Today’s Times main leader won’t go down well at Number 10 – politicalbetting.com

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

NerysHughes said:

isam said:

MikeSmithson said:

isam said:

Farooq said:

Endillion said:

Your regular reminder (usually from me, whenever this line about Boris only beating "discredited" opponents is bandied about) that Livingstone and (especially) Corbyn are only discredited because Johnson beat them, not the other way around.

That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.

Corbyn’s Labour were leading most polls until Boris became PM, then that stopped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

So what's gone wrong now after chucking away the Tory 12% GE2019 lead

Ebbs and flows of the electoral cycle maybe. Maybe it’s more than that and its all over for him.

But to claim Corbyn was a discredited opponent, when he was leading the polls until Boris took over, is obvious nonsense

Governments being behind in the polls mid term, although it nearly always happens, seems to be a surprise to many at the moment.

Not in Scotland. Government is currently 27 points ahead (Panelbase, 9-12 Nov). And the SNP has been in government for over fourteen years.

And even more problematic for the BritNats is than in the poll before that SLab was ahead of SCon.

Why is that a problem for BritNats? Labour are as BritNat as the Conservatives?

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...

The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
(1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
(2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
(3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

Its just absurd.

The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
The direct opposite of levelling up.

The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.

Still would leave them short without Scotland.

What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.

How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?

Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.

Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.

The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.

Con FM looks pretty unlikely. But an IndyRef2 victory for No followed by a sharp decline in the SNP vote is one of the more likely outcomes of the next few years. And, like a Yes vote, preferable to the status quo. We need a second referendum, and then we can finally move on from this holding pattern.

The problem for the SNP though is they likely need Boris as PM to have their best chance to win an indyref2 but as long as the Tories are in power they won't be granted an indyref2.

Starmer would be more likely to grant them an indyref2, especially if he needs their support in a hung parliament but the SNP would be less likely to win an indyref2 with Starmer as PM too, especially as he would likely offer devomax as well

And that's one of the reasons I'll probably be voting SNP at the next election.
The SNP won the Holyrood election, and any refusal on the part of any government in London to grant a request (assuming it comes) for a referendum troubles me greatly. We have to have a democratic process that allows for outcomes whether we like them or not. The best-looking process to me looks like a Holyrood majority. And there's precedent for that too. The Conservatives are playing with fire by setting mainstream political goals out of reach of the people of a country. Boris needs to brush up on his nineteeth and twentieth century history.

If the SNP were on 60% of the vote and 60% of Scots + wanted independence that might be true.

When the SNP got less than 50% of the vote in May and Scots are still divided 50% 50% on independence at most in the majority of polls then Boris can get away with refusing indyref2 indefinitely and he will as long as the Tories stay in power

Pro-independence legislators = ?
Anti-independence legislators = ?
Speaker = 1

Fill in the gaps.

Scots are not as thick as you think they are.

Stocky said:

Jonathan said:

eek said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Breaking on Sky

The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

That is horrific

It's unavoidable as Covid continues to spread up to the point we get herd immunity.

As Germany said yesterday, everyone is going to get Covid, the only difference is whether you recover or die from it. Vaccination seems to increase your chance of recovery rather than death by 30 to 80 times (depending on age).

Is herd immunity still a thing?

Of course. As opposed to what?

Spain may have already reached it:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00495-1/fulltext

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

Anabobazina said:

We have truly entered the twilight zone with Bozza now. Just a bizarre episode, he presents as decidedly unwell.

He presents as someone drunk trying to pretend to be sober.

He really, really doesn't

God knows I drink enough, and am drunk enough, and have pretended to be sober enough. I doubt you've been really drunk a dozen times in your life? You know nothing of this

If Boris was just a desperate secret boozer, like Charles Kennedy, it would be bloody obvious. He isn't. His problems actually go deeper than that, and they are more interesting. He has some deep neediness, related to his mum and dad, allied with a schoolboy shtick of "I'm just a bumbling amateur, hahaha" which got him into Eton, Oxford and the Buller, but this has now fossilised into a persona, all of which is sunk in a genuinely gifted and powerful intelligence, which means he lives at total cross purposes

I'm reminded of the line that the trouble with lying is that it's such hard work; you have to remember your story because reality can't do it for you.

So much of Bozza's story is phoney, and it's hard to escape the impression that it goes back to his messed up childhood.

And his intelligence and willingness to make stuff up have worked well up to now; he's got away with the lies by being so smart. His path up the greasy pole has worked, and maybe he wouldn't have got there taking the conventional Cameron/May route.

But it leaves him really exposed now.

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

NerysHughes said:

isam said:

MikeSmithson said:

isam said:

Farooq said:

Endillion said:

Your regular reminder (usually from me, whenever this line about Boris only beating "discredited" opponents is bandied about) that Livingstone and (especially) Corbyn are only discredited because Johnson beat them, not the other way around.

That's not really true, though. Look at Corbyn's ratings pre-election. They were dire. The swirl of stories around him were a mix of confected nonsense and very troubling truths. It's completely reasonable to say that in the eyes of many he was totally discredited before the election.

Also, think about it this way. An election is a test of (among other things) the leader's credibility. Boris won in part because he was more credible than Corbyn. If you're trying to say that Corbyn was only discredited as a result of, uh, the result, then you're putting the cart before the horse.

Corbyn’s Labour were leading most polls until Boris became PM, then that stopped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

So what's gone wrong now after chucking away the Tory 12% GE2019 lead

Ebbs and flows of the electoral cycle maybe. Maybe it’s more than that and its all over for him.

But to claim Corbyn was a discredited opponent, when he was leading the polls until Boris took over, is obvious nonsense

Governments being behind in the polls mid term, although it nearly always happens, seems to be a surprise to many at the moment.

Not in Scotland. Government is currently 27 points ahead (Panelbase, 9-12 Nov). And the SNP has been in government for over fourteen years.

And even more problematic for the BritNats is than in the poll before that SLab was ahead of SCon.

Why is that a problem for BritNats? Labour are as BritNat as the Conservatives?

Their voters in Scotland aren't - even after losing many voters to both the Tories and SNP. The current Labour voting population is split on the issue.

Yepp. Up to 40% of SLab voters are pro-independence.

NerysHughes said:

Malmesbury said:

On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.

I wonder what Sadiq Khans approval rating will be at the end of his 2nd term

Farooq said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...

The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
(1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
(2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
(3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

Its just absurd.

The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
The direct opposite of levelling up.

The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.

Still would leave them short without Scotland.

What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.

How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?

Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.

Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.

The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.

Con FM looks pretty unlikely. But an IndyRef2 victory for No followed by a sharp decline in the SNP vote is one of the more likely outcomes of the next few years. And, like a Yes vote, preferable to the status quo. We need a second referendum, and then we can finally move on from this holding pattern.

The problem for the SNP though is they likely need Boris as PM to have their best chance to win an indyref2 but as long as the Tories are in power they won't be granted an indyref2.

Starmer would be more likely to grant them an indyref2, especially if he needs their support in a hung parliament but the SNP would be less likely to win an indyref2 with Starmer as PM too, especially as he would likely offer devomax as well

And that's one of the reasons I'll probably be voting SNP at the next election.
The SNP won the Holyrood election, and any refusal on the part of any government in London to grant a request (assuming it comes) for a referendum troubles me greatly. We have to have a democratic process that allows for outcomes whether we like them or not. The best-looking process to me looks like a Holyrood majority. And there's precedent for that too. The Conservatives are playing with fire by setting mainstream political goals out of reach of the people of a country. Boris needs to brush up on his nineteeth and twentieth century history.

If the SNP were on 60% of the vote and 60% of Scots + wanted independence that might be true.

When the SNP got less than 50% of the vote in May and Scots are still divided 50% 50% on independence at most in the majority of polls then Boris can get away with refusing indyref2 indefinitely and he will as long as the Tories stay in power

Pro-independence legislators = ?
Anti-independence legislators = ?
Speaker = 1

Fill in the gaps.

Scots are not as thick as you think they are.

I'm also struck by HYUFD's statement that he doesn't care who runs Scotland so long as it is Unionist. That is (like Ms Davidson's public utterances as SCUP head) putting British nationalism first, second and third.

As with the care policy - what happened to Conservative care for good government?

The Conservative Party feels so different today even compared to 5 or 6 years ago. I was slower than some to notice the change, so it baffles me that there are still those who haven't spotted it. I'll be fascinated to see how it goes post-Boris, to see if they return to something of the noble principles and dour, sensible stewardship of the past. Conservatism is a sound guiding principle, and totally absent from cabinet today. Can it come back?

Selebian said:

Selebian said:

mwadams said:

mwadams said:

Selebian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Breaking on Sky

The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

That is horrific

OWiD says 1.4 at present, so that looks fairly plausible - you'd hope lower, with vaccinations, but some countries not that well vaccinated and it depends on exaclty who is included in 'Europe'.

Also worth noting that on the OWiD metric (within x days of diagnosis?) the UK has more per capita than Europe at present, so there's potential for a degree of catchup.

If the WHO are working on actual deaths, rather than fully detected/reported Covid deaths, then we might not be that far off at present (i.e. adjusting reported numbers up for low testing early on and still some missed tests in some countries?)

Still horrific, of course, from a pre-pandemic point of view.

That would be 4/1000pop deaths from covid.

ETA: (The UK is at about 2/1000pop deaths from covid so far)

OWiD puts Europe confirmed deaths ~1.4 million and 1.85/1000 pop, so more like 2.6/1000 to get to 2 million in OWiD stats. Maybe different sources/definitions? Depends of course on what counts as a death and on the denominator population.

Edit: I'd still hope that's overly pessimistic

Quick google puts population of Europe ~750 million, so also ~2.6/1000. Unless Big G's original quote was for EU, in which case the number per population would be in excess of 4/1000 (EU pop ~450 million). I very much hope it was a wider Europe number.

Selebian said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Selebian said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

HYUFD said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Farooq said:

Roger said:

Scott_xP said:

BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...

It's very fair. It's called 'Unprogressive Taxation'

It's not a tax

Just to be clear, if you require cancer treatment on the NHS, the figures are:

1. Start with £100,000, finish with £100,000

2. Start with £250,000, finish with £250,000

3. Start with £500,000, finish with £500,000

Better yet, the NHS covers hotel costs, which are not subject to the social care cap.

I can only assume Scott is leading the charge for billing wealthy NHS users. Is he?

Or perhaps the issues are a little more complicated.

If you are in hospital though you are normally only there for your operation and afterwards before returning home.

If you go to a care home you are generally a permanent resident until death

You're mistaken, Hyfud.

Depending on the condition, many thousands of people spend six months or more on the NHS and nobody ever asks if this would be a good opportunity to tax wealthy users.

There are NHS Trusts where the AVERAGE STAY for older people is 270 days.

Not necessarily disputing that, but do you have a link to a study? There are plenty of gotchas in hospital data analysis due, for example, to incorrect data. There will be people in the data who have been in hospital since 1 January 1800 (I think that's the value that gets filled in if the data are missing) and a few of those, if not accounted for, can obviously skew the mean to ridiculous extents.

TLDR: Where was the figure from and did someone competent produce it?

(I'm also reminded, on the other side of the data quality argument, of a famous incident of someone rubbishing NHS data because of the high number of obstetrics episodes for males - might even have been in published paper, letter to bmj or the like... People with more knowledge of the data pointed out that male babies have obstetrics episodes, just as much as female babies and half as much as mothers)

Data is here:

https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/find-data-and-publications/supplementary-information/2019-supplementary-information-files/mean-and-median-length-of-stay-of-hospital-inpatient-episodes

I was of course picking the worst Trust, which, as noted, are all mental health Trusts and not as indicative of the wider NHS estate.

You can also have a look at:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/urgent-emergency-care/reducing-length-of-stay/reducing-long-term-stays/

Thanks.

Yep, you picked a bit of an outlier there. Even the mean and median are very different, so they must have a few very long stays.

The numbers from other trusts are still bad enough, that said.

Big problems with long stays in hospital due to a lack of better suited options, for sure.

HYUFD said:

JohnLilburne said:

HYUFD said:

JohnLilburne said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

BoZo fanbois definition of "fair"...

The median house price of seats the Tories held in 2019 was £270,000. Hold those and that would be enough to ensure the Tories still had most seats at least.

For the vast majority of estates the £86,000 care costs cap for residential and domestic care stops them losing potentially all their assets over £23,250 in residential care costs as is the case now

So I'm going to have to find £86,000 plus hotel costs plus the top-up to get somewhere that doesn't smell of wee. I believe from the new rules that you can top up yourself. So how much will I need? And what happens to your state pension when you go into a care home?

Only if you need residential care, which most people won't, not if you only need at home domestic care.

However that would still be better than now where you can lose all your assets to pay for residential care costs over £23,500 with no cap plus you also have to pay for hotel costs and top up costs too

I'm making provision. It's called insurance. Yes a friend made it to 99 without needing more than home care. I am fit and healthy and hope I can do the same.

If I need to go into a home, how much will it cost me? Can I top it up to have a nicer care home and still benefit from the £86,000 cap on standard costs, and still get the basic costs paid for by the state afterwards?

Any payments paid towards care count towards the £86,000, however top ups to get the best food and the nicest rooms don't, you still pay that yourself.

Fair enough, the taxpayer should cover most of your care costs, the taxpayer should not cover the costs of ensuring your residential care home is luxurious

kinabalu said:

turbotubbs said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

I find myself unable to comment further about Boris Johnson. He’s not fit to be PM and it’s simply a matter of when enough of those who didn’t see it come to see it, or who see it but didn’t care come to care. Could be soon, could be not for years, I don’t know.

Bake Off then. It’s the final tonight although not a big betting heat since it happened in the summer. There’s been no leak of the result, though, so you can watch it in a state of enjoyable suspense. For me, it’s Crystelle or Chigs to win, but not a confident call because only a fool would rule out Giuseppe. The 3 are closely matched and it depends on who performs best on the night.

Or does it? I raise the question because of what happened in the semi last week. Jurgen, who’d been consistently the standout baker throughout the series, was eliminated and it seemed to this viewer that the reason for this was chief judge Paul Hollywood had it in for him. Hollywood was determined Jurgen wouldn’t be in the final. Why? I can’t say. But it stank what happened.

In the 1st round, the ‘signature’, when it was clear co-judge Prue Leith felt all 4 had done great, Hollywood slagged off Jurgen’s pudding over some stupid little detail. Not content with this he gave the famous ‘Hollywood handshake’ to each of the other 3. Unheard of. It’s meant to be a rare accolade yet here he was bestowing it on 3 of the 4. Imagine how Jurgen felt. Only one rational explanation for this bizarre (and imo cruel) behaviour. He did it to put erstwhile favourite Jurgen in the frame for a possible shock elimination. He was rolling the pitch.

Then comes the 2nd round, the ‘technical’, and his nefarious plan hits the rails. This is judged blind, he doesn’t know who’s done what, and surprise surprise the winner is Jurgen because he has objectively made the best pudding. Meaning it’s all on the 3rd and final round, the ‘showstopper’, and guess what happens? Yep, Hollywood nitpicks about Jurgen’s offering and raves to the rafters about the other 3, really goes to town about how these are the most fantastic 3 puddings he’s eaten in his entire life. So it’s mission accomplished and Jurgen goes home. Total travesty. And I say this as a Paul Hollywood fan.

You’re probably thinking this is all off-topic. Well it isn’t. What I’m doing here is seeking to distract people from the fact I have nothing of substance to say about anything important this morning by wittering on about nothing in particular. Just chose a subject at random and made sure to avoid Peppa the Pig because a fellow witless witterer did that one yesterday.

*Whispers*
Is it cos he was German?

I don't want to think that, but I would like answers. Are you a Bake Off fan? Something's telling me not but people can surprise sometimes.

Really tricky. I kind of knew Jurgen wouldn't be in the final after what Hollywood said on Extra Slice a few weeks ago (each episode is judged stand alone, so past bakes have no influence, except weirdly in the final then they do seem to use it). Its clear that the four of them would probably have one previous years, so good have they been, so how do you get from 4 to 3? You can say its nitpicking from Hollywood, but splitting four very close results is really hard.

Ah interesting. I didn't see that Extra Slice you refer to there. What did he say?

eek said:

Eabhal said:

Keep an eye on flu cases. In 2019-20 they started to tick up around now, while the big surge in 2010-11 started mid December.

A lot depends on whether flu comes back this year.

Supposedly we've hit lucky with the flu vaccine and it's protecting against this year's main flu strains.

Bigger question is who has actually had it given that the plan seems to be to offer it alongside booster shots.

We had ours in September because it's something I sort out as soon as they become available due to missing out in the past.

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

Anabobazina said:

We have truly entered the twilight zone with Bozza now. Just a bizarre episode, he presents as decidedly unwell.

He presents as someone drunk trying to pretend to be sober.

He really, really doesn't

God knows I drink enough, and am drunk enough, and have pretended to be sober enough. I doubt you've been really drunk a dozen times in your life? You know nothing of this

If Boris was just a desperate secret boozer, like Charles Kennedy, it would be bloody obvious. He isn't. His problems actually go deeper than that, and they are more interesting. He has some deep neediness, related to his mum and dad, allied with a schoolboy shtick of "I'm just a bumbling amateur, hahaha" which got him into Eton, Oxford and the Buller, but this has now fossilised into a persona, all of which is sunk in a genuinely gifted and powerful intelligence, which means he lives at total cross purposes

I'm reminded of the line that the trouble with lying is that it's such hard work; you have to remember your story because reality can't do it for you.

So much of Bozza's story is phoney, and it's hard to escape the impression that it goes back to his messed up childhood.

And his intelligence and willingness to make stuff up have worked well up to now; he's got away with the lies by being so smart. His path up the greasy pole has worked, and maybe he wouldn't have got there taking the conventional Cameron/May route.

But it leaves him really exposed now.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

As part of an anti-sexual harassment campaign, TfL have unveiled posters warning people against STARING inappropriately.

I saw on on the commute this morning.

Ridiculous.

Trouble is that some of the posters are very sensible - upskirting, flashing, sexual comments, sexual contact etc. But it is undermined by bot the one on staring and the one on pressing up against someone. How the hell do you not press up against someone on a crowded tube train? The first rule of laws is that they must be enforceable. I don't see how some of these can be.

Selebian said:

Selebian said:

mwadams said:

mwadams said:

Selebian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Breaking on Sky

The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

That is horrific

OWiD says 1.4 at present, so that looks fairly plausible - you'd hope lower, with vaccinations, but some countries not that well vaccinated and it depends on exaclty who is included in 'Europe'.

Also worth noting that on the OWiD metric (within x days of diagnosis?) the UK has more per capita than Europe at present, so there's potential for a degree of catchup.

If the WHO are working on actual deaths, rather than fully detected/reported Covid deaths, then we might not be that far off at present (i.e. adjusting reported numbers up for low testing early on and still some missed tests in some countries?)

Still horrific, of course, from a pre-pandemic point of view.

That would be 4/1000pop deaths from covid.

ETA: (The UK is at about 2/1000pop deaths from covid so far)

OWiD puts Europe confirmed deaths ~1.4 million and 1.85/1000 pop, so more like 2.6/1000 to get to 2 million in OWiD stats. Maybe different sources/definitions? Depends of course on what counts as a death and on the denominator population.

Edit: I'd still hope that's overly pessimistic

Quick google puts population of Europe ~750 million, so also ~2.6/1000. Unless Big G's original quote was for EU, in which case the number per population would be in excess of 4/1000 (EU pop ~450 million). I very much hope it was a wider Europe number.

kinabalu said:

Slackbladder said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

Foxy said:

Anabobazina said:

We have truly entered the twilight zone with Bozza now. Just a bizarre episode, he presents as decidedly unwell.

He presents as someone drunk trying to pretend to be sober.

He really, really doesn't

God knows I drink enough, and am drunk enough, and have pretended to be sober enough. I doubt you've been really drunk a dozen times in your life? You know nothing of this

If Boris was just a desperate secret boozer, like Charles Kennedy, it would be bloody obvious. He isn't. His problems actually go deeper than that, and they are more interesting. He has some deep neediness, related to his mum and dad, allied with a schoolboy shtick of "I'm just a bumbling amateur, hahaha" which got him into Eton, Oxford and the Buller, but this has now fossilised into a persona, all of which is sunk in a genuinely gifted and powerful intelligence, which means he lives at total cross purposes

I'm reminded of the line that the trouble with lying is that it's such hard work; you have to remember your story because reality can't do it for you.

So much of Bozza's story is phoney, and it's hard to escape the impression that it goes back to his messed up childhood.

And his intelligence and willingness to make stuff up have worked well up to now; he's got away with the lies by being so smart. His path up the greasy pole has worked, and maybe he wouldn't have got there taking the conventional Cameron/May route.

But it leaves him really exposed now.

Also, I don't think many people would have an issue with a 'front man' if he had backup behind him. If he's going to wing speeches, then why isn't some smart bod there writing the speech for him, put a few Boris florishes in there, but have it properly targeted, focused and messaged.

What you don't want is Boris making it up the day of the speech just throwing memes having a garbled mess with no real point of it. Which just about sums up his premiership right now.

I don't think he knows his limitations. The most basic people expect of a government is professionalism and compentancy and thats severely lacking with Boris, and I don't think he's capable of forming it.

I agree. And the risk for him is the vibe changes from "Such a card" to "Doesn't appear to give a shit". It's often said that one of Labour's problems is they seem to be sneering at folk. That they lack respect for the electorate. Whatever the merits of that, which are slim imo, the key point is that how Johnson speaks and behaves demonstrates exactly this - a fundamental lack of respect for other people. One can speculate where this comes from but it doesn't really matter. As you say it's ingrained, therefore won't be changing, but perhaps what he can do is try and hide it a bit better. Yesterday it was all hanging out.

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...

The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
(1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
(2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
(3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

Its just absurd.

The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
The direct opposite of levelling up.

The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.

Still would leave them short without Scotland.

What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.

How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?

Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.

Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.

The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.

Con FM looks pretty unlikely. But an IndyRef2 victory for No followed by a sharp decline in the SNP vote is one of the more likely outcomes of the next few years. And, like a Yes vote, preferable to the status quo. We need a second referendum, and then we can finally move on from this holding pattern.

The problem for the SNP though is they likely need Boris as PM to have their best chance to win an indyref2 but as long as the Tories are in power they won't be granted an indyref2.

Starmer would be more likely to grant them an indyref2, especially if he needs their support in a hung parliament but the SNP would be less likely to win an indyref2 with Starmer as PM too, especially as he would likely offer devomax as well

And that's one of the reasons I'll probably be voting SNP at the next election.
The SNP won the Holyrood election, and any refusal on the part of any government in London to grant a request (assuming it comes) for a referendum troubles me greatly. We have to have a democratic process that allows for outcomes whether we like them or not. The best-looking process to me looks like a Holyrood majority. And there's precedent for that too. The Conservatives are playing with fire by setting mainstream political goals out of reach of the people of a country. Boris needs to brush up on his nineteeth and twentieth century history.

If the SNP were on 60% of the vote and 60% of Scots + wanted independence that might be true.

When the SNP got less than 50% of the vote in May and Scots are still divided 50% 50% on independence at most in the majority of polls then Boris can get away with refusing indyref2 indefinitely and he will as long as the Tories stay in power

Pro-independence legislators = ?
Anti-independence legislators = ?
Speaker = 1

Fill in the gaps.

Scots are not as thick as you think they are.

madmacs said:

Most people are not political nerds like folks on here (apologies to any non nerds). I went for a check up at my dentist recently. The young dental nurse advised she had voted for Boris because he made her laugh. The politically aware dentist did suggest that might not be the best reason but she responded she knew nothing about politics and just voted for someone she likes.

turbotubbs said:

rkrkrk said:

rcs1000 said:

As an aside, when I saw yesterday's UK Covid numbers I was reminded of @Leon's theory - the moment a country gets cocky about Covid, they get hit by a wave of it.

Covid spread is all about R. And the more time people spend inside in close proximity to other people, then the more opportunities there are for spread.

It's about to get *very* cold and the Christmas party season is about to kick off... and families will be getting together (across the age spectrum). People are desperate to have a good time and for a full return to normality - and it doesn't take much for R to move from 1.0 (things are fine) to 1.2 or 1.3 (and things suddenly don't look fine). We're fortunate that we've done the boosters thing, and that it has absolutely run through school kids... but I am still concerned that we might see cases (and hospitalisations) spike.

Vs. this time last year we have 2x case numbers, half the hospitalizations and a third of the deaths.
From here, we have increased social contact (exponential) vs. increased boosters (linear).

Last Winter, it took about a month for numbers in hospital to double. This Winter we have vaccines and immunity from previous infection so surely the rate of increase would be slower. Also molnupiravir and easy availability to lateral flow tests.

So I can't see numbers in hospital getting to 20k levels like first wave, although I expect them to increase.

Numbers in hospital are currently FALLING, not least due to the boosters. Over 15M given now.

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...

The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
(1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
(2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
(3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

Its just absurd.

The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
The direct opposite of levelling up.

The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.

Still would leave them short without Scotland.

What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.

How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?

Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.

Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.

The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.

Con FM looks pretty unlikely. But an IndyRef2 victory for No followed by a sharp decline in the SNP vote is one of the more likely outcomes of the next few years. And, like a Yes vote, preferable to the status quo. We need a second referendum, and then we can finally move on from this holding pattern.

The problem for the SNP though is they likely need Boris as PM to have their best chance to win an indyref2 but as long as the Tories are in power they won't be granted an indyref2.

Starmer would be more likely to grant them an indyref2, especially if he needs their support in a hung parliament but the SNP would be less likely to win an indyref2 with Starmer as PM too, especially as he would likely offer devomax as well

And that's one of the reasons I'll probably be voting SNP at the next election.
The SNP won the Holyrood election, and any refusal on the part of any government in London to grant a request (assuming it comes) for a referendum troubles me greatly. We have to have a democratic process that allows for outcomes whether we like them or not. The best-looking process to me looks like a Holyrood majority. And there's precedent for that too. The Conservatives are playing with fire by setting mainstream political goals out of reach of the people of a country. Boris needs to brush up on his nineteeth and twentieth century history.

If the SNP were on 60% of the vote and 60% of Scots + wanted independence that might be true.

When the SNP got less than 50% of the vote in May and Scots are still divided 50% 50% on independence at most in the majority of polls then Boris can get away with refusing indyref2 indefinitely and he will as long as the Tories stay in power

That depends on what you mean by "get away with". If some people get frustrated at the intransigence of London and take their campaign away from the ballot boxes (and it only takes a minority), that's something for which the intransigent will be partially responsible for. Yes, Boris can get away with it because the consequences are pretty unlikely to touch him in a meaningful way, but to provoke disorder would shame and tarnish him in the eyes of a few of those who currently respect him.

rkrkrk said:

turbotubbs said:

rkrkrk said:

rcs1000 said:

As an aside, when I saw yesterday's UK Covid numbers I was reminded of @Leon's theory - the moment a country gets cocky about Covid, they get hit by a wave of it.

Covid spread is all about R. And the more time people spend inside in close proximity to other people, then the more opportunities there are for spread.

It's about to get *very* cold and the Christmas party season is about to kick off... and families will be getting together (across the age spectrum). People are desperate to have a good time and for a full return to normality - and it doesn't take much for R to move from 1.0 (things are fine) to 1.2 or 1.3 (and things suddenly don't look fine). We're fortunate that we've done the boosters thing, and that it has absolutely run through school kids... but I am still concerned that we might see cases (and hospitalisations) spike.

Vs. this time last year we have 2x case numbers, half the hospitalizations and a third of the deaths.
From here, we have increased social contact (exponential) vs. increased boosters (linear).

Last Winter, it took about a month for numbers in hospital to double. This Winter we have vaccines and immunity from previous infection so surely the rate of increase would be slower. Also molnupiravir and easy availability to lateral flow tests.

So I can't see numbers in hospital getting to 20k levels like first wave, although I expect them to increase.

Numbers in hospital are currently FALLING, not least due to the boosters. Over 15M given now.

I think probably that's more driven by the fact that cases were falling previously. More recent numbers in England hospitals seem to have inflected, although we will know more in a week or so.

I think it's very optimistic to think that boosters alone will be enough to counteract increased cases/increased R from Christmas.

Philip_Thompson said:

Malmesbury said:

On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.

It amuses me that after Boris had announced his candidacy for Mayor of London the betting markets opened with Livingstone as the heavy odds-on favourite . . . and there were thread headers describing Livingstone as "value" even at odds-on.

And now the line to take is that Livingstone was discredited? Well he wasn't until he was beaten in 2008 . . . he was the heavy odds-on favourite and "value" at that in 2007 when the Mayoral campaigning began.

What is it about Boris that his opponents subsequently become discredited? Maybe because he's beaten them, that could be a factor?

Gardenwalker said:

I’ve just realised there is no term limit on the London mayoralty and that effectively Sadiq is mayor for as long as he likes.

😭😭😭

Selebian said:

Gardenwalker said:

I’ve just realised there is no term limit on the London mayoralty and that effectively Sadiq is mayor for as long as he likes.

😭😭😭

As a non-Londoner, this doesn't bother me particularly. Indeed, I'd be happier if the previous London Mayor had stayed on much longer

NerysHughes said:

kjh said:

NerysHughes said:

kjh said:

NerysHughes said:

Malmesbury said:

On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.

I wonder what Sadiq Khans approval rating will be at the end of his 2nd term

I wouldn't guess if I were you going by your efforts yesterday in guessing the split in political alliances on this site.

Looking at the comments this morning how anyone thinks that party support is equal currently on this site is beyond me.

I thought it was pretty equal across Tory/Lab/LD. A straw poll yesterday put the Tories in the majority. Nobody, literally nobody, regardless of political persuasion, thought your guess was anywhere near accurate. Do you think you might be biased and be putting all the LDs and half the Tories in the Lab pile?

I probably am although my thoughts go back to 2018/19 when this site felt that it was 60% Tory. It does not feel anything like that at the moment.

StuartDickson said:

Best prices - Next independence referendum

Yes EVS
No 13/9

LostPassword said:

Gardenwalker said:

Obviously I don’t like Boris.

But the thing that struck me about yesterday’s coverage was the rather cold-eyed contempt.

It felt like a new tone, and it was wide-spread.

Can you clarify what you mean by "widespread".

Was this among your acquaintances in general? In the mass media? Twitter? Down at the Dog & Duck?

kamski said:

Selebian said:

Selebian said:

mwadams said:

mwadams said:

Selebian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Breaking on Sky

The WHO has warned that the European region could hit over 2 million covid deaths by March 22

That is horrific

OWiD says 1.4 at present, so that looks fairly plausible - you'd hope lower, with vaccinations, but some countries not that well vaccinated and it depends on exaclty who is included in 'Europe'.

Also worth noting that on the OWiD metric (within x days of diagnosis?) the UK has more per capita than Europe at present, so there's potential for a degree of catchup.

If the WHO are working on actual deaths, rather than fully detected/reported Covid deaths, then we might not be that far off at present (i.e. adjusting reported numbers up for low testing early on and still some missed tests in some countries?)

Still horrific, of course, from a pre-pandemic point of view.

That would be 4/1000pop deaths from covid.

ETA: (The UK is at about 2/1000pop deaths from covid so far)

OWiD puts Europe confirmed deaths ~1.4 million and 1.85/1000 pop, so more like 2.6/1000 to get to 2 million in OWiD stats. Maybe different sources/definitions? Depends of course on what counts as a death and on the denominator population.

Edit: I'd still hope that's overly pessimistic

Quick google puts population of Europe ~750 million, so also ~2.6/1000. Unless Big G's original quote was for EU, in which case the number per population would be in excess of 4/1000 (EU pop ~450 million). I very much hope it was a wider Europe number.

No need to hope: WHO Europe region includes Russia, the Stans, Caucasia.
https://www.euro.who.int/en/countries
(it also includes the UK...)

Google population doesn't include all the Stans, so the population will be around 800 million?

kjh said:

NerysHughes said:

kjh said:

NerysHughes said:

kjh said:

NerysHughes said:

Malmesbury said:

On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.

I wonder what Sadiq Khans approval rating will be at the end of his 2nd term

I wouldn't guess if I were you going by your efforts yesterday in guessing the split in political alliances on this site.

Looking at the comments this morning how anyone thinks that party support is equal currently on this site is beyond me.

I thought it was pretty equal across Tory/Lab/LD. A straw poll yesterday put the Tories in the majority. Nobody, literally nobody, regardless of political persuasion, thought your guess was anywhere near accurate. Do you think you might be biased and be putting all the LDs and half the Tories in the Lab pile?

I probably am although my thoughts go back to 2018/19 when this site felt that it was 60% Tory. It does not feel anything like that at the moment.

Remember the Tory posters are split between those that hate Boris and those that are loyal and my gut feel is those that hate Boris are a majority so it is easy to misread them as not Tories.

The only party that is over represented and consistently so (compared to the general population) in my opinion are the LDs.

rottenborough said:

Johnson tells Cabinet that some people will have to sell home to pay for care - Guardian blog

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Malmesbury said:

On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.

It amuses me that after Boris had announced his candidacy for Mayor of London the betting markets opened with Livingstone as the heavy odds-on favourite . . . and there were thread headers describing Livingstone as "value" even at odds-on.

And now the line to take is that Livingstone was discredited? Well he wasn't until he was beaten in 2008 . . . he was the heavy odds-on favourite and "value" at that in 2007 when the Mayoral campaigning began.

What is it about Boris that his opponents subsequently become discredited? Maybe because he's beaten them, that could be a factor?

Livingstone was discredited at the time; I gave a Tory my second preference, that's how discredited he was

If he was so discredited at the time how come he was "value" at 1.5?

How come you could back Boris at ~3 for most of the campaign?

Betting odds are a reliable guide as to what's going to happen in an election?

It's a theory, I suppose.

Livingstone was widely seen as over the hill and beginning to go loopy, and the anti-semitic stuff was beginning to surface. I'm not misremembering the only time in my life I've given any sort of preference in the ballot box to a Tory, and that wouldn't have happened had Livingstone been credible for re-election; Ken had been my second preference on both of his previous runs.

kinabalu said:

Gardenwalker said:

As part of an anti-sexual harassment campaign, TfL have unveiled posters warning people against STARING inappropriately.

I saw on on the commute this morning.

Ridiculous.

Disagree with you there, GW. It's talking about men who go to town with the leering at women on public transport. Not the routine 'eying-up' but the full-on intimidating sexual stare. That's harassment, really, and it does happen. It's not so rare. This is to make those who make a habit of it think twice. My reaction to the poster was if anything surprise that I hadn't seen it mentioned before.

Gardenwalker said:

LostPassword said:

Gardenwalker said:

Obviously I don’t like Boris.

But the thing that struck me about yesterday’s coverage was the rather cold-eyed contempt.

It felt like a new tone, and it was wide-spread.

Can you clarify what you mean by "widespread".

Was this among your acquaintances in general? In the mass media? Twitter? Down at the Dog & Duck?

BBC, Mail, Times, Guardian, and various right and left wing voices on Twitter.

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Malmesbury said:

On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.

It amuses me that after Boris had announced his candidacy for Mayor of London the betting markets opened with Livingstone as the heavy odds-on favourite . . . and there were thread headers describing Livingstone as "value" even at odds-on.

And now the line to take is that Livingstone was discredited? Well he wasn't until he was beaten in 2008 . . . he was the heavy odds-on favourite and "value" at that in 2007 when the Mayoral campaigning began.

What is it about Boris that his opponents subsequently become discredited? Maybe because he's beaten them, that could be a factor?

Livingstone was discredited at the time; I gave a Tory my second preference, that's how discredited he was

If he was so discredited at the time how come he was "value" at 1.5?

How come you could back Boris at ~3 for most of the campaign?

Betting odds are a reliable guide as to what's going to happen in an election?

It's a theory, I suppose.

Livingstone was widely seen as over the hill and beginning to go loopy, and the anti-semitic stuff was beginning to surface. I'm not misremembering the only time in my life I've given any sort of preference in the ballot box to a Tory, and that wouldn't have happened had Livingstone been credible for re-election; Ken had been my second preference on both of his previous runs.

turbotubbs said:

kinabalu said:

turbotubbs said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

I find myself unable to comment further about Boris Johnson. He’s not fit to be PM and it’s simply a matter of when enough of those who didn’t see it come to see it, or who see it but didn’t care come to care. Could be soon, could be not for years, I don’t know.

Bake Off then. It’s the final tonight although not a big betting heat since it happened in the summer. There’s been no leak of the result, though, so you can watch it in a state of enjoyable suspense. For me, it’s Crystelle or Chigs to win, but not a confident call because only a fool would rule out Giuseppe. The 3 are closely matched and it depends on who performs best on the night.

Or does it? I raise the question because of what happened in the semi last week. Jurgen, who’d been consistently the standout baker throughout the series, was eliminated and it seemed to this viewer that the reason for this was chief judge Paul Hollywood had it in for him. Hollywood was determined Jurgen wouldn’t be in the final. Why? I can’t say. But it stank what happened.

In the 1st round, the ‘signature’, when it was clear co-judge Prue Leith felt all 4 had done great, Hollywood slagged off Jurgen’s pudding over some stupid little detail. Not content with this he gave the famous ‘Hollywood handshake’ to each of the other 3. Unheard of. It’s meant to be a rare accolade yet here he was bestowing it on 3 of the 4. Imagine how Jurgen felt. Only one rational explanation for this bizarre (and imo cruel) behaviour. He did it to put erstwhile favourite Jurgen in the frame for a possible shock elimination. He was rolling the pitch.

Then comes the 2nd round, the ‘technical’, and his nefarious plan hits the rails. This is judged blind, he doesn’t know who’s done what, and surprise surprise the winner is Jurgen because he has objectively made the best pudding. Meaning it’s all on the 3rd and final round, the ‘showstopper’, and guess what happens? Yep, Hollywood nitpicks about Jurgen’s offering and raves to the rafters about the other 3, really goes to town about how these are the most fantastic 3 puddings he’s eaten in his entire life. So it’s mission accomplished and Jurgen goes home. Total travesty. And I say this as a Paul Hollywood fan.

You’re probably thinking this is all off-topic. Well it isn’t. What I’m doing here is seeking to distract people from the fact I have nothing of substance to say about anything important this morning by wittering on about nothing in particular. Just chose a subject at random and made sure to avoid Peppa the Pig because a fellow witless witterer did that one yesterday.

*Whispers*
Is it cos he was German?

I don't want to think that, but I would like answers. Are you a Bake Off fan? Something's telling me not but people can surprise sometimes.

Really tricky. I kind of knew Jurgen wouldn't be in the final after what Hollywood said on Extra Slice a few weeks ago (each episode is judged stand alone, so past bakes have no influence, except weirdly in the final then they do seem to use it). Its clear that the four of them would probably have one previous years, so good have they been, so how do you get from 4 to 3? You can say its nitpicking from Hollywood, but splitting four very close results is really hard.

Ah interesting. I didn't see that Extra Slice you refer to there. What did he say?

Basically that every week is judged just on the that week, and that being star baker more than once is no guarantee of reaching the final. It was pretty obvious he was referring to Jurgen.

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

I’ve just realised there is no term limit on the London mayoralty and that effectively Sadiq is mayor for as long as he likes.

😭😭😭

Nah, if the Tories put up a good candidate they can win. Shaun Bailey showed it was possible to beat Sadiq and he was pretty rubbish.

This is the list of Conservative MPs representing London constituencies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Conservative_Party_MPs_in_London

Do you see any likely candidates there, or do you think the Tories will have to find someone else?

IshmaelZ said:

Gallowgate said:

IanB2 said:

Nick Watt on R4:

"There is growing unease amongst Conservative MPs across the party that Boris Johnson is losing his grip"

"What Boris Johnson seems to be doing at the moment is alienating all factions within the Conservative party"

"Conservative MPs are using some pretty strong language"

Breaking news: employees complain about their boss. More at 9.

Not his employees, not their boss.

Do you vote to select who employs you, or have the option of no confidencing them out?

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...

The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
(1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
(2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
(3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

Its just absurd.

The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
The direct opposite of levelling up.

The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.

Still would leave them short without Scotland.

What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.

How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?

Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.

Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.

The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.

Con FM looks pretty unlikely. But an IndyRef2 victory for No followed by a sharp decline in the SNP vote is one of the more likely outcomes of the next few years. And, like a Yes vote, preferable to the status quo. We need a second referendum, and then we can finally move on from this holding pattern.

The problem for the SNP though is they likely need Boris as PM to have their best chance to win an indyref2 but as long as the Tories are in power they won't be granted an indyref2.

Starmer would be more likely to grant them an indyref2, especially if he needs their support in a hung parliament but the SNP would be less likely to win an indyref2 with Starmer as PM too, especially as he would likely offer devomax as well

And that's one of the reasons I'll probably be voting SNP at the next election.
The SNP won the Holyrood election, and any refusal on the part of any government in London to grant a request (assuming it comes) for a referendum troubles me greatly. We have to have a democratic process that allows for outcomes whether we like them or not. The best-looking process to me looks like a Holyrood majority. And there's precedent for that too. The Conservatives are playing with fire by setting mainstream political goals out of reach of the people of a country. Boris needs to brush up on his nineteeth and twentieth century history.

If the SNP were on 60% of the vote and 60% of Scots + wanted independence that might be true.

When the SNP got less than 50% of the vote in May and Scots are still divided 50% 50% on independence at most in the majority of polls then Boris can get away with refusing indyref2 indefinitely and he will as long as the Tories stay in power

Pro-independence legislators = ?
Anti-independence legislators = ?
Speaker = 1

Fill in the gaps.

Scots are not as thick as you think they are.

Votes for pro independence parties in May 2021 ie SNP and Greens and Alba 49% on the constituency vote and 50.12% on the list.

Votes for Unionist parties in May 2021 ie Conservative and Labour and LD and All for Unity and Abolish the Scottish Parl, RefUK and UKIP 50.42% on the constituency vote and 47.94% on the list, so as I said about equally divided.

Therefore Boris can and will refuse indyref2 as long as he stays in power

Gardenwalker said:

JohnO said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Malmesbury said:

On topic - Livingstone wasn't discredited when Johnson beat him. A bit tired, perhaps, but he was still the Big Beast of London politics.

There was a great deal of shock and consternation on Left that Johnson was leading him in the polls - and some throughly anguished columns in the Guardian.

This view and the the latter one about the abject failure of Johnsons time as Mayor comes as a result of Brexit. At the time when he left, polls (YouGuv 52% good job, vs 29% bad job), suggested that he could have won a third term, if he had gone for one.

It amuses me that after Boris had announced his candidacy for Mayor of London the betting markets opened with Livingstone as the heavy odds-on favourite . . . and there were thread headers describing Livingstone as "value" even at odds-on.

And now the line to take is that Livingstone was discredited? Well he wasn't until he was beaten in 2008 . . . he was the heavy odds-on favourite and "value" at that in 2007 when the Mayoral campaigning began.

What is it about Boris that his opponents subsequently become discredited? Maybe because he's beaten them, that could be a factor?

Livingstone was discredited at the time; I gave a Tory my second preference, that's how discredited he was

If he was so discredited at the time how come he was "value" at 1.5?

How come you could back Boris at ~3 for most of the campaign?

Betting odds are a reliable guide as to what's going to happen in an election?

It's a theory, I suppose.

Livingstone was widely seen as over the hill and beginning to go loopy, and the anti-semitic stuff was beginning to surface. I'm not misremembering the only time in my life I've given any sort of preference in the ballot box to a Tory, and that wouldn't have happened had Livingstone been credible for re-election; Ken had been my second preference on both of his previous runs.

So you voted directly and personally for Boris Johnson, assuming your first was for the LibDem?

I (think) I voted for Boris twice.

Ken was looking quite crooked by the end of his second term, and Boris felt part of the modernising, Primrose Hill breed of Tory.

I can’t remember Boris’s first campaign, but the campaign against him was quite pathetic, effectively just saying he was too racist for London.

Boris’s first term seemed quite good. He got rid of Ken’s deranged bendy buses, and brought back the Routemaster.

Even the garden bridge is not a bad idea unto itself, it’s just that Boris didn’t look into the detail before spending tens of millions of pounds on it.

rottenborough said:

If the Pfizer vaccine is less durable, it might explain why countries with apparently similar levels of vaccination to the UK - but with Pfizer the predominant jab - are now experiencing higher levels of hospitalisation and deaths. The seemingly better T-cell response that comes from the AstraZeneca vaccine may mean it gives longer protection, despite an apparently inferior initial antibody response.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/11/23/astrazeneca-lost-vaccine-battle-europe-us-now-winning-war/

No_Offence_Alan said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

Carnyx said:

StuartDickson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Didn't see Boris's speech yesterday but if it was half as bad as those on here are saying then his timing was poor. Why didn't he get Rishi to write it for him?

The government is giving a sense of drift at the moment and this is being seized upon by a hostile media who will never forgive Brexit. Yesterday morning's coverage of the changes to Social Care on the Today program were so ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent but the Minister sent out to battle made few good or obvious points.

If we take a couple of steps back you find that vaccine boosters are going really well with over 25% of the population over 12 already covered including all of the most vulnerable groups; we find that this country is avoiding both lockdowns and most NPIs whilst much of Europe struggles with yet another wave; we find that next month the economy is very likely to return to its pre-Covid size; we find, for all the rather unnecessary grief and opprobrium that it brought on itself for what is likely to be loose change in the overall scheme of things, we have the largest commitment to rail outside London ever; we have full employment; we have rising wages; we have a government with a comfortable majority able to deliver on its program.

And yet...the hysteria and resentment takes its toll. Boris needs to be showing some form of grip not acting the clown with an important audience still smarting from the infamous F*** business. He needs to be a bit more careful.

It was spectacular! It's been reported back from the actual conference hall that the reception was bafflement and anger. Business faces and has faced down serious problems and needs serious engagement. Even if you set aside the stupidity of asking northern business leaders if they have been to Peppa Pig World in Hampshire, its not even relevant today to business. Its American...

With regards to "ridiculously partisan as to be almost incoherent" can I offer a mirror? Your last paragraph isn't strictly impartial or even true. There is no "largest commitment to rail outside London ever" as most of the IRP was not costed or approved. Go read the document and underline all the times that the "commitment" is subject to a business case and then treasury approval.

As for the care bill itself, the anger is from people who can add. Up north English red wall voters will lose pretty much their entire assets with this proposal. Down south people will keep substantial amounts of their assets.

This inherent unfairness is just maths and comparing one to the other. It isn't partisan, and so many of the people complaining loudest are Tory MPs...

The proposals on SC mean that people up north who are unlucky to need long term social care will get to keep just over £20K for an inheritance with the tax payer picking up the rest of the bill. Those down south or better off will pay exactly the same amount to their own care (£86k) and may well have more than £20k left. So everyone is treated equally. No one pays more than £86k.

Dilnot acknowledged it was a substantial improvement on what we have now and that the system will be substantially better funded. His argument is that money paid by the taxpayer, not the recipient, should be set against the £86k on the basis that this will allow those of more moderate means to leave more. I do not accept that bolstering inheritances is a proper use of money taken from those currently earning. Indeed, I have reservations as to whether the government has already gone too far down that road, especially for those better off.

So the argument of the BBC amounts to 3 propositions:
(1) putting a cap on what everyone pays is somehow unfair.
(2) increasing inheritances is somehow more important than funding health care, social care and other public services.
(3) current wage earners should fund this largesse.

Its just absurd.

The effect of the policy is to preserve the inheritances of the wealthy, and destroy those of much lesser means.
The direct opposite of levelling up.

The only question is how do you make it a simple enough story that Labour can use it up North.

Down South the Lib Dems can target Nimbyism and pointless projects (given that HS2 now only fixes 1/3 of the lines it was supposed to fix) attacking HS2 for being an white elephant will be an easy win across the home counties.

Still would leave them short without Scotland.

What do you make of Anas Sarwar?

At 16/1 to be First Minister, he has clearly not impressed the punting community.

How is Mr Ross doing, when he's not refereeing that is?

Douglas Ross is currently 18/1 to be First Minister, so rated slightly worse than Anas Sarwar.

Personally, I thought Ross was doing quite well, up until his expenses cock-up last week. Stinker of an unforced error.

Even after the error, Ross is still miles better than the surprisingly poor Sarwar.

Thanks. Those odds surprise me a bit too, but they do make sense when one thinks about whom a voter might vote for other than the SNP.

The path to a Con FM is even more fraught than FUDHY’s “if” and “could be” Quebec onanism.

It does not need to be a Con FM, even a Unionist Labour FM like Sarwar would kill nationalism stone dead in Scotland

You really do not have a clue about Scots independence

Ever since I was in Primary School in Berwick in the 1950s the siren voices of independence were in full voice

Even losing a referendum will not kill the desire stone dead in some

There will always be a hard core of a a third of Scots who are diehard nationalists, however a No win in an indyref2 or a Unionist FM again would mean the average Scot had firmly moved on from the idea and accepted the Union is staying. Probably with devomax too

To get a No win in an Indyref2, first you need an Indyref2.

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Shadow NI Secretary says a Labour government would remain neutral in any future border poll in NI.

Bang goes Starmer's chances of DUP support in a hung parliament then

https://twitter.com/darrenmccaffrey/status/1463129064420651011?s=20

Once again you don't have a f***ing clue about what you are talking about.

The criteria for a border poll is set out in detail and the DUP get no real say.