After having had my fingers burned slightly with the change to the ONS estimates of infection last week, I looked at getting an alternative (and more reliable) data source.
(This is not to take a pop at the ONS or their infection survey - they're doing an excellent job in finding decent data; it's just that it is, by its nature, subject to revision).
Using the hospitalisation data figures (as Wales has different rules than the other nations for hospitalisation, I've taken the England figures and multiplied by 1.2, which will be a source of error as an approximation as the other Home Nations are following different strategies, but it will be broadly accurate), I took the lagged deaths-per-hospitalisation (running at about 26.5% looking at the recent average).
This will obviously be fairly accurate for past days; it's the projection that's interesting. It does project a discernably lower peak than the historical-IFR-against-infection-estimates.
I therefore have a mental preference for this, of course. It will be interesting to see which one marches closer with the data as it comes in. (I'm rooting for the lower one).
Deaths from lagged hospitalisations are shown in light blue. Actual deaths in red. Original projections against estimated infection rates in light yellow (so it colours the red to orange when the deaths are below that projection).
Interesting. Is that, in effect, using the recent data on better outcomes (treatment improvement etc) vs the data from March?
It's bad this is happening just after the election. IF the Republican Supreme Court had agreed with Republican politicians that Obamacare is unconstitutional a couple of weeks ago, I suspect Democrats might have won control of the Senate. Now, people would have to wait 2 years.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
But which principles are those? I'm sure you can draw a Venn diagram with an overlap between the Conservative principles of (say) Ted Heath and IDS, or between John Major and Boris Johnson, but that overlap wouldn't be large.
Yes, they are all (or were in the case of Heath) monarchists and Unionists and 3/4 of them are or were Anglicans with the exception of IDS who is Catholic but he shares enough other Tory values to still be a Tory
What about Michael Howard? Why is being an Anglican important at all?
Howard is Jewish, though his son is an Anglican priest, the Tory Party arose in the 17th century as the rival to the Whigs and as the party most loyal to the monarchy and the Anglican Church as the established church
It's bad this is happening just after the election. IF the Republican Supreme Court had agreed with Republican politicians that Obamacare is unconstitutional a couple of weeks ago, I suspect Democrats might have won control of the Senate. Now, people would have to wait 2 years.
I have no sympathy for people that would change their vote after the fact on that issue. Thick as mince to put it mildly.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
It's bad this is happening just after the election. IF the Republican Supreme Court had agreed with Republican politicians that Obamacare is unconstitutional a couple of weeks ago, I suspect Democrats might have won control of the Senate. Now, people would have to wait 2 years.
Tbf, the Republicans can say the same about the timing of the vaccine.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
But which principles are those? I'm sure you can draw a Venn diagram with an overlap between the Conservative principles of (say) Ted Heath and IDS, or between John Major and Boris Johnson, but that overlap wouldn't be large.
Yes, they are all (or were in the case of Heath) monarchists and Unionists and 3/4 of them are or were Anglicans with the exception of IDS who is Catholic but he shares enough other Tory values to still be a Tory
What about Michael Howard? Why is being an Anglican important at all?
Howard is Jewish, though his son is an Anglican priest, the Tory Party arose in the 17th century as the rival to the Whigs and as the party most loyal to the monarchy and the Anglican Church as the established church
I know what he is; that is why I posted it. Does his son being an Anglian priest give him a free pass then?
Not quite believing the Guido story about the PM's tweet I looked at it myself. You can definitely see the word Trump in the message. Utter beggars belief. I actually can't think of how you would do this without it being intentional.
It's really odd, isn't it? Can only imagine that a soft eraser/soft brush tool or clone tool from other parts of te background was used to obliterate the original text and the job was not sufficiently thorough in the couple of places. But I can't imagine why anyone would do it that way instead of starting from a new image (obvious approach) or simply using a colour matched rectangle to cover the text (hacky approach, but would also work). It's just a plain background, so not hard to do either.
The other odd thing is, with all the polling, why would you have a Trump version prepared and not a Biden version? Or, if both were done in advance why do the Trump version first and - particularly - why not do a proper job?
Does make me wonder what else might be hiding in the background of other No. 10 tweets if the same person has been doing these images for a while!
Just a suggestion, but maybe the original tweet was drafted lazily by some junior oik when he thought it was clear Trump would win. Said oik then had to quickly redraft when the awful truth began to reveal itself.
There are other more interesting and salacious interpretaions but Occam's razor and all that...
I suspect the underling was told we needed to be first out the door with congratulations if Trump won. When Biden won they just cobbled something together almost as an afterthought. This attitude was evinced by Boris saying he wasn't bothered about getting an early phone call with Biden - for his purposes Trump was the only game in town.
After having had my fingers burned slightly with the change to the ONS estimates of infection last week, I looked at getting an alternative (and more reliable) data source.
(This is not to take a pop at the ONS or their infection survey - they're doing an excellent job in finding decent data; it's just that it is, by its nature, subject to revision).
Using the hospitalisation data figures (as Wales has different rules than the other nations for hospitalisation, I've taken the England figures and multiplied by 1.2, which will be a source of error as an approximation as the other Home Nations are following different strategies, but it will be broadly accurate), I took the lagged deaths-per-hospitalisation (running at about 26.5% looking at the recent average).
This will obviously be fairly accurate for past days; it's the projection that's interesting. It does project a discernably lower peak than the historical-IFR-against-infection-estimates.
I therefore have a mental preference for this, of course. It will be interesting to see which one marches closer with the data as it comes in. (I'm rooting for the lower one).
Deaths from lagged hospitalisations are shown in light blue. Actual deaths in red. Original projections against estimated infection rates in light yellow (so it colours the red to orange when the deaths are below that projection).
Interesting. Is that, in effect, using the recent data on better outcomes (treatment improvement etc) vs the data from March?
Yes - the 26.5% is the average over the most recent four weeks of solid(-ish) data for deaths in England (up to 2nd November), lagged by 10 days from hospitalisations in England.
It's a little worse than it was earlier in this wave; that makes sense as the hospitalisations skewed younger in the earlier days of the second wave, before infections migrated across the ages.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
But which principles are those? I'm sure you can draw a Venn diagram with an overlap between the Conservative principles of (say) Ted Heath and IDS, or between John Major and Boris Johnson, but that overlap wouldn't be large.
Yes, they are all (or were in the case of Heath) monarchists and Unionists and 3/4 of them are or were Anglicans with the exception of IDS who is Catholic but he shares enough other Tory values to still be a Tory
What about Michael Howard? Why is being an Anglican important at all?
Howard is Jewish, though his son is an Anglican priest, the Tory Party arose in the 17th century as the rival to the Whigs and as the party most loyal to the monarchy and the Anglican Church as the established church
I know what he is; that is why I posted it. Does his son being an Anglian priest give him a free pass then?
He's obviously seen the error of his ways. And brought up his child to not repeat them. That would seem to be the implication.
It's bad this is happening just after the election. IF the Republican Supreme Court had agreed with Republican politicians that Obamacare is unconstitutional a couple of weeks ago, I suspect Democrats might have won control of the Senate. Now, people would have to wait 2 years.
I have no sympathy for people that would change their vote after the fact on that issue. Thick as mince to put it mildly.
Isn't it normal? If tens millions of people had suddenly become uninsured it would have dominated the news in the last days of voting, on an issue where the democrats are way ahead of republicans. Bound to have affected the result, no matter how thick voters might or might not be.
Of course the Supreme Court may very likely leave things as they are (if they have any sense).
Not quite believing the Guido story about the PM's tweet I looked at it myself. You can definitely see the word Trump in the message. Utter beggars belief. I actually can't think of how you would do this without it being intentional.
It's really odd, isn't it? Can only imagine that a soft eraser/soft brush tool or clone tool from other parts of te background was used to obliterate the original text and the job was not sufficiently thorough in the couple of places. But I can't imagine why anyone would do it that way instead of starting from a new image (obvious approach) or simply using a colour matched rectangle to cover the text (hacky approach, but would also work). It's just a plain background, so not hard to do either.
The other odd thing is, with all the polling, why would you have a Trump version prepared and not a Biden version? Or, if both were done in advance why do the Trump version first and - particularly - why not do a proper job?
Does make me wonder what else might be hiding in the background of other No. 10 tweets if the same person has been doing these images for a while!
Just a suggestion, but maybe the original tweet was drafted lazily by some junior oik when he thought it was clear Trump would win. Said oik then had to quickly redraft when the awful truth began to reveal itself.
There are other more interesting and salacious interpretaions but Occam's razor and all that...
I suspect the underling was told we needed to be first out the door with congratulations if Trump won. When Biden won they just cobbled something together almost as an afterthought. This attitude was evinced by Boris saying he wasn't bothered about getting an early phone call with Biden - for his purposes Trump was the only game in town.
Sounds reasonable.
The more exciting idea that Boris had been briefed that Trump would win and had prepared for that is fun, but probably wrong.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
You are so divisive and bigoted in your views especiallly, over who should be a member of the conservative party and the RUK relationship with Scotland, that you compare very well to the worst excesses of Corbyn and Momentum on the left
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I just read something very concerning by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and Jeremy Warner in the Telegraph. They do the Economic Intelligence emails.
I will try and post on here.
AEP does the emails?
That is very concerning. Thanks for the heads up.
This is the key bit:
"As I have written before in these pages, it is a pre-planned strategy. The machinery for legal guerrilla warfare is already in place.
Mr Trump’s operatives knew there would be a ‘blue switch’ towards the Democrats late in the process as postal ballots were counted last, and knew that this could be exploited to create the appearance of a stolen election. Trump allies in charge of the Pennsylvania General Assembly actively intervened to prevent these ballots being counted early.
The President is calling for mass demonstrations with the clear intention of drawing Antifa and other hard-Left agitators into the streets. He has just fired his defence secretary, who opposed deployment of the US military against domestic protestors in June.
Mr Trump has instead appointed a man more willing to enforce the 1807 Insurrection Act against American citizens on US soil, if it comes to that.
Markets have implicitly concluded that whatever Mr Trump may wish to do, the greater institutional forces of American democracy will come to bear. One can imagine a Republican delegation led by Senator Mitch McConnell solemnly entering the Oval Office - like Barry Goldwater in the final days of Watergate - to tell the President that the game is up.
It has not happened yet. Mr McConnell has broken his silence and backed the scorched-earth strategy of the White House. Almost none of the Republican grandees - except George W Bush and Senator Mitt Romney, both marginal at this point - have defended the integrity of the electoral system.
Attorney-General Bill Barr has just violated the longstanding ‘non-interference policy’ in state election counts, sending in federal prosecutors on grounds that fraud allegations have reached systemic scale. The Justice Department's chief of election crimes immediately resigned in disgust. A Rubicon has been crossed. Alea iacta est."
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
Problem is, you yourself are an example of someone who either shouldn't be let into the current Conservative Party, or who is simply not to be trusted with their beliefs given that they change so completely when their party doesn't agree with them.
You are a remainer. You think that the UK would be better off inside the EU. And well done you for not shying away from that. But the Conservative Party does not think like you. It thinks the UK would be better off outside the EU.
Hence, either you shouldn't be in party, or your political beliefs mean nothing whatsoever because they change on a whim.
Its the latter. I described the 2019 crop of Tory MPs as spineless wazzocks happy to parrot whatever position they are given no matter how contradictory that position may be to the previous position. I have not seen any evidence that the chair of Epping Conservative Association is any different.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
But which principles are those? I'm sure you can draw a Venn diagram with an overlap between the Conservative principles of (say) Ted Heath and IDS, or between John Major and Boris Johnson, but that overlap wouldn't be large.
Yes, they are all (or were in the case of Heath) monarchists and Unionists and 3/4 of them are or were Anglicans with the exception of IDS who is Catholic but he shares enough other Tory values to still be a Tory
What about Michael Howard? Why is being an Anglican important at all?
the Tory Party arose in the 17th century as the rival to the Whigs and as the party most loyal to the monarchy and the Anglican Church as the established church
I know some haven't moved on from Thatcher & Thatcherism.....but that's ridiculous!
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
Not quite believing the Guido story about the PM's tweet I looked at it myself. You can definitely see the word Trump in the message. Utter beggars belief. I actually can't think of how you would do this without it being intentional.
It's really odd, isn't it? Can only imagine that a soft eraser/soft brush tool or clone tool from other parts of te background was used to obliterate the original text and the job was not sufficiently thorough in the couple of places. But I can't imagine why anyone would do it that way instead of starting from a new image (obvious approach) or simply using a colour matched rectangle to cover the text (hacky approach, but would also work). It's just a plain background, so not hard to do either.
The other odd thing is, with all the polling, why would you have a Trump version prepared and not a Biden version? Or, if both were done in advance why do the Trump version first and - particularly - why not do a proper job?
Does make me wonder what else might be hiding in the background of other No. 10 tweets if the same person has been doing these images for a while!
Just a suggestion, but maybe the original tweet was drafted lazily by some junior oik when he thought it was clear Trump would win. Said oik then had to quickly redraft when the awful truth began to reveal itself.
There are other more interesting and salacious interpretaions but Occam's razor and all that...
I suspect the underling was told we needed to be first out the door with congratulations if Trump won. When Biden won they just cobbled something together almost as an afterthought. This attitude was evinced by Boris saying he wasn't bothered about getting an early phone call with Biden - for his purposes Trump was the only game in town.
Except, even if that were the case (and it would require massive ignorance to think that President Biden was an impossibility, especially by Saturday), nobody sensible would do the text that way. Most likely, you'd start with a blank page again. Less work.
I just read something very concerning by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and Jeremy Warner in the Telegraph. They do the Economic Intelligence emails.
I will try and post on here.
AEP does the emails?
That is very concerning. Thanks for the heads up.
This is the key bit:
"As I have written before in these pages, it is a pre-planned strategy. The machinery for legal guerrilla warfare is already in place.
Mr Trump’s operatives knew there would be a ‘blue switch’ towards the Democrats late in the process as postal ballots were counted last, and knew that this could be exploited to create the appearance of a stolen election. Trump allies in charge of the Pennsylvania General Assembly actively intervened to prevent these ballots being counted early.
The President is calling for mass demonstrations with the clear intention of drawing Antifa and other hard-Left agitators into the streets. He has just fired his defence secretary, who opposed deployment of the US military against domestic protestors in June.
Mr Trump has instead appointed a man more willing to enforce the 1807 Insurrection Act against American citizens on US soil, if it comes to that.
Markets have implicitly concluded that whatever Mr Trump may wish to do, the greater institutional forces of American democracy will come to bear. One can imagine a Republican delegation led by Senator Mitch McConnell solemnly entering the Oval Office - like Barry Goldwater in the final days of Watergate - to tell the President that the game is up.
It has not happened yet. Mr McConnell has broken his silence and backed the scorched-earth strategy of the White House. Almost none of the Republican grandees - except George W Bush and Senator Mitt Romney, both marginal at this point - have defended the integrity of the electoral system.
Attorney-General Bill Barr has just violated the longstanding ‘non-interference policy’ in state election counts, sending in federal prosecutors on grounds that fraud allegations have reached systemic scale. The Justice Department's chief of election crimes immediately resigned in disgust. A Rubicon has been crossed. Alea iacta est."
Basically what I was called a halfwit for posting on here yesterday evening and what Mr Ed has said from election night.
HYUFD you accuse Philip of not being a Tory because he has voted for another party in the past and that to be a Tory he must always vote Tory
Below is the reply I made on the last thread:
What happened to principles? As discussed before you are not supporting a football team.
If the LDs started to support Fascism or Communism I'm off. I joined them because of what I believe in, not because I like the colour Orange.
I feel free to vote for whoever I like and I am still a Liberal.
As I said in reply as an atheist republican who does not care about the Union, Philip does not even have any core Tory principles either ie support for the Church of England, the monarchy, the Union etc, at most he is a right leaning pro Brexit libertarian, he is not, never has been and never will be a Tory
You are so arrogant and as I said on the last thread, spout utter tripe best schooled in the bigoted far right
I do not agree with Philip on the Union but just what gives you the right to say he is not a conservative, just as you say the same thing to me because on just two occasions in my 77 years I voted for Blair, the rest solid conservative
Not only that I was campaigning for the party in the sixties and was asked to be a conservative county councillor in the 1966. Not one person I have canvassed with over five decades would recognise your extreme intolerant views about myself .
You need to show far more compassion and understanding as you are a very divisive character in our party which belongs to all of us, not you nor are you the arbiter of who is a conservative
In Epping Forest prospective members now have to undergo an interview to check they share Tory values and their commitment to the party before they are allowed to join the party
Who defines "Tory values"? Have you got a list?
Epping Forest Conservative Party. List of members who pass HYUFD's gay Tory test - 5
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Dido - no one could have expected a rise for demand for covid tests when the schools went back!
Wasn't it the magnitude that was unexpected, not the rise itself?
Yes, she wasnt expecting a "really sizeable increase", whatever that means in the fluff of the chumocracy.
Lots of people were expecting a really sizeable increase.
And she has no view on when the next sizeable increase is likely - its clear she hasnt even considered the question "I defer to the clinical experts on that, it is not my job to know the answer to that question"
Absolute disgrace, how can she plan testing when she has not even considered when the next demand in testing will come?
It is pretty impossible to know when the next sizeable increase would be since we have no dates on the horizon like the return to school was.
Surely it is more important that when the next sizeable increase occurs, whenever it occurs, we are ready for it? We have the capacity and can scale up our response?
I'd say December: university student go back home...
I've been warning about this for weeks. Students - especially those in halls - have been harshly locked down, a perfect breeding ground for the pox which has torn through them. At Christmas they take it back home and give it to parents siblings auntie Doris etc.
Hopefully if it has gone through them, they are no longer infectious, and thus safe to go home.
Not quite believing the Guido story about the PM's tweet I looked at it myself. You can definitely see the word Trump in the message. Utter beggars belief. I actually can't think of how you would do this without it being intentional.
It's really odd, isn't it? Can only imagine that a soft eraser/soft brush tool or clone tool from other parts of te background was used to obliterate the original text and the job was not sufficiently thorough in the couple of places. But I can't imagine why anyone would do it that way instead of starting from a new image (obvious approach) or simply using a colour matched rectangle to cover the text (hacky approach, but would also work). It's just a plain background, so not hard to do either.
The other odd thing is, with all the polling, why would you have a Trump version prepared and not a Biden version? Or, if both were done in advance why do the Trump version first and - particularly - why not do a proper job?
Does make me wonder what else might be hiding in the background of other No. 10 tweets if the same person has been doing these images for a while!
Just a suggestion, but maybe the original tweet was drafted lazily by some junior oik when he thought it was clear Trump would win. Said oik then had to quickly redraft when the awful truth began to reveal itself.
There are other more interesting and salacious interpretaions but Occam's razor and all that...
I suspect the underling was told we needed to be first out the door with congratulations if Trump won. When Biden won they just cobbled something together almost as an afterthought. This attitude was evinced by Boris saying he wasn't bothered about getting an early phone call with Biden - for his purposes Trump was the only game in town.
Sounds reasonable.
The more exciting idea that Boris had been briefed that Trump would win and had prepared for that is fun, but probably wrong.
The Florida results appeared to give the first definitive indications, and they made it look pretty good for Trump. I wonder if there's a timestamp on that file and it was created around that time.
That's not really the point. Allegations of voter fraud have always been seen as state matters, so it's a real stretch (and arguably ultra vires) for Barr to have federal prosecutors get involved at all. He was never going to extend it to matters not liable to have an effect on the election as that would clearly breach state rights and land him in hot water (personation of one person somewhere for example - which is a serious crime but doesn't call into question statewide results and in reality does happen at elections sometimes). As it is, he's gone to the maximum extent he possibly could for Trump.
Look at this way, imagine Trumps chance of success is 1 in 1000 - why would only 3 republican senators recognise Biden as the winner if that was the case? No-one knows Trumps chance of success, but senior Republican politicians are better placed than we are.
The better criticism is that of Lord Sumption – that law’s reach has extended into areas which should more properly be left to politics or morality or social action. Law is filling a political vacuum – though there is room for argument about why this vacuum has arisen.
I think this is a very good point, and one he explored in depth in his Trials of the State. There seems to be a wish to take politics out of things as if that automatically makes things better, but whilst there are plenty of things that don't benefit from political interference, many things really are better served by being resolved politically rather than the battles taking place in courts of law. Distrust of political elites seems too trite to be the reason for the vacuum referred to, but is presumably a part of it, and increasing partisanship and a desire to avoid debate, but instead declare things settled forevermore, is a part of it too.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
"Mr Speaker, only last week, somebody agreed with me and I commend this statement to the House...."
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
Along with hatred of Travellers. That's pretty standard fare these days, albeit a bigotry that tends to have a much more "local" news profile.
After having had my fingers burned slightly with the change to the ONS estimates of infection last week, I looked at getting an alternative (and more reliable) data source.
(This is not to take a pop at the ONS or their infection survey - they're doing an excellent job in finding decent data; it's just that it is, by its nature, subject to revision).
Using the hospitalisation data figures (as Wales has different rules than the other nations for hospitalisation, I've taken the England figures and multiplied by 1.2, which will be a source of error as an approximation as the other Home Nations are following different strategies, but it will be broadly accurate), I took the lagged deaths-per-hospitalisation (running at about 26.5% looking at the recent average).
This will obviously be fairly accurate for past days; it's the projection that's interesting. It does project a discernably lower peak than the historical-IFR-against-infection-estimates.
I therefore have a mental preference for this, of course. It will be interesting to see which one marches closer with the data as it comes in. (I'm rooting for the lower one).
Deaths from lagged hospitalisations are shown in light blue. Actual deaths in red. Original projections against estimated infection rates in light yellow (so it colours the red to orange when the deaths are below that projection).
Interesting. Is that, in effect, using the recent data on better outcomes (treatment improvement etc) vs the data from March?
Yes - the 26.5% is the average over the most recent four weeks of solid(-ish) data for deaths in England (up to 2nd November), lagged by 10 days from hospitalisations in England.
It's a little worse than it was earlier in this wave; that makes sense as the hospitalisations skewed younger in the earlier days of the second wave, before infections migrated across the ages.
Of course, the close alignment, on average, between the hospitalisation-derived projections and actual deaths over the previous four weeks is to be expected, given that the relationship was derived from these - the constancy of them is, however, useful (it really doesn’t vary by much), as is the closeness of it to 1.2 x English figures.
Late to the party, but that is damn lazy, though I've certainly prepared a document with one option, copied it, then adjusted it for the other option, myself.
Pretty funny though. Also funny that Guido will always prefer a chance to mock a cock up than avoid it just because he is so partisan (which of course he would be).
Look at this way, imagine Trumps chance of success is 1 in 1000 - why would only 3 republican senators recognise Biden as the winner if that was the case? No-one knows Trumps chance of success, but senior Republican politicians are better placed than we are.
Because they don't want to face a primary challenge.
It says nothing about Trump's chances, just their own self-interest in not pissing off the insane who can vote in primaries.
Look at this way, imagine Trumps chance of success is 1 in 1000 - why would only 3 republican senators recognise Biden as the winner if that was the case? No-one knows Trumps chance of success, but senior Republican politicians are better placed than we are.
Because Trump will remain influential as an ex-President. Ex-President Trump endorsing your primary challenger is not a good place to be.
Apparently the 2 Republican senatorial candidates facing runoffs in Georgia have called for the Republican secretary of state in Georgia to resign. Which is fair enough really, the previous secretary of state was much better at rigging elections in Georgia for the Republicans.
I just read something very concerning by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and Jeremy Warner in the Telegraph. They do the Economic Intelligence emails.
I will try and post on here.
AEP does the emails?
That is very concerning. Thanks for the heads up.
This is the key bit:
"As I have written before in these pages, it is a pre-planned strategy. The machinery for legal guerrilla warfare is already in place.
Mr Trump’s operatives knew there would be a ‘blue switch’ towards the Democrats late in the process as postal ballots were counted last, and knew that this could be exploited to create the appearance of a stolen election. Trump allies in charge of the Pennsylvania General Assembly actively intervened to prevent these ballots being counted early.
The President is calling for mass demonstrations with the clear intention of drawing Antifa and other hard-Left agitators into the streets. He has just fired his defence secretary, who opposed deployment of the US military against domestic protestors in June.
Mr Trump has instead appointed a man more willing to enforce the 1807 Insurrection Act against American citizens on US soil, if it comes to that.
Markets have implicitly concluded that whatever Mr Trump may wish to do, the greater institutional forces of American democracy will come to bear. One can imagine a Republican delegation led by Senator Mitch McConnell solemnly entering the Oval Office - like Barry Goldwater in the final days of Watergate - to tell the President that the game is up.
It has not happened yet. Mr McConnell has broken his silence and backed the scorched-earth strategy of the White House. Almost none of the Republican grandees - except George W Bush and Senator Mitt Romney, both marginal at this point - have defended the integrity of the electoral system.
Attorney-General Bill Barr has just violated the longstanding ‘non-interference policy’ in state election counts, sending in federal prosecutors on grounds that fraud allegations have reached systemic scale. The Justice Department's chief of election crimes immediately resigned in disgust. A Rubicon has been crossed. Alea iacta est."
Heading towards civil war? Over what great issue though? That Trump should be King of America indefinitely. It seems beyond belief that enough Americans will support such a move, but it seems that is where we are headed at the moment. Let's hope enough GOP adults put a stop to all this.
Look at this way, imagine Trumps chance of success is 1 in 1000 - why would only 3 republican senators recognise Biden as the winner if that was the case? No-one knows Trumps chance of success, but senior Republican politicians are better placed than we are.
Because they don't want to face a primary challenge.
It says nothing about Trump's chances, just their own self-interest in not pissing off the insane who can vote in primaries.
Ok, but thats not going to change any time soon. So the Republican establishment will support Trump up to at least the Supreme Court hearings on that basis. Then we are down to a firewall of a few "good" men and women, who may or may not be good.
Apparently the 2 Republican senatorial candidates facing runoffs in Georgia have called for the Republican secretary of state in Georgia to resign. Which is fair enough really, the previous secretary of state was much better at rigging elections in Georgia for the Republicans.
Kemp illegally purged 300,000 voters from the rolls. The new guy let 800,000 new people register. Huge fail.
Is there much money being matched? I can't see the market here. Could be some manipulation?? If Trump can convince PB.com that he still has a chance the battle is half-won!
Look at this way, imagine Trumps chance of success is 1 in 1000 - why would only 3 republican senators recognise Biden as the winner if that was the case? No-one knows Trumps chance of success, but senior Republican politicians are better placed than we are.
Because they don't want to face a primary challenge.
It says nothing about Trump's chances, just their own self-interest in not pissing off the insane who can vote in primaries.
Ok, but thats not going to change any time soon. So the Republican establishment will support Trump up to at least the Supreme Court hearings on that basis. Then we are down to a firewall of a few "good" men and women, who may or may not be good.
America as a federal union is finished if the SC overturn this election result.
I just read something very concerning by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and Jeremy Warner in the Telegraph. They do the Economic Intelligence emails.
I will try and post on here.
AEP does the emails?
That is very concerning. Thanks for the heads up.
This is the key bit:
"As I have written before in these pages, it is a pre-planned strategy. The machinery for legal guerrilla warfare is already in place.
Mr Trump’s operatives knew there would be a ‘blue switch’ towards the Democrats late in the process as postal ballots were counted last, and knew that this could be exploited to create the appearance of a stolen election. Trump allies in charge of the Pennsylvania General Assembly actively intervened to prevent these ballots being counted early.
The President is calling for mass demonstrations with the clear intention of drawing Antifa and other hard-Left agitators into the streets. He has just fired his defence secretary, who opposed deployment of the US military against domestic protestors in June.
Mr Trump has instead appointed a man more willing to enforce the 1807 Insurrection Act against American citizens on US soil, if it comes to that.
Markets have implicitly concluded that whatever Mr Trump may wish to do, the greater institutional forces of American democracy will come to bear. One can imagine a Republican delegation led by Senator Mitch McConnell solemnly entering the Oval Office - like Barry Goldwater in the final days of Watergate - to tell the President that the game is up.
It has not happened yet. Mr McConnell has broken his silence and backed the scorched-earth strategy of the White House. Almost none of the Republican grandees - except George W Bush and Senator Mitt Romney, both marginal at this point - have defended the integrity of the electoral system.
Attorney-General Bill Barr has just violated the longstanding ‘non-interference policy’ in state election counts, sending in federal prosecutors on grounds that fraud allegations have reached systemic scale. The Justice Department's chief of election crimes immediately resigned in disgust. A Rubicon has been crossed. Alea iacta est."
Basically what I was called a halfwit for posting on here yesterday evening and what Mr Ed has said from election night.
Yes. They do not believe votes for their opponents are legitimate. They are not "real Americans". Real Americans have guns and Bibles. Very much the bottom of the slippery slope that starts with defining who is and isn't a real Tory on the basis of their religion.
Apparently the 2 Republican senatorial candidates facing runoffs in Georgia have called for the Republican secretary of state in Georgia to resign. Which is fair enough really, the previous secretary of state was much better at rigging elections in Georgia for the Republicans.
I liked the SoS's response, not mincing his words, affirming his Republican credentials, and advising them to focus on the runoffs they still have to fight. They are, and many other national republicans, in effect saying he is corrupt or hopelessly stupid, and it is good he has enough self respect to not go along with that.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
Makes you wonder why he wants to keep Scotland. All those Presbyterians, RCs and atheists. And even the Piskies are the wrong, non-Henrician kind.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
I just read something very concerning by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and Jeremy Warner in the Telegraph. They do the Economic Intelligence emails.
I will try and post on here.
AEP does the emails?
That is very concerning. Thanks for the heads up.
This is the key bit:
"As I have written before in these pages, it is a pre-planned strategy. The machinery for legal guerrilla warfare is already in place.
Mr Trump’s operatives knew there would be a ‘blue switch’ towards the Democrats late in the process as postal ballots were counted last, and knew that this could be exploited to create the appearance of a stolen election. Trump allies in charge of the Pennsylvania General Assembly actively intervened to prevent these ballots being counted early.
The President is calling for mass demonstrations with the clear intention of drawing Antifa and other hard-Left agitators into the streets. He has just fired his defence secretary, who opposed deployment of the US military against domestic protestors in June.
Mr Trump has instead appointed a man more willing to enforce the 1807 Insurrection Act against American citizens on US soil, if it comes to that.
Markets have implicitly concluded that whatever Mr Trump may wish to do, the greater institutional forces of American democracy will come to bear. One can imagine a Republican delegation led by Senator Mitch McConnell solemnly entering the Oval Office - like Barry Goldwater in the final days of Watergate - to tell the President that the game is up.
It has not happened yet. Mr McConnell has broken his silence and backed the scorched-earth strategy of the White House. Almost none of the Republican grandees - except George W Bush and Senator Mitt Romney, both marginal at this point - have defended the integrity of the electoral system.
Attorney-General Bill Barr has just violated the longstanding ‘non-interference policy’ in state election counts, sending in federal prosecutors on grounds that fraud allegations have reached systemic scale. The Justice Department's chief of election crimes immediately resigned in disgust. A Rubicon has been crossed. Alea iacta est."
Basically what I was called a halfwit for posting on here yesterday evening and what Mr Ed has said from election night.
Yes. They do not believe votes for their opponents are legitimate. They are not "real Americans". Real Americans have guns and Bibles. Very much the bottom of the slippery slope that starts with defining who is and isn't a real Tory on the basis of their religion.
It's hardly surprising from Trump, who believed that Obama couldn't be president because he's black. Or as MrEd might put it "there were legitimate questions about his birth certificate"
Look at this way, imagine Trumps chance of success is 1 in 1000 - why would only 3 republican senators recognise Biden as the winner if that was the case? No-one knows Trumps chance of success, but senior Republican politicians are better placed than we are.
Because they don't want to face a primary challenge.
It says nothing about Trump's chances, just their own self-interest in not pissing off the insane who can vote in primaries.
Ok, but thats not going to change any time soon. So the Republican establishment will support Trump up to at least the Supreme Court hearings on that basis. Then we are down to a firewall of a few "good" men and women, who may or may not be good.
America as a federal union is finished if the SC overturn this election result.
I don't think they will, but hypotheticals are always fun, so what would actually happen? I mean, I don't beleive there is a process for most(any?) states to leave the Union, so in practical terms what would happen if they went the Catalonia route, as it would presumably play out very differently o the 19th century.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Absolutely that's the difference. You can want to retain the church and monarchy - but you don't claim that only Anglicans are "true" Tories.
Look at this way, imagine Trumps chance of success is 1 in 1000 - why would only 3 republican senators recognise Biden as the winner if that was the case? No-one knows Trumps chance of success, but senior Republican politicians are better placed than we are.
Because they don't want to face a primary challenge.
It says nothing about Trump's chances, just their own self-interest in not pissing off the insane who can vote in primaries.
Ok, but thats not going to change any time soon. So the Republican establishment will support Trump up to at least the Supreme Court hearings on that basis. Then we are down to a firewall of a few "good" men and women, who may or may not be good.
Firstly, most of the "support" is in the form, "the President has every right to pursue his legal options and require that allegations of fraud are investigated". Only in a few cases is it "the President is right - the election was stolen".
Secondly, the Republican establishment simply don't decide whether or not it gets to the Supreme Court or what it decides. Trump has chosen to follow a doomed legal process and is not going to be dissuaded by Mitch McConnell saying "I don't think this is a good idea, Mr President".
It does increasingly have the feeling of careerists fueling the paranoid delusions of an ill man for the sake of an endorsement in a couple of years time (or money or a career in the far right media), though. It's an increasingly sad situation, and I am beginning to feel a bit of pity even though he is the author of his own position.
Late to the party, but that is damn lazy, though I've certainly prepared a document with one option, copied it, then adjusted it for the other option, myself.
Pretty funny though. Also funny that Guido will always prefer a chance to mock a cock up than avoid it just because he is so partisan (which of course he would be).
I just performed an analysis, determined to show that this is fake news from Guido... but they're right. You can see for yourself by using fotoforensics.com and the image url (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EmPRWjyVoAEBIBI?format=jpg&name=4096x4096). Choose the ELA filter, click the lower image to get the full version, and zoom in above Biden... You can also see some artefacts around "look forward" and "shared priorities", but I can't quite make out what it says.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Republican spokesman on the radio. Genuinely arguing the Supreme Court should decide who is President. Not the voters.
And to think on the last few days, the attention of Dem centrists (and some of their UK supporters) has been on attacking AOC, while the GOP basically tries to overturn the election result. Because ‘both sides’ or something.
Look at this way, imagine Trumps chance of success is 1 in 1000 - why would only 3 republican senators recognise Biden as the winner if that was the case? No-one knows Trumps chance of success, but senior Republican politicians are better placed than we are.
Because they don't want to face a primary challenge.
It says nothing about Trump's chances, just their own self-interest in not pissing off the insane who can vote in primaries.
Ok, but thats not going to change any time soon. So the Republican establishment will support Trump up to at least the Supreme Court hearings on that basis. Then we are down to a firewall of a few "good" men and women, who may or may not be good.
Except they aren't supporting Trump down to the wire.
There is a gap between recognising Biden as the winner and claiming Trump is the winner. Most are simply staying quiet and leaving Trump to dangle and hang on his own with what they know is a futile quest but without getting themselves caught up in it.
If all the Senators were actually endorsing Trump and not just not congratulating Biden then you'd be right.
Late to the party, but that is damn lazy, though I've certainly prepared a document with one option, copied it, then adjusted it for the other option, myself.
Pretty funny though. Also funny that Guido will always prefer a chance to mock a cock up than avoid it just because he is so partisan (which of course he would be).
I just performed an analysis, determined to show that this is fake news from Guido... but they're right. You can see for yourself by using fotoforensics.com and the image url (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EmPRWjyVoAEBIBI?format=jpg&name=4096x4096). Choose the ELA filter, click the lower image to get the full version, and zoom in above Biden... You can also see some artefacts around "look forward" and "shared priorities", but I can't quite make out what it says.
"the future of this" just under "shared priorities", I think
I just read something very concerning by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and Jeremy Warner in the Telegraph. They do the Economic Intelligence emails.
I will try and post on here.
AEP does the emails?
That is very concerning. Thanks for the heads up.
This is the key bit:
"As I have written before in these pages, it is a pre-planned strategy. The machinery for legal guerrilla warfare is already in place.
Mr Trump’s operatives knew there would be a ‘blue switch’ towards the Democrats late in the process as postal ballots were counted last, and knew that this could be exploited to create the appearance of a stolen election. Trump allies in charge of the Pennsylvania General Assembly actively intervened to prevent these ballots being counted early.
The President is calling for mass demonstrations with the clear intention of drawing Antifa and other hard-Left agitators into the streets. He has just fired his defence secretary, who opposed deployment of the US military against domestic protestors in June.
Mr Trump has instead appointed a man more willing to enforce the 1807 Insurrection Act against American citizens on US soil, if it comes to that.
Markets have implicitly concluded that whatever Mr Trump may wish to do, the greater institutional forces of American democracy will come to bear. One can imagine a Republican delegation led by Senator Mitch McConnell solemnly entering the Oval Office - like Barry Goldwater in the final days of Watergate - to tell the President that the game is up.
It has not happened yet. Mr McConnell has broken his silence and backed the scorched-earth strategy of the White House. Almost none of the Republican grandees - except George W Bush and Senator Mitt Romney, both marginal at this point - have defended the integrity of the electoral system.
Attorney-General Bill Barr has just violated the longstanding ‘non-interference policy’ in state election counts, sending in federal prosecutors on grounds that fraud allegations have reached systemic scale. The Justice Department's chief of election crimes immediately resigned in disgust. A Rubicon has been crossed. Alea iacta est."
Heading towards civil war? Over what great issue though? That Trump should be King of America indefinitely. It seems beyond belief that enough Americans will support such a move, but it seems that is where we are headed at the moment. Let's hope enough GOP adults put a stop to all this.
Interestingly, the US military might be far less cooperative over this than some of the Police.
Antifa and hard-left agitators will certainly take the bait (for reasons that sympathisers like @Dura_Ace often set out) they have no problem with a culture or civil war and welcome insurrection or anarchy because they believe they'd profit from the chaos. The Kremlin will gleefully fund and encourage both them and the hardcore Trumpers.
I think this is a huge early test of Biden's leadership - he has to ride two horses at once: both rein in the nutters on his left flank who might be provoked and also make concessions to moderate/everyday Republicans so they don't feel threatened by the prospect of his leadership and start to detach from Trump.
I believe that 3 Republican senators have congratulated Biden. That is a blocking move in the game of chess currently unfolding in that Republicans unlikely to increase their majority of 3 in Senate (they have currently lost 1). The implication being that Trump's coup attempt will not get a majority in the Senate if things get that far and it puts pressure on inner circle to divert him if they have any sense of reality themselves. Allows some of the other Republicans to keep their heads down for now. Biggest danger is of some fanatics turning to violence as they feed on disinformation and think they are fighting a Biden coup.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Nigel Foremain bar his views on Brexit is a Tory as are you, Philip Thompson isn't
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
I have already pointed out to him, as tactfully as I could, that he was posting - literally - many hostages to fortune with regard to his political career in future. But perhaps we should be pleased he's up front with his beliefs.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
I have already pointed out to him, as tactfully as I could, that he was posting - literally - many hostages to fortune with regard to his political career in future. But perhaps we should be pleased he's up front with his beliefs.
If you think standing up vociferously to Sturgeon and not giving in to the SNP is unpopular with Tory members, you obviously have not met many current Tory members
Late to the party, but that is damn lazy, though I've certainly prepared a document with one option, copied it, then adjusted it for the other option, myself.
Pretty funny though. Also funny that Guido will always prefer a chance to mock a cock up than avoid it just because he is so partisan (which of course he would be).
I just performed an analysis, determined to show that this is fake news from Guido... but they're right. You can see for yourself by using fotoforensics.com and the image url (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EmPRWjyVoAEBIBI?format=jpg&name=4096x4096). Choose the ELA filter, click the lower image to get the full version, and zoom in above Biden... You can also see some artefacts around "look forward" and "shared priorities", but I can't quite make out what it says.
Whilst it's a bit amateurish by a junior person in a comms team somewhere, I do slightly struggle to see the political relevance of this story.
I'd imagine government comms teams prepare statements to congratulate either potential winner of a major foreign election and put out whichever applies. Am I missing something?
Look at this way, imagine Trumps chance of success is 1 in 1000 - why would only 3 republican senators recognise Biden as the winner if that was the case? No-one knows Trumps chance of success, but senior Republican politicians are better placed than we are.
Because they don't want to face a primary challenge.
It says nothing about Trump's chances, just their own self-interest in not pissing off the insane who can vote in primaries.
Ok, but thats not going to change any time soon. So the Republican establishment will support Trump up to at least the Supreme Court hearings on that basis. Then we are down to a firewall of a few "good" men and women, who may or may not be good.
America as a federal union is finished if the SC overturn this election result.
I don't think they will, but hypotheticals are always fun, so what would actually happen? I mean, I don't beleive there is a process for most(any?) states to leave the Union, so in practical terms what would happen if they went the Catalonia route, as it would presumably play out very differently o the 19th century.
David French has written a book on it, "Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation". I haven't read it, so don't know the details.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Absolutely that's the difference. You can want to retain the church and monarchy - but you don't claim that only Anglicans are "true" Tories.
You can be a Catholic and a Jewish Tory if you are also a monarchist and Unionist, you cannot however be an atheist, who wants to abolish the monarchy and break up the Union as you do and still be a Tory
On topic the “when you have a hammer every problem looks like a nail” fallacy is a strong point. This really accelerated under Blair and has not really slowed. We are almost at the level of regulation of life that existed with the religious courts in the middle ages.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Nigel Foremain bar his views on Brexit is a Tory as are you, Philip Thompson isn't
He's more of a classical liberal, yes, but I'm happy to have him in the same party.
Late to the party, but that is damn lazy, though I've certainly prepared a document with one option, copied it, then adjusted it for the other option, myself.
Pretty funny though. Also funny that Guido will always prefer a chance to mock a cock up than avoid it just because he is so partisan (which of course he would be).
I just performed an analysis, determined to show that this is fake news from Guido... but they're right. You can see for yourself by using fotoforensics.com and the image url (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EmPRWjyVoAEBIBI?format=jpg&name=4096x4096). Choose the ELA filter, click the lower image to get the full version, and zoom in above Biden... You can also see some artefacts around "look forward" and "shared priorities", but I can't quite make out what it says.
Whilst it's a bit amateurish by a junior person in a comms team somewhere, I do slightly struggle to see the political relevance of this story.
I'd imagine government comms teams prepare statements to congratulate either potential winner of a major foreign election and put out whichever applies. Am I missing something?
No, you aren't missing anything, it's "clever" journalism but of no consequence at all. I just find it remarkable that someone thought to look, and that they actually found something. I am offering kudos to the same level that I admire the winner of the Copper's Hill cheese-rolling race. Well done, but also, eh?
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
I have already pointed out to him, as tactfully as I could, that he was posting - literally - many hostages to fortune with regard to his political career in future. But perhaps we should be pleased he's up front with his beliefs.
If you think standing up vociferously to Sturgeon and not giving in to the SNP is unpopular with Tory members, you obviously have not met many current Tory members
Just consider, if I were a Twitter user, which I am not, and needed examples of the atrocious attitudes of Tory party officials ...
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Absolutely that's the difference. You can want to retain the church and monarchy - but you don't claim that only Anglicans are "true" Tories.
You can be a Catholic and a Jewish Tory if you are also a monarchist and Unionist, you cannot however be an atheist, who wants to abolish the monarchy and break up the Union as you do and still claim to be a Tory
What if you are an anglican who wants to abolish the monarchy? or an atheist who supports the union? Which combinations are acceptable? We have a right to know!
It's bad this is happening just after the election. IF the Republican Supreme Court had agreed with Republican politicians that Obamacare is unconstitutional a couple of weeks ago, I suspect Democrats might have won control of the Senate. Now, people would have to wait 2 years.
I have no sympathy for people that would change their vote after the fact on that issue. Thick as mince to put it mildly.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Apparently there are some people out there who think the affordable care act and Obamacare are two different things.....
Not quite believing the Guido story about the PM's tweet I looked at it myself. You can definitely see the word Trump in the message. Utter beggars belief. I actually can't think of how you would do this without it being intentional.
It's really odd, isn't it? Can only imagine that a soft eraser/soft brush tool or clone tool from other parts of te background was used to obliterate the original text and the job was not sufficiently thorough in the couple of places. But I can't imagine why anyone would do it that way instead of starting from a new image (obvious approach) or simply using a colour matched rectangle to cover the text (hacky approach, but would also work). It's just a plain background, so not hard to do either.
The other odd thing is, with all the polling, why would you have a Trump version prepared and not a Biden version? Or, if both were done in advance why do the Trump version first and - particularly - why not do a proper job?
Does make me wonder what else might be hiding in the background of other No. 10 tweets if the same person has been doing these images for a while!
Just a suggestion, but maybe the original tweet was drafted lazily by some junior oik when he thought it was clear Trump would win. Said oik then had to quickly redraft when the awful truth began to reveal itself.
There are other more interesting and salacious interpretaions but Occam's razor and all that...
Oh, I'm sure that's true, it's a simple cock-up and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I'm just intrigued that whoever did it must (I think) have used a method to obliterate the original text that was slower and more cumbersome than, for example, covering it all with a big box of the same colour. It's just amazing incompetence on what is a fairly important tweet.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Absolutely that's the difference. You can want to retain the church and monarchy - but you don't claim that only Anglicans are "true" Tories.
You can be a Catholic and a Jewish Tory if you are also a monarchist and Unionist, you cannot however be an atheist, who wants to abolish the monarchy and break up the Union as you do and still be a Tory
Imagine if, through some twist of fate, an English republic were to emerge. Would the Tory party cease to exist, and if not would it favour the status quo, or the restoration of the monarchy and the union?
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Absolutely that's the difference. You can want to retain the church and monarchy - but you don't claim that only Anglicans are "true" Tories.
You can be a Catholic and a Jewish Tory if you are also a monarchist and Unionist, you cannot however be an atheist, who wants to abolish the monarchy and break up the Union as you do and still be a Tory
Just for clarity as I am not sure why you mention it otherwise:
Are you saying an atheist can not join the Tory party?
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Absolutely that's the difference. You can want to retain the church and monarchy - but you don't claim that only Anglicans are "true" Tories.
You can be a Catholic and a Jewish Tory if you are also a monarchist and Unionist, you cannot however be an atheist, who wants to abolish the monarchy and break up the Union as you do and still be a Tory
Just for clarity as I am not sure why you mention it otherwise:
Are you saying an atheist can not join the Tory party?
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them.
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Absolutely that's the difference. You can want to retain the church and monarchy - but you don't claim that only Anglicans are "true" Tories.
You can be a Catholic and a Jewish Tory if you are also a monarchist and Unionist, you cannot however be an atheist, who wants to abolish the monarchy and break up the Union as you do and still claim to be a Tory
What if you are an anglican who wants to abolish the monarchy? or an atheist who supports the union? Which combinations are acceptable? We have a right to know!
I think @HYUFD may be alluding to the original origins of "Tory" which date back almost to the Civil War, and was based on defending land, church, union of the crowns, and monarchial interests.
Today, you'd really find a softened version of those sorts of people as Shire Tories which is more or less what I am and David Cameron is.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Absolutely that's the difference. You can want to retain the church and monarchy - but you don't claim that only Anglicans are "true" Tories.
You can be a Catholic and a Jewish Tory if you are also a monarchist and Unionist, you cannot however be an atheist, who wants to abolish the monarchy and break up the Union as you do and still be a Tory
Just for clarity as I am not sure why you mention it otherwise:
Are you saying an atheist can not join the Tory party?
It could mean it's ok to want to abolish the monarchy and break up the union, so long as you're not an atheist too. It's OK to be an atheist so long as you don't want to abolish the monarchy and break up the union. Or some other combination. A bit of clarity please!
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Absolutely that's the difference. You can want to retain the church and monarchy - but you don't claim that only Anglicans are "true" Tories.
You can be a Catholic and a Jewish Tory if you are also a monarchist and Unionist, you cannot however be an atheist, who wants to abolish the monarchy and break up the Union as you do and still be a Tory
Imagine if, through some twist of fate, an English republic were to emerge. Would the Tory party cease to exist, and if not would it favour the status quo, or the restoration of the monarchy and the union?
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
Alternatively it shows he fits right in. Open Islamophobia is very welcome in the Tory party.
No it isn't, stop trolling.
It's not trolling. It's what I sincerely believe. Islamophobia is today's acceptable bigotry - it is very much like anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
You may sincerely believe it in the same way that Trump sincerely believes he won the election.
The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Absolutely that's the difference. You can want to retain the church and monarchy - but you don't claim that only Anglicans are "true" Tories.
You can be a Catholic and a Jewish Tory if you are also a monarchist and Unionist, you cannot however be an atheist, who wants to abolish the monarchy and break up the Union as you do and still be a Tory
Just for clarity as I am not sure why you mention it otherwise:
Are you saying an atheist can not join the Tory party?
They can but should be monarchists and Unionists too
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them. Vote for them. HYUFD seems to think the Conservative Party is his own personal fiefdom, with anybody else not worthy of being called a Conservative.
This Epping Conservative Association he runs. Does it have many members? Do they get the same absurd elitism from the chair?
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
We want people to vote for us who share Tory values and certainly only join us if they share Tory values, you might sometimes win a few swing voters at election time like Philip who do not share all your party's principles but that does not mean they should become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Absolutely that's the difference. You can want to retain the church and monarchy - but you don't claim that only Anglicans are "true" Tories.
You can be a Catholic and a Jewish Tory if you are also a monarchist and Unionist, you cannot however be an atheist, who wants to abolish the monarchy and break up the Union as you do and still be a Tory
Wait. You can't be an atheist? Where is that in the rules? Or indeed in any policy?
What I don't understand about HYUFD's routine about him being the only gay Tory in the village. Most political parties want people to identify with them. Support them.
I've seen Momentum branches run in a more inclusive manner.
become Tory members
You are a very sad individual and to be honest CCHQ should investigate your bigoted comments, especially due to your position in your local constituency
There is nothing bigoted about what I said, indeed only last week the Secretary of State for Scotland as I said said there should be no indyref2 allowed for 25 to 40 years
That you said "even a Catholic" can be a Tory due to sharing "other" Tory values is disgusting bigotry.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
I share @HYUFD's views on retaining the established church and the monarchy, and I want the Union to continue and thrive, but I disagree on uncompromising tactics to do it and I am also happy the Conservative Party is a broad church.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Absolutely that's the difference. You can want to retain the church and monarchy - but you don't claim that only Anglicans are "true" Tories.
You can be a Catholic and a Jewish Tory if you are also a monarchist and Unionist, you cannot however be an atheist, who wants to abolish the monarchy and break up the Union as you do and still claim to be a Tory
What if you are an anglican who wants to abolish the monarchy? or an atheist who supports the union? Which combinations are acceptable? We have a right to know!
I think @HYUFD may be alluding to the original origins of "Tory" which date back almost to the Civil War, and was based on defending land, church, union of the crowns, and monarchial interests.
Today, you'd really find a softened version of those sorts of people as Shire Tories which is more or less what I am and David Cameron is.
Indeed. He is referring to the party that was disbanded in the 19th century and was replaced with the Conservative Party of Peel and Disraeli which repealed the corn laws and emancipated Catholics.
Late to the party, but that is damn lazy, though I've certainly prepared a document with one option, copied it, then adjusted it for the other option, myself.
Pretty funny though. Also funny that Guido will always prefer a chance to mock a cock up than avoid it just because he is so partisan (which of course he would be).
I just performed an analysis, determined to show that this is fake news from Guido... but they're right. You can see for yourself by using fotoforensics.com and the image url (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EmPRWjyVoAEBIBI?format=jpg&name=4096x4096). Choose the ELA filter, click the lower image to get the full version, and zoom in above Biden... You can also see some artefacts around "look forward" and "shared priorities", but I can't quite make out what it says.
Whilst it's a bit amateurish by a junior person in a comms team somewhere, I do slightly struggle to see the political relevance of this story.
I'd imagine government comms teams prepare statements to congratulate either potential winner of a major foreign election and put out whichever applies. Am I missing something?
It may reveal what we all suspect which is that Johnson would have been far happier with a Trump victory. It's embarrassing, and Biden can burn Johnson with it should he wish.
So... does that mean the polls weren't much wrong after all???
It means RCP despite being mocked by Nate Silver for not including all the polls he did in their poll average and for including Trafalgar may have had the last laugh after all
Comments
I will try and post on here.
That is very concerning. Thanks for the heads up.
Genuinely arguing the Supreme Court should decide who is President. Not the voters.
It's bad this is happening just after the election. IF the Republican Supreme Court had agreed with Republican politicians that Obamacare is unconstitutional a couple of weeks ago, I suspect Democrats might have won control of the Senate. Now, people would have to wait 2 years.
It's a little worse than it was earlier in this wave; that makes sense as the hospitalisations skewed younger in the earlier days of the second wave, before infections migrated across the ages.
That would seem to be the implication.
Of course the Supreme Court may very likely leave things as they are (if they have any sense).
The more exciting idea that Boris had been briefed that Trump would win and had prepared for that is fun, but probably wrong.
The modern Conservative Party was founded by Peel and involved Catholic emancipation as an early achievement. The idea that the Tories are for Anglicans only shows again you're in the wrong party and in the wrong century, it seems you want the original Tories.
"As I have written before in these pages, it is a pre-planned strategy. The machinery for legal guerrilla warfare is already in place.
Mr Trump’s operatives knew there would be a ‘blue switch’ towards the Democrats late in the process as postal ballots were counted last, and knew that this could be exploited to create the appearance of a stolen election. Trump allies in charge of the Pennsylvania General Assembly actively intervened to prevent these ballots being counted early.
The President is calling for mass demonstrations with the clear intention of drawing Antifa and other hard-Left agitators into the streets. He has just fired his defence secretary, who opposed deployment of the US military against domestic protestors in June.
Mr Trump has instead appointed a man more willing to enforce the 1807 Insurrection Act against American citizens on US soil, if it comes to that.
Markets have implicitly concluded that whatever Mr Trump may wish to do, the greater institutional forces of American democracy will come to bear. One can imagine a Republican delegation led by Senator Mitch McConnell solemnly entering the Oval Office - like Barry Goldwater in the final days of Watergate - to tell the President that the game is up.
It has not happened yet. Mr McConnell has broken his silence and backed the scorched-earth strategy of the White House. Almost none of the Republican grandees - except George W Bush and Senator Mitt Romney, both marginal at this point - have defended the integrity of the electoral system.
Attorney-General Bill Barr has just violated the longstanding ‘non-interference policy’ in state election counts, sending in federal prosecutors on grounds that fraud allegations have reached systemic scale. The Justice Department's chief of election crimes immediately resigned in disgust. A Rubicon has been crossed. Alea iacta est."
So why go to the trouble of doing a bad job?
Sabotage?
Dead cat?
gayTory test - 5The rest of us are trying to deal with reality. Evidence or it didn't happen.
Crazy.
I think this is a very good point, and one he explored in depth in his Trials of the State. There seems to be a wish to take politics out of things as if that automatically makes things better, but whilst there are plenty of things that don't benefit from political interference, many things really are better served by being resolved politically rather than the battles taking place in courts of law. Distrust of political elites seems too trite to be the reason for the vacuum referred to, but is presumably a part of it, and increasing partisanship and a desire to avoid debate, but instead declare things settled forevermore, is a part of it too.
Much cheering and waving of order papers
[Wakes up suddenly. Time for breakfast....]
Pretty funny though. Also funny that Guido will always prefer a chance to mock a cock up than avoid it just because he is so partisan (which of course he would be).
It says nothing about Trump's chances, just their own self-interest in not pissing off the insane who can vote in primaries.
Real Americans have guns and Bibles.
Very much the bottom of the slippery slope that starts with defining who is and isn't a real Tory on the basis of their religion.
I might surprise myself here considering how abusive he is but I even recognise @Nigel_Foremain as a fellow Tory too - albeit he's one I'd probably not make a beeline for at the bar.
Secondly, the Republican establishment simply don't decide whether or not it gets to the Supreme Court or what it decides. Trump has chosen to follow a doomed legal process and is not going to be dissuaded by Mitch McConnell saying "I don't think this is a good idea, Mr President".
It does increasingly have the feeling of careerists fueling the paranoid delusions of an ill man for the sake of an endorsement in a couple of years time (or money or a career in the far right media), though. It's an increasingly sad situation, and I am beginning to feel a bit of pity even though he is the author of his own position.
You can see for yourself by using fotoforensics.com and the image url (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EmPRWjyVoAEBIBI?format=jpg&name=4096x4096). Choose the ELA filter, click the lower image to get the full version, and zoom in above Biden...
You can also see some artefacts around "look forward" and "shared priorities", but I can't quite make out what it says.
https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/2020/09/30/the-cultural-problem-of-islamophobia-in-the-conservative-party/
Plenty of other evidence if you can be bothered
There is a gap between recognising Biden as the winner and claiming Trump is the winner. Most are simply staying quiet and leaving Trump to dangle and hang on his own with what they know is a futile quest but without getting themselves caught up in it.
If all the Senators were actually endorsing Trump and not just not congratulating Biden then you'd be right.
Antifa and hard-left agitators will certainly take the bait (for reasons that sympathisers like @Dura_Ace often set out) they have no problem with a culture or civil war and welcome insurrection or anarchy because they believe they'd profit from the chaos. The Kremlin will gleefully fund and encourage both them and the hardcore Trumpers.
I think this is a huge early test of Biden's leadership - he has to ride two horses at once: both rein in the nutters on his left flank who might be provoked and also make concessions to moderate/everyday Republicans so they don't feel threatened by the prospect of his leadership and start to detach from Trump.
I'd imagine government comms teams prepare statements to congratulate either potential winner of a major foreign election and put out whichever applies. Am I missing something?
We agree on most things, although not everything.
I am offering kudos to the same level that I admire the winner of the Copper's Hill cheese-rolling race. Well done, but also, eh?
Apparently there are some people out there who think the affordable care act and Obamacare are two different things.....
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/02/07/many-dont-know-obamacare-and-affordable-care-act-are-the-same-thing.html
Are you saying an atheist can not join the Tory party?
Today, you'd really find a softened version of those sorts of people as Shire Tories which is more or less what I am and David Cameron is.
A bit of clarity please!
Embarrassing.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
The only states they forecast wrong were Georgia for Trump and Florida for Biden.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/2020_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html
After skim-reading that much of it seems total nonsense that you expect from opinion polls.
Try reading the EHRC report to get an idea of what actual evidence looks like. I'll give you a hint: It is not an opinion poll. 🤦🏻♂️
So... does that mean the polls weren't much wrong after all???
You can't be an atheist? Where is that in the rules? Or indeed in any policy?
Is it going to change much? Of course not.
538 final forecast Biden 348 Trump 190
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/