Given the apparently massive infection rate of spreading through students, there must be a serious chance that the peak of virus in some of these university towns might be very rapid and fizzle away before we know it?
Given the apparently massive infection rate of spreading through students, there must be a serious chance that the peak of virus in some of these university towns might be very rapid and fizzle away before we know it?
9,000 of the quarter of a million new infections over the last week were students.
Out of about two million students total
According to government figures mentioned in the commons today.
Do the maths and the infection rate among students is basically neither much higher nor much lower than par.
Suggesting the whole student thing is a red herring.
The only data I have seen to the contrary (aside from the anecdote of a uni in Nottingham, where there is clearly a big problem) compared local authority areas with universities to those without. The former had many more infections - from which it seems to have been assumed that the problem is the universities themselves. Perhaps, people have overlooked that universities are almost all located in big cities?
FYI, NYT / Siena poll out for the Michigan Siena race - Peters only now +1 ahead of James. That follows the CBS poll yesterday that showed Peters only at +3. Note 13% of the respondents in the NYT said refused / don't know
James did this last time with Stabenow where he ended up strong and came in closer than expected. It looks the same pattern here and he started out less behind with Peters than he did with Stabenow.
Interestingly, the same NYT poll gives Biden as +8 in Michigan
Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?
Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.
After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.
The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.
The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.
Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.
That's the American not the British.
Some Americans seem to think royals are far more important than they actually are.
The Queen and several other Royals receive daily briefings from the government and the intelligence services.
I think that's why Mrs Thatcher exploded at the idea of Anthony Blunt being that close to the Queen, he could view those papers (and pass them on.)
They will vary. Charles and the Queen will get similar (although not identical ones) whilst William probably gets a simpler digest.
I doubt Andrew, Edward or Harry get anything at all.
What is the need for this? I mean Charles and William anyway. I understand things relating to their own security but more generally. We aren't in a regency.
Given the apparently massive infection rate of spreading through students, there must be a serious chance that the peak of virus in some of these university towns might be very rapid and fizzle away before we know it?
There was a comment on a previous thread that the number of students that have had it is in the thousands, while there are a couple of million students at university. Not sure of the source of those, but if it is anywhere near accurate it suggests infections need to go up by another factor of a hundred or so.
FYI, NYT / Siena poll out for the Michigan Siena race - Peters only now +1 ahead of James. That follows the CBS poll yesterday that showed Peters only at +3. Note 13% of the respondents in the NYT said refused / don't know
James did this last time with Stabenow where he ended up strong and came in closer than expected. It looks the same pattern here and he started out less behind with Peters than he did with Stabenow.
Interestingly, the same NYT poll gives Biden as +8 in Michigan
Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?
Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.
After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.
The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.
The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.
Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.
That's the American not the British.
Some Americans seem to think royals are far more important than they actually are.
The Queen and several other Royals receive daily briefings from the government and the intelligence services.
I think that's why Mrs Thatcher exploded at the idea of Anthony Blunt being that close to the Queen, he could view those papers (and pass them on.)
They will vary. Charles and the Queen will get similar (although not identical ones) whilst William probably gets a simpler digest.
I doubt Andrew, Edward or Harry get anything at all.
What is the need for this? I mean Charles and William anyway. I understand things relating to their own security but more generally. We aren't in a regency.
Charles will be taking over soon. He needs to be well briefed and understand the issues in play.
William needs training for his future role, which will come around sooner than we think and he could be taking up over anything from a 10-30 year horizon.
Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?
Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.
After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.
The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.
The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.
Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.
That's the American not the British.
Some Americans seem to think royals are far more important than they actually are.
The Queen and several other Royals receive daily briefings from the government and the intelligence services.
I think that's why Mrs Thatcher exploded at the idea of Anthony Blunt being that close to the Queen, he could view those papers (and pass them on.)
They will vary. Charles and the Queen will get similar (although not identical ones) whilst William probably gets a simpler digest.
I doubt Andrew, Edward or Harry get anything at all.
What is the need for this? I mean Charles and William anyway. I understand things relating to their own security but more generally. We aren't in a regency.
If HMQ is expected to know this information then it makes sense Charles gets the information too since at a second's notice he could be HMK (is that the right acronym?)
So the highest risk tier operates on a sliding scale of interventions. So it is not a three tier system then. It is a three tier, plus, plus, plus etc. system.
Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?
Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.
After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.
The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.
The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.
Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.
That's the American not the British.
Some Americans seem to think royals are far more important than they actually are.
The Queen and several other Royals receive daily briefings from the government and the intelligence services.
I think that's why Mrs Thatcher exploded at the idea of Anthony Blunt being that close to the Queen, he could view those papers (and pass them on.)
They will vary. Charles and the Queen will get similar (although not identical ones) whilst William probably gets a simpler digest.
I doubt Andrew, Edward or Harry get anything at all.
What is the need for this? I mean Charles and William anyway. I understand things relating to their own security but more generally. We aren't in a regency.
Charles will be taking over soon. He needs to be well briefed and understand the issues in play.
William needs training for his future role, which will come around sooner than we think and he could be taking up over anything from a 10-30 year horizon.
With a pandemic on better start George on training too, just in case.
Local authorities in the Liverpool City Region will be put under the highest alert level, tier three. The affected boroughs are Liverpool, Knowsley, Wirral, St Helens, Sefton and Halton.
The areas in tier two are Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Warrington, Derbyshire, Lancashire, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, North East, Tees Valley, West Midlands, Leicester and Nottingham.
The rest of England has been placed under the medium alert level - tier one."
I assume "West Midlands" means Birmingham, Solihull, Walsall, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Sandwell, and doesn't also include Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Shropshire.
FYI, NYT / Siena poll out for the Michigan Siena race - Peters only now +1 ahead of James. That follows the CBS poll yesterday that showed Peters only at +3. Note 13% of the respondents in the NYT said refused / don't know
James did this last time with Stabenow where he ended up strong and came in closer than expected. It looks the same pattern here and he started out less behind with Peters than he did with Stabenow.
Interestingly, the same NYT poll gives Biden as +8 in Michigan
Am I right in suggesting that this is the model that got the 2017 UK election result pretty much spot on?
Not quite.
It uses different variables and methodology, because Great Britain and the US have a different electoral geography.
Care to elaborate?
It's a mixture of lower turnout in America (so they have to tweak that more in America, which increases the possibility of errors.)
There's also the issue that in some states you cannot ask mail in voters how they HAVE voted, so that skews the model, particularly in a pandemic world.
As a general rule there's only one or two elections on UK general election, for some Americans there's many more, and the possibility of split ticketing could skew the model, so they have to make assumptions for that too.
We don't have much split ticketing in the UK.
In 2015 I voted Green in the GE and Labour for Newcastle City Council. 😊
If you're really lucky in America, next month you'll have votes for President, Senate, Congressional, Governor, State Houses/Senate races.
FYI, NYT / Siena poll out for the Michigan Siena race - Peters only now +1 ahead of James. That follows the CBS poll yesterday that showed Peters only at +3. Note 13% of the respondents in the NYT said refused / don't know
James did this last time with Stabenow where he ended up strong and came in closer than expected. It looks the same pattern here and he started out less behind with Peters than he did with Stabenow.
Interestingly, the same NYT poll gives Biden as +8 in Michigan
Subsample alert but the just-out NYT/Siena rustbelt polling seems to suggest a fairly notable shift of white men from Trump to Biden since 2016.
As I have been saying for some time, it is all over for Trump
At least something is going right
Hmm. Have you really being saying that for some time, Big G? I think you first called it on Wednesday, didn't you?
I have never doubted Trump was gone as soon as he got covid and confirmed how much a pratt he is
For me it was the Senate's impeachment hearings. I think that charade not only exposed Trump, but resulted in many non-partisans being disgusted at the Senate GOP's spinelessness.
But Covid. Covid, Covid. Those of the nails in his coffin.
FYI, NYT / Siena poll out for the Michigan Siena race - Peters only now +1 ahead of James. That follows the CBS poll yesterday that showed Peters only at +3. Note 13% of the respondents in the NYT said refused / don't know
James did this last time with Stabenow where he ended up strong and came in closer than expected. It looks the same pattern here and he started out less behind with Peters than he did with Stabenow.
Interestingly, the same NYT poll gives Biden as +8 in Michigan
Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?
Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.
After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.
The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.
The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.
Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.
That's the American not the British.
Some Americans seem to think royals are far more important than they actually are.
The Queen and several other Royals receive daily briefings from the government and the intelligence services.
I think that's why Mrs Thatcher exploded at the idea of Anthony Blunt being that close to the Queen, he could view those papers (and pass them on.)
They will vary. Charles and the Queen will get similar (although not identical ones) whilst William probably gets a simpler digest.
I doubt Andrew, Edward or Harry get anything at all.
What is the need for this? I mean Charles and William anyway. I understand things relating to their own security but more generally. We aren't in a regency.
If HMQ is expected to know this information then it makes sense Charles gets the information too since at a second's notice he could be HMK (is that the right acronym?)
It's quicker than that. Royalty moves faster than the speed of light. George VI died and HM became Queen instantaneously. In Kenya.
FYI, NYT / Siena poll out for the Michigan Siena race - Peters only now +1 ahead of James. That follows the CBS poll yesterday that showed Peters only at +3. Note 13% of the respondents in the NYT said refused / don't know
James did this last time with Stabenow where he ended up strong and came in closer than expected. It looks the same pattern here and he started out less behind with Peters than he did with Stabenow.
Interestingly, the same NYT poll gives Biden as +8 in Michigan
As I said earlier, Boris's political weakness shined through today's debate in various ways. His political strength and capital and credibility amongst colleagues is all gone.
Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?
Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.
After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.
The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.
The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.
Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.
That's the American not the British.
Some Americans seem to think royals are far more important than they actually are.
The Queen and several other Royals receive daily briefings from the government and the intelligence services.
I think that's why Mrs Thatcher exploded at the idea of Anthony Blunt being that close to the Queen, he could view those papers (and pass them on.)
They will vary. Charles and the Queen will get similar (although not identical ones) whilst William probably gets a simpler digest.
I doubt Andrew, Edward or Harry get anything at all.
What is the need for this? I mean Charles and William anyway. I understand things relating to their own security but more generally. We aren't in a regency.
If HMQ is expected to know this information then it makes sense Charles gets the information too since at a second's notice he could be HMK (is that the right acronym?)
It's quicker than that. Royalty moves faster than the speed of light. George VI died and HM became Queen instantaneously. In Kenya.
They must have been in a state of quantum entanglement.
Thanks for the header Mike. FYI, hovering over the states, it looks like the Margin of Error on each state is around 6% given or take 0.1% or 0.2%
True. Also it remains the case that Trump needs a swingback of around 3% to 3.5% to win the states he needs, which is the same thing that 538 has been saying for ages.
Given the apparently massive infection rate of spreading through students, there must be a serious chance that the peak of virus in some of these university towns might be very rapid and fizzle away before we know it?
9,000 of the quarter of a million new infections over the last week were students.
Out of about two million students total
According to government figures mentioned in the commons today.
Do the maths and the infection rate among students is basically neither much higher nor much lower than par.
Suggesting the whole student thing is a red herring.
The only data I have seen to the contrary (aside from the anecdote of a uni in Nottingham, where there is clearly a big problem) compared local authority areas with universities to those without. The former had many more infections - from which it seems to have been assumed that the problem is the universities themselves. Perhaps, people have overlooked that universities are almost all located in big cities?
Fair enough, but - there were a quarter of a million infections last week? Where did that figure come from? And also how does it explain the massive jump in figures in the last week of September caused by the spreadsheet error (or was that not caused by university data?)
As I said earlier, Boris's political weakness shined through today's debate in various ways. His political strength and capital and credibility amongst colleagues is all gone.
To which the question must be, are they only keeping him in place now to take all the blame?
Local authorities in the Liverpool City Region will be put under the highest alert level, tier three. The affected boroughs are Liverpool, Knowsley, Wirral, St Helens, Sefton and Halton.
The areas in tier two are Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Warrington, Derbyshire, Lancashire, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, North East, Tees Valley, West Midlands, Leicester and Nottingham.
The rest of England has been placed under the medium alert level - tier one."
I assume "West Midlands" means Birmingham, Solihull, Walsall, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Sandwell, and doesn't also include Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Shropshire.
Great, so as you were in London then. Rumours nonsense?
Thanks for the header Mike. FYI, hovering over the states, it looks like the Margin of Error on each state is around 6% given or take 0.1% or 0.2%
True. Also it remains the case that Trump needs a swingback of around 3% to 3.5% to win the states he needs, which is the same thing that 538 has been saying for ages.
Still possible.
One of the more interesting things that have spotted is that in a lot of the Senate races, is that I always add the Democrat and Republican together to get the potential tally of possible further votes to capture. For Michigan, the combined score is 85, Minnesota 81% and 87% in Colorado.
Given the apparently massive infection rate of spreading through students, there must be a serious chance that the peak of virus in some of these university towns might be very rapid and fizzle away before we know it?
9,000 of the quarter of a million new infections over the last week were students.
Out of about two million students total
According to government figures mentioned in the commons today.
Do the maths and the infection rate among students is basically neither much higher nor much lower than par.
Suggesting the whole student thing is a red herring.
The only data I have seen to the contrary (aside from the anecdote of a uni in Nottingham, where there is clearly a big problem) compared local authority areas with universities to those without. The former had many more infections - from which it seems to have been assumed that the problem is the universities themselves. Perhaps, people have overlooked that universities are almost all located in big cities?
Given the apparently massive infection rate of spreading through students, there must be a serious chance that the peak of virus in some of these university towns might be very rapid and fizzle away before we know it?
9,000 of the quarter of a million new infections over the last week were students.
Out of about two million students total
According to government figures mentioned in the commons today.
Do the maths and the infection rate among students is basically neither much higher nor much lower than par.
Suggesting the whole student thing is a red herring.
The only data I have seen to the contrary (aside from the anecdote of a uni in Nottingham, where there is clearly a big problem) compared local authority areas with universities to those without. The former had many more infections - from which it seems to have been assumed that the problem is the universities themselves. Perhaps, people have overlooked that universities are almost all located in big cities?
Fair enough, but - there were a quarter of a million infections last week? Where did that figure come from? And also how does it explain the massive jump in figures in the last week of September caused by the spreadsheet error (or was that not caused by university data?)
You're right to challenge the quarter of a million figure - it's the ONS estimate for the last week, but is apples and pears compared to the 9,000, which is actual confirmed infections. You can probably double the student figure to allow for unidentified infections, which magnifies the student epidemic a little, whilst it still being a small part of the picture.
The spreadsheet error mostly affected the North West and not just students.
Given the apparently massive infection rate of spreading through students, there must be a serious chance that the peak of virus in some of these university towns might be very rapid and fizzle away before we know it?
9,000 of the quarter of a million new infections over the last week were students.
Out of about two million students total
According to government figures mentioned in the commons today.
Do the maths and the infection rate among students is basically neither much higher nor much lower than par.
Suggesting the whole student thing is a red herring.
The only data I have seen to the contrary (aside from the anecdote of a uni in Nottingham, where there is clearly a big problem) compared local authority areas with universities to those without. The former had many more infections - from which it seems to have been assumed that the problem is the universities themselves. Perhaps, people have overlooked that universities are almost all located in big cities?
Fair enough, but - there were a quarter of a million infections last week? Where did that figure come from? And also how does it explain the massive jump in figures in the last week of September caused by the spreadsheet error (or was that not caused by university data?)
IanB2 is clearly not comparing like with like. A quarter of a million new infections is some made-up conjecture and at 36,000 a day way in advance of the tested total. Whereas 9,000 is probably a figure plucked out of his arse, or if not something like *positive tests known to be students*
As I said earlier, Boris's political weakness shined through today's debate in various ways. His political strength and capital and credibility amongst colleagues is all gone.
To which the question must be, are they only keeping him in place now to take all the blame?
That makes sense, however as time goes on Sunak will be tarnished along with Johnson. He needs to strike sooner rather than later.
Given the apparently massive infection rate of spreading through students, there must be a serious chance that the peak of virus in some of these university towns might be very rapid and fizzle away before we know it?
9,000 of the quarter of a million new infections over the last week were students.
Out of about two million students total
According to government figures mentioned in the commons today.
Do the maths and the infection rate among students is basically neither much higher nor much lower than par.
Suggesting the whole student thing is a red herring.
The only data I have seen to the contrary (aside from the anecdote of a uni in Nottingham, where there is clearly a big problem) compared local authority areas with universities to those without. The former had many more infections - from which it seems to have been assumed that the problem is the universities themselves. Perhaps, people have overlooked that universities are almost all located in big cities?
Fair enough, but - there were a quarter of a million infections last week? Where did that figure come from? And also how does it explain the massive jump in figures in the last week of September caused by the spreadsheet error (or was that not caused by university data?)
You're right to challenge the quarter of a million figure - it's the ONS estimate for the last week, but is apples and pears compared to the 9,000, which is actual confirmed infections. You can probably double the student figure to allow for unidentified infections, which magnifies the student epidemic a little, whilst it still being a small part of the picture.
The spreadsheet error mostly affected the North West and not just students.
I don't think it's as low as 9,000. That number doesn't pass the sniff test at all. It feels like a number someone in PHE came up with that wasn't audited.
Given the apparently massive infection rate of spreading through students, there must be a serious chance that the peak of virus in some of these university towns might be very rapid and fizzle away before we know it?
9,000 of the quarter of a million new infections over the last week were students.
Out of about two million students total
According to government figures mentioned in the commons today.
Do the maths and the infection rate among students is basically neither much higher nor much lower than par.
Suggesting the whole student thing is a red herring.
The only data I have seen to the contrary (aside from the anecdote of a uni in Nottingham, where there is clearly a big problem) compared local authority areas with universities to those without. The former had many more infections - from which it seems to have been assumed that the problem is the universities themselves. Perhaps, people have overlooked that universities are almost all located in big cities?
Fair enough, but - there were a quarter of a million infections last week? Where did that figure come from? And also how does it explain the massive jump in figures in the last week of September caused by the spreadsheet error (or was that not caused by university data?)
IanB2 is clearly not comparing like with like. A quarter of a million new infections is some made-up conjecture and at 36,000 a day way in advance of the tested total. Whereas 9,000 is probably a figure plucked out of his arse, or if not something like *positive tests known to be students*
"some made-up conjecture " -> the official ONS estimate "a figure plucked out of his arse" -> announced by the Education Minister in the Commons earlier
Of course not, Covid is going to spread unless and until we get a vaccine, the trick is to control that spread without destroying the economy with masks and social distancing etc not another full lockdown. We are not going to stop it spreading altogether
Of course not, Covid is going to spread unless and until we get a vaccine, the trick is to control that spread without destroying the economy with masks and social distancing etc not another full lockdown. We are not going to stop it spreading altogether
Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?
Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.
After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.
The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.
A good excuse for the Mitchell & Webb sketch on the MI6 assassination of Princess Diana.
FYI, NYT / Siena poll out for the Michigan Siena race - Peters only now +1 ahead of James. That follows the CBS poll yesterday that showed Peters only at +3. Note 13% of the respondents in the NYT said refused / don't know
James did this last time with Stabenow where he ended up strong and came in closer than expected. It looks the same pattern here and he started out less behind with Peters than he did with Stabenow.
Interestingly, the same NYT poll gives Biden as +8 in Michigan
Credit where it’s due, you highlighted that Peters might be in trouble a couple of weeks back. I think he’ll hold on but might ruin the Dems night if he loses and they fail to win the Senate
"One MP tells my POLITICO colleague Emilio Casalicchio in today’s Morning Trade U.K. newsletter that Chief Whip Mark Spencer (himself a farmer) has a burdizzo — a large clamping tool designed to castrate small animals — in his office. It’s not quite a tarantula but it could keep a few of the more excitable male MPs in the government voting lobbies."
Perhaps over-active use of the burdizzo may go some ways to explaining the rather supine stance taken by majority of Tory backbenchers to the PM's amply-demonstrated lack of fitness for his position?
Is impotence trumping (in more ways than one?) incompetence?
Yup. If he was a Bangladeshi and it was an Indian restaurant that would be racial stereotyping. Or if it showed him as a corner shop owner or a GP (as his dad was)
Sunak's communication style is so Blair like I keep expecting him to announce that we are invading a large middle eastern country. But he is a fantastically good communicator.
Interesting that the only revelation at the press conference was the aside from Whitty that everyone agrees this can't work. Which is certainly how it seemed to a lot of people - as, Liverpool apart, it barely changes anything.
I wonder what the likes of Whitty would be proposing if there was not some semblance of need to maintain a functional economy. Would they just have had us holed up in our own houses for 12 months, maybe a wee break in July before back in the box?
It sort of feels like that's the subtext of these briefings - the scientists basically trying to push the government to write the cheques needed to close the whole country down (without being too openly contradictory to the strategy du jour) and the politicians knowing that they simply can't, at least not for any length of time.
FYI, NYT / Siena poll out for the Michigan Siena race - Peters only now +1 ahead of James. That follows the CBS poll yesterday that showed Peters only at +3. Note 13% of the respondents in the NYT said refused / don't know
James did this last time with Stabenow where he ended up strong and came in closer than expected. It looks the same pattern here and he started out less behind with Peters than he did with Stabenow.
Interestingly, the same NYT poll gives Biden as +8 in Michigan
Subsample alert but the just-out NYT/Siena rustbelt polling seems to suggest a fairly notable shift of white men from Trump to Biden since 2016.
As I have been saying for some time, it is all over for Trump
At least something is going right
Hmm. Have you really being saying that for some time, Big G? I think you first called it on Wednesday, didn't you?
I have never doubted Trump was gone as soon as he got covid and confirmed how much a pratt he is
For me it was the Senate's impeachment hearings. I think that charade not only exposed Trump, but resulted in many non-partisans being disgusted at the Senate GOP's spinelessness.
But Covid. Covid, Covid. Those of the nails in his coffin.
1992: Speed kills - and speed (as in rapid response by Clinton campaign) killed Bush the Elder's re-election
2020: COVID kills - and looks like COVID is killing Trumpsky's re-election
Given the apparently massive infection rate of spreading through students, there must be a serious chance that the peak of virus in some of these university towns might be very rapid and fizzle away before we know it?
9,000 of the quarter of a million new infections over the last week were students.
Out of about two million students total
According to government figures mentioned in the commons today.
Do the maths and the infection rate among students is basically neither much higher nor much lower than par.
Suggesting the whole student thing is a red herring.
The only data I have seen to the contrary (aside from the anecdote of a uni in Nottingham, where there is clearly a big problem) compared local authority areas with universities to those without. The former had many more infections - from which it seems to have been assumed that the problem is the universities themselves. Perhaps, people have overlooked that universities are almost all located in big cities?
Fair enough, but - there were a quarter of a million infections last week? Where did that figure come from? And also how does it explain the massive jump in figures in the last week of September caused by the spreadsheet error (or was that not caused by university data?)
IanB2 is clearly not comparing like with like. A quarter of a million new infections is some made-up conjecture and at 36,000 a day way in advance of the tested total. Whereas 9,000 is probably a figure plucked out of his arse, or if not something like *positive tests known to be students*
"some made-up conjecture " -> the official ONS estimate "a figure plucked out of his arse" -> announced by the Education Minister in the Commons earlier
Otherwise, fair challenge
Regardless, completely different types of figures that simply shouldn't be quoted on the same page, let alone compared. And if only 9000 students have had it, we should be encouraging them to have more sex.
"One MP tells my POLITICO colleague Emilio Casalicchio in today’s Morning Trade U.K. newsletter that Chief Whip Mark Spencer (himself a farmer) has a burdizzo — a large clamping tool designed to castrate small animals — in his office. It’s not quite a tarantula but it could keep a few of the more excitable male MPs in the government voting lobbies."
Perhaps over-active use of the burdizzo may go some ways to explaining the rather supine stance taken by majority of Tory backbenchers to the PM's amply-demonstrated lack of fitness for his position?
Is impotence trumping (in more ways than one?) incompetence?
I wouldn't have thought that the backbenchers were the obvious candidates for treatment...
Am I right in suggesting that this is the model that got the 2017 UK election result pretty much spot on?
Not quite.
It uses different variables and methodology, because Great Britain and the US have a different electoral geography.
Care to elaborate?
It's a mixture of lower turnout in America (so they have to tweak that more in America, which increases the possibility of errors.)
There's also the issue that in some states you cannot ask mail in voters how they HAVE voted, so that skews the model, particularly in a pandemic world.
As a general rule there's only one or two elections on UK general election, for some Americans there's many more, and the possibility of split ticketing could skew the model, so they have to make assumptions for that too.
We don't have much split ticketing in the UK.
In 2015 I voted Green in the GE and Labour for Newcastle City Council. 😊
If you're really lucky in America, next month you'll have votes for President, Senate, Congressional, Governor, State Houses/Senate races.
I was shocked and stressed by the 7 pm government presentation. These are difficult times and it’s inevitable that the government’s announcements add to our worries.
But Rishi Sunak has tipped me into another level of stress with his, “Thanks PM”, schtick. Since when was this an appropriate way to address the highest elected person in our democracy?
Sunak has become “Will” from “The Inbetweeners” when he addresses the headmaster with, “”Thanks Phil”.
I now need to go and lie down now. Breathe slowly, calmly, deeply. It will be alright.
Sunak's communication style is so Blair like I keep expecting him to announce that we are invading a large middle eastern country. But he is a fantastically good communicator.
Interesting that the only revelation at the press conference was the aside from Whitty that everyone agrees this can't work. Which is certainly how it seemed to a lot of people - as, Liverpool apart, it barely changes anything.
I expect they might be targeting smaller local areas of total lockdown where necessary. Maybe more draconian than the national one.
As I said earlier, Boris's political weakness shined through today's debate in various ways. His political strength and capital and credibility amongst colleagues is all gone.
To which the question must be, are they only keeping him in place now to take all the blame?
He is so often at the moment in the situation where he is rather obviously the dimmest person in the room. I don' think even the journalists beat him to bottom place this evening.
Those of us who listened to Richard Nabavi's advice about the spreads are feeling rather content at the moment.
I could do with a small loan if you come up big.
Nothing substantial, $1 million should do.
You tipped Trump to win Michigan in 2016 as a great value bet, what have you frittered your winnings on?
Did I? I must confess I don’t remember that. I remember telling Morris Dancer that I was hoping his bet on Trump to win North Carolina was a loser, although I doubted it would be.
Subsample alert but the just-out NYT/Siena rustbelt polling seems to suggest a fairly notable shift of white men from Trump to Biden since 2016.
As I have been saying for some time, it is all over for Trump
At least something is going right
Hmm. Have you really being saying that for some time, Big G? I think you first called it on Wednesday, didn't you?
I have never doubted Trump was gone as soon as he got covid and confirmed how much a pratt he is
For me it was the Senate's impeachment hearings. I think that charade not only exposed Trump, but resulted in many non-partisans being disgusted at the Senate GOP's spinelessness.
But Covid. Covid, Covid. Those of the nails in his coffin.
1992: Speed kills - and speed (as in rapid response by Clinton campaign) killed Bush the Elder's re-election
2020: COVID kills - and looks like COVID is killing Trumpsky's re-election
"COVID and speed" sounds like Trump's medical test results.
Sunak's communication style is so Blair like I keep expecting him to announce that we are invading a large middle eastern country. But he is a fantastically good communicator.
Interesting that the only revelation at the press conference was the aside from Whitty that everyone agrees this can't work. Which is certainly how it seemed to a lot of people - as, Liverpool apart, it barely changes anything.
I expect they might be targeting smaller local areas of total lockdown where necessary. Maybe more draconian than the national one.
It feels sub-optimal to make a big announcement fuss today if you know you have to do it all again in a few days when you turn up the heat. It confuses what is already incomprehensible; and today actually changed almost nothing for almost everyone.
FYI, NYT / Siena poll out for the Michigan Siena race - Peters only now +1 ahead of James. That follows the CBS poll yesterday that showed Peters only at +3. Note 13% of the respondents in the NYT said refused / don't know
James did this last time with Stabenow where he ended up strong and came in closer than expected. It looks the same pattern here and he started out less behind with Peters than he did with Stabenow.
Interestingly, the same NYT poll gives Biden as +8 in Michigan
Sorry meant Senate race not Siena race
Re homelessness in LA.
There is a serious homelessness problem in Southern California, but I'm not convinced it's homegrown.
Simply: there are many parts of the US where the weather is such that being homeless is incredibly difficult. Homeless in Minneapolis or Denver or Salt Lake City - die of cold in the winter. Homeless in Phoenix or Las Vegas or Dallas - die of heat exhaustion in the summer.
If you speak to the homeless, how many are Californians? And how many are people with mental and drug issues who have migrated to cities which (a) have good opportunities for panhandling and (b) are temperate enough to live in?
So these measures are not going to work as I said earlier. Looks like my suggestion that a national lockdown is coming and the experts know it, was not too far off the mark
The government clearly feels it doesnt have the capital to push restrictions any further without buyin from the local authorities themselves. If you listen to the PM opening the Commons debate earlier, he as good as says as much.
The Tier 2 is actually a marginal relaxation for those areas already under local restrictions, and my guess is that the intention was to move the whole of the North into Tier 3 until Burnham started gathering the locals in opposition. Liverpool seems to have been caught out when the government dropped the rest of the North and is now trying to row back on whatever it said to government in private.
The irony is that, had local authorities been allowed to lead in the first place, many of them might well have followed public opinion in moving faster toward local restrictions. But since the government has kept everything under very centralised control, they clearly don't feel minded to give a discredited government political cover by rubber stamping something being imposed on them.
Dan Hodges was right. Never mind superforecasters, or forecasters, what the Government need really badly right now is people who can tell the time, and COUNT TO THREE !!!
I guess they considered level 4, but then decided very very high might not be the clearest name.
A little hint in Whitty's remarks of shovelling responsibility/blame down to the local area, which suggests that government thinks there is no credit to get out of this farrago at this stage.
So these measures are not going to work as I said earlier. Looks like my suggestion that a national lockdown is coming and the experts know it, was not too far off the mark
They have yet to be implemented, so I am not sure how you can confidently claim that.
Comments
Her authority rests on the respect she commands - as is the case in all jobs.
Out of about two million students total
According to government figures mentioned in the commons today.
Do the maths and the infection rate among students is basically neither much higher nor much lower than par.
Suggesting the whole student thing is a red herring.
The only data I have seen to the contrary (aside from the anecdote of a uni in Nottingham, where there is clearly a big problem) compared local authority areas with universities to those without. The former had many more infections - from which it seems to have been assumed that the problem is the universities themselves. Perhaps, people have overlooked that universities are almost all located in big cities?
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/miwi1020-crosstabs/b0a09cd1cd0048df/full.pdf
James did this last time with Stabenow where he ended up strong and came in closer than expected. It looks the same pattern here and he started out less behind with Peters than he did with Stabenow.
Interestingly, the same NYT poll gives Biden as +8 in Michigan
William needs training for his future role, which will come around sooner than we think and he could be taking up over anything from a 10-30 year horizon.
Local authorities in the Liverpool City Region will be put under the highest alert level, tier three. The affected boroughs are Liverpool, Knowsley, Wirral, St Helens, Sefton and Halton.
The areas in tier two are Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Warrington, Derbyshire, Lancashire, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, North East, Tees Valley, West Midlands, Leicester and Nottingham.
The rest of England has been placed under the medium alert level - tier one."
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/three-tier-lockdown-map-system-which-tier-local-area-b990602.html
I assume "West Midlands" means Birmingham, Solihull, Walsall, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Sandwell, and doesn't also include Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Shropshire.
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18237824.chancellor-rishi-sunak-did-shifts-fun-southampton-indian-restaurant/
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1315721438721171458
https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1315721395301691393
But Covid. Covid, Covid. Those of the nails in his coffin.
https://twitter.com/cjcheesecake/status/1315718946964860928
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18787219.knowle-convenience-store-owes-345k-unpaid-tax/
One of the more interesting things that have spotted is that in a lot of the Senate races, is that I always add the Democrat and Republican together to get the potential tally of possible further votes to capture. For Michigan, the combined score is 85, Minnesota 81% and 87% in Colorado.
The spreadsheet error mostly affected the North West and not just students.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1315725297543774208
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1315725143428268036
'There are different things that can be done within the guidance'
"a figure plucked out of his arse" -> announced by the Education Minister in the Commons earlier
Otherwise, fair challenge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4meFC1ee7Q
"One MP tells my POLITICO colleague Emilio Casalicchio in today’s Morning Trade U.K. newsletter that Chief Whip Mark Spencer (himself a farmer) has a burdizzo — a large clamping tool designed to castrate small animals — in his office. It’s not quite a tarantula but it could keep a few of the more excitable male MPs in the government voting lobbies."
Perhaps over-active use of the burdizzo may go some ways to explaining the rather supine stance taken by majority of Tory backbenchers to the PM's amply-demonstrated lack of fitness for his position?
Is impotence trumping (in more ways than one?) incompetence?
Interesting that the only revelation at the press conference was the aside from Whitty that everyone agrees this can't work. Which is certainly how it seemed to a lot of people - as, Liverpool apart, it barely changes anything.
It sort of feels like that's the subtext of these briefings - the scientists basically trying to push the government to write the cheques needed to close the whole country down (without being too openly contradictory to the strategy du jour) and the politicians knowing that they simply can't, at least not for any length of time.
American polling is an abomination.
2020: COVID kills - and looks like COVID is killing Trumpsky's re-election
But Rishi Sunak has tipped me into another level of stress with his, “Thanks PM”, schtick. Since when was this an appropriate way to address the highest elected person in our democracy?
Sunak has become “Will” from “The Inbetweeners” when he addresses the headmaster with, “”Thanks Phil”.
I now need to go and lie down now. Breathe slowly, calmly, deeply. It will be alright.
Apparently I’m more awesome than I realised.
There is a serious homelessness problem in Southern California, but I'm not convinced it's homegrown.
Simply: there are many parts of the US where the weather is such that being homeless is incredibly difficult. Homeless in Minneapolis or Denver or Salt Lake City - die of cold in the winter. Homeless in Phoenix or Las Vegas or Dallas - die of heat exhaustion in the summer.
If you speak to the homeless, how many are Californians? And how many are people with mental and drug issues who have migrated to cities which (a) have good opportunities for panhandling and (b) are temperate enough to live in?
The Tier 2 is actually a marginal relaxation for those areas already under local restrictions, and my guess is that the intention was to move the whole of the North into Tier 3 until Burnham started gathering the locals in opposition. Liverpool seems to have been caught out when the government dropped the rest of the North and is now trying to row back on whatever it said to government in private.
The irony is that, had local authorities been allowed to lead in the first place, many of them might well have followed public opinion in moving faster toward local restrictions. But since the government has kept everything under very centralised control, they clearly don't feel minded to give a discredited government political cover by rubber stamping something being imposed on them.
How many tiers will it have?
More than 3...
Dan Hodges was right. Never mind superforecasters, or forecasters, what the Government need really badly right now is people who can tell the time, and COUNT TO THREE !!!