politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The WH2020 betting and polling continue to look good for Biden

LadyG said:

williamglenn said:

LadyG said:

Suicide watch

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1278686132172193801?s=20

Her or Prince Andrew?

Yes, this is not good news for our dear Prince A.

They won't be able to get away with another "hey, look, squirrel, oh she's committed suicide, never mind", so presumably she will go to trial.

That will be explosive, unless she does some plea bargain.

She will be in court later today. We will soon see therefore.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG - I'm not sure that's true. The Nazis really did consider shipping all the Jews to Madagascar, for instance. Or Siberia.

What Hitler wanted, at first, was a Europe that was "Judenrein" - "free of Jews". This didn't necessarily mean killing them all, just moving them far far away.

It was at the Wannsee Conference that this policy crystallised into the Final Solution.

SeaShanty - Temporary expedients. Mein Kampf is pretty clear: earth would be a better place without the Jews. Only one logical outcome. Might take a while but in the end - the Final Solution.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1277490108124594176?s=19

FF43 said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

LadyG said:

FF43 said:

LadyG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CatMan said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278646894290501639

Did Starkey actually say this?

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642?s=20

Starkey has always been utterly vile.

Will 'X wasn't genocide cos it only killed 6 million of Y, and how do we know it was 6 million anyway' be Starkey's next schtick?

Is Starkey gaslighting people who believe the Atlantic slave trade was one of the great crimes of the modern age?

Yes, the whole statement is bizarre, quite apart from the hideous cuss word "damn".

There is a good argument that slavery was and is a grotesque stain on human civilisation, but has never been a genocide, as such: slaves have been taken from all human races, by all other human races. But he makes it in the most slapdash and incoherent way.

Did he have a stiff pre-lunch lockdown gin and tonic?

I think a slave trade that lead to millions, maybe tens of millions, of deaths of Africans, can reasonably be described as a genocide

No. A genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people from one ethnic group, or an attempt to kill them all".

Slavery was never that. It was explicitly not that: they wanted the slaves alive so they could work. The many, many deaths were an unfortunate loss of valuable goods.

I am not in any way diminishing the horror of slavery. There is an argument to say that slavery is the greatest crime humans have done to other humans, taken in toto. Hundreds of millions of people have been slaved over the centuries.

But genocide is an important and powerful word and we shouldn't weaken it by using it too liberally.

The fact people survived isn't relevant to the question. That's a hole Starkey has fallen into. The question is whether the killing on a mass scale of a people of targeted ethnicity is sufficient to be deemed genocide, or whether there needs to be a deliberate intention to eliminate a race. Problem is the moral distinctions aren't clear. So Nazi concentration camps with gas chambers is genocide; without gas chambers it isn't. Not sure about the usefulness of that distinction.

I thought it was quite clear that the Nazis were engaged in genocide before the gas chambers - they had formed death squads to eliminate Jews, they were meticulous about counting Jews in territory they conquered for the purpose of eliminating them, etc.

The gas chambers came later because they were more efficient at killing large numbers than using bullets and firing squads. This is a difference in degree, but intent.

The German economy of 1930s was a slave economy. The concentration camps were a key part of that. The government was completely indifferent to who survived and who didn't - plenty more where they came from. But they did need those people to survive for a while to be productive. In that sense no different from the owners and traders of the UK slave trade.

Yes, but as has been pointed out, that was a means to an end, which was race destruction.

The slave trade is of a different nature, as its victims were viewed as tradeable assets. Where it shades into genocide is that from the point of view of the slaver, the destruction of its victims through overwork was a benefit, since it created additional demand - and the more brutal forms of plantation slavery did just that.

Gallowgate said:

@HYUFD are you still laughing at any suggestion that there will be tax rises?

From this Tory government no, there will be neither tax rises nor spending cuts.

A Starmer government would certainly increase tax however

LadyG said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Malmesbury said:

contrarian said:

LadyG said:

brokenwheel said:

LadyG said:

FF43 said:

LadyG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CatMan said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278646894290501639

Did Starkey actually say this?

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642?s=20

Starkey has always been utterly vile.

Will 'X wasn't genocide cos it only killed 6 million of Y, and how do we know it was 6 million anyway' be Starkey's next schtick?

Is Starkey gaslighting people who believe the Atlantic slave trade was one of the great crimes of the modern age?

Yes, the whole statement is bizarre, quite apart from the hideous cuss word "damn".

There is a good argument that slavery was and is a grotesque stain on human civilisation, but has never been a genocide, as such: slaves have been taken from all human races, by all other human races. But he makes it in the most slapdash and incoherent way.

Did he have a stiff pre-lunch lockdown gin and tonic?

I think a slave trade that lead to millions, maybe tens of millions, of deaths of Africans, can reasonably be described as a genocide

No. A genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people from one ethnic group, or an attempt to kill them all".

Slavery was never that. It was explicitly not that: they wanted the slaves alive so they could work. The many, many deaths were an unfortunate loss of valuable goods.

I am not in any way diminishing the horror of slavery. There is an argument to say that slavery is the greatest crime humans have done to other humans, taken in toto. Hundreds of millions of people have been slaved over the centuries.

But genocide is an important and powerful word and we shouldn't weaken it by using it too liberally.

Attempts to make out slavery was genocide, as if simply slavery=bad is not enough, is diminishing what actually happened. Slavery doesn't have to be genocide to be something horrific that should never happen again.

Yes, it's a kind of distraction, even a diversion.

Slavery is a uniquely awful form of human evil: treating other humans as objects, possessions, or animals, to be bought, sold, bred and abused.

It stands alone in its scale and horror. It should be seen as such.

True, but it is different from the attempted extermination of a race, like the holocaust. The Nazis did not want anything to do with the Jews. They just wanted them gone. Eliminated (though admittedly some were used as slave labour).

Two kinds of horrible evil. But two different kinds.

Actually, the Nazi policy evolved from WorkThemReallyHardAsSlaves to WorkThem ToDeathAsSlaves and then to KillThem.

The first policy was then continued with groups such as Russian prisoners of war. Whose conditions and death rates resembled the worst versions of the older forms of slavery (mines were always particularly horrible for slaves)

Hitler's policy was ALWAYS to rid the earth of the Jewish people. Any seeming evolution was strictly tactical.

I'm not sure that's true. The Nazis really did consider shipping all the Jews to Madagascar, for instance. Or Siberia.

What Hitler wanted, at first, was a Europe that was "Judenrein" - "free of Jews". This didn't necessarily mean killing them all, just moving them far far away.

Cue Ken Livingstone for a monotonic musing at great length on and around this point.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

williamglenn said:

LadyG said:

Suicide watch

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1278686132172193801?s=20

Her or Prince Andrew?

Yes, this is not good news for our dear Prince A.

They won't be able to get away with another "hey, look, squirrel, oh she's committed suicide, never mind", so presumably she will go to trial.

That will be explosive, unless she does some plea bargain.

Do you think that it will come to this - the UK extraditing HRH Prince Arsehole to face his American accusers? A prince of the blood? Mama must be so proud!

It will never happen.
Let's put it this way, if the US won't extradite the wife of a minor spy then the UK won't give up the favourite son of our beloved head of state.
But Andrew might have to avoid the States from now on.

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

@HYUFD are you still laughing at any suggestion that there will be tax rises?

From this Tory government no, there will be neither tax rises nor spending cuts.

A Starmer government would certainly increase tax however

If we have no tax rises or spending cuts of any kind whatsoever between now and 2024, then that is a racing certainty yes.
For Starmer or any one else.

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

@HYUFD are you still laughing at any suggestion that there will be tax rises?

From this Tory government no, there will be neither tax rises nor spending cuts.

A Starmer government would certainly increase tax however

One to bookmark, I think.

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

contrarian said:

MrEd said:

contrarian said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

contrarian said:

US stock markets poised for a strong open after US jobs data looked better than expected.

Fantastic for my oil investments.

Maybe not so good for Biden investments though

Sounding a bit like a Trumpster there, @contrarian

Not really a supporter, just putting the other side of the argument. As usual!

C'mon. You strongly want Trump to beat Biden. You all but wear a tee shirt saying so. But I have not heard you talk much about the betting on it, so I'm curious about that aspect. Have you backed him to win too?

I wouldn't dream of backing Trump, because I have no idea who will win, and so I wouldn't have the courage of my convictions. But I wouldn't mind if he won. I can readily see how ghastly he is. I can see how an American who was very conscious of how America is perceived abroad would fervently wish him gone. But my feelings on the subject are ambivalent. For a few reasons, but firstly and foremostly because for whatever reason (quite possibly because he is in hock to foreign powers, who knows), Trump has not started World War III. Hillary would have. We could, in 2020, have been fighting a disease, and fighting each other - thank the heavens we are only doing one.

Secondly because I think with 'America first', Trump is only crudely re-expressing America's consistent foreign policy, from the declaration of independence, until today. Others may be desperate to put the lipstick back on the pig, but I can't get excited about that.

Well if you genuinely hold the firm view that Hillary Clinton as POTUS would have started World War III, it makes perfect sense to have wanted Trump to win in 2016. I would have been rooting for him too if I'd thought that.

But that was then, this is now. It only holds again this time if you think Sleepy Joe is also hot to trot for some World War III. Which seems a bit far-fetched.

As to your second reason. OK, so you'd rather a pig go "au naturel" than make a bit of an effort. I can't see any upside at all to that.

Nigelb said:

FF43 said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

LadyG said:

FF43 said:

LadyG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CatMan said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278646894290501639

Did Starkey actually say this?

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642?s=20

Starkey has always been utterly vile.

Will 'X wasn't genocide cos it only killed 6 million of Y, and how do we know it was 6 million anyway' be Starkey's next schtick?

Is Starkey gaslighting people who believe the Atlantic slave trade was one of the great crimes of the modern age?

Yes, the whole statement is bizarre, quite apart from the hideous cuss word "damn".

There is a good argument that slavery was and is a grotesque stain on human civilisation, but has never been a genocide, as such: slaves have been taken from all human races, by all other human races. But he makes it in the most slapdash and incoherent way.

Did he have a stiff pre-lunch lockdown gin and tonic?

I think a slave trade that lead to millions, maybe tens of millions, of deaths of Africans, can reasonably be described as a genocide

No. A genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people from one ethnic group, or an attempt to kill them all".

Slavery was never that. It was explicitly not that: they wanted the slaves alive so they could work. The many, many deaths were an unfortunate loss of valuable goods.

I am not in any way diminishing the horror of slavery. There is an argument to say that slavery is the greatest crime humans have done to other humans, taken in toto. Hundreds of millions of people have been slaved over the centuries.

But genocide is an important and powerful word and we shouldn't weaken it by using it too liberally.

The fact people survived isn't relevant to the question. That's a hole Starkey has fallen into. The question is whether the killing on a mass scale of a people of targeted ethnicity is sufficient to be deemed genocide, or whether there needs to be a deliberate intention to eliminate a race. Problem is the moral distinctions aren't clear. So Nazi concentration camps with gas chambers is genocide; without gas chambers it isn't. Not sure about the usefulness of that distinction.

I thought it was quite clear that the Nazis were engaged in genocide before the gas chambers - they had formed death squads to eliminate Jews, they were meticulous about counting Jews in territory they conquered for the purpose of eliminating them, etc.

The gas chambers came later because they were more efficient at killing large numbers than using bullets and firing squads. This is a difference in degree, but intent.

The German economy of 1930s was a slave economy. The concentration camps were a key part of that. The government was completely indifferent to who survived and who didn't - plenty more where they came from. But they did need those people to survive for a while to be productive. In that sense no different from the owners and traders of the UK slave trade.

Yes, but as has been pointed out, that was a means to an end, which was race destruction.

The slave trade is of a different nature, as its victims were viewed as tradeable assets. Where it shades into genocide is that from the point of view of the slaver, the destruction of its victims through overwork was a benefit, since it created additional demand - and the more brutal forms of plantation slavery did just that.

I studied Germany in WW2 a bit as part of my undergraduate degree - but from an economics standpoint.

As I seem to recall, the policy against Jews was indeed one of destruction, not slavery evolving into destruction. I seem to remember a journal by Himmler, actively regretting that they had not seen the Jews as a source of labour (as Germany's lack of human resource as the war progressed became a bigger and bigger problem), rather than a problem to be 'solved'. Enslavement would have been quite literally 'the lesser of two evils', as it would have entailed keeping the Jewish population alive and healthy enough to work. But the Nazi's very pernicious brand of wickedness prevented that from happening.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

From late 1930s - early 1940s to great British parliamentarian diarists, Henry "Chips" Channon and Harold Nicholson.

Chips Channon drank the Hitlerian koo-aid in large sips. Was impressed by the "New Germany" and eager to have Ambassador Ribbentrop over to dine with the creme (albeit somewhat curdled) of the British establishment.

Harold Nicolson saw through the Nazi fraud (despite being a friend of Sir Oswald Mosley) almost immediately. Not only did NOT want to break bread with the Fuhrer's favorite champagne salesman, he had no problem calling him and his entourage outright envoys of evil.

Diaries of Chips Channon are a fun read and great historical resource. BUT diaries of Harold Nicholson are better and greater by far.

If you've got the time & money post-pandemic, visit yet another of HN's legacies: Sissinghurst Castle Gardens.

Nicolson I believe, not a relative

Ghislaine Maxweii arrested by FBI.

Prince Andrew might be concerned.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

williamglenn said:

LadyG said:

Suicide watch

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1278686132172193801?s=20

Her or Prince Andrew?

Yes, this is not good news for our dear Prince A.

They won't be able to get away with another "hey, look, squirrel, oh she's committed suicide, never mind", so presumably she will go to trial.

That will be explosive, unless she does some plea bargain.

Do you think that it will come to this - the UK extraditing HRH Prince Arsehole to face his American accusers? A prince of the blood? Mama must be so proud!

It will never happen.
Let's put it this way, if the US won't extradite the wife of a minor spy then the UK won't give up the favourite son of our beloved head of state.
But Andrew might have to avoid the States from now on.

Point about the hit-and-run-across-the-ocean killer driver is VERY well taken. That was a travesty of the "Special Relationship".

As for Prince Arsehole, would indeed advise him to NEVER step foot on these shores (Pacific and Atlantic) and anywhere in between EVER again.

Know he's dumb as fuq and twice as nasty, but doubt even he's THAT stupid.

Probably ought to avoid Canada & rest of Commonwealth as well. In fact, British government should exile His Royal Foulness to one of the less attractive rocks in the South Shetlands - without his anorak.

LadyG said:

williamglenn said:

LadyG said:

Suicide watch

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1278686132172193801?s=20

Her or Prince Andrew?

Yes, this is not good news for our dear Prince A.

They won't be able to get away with another "hey, look, squirrel, oh she's committed suicide, never mind", so presumably she will go to trial.

That will be explosive, unless she does some plea bargain.

She won't "commit suicide".


She'll "die with coronavirus".

nichomar said:

Second dose of liquid chemo today, first went well with no side effects hopefully this goes just as well. Hot and humid out here now dealing with forty localized outbreaks Aragon and Andalusia most cases, first death in Murcia for 28 days. All sources located and tracing and quarantine underway.

Good luck with it all.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

williamglenn said:

LadyG said:

Suicide watch

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1278686132172193801?s=20

Her or Prince Andrew?

Yes, this is not good news for our dear Prince A.

They won't be able to get away with another "hey, look, squirrel, oh she's committed suicide, never mind", so presumably she will go to trial.

That will be explosive, unless she does some plea bargain.

Do you think that it will come to this - the UK extraditing HRH Prince Arsehole to face his American accusers? A prince of the blood? Mama must be so proud!

It will never happen.
Let's put it this way, if the US won't extradite the wife of a minor spy then the UK won't give up the favourite son of our beloved head of state.
But Andrew might have to avoid the States from now on.

Might start sweating again though.

dixiedean said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Nigelb said:

FF43 said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

LadyG said:

FF43 said:

LadyG said:

Theuniondivvie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

CatMan said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278646894290501639

Did Starkey actually say this?

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1278636923330928642?s=20

Starkey has always been utterly vile.

Will 'X wasn't genocide cos it only killed 6 million of Y, and how do we know it was 6 million anyway' be Starkey's next schtick?

Is Starkey gaslighting people who believe the Atlantic slave trade was one of the great crimes of the modern age?

Yes, the whole statement is bizarre, quite apart from the hideous cuss word "damn".

There is a good argument that slavery was and is a grotesque stain on human civilisation, but has never been a genocide, as such: slaves have been taken from all human races, by all other human races. But he makes it in the most slapdash and incoherent way.

Did he have a stiff pre-lunch lockdown gin and tonic?

I think a slave trade that lead to millions, maybe tens of millions, of deaths of Africans, can reasonably be described as a genocide

No. A genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people from one ethnic group, or an attempt to kill them all".

Slavery was never that. It was explicitly not that: they wanted the slaves alive so they could work. The many, many deaths were an unfortunate loss of valuable goods.

I am not in any way diminishing the horror of slavery. There is an argument to say that slavery is the greatest crime humans have done to other humans, taken in toto. Hundreds of millions of people have been slaved over the centuries.

But genocide is an important and powerful word and we shouldn't weaken it by using it too liberally.

The fact people survived isn't relevant to the question. That's a hole Starkey has fallen into. The question is whether the killing on a mass scale of a people of targeted ethnicity is sufficient to be deemed genocide, or whether there needs to be a deliberate intention to eliminate a race. Problem is the moral distinctions aren't clear. So Nazi concentration camps with gas chambers is genocide; without gas chambers it isn't. Not sure about the usefulness of that distinction.

I thought it was quite clear that the Nazis were engaged in genocide before the gas chambers - they had formed death squads to eliminate Jews, they were meticulous about counting Jews in territory they conquered for the purpose of eliminating them, etc.

The gas chambers came later because they were more efficient at killing large numbers than using bullets and firing squads. This is a difference in degree, but intent.

The German economy of 1930s was a slave economy. The concentration camps were a key part of that. The government was completely indifferent to who survived and who didn't - plenty more where they came from. But they did need those people to survive for a while to be productive. In that sense no different from the owners and traders of the UK slave trade.

Yes, but as has been pointed out, that was a means to an end, which was race destruction.

The slave trade is of a different nature, as its victims were viewed as tradeable assets. Where it shades into genocide is that from the point of view of the slaver, the destruction of its victims through overwork was a benefit, since it created additional demand - and the more brutal forms of plantation slavery did just that.

I studied Germany in WW2 a bit as part of my undergraduate degree - but from an economics standpoint.

As I seem to recall, the policy against Jews was indeed one of destruction, not slavery evolving into destruction. I seem to remember a journal by Himmler, actively regretting that they had not seen the Jews as a source of labour (as Germany's lack of human resource as the war progressed became a bigger and bigger problem), rather than a problem to be 'solved'. Enslavement would have been quite literally 'the lesser of two evils', as it would have entailed keeping the Jewish population alive and healthy enough to work. But the Nazi's very pernicious brand of wickedness prevented that from happening.

In his book on WW2 Max Hastings also takes the view that it would have made much more sense economically to enlist the Jews rather than try to eradicate them, which was an expensive as well as inhumane business.

Nazis weren't big on sense. Economic or otherwise.
It was one of their defining features

Of course the (further) tragedy of it was that plenty of Jews had fought in WWI for Germany and hence thought themselves as German as Bratwurst (is that from Austria?).

It is one of the reasons why many British Jews were so concerned at Jezza. No matter how embedded they are in British society, when politicians talk about Jews not understanding British irony...they worry.

LadyG said:

How the F has Ghislaine Maxwell been hiding in plain sight in New Hampshire all this time??

Curiouser and curiouser.

It might be small state but it's mountainous and densely wooded. There was a commuter jet went down in NH back in the 90s and it took three years to find it.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

BluestBlue said:

LadyG said:

The statue-topplers in Portland, Oregon, have now burned down that hideous, racist statue of.... < checks notes >... an elk

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1278592095222067201?s=20


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_(sculpture)

Stupid cultural vandals are stupid.

Yeah, but.

Have you ever talked to an elk, though?

They look all majestic and peaceful as they canter through the birch forests of Oregon, but give them a few beers, and out it comes, right on cue. Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, the works. Hideous. They also think coyotes are intrinsically lazy.

Elk also think they've got the right to poop anywhere they please. AND think nothing of wrecking your new car by jumping into the road anytime they get the notion.

And ladies, IF you've ever been offended/insulted by some yob shouting "Look at the rack on that babe!" well, you know who is REALLY to blame.

That whole "First they came for Thomas Jefferson" thing?

I didn't know we'd get to this bit: "Then they came for the elks"

Personally think elk are egotistical show-offs. Much prefer moose, most likely because of early brainwashing of my tender (if that's the right word) mind by the great "Rocky and Bullwinkle Show" co-staring Bullwinkle J. Moose the pride of Frostbite Falls, Minnesota.

Just to check, please, are 'elk' the same species as European Red Deer? I'm getting confused, as I am under the impression we in NW Europe call moose 'elk' ...

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

BluestBlue said:

LadyG said:

The statue-topplers in Portland, Oregon, have now burned down that hideous, racist statue of.... < checks notes >... an elk

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1278592095222067201?s=20


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_(sculpture)

Stupid cultural vandals are stupid.

Yeah, but.

Have you ever talked to an elk, though?

They look all majestic and peaceful as they canter through the birch forests of Oregon, but give them a few beers, and out it comes, right on cue. Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, the works. Hideous. They also think coyotes are intrinsically lazy.

Elk also think they've got the right to poop anywhere they please. AND think nothing of wrecking your new car by jumping into the road anytime they get the notion.

And ladies, IF you've ever been offended/insulted by some yob shouting "Look at the rack on that babe!" well, you know who is REALLY to blame.

"Elk" is a colonizer word The decolonization word is "moose".

Flying just got so much more fun.....

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1278688504814415873?s=20

CarlottaVance said:

Flying just got so much more fun.....

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1278688504814415873?s=20

I think I'm going to skip traveling until a vaccine.

Mexicanpete said:

BluestBlue said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1278686320504844288?s=19

We in lads!

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&amp;CON=42&amp;LAB=38&amp;LIB=8&amp;Brexit=0&amp;Green=5&amp;UKIP=&amp;TVCON=&amp;TVLAB=&amp;TVLIB=&amp;TVBrexit=&amp;TVGreen=&amp;TVUKIP=&amp;SCOTCON=21&amp;SCOTLAB=19&amp;SCOTLIB=6&amp;SCOTBrexit=0&amp;SCOTGreen=2&amp;SCOTUKIP=&amp;SCOTNAT=51&amp;display=AllChanged&amp;regorseat=(none)&amp;boundary=2019

Tiny Tory majority

You do realize that you would have frotted yourself senseless by following the polls for 4 and a half years of the Miliband leadership, only to see him go down in flames and the Tories win a majority in 2015? Not to mention your absolute certainty that Corbynite Labour was guaranteed victory from 2017 to 2019, which worked out ... how, exactly?

Roy Jenkins famously compared Tony Blair's meticulous caution and humility in the run-up to 1997 to an elderly butler carrying a priceless Ming vase across a polished marble floor. You're racing it round the Indianapolis Speedway without a seatbelt...

When will you learn?

I never expected confidence in the Government to decline so markedly in such a short time.

I did expect post-EU transition cross over at the end of next year, but it could come sooner.

We still have the post-Covid economic drag to come. Life is going to get tough for the Conservatives, I suspect quite soon.

I am hoping for no second wave and Johnson to get his act together, but I am not holding my breath for either.

I reckon crossover October/November, Labour go into the locals next May with a 4-6 point lead, but slightly underachieve that on NEV.

I don't think my voting patterns over the last few years sit me neatly in any grouping, but having not voted Labour for 5 years now, after 16 years of voting almost exclusively for them, I have other homes for different types of elections. If I don't need to bolster Starmer, I could see my next Labour vote being in 2024.

The FT are to blame, obviously.....

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1278704873475801090?s=20

A good thread on the immune response to Covid (and which has various links to informative papers):

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1278400526716211200

Death rates creeping up in the US:

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1278543966472994818

kinabalu said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kinabalu said:

contrarian said:

MrEd said:

contrarian said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

contrarian said:

US stock markets poised for a strong open after US jobs data looked better than expected.

Fantastic for my oil investments.

Maybe not so good for Biden investments though

Sounding a bit like a Trumpster there, @contrarian

Not really a supporter, just putting the other side of the argument. As usual!

C'mon. You strongly want Trump to beat Biden. You all but wear a tee shirt saying so. But I have not heard you talk much about the betting on it, so I'm curious about that aspect. Have you backed him to win too?

I wouldn't dream of backing Trump, because I have no idea who will win, and so I wouldn't have the courage of my convictions. But I wouldn't mind if he won. I can readily see how ghastly he is. I can see how an American who was very conscious of how America is perceived abroad would fervently wish him gone. But my feelings on the subject are ambivalent. For a few reasons, but firstly and foremostly because for whatever reason (quite possibly because he is in hock to foreign powers, who knows), Trump has not started World War III. Hillary would have. We could, in 2020, have been fighting a disease, and fighting each other - thank the heavens we are only doing one.

Secondly because I think with 'America first', Trump is only crudely re-expressing America's consistent foreign policy, from the declaration of independence, until today. Others may be desperate to put the lipstick back on the pig, but I can't get excited about that.

Well if you genuinely hold the firm view that Hillary Clinton as POTUS would have started World War III, it makes perfect sense to have wanted Trump to win in 2016. I would have been rooting for him too if I'd thought that.

But that was then, this is now. It only holds again this time if you think Sleepy Joe is also hot to trot for some World War III. Which seems a bit far-fetched.

As to your second reason. OK, so you'd rather a pig go "au naturel" than make a bit of an effort. I can't see any upside at all to that.

I don't believe Joe Biden is as warlike in character than Hillary, no, and that is a plus. But in Biden, you have someone who might be a bit of an Obama - reluctant to appear to be blood drenched (which is more than can be said for many) but unlikely to really kick hard against war if being dragged toward it. Trump on the other hand, whether it is because Putin has his balls in a jar, or whether he's secretly just a big ole softy, is actively against it, and the proof of that particular pudding has already been in the eating. So he still wins that top-trumps competition as far as I am concerned.

With your second point, like I said, the merit of the porcine beautification is all for a domestic audience. I can see why they would want a more Presidential President. For a foreign country, the value of a pig being a pig has already been felt. By virtue of Trump, Britain has been forced to develop a semblance of independence from the US that we have not had for decades. It's just a shame we've done that because America has an unsuitable and unpredictable leader, rather than why we should have - because they're a foreign power.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG - I'm not sure that's true. The Nazis really did consider shipping all the Jews to Madagascar, for instance. Or Siberia.

What Hitler wanted, at first, was a Europe that was "Judenrein" - "free of Jews". This didn't necessarily mean killing them all, just moving them far far away.

It was at the Wannsee Conference that this policy crystallised into the Final Solution.

Temporary expedients. Mein Kampf is pretty clear: earth would be a better place without the Jews. Only one logical outcome. Might take a while but in the end - the Final Solution.



Mass killing had certainly commenced long before mass gassing.

Jews were being shot in large numbers in Poland from 1939 onwards, and then from June 1941, in the Baltic States and the Soviet Union. At the same time, Jews were being deported from occupied Europe and those parts of Poland that were to be incorporated into the Reich to the General Government of Poland. Hans Frank and his people were complaining about having to feed and house them, as well as Poles who were deemed unsuitable for Germanisation. There was pressure from the top, and pressure from below, to finalise the "Jewish problem". The participants at Wannsee were all agreed that the Jews had to go, but there was some debate about the method. There was also debate about the fate of part-Jews, and Jews who were married to non-Jewish German women.

There was a second holocaust, related to the first, namely GeneralPlan Ost. There was broad agreement among the Nazis that the Slavs had to be starved or enslaved, and their upper and middle classes liquidated. But, there was considerable argument as to who was a Slav, and who had sufficiently valuable Aryan blood to be deemed suitable for "Germanisation.". Albert Foster, Gauleiter of West Prussia, was a "liberal" who took the view that virtually all Poles in his area should be treated as ethnically German. Artur Greiser expelled the lot to the General Government. The view was that most Estonians and Latvians and around half of Lithuanians could be Germanised. As with the Jewish holocaust, the arguments were about details, rather than principles.

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

Flying just got so much more fun.....

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1278688504814415873?s=20

The airlines are slowly going through a long list of reasons not to just get rid of the middle seats. I don’t know anyone who’s going to fly economy until they do, irrespective of the price of the ticket.

Mum, dad and child might prefer sitting in as 3 rather than one of them having to sit next to a stranger.

We called them moose in Canada. The thing on fire is a moose. Elk is the European word for the same species.
You're welcome.

BluestBlue said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1278686320504844288?s=19

We in lads!

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&amp;CON=42&amp;LAB=38&amp;LIB=8&amp;Brexit=0&amp;Green=5&amp;UKIP=&amp;TVCON=&amp;TVLAB=&amp;TVLIB=&amp;TVBrexit=&amp;TVGreen=&amp;TVUKIP=&amp;SCOTCON=21&amp;SCOTLAB=19&amp;SCOTLIB=6&amp;SCOTBrexit=0&amp;SCOTGreen=2&amp;SCOTUKIP=&amp;SCOTNAT=51&amp;display=AllChanged&amp;regorseat=(none)&amp;boundary=2019

Tiny Tory majority

You do realize that you would have frotted yourself senseless by following the polls for 4 and a half years of the Miliband leadership, only to see him go down in flames and the Tories win a majority in 2015? Not to mention your absolute certainty that Corbynite Labour was guaranteed victory from 2017 to 2019, which worked out ... how, exactly?

Roy Jenkins famously compared Tony Blair's meticulous caution and humility in the run-up to 1997 to an elderly butler carrying a priceless Ming vase across a polished marble floor. You're racing it round the Indianapolis Speedway without a seatbelt...

When will you learn?

He was a butler who also taught the kids not to run around while he was carrying that Ming Vase.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Gordy_Mc1ntosh/status/1277282539313549313

That’s an example of a good political cartoon compared to the rubbish you usually post

The cringeing obsession of remoaners with how we're perceived abroad is something akin to a mental disorder. We voted for Brexit to be an independent trading nation, with a democratically elected Government setting our own laws. I would be surprised if that rather humble aim did not eventually result in grudging respect in the counsels of the world, but if it results in interminable attempts at levity, that's fine too, I really couldn't give a toss, and neither should anyone else.

Speaking as someone who spends quite a lot of time talking to assorted foreigners in the fields of finance, economics and public policy, that's really not my experience. They all think we're bonkers and have an inflated idea of the UK's international importance.
The only exceptions are other Europeans who hate the EU and hope Brexit might hasten its demise.

I did say eventual. And in the meantime, it is mad to care, and if we care, to cultivate and brood on those feelings. I'm glad to have provided New Zealanders with a laugh - I am sure there are considerably more though who are genuinely looking forward to being our 'chums' - the loss of so much of their trade to Britain when we joined the EEC was devastating for their economy.

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: wee bit soggy in Austria.

https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/1278679952251129863

It’ll be fun if it’s like that all weekend!

Looking forward to this F1 season. I have a hunch that Vettel might surprise on the upside.

Although my hunches on F1 are really just hunches.

Ferrari have already said their car is going to be off the pace at the first few races, so I wouldn't get your hopes up too much.

Luckyguy1983 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Gordy_Mc1ntosh/status/1277282539313549313

That’s an example of a good political cartoon compared to the rubbish you usually post

The cringeing obsession of remoaners with how we're perceived abroad is something akin to a mental disorder. We voted for Brexit to be an independent trading nation, with a democratically elected Government setting our own laws. I would be surprised if that rather humble aim did not eventually result in grudging respect in the counsels of the world, but if it results in interminable attempts at levity, that's fine too, I really couldn't give a toss, and neither should anyone else.

Speaking as someone who spends quite a lot of time talking to assorted foreigners in the fields of finance, economics and public policy, that's really not my experience. They all think we're bonkers and have an inflated idea of the UK's international importance.
The only exceptions are other Europeans who hate the EU and hope Brexit might hasten its demise.

I did say eventual. And in the meantime, it is mad to care, and if we care, to cultivate and brood on those feelings. I'm glad to have provided New Zealanders with a laugh - I am sure there are considerably more though who are genuinely looking forward to being our 'chums' - the loss of so much of their trade to Britain when we joined the EEC was devastating for their economy.

No chums, remember, only interests. And the RoW will see us as a potentially weaker negotiating partner now. Certainly they will if they take notice of Boris' caving to date.

eristdoof said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

Flying just got so much more fun.....

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1278688504814415873?s=20

The airlines are slowly going through a long list of reasons not to just get rid of the middle seats. I don’t know anyone who’s going to fly economy until they do, irrespective of the price of the ticket.

Mum, dad and child might prefer sitting in as 3 rather than one of them having to sit next to a stranger.

If someone wants a middle seat then fine, but the vast majority of people are going to want an empty seat next to them for as long as there’s a nasty virus going round.

There’s been a few passenger surveys about processes and disruption, and that’s the only thing that people have a strong opinion on - they’ll happily pay more to not sit next to a stranger. Most people intending to travel soon are not going on holiday, they’re travelling because they need to.

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: wee bit soggy in Austria.

https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/1278679952251129863

It’ll be fun if it’s like that all weekend!

Looking forward to this F1 season. I have a hunch that Vettel might surprise on the upside.

Although my hunches on F1 are really just hunches.

I might be inclined to agree when it comes to relative performance vs his team mate. In absolute terms though, it looks like Ferrari have built a total pig of a car.

Yes I meant against Leclerc. Think I'll bet that way for small sums.

Stereotomy said:

Sandpit said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

williamglenn said:

LadyG said:

Suicide watch

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1278686132172193801?s=20

Her or Prince Andrew?

Yes, this is not good news for our dear Prince A.

They won't be able to get away with another "hey, look, squirrel, oh she's committed suicide, never mind", so presumably she will go to trial.

That will be explosive, unless she does some plea bargain.

Do you think that it will come to this - the UK extraditing HRH Prince Arsehole to face his American accusers? A prince of the blood? Mama must be so proud!

It will never happen.
Let's put it this way, if the US won't extradite the wife of a minor spy then the UK won't give up the favourite son of our beloved head of state.
But Andrew might have to avoid the States from now on.

Maxwell has surely been getting her black book and diaries up to date, and is going to sing like the proverbial canary if she can’t be ‘suicided’ first? She knows pretty much everyone in American high society.

Yeah, Andrew won’t be travelling much any more, certainly not to anywhere with a US extradition treaty in place. UK won’t send him across the pond for obvious reasons, but how we reply to a formal request could be a test of diplomacy.

Yeah, there's going to be a lot of people with a lot more power, influence, and money than Prince Andrew who she has info on. One way or another it'll be made sure that the damage is prevented, or contained to some people who aren't part of the in-group.

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1278704012452343810

dixiedean said:

We called them moose in Canada. The thing on fire is a moose. Elk is the European word for the same species.
You're welcome.

*PB pedantry mode engaged*

The statue is an Elk (Cervus), not a Moose (Alces) which can also be called an Elk in British English.

TOPPING said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Gordy_Mc1ntosh/status/1277282539313549313

That’s an example of a good political cartoon compared to the rubbish you usually post

The cringeing obsession of remoaners with how we're perceived abroad is something akin to a mental disorder. We voted for Brexit to be an independent trading nation, with a democratically elected Government setting our own laws. I would be surprised if that rather humble aim did not eventually result in grudging respect in the counsels of the world, but if it results in interminable attempts at levity, that's fine too, I really couldn't give a toss, and neither should anyone else.

Speaking as someone who spends quite a lot of time talking to assorted foreigners in the fields of finance, economics and public policy, that's really not my experience. They all think we're bonkers and have an inflated idea of the UK's international importance.
The only exceptions are other Europeans who hate the EU and hope Brexit might hasten its demise.

I did say eventual. And in the meantime, it is mad to care, and if we care, to cultivate and brood on those feelings. I'm glad to have provided New Zealanders with a laugh - I am sure there are considerably more though who are genuinely looking forward to being our 'chums' - the loss of so much of their trade to Britain when we joined the EEC was devastating for their economy.

No chums, remember, only interests. And the RoW will see us as a potentially weaker negotiating partner now. Certainly they will if they take notice of Boris' caving to date.

You must be more up on current affairs than I am, because I haven't noticed any caving. We will see when we get there.

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1278699156706648067?s=19

Sandpit said:

eristdoof said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

Flying just got so much more fun.....

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1278688504814415873?s=20

The airlines are slowly going through a long list of reasons not to just get rid of the middle seats. I don’t know anyone who’s going to fly economy until they do, irrespective of the price of the ticket.

Mum, dad and child might prefer sitting in as 3 rather than one of them having to sit next to a stranger.

If someone wants a middle seat then fine, but the vast majority of people are going to want an empty seat next to them for as long as there’s a nasty virus going round.

There’s been a few passenger surveys about processes and disruption, and that’s the only thing that people have a strong opinion on - they’ll happily pay more to not sit next to a stranger. Most people intending to travel soon are not going on holiday, they’re travelling because they need to.

I was responding to "get rid of the middle seats".

HYUFD said:

LostPassword said:

The PPP poll of Texas is interesting. Biden is +2, but the RepublIcan Senator Cornyn is +7. So the RepublIcan Senator outpolls Trump by 9 points.

We might see Republican Senators ditch support for Trump as the GOP try to hang onto the Senate. That's probably a better outcome for them than a Trump victory.

In Montana though Trump is outpolling the GOP

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1278529818297012225?s=19

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1278523691350003714?s=19

Yes - that's been the pattern for almost all the polls where you can do the comparison. Which is one reason the GOP has been in so much trouble, as they have somehow managed to have a worse reputation than the worst President in history.

However, if that changes, then it provides an escape for the GOP and would likely mark the end of any hope of a recovery for Trump.