How will Boris be judged in future polling questions like this? – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
Ursula von der Leyen's loose talk about vaccine export bans belongs to the category of things that have an enormous long-term cost and fail to achieve anything in the short-term. One of the costs became apparent yesterday when the UK took steps to decouple from the EU in its future vaccine supply chain.
While EU member states are still struggling to get the required amount of doses for the first round of vaccinations, the UK is already planning ahead for the second round - and making sure that the entire production process takes place within the country.
https://www.eurointelligence.com/6 -
Example of potential impact of ALBA on election.Sandpit said:
Do we have a market on a second Scottish Parliament election this year?Leon said:
This makes it even more certain Boris will refuse a vote, by the way, because the open goal is right in front of him: refuse a vote, then split the indy cause wide open, the Salmondites v Sturgeonites, who already hate each other, and have a completely different approach to achieving indyGallowgate said:
But as we all know, it doesn't matter because Boris will rightly refuse any IndyRef2 because Scotland already voted against independence in a once in a generation vote in 2014, right @HYUFD ?Anabobazina said:Scott_xP said:
This Alba lark could yet turn out to be a masterstroke for indy – Alba mops up the anti-EU, non-woke nationalist vote...
On those numbers, there’s no majority to pass anything except a request for a second referendum. Probably not even the Budget.
THIS IS WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN 2016 IF SNP LIST VOTES WERE FOR ALBA!
So to put it simply instead of there being FOUR SNP LIST MSP’s there would have been 33 ALBA pro Indy MSP’s.
Most important of all, take a look at the Unionists. Instead of there being 24 Tories, there would have only been 12.
Likewise, instead of 21 Labour there would have been only 11.
The Liberals would have lost both their list seats and been reduced to zero
The Greens would have lost all five of their lists seats.
So an overall INCREASE of 24 pro Indy MSP’s
An overall DECREASE of 24 unionist MSP’s1 -
And people like HYUFD who until recently were saying Galloway's mob meant that the Unionists could get a majority think that Alba mean Unionists could get a majority. Its a joke.malcolmg said:
Example of potential impact of ALBA on election.Sandpit said:
Do we have a market on a second Scottish Parliament election this year?Leon said:
This makes it even more certain Boris will refuse a vote, by the way, because the open goal is right in front of him: refuse a vote, then split the indy cause wide open, the Salmondites v Sturgeonites, who already hate each other, and have a completely different approach to achieving indyGallowgate said:
But as we all know, it doesn't matter because Boris will rightly refuse any IndyRef2 because Scotland already voted against independence in a once in a generation vote in 2014, right @HYUFD ?Anabobazina said:Scott_xP said:
This Alba lark could yet turn out to be a masterstroke for indy – Alba mops up the anti-EU, non-woke nationalist vote...
On those numbers, there’s no majority to pass anything except a request for a second referendum. Probably not even the Budget.
THIS IS WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN 2016 IF SNP LIST VOTES WERE FOR ALBA!
So to put it simply instead of there being FOUR SNP LIST MSP’s there would have been 33 ALBA pro Indy MSP’s.
Most important of all, take a look at the Unionists. Instead of there being 24 Tories, there would have only been 12.
Likewise, instead of 21 Labour there would have been only 11.
The Liberals would have lost both their list seats and been reduced to zero
The Greens would have lost all five of their lists seats.
So an overall INCREASE of 24 pro Indy MSP’s
An overall DECREASE of 24 unionist MSP’s
Voting SNP/Alba is really a no brainer.0 -
They are useless wa**ers, clatty privileged spoilt bratsRobD said:
Whatever happened to individual responsibility?Gallowgate said:
Maybe they've all watched Fishspiracy and discovered that the fishing industry is responsible for the vast majority of the single-use plastic in the oceans so who cares about the odd plastic bag?Casino_Royale said:
Why is it with young people today and rubbish?TheScreamingEagles said:This is why we can't have nice things quicker than planned.
https://twitter.com/BBCNottingham/status/1376839766151413761
I expect this why the government and the voters expect Covid-19 numbers to rise.
How many of those there would be the first to virtue-signal on social media about plastic in the oceans and a clean environment yet in reality drop litter wherever they please?
0 -
Utter nonsense or is Michael Gove in your list as well?Andy_JS said:
I've often thought that criminals could be used to pick up litter, because it would be a win-win situation. They'd get a few hours outside prison in the fresh air, which must be better than being stuck in a cell most of the day, and the public would get the litter cleared up. The problem is some influential people in Hampstead, Bristol and Brighton would complain about it being "humiliating" for the prisoners to do this in full view of the public, and it wouldn't happen.Luckyguy1983 said:I'd have chain gangs picking up the litter.
So which category prisoners would you want doing the pick up duty?
Murderers, rapists, sex offenders, or violent offenders are no nos I'm guessing but they are the ones in Cat A prisons who spend most of the their day inside a cell.
Open prisoners already have good access outside their cells.
So then there's the logistics of moving prisoners to areas with high litter, your Cat A prisons are usually in big cities, whilst your Cs & Ds are much more rural/smaller towns area.
Do you really think the prison service has the logistics to move prisoners like this on a regular basis, they can barely get prisoners to court.
Then you'd have the Daily Mail going 'Look at these nasty prisoners picking up messes near your houses and schools'
It's an idea that only people who have no knowledge of reality support.0 -
The have the colours the wrong way around for each of the non-100% pie charts.Philip_Thompson said:0 -
Not everyone agrees..Philip_Thompson said:
And people like HYUFD who until recently were saying Galloway's mob meant that the Unionists could get a majority think that Alba mean Unionists could get a majority. Its a joke.malcolmg said:
Example of potential impact of ALBA on election.Sandpit said:
Do we have a market on a second Scottish Parliament election this year?Leon said:
This makes it even more certain Boris will refuse a vote, by the way, because the open goal is right in front of him: refuse a vote, then split the indy cause wide open, the Salmondites v Sturgeonites, who already hate each other, and have a completely different approach to achieving indyGallowgate said:
But as we all know, it doesn't matter because Boris will rightly refuse any IndyRef2 because Scotland already voted against independence in a once in a generation vote in 2014, right @HYUFD ?Anabobazina said:Scott_xP said:
This Alba lark could yet turn out to be a masterstroke for indy – Alba mops up the anti-EU, non-woke nationalist vote...
On those numbers, there’s no majority to pass anything except a request for a second referendum. Probably not even the Budget.
THIS IS WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN 2016 IF SNP LIST VOTES WERE FOR ALBA!
So to put it simply instead of there being FOUR SNP LIST MSP’s there would have been 33 ALBA pro Indy MSP’s.
Most important of all, take a look at the Unionists. Instead of there being 24 Tories, there would have only been 12.
Likewise, instead of 21 Labour there would have been only 11.
The Liberals would have lost both their list seats and been reduced to zero
The Greens would have lost all five of their lists seats.
So an overall INCREASE of 24 pro Indy MSP’s
An overall DECREASE of 24 unionist MSP’s
Voting SNP/Alba is really a no brainer.
https://twitter.com/ferguson2811/status/1376876713540468738?s=200 -
522 flights? What is it? A baedecker raid?Andy_JS said:0 -
As said many times before, the NHS itself calls this Monday's figures so that is how we should perceive it. And it's not that good, slightly underwhelming in fact (although not terrible).NerysHughes said:
Thats pretty good for a SundayLeon said:
Hmm. Slowing, but not awfulwilliamglenn said:0 -
To be fair - or maybe it's not fair because it's all a massive dog whistle - the point the French Interior Minister was making to Le Pen was that it was OK to be anticlerical and against all religions, just don't pick on Islam alone. Le Pen was left unusually speechless because no-one was supposed to outflank her on the issue and a lot of her support comes from conservative Catholics who go on pilgrimages and read L'Incorrecte magazine.Philip_Thompson said:
She doesn't seem any more bigoted than Macron and his Cabinet. When they're attacking her for not being Islamophobic enough ... they seem like two cheeks of the same arse.TheScreamingEagles said:
Either this weekend or next weekend I'm publishing a piece on why Marine Le Pen is mispriced for the French Presidential election and why her winning it would be very bad for France in the long term*.Animal_pb said:
I know President Le Pen would be a bad thing. But can someone with a better grasp of French politics than me explain why she would be worse than the current incumbent?Gallowgate said:
Jeez. The "Saviour of Liberalism" is actually just Le Trump.williamglenn said:Le Monde: Macron's aides say he has mastered epidemiology to the point that he no longer necessarily has to follow the advice of scientists.
https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2021/03/30/covid-19-emmanuel-macron-le-president-epidemiologiste_6074919_823448.html
The poser in me is currently writing said piece in French, if you're lucky I may translate it into English.
*Spoiler Alert: She's not as bad as her father on the bigotry front, and she'd a bit pragmatic (see how she abandoned France leaving the EU as a policy once Brexit became a shit show). However there's some in her family (yes you Marion Maréchal) that might end up becoming President later on who are more bigoted like Jean-Marie Le Pen.0 -
I know that the system is the system, but the general understanding which I had was that the purpose of the list vote' was to ensure that there was a track back to proportionality.malcolmg said:
Example of potential impact of ALBA on election.Sandpit said:
Do we have a market on a second Scottish Parliament election this year?Leon said:
This makes it even more certain Boris will refuse a vote, by the way, because the open goal is right in front of him: refuse a vote, then split the indy cause wide open, the Salmondites v Sturgeonites, who already hate each other, and have a completely different approach to achieving indyGallowgate said:
But as we all know, it doesn't matter because Boris will rightly refuse any IndyRef2 because Scotland already voted against independence in a once in a generation vote in 2014, right @HYUFD ?Anabobazina said:Scott_xP said:
This Alba lark could yet turn out to be a masterstroke for indy – Alba mops up the anti-EU, non-woke nationalist vote...
On those numbers, there’s no majority to pass anything except a request for a second referendum. Probably not even the Budget.
THIS IS WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN 2016 IF SNP LIST VOTES WERE FOR ALBA!
So to put it simply instead of there being FOUR SNP LIST MSP’s there would have been 33 ALBA pro Indy MSP’s.
Most important of all, take a look at the Unionists. Instead of there being 24 Tories, there would have only been 12.
Likewise, instead of 21 Labour there would have been only 11.
The Liberals would have lost both their list seats and been reduced to zero
The Greens would have lost all five of their lists seats.
So an overall INCREASE of 24 pro Indy MSP’s
An overall DECREASE of 24 unionist MSP’s
Surely essentially by having a SNP-A and a SNP-B (and having the B only on the list), this gets around that, to create a double bite, in that nationalist votes count twice.
I'm not saying the nationalists are wrong to do this, as they're following the rules as set out, but this seems to be a bloody stupid system to allow a 'list only' party gaming it.
1 -
Yep.TimT said:
The have the colours the wrong way around for each of the non-100% pie charts.Philip_Thompson said:
Good editors they must have nowadays not to spot that.0 -
They do. I knew a bloke on one of the Uists who fed salmon feed to his hens and got red eggs.Gallowgate said:
My avoiding fish comment was merely because the documentary explores how it's very difficult to know as a consumer if your fish was healthy or sustainable regardless of whether it has something like the MSC badge. Now maybe that will be debunked but capitalism relies on being able to make informed decisions as a consumer of where to spend my money.Luckyguy1983 said:
Actually, I'm all for making changes to our buying habits to ensure we only eat healthy animals and healthy animal products.Gallowgate said:
You make statements like "against all medical advice" like they are fact. But they aren't.Luckyguy1983 said:
I can understand you not wanting a row - I don't want one either. But either there are verifiable facts indicating that we should (against all medical advice) eat less fish, or there aren't.Gallowgate said:
I know what your views are on nutrition and I must admit that I don't agree with you. So let's agree to disagree.Luckyguy1983 said:
Unless you can convey a really great reason why in a couple of sentences, I can pretty confidently say that reducing your intake of fish would be a *very* bad thing to do.Gallowgate said:One last thing on Fishspiracy. Even I think the presenter/producer is a self-righteous tit so @Casino_Royale would probably think he's the worst person on earth.
The documentary is shocking though. It's worth a watch regardless on your views on veganism. I'm not a vegan, for example, but I'm certainly going to reduce my fish intake.
I know you have very strong views about the positives of eating animals and I too eat animals. But that doesn't mean there are not negatives about eating animals - especially animals who are unhealthy and/or farmed unsustainably.
The vegan propaganda documentary explores how the sustainable fishing badge you find on fish is basically worthless and that farmed fish is unhealthy and unsustainable itself due to the amount of (wild caught) fish required for feed.
Maybe that will be debunked. We will see.
I have no doubt that eating wild healthy salmon is good for you. Do I have doubts that eating farmed unhealthy salmon is good for you? Yes.
I agree completely that a lot of the meat we eat isn't as healthy as it should be. You can't breed an unhealthy creature and expect it to be healthy to eat - if it isn't 'nourished', it won't be 'nourishing'. That's not well-meaning hokum, it's just simple fact - if a vitamin or mineral is not fed to the animal, it won't be as present in the meat.
So I don't think I'd have an issue with the doc, though I would regard excluding fish from the diet to be a major case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I would start from the perspective of animals and their products being of proven value to the diet, so how do we ensure that those animals are healthy and nourished, for their benefit and ours.
As an avid salmon eater, claims that Scottish salmon farmers dye their salmon to make it lovely and red instead of grey, due to unhealthiness, shocked me. I don't know how to protect myself against this as a consumer, so it's better for me to eat less.0 -
Cookie said:
Big drop in deaths reported by NHS England today. 40, compared to 98 last Tuesday. Hopefully now seen the last of three-figure-death days.
That could be the straw breaking the camel's back. Be interesting to see the official overall figures when they emerge at 4pm...0 -
Nothing wrong with that - promoting good civic behaviour.Floater said:
I was walking by a country park in Colchester at the weekend and was appalled by the amount of rubbish I could see.Leon said:
It's definitely got worse. Some places look like the 3rd world.Casino_Royale said:
True, but it seems to have got worse in the last 5-10 years? Particularly the last year, although that may be due to Covid.Andy_JS said:
This isn't a new problem.Casino_Royale said:
Why is it with young people today and rubbish?TheScreamingEagles said:This is why we can't have nice things quicker than planned.
https://twitter.com/BBCNottingham/status/1376839766151413761
I expect this why the government and the voters expect Covid-19 numbers to rise.
How many of those there would be the first to virtue-signal on social media about plastic in the oceans and a clean environment yet in reality drop litter wherever they please?
A new national campaign is needed. I went for a beautiful country walk this morning and litter was EVERYWHERE.
I went for a drive in Essex a fortnight back and for 20 miles of dual carriageway there was litter on both sides all the way. Gross. Parts of London are now notably cleaner than the countryside/suburbs
Yes we need a national campaign
I did see a single volunteer doing his best to pick up said rubbish though - much respect to the gent.
Also one of our councillors goes out litter picking and organises community days to pick the stuff up - mind you he likes to share pics when he does it
Similarly...
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/13476644178115420180 -
I like it more and more.TheScreamingEagles said:
A few years ago Michael Gove said such an idea was utterly nonsensical.Luckyguy1983 said:I'd have chain gangs picking up the litter.
1 -
It's very good for this day of the week.Anabobazina said:
As said many times before, the NHS itself calls this Monday's figures so that is how we should perceive it. And it's not that good, slightly underwhelming in fact (although not terrible).NerysHughes said:
Thats pretty good for a SundayLeon said:
Hmm. Slowing, but not awfulwilliamglenn said:
And even if it is a Monday it still fits in the pattern we know. It's quite possible Sunday and Monday are the worst days of the week because the new vaccine deliveries come in from Monday meaning distribution can be scheduled best from Tuesday.0 -
Your tone is oddly reminiscent of last spring where every single outdoor gathering was predicted on PB to lead to a massive spike in cases. Yet none of them did.TheScreamingEagles said:This is why we can't have nice things quicker than planned.
https://twitter.com/BBCNottingham/status/1376839766151413761
I expect this why the government and the voters expect Covid-19 numbers to rise.1 -
Well you should definitely avoid margarine then - that's dyed yellow to look like butter when its natural colour is grey.Gallowgate said:
My avoiding fish comment was merely because the documentary explores how it's very difficult to know as a consumer if your fish was healthy or sustainable regardless of whether it has something like the MSC badge. Now maybe that will be debunked but capitalism relies on being able to make informed decisions as a consumer of where to spend my money.Luckyguy1983 said:
Actually, I'm all for making changes to our buying habits to ensure we only eat healthy animals and healthy animal products.Gallowgate said:
You make statements like "against all medical advice" like they are fact. But they aren't.Luckyguy1983 said:
I can understand you not wanting a row - I don't want one either. But either there are verifiable facts indicating that we should (against all medical advice) eat less fish, or there aren't.Gallowgate said:
I know what your views are on nutrition and I must admit that I don't agree with you. So let's agree to disagree.Luckyguy1983 said:
Unless you can convey a really great reason why in a couple of sentences, I can pretty confidently say that reducing your intake of fish would be a *very* bad thing to do.Gallowgate said:One last thing on Fishspiracy. Even I think the presenter/producer is a self-righteous tit so @Casino_Royale would probably think he's the worst person on earth.
The documentary is shocking though. It's worth a watch regardless on your views on veganism. I'm not a vegan, for example, but I'm certainly going to reduce my fish intake.
I know you have very strong views about the positives of eating animals and I too eat animals. But that doesn't mean there are not negatives about eating animals - especially animals who are unhealthy and/or farmed unsustainably.
The vegan propaganda documentary explores how the sustainable fishing badge you find on fish is basically worthless and that farmed fish is unhealthy and unsustainable itself due to the amount of (wild caught) fish required for feed.
Maybe that will be debunked. We will see.
I have no doubt that eating wild healthy salmon is good for you. Do I have doubts that eating farmed unhealthy salmon is good for you? Yes.
I agree completely that a lot of the meat we eat isn't as healthy as it should be. You can't breed an unhealthy creature and expect it to be healthy to eat - if it isn't 'nourished', it won't be 'nourishing'. That's not well-meaning hokum, it's just simple fact - if a vitamin or mineral is not fed to the animal, it won't be as present in the meat.
So I don't think I'd have an issue with the doc, though I would regard excluding fish from the diet to be a major case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I would start from the perspective of animals and their products being of proven value to the diet, so how do we ensure that those animals are healthy and nourished, for their benefit and ours.
As an avid salmon eater, claims that Scottish salmon farmers dye their salmon to make it lovely and red instead of grey, due to unhealthiness, shocked me. I don't know how to protect myself against this as a consumer, so it's better for me to eat less.
0 -
It's fair to middling. Not amazing, not shite.Philip_Thompson said:
It's very good for this day of the week.Anabobazina said:
As said many times before, the NHS itself calls this Monday's figures so that is how we should perceive it. And it's not that good, slightly underwhelming in fact (although not terrible).NerysHughes said:
Thats pretty good for a SundayLeon said:
Hmm. Slowing, but not awfulwilliamglenn said:
And even if it is a Monday it still fits in the pattern we know. It's quite possible Sunday and Monday are the worst days of the week because the new vaccine deliveries come in from Monday meaning distribution can be scheduled best from Tuesday.0 -
"Berlin and Munich have banned AstraZeneca jabs for under-60s over blood clot fears a day after Canada also stopped administering the vaccine to under-55s.
The suspension was taken as a 'precautionary measure,' Berlin's health minister said, ahead of a meeting later today of 16 state representatives.
Earlier the prestigious Charite hospital in Berlin announced it would no longer give AstraZeneca vaccines to women under 55 after sporadic reports of thromboembolic events in younger females."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9418233/Top-German-hospital-bans-AstraZeneca-shots-women-55.html0 -
If Labour win Hartlepool they are on course for power.algarkirk said:
At the election the gap was 11.8 points. Taking all the recent polls and allowingb margin for error the gap is now between 6 and 7 points (Tory 42, Lab 36 or 35).BluestBlue said:
The last three polls show two 8-point leads, and a 10-point lead today. In what fantasy land is that 'only slightly behind'?CorrectHorseBattery said:Bearing in mind Keir Starmer took Labour from 20 points behind to ahead and now only slightly behind, if the Tories cock up literally anything he'll be in the lead again.
He's done the best job he could have done, the complaints about him puzzle me
Views will differ but it seems to me that a centrist Labour leader is simply certain to close any gap just by virtue of not being an extremist, and so one could say roughly that SKS has done what a centrist leader will do, and no less, but crucially, no more than that.
Having said that, he is up against a political genius comparable to Blair, Clinton and Obama and Labour are unfortunate in not having anyone in their ranks who is obviously in that league (though Jess Phillips would be worth a trial gallop), while Nicola, like Rangers, is playing in the Scottish not English league. At some point against Boris you have to put your best players on the pitch and have some luck, while hoping Boris's runs out.
Labour will win Hartlepool. Their problem is that this will come as a relief, not a routine canter.
But I'm hoping not expecting. I am on the Cons at evens.0 -
It is a New Labour Mess -- the worst kind of mess.Slackbladder said:
I know that the system is the system, but the general understanding which I had was that the purpose of the list vote' was to ensure that there was a track back to proportionality.
Surely essentially by having a SNP-A and a SNP-B (and having the B only on the list), this gets around that, to create a double bite, in that nationalist votes count twice.
I'm not saying the nationalists are wrong to do this, as they're following the rules as set out, but this seems to be a bloody stupid system to allow a 'list only' party gaming it.
It is hard to feel sympathy for a gerrymandering party, like Labour (who did the same in Wales).
Even so, a grotesquely unrepresentative result only breeds resentment.0 -
Magnificent new cricket kits for the finest county in the UK.
https://twitter.com/WisdenCricket/status/13768597188204339210 -
Better to just make Michael Gove litter-pick in that case.TheScreamingEagles said:
Utter nonsense or is Michael Gove in your list as well?Andy_JS said:
I've often thought that criminals could be used to pick up litter, because it would be a win-win situation. They'd get a few hours outside prison in the fresh air, which must be better than being stuck in a cell most of the day, and the public would get the litter cleared up. The problem is some influential people in Hampstead, Bristol and Brighton would complain about it being "humiliating" for the prisoners to do this in full view of the public, and it wouldn't happen.Luckyguy1983 said:I'd have chain gangs picking up the litter.
So which category prisoners would you want doing the pick up duty?
Murderers, rapists, sex offenders, or violent offenders are no nos I'm guessing but they are the ones in Cat A prisons who spend most of the their day inside a cell.
Open prisoners already have good access outside their cells.
So then there's the logistics of moving prisoners to areas with high litter, your Cat A prisons are usually in big cities, whilst your Cs & Ds are much more rural/smaller towns area.
Do you really think the prison service has the logistics to move prisoners like this on a regular basis, they can barely get prisoners to court.
Then you'd have the Daily Mail going 'Look at these nasty prisoners picking up messes near your houses and schools'
It's an idea that only people who have no knowledge of reality support.0 -
On course for power? By winning a seat they already won last time? During the mid-term? 🤦🏻♂️kinabalu said:
If Labour win Hartlepool they are on course for power.algarkirk said:
At the election the gap was 11.8 points. Taking all the recent polls and allowingb margin for error the gap is now between 6 and 7 points (Tory 42, Lab 36 or 35).BluestBlue said:
The last three polls show two 8-point leads, and a 10-point lead today. In what fantasy land is that 'only slightly behind'?CorrectHorseBattery said:Bearing in mind Keir Starmer took Labour from 20 points behind to ahead and now only slightly behind, if the Tories cock up literally anything he'll be in the lead again.
He's done the best job he could have done, the complaints about him puzzle me
Views will differ but it seems to me that a centrist Labour leader is simply certain to close any gap just by virtue of not being an extremist, and so one could say roughly that SKS has done what a centrist leader will do, and no less, but crucially, no more than that.
Having said that, he is up against a political genius comparable to Blair, Clinton and Obama and Labour are unfortunate in not having anyone in their ranks who is obviously in that league (though Jess Phillips would be worth a trial gallop), while Nicola, like Rangers, is playing in the Scottish not English league. At some point against Boris you have to put your best players on the pitch and have some luck, while hoping Boris's runs out.
Labour will win Hartlepool. Their problem is that this will come as a relief, not a routine canter.
But I'm hoping not expecting. I am on the Cons at evens.2 -
I'm hoping he forgot to apply, and is getting kicked out tomorrow.TheScreamingEagles said:
Same as Michael Gove?RobD said:
The contents of the tweet do not match the contents of the story. But what else do you expect from "BremaininSpain".Scott_xP said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/06/uk-statistics-authority-rebukes-gove-over-observers-brexit-figures0 -
UK 'not a Covid basket case': https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/03/30/uk-not-covid-basket-case-thought/
It's AEP*, but in this case reporting something that has happened rather than prognisticating disaster for the Eurozone.
TLDR - the UK (along with France and Belgium) is reporting accurately - almost no-one else is; Worldometers data is almost worthless**.
*Personally I quite enjoy AEP. But I am very aware that he has predicted about 25 of the past zero Eurozone breakups.
**We knew this. It's a Chinese-owned site selling Chinese-made dodgy goods, plus some data. But in its defence all the data is sourced, so if there are shortcomings they rest mostly with the national governments which report the data.0 -
That is horrible. Even the models look unimpressed.TheScreamingEagles said:Magnificent new cricket kits for the finest county in the UK.
https://twitter.com/WisdenCricket/status/13768597188204339210 -
Are you serious? Holding a seat is an indication of heading for victory...kinabalu said:
If Labour win Hartlepool they are on course for power.algarkirk said:
At the election the gap was 11.8 points. Taking all the recent polls and allowingb margin for error the gap is now between 6 and 7 points (Tory 42, Lab 36 or 35).BluestBlue said:
The last three polls show two 8-point leads, and a 10-point lead today. In what fantasy land is that 'only slightly behind'?CorrectHorseBattery said:Bearing in mind Keir Starmer took Labour from 20 points behind to ahead and now only slightly behind, if the Tories cock up literally anything he'll be in the lead again.
He's done the best job he could have done, the complaints about him puzzle me
Views will differ but it seems to me that a centrist Labour leader is simply certain to close any gap just by virtue of not being an extremist, and so one could say roughly that SKS has done what a centrist leader will do, and no less, but crucially, no more than that.
Having said that, he is up against a political genius comparable to Blair, Clinton and Obama and Labour are unfortunate in not having anyone in their ranks who is obviously in that league (though Jess Phillips would be worth a trial gallop), while Nicola, like Rangers, is playing in the Scottish not English league. At some point against Boris you have to put your best players on the pitch and have some luck, while hoping Boris's runs out.
Labour will win Hartlepool. Their problem is that this will come as a relief, not a routine canter.
But I'm hoping not expecting. I am on the Cons at evens.2 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
What's wrong with them?Philip_Thompson said:0 -
Excessive PCBs in your diet would explain a lot.Philip_Thompson said:
Though even then if you stick with seafood like salmon, oysters, prawns etc there's very little risk. Sharks etc it is much more.TimT said:Philip_Thompson said:
Nutrition wise seafood is very good for you. I doubt many credibly disagree with that.Gallowgate said:
I know what your views are on nutrition and I must admit that I don't agree with you. So let's agree to disagree.Luckyguy1983 said:
Unless you can convey a really great reason why in a couple of sentences, I can pretty confidently say that reducing your intake of fish would be a *very* bad thing to do.Gallowgate said:One last thing on Fishspiracy. Even I think the presenter/producer is a self-righteous tit so @Casino_Royale would probably think he's the worst person on earth.
The documentary is shocking though. It's worth a watch regardless on your views on veganism. I'm not a vegan, for example, but I'm certainly going to reduce my fish intake.
Except the heavy metal poisoning if you eat too much meat from larger, older fish. Metals such as mercury accumulate in the fish (and the human eating the fish) over time.
Mediterranean diets with plenty of seafood are really good for you - and that typically involves eating all sorts of seafood not just large fish. I prefer crustaceans over fish.0 -
I agree.algarkirk said:
I don't think England will ever vote to chop up England except for local government matters; and would never accept the sorts of powers Holyrood has being transferred to Regional Government in Bristol, Manchester or wherever.
England would be more likely to vote for the restoration of Middlesex and Westmorland, giving powers back to shire reeves and the reversal of scutage than for balkanisation.
Which is partly why England will never fix any of its structural issues, and will remain a bit crap.0 -
If it had a matching collar and tie, you'd wear it ?TheScreamingEagles said:Magnificent new cricket kits for the finest county in the UK.
https://twitter.com/WisdenCricket/status/13768597188204339210 -
That's out of date thinking. It's tired. It's stale. It's past its sell by date. It's ... yep.Philip_Thompson said:
On course for power? By winning a seat they already won last time? During the mid-term? 🤦🏻♂️kinabalu said:
If Labour win Hartlepool they are on course for power.algarkirk said:
At the election the gap was 11.8 points. Taking all the recent polls and allowingb margin for error the gap is now between 6 and 7 points (Tory 42, Lab 36 or 35).BluestBlue said:
The last three polls show two 8-point leads, and a 10-point lead today. In what fantasy land is that 'only slightly behind'?CorrectHorseBattery said:Bearing in mind Keir Starmer took Labour from 20 points behind to ahead and now only slightly behind, if the Tories cock up literally anything he'll be in the lead again.
He's done the best job he could have done, the complaints about him puzzle me
Views will differ but it seems to me that a centrist Labour leader is simply certain to close any gap just by virtue of not being an extremist, and so one could say roughly that SKS has done what a centrist leader will do, and no less, but crucially, no more than that.
Having said that, he is up against a political genius comparable to Blair, Clinton and Obama and Labour are unfortunate in not having anyone in their ranks who is obviously in that league (though Jess Phillips would be worth a trial gallop), while Nicola, like Rangers, is playing in the Scottish not English league. At some point against Boris you have to put your best players on the pitch and have some luck, while hoping Boris's runs out.
Labour will win Hartlepool. Their problem is that this will come as a relief, not a routine canter.
But I'm hoping not expecting. I am on the Cons at evens.
We need a new punditry for the new post Brexit politics. The Con majority rests on ownership of WWC Leave. They'd have won Hartlepool last time if it weren't for the BXP.
Hartlepool is Brexit Central. And this vote comes at a time of maximum Brexit triumphalism. Delivered and bearing the most luscious of fruits in the form of our vaccines. All courtesy of the magnificent Johnson. Brand Boris who WWC Leavers love to bits.
If the Cons fail to win this seat at this time in these circumstances, they are heading for the rocks.0 -
The issue, as I understand it, is an ethical one. As a young person you are unlikely to die of a bloodclot event following an Astrazeneca innoculation (possibly a 1 in 100 000 scale event). You are also unlikely to die from Covid (less than 1 in 10 000 in the UK so far). The problem is for those young individuals the number of Covid deaths prevented isn't massively greater than the number of bloodclot deaths incurred, even though both numbers are very small and there is a much benefit for the community in suppressing the virus. With a choice of vaccines you can choose a different medication for the younger group and the ethical issue goes away.CarlottaVance said:
The calculation for older people is different because the probability of Covid death being avoided is much greater.0 -
Looks like a case of selective questioning for government apologists, where most of the questions are orientated to either the vaccine rollout or the furlough scheme, both of which even a Bozo-sceptic such as myself would be hard pressed not to give a favourable answer onCarlottaVance said:0 -
The 4pm figures on any given day are no so low that they are disproportionately noise - historic data being moved in and out. The 7 day average is important, but day to day figures aren't, really, any more.Anabobazina said:Cookie said:Big drop in deaths reported by NHS England today. 40, compared to 98 last Tuesday. Hopefully now seen the last of three-figure-death days.
That could be the straw breaking the camel's back. Be interesting to see the official overall figures when they emerge at 4pm...
That doesn't mean to say I won't be looking out for them and cheering if they are good though!0 -
That’s totally and utterly bonkers, from both Germany and Spain.CarlottaVance said:This'll end well:
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/1376888275944767495?s=20
Maybe the Majorcans are hoping to have the damn thing burn through their whole island, so they can open up in July for the British tourists?1 -
If Labour, from opposition, hold a seat they have held for the past sixty years at a mid-term by-election, they are on course for power?kinabalu said:
If Labour win Hartlepool they are on course for power.algarkirk said:
At the election the gap was 11.8 points. Taking all the recent polls and allowingb margin for error the gap is now between 6 and 7 points (Tory 42, Lab 36 or 35).BluestBlue said:
The last three polls show two 8-point leads, and a 10-point lead today. In what fantasy land is that 'only slightly behind'?CorrectHorseBattery said:Bearing in mind Keir Starmer took Labour from 20 points behind to ahead and now only slightly behind, if the Tories cock up literally anything he'll be in the lead again.
He's done the best job he could have done, the complaints about him puzzle me
Views will differ but it seems to me that a centrist Labour leader is simply certain to close any gap just by virtue of not being an extremist, and so one could say roughly that SKS has done what a centrist leader will do, and no less, but crucially, no more than that.
Having said that, he is up against a political genius comparable to Blair, Clinton and Obama and Labour are unfortunate in not having anyone in their ranks who is obviously in that league (though Jess Phillips would be worth a trial gallop), while Nicola, like Rangers, is playing in the Scottish not English league. At some point against Boris you have to put your best players on the pitch and have some luck, while hoping Boris's runs out.
Labour will win Hartlepool. Their problem is that this will come as a relief, not a routine canter.
But I'm hoping not expecting. I am on the Cons at evens.
2 -
As I posted yesterday, in a world of multiple vaccines, reserving AZN for crusties, or even male crusties, makes a lot of sense given the data coming out of Germany.FF43 said:
The issue, as I understand it, is an ethical one. As a young person you are unlikely to die of a bloodclot event following an Astrazeneca innoculation (possibly a 1 in 100 000 scale event). You are also unlikely to die from Covid (less than 1 in 10 000 in the UK so far). The problem is for those young individuals the number of Covid deaths prevented isn't massively greater than the number of bloodclot deaths incurred, even though both numbers are very small and there is a much benefit for the community in suppressing the virus. With a choice of vaccines you can choose a different medication for the younger group and the ethical issue goes away.CarlottaVance said:
The calculation for older people is different because the probability of Covid death being avoided is much greater.
It also casts doubt on the role of AZN as saviour of the developing world, where populations are much younger on average.0 -
Nice quote from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph today (paywalled). He's very gloomy about the prospects for European economy and especially debt levels.
We can see in hindsight that the UK began the war on Covid much as it has begun almost every major war over recent centuries: half asleep, in utter shambles, with obsolete contingency plans.
The first wave had echoes of the Norway campaign in 1940, or the great retreat of the British Expeditionary Force in August 1914. It always seems to take time for Britons to pull themselves together. Ultimately they do. By the end of the First World War, the British armed forces were arguably the best-run logistical machine on the planet. The cavalry invented the modern Blitzkrieg in 1918.0 -
'The cavalry invented the modern Blitzkrieg in 1918.'lloydy said:Nice quote from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph today (paywalled). He's very gloomy about the prospects for European economy and especially debt levels.
We can see in hindsight that the UK began the war on Covid much as it has begun almost every major war over recent centuries: half asleep, in utter shambles, with obsolete contingency plans.
The first wave had echoes of the Norway campaign in 1940, or the great retreat of the British Expeditionary Force in August 1914. It always seems to take time for Britons to pull themselves together. Ultimately they do. By the end of the First World War, the British armed forces were arguably the best-run logistical machine on the planet. The cavalry invented the modern Blitzkrieg in 1918.
And had forgotten it all by 1939.0 -
No, you're starting out with a reasonable premise - that Hartlepool is not out of the question for the Tories, despite the usual rules that governments don't make gains and Tories don't gain Hartlepool - and stretch it to absurd lengths - that if the Tories don't win Hartlepool they are headed for the rocks.kinabalu said:
That's out of date thinking. It's tired. It's stale. It's past its sell by date. It's ... yep.Philip_Thompson said:
On course for power? By winning a seat they already won last time? During the mid-term? 🤦🏻♂️kinabalu said:
If Labour win Hartlepool they are on course for power.algarkirk said:
At the election the gap was 11.8 points. Taking all the recent polls and allowingb margin for error the gap is now between 6 and 7 points (Tory 42, Lab 36 or 35).BluestBlue said:
The last three polls show two 8-point leads, and a 10-point lead today. In what fantasy land is that 'only slightly behind'?CorrectHorseBattery said:Bearing in mind Keir Starmer took Labour from 20 points behind to ahead and now only slightly behind, if the Tories cock up literally anything he'll be in the lead again.
He's done the best job he could have done, the complaints about him puzzle me
Views will differ but it seems to me that a centrist Labour leader is simply certain to close any gap just by virtue of not being an extremist, and so one could say roughly that SKS has done what a centrist leader will do, and no less, but crucially, no more than that.
Having said that, he is up against a political genius comparable to Blair, Clinton and Obama and Labour are unfortunate in not having anyone in their ranks who is obviously in that league (though Jess Phillips would be worth a trial gallop), while Nicola, like Rangers, is playing in the Scottish not English league. At some point against Boris you have to put your best players on the pitch and have some luck, while hoping Boris's runs out.
Labour will win Hartlepool. Their problem is that this will come as a relief, not a routine canter.
But I'm hoping not expecting. I am on the Cons at evens.
We need a new punditry for the new post Brexit politics. The Con majority rests on ownership of WWC Leave. They'd have won Hartlepool last time if it weren't for the BXP.
Hartlepool is Brexit Central. And this vote comes at a time of maximum Brexit triumphalism. Delivered and bearing the most luscious of fruits in the form of our vaccines. All courtesy of the magnificent Johnson. Brand Boris who WWC Leavers love to bits.
If the Cons fail to win this seat at this time in these circumstances, they are heading for the rocks.
I'd say the odds are about right. Which is a lot more favourable to the Tories than one might ordinarily think. And the Tories might be headed for the rocks. But the first doesn't necessarily imply the second.
Odds of Tories winning Hartlepool - roughly 50%.
Odd that Tories headed for the rocks - roughly 25%.
So there is a big gap where Tories don't win Hartlepool but it doesn't really matter.1 -
I used to think so.Mango said:
I agree.algarkirk said:
I don't think England will ever vote to chop up England except for local government matters; and would never accept the sorts of powers Holyrood has being transferred to Regional Government in Bristol, Manchester or wherever.
England would be more likely to vote for the restoration of Middlesex and Westmorland, giving powers back to shire reeves and the reversal of scutage than for balkanisation.
Which is partly why England will never fix any of its structural issues, and will remain a bit crap.
But I've come around to the view that sub-national government only works if the population feels some sort of loyalty to its sub-national unit. And that this is more important than it making sense in terms of journey-to-work patterns and raw economics.0 -
Perfectly serious - for the reasons I've set out.Andy_JS said:
Are you serious? Holding a seat is an indication of heading for victory...kinabalu said:
If Labour win Hartlepool they are on course for power.algarkirk said:
At the election the gap was 11.8 points. Taking all the recent polls and allowingb margin for error the gap is now between 6 and 7 points (Tory 42, Lab 36 or 35).BluestBlue said:
The last three polls show two 8-point leads, and a 10-point lead today. In what fantasy land is that 'only slightly behind'?CorrectHorseBattery said:Bearing in mind Keir Starmer took Labour from 20 points behind to ahead and now only slightly behind, if the Tories cock up literally anything he'll be in the lead again.
He's done the best job he could have done, the complaints about him puzzle me
Views will differ but it seems to me that a centrist Labour leader is simply certain to close any gap just by virtue of not being an extremist, and so one could say roughly that SKS has done what a centrist leader will do, and no less, but crucially, no more than that.
Having said that, he is up against a political genius comparable to Blair, Clinton and Obama and Labour are unfortunate in not having anyone in their ranks who is obviously in that league (though Jess Phillips would be worth a trial gallop), while Nicola, like Rangers, is playing in the Scottish not English league. At some point against Boris you have to put your best players on the pitch and have some luck, while hoping Boris's runs out.
Labour will win Hartlepool. Their problem is that this will come as a relief, not a routine canter.
But I'm hoping not expecting. I am on the Cons at evens.
And I'm a superforecaster remember.0 -
I don't wholly disagree with that nuance. But this is a new politics and the old mantras must be discarded. This is my main point.Cookie said:
No, you're starting out with a reasonable premise - that Hartlepool is not out of the question for the Tories, despite the usual rules that governments don't make gains and Tories don't gain Hartlepool - and stretch it to absurd lengths - that if the Tories don't win Hartlepool they are headed for the rocks.kinabalu said:
That's out of date thinking. It's tired. It's stale. It's past its sell by date. It's ... yep.Philip_Thompson said:
On course for power? By winning a seat they already won last time? During the mid-term? 🤦🏻♂️kinabalu said:
If Labour win Hartlepool they are on course for power.algarkirk said:
At the election the gap was 11.8 points. Taking all the recent polls and allowingb margin for error the gap is now between 6 and 7 points (Tory 42, Lab 36 or 35).BluestBlue said:
The last three polls show two 8-point leads, and a 10-point lead today. In what fantasy land is that 'only slightly behind'?CorrectHorseBattery said:Bearing in mind Keir Starmer took Labour from 20 points behind to ahead and now only slightly behind, if the Tories cock up literally anything he'll be in the lead again.
He's done the best job he could have done, the complaints about him puzzle me
Views will differ but it seems to me that a centrist Labour leader is simply certain to close any gap just by virtue of not being an extremist, and so one could say roughly that SKS has done what a centrist leader will do, and no less, but crucially, no more than that.
Having said that, he is up against a political genius comparable to Blair, Clinton and Obama and Labour are unfortunate in not having anyone in their ranks who is obviously in that league (though Jess Phillips would be worth a trial gallop), while Nicola, like Rangers, is playing in the Scottish not English league. At some point against Boris you have to put your best players on the pitch and have some luck, while hoping Boris's runs out.
Labour will win Hartlepool. Their problem is that this will come as a relief, not a routine canter.
But I'm hoping not expecting. I am on the Cons at evens.
We need a new punditry for the new post Brexit politics. The Con majority rests on ownership of WWC Leave. They'd have won Hartlepool last time if it weren't for the BXP.
Hartlepool is Brexit Central. And this vote comes at a time of maximum Brexit triumphalism. Delivered and bearing the most luscious of fruits in the form of our vaccines. All courtesy of the magnificent Johnson. Brand Boris who WWC Leavers love to bits.
If the Cons fail to win this seat at this time in these circumstances, they are heading for the rocks.
I'd say the odds are about right. Which is a lot more favourable to the Tories than one might ordinarily think. And the Tories might be headed for the rocks. But the first doesn't necessarily imply the second.
Odds of Tories winning Hartlepool - roughly 50%.
Odd that Tories headed for the rocks - roughly 25%.
So there is a big gap where Tories don't win Hartlepool but it doesn't really matter.1 -
Strange man.lloydy said:Nice quote from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph today (paywalled). He's very gloomy about the prospects for European economy and especially debt levels.
We can see in hindsight that the UK began the war on Covid much as it has begun almost every major war over recent centuries: half asleep, in utter shambles, with obsolete contingency plans.
The first wave had echoes of the Norway campaign in 1940, or the great retreat of the British Expeditionary Force in August 1914. It always seems to take time for Britons to pull themselves together. Ultimately they do. By the end of the First World War, the British armed forces were arguably the best-run logistical machine on the planet. The cavalry invented the modern Blitzkrieg in 1918.
APE is being a bit harsh on WW1 and WW2 prep? (Dowding and Fisher for two).
Cavalry Blitzkrieg 1918 invented the term - a touch imaginative? More like the German Spring Offensive if anything.
And there were plenty of aspects of infra in place before COVID, albeit some of it coincidental.
Telegraph piece here, and Javascript-off breaks the firewall.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/03/30/uk-not-covid-basket-case-thought/0 -
It's utterly bonkers and naked expectation management all at the same time.Cookie said:
If Labour, from opposition, hold a seat they have held for the past sixty years at a mid-term by-election, they are on course for power?kinabalu said:
If Labour win Hartlepool they are on course for power.algarkirk said:
At the election the gap was 11.8 points. Taking all the recent polls and allowingb margin for error the gap is now between 6 and 7 points (Tory 42, Lab 36 or 35).BluestBlue said:
The last three polls show two 8-point leads, and a 10-point lead today. In what fantasy land is that 'only slightly behind'?CorrectHorseBattery said:Bearing in mind Keir Starmer took Labour from 20 points behind to ahead and now only slightly behind, if the Tories cock up literally anything he'll be in the lead again.
He's done the best job he could have done, the complaints about him puzzle me
Views will differ but it seems to me that a centrist Labour leader is simply certain to close any gap just by virtue of not being an extremist, and so one could say roughly that SKS has done what a centrist leader will do, and no less, but crucially, no more than that.
Having said that, he is up against a political genius comparable to Blair, Clinton and Obama and Labour are unfortunate in not having anyone in their ranks who is obviously in that league (though Jess Phillips would be worth a trial gallop), while Nicola, like Rangers, is playing in the Scottish not English league. At some point against Boris you have to put your best players on the pitch and have some luck, while hoping Boris's runs out.
Labour will win Hartlepool. Their problem is that this will come as a relief, not a routine canter.
But I'm hoping not expecting. I am on the Cons at evens.0 -
Fuck it's hot. Parks ram packed. Bring on the snow over Easter.0
-
Thinking cap, Felix.felix said:
It's utterly bonkers and naked expectation management all at the same time.Cookie said:
If Labour, from opposition, hold a seat they have held for the past sixty years at a mid-term by-election, they are on course for power?kinabalu said:
If Labour win Hartlepool they are on course for power.algarkirk said:
At the election the gap was 11.8 points. Taking all the recent polls and allowingb margin for error the gap is now between 6 and 7 points (Tory 42, Lab 36 or 35).BluestBlue said:
The last three polls show two 8-point leads, and a 10-point lead today. In what fantasy land is that 'only slightly behind'?CorrectHorseBattery said:Bearing in mind Keir Starmer took Labour from 20 points behind to ahead and now only slightly behind, if the Tories cock up literally anything he'll be in the lead again.
He's done the best job he could have done, the complaints about him puzzle me
Views will differ but it seems to me that a centrist Labour leader is simply certain to close any gap just by virtue of not being an extremist, and so one could say roughly that SKS has done what a centrist leader will do, and no less, but crucially, no more than that.
Having said that, he is up against a political genius comparable to Blair, Clinton and Obama and Labour are unfortunate in not having anyone in their ranks who is obviously in that league (though Jess Phillips would be worth a trial gallop), while Nicola, like Rangers, is playing in the Scottish not English league. At some point against Boris you have to put your best players on the pitch and have some luck, while hoping Boris's runs out.
Labour will win Hartlepool. Their problem is that this will come as a relief, not a routine canter.
But I'm hoping not expecting. I am on the Cons at evens.0
This discussion has been closed.