If a student got an A in their mocks but their grade after "adjustments" is claimed to be a C, how is it unreasonable or unfair for them to be able to say "no, I deserve an A like I got in my mocks"?
It's easy to criticise the government on this, but at least a decision and way forward has been made before the results are out - unlike in other places.
Once the exams were cancelled, the situation was inevitable. I'm not sure it was possible for them to go ahead given the timing.
It could certainly be argued that the exams going ahead would have disadvantaged poorer pupils and state comprehensive schools, who didn't have the resources to operate virtually during the lockdown period.
What was wrong with Plan A - have the teachers grade their students. Based on all the work submitted. Based on their knowledge of the student. As opposed to the utter farce we have before us because Tories hate Teachers apparently. You're all trots, can't be trusted.
Its part of a "triple lock" so teachers grades are the primary input, the mocks a secondary one and actual exams a tertiary one.
Teacher grading hasn't gone away.
Incorrect. Plan A was the teacher uses coursework exams and knowledge to assign a grade. Then they planned to rinse that through an algorithm so that bright kids in poor areas get downgrades (know your station plebs). Now the offer is "mock exams". Thats only a part of what has been assessed, and on so many courses misses all of the practical work that is inherent in the qualification.
Its rampant panicked bollocks from a government who fundamentally distrusts the teaching profession and a man who has no idea what day it is never mind what lie he's told in it. But its ok, its only education, it doesn't matter.
As I understand it, the algorithm looked at a school's previous results and the SATS of this cohort to see if the predicted grades looked reasonable. That might have the effect of giving downgrades to bright kids in poor areas but it doesn't necessarily follow. In Scotland the gap between schools in poor areas and other schools is much bigger than the equivalent gap in England. Also, the evidence in Scotland strongly suggests that teachers in the schools in poor areas were more likely to overegg their predictions than teachers in other areas.
Given that the link between income and educational outcomes is much weaker in England than in Scotland there is a decent chance that the algorithm wasn't simply downgrading kids in poor areas.
My view is that the move to predicted grades in Scotland means that Scottish grades for this year no longer have any credibility - the improvement in performance compared with previous years is too much to be believable. The change that has been made in England also reduces the credibility of grades. In my view they should have stuck with the approach they were using.
To clarify the process (I hope, and with apologies to the teachers on here):
- Schools provided ranking within subject and predicted grades. The ranking was key because it was always clear that grades would be subject to moderation. - Teachers everywhere tended to over-predict grades. This is natural - most teachers are optimistic and want the best for their students. - Some schools looked at the grades they had predicted and realised they were just not realistic and they’d never get through Ofqual’s moderation process, so they revised them downwards. - Other schools submitted their higher (over-optimistic) grades. - Overall schools reported a 12% improvement in grades this year, which is unheard of. - Ofqual’s algorithm did what it was always intended to do and reduced the “inflated” grades based on data it holds about schools’ and pupils’ past performance. (For example, it would recognise if a school had an exceptionally high-performing A level cohort from its earlier GCSE results.) - It turned out that the schools predicting the biggest increases tended to be schools with lower prior results. The reasons for this have not really been explored. - The media spun this as sinister algorithms “targeting” disadvantaged children in a “postcode lottery”. - It is true that an exceptional student in a school with historically lower results might lose out. That’s also true for a school which has genuinely improved significantly in the last year.
I believe what has happened in Scotland is similar to the above.
North Carolina & Georgia seem like very inelastic states in terms of voting. Seems like regardless of the national picture it's always going to be within a couple of points.
Unlike Florida where Biden seems to be running away with it on the recent polling.
On the Senate front it looks like the Dems are now favoured to pick up seats in Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina from the polling, which means assuming the Dems lose the Alabama seat all eyes will be on Maine.
This. Big question for me is what happens to the railways.
At present, I'm thinking passenger numbers only recover to 50-60% of pre-virus numbers over the next 2 years.
That will make several TOCs unviable and unprofitable, so I expect quasi-nationalisation to continue for a while yet, and some new transport schemes (were not politically essential) put on a go-slow.
HS2 is dead
HS2 certainly isn't dead - it's well under construction. It's possible phase 2 will be kicked into the long-grass though.
Crossrail2 is definitely dead.
What have they built for HS2? Site clearance in London and Birmingham isn't constructing a railway. Not a single mile of embankment or tunnel yet built or even started. Cancel now and they will just build something else at Euston, OOC and Curzon Street.
It can’t be cancelled now without billions of pounds in penalties and much of the land has already been bought too.
It’s past the point of no return to all intents and purposes. For phase 1..
With Phase 1 being the less needed part of the project. The project should have started in the North not the other way around.
The most crowded part of the WCML is the stretch from Rugby to London. Capacity problems ease when the Trent Valley line diverges, diminish further at Crewe, and are much less significant north of Manchester. It's hard to argue the southern stretch it's the 'less needed' part of the railway!
Even if that were not true, however, there is little point in building lines in the north to provide extra capacity until the extra trains that result have somewhere to go. To give an example, when the M5 was built, the first phase to be constructed was actually the M50. Now that may seem bizarre, as the M50 goes from nowhere to nowhere calling at nowhere in between (to be exact, from Tewkesbury to Ross passing through Bromsberrow and Gorsley at a fair distance from Ledbury and Newent). But the whole logic was that as soon as the M5 opened there would be a lot of traffic going between South Wales and Birmingham and the roads in the Botloe area simply wouldn't cope with it.
The irony is that the M50 remains a very rare example of a late 1950s motorway in essentially its original condition - because there's comparatively little traffic on it.
This - the primary capacity issue is into London.
Without it, Phase 2 doesn't make much sense, and you'd have to build extra bespoke rolling stock depots for the new HS2 trains (they can't be stored or serviced anywhere we have at present) and they are more costly than you think.
You'd have very expensive new trains shuttling back and forth between Birmingham and Manchester whilst doing little to decant people wholesale off the WCML (who'd continue to use Virgin trains direct from London in the meantime).
[Also, you can't achieve much modal shift from domestic air (e.g. London-Manchester/Leeds) air without it.]
Given the obscene prices of London-Manchester tickets, is it possible that HS2 would undercut on price?
If you think Manchester - London is expensive you should see the East Coast Mainline prices.
It's usually cheaper for me to head to London the night before and stay at a Hilton.
Single peak ticket tomorrow morning from London to Manchester seems to be about 50% more than London to York - £150 vs £100 ish via thetrainline.com .
Appalling weather here overnight with huge amounts of thunder, lightning and rain. Our power went off at some point stymying the alarm clock.
On topic the hysterical over reaction to Cummings stupidity was evidence that our disdain for American partisanship poisoning the well is, well, naïve at best.
Johnson did not have to lose Cummings. That was not the problem. The problem was the craven way he handled it. That he felt unable even to express disapproval.
"He acted as he saw fit in the best interests of his family and I will not mark him down for that."
An astonishing utterance from a PM in the circumstances. It laid bare his weakness of character. Told us all - or at least those of us with an interest and the relevant faculties - that he could not hack it without this one particular SPAD. This is unprecedented and it has (rightly) damaged him.
Not just that. All Dom had to do was apologise; "I was frightened, and I did something I shouldn't." It would have killed the story. But Dom couldn't do that, I imagine because his entire self-image is to be the SPAD equivalent of the Terminator.
London voting intention for UK elections, via @RedfieldWilton, 5-7 August (changes since 2019)
LAB 48% (-) CON 29% (-3) LD 14% (-1) GRN 7% (+4)
Labour would likely gain Chingford, Chipping Barnet and Kensington
Lab gain Kensington is almost certain next time round I think, even if the Tories move ahead of where they were.
Really? How did they manage to lose it in 2019?
An absolute knobber as an MP
Not many MPs have personal votes. I doubt too many have anti-votes ala Neil Hamilton. I think Labour's hope in Kensinton is that enough of those that voted Lib Dem can vote Labour next time due to Starmer.
The swing in Kensington was only 0.2% to the Tories compared to 9.6% nationwide. Broadly I think Keir gets back the "I'm not voting for Corbyn" votes more easily than the "Brexit Brexit Brexit" votes, enough of those probably went for Gyimah last time round to push Kensington back Labour even against a small swing to the Tories broadly - which I doubt happens in 2024.
My nose tells me (and the emerging leadership data) that Keir will win in four years time.
He doesn't threaten, and Brexit will be "done" by then, however you spin it.
I expect plenty in the SE will go LD losing Tories seats there, and Unionists will go to him in Scotland too. Tories will lose some southern marginals direct to Labour where the demographics are right, including students and lots of middle-class voters. Boris will probably retain most red-wall seats.
Question is whether he can get close to a majority or not.
Starmer needs Scottish seats to become PM, whether Labour or SNP confidence and supply, if Boris granted indyref2 and Yes won the Tories would almost certainly win another majority in 2024 on an English nationalist, hard Brexit ticket.
If Lab start polling ahead of Cons before May next year I wonder if BJ (or more likely Dom) will consider pushing the button?
London voting intention for UK elections, via @RedfieldWilton, 5-7 August (changes since 2019)
LAB 48% (-) CON 29% (-3) LD 14% (-1) GRN 7% (+4)
Labour would likely gain Chingford, Chipping Barnet and Kensington
Lab gain Kensington is almost certain next time round I think, even if the Tories move ahead of where they were.
Really? How did they manage to lose it in 2019?
An absolute knobber as an MP
Not many MPs have personal votes. I doubt too many have anti-votes ala Neil Hamilton. I think Labour's hope in Kensinton is that enough of those that voted Lib Dem can vote Labour next time due to Starmer.
The swing in Kensington was only 0.2% to the Tories compared to 9.6% nationwide. Broadly I think Keir gets back the "I'm not voting for Corbyn" votes more easily than the "Brexit Brexit Brexit" votes, enough of those probably went for Gyimah last time round to push Kensington back Labour even against a small swing to the Tories broadly - which I doubt happens in 2024.
My nose tells me (and the emerging leadership data) that Keir will win in four years time.
He doesn't threaten, and Brexit will be "done" by then, however you spin it.
I expect plenty in the SE will go LD losing Tories seats there, and Unionists will go to him in Scotland too. Tories will lose some southern marginals direct to Labour where the demographics are right, including students and lots of middle-class voters. Boris will probably retain most red-wall seats.
Question is whether he can get close to a majority or not.
Starmer needs Scottish seats to become PM, whether Labour or SNP confidence and supply, if Boris granted indyref2 and Yes won the Tories would almost certainly win another majority in 2024 on an English nationalist, hard Brexit ticket.
More “sure” nonsense from you @HYUFD. We have no idea what the ramifications of such a huge “cultural event” will have on the voting habits of a future independent England and Wales.
North Carolina & Georgia seem like very inelastic states in terms of voting. Seems like regardless of the national picture it's always going to be within a couple of points.
Unlike Florida where Biden seems to be running away with it on the recent polling.
On the Senate front it looks like the Dems are now favoured to pick up seats in Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina from the polling, which means assuming the Dems lose the Alabama seat all eyes will be on Maine.
I think the 'rona has really hit Trump amongst over 70 voters, whereas people in their 50s see themselves as generally not vulnerable to it.
The last Democrat to get over 50% in North Carolina was Kennedy. It's always close but the bedrock of GOP voters is good for the elephant party there.
Hmmmmm. Correlation does not equal causation. I very much doubt the Cummings incident helped Johnson but there are other reasons why his ratings might have fallen.
The disaster in care homes, shaking hands with everyone, an apparent sense of a u-turn on policy, a lack of clarity on advice to the public. He just doesn't seem like a PM for the crisis. So maybe it was all Cummings, maybe not. I can't help but feel you WANT it to be about Cummings.
You also have to factor in Starmer being an entirely new leader.
Also, there were other possible options between “do nothing” and “sack him”.
Not to the media mob there wasn’t. They’d decided long ago that he was a witch, and nothing short of burning at the stake was going to be acceptable.
The fact that they blew up the story as big as they did was probably a factor in the PM standing by him. Remember that we are talking about an ‘offence’ for which the legal punishment would have been an £80 fine, same as a parking ticket.
The punishment for breaking quarantine, which Cummings did, is £1000.
Do not confuse it with the Barnard Castle trip, which was essentially a traffic offence (and don’t forget, because he admitted he didn’t know whether he was fit to drive he could have had penalty points for that too).
Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. (We are concerned here with breaches of the Regulations, not the general Government guidance to “stay at home”.)
(...)
Durham Constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR, witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.
Even now, people are still writing to the Chief Constable, the Police Commissioner and even HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (who normally look at police shootings and deaths in custody) to try and get the investigation re-opened at a cost of tens, possibly even hundreds of thousands of pounds.
If it looks like a witch hunt, and smells like a witch hunt...
Not really. There’s no doubt about who or what Cummings is, and people are just pissed off with him.
He’s a member of staff.
If people disagree with the direction the government is taking, then they can take that up with their elected representatives. In due course, they’ll have the ability to change the government through the ballot box.
Hmmmmm. Correlation does not equal causation. I very much doubt the Cummings incident helped Johnson but there are other reasons why his ratings might have fallen.
The disaster in care homes, shaking hands with everyone, an apparent sense of a u-turn on policy, a lack of clarity on advice to the public. He just doesn't seem like a PM for the crisis. So maybe it was all Cummings, maybe not. I can't help but feel you WANT it to be about Cummings.
You also have to factor in Starmer being an entirely new leader.
Also, there were other possible options between “do nothing” and “sack him”.
Not to the media mob there wasn’t. They’d decided long ago that he was a witch, and nothing short of burning at the stake was going to be acceptable.
The fact that they blew up the story as big as they did was probably a factor in the PM standing by him. Remember that we are talking about an ‘offence’ for which the legal punishment would have been an £80 fine, same as a parking ticket.
The punishment for breaking quarantine, which Cummings did, is £1000.
Do not confuse it with the Barnard Castle trip, which was essentially a traffic offence (and don’t forget, because he admitted he didn’t know whether he was fit to drive he could have had penalty points for that too).
Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. (We are concerned here with breaches of the Regulations, not the general Government guidance to “stay at home”.)
(...)
Durham Constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR, witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.
Even now, people are still writing to the Chief Constable, the Police Commissioner and even HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (who normally look at police shootings and deaths in custody) to try and get the investigation re-opened at a cost of tens, possibly even hundreds of thousands of pounds.
If it looks like a witch hunt, and smells like a witch hunt...
Not really. There’s no doubt about who or what Cummings is, and people are just pissed off with him.
He’s a member of staff.
If people disagree with the direction the government is taking, then they can take that up with their elected representatives. In due course, they’ll have the ability to change the government through the ballot box.
Not sure why you’re stating the obvious, or what point you’re trying to make.
If people disagree with the direction the government is taking, then they can take that up with their elected representatives. In due course, they’ll have the ability to change the government through the ballot box.
Boris' vision is to be a popular and heroic PM, Cummings provides the "how". He'd be out in 5 minutes if Sunak was in charge, a much more capable individual.
It's quote right Cummings is gone after on his breaking of quarantine - something he's never apologised for. He's brought the hunt on himself.
-20.4% GDP in Q2, but +8.7% in June and a predicted +8% in July going by the indices.
Recovery looking pretty V shaped at the moment.
Provided it doesn't bubble-up again and we get a half-decent vaccine in the next 6-9 months, we should be ok.
Still a £300bn penalty charge to pay though, and probably an extra £25-40bn annual deficit to deal with too.
But could have been worse.
300bn is chump change in the long run.
Yes, it's more important that our debt ratio % GDP is stable and we have a path to balance the books again.
This is why I await the budget with interest.
No what matters is that the %age of GDP going to interest payments is low and stable, so that the debt is not a drain on public finances.
Crudely, and if we assume the classic situation of non-repayable consols, a debt of 50% of GDP at 10% interest is as bad as 100% at 5% interest.
No, the repayment of the capital is the issue, not the interest rate. When, say, a ten-year bond matures, the choices are 1) don't roll the debt over, and take a hit to 2030 GDP; or 2) roll over at 2030 interest rates, which could well be higher. We cannot live off our grandchildren's credit cards forever.
There's no reason to think that 2030 interest rates will be higher. And even if they will, it will be after a long period of inflation which will reduce the burden of the real debt and increase nominal GDP. So in that case, the amount of debt as a %age of GDP to be rolled over will be lower.
People fixate on public debt numbers despite abundant evidence that, in the current environment, it really is the last thing to be worried about. Mostly they combine the Householder Fallacy with the Paradox of Thrift, which any undergradate macro student can put them right about.
Absolutely spot on Mike. This was the biggest political story in generations. I still wince when I think of the PB Tories' reaction at the time: 'Oh, it'll all be forgotten in a few days', 'This is just the Liberal Elite obsessing', 'All about Brexit' etc. - anything to convince themselves that their man Boris was infallible. Those of us who foresaw the enormity of the scandal have been proved right, right and right again.
Incidentally since the subject is the wizened one, what happened to the Dom is only here in a temporary capacity and will shortly be leaving for a medical procedure thing? Was it all complete bullshit?
R4 More or Less - Scotland’s “no Covid deaths for 5 weeks”
It’s a function of methodology. If you were never tested for COVID or die 29 days or more after being tested it doesn’t count. Meanwhile death certificates for 4 of those 5 weeks say there have been 35 COVID deaths. As treatments improve and people who ultimately die survive longer, this “28 day” cut off will become increasingly meaningless. Wales and NI use the same method.
England is the other extreme - if you have EVER tested positive and die (in a car crash, for example) that’s counted as a COVID death.
Net, Scotland is understating deaths, England overstating them.
That’s shown in the comparison with ONS (death certificate) data vs PHE (ever tested) ~20 a day vs ~50 a day.
They are looking at extending the cutoff to 60 days, in England, which should give a more reliable figure.
For the teachers on here: so there will (I think) be three grades, all three will be known by pupils/parents. The centre assessed grade, the Ofqual algorithm grade and the mock grade.
Of these the higher of the Ofqual grade and the mock grade will represent the official grade.
I think @isam is right to suggest that Starmer has a difficult balancing act. I can see the Greens doing quite well if Labour aren't perceived to be left-wing enough.
If they're still positioned on the left at that point he should do what the LibDems did and cut a deal with them, he wouldn't need to give them a lot of seats.
If a student got an A in their mocks but their grade after "adjustments" is claimed to be a C, how is it unreasonable or unfair for them to be able to say "no, I deserve an A like I got in my mocks"?
It's easy to criticise the government on this, but at least a decision and way forward has been made before the results are out - unlike in other places.
Once the exams were cancelled, the situation was inevitable. I'm not sure it was possible for them to go ahead given the timing.
It could certainly be argued that the exams going ahead would have disadvantaged poorer pupils and state comprehensive schools, who didn't have the resources to operate virtually during the lockdown period.
What was wrong with Plan A - have the teachers grade their students. Based on all the work submitted. Based on their knowledge of the student. As opposed to the utter farce we have before us because Tories hate Teachers apparently. You're all trots, can't be trusted.
Its part of a "triple lock" so teachers grades are the primary input, the mocks a secondary one and actual exams a tertiary one.
Teacher grading hasn't gone away.
Incorrect. Plan A was the teacher uses coursework exams and knowledge to assign a grade. Then they planned to rinse that through an algorithm so that bright kids in poor areas get downgrades (know your station plebs). Now the offer is "mock exams". Thats only a part of what has been assessed, and on so many courses misses all of the practical work that is inherent in the qualification.
Its rampant panicked bollocks from a government who fundamentally distrusts the teaching profession and a man who has no idea what day it is never mind what lie he's told in it. But its ok, its only education, it doesn't matter.
As I understand it, the algorithm looked at a school's previous results and the SATS of this cohort to see if the predicted grades looked reasonable. That might have the effect of giving downgrades to bright kids in poor areas but it doesn't necessarily follow. In Scotland the gap between schools in poor areas and other schools is much bigger than the equivalent gap in England. Also, the evidence in Scotland strongly suggests that teachers in the schools in poor areas were more likely to overegg their predictions than teachers in other areas.
Given that the link between income and educational outcomes is much weaker in England than in Scotland there is a decent chance that the algorithm wasn't simply downgrading kids in poor areas.
My view is that the move to predicted grades in Scotland means that Scottish grades for this year no longer have any credibility - the improvement in performance compared with previous years is too much to be believable. The change that has been made in England also reduces the credibility of grades. In my view they should have stuck with the approach they were using.
To clarify the process (I hope, and with apologies to the teachers on here):
- Schools provided ranking within subject and predicted grades. The ranking was key because it was always clear that grades would be subject to moderation. - Teachers everywhere tended to over-predict grades. This is natural - most teachers are optimistic and want the best for their students. - Some schools looked at the grades they had predicted and realised they were just not realistic and they’d never get through Ofqual’s moderation process, so they revised them downwards. - Other schools submitted their higher (over-optimistic) grades. - Overall schools reported a 12% improvement in grades this year, which is unheard of. - Ofqual’s algorithm did what it was always intended to do and reduced the “inflated” grades based on data it holds about schools’ and pupils’ past performance. (For example, it would recognise if a school had an exceptionally high-performing A level cohort from its earlier GCSE results.) - It turned out that the schools predicting the biggest increases tended to be schools with lower prior results. The reasons for this have not really been explored. - The media spun this as sinister algorithms “targeting” disadvantaged children in a “postcode lottery”. - It is true that an exceptional student in a school with historically lower results might lose out. That’s also true for a school which has genuinely improved significantly in the last year.
I believe what has happened in Scotland is similar to the above.
In England this algorithm has not ‘moderated’ the grades, in a majority of cases (60%) it has ‘replaced’ them.
Therefore, those in small classes or courses that have not been taught before which are unaffected by the algorithm have to go with teacher grades.
Those in schools with a history of underachievement are effectively randomly assigned.
London voting intention for UK elections, via @RedfieldWilton, 5-7 August (changes since 2019)
LAB 48% (-) CON 29% (-3) LD 14% (-1) GRN 7% (+4)
Labour would likely gain Chingford, Chipping Barnet and Kensington
Lab gain Kensington is almost certain next time round I think, even if the Tories move ahead of where they were.
Really? How did they manage to lose it in 2019?
An absolute knobber as an MP
Not many MPs have personal votes. I doubt too many have anti-votes ala Neil Hamilton. I think Labour's hope in Kensinton is that enough of those that voted Lib Dem can vote Labour next time due to Starmer.
The swing in Kensington was only 0.2% to the Tories compared to 9.6% nationwide. Broadly I think Keir gets back the "I'm not voting for Corbyn" votes more easily than the "Brexit Brexit Brexit" votes, enough of those probably went for Gyimah last time round to push Kensington back Labour even against a small swing to the Tories broadly - which I doubt happens in 2024.
My nose tells me (and the emerging leadership data) that Keir will win in four years time.
He doesn't threaten, and Brexit will be "done" by then, however you spin it.
I expect plenty in the SE will go LD losing Tories seats there, and Unionists will go to him in Scotland too. Tories will lose some southern marginals direct to Labour where the demographics are right, including students and lots of middle-class voters. Boris will probably retain most red-wall seats.
Question is whether he can get close to a majority or not.
Starmer needs Scottish seats to become PM, whether Labour or SNP confidence and supply, if Boris granted indyref2 and Yes won the Tories would almost certainly win another majority in 2024 on an English nationalist, hard Brexit ticket.
Why would hard Brexit appeal when it's already been completed and an FTA in place?
You could argue for hard policies I suppose, like on immigration, but that's not quite the same thing.
I see Trump is going with the line that Harris as VP candidate indicates that the Dems have been taken over by the radical left. Do they really believe that shit or more specifically that voters will?
Well she's female and dark and has a funny sounding first name so that could be a little bit frightening to some.
But more seriously it's the first of these attributes - female - that just slightly worries me as regards 3/11. Don't get me wrong, I'm only the teeniest bit worried, I remain confident that Trump will lose and it will not be close, but Harris is a woman and no woman has ever prevailed on the ticket in a general election in America. There have been three and all have lost.
And with the last one to lose, for all of HRC's debits as a candidate, which were legion, there can be no shadow of a doubt in the mind of anyone who can recognize misogyny when it rears its ugly head that one of the reasons she lost was misogyny.
So, you know, just a little gremlin in my mind there, given that due to Biden's age Harris will be looked at by many with their "Would I be OK with her as prez" specs on.
Curious why the UK GDP decline is significantly larger. Our lockdown wasn't as stringent as many, and it was of comparable length to others, right?
The obvious answer to the depth of the recession is the use of the furlough scheme, which was one of the most extensive anywhere. This will result in a sharper trough but hopefully a stronger recovery.
Faisal knows this but prefers sh!t-stirring to using his economics degree. He gives the impression of looking forward to cheering every coming redundancy.
Mr. Divvie, the PM's certainly stupid and self-interested enough to do it on that basis.
Not even Boris is brazen enough to try to carry on as PM if Scotland votes to leave the UK... surely?
Not even this cadre of Conservative MPs is craven enough to let him if he tries... surely?
I know that nobody has got poor betting on BoJo's brazenness, but there have to be limits... surely?
Of course he'd stay. What about his character and conduct to date makes you think he'd resign?
I know what you mean, but his MO in life has been that when he messes up spectacularly, he scuttles off to do something/someone else. It's part of why he hates Starmer at PMQs; he's repeatedly reminded in public of things he's done wrong.
So, presented with a massive, visible sign of the failure of his Premiership, he might try to brazen it out, but he might run away, never to be seen again.
London voting intention for UK elections, via @RedfieldWilton, 5-7 August (changes since 2019)
LAB 48% (-) CON 29% (-3) LD 14% (-1) GRN 7% (+4)
Labour would likely gain Chingford, Chipping Barnet and Kensington
Lab gain Kensington is almost certain next time round I think, even if the Tories move ahead of where they were.
Really? How did they manage to lose it in 2019?
An absolute knobber as an MP
Not many MPs have personal votes. I doubt too many have anti-votes ala Neil Hamilton. I think Labour's hope in Kensinton is that enough of those that voted Lib Dem can vote Labour next time due to Starmer.
The swing in Kensington was only 0.2% to the Tories compared to 9.6% nationwide. Broadly I think Keir gets back the "I'm not voting for Corbyn" votes more easily than the "Brexit Brexit Brexit" votes, enough of those probably went for Gyimah last time round to push Kensington back Labour even against a small swing to the Tories broadly - which I doubt happens in 2024.
My nose tells me (and the emerging leadership data) that Keir will win in four years time.
He doesn't threaten, and Brexit will be "done" by then, however you spin it.
I expect plenty in the SE will go LD losing Tories seats there, and Unionists will go to him in Scotland too. Tories will lose some southern marginals direct to Labour where the demographics are right, including students and lots of middle-class voters. Boris will probably retain most red-wall seats.
Question is whether he can get close to a majority or not.
Starmer needs Scottish seats to become PM, whether Labour or SNP confidence and supply, if Boris granted indyref2 and Yes won the Tories would almost certainly win another majority in 2024 on an English nationalist, hard Brexit ticket.
Why would hard Brexit appeal when it's already been completed and an FTA in place?
You could argue for hard policies I suppose, like on immigration, but that's not quite the same thing.
Under FPTP the Tories easily win again on a hard Brexit ticket and to ensure a tough line with the SNP on independence negotiations
I see Trump is going with the line that Harris as VP candidate indicates that the Dems have been taken over by the radical left. Do they really believe that shit or more specifically that voters will?
Well she's female and dark and has a funny sounding first name so that could be a little bit frightening to some.
But more seriously it's the first of these attributes - female - that just slightly worries me as regards 3/11. Don't get me wrong, I'm only the teeniest bit worried, I remain confident that Trump will lose and it will not be close, but Harris is a woman and no woman has ever prevailed on the ticket in a general election in America. There have been three and all have lost.
And with the last one to lose, for all of HRC's debits as a candidate, which were legion, there can be no shadow of a doubt in the mind of anyone who can recognize misogyny when it rears its ugly head that one of the reasons she lost was misogyny.
So, you know, just a little gremlin in my mind there, given that due to Biden's age Harris will be looked at by many with their "Would I be OK with her as prez" specs on.
I think you can tame your little gremlin. I don`t think a female as vice president will be an issue to voters.
London voting intention for UK elections, via @RedfieldWilton, 5-7 August (changes since 2019)
LAB 48% (-) CON 29% (-3) LD 14% (-1) GRN 7% (+4)
Labour would likely gain Chingford, Chipping Barnet and Kensington
Lab gain Kensington is almost certain next time round I think, even if the Tories move ahead of where they were.
Really? How did they manage to lose it in 2019?
An absolute knobber as an MP
Not many MPs have personal votes. I doubt too many have anti-votes ala Neil Hamilton. I think Labour's hope in Kensinton is that enough of those that voted Lib Dem can vote Labour next time due to Starmer.
The swing in Kensington was only 0.2% to the Tories compared to 9.6% nationwide. Broadly I think Keir gets back the "I'm not voting for Corbyn" votes more easily than the "Brexit Brexit Brexit" votes, enough of those probably went for Gyimah last time round to push Kensington back Labour even against a small swing to the Tories broadly - which I doubt happens in 2024.
My nose tells me (and the emerging leadership data) that Keir will win in four years time.
He doesn't threaten, and Brexit will be "done" by then, however you spin it.
I expect plenty in the SE will go LD losing Tories seats there, and Unionists will go to him in Scotland too. Tories will lose some southern marginals direct to Labour where the demographics are right, including students and lots of middle-class voters. Boris will probably retain most red-wall seats.
Question is whether he can get close to a majority or not.
Starmer needs Scottish seats to become PM, whether Labour or SNP confidence and supply, if Boris granted indyref2 and Yes won the Tories would almost certainly win another majority in 2024 on an English nationalist, hard Brexit ticket.
Why would hard Brexit appeal when it's already been completed and an FTA in place?
You could argue for hard policies I suppose, like on immigration, but that's not quite the same thing.
Under FPTP the Tories easily win again on a hard Brexit ticket and to ensure a tough line with the SNP on independence negotiations
Brexit has already happened. The economy is in the doldrums. “Easily win again” is nothing but hubris.
London voting intention for UK elections, via @RedfieldWilton, 5-7 August (changes since 2019)
LAB 48% (-) CON 29% (-3) LD 14% (-1) GRN 7% (+4)
Labour would likely gain Chingford, Chipping Barnet and Kensington
Lab gain Kensington is almost certain next time round I think, even if the Tories move ahead of where they were.
Really? How did they manage to lose it in 2019?
An absolute knobber as an MP
Not many MPs have personal votes. I doubt too many have anti-votes ala Neil Hamilton. I think Labour's hope in Kensinton is that enough of those that voted Lib Dem can vote Labour next time due to Starmer.
The swing in Kensington was only 0.2% to the Tories compared to 9.6% nationwide. Broadly I think Keir gets back the "I'm not voting for Corbyn" votes more easily than the "Brexit Brexit Brexit" votes, enough of those probably went for Gyimah last time round to push Kensington back Labour even against a small swing to the Tories broadly - which I doubt happens in 2024.
My nose tells me (and the emerging leadership data) that Keir will win in four years time.
He doesn't threaten, and Brexit will be "done" by then, however you spin it.
I expect plenty in the SE will go LD losing Tories seats there, and Unionists will go to him in Scotland too. Tories will lose some southern marginals direct to Labour where the demographics are right, including students and lots of middle-class voters. Boris will probably retain most red-wall seats.
Question is whether he can get close to a majority or not.
Starmer needs Scottish seats to become PM, whether Labour or SNP confidence and supply, if Boris granted indyref2 and Yes won the Tories would almost certainly win another majority in 2024 on an English nationalist, hard Brexit ticket.
More “sure” nonsense from you @HYUFD. We have no idea what the ramifications of such a huge “cultural event” will have on the voting habits of a future independent England and Wales.
You also do realise Brexit has already happened?
Labour would have to become Blairite to win again minus Scotland, apart from Blair Labour only won in England in 1945, 1950 and 1966 since WW2
London voting intention for UK elections, via @RedfieldWilton, 5-7 August (changes since 2019)
LAB 48% (-) CON 29% (-3) LD 14% (-1) GRN 7% (+4)
Labour would likely gain Chingford, Chipping Barnet and Kensington
Lab gain Kensington is almost certain next time round I think, even if the Tories move ahead of where they were.
Really? How did they manage to lose it in 2019?
An absolute knobber as an MP
Not many MPs have personal votes. I doubt too many have anti-votes ala Neil Hamilton. I think Labour's hope in Kensinton is that enough of those that voted Lib Dem can vote Labour next time due to Starmer.
The swing in Kensington was only 0.2% to the Tories compared to 9.6% nationwide. Broadly I think Keir gets back the "I'm not voting for Corbyn" votes more easily than the "Brexit Brexit Brexit" votes, enough of those probably went for Gyimah last time round to push Kensington back Labour even against a small swing to the Tories broadly - which I doubt happens in 2024.
My nose tells me (and the emerging leadership data) that Keir will win in four years time.
He doesn't threaten, and Brexit will be "done" by then, however you spin it.
I expect plenty in the SE will go LD losing Tories seats there, and Unionists will go to him in Scotland too. Tories will lose some southern marginals direct to Labour where the demographics are right, including students and lots of middle-class voters. Boris will probably retain most red-wall seats.
Question is whether he can get close to a majority or not.
Starmer needs Scottish seats to become PM, whether Labour or SNP confidence and supply, if Boris granted indyref2 and Yes won the Tories would almost certainly win another majority in 2024 on an English nationalist, hard Brexit ticket.
Why would hard Brexit appeal when it's already been completed and an FTA in place?
You could argue for hard policies I suppose, like on immigration, but that's not quite the same thing.
Under FPTP the Tories easily win again on a hard Brexit ticket and to ensure a tough line with the SNP on independence negotiations
Hard Brexit in 2024? Are you saying we've delayed it until then? We already left though, I don't see how Brexit itself is still an issue
I see Trump is going with the line that Harris as VP candidate indicates that the Dems have been taken over by the radical left. Do they really believe that shit or more specifically that voters will?
Well she's female and dark and has a funny sounding first name so that could be a little bit frightening to some.
But more seriously it's the first of these attributes - female - that just slightly worries me as regards 3/11. Don't get me wrong, I'm only the teeniest bit worried, I remain confident that Trump will lose and it will not be close, but Harris is a woman and no woman has ever prevailed on the ticket in a general election in America. There have been three and all have lost.
And with the last one to lose, for all of HRC's debits as a candidate, which were legion, there can be no shadow of a doubt in the mind of anyone who can recognize misogyny when it rears its ugly head that one of the reasons she lost was misogyny.
So, you know, just a little gremlin in my mind there, given that due to Biden's age Harris will be looked at by many with their "Would I be OK with her as prez" specs on.
Yep, it could be a thing, but it would suggest that a handy chunk of US voters are instinctively sexist and racist regardless of qualities.
London voting intention for UK elections, via @RedfieldWilton, 5-7 August (changes since 2019)
LAB 48% (-) CON 29% (-3) LD 14% (-1) GRN 7% (+4)
Labour would likely gain Chingford, Chipping Barnet and Kensington
Lab gain Kensington is almost certain next time round I think, even if the Tories move ahead of where they were.
Really? How did they manage to lose it in 2019?
An absolute knobber as an MP
Not many MPs have personal votes. I doubt too many have anti-votes ala Neil Hamilton. I think Labour's hope in Kensinton is that enough of those that voted Lib Dem can vote Labour next time due to Starmer.
The swing in Kensington was only 0.2% to the Tories compared to 9.6% nationwide. Broadly I think Keir gets back the "I'm not voting for Corbyn" votes more easily than the "Brexit Brexit Brexit" votes, enough of those probably went for Gyimah last time round to push Kensington back Labour even against a small swing to the Tories broadly - which I doubt happens in 2024.
My nose tells me (and the emerging leadership data) that Keir will win in four years time.
He doesn't threaten, and Brexit will be "done" by then, however you spin it.
I expect plenty in the SE will go LD losing Tories seats there, and Unionists will go to him in Scotland too. Tories will lose some southern marginals direct to Labour where the demographics are right, including students and lots of middle-class voters. Boris will probably retain most red-wall seats.
Question is whether he can get close to a majority or not.
Starmer needs Scottish seats to become PM, whether Labour or SNP confidence and supply, if Boris granted indyref2 and Yes won the Tories would almost certainly win another majority in 2024 on an English nationalist, hard Brexit ticket.
More “sure” nonsense from you @HYUFD. We have no idea what the ramifications of such a huge “cultural event” will have on the voting habits of a future independent England and Wales.
You also do realise Brexit has already happened?
Labour would have to become Blairite to win again minus Scotland, apart from Blair Labour only won in England in 1945, 1951 and 1966 since WW2
Like I said, we have no idea what the ramifications of the end of the union will be, especially in the context of economic hardship combined with the potentially negative consequences of “Brexit”.
We can be “sure” of nothing. There’s no “have to” about it.
First of all, I have to apologise.to a number of PBers. I posted the link to Fox's article on the DNC list of speakers that had been announced and I know several on here closed their green positions on Harris over the back of it so I am truly sorry. I thought it might be a betting opportunity but it was the wrong one. If it is any consolation, I was heavily red on Harris (but what I could afford).
Second, re Harris, there seems to be a view that she was the safest candidate but I really think it might turn out to be the riskiest choice. She won't inspire the Bernie Bros, her record as California AG means she will come under attack from both left and right (and there are a lot of horror stories from her time as CA AG) and, while Bush criticised Reagan's "voodoo economics", she branded Biden a racist which is somewhat different. Plus this is happening at a time when the polls in some of the swing states (NC, AZ) are swinging slowly back to Trump, with even the Dem lead in Minnesota down to +3% according to one poll yesterday.
London voting intention for UK elections, via @RedfieldWilton, 5-7 August (changes since 2019)
LAB 48% (-) CON 29% (-3) LD 14% (-1) GRN 7% (+4)
Labour would likely gain Chingford, Chipping Barnet and Kensington
Lab gain Kensington is almost certain next time round I think, even if the Tories move ahead of where they were.
Really? How did they manage to lose it in 2019?
An absolute knobber as an MP
Not many MPs have personal votes. I doubt too many have anti-votes ala Neil Hamilton. I think Labour's hope in Kensinton is that enough of those that voted Lib Dem can vote Labour next time due to Starmer.
The swing in Kensington was only 0.2% to the Tories compared to 9.6% nationwide. Broadly I think Keir gets back the "I'm not voting for Corbyn" votes more easily than the "Brexit Brexit Brexit" votes, enough of those probably went for Gyimah last time round to push Kensington back Labour even against a small swing to the Tories broadly - which I doubt happens in 2024.
My nose tells me (and the emerging leadership data) that Keir will win in four years time.
He doesn't threaten, and Brexit will be "done" by then, however you spin it.
I expect plenty in the SE will go LD losing Tories seats there, and Unionists will go to him in Scotland too. Tories will lose some southern marginals direct to Labour where the demographics are right, including students and lots of middle-class voters. Boris will probably retain most red-wall seats.
Question is whether he can get close to a majority or not.
Starmer needs Scottish seats to become PM, whether Labour or SNP confidence and supply, if Boris granted indyref2 and Yes won the Tories would almost certainly win another majority in 2024 on an English nationalist, hard Brexit ticket.
More “sure” nonsense from you @HYUFD. We have no idea what the ramifications of such a huge “cultural event” will have on the voting habits of a future independent England and Wales.
You also do realise Brexit has already happened?
Labour would have to become Blairite to win again minus Scotland, apart from Blair Labour only won in England in 1945, 1951 and 1966 since WW2
You sure about 1951? I make it Labour 233 Tory 271 in England, plus 35 each in Scotland.
And just two Liberal seats in the whole of England.
North Carolina & Georgia seem like very inelastic states in terms of voting. Seems like regardless of the national picture it's always going to be within a couple of points.
Unlike Florida where Biden seems to be running away with it on the recent polling.
On the Senate front it looks like the Dems are now favoured to pick up seats in Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina from the polling, which means assuming the Dems lose the Alabama seat all eyes will be on Maine.
I think the 'rona has really hit Trump amongst over 70 voters, whereas people in their 50s see themselves as generally not vulnerable to it.
The last Democrat to get over 50% in North Carolina was Kennedy. It's always close but the bedrock of GOP voters is good for the elephant party there.
One poll has the Democratic Senate lead in Minnesota down to 3% and the Republicans feel fairly confident in Michigan as well, so there may be complications. Also, this is a Presidential election year and ballot splitting has declined so, if NC is going Red for Trump (big if), there has to be a question mark whether the Senate seat will flip.
I see Trump is going with the line that Harris as VP candidate indicates that the Dems have been taken over by the radical left. Do they really believe that shit or more specifically that voters will?
Well she's female and dark and has a funny sounding first name so that could be a little bit frightening to some.
But more seriously it's the first of these attributes - female - that just slightly worries me as regards 3/11. Don't get me wrong, I'm only the teeniest bit worried, I remain confident that Trump will lose and it will not be close, but Harris is a woman and no woman has ever prevailed on the ticket in a general election in America. There have been three and all have lost.
And with the last one to lose, for all of HRC's debits as a candidate, which were legion, there can be no shadow of a doubt in the mind of anyone who can recognize misogyny when it rears its ugly head that one of the reasons she lost was misogyny.
So, you know, just a little gremlin in my mind there, given that due to Biden's age Harris will be looked at by many with their "Would I be OK with her as prez" specs on.
I think you can tame your little gremlin. I don`t think a female as vice president will be an issue to voters.
What the fuck do I know but I think #kamalaforthepeople is a net positive for the simple reason that she looks like somebody who would be cast as POTUS in a Netflix series.
It's about a third of the way down the article and shows which country Americans regard as their most important ally. The UK is obviously first by a long way, but what about the 5% that think China is? Or the 3% that give Russia?
I assume that some of those were the same people as the 3% of Americans who believed in the 90s that they had been abducted by aliens.
First of all, I have to apologise.to a number of PBers. I posted the link to Fox's article on the DNC list of speakers that had been announced and I know several on here closed their green positions on Harris over the back of it so I am truly sorry. I thought it might be a betting opportunity but it was the wrong one. If it is any consolation, I was heavily red on Harris (but what I could afford).
Second, re Harris, there seems to be a view that she was the safest candidate but I really think it might turn out to be the riskiest choice. She won't inspire the Bernie Bros, her record as California AG means she will come under attack from both left and right (and there are a lot of horror stories from her time as CA AG) and, while Bush criticised Reagan's "voodoo economics", she branded Biden a racist which is somewhat different. Plus this is happening at a time when the polls in some of the swing states (NC, AZ) are swinging slowly back to Trump, with even the Dem lead in Minnesota down to +3% according to one poll yesterday.
No need to apologize for posting correct information, people make their own decisions about how to interpret it.
I agree she's not a great candidate, although she has the benefit of being well battle-tested and clearly able to handle herself, so I can see why a team that's leading would do it.
Curious why the UK GDP decline is significantly larger. Our lockdown wasn't as stringent as many, and it was of comparable length to others, right?
The obvious answer to the depth of the recession is the use of the furlough scheme, which was one of the most extensive anywhere. This will result in a sharper trough but hopefully a stronger recovery.
Faisal knows this but prefers sh!t-stirring to using his economics degree. He gives the impression of looking forward to cheering every coming redundancy.
Why should that be the case ? The furlough scheme was an effective stimulus even in the height of lockdown. Wouldn't the recession have been deeper without furlough ?
It's about a third of the way down the article and shows which country Americans regard as their most important ally. The UK is obviously first by a long way, but what about the 5% that think China is? Or the 3% that give Russia?
I assume that some of those were the same people as the 3% of Americans who believed in the 90s that they had been abducted by aliens.
London voting intention for UK elections, via @RedfieldWilton, 5-7 August (changes since 2019)
LAB 48% (-) CON 29% (-3) LD 14% (-1) GRN 7% (+4)
Labour would likely gain Chingford, Chipping Barnet and Kensington
Lab gain Kensington is almost certain next time round I think, even if the Tories move ahead of where they were.
Really? How did they manage to lose it in 2019?
An absolute knobber as an MP
Not many MPs have personal votes. I doubt too many have anti-votes ala Neil Hamilton. I think Labour's hope in Kensinton is that enough of those that voted Lib Dem can vote Labour next time due to Starmer.
The swing in Kensington was only 0.2% to the Tories compared to 9.6% nationwide. Broadly I think Keir gets back the "I'm not voting for Corbyn" votes more easily than the "Brexit Brexit Brexit" votes, enough of those probably went for Gyimah last time round to push Kensington back Labour even against a small swing to the Tories broadly - which I doubt happens in 2024.
My nose tells me (and the emerging leadership data) that Keir will win in four years time.
He doesn't threaten, and Brexit will be "done" by then, however you spin it.
I expect plenty in the SE will go LD losing Tories seats there, and Unionists will go to him in Scotland too. Tories will lose some southern marginals direct to Labour where the demographics are right, including students and lots of middle-class voters. Boris will probably retain most red-wall seats.
Question is whether he can get close to a majority or not.
Starmer needs Scottish seats to become PM, whether Labour or SNP confidence and supply, if Boris granted indyref2 and Yes won the Tories would almost certainly win another majority in 2024 on an English nationalist, hard Brexit ticket.
More “sure” nonsense from you @HYUFD. We have no idea what the ramifications of such a huge “cultural event” will have on the voting habits of a future independent England and Wales.
You also do realise Brexit has already happened?
Labour would have to become Blairite to win again minus Scotland, apart from Blair Labour only won in England in 1945, 1951 and 1966 since WW2
You sure about 1951? I make it Labour 233 Tory 271 in England, plus 35 each in Scotland.
And just two Liberal seats in the whole of England.
1950 sorry, the Tories won in England in 1951.
Indeed minus Scotland Home would have beaten Wilson in 1964, Heath would have beaten Wilson in February 1974 and Cameron and May would have won Tory majorities in 2010 and 2017
What the fuck do I know but I think #kamalaforthepeople is a net positive for the simple reason that she looks like somebody who would be cast as POTUS in a Netflix series.
Curious why the UK GDP decline is significantly larger. Our lockdown wasn't as stringent as many, and it was of comparable length to others, right?
The obvious answer to the depth of the recession is the use of the furlough scheme, which was one of the most extensive anywhere. This will result in a sharper trough but hopefully a stronger recovery.
Faisal knows this but prefers sh!t-stirring to using his economics degree. He gives the impression of looking forward to cheering every coming redundancy.
It's only an undergraduate degree in economics from what I can see. You can pass those by reading the Economist closely, or could before it became unreadably woke. Learning economics rigorously starts with a Master's.
Johnson did not have to lose Cummings. That was not the problem. The problem was the craven way he handled it. That he felt unable even to express disapproval.
"He acted as he saw fit in the best interests of his family and I will not mark him down for that."
An astonishing utterance from a PM in the circumstances. It laid bare his weakness of character. Told us all - or at least those of us with an interest and the relevant faculties - that he could not hack it without this one particular SPAD. This is unprecedented and it has (rightly) damaged him.
Not just that. All Dom had to do was apologise; "I was frightened, and I did something I shouldn't." It would have killed the story. But Dom couldn't do that, I imagine because his entire self-image is to be the SPAD equivalent of the Terminator.
Yes, it was to do with the characters of the two men and the relationship between them. A folie a deux type thing. With an 80 seat majority, his political capital still bursting from that, and with the comms skills he undeniably has, it should not have been beyond Johnson to keep Cummings and yet leave the public with the clear impression that he took the matter seriously. I was flabbergasted he failed to do that. Also very disappointed in him. He had scored heavily with me with his video talk to the nation on coming out of hospital post Covid, but he blew all of that and more with this.
Another snippet from “More or Less” - has the U.K. had a higher COVID death rate because of obesity? Only marginally. If we’d had the same obesity rates as the EU we’d have had 1% fewer deaths, same as Italy, 2%. U.K. diabetes is actually less prevalent (or less diagnosed?) than in mainland Europe.
First of all, I have to apologise.to a number of PBers. I posted the link to Fox's article on the DNC list of speakers that had been announced and I know several on here closed their green positions on Harris over the back of it so I am truly sorry. I thought it might be a betting opportunity but it was the wrong one. If it is any consolation, I was heavily red on Harris (but what I could afford).
Second, re Harris, there seems to be a view that she was the safest candidate but I really think it might turn out to be the riskiest choice. She won't inspire the Bernie Bros, her record as California AG means she will come under attack from both left and right (and there are a lot of horror stories from her time as CA AG) and, while Bush criticised Reagan's "voodoo economics", she branded Biden a racist which is somewhat different. Plus this is happening at a time when the polls in some of the swing states (NC, AZ) are swinging slowly back to Trump, with even the Dem lead in Minnesota down to +3% according to one poll yesterday.
Not to worry. I completely ignored you as I always do. You're a Trump ramper who posts tosh in a superficially credible style.
Will this mean an amendment to the list of devolved areas in specifically listed in the Scotland Act? Or it this a case of a power grab of powers that were not devolved in the first place?
This one I think is EU powers being returned to the UK by Brexit, which the SNP want immediately devolved to themselves.
I see Trump is going with the line that Harris as VP candidate indicates that the Dems have been taken over by the radical left. Do they really believe that shit or more specifically that voters will?
Well she's female and dark and has a funny sounding first name so that could be a little bit frightening to some.
But more seriously it's the first of these attributes - female - that just slightly worries me as regards 3/11. Don't get me wrong, I'm only the teeniest bit worried, I remain confident that Trump will lose and it will not be close, but Harris is a woman and no woman has ever prevailed on the ticket in a general election in America. There have been three and all have lost.
And with the last one to lose, for all of HRC's debits as a candidate, which were legion, there can be no shadow of a doubt in the mind of anyone who can recognize misogyny when it rears its ugly head that one of the reasons she lost was misogyny.
So, you know, just a little gremlin in my mind there, given that due to Biden's age Harris will be looked at by many with their "Would I be OK with her as prez" specs on.
I think you can tame your little gremlin. I don`t think a female as vice president will be an issue to voters.
In 2016, other was 0.5% for constituency and 4.5% for region, 0 seats between that particular pair. Likely an SNP majority on these numbers, certainly a nationalist one.
R4 More or Less - Scotland’s “no Covid deaths for 5 weeks”
It’s a function of methodology. If you were never tested for COVID or die 29 days or more after being tested it doesn’t count. Meanwhile death certificates for 4 of those 5 weeks say there have been 35 COVID deaths. As treatments improve and people who ultimately die survive longer, this “28 day” cut off will become increasingly meaningless. Wales and NI use the same method.
England is the other extreme - if you have EVER tested positive and die (in a car crash, for example) that’s counted as a COVID death.
Net, Scotland is understating deaths, England overstating them.
That’s shown in the comparison with ONS (death certificate) data vs PHE (ever tested) ~20 a day vs ~50 a day.
They are looking at extending the cutoff to 60 days, in England, which should give a more reliable figure.
No the 60 day figure is bullshit as well. The international standard on this is 28 days, this is PHE trying to cover up their initially stupidity. The ONS series is the gold standard but for an accurate daily look 28 days is the number we need to look at.
London voting intention for UK elections, via @RedfieldWilton, 5-7 August (changes since 2019)
LAB 48% (-) CON 29% (-3) LD 14% (-1) GRN 7% (+4)
Labour would likely gain Chingford, Chipping Barnet and Kensington
Lab gain Kensington is almost certain next time round I think, even if the Tories move ahead of where they were.
Really? How did they manage to lose it in 2019?
An absolute knobber as an MP
Not many MPs have personal votes. I doubt too many have anti-votes ala Neil Hamilton. I think Labour's hope in Kensinton is that enough of those that voted Lib Dem can vote Labour next time due to Starmer.
The swing in Kensington was only 0.2% to the Tories compared to 9.6% nationwide. Broadly I think Keir gets back the "I'm not voting for Corbyn" votes more easily than the "Brexit Brexit Brexit" votes, enough of those probably went for Gyimah last time round to push Kensington back Labour even against a small swing to the Tories broadly - which I doubt happens in 2024.
My nose tells me (and the emerging leadership data) that Keir will win in four years time.
He doesn't threaten, and Brexit will be "done" by then, however you spin it.
I expect plenty in the SE will go LD losing Tories seats there, and Unionists will go to him in Scotland too. Tories will lose some southern marginals direct to Labour where the demographics are right, including students and lots of middle-class voters. Boris will probably retain most red-wall seats.
Question is whether he can get close to a majority or not.
Starmer needs Scottish seats to become PM, whether Labour or SNP confidence and supply, if Boris granted indyref2 and Yes won the Tories would almost certainly win another majority in 2024 on an English nationalist, hard Brexit ticket.
More “sure” nonsense from you @HYUFD. We have no idea what the ramifications of such a huge “cultural event” will have on the voting habits of a future independent England and Wales.
You also do realise Brexit has already happened?
Labour would have to become Blairite to win again minus Scotland, apart from Blair Labour only won in England in 1945, 1951 and 1966 since WW2
You sure about 1951? I make it Labour 233 Tory 271 in England, plus 35 each in Scotland.
And just two Liberal seats in the whole of England.
1950 sorry, the Tories won in England in 1951.
Indeed minus Scotland Home would have beaten Wilson in 1964, Heath would have beaten Wilson in February 1974 and Cameron and May would have won Tory majorities in 2010 and 2017
I'm not even sure about 1950. I make it Labour 251 to Tory 252, with Wales being the crucial difference that just allowed Labour a majority.
Ironic about 1964, given Home was a Scottish Prime Minister with a Scottish seat - the only one between 1908 and 2007.*
*Asquith had a Scottish seat, but was not Scottish. Macdonald was Scottish, but did not sit for a Scottish seat until after swapping offices with Baldwin in 1935.
I see Trump is going with the line that Harris as VP candidate indicates that the Dems have been taken over by the radical left. Do they really believe that shit or more specifically that voters will?
Well she's female and dark and has a funny sounding first name so that could be a little bit frightening to some.
But more seriously it's the first of these attributes - female - that just slightly worries me as regards 3/11. Don't get me wrong, I'm only the teeniest bit worried, I remain confident that Trump will lose and it will not be close, but Harris is a woman and no woman has ever prevailed on the ticket in a general election in America. There have been three and all have lost.
And with the last one to lose, for all of HRC's debits as a candidate, which were legion, there can be no shadow of a doubt in the mind of anyone who can recognize misogyny when it rears its ugly head that one of the reasons she lost was misogyny.
So, you know, just a little gremlin in my mind there, given that due to Biden's age Harris will be looked at by many with their "Would I be OK with her as prez" specs on.
I think you can tame your little gremlin. I don`t think a female as vice president will be an issue to voters.
R4 More or Less - Scotland’s “no Covid deaths for 5 weeks”
It’s a function of methodology. If you were never tested for COVID or die 29 days or more after being tested it doesn’t count. Meanwhile death certificates for 4 of those 5 weeks say there have been 35 COVID deaths. As treatments improve and people who ultimately die survive longer, this “28 day” cut off will become increasingly meaningless. Wales and NI use the same method.
England is the other extreme - if you have EVER tested positive and die (in a car crash, for example) that’s counted as a COVID death.
Net, Scotland is understating deaths, England overstating them.
That’s shown in the comparison with ONS (death certificate) data vs PHE (ever tested) ~20 a day vs ~50 a day.
They are looking at extending the cutoff to 60 days, in England, which should give a more reliable figure.
The ONS approach - COVID19 on death certificate or other official document - is the best.
However, this entails reporting delays of weeks.
A sensible approach would be
1) Report as COVID19 deaths all those who meet the ONS criteria on reporting day 2) Add on hospital deaths 3) Add on those with a diagnosis in the last 28 days 4) Rolling forward - all those in (3) and (2) are revised as the death certificates become available.
So you have a reasonable estimate, becoming the ONS number over time.
Curious why the UK GDP decline is significantly larger. Our lockdown wasn't as stringent as many, and it was of comparable length to others, right?
The obvious answer to the depth of the recession is the use of the furlough scheme, which was one of the most extensive anywhere. This will result in a sharper trough but hopefully a stronger recovery.
Faisal knows this but prefers sh!t-stirring to using his economics degree. He gives the impression of looking forward to cheering every coming redundancy.
Why should that be the case ? The furlough scheme was an effective stimulus even in the height of lockdown. Wouldn't the recession have been deeper without furlough ?
It's difficult to say, there would have been more businesses operating without it as they would have been forced to stay open.
New Zealand investigates the origin of the outbreak that has forced the country's largest city to confine. The authorities believe that imported frozen goods could be the source of four infections detected yesterday, after 102 days without local infections in the country. "We are working hard to put the pieces of this puzzle together to find out how this family got infected," said New Zealand Health Director-General Ashley Bloomfield
Possible, but I would expect it to be more likely the workers involved in the import/export (ports/airports etc), possibly via asymptomatic transmission. Live virus can survive on frozen surfaces.
What the fuck do I know but I think #kamalaforthepeople is a net positive for the simple reason that she looks like somebody who would be cast as POTUS in a Netflix series.
First of all, I have to apologise.to a number of PBers. I posted the link to Fox's article on the DNC list of speakers that had been announced and I know several on here closed their green positions on Harris over the back of it so I am truly sorry. I thought it might be a betting opportunity but it was the wrong one. If it is any consolation, I was heavily red on Harris (but what I could afford).
Second, re Harris, there seems to be a view that she was the safest candidate but I really think it might turn out to be the riskiest choice. She won't inspire the Bernie Bros, her record as California AG means she will come under attack from both left and right (and there are a lot of horror stories from her time as CA AG) and, while Bush criticised Reagan's "voodoo economics", she branded Biden a racist which is somewhat different. Plus this is happening at a time when the polls in some of the swing states (NC, AZ) are swinging slowly back to Trump, with even the Dem lead in Minnesota down to +3% according to one poll yesterday.
The flip side of that is that her record as AG is very hard to spin as ultra-left-abolish-the-police.
First of all, I have to apologise.to a number of PBers. I posted the link to Fox's article on the DNC list of speakers that had been announced and I know several on here closed their green positions on Harris over the back of it so I am truly sorry. I thought it might be a betting opportunity but it was the wrong one. If it is any consolation, I was heavily red on Harris (but what I could afford).
Second, re Harris, there seems to be a view that she was the safest candidate but I really think it might turn out to be the riskiest choice. She won't inspire the Bernie Bros, her record as California AG means she will come under attack from both left and right (and there are a lot of horror stories from her time as CA AG) and, while Bush criticised Reagan's "voodoo economics", she branded Biden a racist which is somewhat different. Plus this is happening at a time when the polls in some of the swing states (NC, AZ) are swinging slowly back to Trump, with even the Dem lead in Minnesota down to +3% according to one poll yesterday.
The quote I saw said "You're not a racist, but... (policy stuff)" - did she sharpen that up on another occasion?
Bernie supporters seem reasonably happy (only exception I've seen is Paul Mason, and he doesn't get a vote) and I think it's a safe choice which will reinforce the base and may help turnout. It's good that there really isn't that much emphasis on her skin colour and all of it positive - none of the patronising "Wow, Biden is daringly challenging his core vote by picking a black woman" stuff that we'd have seen 20 years ago. Trump's initial attack lines that she failed in the primaries and is a far leftist don't look strong.
I see Trump is going with the line that Harris as VP candidate indicates that the Dems have been taken over by the radical left. Do they really believe that shit or more specifically that voters will?
Well she's female and dark and has a funny sounding first name so that could be a little bit frightening to some.
But more seriously it's the first of these attributes - female - that just slightly worries me as regards 3/11. Don't get me wrong, I'm only the teeniest bit worried, I remain confident that Trump will lose and it will not be close, but Harris is a woman and no woman has ever prevailed on the ticket in a general election in America. There have been three and all have lost.
And with the last one to lose, for all of HRC's debits as a candidate, which were legion, there can be no shadow of a doubt in the mind of anyone who can recognize misogyny when it rears its ugly head that one of the reasons she lost was misogyny.
So, you know, just a little gremlin in my mind there, given that due to Biden's age Harris will be looked at by many with their "Would I be OK with her as prez" specs on.
I think you can tame your little gremlin. I don`t think a female as vice president will be an issue to voters.
What the fuck do I know but I think #kamalaforthepeople is a net positive for the simple reason that she looks like somebody who would be cast as POTUS in a Netflix series.
That is true!
Feeling better now. Much better.
My Trump EC spread quote (info only) is 190/200. That's up 5 from last week.
Appalling weather here overnight with huge amounts of thunder, lightning and rain. Our power went off at some point stymying the alarm clock.
On topic the hysterical over reaction to Cummings stupidity was evidence that our disdain for American partisanship poisoning the well is, well, naïve at best.
I've picked lods of juicy blackberries in the last week, despite no rain for ages. I think the key is to find bushes, even if they aren't that big, that nobody else knows about.
Also what has really helped is buying a rubbish picker-up from ebay for a fiver. Great to reach the top ones that others can't get to.
Johnson did not have to lose Cummings. That was not the problem. The problem was the craven way he handled it. That he felt unable even to express disapproval.
"He acted as he saw fit in the best interests of his family and I will not mark him down for that."
An astonishing utterance from a PM in the circumstances. It laid bare his weakness of character. Told us all - or at least those of us with an interest and the relevant faculties - that he could not hack it without this one particular SPAD. This is unprecedented and it has (rightly) damaged him.
Not just that. All Dom had to do was apologise; "I was frightened, and I did something I shouldn't." It would have killed the story. But Dom couldn't do that, I imagine because his entire self-image is to be the SPAD equivalent of the Terminator.
Do you really believe an apology would have resolved all? Thats not how our vindictive media behaves. The apology then leads to the 'you've admitted it, now you must resign'. He of course should have apologised, but catastrophically in this country, politicians no longer apologise.
Another snippet from “More or Less” - has the U.K. had a higher COVID death rate because of obesity? Only marginally. If we’d had the same obesity rates as the EU we’d have had 1% fewer deaths, same as Italy, 2%. U.K. diabetes is actually less prevalent (or less diagnosed?) than in mainland Europe.
"Less diagnosed" would surprise me - NHS GP practises have been incentivised to diagnose for some time.
That's just an opinion from a reasonably informed Type I, however.
I see Trump is going with the line that Harris as VP candidate indicates that the Dems have been taken over by the radical left. Do they really believe that shit or more specifically that voters will?
Well she's female and dark and has a funny sounding first name so that could be a little bit frightening to some.
But more seriously it's the first of these attributes - female - that just slightly worries me as regards 3/11. Don't get me wrong, I'm only the teeniest bit worried, I remain confident that Trump will lose and it will not be close, but Harris is a woman and no woman has ever prevailed on the ticket in a general election in America. There have been three and all have lost.
And with the last one to lose, for all of HRC's debits as a candidate, which were legion, there can be no shadow of a doubt in the mind of anyone who can recognize misogyny when it rears its ugly head that one of the reasons she lost was misogyny.
So, you know, just a little gremlin in my mind there, given that due to Biden's age Harris will be looked at by many with their "Would I be OK with her as prez" specs on.
I think you can tame your little gremlin. I don`t think a female as vice president will be an issue to voters.
Good to hear. I don't really. But ... ok no buts.
TOAST!
Are you laying Trump at current odds?
I think he is a lay but no I'm not doing more. I'm waiting for the EC spreads on SPIN. I'm hoping he opens up well above where I have him (195) and if so I plan one of my bigger punts.
Curious why the UK GDP decline is significantly larger. Our lockdown wasn't as stringent as many, and it was of comparable length to others, right?
The obvious answer to the depth of the recession is the use of the furlough scheme, which was one of the most extensive anywhere. This will result in a sharper trough but hopefully a stronger recovery.
Faisal knows this but prefers sh!t-stirring to using his economics degree. He gives the impression of looking forward to cheering every coming redundancy.
Why should that be the case ? The furlough scheme was an effective stimulus even in the height of lockdown. Wouldn't the recession have been deeper without furlough ?
If there had been no furlough scheme, a lot of companies that shut down would have remained open, although possibly with a number of redundancies. These would be mostly high-earning white-collar jobs, for example our own @MaxPB who spent a couple of months at home furthoughed instead of working in financial services.
The government paid 9m people, a quarter of the workforce, to be unproductive in the hope that 7m or 8m of them still have a job to go back to, was a very generous scheme by international standards and allowed huge numbers of people to be temporarily unemployed before returning to work.
The net effect is a sharper contraction followed by a faster bounce back. The calendar also plays a role when comparing countries, it’s going to be better to take Q1 and Q2 GDP data in aggregate, due to the differing dates of various measures in different countries. Those couple of weeks at the end of March make a big difference.
Real Time trains are saying all trains on that line are cancelled due to flooding.
However, assuming they are wrong and it's because of this accident, it looks like the last train to run to Stonehaven was the Aberdeen to Edinburgh express, which can do up to 100 mph although as it was scheduled to stop at Stonehaven it probably wouldn't have been going that fast.
Johnson did not have to lose Cummings. That was not the problem. The problem was the craven way he handled it. That he felt unable even to express disapproval.
"He acted as he saw fit in the best interests of his family and I will not mark him down for that."
An astonishing utterance from a PM in the circumstances. It laid bare his weakness of character. Told us all - or at least those of us with an interest and the relevant faculties - that he could not hack it without this one particular SPAD. This is unprecedented and it has (rightly) damaged him.
Not just that. All Dom had to do was apologise; "I was frightened, and I did something I shouldn't." It would have killed the story. But Dom couldn't do that, I imagine because his entire self-image is to be the SPAD equivalent of the Terminator.
Do you really believe an apology would have resolved all? Thats not how our vindictive media behaves. The apology then leads to the 'you've admitted it, now you must resign'. He of course should have apologised, but catastrophically in this country, politicians no longer apologise.
The Tories have more than three seats in Scotland, and the Liberal Democrats have more than one.
Similarly, the SNP do not have 54 seats (rather, 48).
It's a projection
Yes, but my point is the projected changes are wrong. They should be +10, -6 and -4.
I think they are a change from the previous projection, which is a damn stupid methodology. You don't count gains and losses on an election night from poll projections.
The Tories have more than three seats in Scotland, and the Liberal Democrats have more than one.
Similarly, the SNP do not have 54 seats (rather, 48).
It's a projection
Yes, but my point is the projected changes are wrong. They should be +10, -6 and -4.
I think they are a change from the previous projection, which is a damn stupid methodology. You don't count gains and losses on an election night from poll projections.
Johnson did not have to lose Cummings. That was not the problem. The problem was the craven way he handled it. That he felt unable even to express disapproval.
"He acted as he saw fit in the best interests of his family and I will not mark him down for that."
An astonishing utterance from a PM in the circumstances. It laid bare his weakness of character. Told us all - or at least those of us with an interest and the relevant faculties - that he could not hack it without this one particular SPAD. This is unprecedented and it has (rightly) damaged him.
Not just that. All Dom had to do was apologise; "I was frightened, and I did something I shouldn't." It would have killed the story. But Dom couldn't do that, I imagine because his entire self-image is to be the SPAD equivalent of the Terminator.
Do you really believe an apology would have resolved all? Thats not how our vindictive media behaves. The apology then leads to the 'you've admitted it, now you must resign'. He of course should have apologised, but catastrophically in this country, politicians no longer apologise.
'Sturgeon apologises to Scottish students for low exam grades'
Real Time trains are saying all trains on that line are cancelled due to flooding.
However, assuming they are wrong and it's because of this accident, it looks like the last train to run to Stonehaven was the Aberdeen to Edinburgh express, which can do up to 100 mph although as it was scheduled to stop at Stonehaven it probably wouldn't have been going that fast.
That doesn’t look good. Fingers crossed that there’s no serious injuries.
First of all, I have to apologise.to a number of PBers. I posted the link to Fox's article on the DNC list of speakers that had been announced and I know several on here closed their green positions on Harris over the back of it so I am truly sorry. I thought it might be a betting opportunity but it was the wrong one. If it is any consolation, I was heavily red on Harris (but what I could afford).
Second, re Harris, there seems to be a view that she was the safest candidate but I really think it might turn out to be the riskiest choice. She won't inspire the Bernie Bros, her record as California AG means she will come under attack from both left and right (and there are a lot of horror stories from her time as CA AG) and, while Bush criticised Reagan's "voodoo economics", she branded Biden a racist which is somewhat different. Plus this is happening at a time when the polls in some of the swing states (NC, AZ) are swinging slowly back to Trump, with even the Dem lead in Minnesota down to +3% according to one poll yesterday.
The quote I saw said "You're not a racist, but... (policy stuff)" - did she sharpen that up on another occasion?
Bernie supporters seem reasonably happy (only exception I've seen is Paul Mason, and he doesn't get a vote) and I think it's a safe choice which will reinforce the base and may help turnout. It's good that there really isn't that much emphasis on her skin colour and all of it positive - none of the patronising "Wow, Biden is daringly challenging his core vote by picking a black woman" stuff that we'd have seen 20 years ago. Trump's initial attack lines that she failed in the primaries and is a far leftist don't look strong.
That would be a real concern - Paul Mason - if he were highly influential in America. But it seems unlikely given his failure to make an impact at GE19 in his hometown of Leigh, Lancashire.
What is it about today? I've had TWO dodgy phone calls. One a very threatening one purporting to come from HMRC...... if I didn't press 1 on my keypad to discuss the matter a summons would be issued ....... and, in very threatening tones indeed 'you will be arrested'. HMRC's phishing site has been, of course, informed.
The other, purporting to come from Visa (which I use)that I'd bought something that I didn't usually buy...... no, not a book in a plain brown wrapper ....... but oddly never using my name, nor the name of my bank. Meant an email to my bank of course.
On the positive side my wife, doing some odd corner de-cobwebbing found a moth in a bundle of webbing. She released it and it flew off!
If a student got an A in their mocks but their grade after "adjustments" is claimed to be a C, how is it unreasonable or unfair for them to be able to say "no, I deserve an A like I got in my mocks"?
It's easy to criticise the government on this, but at least a decision and way forward has been made before the results are out - unlike in other places.
Once the exams were cancelled, the situation was inevitable. I'm not sure it was possible for them to go ahead given the timing.
It could certainly be argued that the exams going ahead would have disadvantaged poorer pupils and state comprehensive schools, who didn't have the resources to operate virtually during the lockdown period.
What was wrong with Plan A - have the teachers grade their students. Based on all the work submitted. Based on their knowledge of the student. As opposed to the utter farce we have before us because Tories hate Teachers apparently. You're all trots, can't be trusted.
Its part of a "triple lock" so teachers grades are the primary input, the mocks a secondary one and actual exams a tertiary one.
Teacher grading hasn't gone away.
Incorrect. Plan A was the teacher uses coursework exams and knowledge to assign a grade. Then they planned to rinse that through an algorithm so that bright kids in poor areas get downgrades (know your station plebs). Now the offer is "mock exams". Thats only a part of what has been assessed, and on so many courses misses all of the practical work that is inherent in the qualification.
Its rampant panicked bollocks from a government who fundamentally distrusts the teaching profession and a man who has no idea what day it is never mind what lie he's told in it. But its ok, its only education, it doesn't matter.
As I understand it, the algorithm looked at a school's previous results and the SATS of this cohort to see if the predicted grades looked reasonable. That might have the effect of giving downgrades to bright kids in poor areas but it doesn't necessarily follow. In Scotland the gap between schools in poor areas and other schools is much bigger than the equivalent gap in England. Also, the evidence in Scotland strongly suggests that teachers in the schools in poor areas were more likely to overegg their predictions than teachers in other areas.
Given that the link between income and educational outcomes is much weaker in England than in Scotland there is a decent chance that the algorithm wasn't simply downgrading kids in poor areas.
My view is that the move to predicted grades in Scotland means that Scottish grades for this year no longer have any credibility - the improvement in performance compared with previous years is too much to be believable. The change that has been made in England also reduces the credibility of grades. In my view they should have stuck with the approach they were using.
To clarify the process (I hope, and with apologies to the teachers on here):
- Schools provided ranking within subject and predicted grades. The ranking was key because it was always clear that grades would be subject to moderation. - Teachers everywhere tended to over-predict grades. This is natural - most teachers are optimistic and want the best for their students. - Some schools looked at the grades they had predicted and realised they were just not realistic and they’d never get through Ofqual’s moderation process, so they revised them downwards. - Other schools submitted their higher (over-optimistic) grades. - Overall schools reported a 12% improvement in grades this year, which is unheard of. - Ofqual’s algorithm did what it was always intended to do and reduced the “inflated” grades based on data it holds about schools’ and pupils’ past performance. (For example, it would recognise if a school had an exceptionally high-performing A level cohort from its earlier GCSE results.) - It turned out that the schools predicting the biggest increases tended to be schools with lower prior results. The reasons for this have not really been explored. - The media spun this as sinister algorithms “targeting” disadvantaged children in a “postcode lottery”. - It is true that an exceptional student in a school with historically lower results might lose out. That’s also true for a school which has genuinely improved significantly in the last year.
I believe what has happened in Scotland is similar to the above.
As I said there should have been a feedback loop back to the schools saying you are x% wrong please fix or justify.
That loop was completely missed resulting in this current grade A clusterfuck.
Meanwhile I suspect a lot of bad mock papers are rapidly being shredded to allow schools to fix the problem by using the "mock" results.
Real Time trains are saying all trains on that line are cancelled due to flooding.
However, assuming they are wrong and it's because of this accident, it looks like the last train to run to Stonehaven was the Aberdeen to Edinburgh express, which can do up to 100 mph although as it was scheduled to stop at Stonehaven it probably wouldn't have been going that fast.
That doesn’t look good. Fingers crossed that there’s no serious injuries.
London voting intention for UK elections, via @RedfieldWilton, 5-7 August (changes since 2019)
LAB 48% (-) CON 29% (-3) LD 14% (-1) GRN 7% (+4)
Labour would likely gain Chingford, Chipping Barnet and Kensington
Lab gain Kensington is almost certain next time round I think, even if the Tories move ahead of where they were.
Really? How did they manage to lose it in 2019?
An absolute knobber as an MP
Not many MPs have personal votes. I doubt too many have anti-votes ala Neil Hamilton. I think Labour's hope in Kensinton is that enough of those that voted Lib Dem can vote Labour next time due to Starmer.
The swing in Kensington was only 0.2% to the Tories compared to 9.6% nationwide. Broadly I think Keir gets back the "I'm not voting for Corbyn" votes more easily than the "Brexit Brexit Brexit" votes, enough of those probably went for Gyimah last time round to push Kensington back Labour even against a small swing to the Tories broadly - which I doubt happens in 2024.
My nose tells me (and the emerging leadership data) that Keir will win in four years time.
He doesn't threaten, and Brexit will be "done" by then, however you spin it.
I expect plenty in the SE will go LD losing Tories seats there, and Unionists will go to him in Scotland too. Tories will lose some southern marginals direct to Labour where the demographics are right, including students and lots of middle-class voters. Boris will probably retain most red-wall seats.
Question is whether he can get close to a majority or not.
Starmer needs Scottish seats to become PM, whether Labour or SNP confidence and supply, if Boris granted indyref2 and Yes won the Tories would almost certainly win another majority in 2024 on an English nationalist, hard Brexit ticket.
Best case scenario in 2024 is Labour winning about a dozen seats in Scotland I think even in a scenario where Lab is on 38-40% nationally.
Not that surprising. I think Labour is irrelevant at Holyrood under any leader (Leonard/Sarwar/whoever) due to the identity politics/age chasm and they will be doing quite well to get 15-20% of the list vote next year.
That is actually quite a poor poll for the Scottish Greens TBH considering they got 6.6% in 2016.
Ross Greer could actually lose his seat and the Greens could end up down a seat.
If a student got an A in their mocks but their grade after "adjustments" is claimed to be a C, how is it unreasonable or unfair for them to be able to say "no, I deserve an A like I got in my mocks"?
It's easy to criticise the government on this, but at least a decision and way forward has been made before the results are out - unlike in other places.
Once the exams were cancelled, the situation was inevitable. I'm not sure it was possible for them to go ahead given the timing.
It could certainly be argued that the exams going ahead would have disadvantaged poorer pupils and state comprehensive schools, who didn't have the resources to operate virtually during the lockdown period.
What was wrong with Plan A - have the teachers grade their students. Based on all the work submitted. Based on their knowledge of the student. As opposed to the utter farce we have before us because Tories hate Teachers apparently. You're all trots, can't be trusted.
Its part of a "triple lock" so teachers grades are the primary input, the mocks a secondary one and actual exams a tertiary one.
Teacher grading hasn't gone away.
Incorrect. Plan A was the teacher uses coursework exams and knowledge to assign a grade. Then they planned to rinse that through an algorithm so that bright kids in poor areas get downgrades (know your station plebs). Now the offer is "mock exams". Thats only a part of what has been assessed, and on so many courses misses all of the practical work that is inherent in the qualification.
Its rampant panicked bollocks from a government who fundamentally distrusts the teaching profession and a man who has no idea what day it is never mind what lie he's told in it. But its ok, its only education, it doesn't matter.
As I understand it, the algorithm looked at a school's previous results and the SATS of this cohort to see if the predicted grades looked reasonable. That might have the effect of giving downgrades to bright kids in poor areas but it doesn't necessarily follow. In Scotland the gap between schools in poor areas and other schools is much bigger than the equivalent gap in England. Also, the evidence in Scotland strongly suggests that teachers in the schools in poor areas were more likely to overegg their predictions than teachers in other areas.
Given that the link between income and educational outcomes is much weaker in England than in Scotland there is a decent chance that the algorithm wasn't simply downgrading kids in poor areas.
My view is that the move to predicted grades in Scotland means that Scottish grades for this year no longer have any credibility - the improvement in performance compared with previous years is too much to be believable. The change that has been made in England also reduces the credibility of grades. In my view they should have stuck with the approach they were using.
To clarify the process (I hope, and with apologies to the teachers on here):
- Schools provided ranking within subject and predicted grades. The ranking was key because it was always clear that grades would be subject to moderation. - Teachers everywhere tended to over-predict grades. This is natural - most teachers are optimistic and want the best for their students. - Some schools looked at the grades they had predicted and realised they were just not realistic and they’d never get through Ofqual’s moderation process, so they revised them downwards. - Other schools submitted their higher (over-optimistic) grades. - Overall schools reported a 12% improvement in grades this year, which is unheard of. - Ofqual’s algorithm did what it was always intended to do and reduced the “inflated” grades based on data it holds about schools’ and pupils’ past performance. (For example, it would recognise if a school had an exceptionally high-performing A level cohort from its earlier GCSE results.) - It turned out that the schools predicting the biggest increases tended to be schools with lower prior results. The reasons for this have not really been explored. - The media spun this as sinister algorithms “targeting” disadvantaged children in a “postcode lottery”. - It is true that an exceptional student in a school with historically lower results might lose out. That’s also true for a school which has genuinely improved significantly in the last year.
I believe what has happened in Scotland is similar to the above.
As I said there should have been a feedback loop back to the schools saying you are x% wrong please fix or justify.
That loop was completely missed resulting in this current grade A clusterfuck.
Meanwhile I suspect a lot of bad mock papers are rapidly being shredded to allow schools to fix the problem by using the "mock" results.
The Mock results have already been communicated to OFQUAL.
Real Time trains are saying all trains on that line are cancelled due to flooding.
However, assuming they are wrong and it's because of this accident, it looks like the last train to run to Stonehaven was the Aberdeen to Edinburgh express, which can do up to 100 mph although as it was scheduled to stop at Stonehaven it probably wouldn't have been going that fast.
That doesn’t look good. Fingers crossed that there’s no serious injuries.
The use of “crashed” rather than the earlier “derailed” sounds rather ominous. From the pictures it looks the incident may have occurred in a cutting, which would be a nightmare for rescue teams.
If a student got an A in their mocks but their grade after "adjustments" is claimed to be a C, how is it unreasonable or unfair for them to be able to say "no, I deserve an A like I got in my mocks"?
It's easy to criticise the government on this, but at least a decision and way forward has been made before the results are out - unlike in other places.
Once the exams were cancelled, the situation was inevitable. I'm not sure it was possible for them to go ahead given the timing.
It could certainly be argued that the exams going ahead would have disadvantaged poorer pupils and state comprehensive schools, who didn't have the resources to operate virtually during the lockdown period.
What was wrong with Plan A - have the teachers grade their students. Based on all the work submitted. Based on their knowledge of the student. As opposed to the utter farce we have before us because Tories hate Teachers apparently. You're all trots, can't be trusted.
Its part of a "triple lock" so teachers grades are the primary input, the mocks a secondary one and actual exams a tertiary one.
Teacher grading hasn't gone away.
Incorrect. Plan A was the teacher uses coursework exams and knowledge to assign a grade. Then they planned to rinse that through an algorithm so that bright kids in poor areas get downgrades (know your station plebs). Now the offer is "mock exams". Thats only a part of what has been assessed, and on so many courses misses all of the practical work that is inherent in the qualification.
Its rampant panicked bollocks from a government who fundamentally distrusts the teaching profession and a man who has no idea what day it is never mind what lie he's told in it. But its ok, its only education, it doesn't matter.
As I understand it, the algorithm looked at a school's previous results and the SATS of this cohort to see if the predicted grades looked reasonable. That might have the effect of giving downgrades to bright kids in poor areas but it doesn't necessarily follow. In Scotland the gap between schools in poor areas and other schools is much bigger than the equivalent gap in England. Also, the evidence in Scotland strongly suggests that teachers in the schools in poor areas were more likely to overegg their predictions than teachers in other areas.
Given that the link between income and educational outcomes is much weaker in England than in Scotland there is a decent chance that the algorithm wasn't simply downgrading kids in poor areas.
My view is that the move to predicted grades in Scotland means that Scottish grades for this year no longer have any credibility - the improvement in performance compared with previous years is too much to be believable. The change that has been made in England also reduces the credibility of grades. In my view they should have stuck with the approach they were using.
To clarify the process (I hope, and with apologies to the teachers on here):
- Schools provided ranking within subject and predicted grades. The ranking was key because it was always clear that grades would be subject to moderation. - Teachers everywhere tended to over-predict grades. This is natural - most teachers are optimistic and want the best for their students. - Some schools looked at the grades they had predicted and realised they were just not realistic and they’d never get through Ofqual’s moderation process, so they revised them downwards. - Other schools submitted their higher (over-optimistic) grades. - Overall schools reported a 12% improvement in grades this year, which is unheard of. - Ofqual’s algorithm did what it was always intended to do and reduced the “inflated” grades based on data it holds about schools’ and pupils’ past performance. (For example, it would recognise if a school had an exceptionally high-performing A level cohort from its earlier GCSE results.) - It turned out that the schools predicting the biggest increases tended to be schools with lower prior results. The reasons for this have not really been explored. - The media spun this as sinister algorithms “targeting” disadvantaged children in a “postcode lottery”. - It is true that an exceptional student in a school with historically lower results might lose out. That’s also true for a school which has genuinely improved significantly in the last year.
I believe what has happened in Scotland is similar to the above.
As I said there should have been a feedback loop back to the schools saying you are x% wrong please fix or justify.
That loop was completely missed resulting in this current grade A clusterfuck.
Meanwhile I suspect a lot of bad mock papers are rapidly being shredded to allow schools to fix the problem by using the "mock" results.
The Mock results have already been communicated to OFQUAL.
Mine haven't.
I was asked for a grade based on all the evidence available. It specifically said mock results were not the only or even most important piece of evidence required.
Real Time trains are saying all trains on that line are cancelled due to flooding.
However, assuming they are wrong and it's because of this accident, it looks like the last train to run to Stonehaven was the Aberdeen to Edinburgh express, which can do up to 100 mph although as it was scheduled to stop at Stonehaven it probably wouldn't have been going that fast.
That doesn’t look good. Fingers crossed that there’s no serious injuries.
The use of “crashed” rather than the earlier “derailed” sounds rather ominous. From the pictures it looks the incident may have occurred in a cutting, which would be a nightmare for rescue teams.
And the rumour is the powercar has caught fire.
Which would at the very least not make matters easier.
Edit- there is also extensive flooding in the area after major storms last night, so the ES were already at full stretch.
My wild guess is that there was a landslip or a tree fell into the cutting and the train crashed straight into it, but that's a guess and I very much hope I am totally wrong.
First of all, I have to apologise.to a number of PBers. I posted the link to Fox's article on the DNC list of speakers that had been announced and I know several on here closed their green positions on Harris over the back of it so I am truly sorry. I thought it might be a betting opportunity but it was the wrong one. If it is any consolation, I was heavily red on Harris (but what I could afford).
Second, re Harris, there seems to be a view that she was the safest candidate but I really think it might turn out to be the riskiest choice. She won't inspire the Bernie Bros, her record as California AG means she will come under attack from both left and right (and there are a lot of horror stories from her time as CA AG) and, while Bush criticised Reagan's "voodoo economics", she branded Biden a racist which is somewhat different. Plus this is happening at a time when the polls in some of the swing states (NC, AZ) are swinging slowly back to Trump, with even the Dem lead in Minnesota down to +3% according to one poll yesterday.
Not to worry. I completely ignored you as I always do. You're a Trump ramper who posts tosh in a superficially credible style.
Hmmmmm. Correlation does not equal causation. I very much doubt the Cummings incident helped Johnson but there are other reasons why his ratings might have fallen.
The disaster in care homes, shaking hands with everyone, an apparent sense of a u-turn on policy, a lack of clarity on advice to the public. He just doesn't seem like a PM for the crisis. So maybe it was all Cummings, maybe not. I can't help but feel you WANT it to be about Cummings.
You also have to factor in Starmer being an entirely new leader.
Also, there were other possible options between “do nothing” and “sack him”.
Not to the media mob there wasn’t. They’d decided long ago that he was a witch, and nothing short of burning at the stake was going to be acceptable.
The fact that they blew up the story as big as they did was probably a factor in the PM standing by him. Remember that we are talking about an ‘offence’ for which the legal punishment would have been an £80 fine, same as a parking ticket.
The punishment for breaking quarantine, which Cummings did, is £1000.
Do not confuse it with the Barnard Castle trip, which was essentially a traffic offence (and don’t forget, because he admitted he didn’t know whether he was fit to drive he could have had penalty points for that too).
Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. (We are concerned here with breaches of the Regulations, not the general Government guidance to “stay at home”.)
(...)
Durham Constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR, witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.
Even now, people are still writing to the Chief Constable, the Police Commissioner and even HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (who normally look at police shootings and deaths in custody) to try and get the investigation re-opened at a cost of tens, possibly even hundreds of thousands of pounds.
If it looks like a witch hunt, and smells like a witch hunt...
Not really. There’s no doubt about who or what Cummings is, and people are just pissed off with him.
He’s a member of staff.
If people disagree with the direction the government is taking, then they can take that up with their elected representatives. In due course, they’ll have the ability to change the government through the ballot box.
And in the meantime they are perfectly entitled to kick up a stink.
Comments
- Schools provided ranking within subject and predicted grades. The ranking was key because it was always clear that grades would be subject to moderation.
- Teachers everywhere tended to over-predict grades. This is natural - most teachers are optimistic and want the best for their students.
- Some schools looked at the grades they had predicted and realised they were just not realistic and they’d never get through Ofqual’s moderation process, so they revised them downwards.
- Other schools submitted their higher (over-optimistic) grades.
- Overall schools reported a 12% improvement in grades this year, which is unheard of.
- Ofqual’s algorithm did what it was always intended to do and reduced the “inflated” grades based on data it holds about schools’ and pupils’ past performance. (For example, it would recognise if a school had an exceptionally high-performing A level cohort from its earlier GCSE results.)
- It turned out that the schools predicting the biggest increases tended to be schools with lower prior results. The reasons for this have not really been explored.
- The media spun this as sinister algorithms “targeting” disadvantaged children in a “postcode lottery”.
- It is true that an exceptional student in a school with historically lower results might lose out. That’s also true for a school which has genuinely improved significantly in the last year.
I believe what has happened in Scotland is similar to the above.
Unlike Florida where Biden seems to be running away with it on the recent polling.
On the Senate front it looks like the Dems are now favoured to pick up seats in Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina from the polling, which means assuming the Dems lose the Alabama seat all eyes will be on Maine.
(Obvs subject to demand based ticket prices).
Need lots - blackberries not quite juicy enough.
Where's Scottish weather when you need it?
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1293472870656548864
You also do realise Brexit has already happened?
The last Democrat to get over 50% in North Carolina was Kennedy. It's always close but the bedrock of GOP voters is good for the elephant party there.
If people disagree with the direction the government is taking, then they can take that up with their elected representatives. In due course, they’ll have the ability to change the government through the ballot box.
Not even this cadre of Conservative MPs is craven enough to let him if he tries... surely?
I know that nobody has got poor betting on BoJo's brazenness, but there have to be limits... surely?
Apart from that, the PCP is going to have grow some balls, and a functioning brain, and oust the incompetent fool.
It's quote right Cummings is gone after on his breaking of quarantine - something he's never apologised for. He's brought the hunt on himself.
People fixate on public debt numbers despite abundant evidence that, in the current environment, it really is the last thing to be worried about. Mostly they combine the Householder Fallacy with the Paradox of Thrift, which any undergradate macro student can put them right about.
It’s a function of methodology. If you were never tested for COVID or die 29 days or more after being tested it doesn’t count. Meanwhile death certificates for 4 of those 5 weeks say there have been 35 COVID deaths. As treatments improve and people who ultimately die survive longer, this “28 day” cut off will become increasingly meaningless. Wales and NI use the same method.
England is the other extreme - if you have EVER tested positive and die (in a car crash, for example) that’s counted as a COVID death.
Net, Scotland is understating deaths, England overstating them.
That’s shown in the comparison with ONS (death certificate) data vs PHE (ever tested) ~20 a day vs ~50 a day.
They are looking at extending the cutoff to 60 days, in England, which should give a more reliable figure.
Of these the higher of the Ofqual grade and the mock grade will represent the official grade.
Have I understood correctly?
Therefore, those in small classes or courses that have not been taught before which are unaffected by the algorithm have to go with teacher grades.
Those in schools with a history of underachievement are effectively randomly assigned.
You could argue for hard policies I suppose, like on immigration, but that's not quite the same thing.
But more seriously it's the first of these attributes - female - that just slightly worries me as regards 3/11. Don't get me wrong, I'm only the teeniest bit worried, I remain confident that Trump will lose and it will not be close, but Harris is a woman and no woman has ever prevailed on the ticket in a general election in America. There have been three and all have lost.
And with the last one to lose, for all of HRC's debits as a candidate, which were legion, there can be no shadow of a doubt in the mind of anyone who can recognize misogyny when it rears its ugly head that one of the reasons she lost was misogyny.
So, you know, just a little gremlin in my mind there, given that due to Biden's age Harris will be looked at by many with their "Would I be OK with her as prez" specs on.
Faisal knows this but prefers sh!t-stirring to using his economics degree. He gives the impression of looking forward to cheering every coming redundancy.
So, presented with a massive, visible sign of the failure of his Premiership, he might try to brazen it out, but he might run away, never to be seen again.
A chap can live in hope, after all...
Oh...
We can be “sure” of nothing. There’s no “have to” about it.
Second, re Harris, there seems to be a view that she was the safest candidate but I really think it might turn out to be the riskiest choice. She won't inspire the Bernie Bros, her record as California AG means she will come under attack from both left and right (and there are a lot of horror stories from her time as CA AG) and, while Bush criticised Reagan's "voodoo economics", she branded Biden a racist which is somewhat different. Plus this is happening at a time when the polls in some of the swing states (NC, AZ) are swinging slowly back to Trump, with even the Dem lead in Minnesota down to +3% according to one poll yesterday.
And just two Liberal seats in the whole of England.
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/the-uk-publics-estimation-of-allies-and-threats/
It's about a third of the way down the article and shows which country Americans regard as their most important ally. The UK is obviously first by a long way, but what about the 5% that think China is? Or the 3% that give Russia?
I assume that some of those were the same people as the 3% of Americans who believed in the 90s that they had been abducted by aliens.
I agree she's not a great candidate, although she has the benefit of being well battle-tested and clearly able to handle herself, so I can see why a team that's leading would do it.
The furlough scheme was an effective stimulus even in the height of lockdown. Wouldn't the recession have been deeper without furlough ?
Indeed minus Scotland Home would have beaten Wilson in 1964, Heath would have beaten Wilson in February 1974 and Cameron and May would have won Tory majorities in 2010 and 2017
Labour hasn't moved, this is pathetic.
TOAST!
SNP: 54% (+3)
CON: 20% (-5)
LAB: 16% (+1)
LD: 5% (-1)
GRN: 2% (-)
BXP: 2% (+2)
SNP: 58 (+4)
LAB: 1 (-)
CON: 0 (-3)
LD: 0 (-1)
Ironic about 1964, given Home was a Scottish Prime Minister with a Scottish seat - the only one between 1908 and 2007.*
*Asquith had a Scottish seat, but was not Scottish. Macdonald was Scottish, but did not sit for a Scottish seat until after swapping offices with Baldwin in 1935.
However, this entails reporting delays of weeks.
A sensible approach would be
1) Report as COVID19 deaths all those who meet the ONS criteria on reporting day
2) Add on hospital deaths
3) Add on those with a diagnosis in the last 28 days
4) Rolling forward - all those in (3) and (2) are revised as the death certificates become available.
So you have a reasonable estimate, becoming the ONS number over time.
Boris folds, wildcat vote or section 30 for Starmer c&s.
Similarly, the SNP do not have 54 seats (rather, 48).
AG is still a job that appeals to middle America.
https://twitter.com/BenPhilip_/status/1293493004876095488
Bernie supporters seem reasonably happy (only exception I've seen is Paul Mason, and he doesn't get a vote) and I think it's a safe choice which will reinforce the base and may help turnout. It's good that there really isn't that much emphasis on her skin colour and all of it positive - none of the patronising "Wow, Biden is daringly challenging his core vote by picking a black woman" stuff that we'd have seen 20 years ago. Trump's initial attack lines that she failed in the primaries and is a far leftist don't look strong.
Feeling better now. Much better.
My Trump EC spread quote (info only) is 190/200. That's up 5 from last week.
Also what has really helped is buying a rubbish picker-up from ebay for a fiver. Great to reach the top ones that others can't get to.
He of course should have apologised, but catastrophically in this country, politicians no longer apologise.
That's just an opinion from a reasonably informed Type I, however.
The government paid 9m people, a quarter of the workforce, to be unproductive in the hope that 7m or 8m of them still have a job to go back to, was a very generous scheme by international standards and allowed huge numbers of people to be temporarily unemployed before returning to work.
The net effect is a sharper contraction followed by a faster bounce back. The calendar also plays a role when comparing countries, it’s going to be better to take Q1 and Q2 GDP data in aggregate, due to the differing dates of various measures in different countries. Those couple of weeks at the end of March make a big difference.
However, assuming they are wrong and it's because of this accident, it looks like the last train to run to Stonehaven was the Aberdeen to Edinburgh express, which can do up to 100 mph although as it was scheduled to stop at Stonehaven it probably wouldn't have been going that fast.
I think they are a change from the previous projection, which is a damn stupid methodology. You don't count gains and losses on an election night from poll projections.
https://tinyurl.com/y5rfmgwr
Westminster
2015 LD 41.4%;
2017 LD 48.6%
2020 LD 44.8%
Holyrood 2016:
Orkney 67.4%/ Shetland 67.4% !
The Shetland by-election did look more in line with Westminster than Holyrood curiously though.
HMRC's phishing site has been, of course, informed.
The other, purporting to come from Visa (which I use)that I'd bought something that I didn't usually buy...... no, not a book in a plain brown wrapper ....... but oddly never using my name, nor the name of my bank. Meant an email to my bank of course.
On the positive side my wife, doing some odd corner de-cobwebbing found a moth in a bundle of webbing. She released it and it flew off!
https://twitter.com/ReaganLincoln08/status/1293349715241820167?s=20
That loop was completely missed resulting in this current grade A clusterfuck.
Meanwhile I suspect a lot of bad mock papers are rapidly being shredded to allow schools to fix the problem by using the "mock" results.
That is actually quite a poor poll for the Scottish Greens TBH considering they got 6.6% in 2016.
Ross Greer could actually lose his seat and the Greens could end up down a seat.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/1293496204375011328
I was asked for a grade based on all the evidence available. It specifically said mock results were not the only or even most important piece of evidence required.
And since then, nothing.
Which would at the very least not make matters easier.
Edit- there is also extensive flooding in the area after major storms last night, so the ES were already at full stretch.
My wild guess is that there was a landslip or a tree fell into the cutting and the train crashed straight into it, but that's a guess and I very much hope I am totally wrong.