politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why it could be politically challenging prioritising the econo
Options
Comments
-
LotO has an advantage at PMQs in any crisis in that prep time pays dividends.DecrepiterJohnL said:Did we get PMQs wrong? Suppose it is not that SKS was good but that Boris was uncharacteristically bad because Covid-19 has left him unable to concentrate for more than short periods? Or even think clearly because Boris did not seem to realise SKS was directly quoting government guidelines, despite having just been told, and he completely missed SKS's question on excess but not covid-19 deaths. If so, @eadric's 8/1 against Boris leaving next year might be dashed by earlier resignation. Either that or Boris will recover and master future PMQs as any Prime Minister should.
ETA the markets seem to agree as Boris is half the price to go this year, despite there being only half the year left.
Boris has bigger fish to fry at the moment.0 -
But there is an argument that it should have been a loan (to be repaid back over x months / years) rather than treated as income.Nigelb said:
There is that.kyf_100 said:
As someone who is still working, I can't say I'm keen on the idea of paying more tax for the people who have enjoyed a two month holiday so far.tlg86 said:
Indeed - that would be socialism! But the reality is that the government furlough scheme cannot carry on indefinitely without large tax increases on those who are working. Starmer should be thinking about how he will react when the government eventually starts to do this.kyf_100 said:
A rather odd point, given that we're not paid on the basis of how much money we need.tlg86 said:Is there not a difference between the economy and how are we going to pay for all of this?
If the powers that be think that the best thing is to remain like this for a few years, we are going to have to pay for it. My dad keeps making the point that if we aren't going to the pub and spending money, then we don't need to be paid as much money as usual.
A far better idea would be to tax those who were furloughed as and when they come back to work, to pay for their own bloody holidays.
Not that I expect all of them will have jobs to come back to, of course...
And FWIW they are also paying tax on their furlough income.0 -
A loan to who exactly, the company or the individual?eek said:
But there is an argument that it should have been a loan (to be repaid back over x months / years) rather than treated as income.Nigelb said:
There is that.kyf_100 said:
As someone who is still working, I can't say I'm keen on the idea of paying more tax for the people who have enjoyed a two month holiday so far.tlg86 said:
Indeed - that would be socialism! But the reality is that the government furlough scheme cannot carry on indefinitely without large tax increases on those who are working. Starmer should be thinking about how he will react when the government eventually starts to do this.kyf_100 said:
A rather odd point, given that we're not paid on the basis of how much money we need.tlg86 said:Is there not a difference between the economy and how are we going to pay for all of this?
If the powers that be think that the best thing is to remain like this for a few years, we are going to have to pay for it. My dad keeps making the point that if we aren't going to the pub and spending money, then we don't need to be paid as much money as usual.
A far better idea would be to tax those who were furloughed as and when they come back to work, to pay for their own bloody holidays.
Not that I expect all of them will have jobs to come back to, of course...
And FWIW they are also paying tax on their furlough income.0 -
Having Remain fanatic TND leaving the Sun should be a boost for Boris.Jonathan said:
Never had much time for the Guido/ToryBear gang. Right wing tabloid/gutter journalism surprisingly ain't my bag. He will no doubt be an asset to the Boris in the Sun.Casino_Royale said:
You dislike him for the same reasons?Jonathan said:
You like Tory Bear. 🤷♂️Casino_Royale said:
Harry is an excellent choice. Superb journalist.Jonathan said:
Hard for the Sun to go downmarket, but it has. Boris will sleep a little more sweetly.rottenborough said:
And The Sun.
0 -
This is likely true - whether you lockdown or not.Pulpstar said:
This is what i said ages ago, you run communism lite till the virus is over; the demand simply won't be there in the private sector.Nigelb said:
Though only fair to point out this...Nigelb said:More pertinently, saving lives and saving the economy are not mutually exclusive priorities; they ought to be complementary:
https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1260698195677663238
S. Korea to create 1.56 million jobs in public sector
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/biz/2020/05/488_289548.html
...The government said Thursday that it plans to create over 1.56 million jobs in the public sector as part of emergency measures to fight the rapid increase in unemployment brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The announcement comes on the heels of the biggest year-on-year job losses in April for two decades, suffered mostly by low-income, temporary workers who are not subscribed to the state-run Employment Insurance plan.
Of greater concern is the number of those experiencing temporary layoffs ― people who are statistically considered employed ― hovering at over 1 million for a second consecutive month, meaning those currently receiving unemployment benefits could lose their jobs altogether if the economy fails to pick up quickly.
Yet experts question the efficacy of short-term, low quality jobs created with taxpayers' money, saying the measures will have little to no desired outcome without creating the environment to help resume much-stalled corporate activities via tax cuts and deregulation....
...The government will resume its job creation program that was temporarily halted due to the virus pandemic, making some 445,000 jobs available mostly to the elderly and those in the low income bracket. The jobs will involve outdoor work that does not require coming into close contact with other people.
In addition to the resumption of the existing project, at least 550,000 new jobs will be created for young jobseekers and those with low incomes. For young jobseekers, 100,000 jobs related to digitization will be made available in the public sector and 50,000 at private firms.
About 50,000 openings will be available for jobseekers who want to participate in paid career building activities to bolster their resume, while 300,000 jobs will be offered to people in the low income bracket.
Around 50,000 jobs will be at small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that apply for state subsidies which are granted only if they hire new workers.
State-run examinations for 48,000 civil service positions will resume, months after the process, including tests and interviews, was delayed due to the pandemic.
...
Trump seems to be auditioning for the part of Hoover. Though that's probably unfair on Hoover.0 -
That's great, but you also need to monitor oxygen levels of patients in the less severe category so they can be moved to the more severe category in time.Luckyguy1983 said:Here is my armchair solution to the coronavirus outbreak, as it now stands.
-Develop 2 treatment pathways.
-Less severe, diagnosis (via digital appointment), at home test to confirm diagnosis as much as is currently possible. Treatment at home. To include detailed advice and support, and drugs, even if these are only zinc and vitamin C - they will still do a lot for people's morale.
-More severe, treatment in a dedicated coronavirus hospital, and convalescence in a dedicated coronavirus nursing home. Staffed by the immune. Get it out of the wider NHS totally.
-Get the wider NHS back treating the backlog.
-Whilst these are being established, begin a staggered return to an open economy with social distancing. Monitor closely, and leave the major risk factors out until the 'coronavirus health service' has been set up.0 -
The individual but payment would have still had to have been done via the company for administrative speed.Jonathan said:
A loan to who exactly, the company or the individual?eek said:
But there is an argument that it should have been a loan (to be repaid back over x months / years) rather than treated as income.Nigelb said:
There is that.kyf_100 said:
As someone who is still working, I can't say I'm keen on the idea of paying more tax for the people who have enjoyed a two month holiday so far.tlg86 said:
Indeed - that would be socialism! But the reality is that the government furlough scheme cannot carry on indefinitely without large tax increases on those who are working. Starmer should be thinking about how he will react when the government eventually starts to do this.kyf_100 said:
A rather odd point, given that we're not paid on the basis of how much money we need.tlg86 said:Is there not a difference between the economy and how are we going to pay for all of this?
If the powers that be think that the best thing is to remain like this for a few years, we are going to have to pay for it. My dad keeps making the point that if we aren't going to the pub and spending money, then we don't need to be paid as much money as usual.
A far better idea would be to tax those who were furloughed as and when they come back to work, to pay for their own bloody holidays.
Not that I expect all of them will have jobs to come back to, of course...
And FWIW they are also paying tax on their furlough income.0 -
No, the Prime Minister always has the advantage at PMQs. It is not as if SKS surprised anyone by asking about Covid-19. However, if this diagnosis is correct then it would also apply to the rest of the Prime Minister's duties, and make his resignation more likely. Look at the betting markets and Boris is half the price to go in the next six months as in the whole of 2021.TGOHF666 said:
LotO has an advantage at PMQs in any crisis in that prep time pays dividends.DecrepiterJohnL said:Did we get PMQs wrong? Suppose it is not that SKS was good but that Boris was uncharacteristically bad because Covid-19 has left him unable to concentrate for more than short periods? Or even think clearly because Boris did not seem to realise SKS was directly quoting government guidelines, despite having just been told, and he completely missed SKS's question on excess but not covid-19 deaths. If so, @eadric's 8/1 against Boris leaving next year might be dashed by earlier resignation. Either that or Boris will recover and master future PMQs as any Prime Minister should.
ETA the markets seem to agree as Boris is half the price to go this year, despite there being only half the year left.
Boris has bigger fish to fry at the moment.0 -
From me too.HYUFD said:
Seconded, condolences CyclefreeTOPPING said:@Cyclefree so very sorry to hear your news - all best wishes to you and your family.
1 -
Tom is not a Remainer. He just has friends who are. He's also an excellent journalist so this is a big loss for The Sun.TGOHF666 said:
Having Remain fanatic TND leaving the Sun should be a boost for Boris.Jonathan said:
Never had much time for the Guido/ToryBear gang. Right wing tabloid/gutter journalism surprisingly ain't my bag. He will no doubt be an asset to the Boris in the Sun.Casino_Royale said:
You dislike him for the same reasons?Jonathan said:
You like Tory Bear. 🤷♂️Casino_Royale said:
Harry is an excellent choice. Superb journalist.Jonathan said:
Hard for the Sun to go downmarket, but it has. Boris will sleep a little more sweetly.rottenborough said:
And The Sun.0 -
For anyone considering reducing their lertiness.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1260851178616782852?s=200 -
Sounds like a euphemism ...Mysticrose said:
Tom is not a Remainer. He just has friends who are.TGOHF666 said:
Having Remain fanatic TND leaving the Sun should be a boost for Boris.Jonathan said:
Never had much time for the Guido/ToryBear gang. Right wing tabloid/gutter journalism surprisingly ain't my bag. He will no doubt be an asset to the Boris in the Sun.Casino_Royale said:
You dislike him for the same reasons?Jonathan said:
You like Tory Bear. 🤷♂️Casino_Royale said:
Harry is an excellent choice. Superb journalist.Jonathan said:
Hard for the Sun to go downmarket, but it has. Boris will sleep a little more sweetly.rottenborough said:
And The Sun.
0 -
Relistening this AM Sir Kendrick is walking very close to the line with his alleged stats. Very lawyerly - as slippery as a recently deceased Whitstable Octopus.DecrepiterJohnL said:Did we get PMQs wrong? Suppose it is not that SKS was good but that Boris was uncharacteristically bad because Covid-19 has left him unable to concentrate for more than short periods? Or even think clearly because Boris did not seem to realise SKS was directly quoting government guidelines, despite having just been told, and he completely missed SKS's question on excess but not covid-19 deaths. If so, @eadric's 8/1 against Boris leaving next year might be dashed by earlier resignation. Either that or Boris will recover and master future PMQs as any Prime Minister should.
ETA the markets seem to agree as Boris is half the price to go this year, despite there being only half the year left.
But then we know that from his past.
Not sure how one would demonstrate that on the hoof as PM, though.0 -
No, he really isn't a remainer.TGOHF666 said:
Sounds like a euphemism ...Mysticrose said:
Tom is not a Remainer. He just has friends who are.TGOHF666 said:
Having Remain fanatic TND leaving the Sun should be a boost for Boris.Jonathan said:
Never had much time for the Guido/ToryBear gang. Right wing tabloid/gutter journalism surprisingly ain't my bag. He will no doubt be an asset to the Boris in the Sun.Casino_Royale said:
You dislike him for the same reasons?Jonathan said:
You like Tory Bear. 🤷♂️Casino_Royale said:
Harry is an excellent choice. Superb journalist.Jonathan said:
Hard for the Sun to go downmarket, but it has. Boris will sleep a little more sweetly.rottenborough said:
And The Sun.0 -
Yes, though it should be pointed out Biden leads on Covid and healthcareCasino_Royale said:
So Trump still leads on the economy then.HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1260597168647426056?s=19
If Biden now leads in Ne 02 by 11% he also only needs Pennsylvania and one of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Hillary states to win the Electoral College.0 -
Furloughs should be thought of as subsidies to employers not employees. The aim is to keep companies ticking over rather than folding completely, in order to speed recovery once the economy reopens. My own hobbyhorse is these should be made as income-contingent loans along the lines of student loans, but now is hardly the time to be developing new financial instruments.eek said:
But there is an argument that it should have been a loan (to be repaid back over x months / years) rather than treated as income.Nigelb said:
There is that.kyf_100 said:
As someone who is still working, I can't say I'm keen on the idea of paying more tax for the people who have enjoyed a two month holiday so far.tlg86 said:
Indeed - that would be socialism! But the reality is that the government furlough scheme cannot carry on indefinitely without large tax increases on those who are working. Starmer should be thinking about how he will react when the government eventually starts to do this.kyf_100 said:
A rather odd point, given that we're not paid on the basis of how much money we need.tlg86 said:Is there not a difference between the economy and how are we going to pay for all of this?
If the powers that be think that the best thing is to remain like this for a few years, we are going to have to pay for it. My dad keeps making the point that if we aren't going to the pub and spending money, then we don't need to be paid as much money as usual.
A far better idea would be to tax those who were furloughed as and when they come back to work, to pay for their own bloody holidays.
Not that I expect all of them will have jobs to come back to, of course...
And FWIW they are also paying tax on their furlough income.0 -
Yes! No! Maybe!Theuniondivvie said:For anyone considering reducing their lertiness.
twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1260851178616782852?s=20
The usual clear messaging ...
0 -
Where's TND going? Must have missed the announcement.TGOHF666 said:
Having Remain fanatic TND leaving the Sun should be a boost for Boris.Jonathan said:
Never had much time for the Guido/ToryBear gang. Right wing tabloid/gutter journalism surprisingly ain't my bag. He will no doubt be an asset to the Boris in the Sun.Casino_Royale said:
You dislike him for the same reasons?Jonathan said:
You like Tory Bear. 🤷♂️Casino_Royale said:
Harry is an excellent choice. Superb journalist.Jonathan said:
Hard for the Sun to go downmarket, but it has. Boris will sleep a little more sweetly.rottenborough said:
And The Sun.
0 -
That is an argument, but setting up the repayment system would not be cheap, would not be easy, and the money had to be got out to the furloughed quickly.eek said:
But there is an argument that it should have been a loan (to be repaid back over x months / years) rather than treated as income.Nigelb said:
There is that.kyf_100 said:
As someone who is still working, I can't say I'm keen on the idea of paying more tax for the people who have enjoyed a two month holiday so far.tlg86 said:
Indeed - that would be socialism! But the reality is that the government furlough scheme cannot carry on indefinitely without large tax increases on those who are working. Starmer should be thinking about how he will react when the government eventually starts to do this.kyf_100 said:
A rather odd point, given that we're not paid on the basis of how much money we need.tlg86 said:Is there not a difference between the economy and how are we going to pay for all of this?
If the powers that be think that the best thing is to remain like this for a few years, we are going to have to pay for it. My dad keeps making the point that if we aren't going to the pub and spending money, then we don't need to be paid as much money as usual.
A far better idea would be to tax those who were furloughed as and when they come back to work, to pay for their own bloody holidays.
Not that I expect all of them will have jobs to come back to, of course...
And FWIW they are also paying tax on their furlough income.0 -
The Times is launching a radio station.OldKingCole said:
Where's TND going? Must have missed the announcement.TGOHF666 said:
Having Remain fanatic TND leaving the Sun should be a boost for Boris.Jonathan said:
Never had much time for the Guido/ToryBear gang. Right wing tabloid/gutter journalism surprisingly ain't my bag. He will no doubt be an asset to the Boris in the Sun.Casino_Royale said:
You dislike him for the same reasons?Jonathan said:
You like Tory Bear. 🤷♂️Casino_Royale said:
Harry is an excellent choice. Superb journalist.Jonathan said:
Hard for the Sun to go downmarket, but it has. Boris will sleep a little more sweetly.rottenborough said:
And The Sun.0 -
Beibheirli_C said:
Yes! No! Maybe!Theuniondivvie said:For anyone considering reducing their lertiness.
twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1260851178616782852?s=20
The usual clear messaging ...
Should have been "Stay Forensic"0 -
You'd think they'd listen to us but unfortunately we don't have as much influence as you'd hope...Casino_Royale said:
Even if I’m wrong shaking the democrats out of their current complacency can only be a good thing and will lead to you being right.1 -
Some people would have resigned from their job to avoid getting into debt.eek said:
The individual but payment would have still had to have been done via the company for administrative speed.Jonathan said:
A loan to who exactly, the company or the individual?eek said:
But there is an argument that it should have been a loan (to be repaid back over x months / years) rather than treated as income.Nigelb said:
There is that.kyf_100 said:
As someone who is still working, I can't say I'm keen on the idea of paying more tax for the people who have enjoyed a two month holiday so far.tlg86 said:
Indeed - that would be socialism! But the reality is that the government furlough scheme cannot carry on indefinitely without large tax increases on those who are working. Starmer should be thinking about how he will react when the government eventually starts to do this.kyf_100 said:
A rather odd point, given that we're not paid on the basis of how much money we need.tlg86 said:Is there not a difference between the economy and how are we going to pay for all of this?
If the powers that be think that the best thing is to remain like this for a few years, we are going to have to pay for it. My dad keeps making the point that if we aren't going to the pub and spending money, then we don't need to be paid as much money as usual.
A far better idea would be to tax those who were furloughed as and when they come back to work, to pay for their own bloody holidays.
Not that I expect all of them will have jobs to come back to, of course...
And FWIW they are also paying tax on their furlough income.0 -
Anecdata:
Had a chat to my bi-monthly window cleaner this AM. Apparently they never stopped - safe as they are a married couple working outside with a water supply on their van. They are down 30% on last year, and commercial business vanished very quickly at the end of March.
And our gym is starting outdoor 1:1 Personal Training from next week subject to all the other advice, which also seems fine. As an included service for members during the lockdown to supplement the online service.0 -
Yes, like Boris Johnson needs more lunatic fringe right wingers to support him lol. Eventually pretending to be a right wing loon for career reasons is going to get to even someone as mendacious as Johnson. Unlike most of the people he has been forced to surround himself with since he jumped on the Brexit bandwagon, Johnson is not thick. He must already be wondering why he did it, like some latter day Johann Faust he is reaping the eventual consequences of his vanity.TGOHF666 said:
Having Remain fanatic TND leaving the Sun should be a boost for Boris.Jonathan said:
Never had much time for the Guido/ToryBear gang. Right wing tabloid/gutter journalism surprisingly ain't my bag. He will no doubt be an asset to the Boris in the Sun.Casino_Royale said:
You dislike him for the same reasons?Jonathan said:
You like Tory Bear. 🤷♂️Casino_Royale said:
Harry is an excellent choice. Superb journalist.Jonathan said:
Hard for the Sun to go downmarket, but it has. Boris will sleep a little more sweetly.rottenborough said:
And The Sun.0 -
Yes but it means we are now in a situation where a lot of people are going to have to pay additional tax for something they did not themselves receive.eristdoof said:
That is an argument, but setting up the repayment system would not be cheap, would not be easy, and the money had to be got out to the furloughed quickly.eek said:
But there is an argument that it should have been a loan (to be repaid back over x months / years) rather than treated as income.Nigelb said:
There is that.kyf_100 said:
As someone who is still working, I can't say I'm keen on the idea of paying more tax for the people who have enjoyed a two month holiday so far.tlg86 said:
Indeed - that would be socialism! But the reality is that the government furlough scheme cannot carry on indefinitely without large tax increases on those who are working. Starmer should be thinking about how he will react when the government eventually starts to do this.kyf_100 said:
A rather odd point, given that we're not paid on the basis of how much money we need.tlg86 said:Is there not a difference between the economy and how are we going to pay for all of this?
If the powers that be think that the best thing is to remain like this for a few years, we are going to have to pay for it. My dad keeps making the point that if we aren't going to the pub and spending money, then we don't need to be paid as much money as usual.
A far better idea would be to tax those who were furloughed as and when they come back to work, to pay for their own bloody holidays.
Not that I expect all of them will have jobs to come back to, of course...
And FWIW they are also paying tax on their furlough income.
If the 80% payments result in tax increases why should people who didn't receive it (myself) or were working throughout the period (my wife) be expected to pay for it.0 -
My lertiness is "A" class.Theuniondivvie said:For anyone considering reducing their lertiness.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1260851178616782852?s=200 -
Correction, Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE 02 and the Hillary states would be enough for Biden to win the Electoral College but not Pennsylvania and WisconsinHYUFD said:
Yes, though it should be pointed out Biden leads on Covid and healthcareCasino_Royale said:
So Trump still leads on the economy then.HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1260597168647426056?s=19
If Biden now leads in Ne 02 by 11% he also only needs Pennsylvania and one of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Hillary states to win the Electoral College.0 -
You see, that’s what I mean.Jonathan said:
Please don't inject toilet duck.Casino_Royale said:
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.Jonathan said:
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.Casino_Royale said:
Another complacent in a state of denial.edmundintokyo said:
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.Casino_Royale said:
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.0 -
That would have been their choice from which they would have to accept the consequences - but it's no different from housing benefit for house owners.tlg86 said:
Some people would have resigned from their job to avoid getting into debt.eek said:
The individual but payment would have still had to have been done via the company for administrative speed.Jonathan said:
A loan to who exactly, the company or the individual?eek said:
But there is an argument that it should have been a loan (to be repaid back over x months / years) rather than treated as income.Nigelb said:
There is that.kyf_100 said:
As someone who is still working, I can't say I'm keen on the idea of paying more tax for the people who have enjoyed a two month holiday so far.tlg86 said:
Indeed - that would be socialism! But the reality is that the government furlough scheme cannot carry on indefinitely without large tax increases on those who are working. Starmer should be thinking about how he will react when the government eventually starts to do this.kyf_100 said:
A rather odd point, given that we're not paid on the basis of how much money we need.tlg86 said:Is there not a difference between the economy and how are we going to pay for all of this?
If the powers that be think that the best thing is to remain like this for a few years, we are going to have to pay for it. My dad keeps making the point that if we aren't going to the pub and spending money, then we don't need to be paid as much money as usual.
A far better idea would be to tax those who were furloughed as and when they come back to work, to pay for their own bloody holidays.
Not that I expect all of them will have jobs to come back to, of course...
And FWIW they are also paying tax on their furlough income.0 -
I think lumping him in with Guido is a bit much.Jonathan said:
Never had much time for the Guido/ToryBear gang. Right wing tabloid/gutter journalism surprisingly ain't my bag. He will no doubt be an asset to the Boris in the Sun.Casino_Royale said:
You dislike him for the same reasons?Jonathan said:
You like Tory Bear. 🤷♂️Casino_Royale said:
Harry is an excellent choice. Superb journalist.Jonathan said:
Hard for the Sun to go downmarket, but it has. Boris will sleep a little more sweetly.rottenborough said:0 -
The furlough scheme is basically to keep companies, many of whom are currently legally prohibited from operating ticking over till and a bit past the point at which they can all legally operate. At that point basic demand determines whether they can carry on going as the furlough scheme disappears.1
-
Biden leads in all polls yet Trump is favourite in the betting.Casino_Royale said:
I’m not interested in cherry picking. I have no agenda.
I want to make money in November.
However Trump is longer than evens, which I think overstates chances he won't run.
IMO, betting posts which don't mention the odds available are best ignored.0 -
Yes of course. But I don't think the virus is waiting for him to recuperate. Hand over to someone (is that constitutionally possible?) and then come back when you are 100%. Although of course we know that he won't do that. But as I say I seem to be in the minority amongst Cons supporters to think we should have a 100% fit PM.TGOHF666 said:
Depends if its permanent or not - he is likely to feel very different in the weeks and months ahead.TOPPING said:As for some on topic stuff:
2) Yes he is diminished and weaker since CV-19 and who could blame him; it sounds like a horrible disease especially if there are comorbidities or you are obese.0 -
SKS was using government figures. But look at Hansard. Boris seems to miss the question completely when SKS asking about unexplained (ie not covid-19) excess deaths.MattW said:
Relistening this AM Sir Kendrick is walking very close to the line with his alleged stats. Very lawyerly - as slippery as a recently deceased Whitstable Octopus.DecrepiterJohnL said:Did we get PMQs wrong? Suppose it is not that SKS was good but that Boris was uncharacteristically bad because Covid-19 has left him unable to concentrate for more than short periods? Or even think clearly because Boris did not seem to realise SKS was directly quoting government guidelines, despite having just been told, and he completely missed SKS's question on excess but not covid-19 deaths. If so, @eadric's 8/1 against Boris leaving next year might be dashed by earlier resignation. Either that or Boris will recover and master future PMQs as any Prime Minister should.
ETA the markets seem to agree as Boris is half the price to go this year, despite there being only half the year left.
But then we know that from his past.
Not sure how one would demonstrate that on the hoof as PM, though.
Keir Starmer
I want to probe a little further the figures that the Prime Minister has given us. The Office for National Statistics records the average number of deaths in care homes each month. For the past five years, the average for April has been just over 8,000. This year, the number of deaths in care homes in April was a staggering 26,000. That is three times the average and an additional 18,000 deaths. Using the Government’s figures, only 8,000 are recorded as covid deaths, leaving 10,000 additional and unexplained care home deaths this April. I know that the Government must have looked into that, so can the Prime Minister give us the Government’s view on those unexplained deaths?
The Prime Minister
The coronavirus is an appalling disease which afflicts some groups far more than others—I think the whole country understands that—in particular the elderly, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to draw attention, as I have said, to the tragedy that has been taking place in care homes. The ONS is responsible for producing its data, and the Government have also produced data which shows not only that there has been, as I say, a terrible epidemic in care homes, but that since the care homes action plan began we are seeing an appreciable and substantial reduction not just in the number of outbreaks, but in the number of deaths. I stress to the House and to the country that solving the problem in care homes is going to be absolutely critical—getting the R down not just in care homes, but across the country—to our ability to move forward as a nation with the stepped programme that I announced on Sunday. We must fix it, and we will.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister says that solving the problem in care homes is crucial, but that can happen only if the numbers are understood, so I was disappointed that he does not have an answer to the pretty obvious question: what are those 10,000 unexplained deaths?
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-05-13/debates/7F8336E1-EDA2-4AF8-9923-A65B8A9B3F7E/Engagements
Read (or watch) that exchange and it is hard not to conclude that Boris completely missed the question. He certainly made no attempt to answer it, yet could easily have played a straight bat by saying research was in hand, or some such. That is the concern, not that the Prime Minister was tripped up by a wily lawyer but that he completely misunderstood what was plainly being asked.1 -
Employers v employees is a false dichotomy, particularly in this case. One cannot exist without the other. Good employers and hard working employees understand the symbiosis . The furlough scheme has its weaknesses, but overall it is a good thing for all concerned, and may save the country from mass unemployment.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Furloughs should be thought of as subsidies to employers not employees. The aim is to keep companies ticking over rather than folding completely, in order to speed recovery once the economy reopens. My own hobbyhorse is these should be made as income-contingent loans along the lines of student loans, but now is hardly the time to be developing new financial instruments.eek said:
But there is an argument that it should have been a loan (to be repaid back over x months / years) rather than treated as income.Nigelb said:
There is that.kyf_100 said:
As someone who is still working, I can't say I'm keen on the idea of paying more tax for the people who have enjoyed a two month holiday so far.tlg86 said:
Indeed - that would be socialism! But the reality is that the government furlough scheme cannot carry on indefinitely without large tax increases on those who are working. Starmer should be thinking about how he will react when the government eventually starts to do this.kyf_100 said:
A rather odd point, given that we're not paid on the basis of how much money we need.tlg86 said:Is there not a difference between the economy and how are we going to pay for all of this?
If the powers that be think that the best thing is to remain like this for a few years, we are going to have to pay for it. My dad keeps making the point that if we aren't going to the pub and spending money, then we don't need to be paid as much money as usual.
A far better idea would be to tax those who were furloughed as and when they come back to work, to pay for their own bloody holidays.
Not that I expect all of them will have jobs to come back to, of course...
And FWIW they are also paying tax on their furlough income.1 -
Times Radio apparently, Rupe's new BBC busting outlet.OldKingCole said:
Where's TND going? Must have missed the announcement.TGOHF666 said:
Having Remain fanatic TND leaving the Sun should be a boost for Boris.Jonathan said:
Never had much time for the Guido/ToryBear gang. Right wing tabloid/gutter journalism surprisingly ain't my bag. He will no doubt be an asset to the Boris in the Sun.Casino_Royale said:
You dislike him for the same reasons?Jonathan said:
You like Tory Bear. 🤷♂️Casino_Royale said:
Harry is an excellent choice. Superb journalist.Jonathan said:
Hard for the Sun to go downmarket, but it has. Boris will sleep a little more sweetly.rottenborough said:
And The Sun.0 -
"Currently legally prohibited from operating" - yes. But I think it may prove to have been an error to include companies that were NOT not legally prohibited from opening/operating.Pulpstar said:The furlough scheme is basically to keep companies, many of whom are currently legally prohibited from operating ticking over till and a bit past the point at which they can all legally operate. At that point basic demand determines whether they can carry on going as the furlough scheme disappears.
This point was discussed on here between me and kinabalu the day after Sunak`s original announcement. I believe that the scheme is being used more widely - and sometime dubiously - than Sunak intended.0 -
This is the interesting bit. I generally consider myself to be on the right of politics. I'm in favour of a smallish state and very much pro-business. However, I only believe in those things because I think that that is what's best for people. I am not pro-business for their own sake (although I think successful businesses and the people running them should be celebrated).Pulpstar said:The furlough scheme is basically to keep companies, many of whom are currently legally prohibited from operating ticking over till and a bit past the point at which they can all legally operate. At that point basic demand determines whether they can carry on going as the furlough scheme disappears.
Take Virgin Atlantic. I haven't come across a single person who thinks we should be bailing them out (via their employees or otherwise). Nobody particularly likes Branson, so that's not a problem. It gets harder with smaller businesses such as pubs. I feel very sorry for owners of such businesses. Ultimately, however, the government's responsibility is to the people of this country. They should be thinking about how to ease the pain on people rather than trying to preserve all businesses for a return to normal that may never come.0 -
Housing Benefit is not a loaneek said:
That would have been their choice from which they would have to accept the consequences - but it's no different from housing benefit for house owners.tlg86 said:
Some people would have resigned from their job to avoid getting into debt.eek said:
The individual but payment would have still had to have been done via the company for administrative speed.Jonathan said:
A loan to who exactly, the company or the individual?eek said:
But there is an argument that it should have been a loan (to be repaid back over x months / years) rather than treated as income.Nigelb said:
There is that.kyf_100 said:
As someone who is still working, I can't say I'm keen on the idea of paying more tax for the people who have enjoyed a two month holiday so far.tlg86 said:
Indeed - that would be socialism! But the reality is that the government furlough scheme cannot carry on indefinitely without large tax increases on those who are working. Starmer should be thinking about how he will react when the government eventually starts to do this.kyf_100 said:
A rather odd point, given that we're not paid on the basis of how much money we need.tlg86 said:Is there not a difference between the economy and how are we going to pay for all of this?
If the powers that be think that the best thing is to remain like this for a few years, we are going to have to pay for it. My dad keeps making the point that if we aren't going to the pub and spending money, then we don't need to be paid as much money as usual.
A far better idea would be to tax those who were furloughed as and when they come back to work, to pay for their own bloody holidays.
Not that I expect all of them will have jobs to come back to, of course...
And FWIW they are also paying tax on their furlough income.0 -
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.Casino_Royale said:
You see, that’s what I mean.Jonathan said:
Please don't inject toilet duck.Casino_Royale said:
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.Jonathan said:
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.Casino_Royale said:
Another complacent in a state of denial.edmundintokyo said:
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.Casino_Royale said:
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.0 -
The reason is that the payments were not made for the benefit of the individuals receiving them, but to protect the economy in general so that it is less damaged by the lockdown and recovers more quickly afterwards.eek said:
Yes but it means we are now in a situation where a lot of people are going to have to pay additional tax for something they did not themselves receive.eristdoof said:
That is an argument, but setting up the repayment system would not be cheap, would not be easy, and the money had to be got out to the furloughed quickly.eek said:
But there is an argument that it should have been a loan (to be repaid back over x months / years) rather than treated as income.Nigelb said:
There is that.kyf_100 said:
As someone who is still working, I can't say I'm keen on the idea of paying more tax for the people who have enjoyed a two month holiday so far.tlg86 said:
Indeed - that would be socialism! But the reality is that the government furlough scheme cannot carry on indefinitely without large tax increases on those who are working. Starmer should be thinking about how he will react when the government eventually starts to do this.kyf_100 said:
A rather odd point, given that we're not paid on the basis of how much money we need.tlg86 said:Is there not a difference between the economy and how are we going to pay for all of this?
If the powers that be think that the best thing is to remain like this for a few years, we are going to have to pay for it. My dad keeps making the point that if we aren't going to the pub and spending money, then we don't need to be paid as much money as usual.
A far better idea would be to tax those who were furloughed as and when they come back to work, to pay for their own bloody holidays.
Not that I expect all of them will have jobs to come back to, of course...
And FWIW they are also paying tax on their furlough income.
If the 80% payments result in tax increases why should people who didn't receive it (myself) or were working throughout the period (my wife) be expected to pay for it.
Everyone benefits from that and so it's fair for everyone to pay.1 -
Did you vote Tory in 2019 than if you are a Cons supporter?TOPPING said:
Yes of course. But I don't think the virus is waiting for him to recuperate. Hand over to someone (is that constitutionally possible?) and then come back when you are 100%. Although of course we know that he won't do that. But as I say I seem to be in the minority amongst Cons supporters to think we should have a 100% fit PM.TGOHF666 said:
Depends if its permanent or not - he is likely to feel very different in the weeks and months ahead.TOPPING said:As for some on topic stuff:
2) Yes he is diminished and weaker since CV-19 and who could blame him; it sounds like a horrible disease especially if there are comorbidities or you are obese.0 -
I like Branson !!tlg86 said:
This is the interesting bit. I generally consider myself to be on the right of politics. I'm in favour of a smallish state and very much pro-business. However, I only believe in those things because I think that that is what's best for people. I am not pro-business for their own sake (although I think successful businesses and the people running them should be celebrated).Pulpstar said:The furlough scheme is basically to keep companies, many of whom are currently legally prohibited from operating ticking over till and a bit past the point at which they can all legally operate. At that point basic demand determines whether they can carry on going as the furlough scheme disappears.
Take Virgin Atlantic. I haven't come across a single person who thinks we should be bailing them out (via their employees or otherwise). Nobody particularly likes Branson, so that's not a problem. It gets harder with smaller businesses such as pubs. I feel very sorry for owners of such businesses. Ultimately, however, the government's responsibility is to the people of this country. They should be thinking about how to ease the pain on people rather than trying to preserve all businesses for a return to normal that may never come.
0 -
Revealing, but not quite in the way Nads thinks.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1260843881551233024?s=200 -
Interesting discussion with my eldest's mum about him going to university in September. With no real clue about timings of things lifting or how practically they will work or even if they can operate normally from September the deadline to apply for student finance is the end of this month...
I am happy to offer subsidy to him running a gap year if he works - as he wants to get into teaching conversations have started with his old primary and high schools about spending half an academic year volunteering with each. But the uncertainty is the real problem - his mum is desperately worried about him going off to uni with lots of students from all over the country living and studying in close proximity, I am worried about his ongoing mental health as time ticks along with little ability for him to socialise.0 -
Indeed.tlg86 said:
Some people would have resigned from their job to avoid getting into debt.eek said:
The individual but payment would have still had to have been done via the company for administrative speed.Jonathan said:
A loan to who exactly, the company or the individual?eek said:
But there is an argument that it should have been a loan (to be repaid back over x months / years) rather than treated as income.Nigelb said:
There is that.kyf_100 said:
As someone who is still working, I can't say I'm keen on the idea of paying more tax for the people who have enjoyed a two month holiday so far.tlg86 said:
Indeed - that would be socialism! But the reality is that the government furlough scheme cannot carry on indefinitely without large tax increases on those who are working. Starmer should be thinking about how he will react when the government eventually starts to do this.kyf_100 said:
A rather odd point, given that we're not paid on the basis of how much money we need.tlg86 said:Is there not a difference between the economy and how are we going to pay for all of this?
If the powers that be think that the best thing is to remain like this for a few years, we are going to have to pay for it. My dad keeps making the point that if we aren't going to the pub and spending money, then we don't need to be paid as much money as usual.
A far better idea would be to tax those who were furloughed as and when they come back to work, to pay for their own bloody holidays.
Not that I expect all of them will have jobs to come back to, of course...
And FWIW they are also paying tax on their furlough income.
Every criticism of - or clever wheeze suggested as a replacement for - the furlough scheme just doesn't stack up.
It is a horrible, horrible policy decision. But it is the only one.;
It is also giving people a lot of certainty right now. Without it, both business confidence and personal anguish would be through the roof.0 -
Trump got 46% in 2016, Boris got 44% in 2019 (and Farage 3%), he is the US Boris, just the US is a more right-wing country than the UK so he is also even more right-wing and populist than Boris tooNigel_Foremain said:
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.Casino_Royale said:
You see, that’s what I mean.Jonathan said:
Please don't inject toilet duck.Casino_Royale said:
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.Jonathan said:
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.Casino_Royale said:
Another complacent in a state of denial.edmundintokyo said:
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.Casino_Royale said:
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.0 -
Of course I did you banana. Just like you I voted Cons in 2019 and Remain in 2016.HYUFD said:
Did you vote Tory in 2019 than if you are a Cons supporter?TOPPING said:
Yes of course. But I don't think the virus is waiting for him to recuperate. Hand over to someone (is that constitutionally possible?) and then come back when you are 100%. Although of course we know that he won't do that. But as I say I seem to be in the minority amongst Cons supporters to think we should have a 100% fit PM.TGOHF666 said:
Depends if its permanent or not - he is likely to feel very different in the weeks and months ahead.TOPPING said:As for some on topic stuff:
2) Yes he is diminished and weaker since CV-19 and who could blame him; it sounds like a horrible disease especially if there are comorbidities or you are obese.1 -
If we're brutally honest, many of us get some small weird pleasure from being proved right, even if it's not the outcome we wanted.Nigel_Foremain said:
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.Casino_Royale said:
You see, that’s what I mean.Jonathan said:
Please don't inject toilet duck.Casino_Royale said:
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.Jonathan said:
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.Casino_Royale said:
Another complacent in a state of denial.edmundintokyo said:
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.Casino_Royale said:
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.0 -
Good on you as long as you stick to that and don't switch to Starmer or the LDs now Corbyn's goneTOPPING said:
Of course I did you banana. Just like you I voted Cons in 2019 and Remain in 2016.HYUFD said:
Did you vote Tory in 2019 than if you are a Cons supporter?TOPPING said:
Yes of course. But I don't think the virus is waiting for him to recuperate. Hand over to someone (is that constitutionally possible?) and then come back when you are 100%. Although of course we know that he won't do that. But as I say I seem to be in the minority amongst Cons supporters to think we should have a 100% fit PM.TGOHF666 said:
Depends if its permanent or not - he is likely to feel very different in the weeks and months ahead.TOPPING said:As for some on topic stuff:
2) Yes he is diminished and weaker since CV-19 and who could blame him; it sounds like a horrible disease especially if there are comorbidities or you are obese.0 -
Personally I am anti political parties, and would be happy for them all to disappear.Jonathan said:You had harsh words this week for party political attacks. You must feel somewhat confused.
On a practical level I also feel that tribalism gets in the way.
There have clearly been mistakes at all levels during the pandemic. Some of that is inevitable, but there are structural failings that should be addressed.
In the layers government/civil service/NHS/society, the part that is easiest to change is the political one. I suggest that most benefit will come from reforming the middle two layers.
1 -
Agreed.Nigel_Foremain said:
Employers v employees is a false dichotomy, particularly in this case. One cannot exist without the other. Good employers and hard working employees understand the symbiosis . The furlough scheme has its weaknesses, but overall it is a good thing for all concerned, and may save the country from mass unemployment.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Furloughs should be thought of as subsidies to employers not employees. The aim is to keep companies ticking over rather than folding completely, in order to speed recovery once the economy reopens. My own hobbyhorse is these should be made as income-contingent loans along the lines of student loans, but now is hardly the time to be developing new financial instruments.eek said:
But there is an argument that it should have been a loan (to be repaid back over x months / years) rather than treated as income.Nigelb said:
There is that.kyf_100 said:
As someone who is still working, I can't say I'm keen on the idea of paying more tax for the people who have enjoyed a two month holiday so far.tlg86 said:
Indeed - that would be socialism! But the reality is that the government furlough scheme cannot carry on indefinitely without large tax increases on those who are working. Starmer should be thinking about how he will react when the government eventually starts to do this.kyf_100 said:
A rather odd point, given that we're not paid on the basis of how much money we need.tlg86 said:Is there not a difference between the economy and how are we going to pay for all of this?
If the powers that be think that the best thing is to remain like this for a few years, we are going to have to pay for it. My dad keeps making the point that if we aren't going to the pub and spending money, then we don't need to be paid as much money as usual.
A far better idea would be to tax those who were furloughed as and when they come back to work, to pay for their own bloody holidays.
Not that I expect all of them will have jobs to come back to, of course...
And FWIW they are also paying tax on their furlough income.
The point should be made, also, that companies don't receive a penny from this - indeed it is an extra overhead administering it and keeping records - and most will be distributing cash as PAYE before they are themselves paid by HMRC.0 -
We shall see what the offer is. I think Boris is a tosser and the floodgates have opened on the fiscal side so frankly, I will take a long hard look at the manifestos in 2024. As should any sentient being.HYUFD said:
Good on you as long as you stick to that and don't switch to Starmer or the LDs now Corbyn's goneTOPPING said:
Of course I did you banana. Just like you I voted Cons in 2019 and Remain in 2016.HYUFD said:
Did you vote Tory in 2019 than if you are a Cons supporter?TOPPING said:
Yes of course. But I don't think the virus is waiting for him to recuperate. Hand over to someone (is that constitutionally possible?) and then come back when you are 100%. Although of course we know that he won't do that. But as I say I seem to be in the minority amongst Cons supporters to think we should have a 100% fit PM.TGOHF666 said:
Depends if its permanent or not - he is likely to feel very different in the weeks and months ahead.TOPPING said:As for some on topic stuff:
2) Yes he is diminished and weaker since CV-19 and who could blame him; it sounds like a horrible disease especially if there are comorbidities or you are obese.
A fiscally loose, Leave party is not what you support so how will you vote?0 -
Whilst I can understand the temptation to look at this from the perspective of the business owner who has had his or her life's work and savings wiped out through no fault of their own I don't think that the government should. What the government needs to do is to work out what parts of our economy (a) have a long term future and (b) need short term help to survive.tlg86 said:
This is the interesting bit. I generally consider myself to be on the right of politics. I'm in favour of a smallish state and very much pro-business. However, I only believe in those things because I think that that is what's best for people. I am not pro-business for their own sake (although I think successful businesses and the people running them should be celebrated).Pulpstar said:The furlough scheme is basically to keep companies, many of whom are currently legally prohibited from operating ticking over till and a bit past the point at which they can all legally operate. At that point basic demand determines whether they can carry on going as the furlough scheme disappears.
Take Virgin Atlantic. I haven't come across a single person who thinks we should be bailing them out (via their employees or otherwise). Nobody particularly likes Branson, so that's not a problem. It gets harder with smaller businesses such as pubs. I feel very sorry for owners of such businesses. Ultimately, however, the government's responsibility is to the people of this country. They should be thinking about how to ease the pain on people rather than trying to preserve all businesses for a return to normal that may never come.
Virgin Atlantic seem to me to fail (a) because it is difficult to imagine sufficient demand for their services for the next 5 years plus. This seems to me a better way of determining whether there should be state support than Branson being a tosser. To a certain extent it needs the government to pick winners, not in terms of individual companies but in terms of sectors. What do we actually need? This should drive the government not only to supporting existing businesses but to help new ones which are going to bring key elements of manufacturing capacity (for example) back onshore where this is in the national interest.1 -
I agree completely - my point about Branson was more that I think the government will find it easier to throw him under a bus than a pub owner.DavidL said:
Whilst I can understand the temptation to look at this from the perspective of the business owner who has had his or her life's work and savings wiped out through no fault of their own I don't think that the government should. What the government needs to do is to work out what parts of our economy (a) have a long term future and (b) need short term help to survive.tlg86 said:
This is the interesting bit. I generally consider myself to be on the right of politics. I'm in favour of a smallish state and very much pro-business. However, I only believe in those things because I think that that is what's best for people. I am not pro-business for their own sake (although I think successful businesses and the people running them should be celebrated).Pulpstar said:The furlough scheme is basically to keep companies, many of whom are currently legally prohibited from operating ticking over till and a bit past the point at which they can all legally operate. At that point basic demand determines whether they can carry on going as the furlough scheme disappears.
Take Virgin Atlantic. I haven't come across a single person who thinks we should be bailing them out (via their employees or otherwise). Nobody particularly likes Branson, so that's not a problem. It gets harder with smaller businesses such as pubs. I feel very sorry for owners of such businesses. Ultimately, however, the government's responsibility is to the people of this country. They should be thinking about how to ease the pain on people rather than trying to preserve all businesses for a return to normal that may never come.
Virgin Atlantic seem to me to fail (a) because it is difficult to imagine sufficient demand for their services for the next 5 years plus. This seems to me a better way of determining whether there should be state support than Branson being a tosser. To a certain extent it needs the government to pick winners, not in terms of individual companies but in terms of sectors. What do we actually need? This should drive the government not only to supporting existing businesses but to help new ones which are going to bring key elements of manufacturing capacity (for example) back onshore where this is in the national interest.
The really tricky sector: banks.0 -
My condolences to @Cyclefree and her family.
I look forward to a day when mental health is treated and talked about on a par with physical health and we can prevent many of these dreadful events. We are in the foothills where we talk about talking about it, talk about treating it, but actual discussion, actual action is still scant.1 -
One question, perhaps not for today, is whether Trump really is a populist or just campaigns as one. Would a true populist have passed tax cuts for billionaires or try to scrap Obamacare? I think not.HYUFD said:
Trump got 46% in 2016, Boris got 44% in 2019 (and Farage 3%), he is the US Boris, just the US is a more right-wing country than the UK so he is also even more right-wing and populist than Boris tooNigel_Foremain said:
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.Casino_Royale said:
You see, that’s what I mean.Jonathan said:
Please don't inject toilet duck.Casino_Royale said:
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.Jonathan said:
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.Casino_Royale said:
Another complacent in a state of denial.edmundintokyo said:
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.Casino_Royale said:
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.1 -
F1: Ricciardo to join McLaren in 2021.0
-
Banks are a nightmare and we will pay the price of not locking up several hundred bankers after 2008 for fraud and malfeasance. There was far too much business as usual after that calamity and I see people being extremely reluctant to tolerate that again but they remain an essential service.tlg86 said:
I agree completely - my point about Branson was more that I think the government will find it easier to throw him under a bus than a pub owner.DavidL said:
Whilst I can understand the temptation to look at this from the perspective of the business owner who has had his or her life's work and savings wiped out through no fault of their own I don't think that the government should. What the government needs to do is to work out what parts of our economy (a) have a long term future and (b) need short term help to survive.tlg86 said:
This is the interesting bit. I generally consider myself to be on the right of politics. I'm in favour of a smallish state and very much pro-business. However, I only believe in those things because I think that that is what's best for people. I am not pro-business for their own sake (although I think successful businesses and the people running them should be celebrated).Pulpstar said:The furlough scheme is basically to keep companies, many of whom are currently legally prohibited from operating ticking over till and a bit past the point at which they can all legally operate. At that point basic demand determines whether they can carry on going as the furlough scheme disappears.
Take Virgin Atlantic. I haven't come across a single person who thinks we should be bailing them out (via their employees or otherwise). Nobody particularly likes Branson, so that's not a problem. It gets harder with smaller businesses such as pubs. I feel very sorry for owners of such businesses. Ultimately, however, the government's responsibility is to the people of this country. They should be thinking about how to ease the pain on people rather than trying to preserve all businesses for a return to normal that may never come.
Virgin Atlantic seem to me to fail (a) because it is difficult to imagine sufficient demand for their services for the next 5 years plus. This seems to me a better way of determining whether there should be state support than Branson being a tosser. To a certain extent it needs the government to pick winners, not in terms of individual companies but in terms of sectors. What do we actually need? This should drive the government not only to supporting existing businesses but to help new ones which are going to bring key elements of manufacturing capacity (for example) back onshore where this is in the national interest.
The really tricky sector: banks.3 -
Confirmation bias means allowing your personal opinions to influence your analysis and decision making, in this case on this site in the matter of betting on politics.Nigel_Foremain said:
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.Casino_Royale said:
You see, that’s what I mean.Jonathan said:
Please don't inject toilet duck.Casino_Royale said:
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.Jonathan said:
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.Casino_Royale said:
Another complacent in a state of denial.edmundintokyo said:
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.Casino_Royale said:
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.
I am free of confirmation bias in that sense and have made quite a bit of money as a result. My record should hopefully speak for itself.
If you want another example, I’m betting on the SNP to win a majority at Holyrood next year despite being a staunch Unionist.0 -
Only when its pickled.Nigel_Foremain said:
I like Branson !!tlg86 said:
This is the interesting bit. I generally consider myself to be on the right of politics. I'm in favour of a smallish state and very much pro-business. However, I only believe in those things because I think that that is what's best for people. I am not pro-business for their own sake (although I think successful businesses and the people running them should be celebrated).Pulpstar said:The furlough scheme is basically to keep companies, many of whom are currently legally prohibited from operating ticking over till and a bit past the point at which they can all legally operate. At that point basic demand determines whether they can carry on going as the furlough scheme disappears.
Take Virgin Atlantic. I haven't come across a single person who thinks we should be bailing them out (via their employees or otherwise). Nobody particularly likes Branson, so that's not a problem. It gets harder with smaller businesses such as pubs. I feel very sorry for owners of such businesses. Ultimately, however, the government's responsibility is to the people of this country. They should be thinking about how to ease the pain on people rather than trying to preserve all businesses for a return to normal that may never come.1 -
This - there has been progress, fortunately. Sadly not enough.Pro_Rata said:My condolences to @Cyclefree and her family.
I look forward to a day when mental health is treated and talked about on a par with physical health and we can prevent many of these dreadful events. We are in the foothills where we talk about talking about it, talk about treating it, but actual discussion, actual action is still scant.
I think of it as part of the preventive healthcare we should do more of - which would save money, as well as lives and well being.0 -
All I’m saying is that it’s not all over bar the shouting.rkrkrk said:
Biden leads in all polls yet Trump is favourite in the betting.Casino_Royale said:
I’m not interested in cherry picking. I have no agenda.
I want to make money in November.
However Trump is longer than evens, which I think overstates chances he won't run.
IMO, betting posts which don't mention the odds available are best ignored.
I may change my views again. As it is I can see anything from a healthy Biden win to him stacking up even more votes than Hillary in the wrong places and Trump squeaking it a second time in the swing states.
November is a lot time away0 -
I've found it tough to replace the 6-8 hours walking a week as part of my commute, shopping and errand running with my now life of WfH, sole childcare and the bits of gardening,DavidL said:
I agree it is complex and somewhat uncertain what particular factor is most important but keeping people locked indoors is not the solution and never was, provided social distancing is observed. From my perspective I am taking 2hr walks pretty much every day to make sure I get exposed to UV, sunlight and vitamin D (which I am also taking in tablet form along with my zinc).Pro_Rata said:
Seasonality, even in known seasonal viruses, doesn't seem to be that well understood with several candidates for the way that seasonality actually works, some or all of which may be factors. These include UV, absolute humidity (both degrading the virus quicker), fewer close contacts due to outdoor living in summer, vitamin D and mucus membranes being more effective in warm weather.DavidL said:
The strong suggestions that vitamin D deficiencies plays a part was why sunbathing in the park (with social distancing) should never have been prevented. Of course in Scotland (which has an even greater problem with vitamin D deficiency) it still is.Nigelb said:
That might also be a possible driver of a seasonal effect.IanB2 said:
On a possibly related point, Tim Harford was saying on R4 yesterday that early research suggests a correlation between low vitamin D and likelihood of catching the virus - but hasn’t yet dug into the likelihood of cross correlation (D levels being a by product of some other causal factor) or indeed causality (getting the virus depresses Vit D).Andy_JS said:"Sunlight and fresh air can protect against coronavirus, Sage adviser tells MPs"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/13/sunlight-fresh-air-can-protect-against-coronavirus-sage-adviser/
Early studies showed only a very small effect of increasing temperature on suppressing rates of viral transmission, but obviously wouldn't account for differences in seasonal Vit.D levels.
For a normal seasonal virus this is plenty to take effective R from slightly above 1 to well below 1.
If we consider seasonality at a base level, that temperature has an effect, for whatever reason, to reduce effective R, then I think plurality scientific opinion is that COVID-19 is seasonal. But the weather is nowhere near enough alone to take R below 1 at this stage, and some of the effects of lockdown may work counter to seasonal effects, although the far greater effective R reduction from reducing numbers of contacts still justifies lockdown measures in some form.0 -
You also backed SCons at 10-15 and 15-20 mps at the last GE didn't you?Casino_Royale said:
Confirmation bias means allowing your personal opinions to influence your analysis and decision making, in this case on this site in the matter of betting on politics.Nigel_Foremain said:
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.Casino_Royale said:
You see, that’s what I mean.Jonathan said:
Please don't inject toilet duck.Casino_Royale said:
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.Jonathan said:
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.Casino_Royale said:
Another complacent in a state of denial.edmundintokyo said:
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.Casino_Royale said:
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.
I am free of confirmation bias in that sense and have made quite a bit of money as a result. My record should hopefully speak for itself.
If you want another example, I’m betting on the SNP to win a majority at Holyrood next year despite being a staunch Unionist.
That makes me a bit depressed about SNP prospects.0 -
He is clearly not firing on all cylinders yet. The question is whether this is temporary or permanent. It is a legitimate question. This virus is going to leave a long tail of disability short of death that we have yet to come to terms with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
SKS was using government figures. But look at Hansard. Boris seems to miss the question completely when SKS asking about unexplained (ie not covid-19) excess deaths.MattW said:
Relistening this AM Sir Kendrick is walking very close to the line with his alleged stats. Very lawyerly - as slippery as a recently deceased Whitstable Octopus.DecrepiterJohnL said:Did we get PMQs wrong? Suppose it is not that SKS was good but that Boris was uncharacteristically bad because Covid-19 has left him unable to concentrate for more than short periods? Or even think clearly because Boris did not seem to realise SKS was directly quoting government guidelines, despite having just been told, and he completely missed SKS's question on excess but not covid-19 deaths. If so, @eadric's 8/1 against Boris leaving next year might be dashed by earlier resignation. Either that or Boris will recover and master future PMQs as any Prime Minister should.
ETA the markets seem to agree as Boris is half the price to go this year, despite there being only half the year left.
But then we know that from his past.
Not sure how one would demonstrate that on the hoof as PM, though.
Keir Starmer
I want to probe a little further the figures that the Prime Minister has given us. The Office for National Statistics records the average number of deaths in care homes each month. For the past five years, the average for April has been just over 8,000. This year, the number of deaths in care homes in April was a staggering 26,000. That is three times the average and an additional 18,000 deaths. Using the Government’s figures, only 8,000 are recorded as covid deaths, leaving 10,000 additional and unexplained care home deaths this April. I know that the Government must have looked into that, so can the Prime Minister give us the Government’s view on those unexplained deaths?
The Prime Minister
The coronavirus is an appalling disease which afflicts some groups far more than others—I think the whole country understands that—in particular the elderly, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to draw attention, as I have said, to the tragedy that has been taking place in care homes. The ONS is responsible for producing its data, and the Government have also produced data which shows not only that there has been, as I say, a terrible epidemic in care homes, but that since the care homes action plan began we are seeing an appreciable and substantial reduction not just in the number of outbreaks, but in the number of deaths. I stress to the House and to the country that solving the problem in care homes is going to be absolutely critical—getting the R down not just in care homes, but across the country—to our ability to move forward as a nation with the stepped programme that I announced on Sunday. We must fix it, and we will.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister says that solving the problem in care homes is crucial, but that can happen only if the numbers are understood, so I was disappointed that he does not have an answer to the pretty obvious question: what are those 10,000 unexplained deaths?
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-05-13/debates/7F8336E1-EDA2-4AF8-9923-A65B8A9B3F7E/Engagements
Read (or watch) that exchange and it is hard not to conclude that Boris completely missed the question. He certainly made no attempt to answer it, yet could easily have played a straight bat by saying research was in hand, or some such. That is the concern, not that the Prime Minister was tripped up by a wily lawyer but that he completely misunderstood what was plainly being asked.0 -
I'm hoping Covid 19 will starve SISU out of Coventry City Football club.tlg86 said:
I agree completely - my point about Branson was more that I think the government will find it easier to throw him under a bus than a pub owner.DavidL said:
Whilst I can understand the temptation to look at this from the perspective of the business owner who has had his or her life's work and savings wiped out through no fault of their own I don't think that the government should. What the government needs to do is to work out what parts of our economy (a) have a long term future and (b) need short term help to survive.tlg86 said:
This is the interesting bit. I generally consider myself to be on the right of politics. I'm in favour of a smallish state and very much pro-business. However, I only believe in those things because I think that that is what's best for people. I am not pro-business for their own sake (although I think successful businesses and the people running them should be celebrated).Pulpstar said:The furlough scheme is basically to keep companies, many of whom are currently legally prohibited from operating ticking over till and a bit past the point at which they can all legally operate. At that point basic demand determines whether they can carry on going as the furlough scheme disappears.
Take Virgin Atlantic. I haven't come across a single person who thinks we should be bailing them out (via their employees or otherwise). Nobody particularly likes Branson, so that's not a problem. It gets harder with smaller businesses such as pubs. I feel very sorry for owners of such businesses. Ultimately, however, the government's responsibility is to the people of this country. They should be thinking about how to ease the pain on people rather than trying to preserve all businesses for a return to normal that may never come.
Virgin Atlantic seem to me to fail (a) because it is difficult to imagine sufficient demand for their services for the next 5 years plus. This seems to me a better way of determining whether there should be state support than Branson being a tosser. To a certain extent it needs the government to pick winners, not in terms of individual companies but in terms of sectors. What do we actually need? This should drive the government not only to supporting existing businesses but to help new ones which are going to bring key elements of manufacturing capacity (for example) back onshore where this is in the national interest.
The really tricky sector: banks.0 -
F1: Two year deal for Sainz at Ferrari:
https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/1260865894626066437
Be interesting to see how he compares to Leclerc.0 -
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.Theuniondivvie said:Revealing, but not quite in the way Nads thinks.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1260843881551233024?s=200 -
Eh? He was editor at Guido.Casino_Royale said:
I think lumping him in with Guido is a bit much.Jonathan said:
Never had much time for the Guido/ToryBear gang. Right wing tabloid/gutter journalism surprisingly ain't my bag. He will no doubt be an asset to the Boris in the Sun.Casino_Royale said:
You dislike him for the same reasons?Jonathan said:
You like Tory Bear. 🤷♂️Casino_Royale said:
Harry is an excellent choice. Superb journalist.Jonathan said:
Hard for the Sun to go downmarket, but it has. Boris will sleep a little more sweetly.rottenborough said:1 -
This.DecrepiterJohnL said:
One question, perhaps not for today, is whether Trump really is a populist or just campaigns as one. Would a true populist have passed tax cuts for billionaires or try to scrap Obamacare? I think not.HYUFD said:
Trump got 46% in 2016, Boris got 44% in 2019 (and Farage 3%), he is the US Boris, just the US is a more right-wing country than the UK so he is also even more right-wing and populist than Boris tooNigel_Foremain said:
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.Casino_Royale said:
You see, that’s what I mean.Jonathan said:
Please don't inject toilet duck.Casino_Royale said:
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.Jonathan said:
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.Casino_Royale said:
Another complacent in a state of denial.edmundintokyo said:
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.Casino_Royale said:
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.
The claim that Boris is much like Trump (or the other way round) doesn't make much sense - unless you are looking through Brexit goggles.
Raising minimum wage, increasing the next tranch of offshore wind farms, increasing spending on EvulSocialistHealthcare, public transport (HS2)... that's not even in Biden's wheelhouse.
Trump's economic response to COVID19 was to shovel money at his big corporate donors. The response in the UK has been targeted at individuals and SME, not the big companies.0 -
Makes sense Ferrari would want a driver in the Bottas mode (good but not perfect) for Leclerc and Riccardo made the wrong choice when he went to Renault.Morris_Dancer said:F1: Two year deal for Sainz at Ferrari:
https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/1260865894626066437
Be interesting to see how he compares to Leclerc.0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/14/a-and-e-attendance-england-record-low-covid-19-lockdown
"Data published by NHS England shows 0.9 million attendances were recorded in April 2020, down 57% from 2.1 million in April 2019."
The article doesn't say whether the waiting time target was met.1 -
Does "we" include employers? Working from home increases isolation. Has your company arranged for managers to call (or "check in with") each member of their teams on a regular basis, just to check all is well? Has it provided mental health support from third parties, as companies often do with physical health? Does it provide training in Mindfulness (or similar techniques) and follow up with remote communal sessions? Has it issued "family friendly" conference call guidelines that recognise interruptions from children and pets?Malmesbury said:
This - there has been progress, fortunately. Sadly not enough.Pro_Rata said:My condolences to @Cyclefree and her family.
I look forward to a day when mental health is treated and talked about on a par with physical health and we can prevent many of these dreadful events. We are in the foothills where we talk about talking about it, talk about treating it, but actual discussion, actual action is still scant.
I think of it as part of the preventive healthcare we should do more of - which would save money, as well as lives and well being.0 -
One of the biggest issues at the US election will once again be healthcare and because of covid 19 will resonate even more .
This is a big problem for the GOP and Trump . Healthcare was the catalyst for the Dem take over of the House .
0 -
You are certianly right about companies taking advantage of the Furlough scheme. It is so brilliantly easy to claim. There is very little chance of any auditing taking place. I not sure the Government will care about a bit of excess claiming as it gets money into the economy and if the business survives all well and goodStocky said:
"Currently legally prohibited from operating" - yes. But I think it may prove to have been an error to include companies that were NOT not legally prohibited from opening/operating.Pulpstar said:The furlough scheme is basically to keep companies, many of whom are currently legally prohibited from operating ticking over till and a bit past the point at which they can all legally operate. At that point basic demand determines whether they can carry on going as the furlough scheme disappears.
This point was discussed on here between me and kinabalu the day after Sunak`s original announcement. I believe that the scheme is being used more widely - and sometime dubiously - than Sunak intended.0 -
At the moment Nad is chucking a dead cat on the table to distract from PMQs but we can expect to hear more of this as the election looms, which gives SKS four years to come up with a clear answer or face defeat.DavidL said:
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.Theuniondivvie said:Revealing, but not quite in the way Nads thinks.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1260843881551233024?s=200 -
Alternatively in the run up to the election the spin can be how Sir K forensically used to be forensically effective at PMQs when he started but now his forensicness has diminished to not so forensic.TOPPING said:
Yes of course. But I don't think the virus is waiting for him to recuperate. Hand over to someone (is that constitutionally possible?) and then come back when you are 100%. Although of course we know that he won't do that. But as I say I seem to be in the minority amongst Cons supporters to think we should have a 100% fit PM.TGOHF666 said:
Depends if its permanent or not - he is likely to feel very different in the weeks and months ahead.TOPPING said:As for some on topic stuff:
2) Yes he is diminished and weaker since CV-19 and who could blame him; it sounds like a horrible disease especially if there are comorbidities or you are obese.
0 -
I think it's (crudely) edited to be exactly that ambiguous.DavidL said:
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.Theuniondivvie said:Revealing, but not quite in the way Nads thinks.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1260843881551233024?s=200 -
That was my own conclusion.Theuniondivvie said:
I think it's (crudely) edited to be exactly that ambiguous.DavidL said:
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.Theuniondivvie said:Revealing, but not quite in the way Nads thinks.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1260843881551233024?s=200 -
Yes, I thought they were value (I also bet on 250-299 Tory seats for a similar reason by the way) as I thought they’d be sticky in defence as Unionist voters coalesced to block the SNP but that didn’t transpire.Theuniondivvie said:
You also backed SCons at 10-15 and 15-20 mps at the last GE didn't you?Casino_Royale said:
Confirmation bias means allowing your personal opinions to influence your analysis and decision making, in this case on this site in the matter of betting on politics.Nigel_Foremain said:
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.Casino_Royale said:
You see, that’s what I mean.Jonathan said:
Please don't inject toilet duck.Casino_Royale said:
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.Jonathan said:
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.Casino_Royale said:
Another complacent in a state of denial.edmundintokyo said:
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.Casino_Royale said:
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.
I am free of confirmation bias in that sense and have made quite a bit of money as a result. My record should hopefully speak for itself.
If you want another example, I’m betting on the SNP to win a majority at Holyrood next year despite being a staunch Unionist.
That makes me a bit depressed about SNP prospects.
I ended up making quite a nice sum on the night as I adjusted.
You can point to bets I’ve got wrong in every single election but it’s the overall profit that I’m looking for.0 -
He was but he’s not the same as him.Jonathan said:
Eh? He was editor at Guido.Casino_Royale said:
I think lumping him in with Guido is a bit much.Jonathan said:
Never had much time for the Guido/ToryBear gang. Right wing tabloid/gutter journalism surprisingly ain't my bag. He will no doubt be an asset to the Boris in the Sun.Casino_Royale said:
You dislike him for the same reasons?Jonathan said:
You like Tory Bear. 🤷♂️Casino_Royale said:
Harry is an excellent choice. Superb journalist.Jonathan said:
Hard for the Sun to go downmarket, but it has. Boris will sleep a little more sweetly.rottenborough said:
He’s his own man.0 -
Finding the statistics myself, 90.4% were within 4 hours, back to the performance in June 2018.LostPassword said:https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/14/a-and-e-attendance-england-record-low-covid-19-lockdown
"Data published by NHS England shows 0.9 million attendances were recorded in April 2020, down 57% from 2.1 million in April 2019."
The article doesn't say whether the waiting time target was met.
It's not that I would prefer a further deterioration, but it does seem weird that performance should improve with the extra strain of a pandemic.
See: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/ae-waiting-times-and-activity/ae-attendances-and-emergency-admissions-2020-21/0 -
That is right, what SKS says doesn't amount to a complete sentence. Everything that is wrong about twitter.DavidL said:
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.Theuniondivvie said:Revealing, but not quite in the way Nads thinks.
hps://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1260843881551233024?s=20
0 -
It is easy to claim if you know what you are doing but as previously discussed here, a lot of small businesses may be run by lone entrepreneurs who struggle with legalistic gobbledegook, perhaps leading to unnecessary lay-offs and closures. The SNP MP's question yesterday may be due to this, and the Prime Minister offered to help. The government has recently simplified its guidance on how to claim, so acknowledges the issue.NerysHughes said:
You are certianly right about companies taking advantage of the Furlough scheme. It is so brilliantly easy to claim. There is very little chance of any auditing taking place. I not sure the Government will care about a bit of excess claiming as it gets money into the economy and if the business survives all well and goodStocky said:
"Currently legally prohibited from operating" - yes. But I think it may prove to have been an error to include companies that were NOT not legally prohibited from opening/operating.Pulpstar said:The furlough scheme is basically to keep companies, many of whom are currently legally prohibited from operating ticking over till and a bit past the point at which they can all legally operate. At that point basic demand determines whether they can carry on going as the furlough scheme disappears.
This point was discussed on here between me and kinabalu the day after Sunak`s original announcement. I believe that the scheme is being used more widely - and sometime dubiously - than Sunak intended.0 -
Starmer was saying that the previous focus on the credibility of the witnesses rather than the credibility of the allegations themselves was wrong. That was why he was changing the guidelines. He was asked for examples of where things were going wrong. The list in that clip was his reply to that question. I would say Nadine Dorris is flirting with a libel case in reposting that clip.DavidL said:
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.Theuniondivvie said:Revealing, but not quite in the way Nads thinks.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1260843881551233024?s=20
A longer extract of the interview here makes it clear that Starmer's intent was to change this situation.
https://twitter.com/AwayFromTheKeys/status/12608472178390466561 -
Sanders is also a populist, the perfect populist though would campaign on shutting the borders and slashing immigration, against globalisation and for tariffs and for raising taxes on the rich ie a combination of Trump and Sanders or here Boris or Farage and CorbynDecrepiterJohnL said:
One question, perhaps not for today, is whether Trump really is a populist or just campaigns as one. Would a true populist have passed tax cuts for billionaires or try to scrap Obamacare? I think not.HYUFD said:
Trump got 46% in 2016, Boris got 44% in 2019 (and Farage 3%), he is the US Boris, just the US is a more right-wing country than the UK so he is also even more right-wing and populist than Boris tooNigel_Foremain said:
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.Casino_Royale said:
You see, that’s what I mean.Jonathan said:
Please don't inject toilet duck.Casino_Royale said:
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.Jonathan said:
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.Casino_Royale said:
Another complacent in a state of denial.edmundintokyo said:
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.Casino_Royale said:
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.0 -
From a political point of view, the fact Dorris et al are reposting this nonsense indicates the Tories are taking Starmer a lot more seriously.FF43 said:
Starmer was saying that the previous focus on the credibility of the witnesses rather than the credibility of the allegations themselves was wrong. That was why he was changing the guidelines. He was asked for examples of where things were going wrong. The list in that clip was his reply to that question. I would say Nadine Dorris is flirting with a libel case in reposting that clip.DavidL said:
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.Theuniondivvie said:Revealing, but not quite in the way Nads thinks.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1260843881551233024?s=20
A longer extract of the interview here makes it clear that Starmer's intent was to change this situation.
https://twitter.com/AwayFromTheKeys/status/12608472178390466560 -
On the plus side, it is the only instance I have ever seen of the language migrating from the wrong to the correct use of a word. A pleasing incident in a world of honing in on, free reign, unchartered waters and referencing things rather than referring to them.TGOHF666 said:
Alternatively in the run up to the election the spin can be how Sir K forensically used to be forensically effective at PMQs when he started but now his forensicness has diminished to not so forensic.TOPPING said:
Yes of course. But I don't think the virus is waiting for him to recuperate. Hand over to someone (is that constitutionally possible?) and then come back when you are 100%. Although of course we know that he won't do that. But as I say I seem to be in the minority amongst Cons supporters to think we should have a 100% fit PM.TGOHF666 said:
Depends if its permanent or not - he is likely to feel very different in the weeks and months ahead.TOPPING said:As for some on topic stuff:
2) Yes he is diminished and weaker since CV-19 and who could blame him; it sounds like a horrible disease especially if there are comorbidities or you are obese.0 -
The Starmer clip put out by Dorries is indeed revealing. Very revealing indeed. Very very revealing in fact.0
-
I will vote Tory as usualTOPPING said:
We shall see what the offer is. I think Boris is a tosser and the floodgates have opened on the fiscal side so frankly, I will take a long hard look at the manifestos in 2024. As should any sentient being.HYUFD said:
Good on you as long as you stick to that and don't switch to Starmer or the LDs now Corbyn's goneTOPPING said:
Of course I did you banana. Just like you I voted Cons in 2019 and Remain in 2016.HYUFD said:
Did you vote Tory in 2019 than if you are a Cons supporter?TOPPING said:
Yes of course. But I don't think the virus is waiting for him to recuperate. Hand over to someone (is that constitutionally possible?) and then come back when you are 100%. Although of course we know that he won't do that. But as I say I seem to be in the minority amongst Cons supporters to think we should have a 100% fit PM.TGOHF666 said:
Depends if its permanent or not - he is likely to feel very different in the weeks and months ahead.TOPPING said:As for some on topic stuff:
2) Yes he is diminished and weaker since CV-19 and who could blame him; it sounds like a horrible disease especially if there are comorbidities or you are obese.
A fiscally loose, Leave party is not what you support so how will you vote?0 -
Given he was DPP from 2008-2013, I'd suggest a fair amount of that happened on his watch. One might say he was "asleep at the wheel".FF43 said:
Starmer was saying that the previous focus on the credibility of the witnesses rather than the credibility of the allegations themselves was wrong. That was why he was changing the guidelines. He was asked for examples of where things were going wrong. The list in that clip was his reply to that question. I would say Nadine Dorris is flirting with a libel case in reposting that clip.DavidL said:
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.Theuniondivvie said:Revealing, but not quite in the way Nads thinks.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1260843881551233024?s=20
A longer extract of the interview here makes it clear that Starmer's intent was to change this situation.
https://twitter.com/AwayFromTheKeys/status/12608472178390466560 -
What? We do not know whether the sentrence starts "The key principles to which I will stick through thick and thin are..." or "The most egregious among the many mistakes we have made are..." But clearly you do, so which is it?Pulpstar said:The Starmer clip put out by Dorries is indeed revealing. Very revealing indeed. Very very revealing in fact.
0 -
The difference is Holyrood has PR not just FPTP like Westminster so easier for the SNP to lose its majority at Holyrood.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, I thought they were value (I also bet on 250-299 Tory seats for a similar reason by the way) as I thought they’d be sticky in defence as Unionist voters coalesced to block the SNP but that didn’t transpire.Theuniondivvie said:
You also backed SCons at 10-15 and 15-20 mps at the last GE didn't you?Casino_Royale said:
Confirmation bias means allowing your personal opinions to influence your analysis and decision making, in this case on this site in the matter of betting on politics.Nigel_Foremain said:
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.Casino_Royale said:
You see, that’s what I mean.Jonathan said:
Please don't inject toilet duck.Casino_Royale said:
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.Jonathan said:
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.Casino_Royale said:
Another complacent in a state of denial.edmundintokyo said:
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.Casino_Royale said:
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.
I am free of confirmation bias in that sense and have made quite a bit of money as a result. My record should hopefully speak for itself.
If you want another example, I’m betting on the SNP to win a majority at Holyrood next year despite being a staunch Unionist.
That makes me a bit depressed about SNP prospects.
I ended up making quite a nice sum on the night as I adjusted.
You can point to bets I’ve got wrong in every single election but it’s the overall profit that I’m looking for.
5 Unionist gains from the SNP and Greens would give a Unionist majority next year even with SNP most seats still0 -
I think Team SKS is going to be pretty satisfied with the way the week has gone so far. Very, very satisfied in fact.Pulpstar said:The Starmer clip put out by Dorries is indeed revealing. Very revealing indeed. Very very revealing in fact.
0 -
Yes, that is much clearer but it remains a period when the CPS very badly failed thousands of very vulnerable children with new guidelines or not. What this does show is that he was aware of the problem. The results of his intervention were extremely disappointing until well after he left. So I think he has serious questions to answer about this but that particular clip is misleading in the extreme.FF43 said:
Starmer was saying that the previous focus on the credibility of the witnesses rather than the credibility of the allegations themselves was wrong. That was why he was changing the guidelines. He was asked for examples of where things were going wrong. The list in that clip was his reply to that question. I would say Nadine Dorris is flirting with a libel case in reposting that clip.DavidL said:
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.Theuniondivvie said:Revealing, but not quite in the way Nads thinks.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1260843881551233024?s=20
A longer extract of the interview here makes it clear that Starmer's intent was to change this situation.
https://twitter.com/AwayFromTheKeys/status/12608472178390466560 -
Aha! Kudos for finding that.FF43 said:
From a political point of view, the fact Dorris et al are reposting this nonsense indicates the Tories are taking Starmer a lot more seriously.FF43 said:
Starmer was saying that the previous focus on the credibility of the witnesses rather than the credibility of the allegations themselves was wrong. That was why he was changing the guidelines. He was asked for examples of where things were going wrong. The list in that clip was his reply to that question. I would say Nadine Dorris is flirting with a libel case in reposting that clip.DavidL said:
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.Theuniondivvie said:Revealing, but not quite in the way Nads thinks.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1260843881551233024?s=20
A longer extract of the interview here makes it clear that Starmer's intent was to change this situation.
https://twitter.com/AwayFromTheKeys/status/12608472178390466560 -
Good grief. That argument is a hell of a stretch. It’s ok to lump the editor of Guido in with Guido.Casino_Royale said:Jonathan said:
Eh? He was editor at Guido.Casino_Royale said:
I think lumping him in with Guido is a bit much.Jonathan said:
Never had much time for the Guido/ToryBear gang. Right wing tabloid/gutter journalism surprisingly ain't my bag. He will no doubt be an asset to the Boris in the Sun.Casino_Royale said:
You dislike him for the same reasons?Jonathan said:
You like Tory Bear. 🤷♂️Casino_Royale said:
Harry is an excellent choice. Superb journalist.Jonathan said:
Hard for the Sun to go downmarket, but it has. Boris will sleep a little more sweetly.rottenborough said:
He was but he’s not the same as him.
He’s his own man.
0
This discussion has been closed.