politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Just a year and a bit after becoming PM Johnson finds him trai

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

137 for 8.

Game on

You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

137 for 8.

Game on

You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.

I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

137 for 8.

Game on

You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.

I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

137 for 8.

Game on

You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.

I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.

If they win, then I trust you will allow me to join you to consume a pizza with extra pineapple together.

It would be worth it, as long of course as it was a small pizza.

nichomar said:

Pagan2 said:

RobD said:

Black_Rook said:

RobD said:

96% now wearing masks:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/07/face-coverings-becoming-new-normal-almost-everyone-wearing-one/

I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.

Here's the ONS page on it.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandwellbeing/bulletins/coronavirusandthesocialimpactsongreatbritain/7august2020

Question: “In the past seven days, have you used a face covering when outside your home to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19)?”

Well by that criteria I would answer yes because I went to tesco's put on a mask then took it off again when I realised it wasn't being enforced and just over a third hadn't bothered at all and a good number of those that had a mask on it was dangling round their neck

More fool you it’s not a fashion statement it’s a legal requirement and common sense.

SandyRentool said:

It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales

Isn't it still optional in Wales?

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales

Isn't it still optional in Wales?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Tim_B said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales

Here in north Georgia almost everyone is wearing masks (except in restaurants with spacing). Non-maskers tend to be younger and mostly male.Costco will refuse entry without a mask, and many supermarkets are tending towards it, though not as strictly (yet) as Costco. Malls are not enforcing masks, though most wear them.

Mark Drakeford, labour's first minister here in Wales has made them mandatory on public transport but not in shops, hence the poor uptake

Pagan2 said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales

Isn't it still optional in Wales?

Who knows anymore the guidance is so obviously complete guff now. Safe to be in an office for 8 hours maskless not safe to be in a corner shop for 2 minutes maskless. Safe to sit at a table having a pint for several hours not safe to goto tesco's without a mask. When rules are obviously nonsense then frankly I feel no inclination to follow them and instead follow my own common sense on what is safe.

Therefore I continue to wfh, I make minimum trips shopping. I don't goto pubs or restaurants. I don't visit family or friends physically. I am pretty sure I am at less risk from that than many who advocate masks for shops but then happily sit down in a pub quaffing with friends

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

137 for 8.

Game on

You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.

I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.

Tim_B said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Tim_B said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales

Here in north Georgia almost everyone is wearing masks (except in restaurants with spacing). Non-maskers tend to be younger and mostly male.Costco will refuse entry without a mask, and many supermarkets are tending towards it, though not as strictly (yet) as Costco. Malls are not enforcing masks, though most wear them.

Mark Drakeford, labour's first minister here in Wales has made them mandatory on public transport but not in shops, hence the poor uptake

They're not mandatory here, though the governor recommends them. It's up to businesses to mandate them on site. One of the more nonsensical things I've seen is people who clam the whole covid thing is a left wing (or right wing) conspiracy and refuse to wear a mask as it impinges on their rights.

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

137 for 8.

Game on

You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.

I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.

What's your view of chicken with pasta? I presume ,as a purist against?

(In these heady stakes I should declare myself as a pineapple with ham vague supporter, and actually on a pizza I think the combination works best. )

Big_G_NorthWales said:

France records 2,288 new cases of covid in the past 24 hours up 684 from yesterday

Should this not be a worry for Brits on holiday there ?

nichomar said:

Pagan2 said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales

Isn't it still optional in Wales?

Who knows anymore the guidance is so obviously complete guff now. Safe to be in an office for 8 hours maskless not safe to be in a corner shop for 2 minutes maskless. Safe to sit at a table having a pint for several hours not safe to goto tesco's without a mask. When rules are obviously nonsense then frankly I feel no inclination to follow them and instead follow my own common sense on what is safe.

Therefore I continue to wfh, I make minimum trips shopping. I don't goto pubs or restaurants. I don't visit family or friends physically. I am pretty sure I am at less risk from that than many who advocate masks for shops but then happily sit down in a pub quaffing with friends

But the friends in the pub should be 2m away and if they stand up should put the mask on, I do find it difficult from afar what rules are mandated in the UK. You are right that you have to make your own decisions. I have to shop for food and am glad mask wearing is 100% or you get thrown out after that I mix only with a small group of people 2m apart and only go into restaurants that are effectively empty. If others wish to mix and risk it I will just keep out of their way.

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

137 for 8.

Game on

You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.

I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.

What's your view of chicken with pasta? I presume ,as a purist against?

(In these heady stakes I should declare myself as a pineapple with ham vague supporter, and actually on a pizza I think the combination works best. )

Chicken is fine with spirali, chicken with any other pasta is unacceptable.

Ok, so how does spirali make the grade?

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

137 for 8.

Game on

You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.

I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales

Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed

Pagan2 said:

The ons stats I was referring to was the "96% are adhering with mask usage" ones sorry for the confusion

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

Wait until Thursday when if that Guardian article is correct the entire education system will suddenly implode.

You can’t possibly trust an exam system when it is run by liars who don’t understand basic principles of assessment, statistics or administration.

Don't worry the brilliant Frank Spencer Gavin Williamson is on top of this and will ensure everything will be fine.

I don’t know whether to thank you for linking to that article or not.

Yes I needed to know.

But I’m so bloody furious with these useless stuck up third rate scum that I’m wondering if I will sleep tonight.

If this were my kids I wouldn't be sleeping and I'd be rioting.

I wonder if we're going to see pushy middle class parents with the hump being the moment Boris Johnson's government hits real sustained unpopularity.

I don’t have any children.

But I’m still fucking furious.

I’m now really regretting giving out realistic grades. I’m in a panic as to what they’re going to be changed to.

Should have given everyone 9s and A*s as a massive FU to the system.

stodge said:

Pagan2 said:

The ons stats I was referring to was the "96% are adhering with mask usage" ones sorry for the confusion

No need to apologise - it's the heat.

I do feel those who have died have been forgotten, their families and loved ones have been forgotten and those whose health has been permanently damaged by the virus have also been forgotten.

All that seems to matter are beaches, eating out and pubs re-opening.

I understand the need to emphasise life for the living but there has to be a moment or two of reflection for those who aren't with us and for those who will live with the consequences of the virus for a long time to come.

Pagan2 said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

137 for 8.

Game on

You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.

I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.

What's your view of chicken with pasta? I presume ,as a purist against?

(In these heady stakes I should declare myself as a pineapple with ham vague supporter, and actually on a pizza I think the combination works best. )

Chicken is fine with spirali, chicken with any other pasta is unacceptable.

Ok, so how does spirali make the grade?

Doesn't all pasta taste the same and only the shape differs? (excepting things like verde types naturally etc)

justin124 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Don't supporters of The Jeremy see the irony. Traitor Blairites disasterously gain 30 seats. They get ousted and replaced by True Socialists loyal to the Twice Elected Leader who lose 60 seats.

That rather begs the question though. If anti-Corbyn machinations cost Labour 15 seats in 2017, the party would have ended up on 275 - 280 seats - enough to oust Theresa May and form a minority Government.

How do anti-Corbyn machinations simultaneously gain 30 seats but traitorously spike the campaign in these other seats not won?

The Tories stayed in power in 2017 because unpopular Teresa May added 20% more votes on top of Cameron's haul in 2015. Crap efficiency from far more votes lost them seats - but it was far more votes. Corbynite loons always bang on about national vote tallies instead of seats to show how popular he was vs PM Blair, yet are silent on how The Jeremy drove 2.3m people to vote for May when they didn't vote for Cameron

That does not address the serious possibility that better allocation of resources in 2017 might have yielded 45 rather than 30 Labour gains . I was never a Corbynite - but those 15 seats would have proved crucial and pushed the Tories down to 302.

RochdalePioneers said:

justin124 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FPT:

justin124 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Don't supporters of The Jeremy see the irony. Traitor Blairites disasterously gain 30 seats. They get ousted and replaced by True Socialists loyal to the Twice Elected Leader who lose 60 seats.

That rather begs the question though. If anti-Corbyn machinations cost Labour 15 seats in 2017, the party would have ended up on 275 - 280 seats - enough to oust Theresa May and form a minority Government.

How do anti-Corbyn machinations simultaneously gain 30 seats but traitorously spike the campaign in these other seats not won?

The Tories stayed in power in 2017 because unpopular Teresa May added 20% more votes on top of Cameron's haul in 2015. Crap efficiency from far more votes lost them seats - but it was far more votes. Corbynite loons always bang on about national vote tallies instead of seats to show how popular he was vs PM Blair, yet are silent on how The Jeremy drove 2.3m people to vote for May when they didn't vote for Cameron

That does not address the serious possibility that better allocation of resources in 2017 might have yielded 45 rather than 30 Labour gains . I was never a Corbynite - but those 15 seats would have proved crucial and pushed the Tories down to 302.

Fine - then we address the serious possibly that better allocation of resources would have translated the 2.3m increase in the Tory vote into that whopping majority she wanted.

Pagan2 said:

justin124 said:

FPT
Foxy said:
'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.

Charles said:

Pagan2 said:

RobD said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales

Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed

Did you read the ONS page? Wales has figures much lower than the rest of GB.

Nope the headline figure is so obviously wrong. When I went to tesco's today the usage was far short of 96%. There were probably 200 people there which is 1/6 of the size sample that the ons used for a couple of orders magnitude less of a population size

200 of about 110,000 vs 1235 of 65,000,000.

So the conclusion is either

a) Slough is completely different to the rest of the country
b) The ONS survey has some flaw to it

The simpler of the two explanations is b) therefore applying Occams razor as I can't prove either a or b then it seems likely that b is the answer

Someone posted the question up thread

I read “have you worn a mask outside in the past week” to mean AT LEAST ONCE not always. If so I can believe 96%

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

justin124 said:

FPT
Foxy said:
'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.

Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

justin124 said:

FPT
Foxy said:
'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.

Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.

I believe anyone can be nominated as a PM they do not need to be in either house though I must admit I am a long way from being an expert on constitutional law. If you can be nominated because you are in the lords which is unelected I don't see why you couldnt be nominated as an MSP. Though would possibly be a legal challenge

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

justin124 said:

FPT
Foxy said:
'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.

Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.

I believe anyone can be nominated as a PM they do not need to be in either house though I must admit I am a long way from being an expert on constitutional law. If you can be nominated because you are in the lords which is unelected I don't see why you couldnt be nominated as an MSP. Though would possibly be a legal challenge

Oh, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that a PM had to be in either House.

nichomar said:

Pagan2 said:

Charles said:

Pagan2 said:

RobD said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales

Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed

Did you read the ONS page? Wales has figures much lower than the rest of GB.

Nope the headline figure is so obviously wrong. When I went to tesco's today the usage was far short of 96%. There were probably 200 people there which is 1/6 of the size sample that the ons used for a couple of orders magnitude less of a population size

200 of about 110,000 vs 1235 of 65,000,000.

So the conclusion is either

a) Slough is completely different to the rest of the country
b) The ONS survey has some flaw to it

The simpler of the two explanations is b) therefore applying Occams razor as I can't prove either a or b then it seems likely that b is the answer

Someone posted the question up thread

I read “have you worn a mask outside in the past week” to mean AT LEAST ONCE not always. If so I can believe 96%

Which was also a point I made but it fell upon fallow ground. As I said I would have appeared as a yes even though I don't intend to follow the law unless absolutely forced to. Thankfully most shops here haven't even tried to enforce it. Nor have I had any Hyufd's screaming in my face but then I am a reasonably well built guy so might have an influence on them trying to pick on me

Wearing a mask is for the protection of others, maybe think about those to whom infection would be a disaster whilst you whip round the supermarket.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Can the remaining Corbyn fans just leave the party. He lost and he lost badly. Time to move on.

Objectively Starmer is doing the best of any Labour leader in a long time. Why can't we just be happy with that

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

justin124 said:

FPT
Foxy said:
'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.

Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.

I believe anyone can be nominated as a PM they do not need to be in either house though I must admit I am a long way from being an expert on constitutional law. If you can be nominated because you are in the lords which is unelected I don't see why you couldnt be nominated as an MSP. Though would possibly be a legal challenge

Oh, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that a PM had to be in either House.

I think we have had a prime minister that was in the lords but I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken.

As far as I am aware though the only prerequisite to become prime minister and appointed by the queen to the role is you must command the confidence of the house of commons

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

justin124 said:

FPT
Foxy said:
'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.

Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.

I believe anyone can be nominated as a PM they do not need to be in either house though I must admit I am a long way from being an expert on constitutional law. If you can be nominated because you are in the lords which is unelected I don't see why you couldnt be nominated as an MSP. Though would possibly be a legal challenge

Oh, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that a PM had to be in either House.

I think we have had a prime minister that was in the lords but I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken.

As far as I am aware though the only prerequisite to become prime minister and appointed by the queen to the role is you must command the confidence of the house of commons

nichomar said:

Pagan2 said:

nichomar said:

Pagan2 said:

Charles said:

Pagan2 said:

RobD said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales

Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed

Did you read the ONS page? Wales has figures much lower than the rest of GB.

Nope the headline figure is so obviously wrong. When I went to tesco's today the usage was far short of 96%. There were probably 200 people there which is 1/6 of the size sample that the ons used for a couple of orders magnitude less of a population size

200 of about 110,000 vs 1235 of 65,000,000.

So the conclusion is either

a) Slough is completely different to the rest of the country
b) The ONS survey has some flaw to it

The simpler of the two explanations is b) therefore applying Occams razor as I can't prove either a or b then it seems likely that b is the answer

Someone posted the question up thread

I read “have you worn a mask outside in the past week” to mean AT LEAST ONCE not always. If so I can believe 96%

Which was also a point I made but it fell upon fallow ground. As I said I would have appeared as a yes even though I don't intend to follow the law unless absolutely forced to. Thankfully most shops here haven't even tried to enforce it. Nor have I had any Hyufd's screaming in my face but then I am a reasonably well built guy so might have an influence on them trying to pick on me

Wearing a mask is for the protection of others, maybe think about those to whom infection would be a disaster whilst you whip round the supermarket.

And I protect others by taking measures not to get infected myself, whereas others goto bars and risk infection. I suspect my precautions make it a lot less likely I give it to someone than the average pub goer

Therefore wearing one for ten minutes whilst in tescos would be the icing on the cake, not a big ask

Pagan2 said:

nichomar said:

Pagan2 said:

nichomar said:

Pagan2 said:

Charles said:

Pagan2 said:

RobD said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales

Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed

Did you read the ONS page? Wales has figures much lower than the rest of GB.

Nope the headline figure is so obviously wrong. When I went to tesco's today the usage was far short of 96%. There were probably 200 people there which is 1/6 of the size sample that the ons used for a couple of orders magnitude less of a population size

200 of about 110,000 vs 1235 of 65,000,000.

So the conclusion is either

a) Slough is completely different to the rest of the country
b) The ONS survey has some flaw to it

The simpler of the two explanations is b) therefore applying Occams razor as I can't prove either a or b then it seems likely that b is the answer

Someone posted the question up thread

I read “have you worn a mask outside in the past week” to mean AT LEAST ONCE not always. If so I can believe 96%

Which was also a point I made but it fell upon fallow ground. As I said I would have appeared as a yes even though I don't intend to follow the law unless absolutely forced to. Thankfully most shops here haven't even tried to enforce it. Nor have I had any Hyufd's screaming in my face but then I am a reasonably well built guy so might have an influence on them trying to pick on me

Wearing a mask is for the protection of others, maybe think about those to whom infection would be a disaster whilst you whip round the supermarket.

And I protect others by taking measures not to get infected myself, whereas others goto bars and risk infection. I suspect my precautions make it a lot less likely I give it to someone than the average pub goer

Therefore wearing one for ten minutes whilst in tescos would be the icing on the cake, not a big ask

No not happening. I already do my bit by not visiting the plague pits they wished to reopen. Its a farcical law made by a government who wanted to do something and this was something so they did it. When laws are stupid then civil disobedience is warranted.

While I would be happily disobeying this law, I should note that I can't due to COPD and asthma and apparently am medically exempt. So sadly even though not wanting to I am complying with legislation which is a complete downer

Pagan2 said:

kle4 said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

justin124 said:

FPT
Foxy said:
'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.

Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.

I believe anyone can be nominated as a PM they do not need to be in either house though I must admit I am a long way from being an expert on constitutional law. If you can be nominated because you are in the lords which is unelected I don't see why you couldnt be nominated as an MSP. Though would possibly be a legal challenge

Oh, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that a PM had to be in either House.

I think we have had a prime minister that was in the lords but I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken.

As far as I am aware though the only prerequisite to become prime minister and appointed by the queen to the role is you must command the confidence of the house of commons

Legally very few actual requirements, given how the role developed, but pretty darn strong conventions about who can do it I should think.

If 400 mps said Joe Bloggs of 23 acacia st sometown has our total confidence even though he has never been a member of any party or stood for election. Do we think the queen would say no despite the conventions?

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

justin124 said:

FPT
Foxy said:
'That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?

In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.'

With respect, I fail to see how that is a fantasy. If Labour had ended up on circa 277 seats with the Tories on circa 302, would there have been any serious possibility of the SNP and the LibDems propping up Theresa May? Both might well have been able to block parts of the Labour programme they found unacceptable, but neither would have voted to keep the Tories in office.

If the SNP are ever in a coalition that forms a government it would be quite amusing to let Sturgeon be the pm. Suddenly the SNP can't use any of their attack lines about not being a government they voted for.

Except there are a few obstacles. The only route is for her to become a Lady in the Lords. Which would see her automatically thrown out of the SNP. So, not a scenario that is realistic.

I believe anyone can be nominated as a PM they do not need to be in either house though I must admit I am a long way from being an expert on constitutional law. If you can be nominated because you are in the lords which is unelected I don't see why you couldnt be nominated as an MSP. Though would possibly be a legal challenge

Oh, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that a PM had to be in either House.

I think we have had a prime minister that was in the lords but I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken.

As far as I am aware though the only prerequisite to become prime minister and appointed by the queen to the role is you must command the confidence of the house of commons

When Parliament prorogues nobody is an MP. The Queen's ministers remain in office though - if you can be PM and not an MP during an election then other scenarios are possible. Ok so would need to command confidence of the Commons at some point...

They need to be able to address Parliament. For that, they have to be a member of it.

However, there was a PM who was briefly not a member of either house - Sir Alec Douglas-Home in 1963, between renouncing his peerage and being elected MP for Perth and Kinross.

There was also a foreign secretary, Patrick Gordon Walker, who was foreign secretary for some months in 1964-65 despite losing his seat at the 1964 election.

I don’t think Sturgeon could be PM without either being an MP or peer, or declaring she would enter parliament.

nichomar said:

Pagan2 said:

nichomar said:

Pagan2 said:

nichomar said:

Pagan2 said:

Charles said:

Pagan2 said:

RobD said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SandyRentool said:

It's anecdotoclock: Plenty of folk sat in the beer garden of our local boozer.

I then saw someone heading in to the convenience store. Without a face covering. Dickhead.

Little evidence of face masks in shops here in Wales

Don't tell RobD he will put you down as an anti masker for suggesting the ons stats are obviously flawed

Did you read the ONS page? Wales has figures much lower than the rest of GB.

Nope the headline figure is so obviously wrong. When I went to tesco's today the usage was far short of 96%. There were probably 200 people there which is 1/6 of the size sample that the ons used for a couple of orders magnitude less of a population size

200 of about 110,000 vs 1235 of 65,000,000.

So the conclusion is either

a) Slough is completely different to the rest of the country
b) The ONS survey has some flaw to it

The simpler of the two explanations is b) therefore applying Occams razor as I can't prove either a or b then it seems likely that b is the answer

Someone posted the question up thread

I read “have you worn a mask outside in the past week” to mean AT LEAST ONCE not always. If so I can believe 96%

Which was also a point I made but it fell upon fallow ground. As I said I would have appeared as a yes even though I don't intend to follow the law unless absolutely forced to. Thankfully most shops here haven't even tried to enforce it. Nor have I had any Hyufd's screaming in my face but then I am a reasonably well built guy so might have an influence on them trying to pick on me

Wearing a mask is for the protection of others, maybe think about those to whom infection would be a disaster whilst you whip round the supermarket.

And I protect others by taking measures not to get infected myself, whereas others goto bars and risk infection. I suspect my precautions make it a lot less likely I give it to someone than the average pub goer

Therefore wearing one for ten minutes whilst in tescos would be the icing on the cake, not a big ask

No not happening. I already do my bit by not visiting the plague pits they wished to reopen. Its a farcical law made by a government who wanted to do something and this was something so they did it. When laws are stupid then civil disobedience is warranted.

While I would be happily disobeying this law, I should note that I can't due to COPD and asthma and apparently am medically exempt. So sadly even though not wanting to I am complying with legislation which is a complete downer

You could have saved a lot of time by saying you were exempt from mask wearing.

Malmesbury said:

Back to COVID - All the England data I could find

The blue-grey band represents the range of excess death estimates based on the max and min for the previous 5 years.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Malmesbury said:

Back to COVID - All the England data I could find

The blue-grey band represents the range of excess death estimates based on the max and min for the previous 5 years.

Sorry what's the X-axis?

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

137 for 8.

Game on

You’re having a larf. England will never chase over 170 on this wicket against these bowlers.

I will eat a pizza with pineapple on it if England win this match.

What's your view of chicken with pasta? I presume ,as a purist against?

(In these heady stakes I should declare myself as a pineapple with ham vague supporter, and actually on a pizza I think the combination works best. )

Chicken is fine with spirali, chicken with any other pasta is unacceptable.

Ok, so how does spirali make the grade?

Doesn't all pasta taste the same and only the shape differs? (excepting things like verde types naturally etc)

Good Lord, Don't let @Cyclefree catch you talking like that! Pasta varies considerably in shape, thickness and in surface area, each property affecting both cooking effects and sauce adherence. In short, some pastas work much better with particular sauces.

Chicken doesn't belong in pasta or pizza obviously.

https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/perfect-pairings-how-match-pasta-shapes-sauces

Well obviously it doesn't belong, chicken is a meat substitute for people who dont want to admit being vegetarian