“I’m a celeb”: 48% are viewing Hancock more positively – politicalbetting.com
“I’m a celeb”: 48% are viewing Hancock more positively – politicalbetting.com
In the betting he’s now a 16% chance to end up as the winner.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
We're standing at the top of one of the pylons, having everything explained by a Shell engineer.
"When this plant is operating at full capacity, these ASUs will be drawing out more oxygen from the air than all the living things in Qatar"
"Wow", I said, "if I were to stand here, would I notice?"
"You wouldn't want to stand here," said the engineer with an incredulous look that said - roughly - this man is a complete idiot.
If the Dutch scramble a 1-0 they'll be very lucky here, but I think that's about par for this team with that set of forwards. Senegal, despite only being two places above Iran, have got a way better team than Iran, if Mane was playing they'd be winning right now IMO, they are AFCON champions and Africa is a way better footballing region than Asia. Iran's real ranking is probably higher than 100, not 20 it's just a quirk of the weightings and them being from a shit region that gives them that ranking. They're like Celtic or Rangers, good for their league but absolutely crap otherwise (see Rangers and Celtic in the Champions League).
And on a more cynical note, he's a politician and he's doing this with the specific intention of improving people's views of him, so they are likely seeing the "best version" of Matt Hancock.
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1594726162290585601
Mind you, I wouldn't mind particularly if I never saw a football match again that I didn't have a relative in. So it would be no particular sacrifice on my part.
Still, it was a good performance.
I think it might be because some of them are so young: Bellingham 19, Saka 21, Mount 22, Foden 23
Young people can be fearless, the old have failed and fear failing again
10 groups of 4. Only the winner goes through.
Then a playoff against another group winner to qualify.
This ensures some variety of teams. And battle tested too.
Asia seems designed to give the established countries multiple second and third chances.
So the same countries appear almost every time. And struggle.
How much more positively is 'much more positively?'
Because if people think he's a fifth rate twat rather than an unredeemed c*** whom they would like to actually string up, that's much more positive but it isn't exactly good news for him.
Keir Starmer Approval Rating (20 November):
Approve: 36% (-4)
Disapprove: 27% (-1)
Net: +9% (-3)
Changes +/- 16-17 November
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-20-november-2022/ https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1594750045244764160/photo/1
At this moment, which of the following do British voters think would be the better Prime Minister for the UK? (20 November)
Keir Starmer 41% (+1)
Rishi Sunak 38% (+1)
Changes +/- 16-17 November
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-20-november-2022/ https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1594742496814317576/photo/1
England have put a marker down and other teams will have taken notice, IMO, England are the team to fear at the WC for every other nation, if Maguire is injured and Ben White comes into the defence to replace him it greatly improves the first 11 as well.
And extend that to every other topic we discuss on here...
He knew from the moment Sunak blanked him his political career was over, certainly in government and probably as an MP too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQA2X4yvK_g
Perhaps they just didn't give a fuck about all the friendlies
I invite you at this point to consider the extremely loud screaming that would've followed if, for arguments' sake, Fifa execs had been paid enough in bribes to award the 1986 edition of the tournament to South Africa rather than Mexico, and then told all the black players to forget about politics and concentrate on the football.
Telling gays to go and play in Qatar is no different, philosophically, to that. It's only the fact that we can't see who any of them actually are that enables all the people who stand to make vast amounts of money out of this revolting circus to try to get away with what they are doing.
?
https://www.oann.com/sports/soccer-world-cups-most-valuable/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=soccer-world-cups-most-valuable
I’ve always liked Matt as a person.
TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1
What's interesting to me is just how much more attacking our shape was with Bellingham than Phillips. It's the difference between having two CMs that pass sideways with Rice and Phillips against one that always looks for the forwards pass and one that passes sideways with Rice and Bellingham. We just look so much more confident going forwards because there's a creative engine in midfield we didn't have at the last WC or Euros.
Everton England fans searching for beer in Qatar 'taken to Sheikh's palace' to meet lions
Not sure whether that's 'meet' in the same sense that John Reginald Halliday Christie met Albert Pierrepoint.
Keir Starmer: +9% (-3)
Rishi Sunak: -3% (-1)
Jeremy Hunt: -10% (-1)
Changes +/- 16-17 November
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-20-november-2022/ https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1594752643485913088/photo/1
Just flicked it on in the bit between exit poll and results, and ended up staying the night.
Appearing on a program like this adds another dimension. In the case of Balls (or Portillo with his later programs) they show there is a deeper, more human aspect. In the case of Galloway, that added dimension was generally negative.
Since a lot of politicians are pleasant, intelligent people, they look better in a new profession.
https://twitter.com/pubIad/status/1594466123608723458
'I've always wanted to meet you, Mr Pierrepoint, though not of course under these circumstances!"
Yet we have UC taper rates at 70%+ once Council Tax, prescriptions and FSM are included. The highest tax rates since the 1940's. Punitively expensive childcare. Terrible facilities for care for elderly relatives, so people are choosing to do it themselves. Long waiting lists for treatment so folk are fit to work. A mental health system bordering on the non-existent for all but the wealthy or dangerous. Bureaucratic ID and DBS checks which take months for potential employees. Expensive and unreliable public transport.
And whenever anyone asks for a pay rise anywhere near the rate of inflation they are told it's completely unaffordable and bordering on the immoral to ask for it.
So it isn't a great surprise there are vacancies then.
But I miss work. I miss the challenge and the people. what would cause me to look for work? Off the top of my head:
*) Mrs J losing her job.
*) Much easier childcare.
*) Much easier working environment, e.g. working from home and flexitime.
*) Cheaper childcare for when both of us have to be at the office or working.
As the little 'un grows older, these pressures will ease. But I know half a dozen people in the tech sector who have made the same decision I have: to quit work and raise children. And two of those are male.
'worklessness' is an easy word to throw around, but as with everything, it is a complex issue.
Now consider what most people's main expenses are:
*Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage)
*Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares)
*Supporting dependent children
*Food
*Utilities
If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.
I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
"But working past 80, while still the exception, is not as rare as it once was. In recent decades, the number of octogenarians in the U.S. workforce has soared, from about 110,000 — or 2.5 percent of the 80-plus population — in 1980 to a high of about 734,000 — or 6 percent of all octogenarians — in 2019, according to a Washington Post analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data. (The numbers begin falling after the pandemic started, with about 693,000 — or 5.5 percent of the population — working last year.)"
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/11/19/joe-biden-80-workers/
Oldies in the US are healthier than they were decades ago, and some of them like to work.
An average 80-year-old man in the US can expect to live until 88 (a woman to 90). Since Biden seems to be doing the right things, keeping his weight under control, riding a bicycle, and so forth, I'd guess he can expect to live another ten years.
(Many see Biden's frequent verbal flubs as evidence of a decline. Having watched him, off and on, all through his political career, I can say that I haven't seen much change in him; he has always made verbal flubs (which some attribute to his battle with stuttering when he was young).
For the record, I've never voted for him.)
From a practical POV I obviously have no idea what your own pension arrangements are but if the government arbitrarily stopped complying with its contractual obligations to pensioners, the hit to your direct or indirect exposure to gilts, would make you wish they hadn't.
BTW I have never worked for the public sector, and my pension is a SIPP.
Wales 3.35
Draw 3.15
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/football/fifa-world-cup/usa-v-wales-betting-31547913
The big shift occurred around the 2008 financial crisis when private sector pay growth plummeted but the public sector was comparatively protected.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/publicandprivatesectorearnings/2019
Looking at the betting, though, Hancock is back out to 4th-favourite to win I'm A Celebrity so maybe something bad happened since the poll. The shrewdies got on hot favourite Owen at 33/1.
Also, many people do unpaid voluntary work in retirement, so while technically economically inactive they are still contributing to society.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/market/1.200449183
You could see their little hearts break before your eyes.
Basically, they said: "We pay you less now but more in the future."
That IS deferred salary.
I can't remember the exact figure, but it was not trivial: something like 4 to 7% (possibly it varied according to salary level, anyway). Even then, there was a compulsory levy to pay toward the pension scheme, or more correctly pension entitlements.
As for 'safe jobs': where have you been? There have been none in the public sector for the last 2-3 decades, unless you are very good friends with the politicians.
It's a simple question; I'm sure someone who peruses 'alternative' sources of information such as yourself will be fully briefed.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'