Why does re electing Trump render the US more rogue than Brazil electing Bolsonaro, India re electing Modi, Russia re electing Putin, Israel re electing Netanyahu, Russia re electing Putin, Hungary re electing Orban, Italy electing Berlusconi or even us re electing Boris?

If voters want to elect or re elect a populist that is up to them, the US will still be the largest economy and military on earth and we will still have to deal with them

Trump is not a populist imo. Rather, he ran as a populist but has governed as an elitist GOP insider.

No, Romney or Jeb Bush would have governed as elitist GOP insiders, Trump has not

No, ignore the rhetoric and look at the reality. Trump's record is appointing Republican justices, cutting taxes for corporations and billionaires, and trying to axe Obamacare. All pre-existing House GOP positions, and none that can be described as populist. Trade wars are the exception. Incidentally, this is why I do not accept that Trump and Boris are interchangeable.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Given how unwilling jezza was to ever make a decision tough issues like trident, brexit or antisemitism without months and months of can kicking biding behind process, before even considering he is a man of limited intelligence surrounded by a cabinet of even less brain power...we would still be waiting for the result of a labour party membership vote on how to proceed with coronavirus.

Your better than that Francis

Far right posters like Chris, Ave_it, Felix, TGOHF666 aren't

Nigel_Foremain said:

Alistair said:

rottenborough said:

Stirrings of trouble on the backbenches.

https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/1255413299874799617

By having a massively lower population density?

a much less bureaucratic heath system

The sainted NHS?

PHE have gone for a "Command & Control" model of testing - which they have now been able to scale up. Once this is over there will be a lot to learn for all countries.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Given how unwilling jezza was to ever make a decision tough issues like trident, brexit or antisemitism without months and months of can kicking biding behind process, before even considering he is a man of limited intelligence surrounded by a cabinet of even less brain power...we would still be waiting for the result of a labour party membership vote on how to proceed with coronavirus.

The usual complaint about him here was that he was too willing to take radical action to address issues. What COVID has shown is that Boris was too unwilling to do this- that's why the lockdown was too late, why everything had to be thrown together at the last moment, and why the economy has to be shut down for so long. We'll never know exactly how many deaths or how much damage to the economy could have been prevented, but it's likely to be a staggering amount.

Is Elon Musk in financial difficulty?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1255380013488189440