Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With the troubles continuing to sweep across the US Biden take

1246

Comments

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 11,675

    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    IanB2 said:

    Questions for tonight:
    1. In a week or two's Time, when the number of CV19 positive tests in London increase, will it be because of the Lockdown easing or because many, many people stood n the middle of London shouting for all they could about the injustice of George Floyd's death?
    2. How on earth, out of 340 million people, did the USA get a choice between Hillary and Donald last time and then have to make a choice between Joe and Donald this time.
    3. There have been many comments on PB about the absolutely dismal communications from the government. Can you imagine the likes of Alistair Campbell allowing the media to dictate the narrative of the day. Who on earth is running the media brief? Every Cabinet Minister or adviser (yes Mr Cummings, I'm looking at you) should be running their messages and activities past a media savvy advisor who should have the power of veto. (No Mr Cummings, I know it's your wife's birthday but do not visit Specsavers)

    Insofar as your middle one is a serious question rather than a pointed comment,
    I think it's a question many serious political analysts frequently ask themselves. How does a nation that is apparently so successful continually offer up complete schmucks as candidates?

    In my lifetime there have been two good Presidents: Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. And probably one who was passable: George Bush Snr. And that's it.

    Reagan was the surprise because in many ways a fifth-rate actor should have been a deadbeat. He turned out to be pretty darned good.
    Sorry for your passing in 2008
    You think Obama was a good President? Or are you just putting that because he wasn't white?

    He was pretty crap, frankly.
    He is an excellent orator, warmth, empathy and the US economy did well after he took over following the GFC. Foreign misadventures were minor compared to other presidents.
    What were his failings do you think ?
    Ultimately he was thwarted by the checks and balances of the US system and the Repulicans' ruthlessness in being utterly shameless in using every lever to block him. His own preference for consensus and unwillingness to give up the high ground to get down and dirty compounded the problem.
    A great President works Congress. This was one of his biggest failings. He was poor on International relations and REALLY poor on handling Congress.
    He could also be insincere, pretending to cry after Sandy Hook. The Telegraph had a headline 'A President's Tears' but unfortunately there weren't any, as the tear ducts proved resolutely unimpressed.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,609
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Specifically based on OPOV Florida would have roughly 12.5x the number of voters than West Virginia has.

    The House element of the Electoral College vote is 3 for West Virginia to 27 for Florida. But both States get the same fixed 2 for the Senate. That extra 2 boosts Florida from 27 to 29, but boosts West Virginia from 3 to 5. Pretty significant for them!

    As a result via the Electoral College Florida outweighs West Virginia by 5.8 to 1 instead of 12.5 to 1.

    Small states like West Virginia definitely gain from the system.

    The gain by smaller states has pretty much zero bias towards either side.
    Good morning g everybody.
    Wasn't a bias towards smaller states the Founding Fathers aim; to prevent a couple of big states overwhelming several smaller ones.
    The Senate provides the equal representation for small states. Every state getting two Senators.

    The electoral college was the mechanism they came up with to deal with slavery/slave states (by counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person when apportioning EC votes by state.

    No slavery, no electoral college.
    That's not true.

    The three fifths compromise wasn't coined for the Electoral College it was coined for the legislature (House of Representatives) and taxation.

    It indirectly featured in the Electoral College because the Electoral College is House plus Senate but that wasn't the primary concern.

    Furthermore if they'd wanted to purely let that be the factor they could have done the Electoral College as the House alone but they didn't do that. They deliberately did House plus Senate which deliberately scaled up the EC representation of smaller States.
    The Electoral. College only exists because of slavery. It is very clear and obvious from contemporary writing.

    One man one vote was proposed for electing the president but was opposed by Slave States.

    Madison opposed one man one vote specifically because it put slave owning states at a disadvantage and his counter offer was the 2/5 th slaves.
    That's not the full story whatsoever. The primary debate before the Electoral College was designed was between whether Congress should choose the President or whether the States should. One man one vote was deeply unpopular and not just due to slavery (though yes some opposed it due to that). Other concerns included the concentration of power in larger states and the inability of voters across 18th century America to know and understand national candidates. The latter of course is not an issue today, nor is slavery. To suggest one man one vote was the solution where it not for slavery puts too much emphasis on Madison alone and misses out on much of the other historical debate at the time.

    100 of the 538 EC delegates come from the apportionment granted to the Senate. That is a massive boost to small states whether red or blue.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 14,759
    DougSeal said:

    Nigelb said:
    Why don't you tell us how you really feel, Rector?
    Fencesitter!
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 2,683

    Scott_xP said:
    I cannot accept that this is a good idea but looking across social media and facebook it does surprise me how many actual support it and ask why mps should not experience queing when the public are
    Presumably MPs have to queue to do the same things the public does, like buy groceries (although in my experience you can avoid queueing if you get there early). Asking them to queue just to do a core part of their job, which can easily be done without queueing thus freeing up their time to do the other parts of their job and allowing shielding MPs to participate, just seems plain daft. Rees Mogg is doing serious reputational damage to Eton College and Oxford University. What are they teaching these people?
    I agree but you may be surprised how much support he has
    Big G, nothing surprises me any more, especially when it comes to public opinion. Social media has freed up space for people to disappear down a wormhole of their own idiocy, untethered from facts or informed opinion. It's worrying because ignorant people make bad choices. Hopefully Brexit will be the worst of it, but somehow I doubt it.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 2,114
    IanB2 said:

    Any stattos out their please. I saw a hand of poler last night where abplayer had two aces in her hand. What are the odds of the next two cards on the flop being aces svp

    You don’t provide all the information so I will make some assumptions and leave you to adjust if I am wrong, and actually do the sum you want.

    There are 52 cards total. I am assuming that your “next two cards on the flop” implies there are three already on the table. I also assume you were playing and hence were looking at your two cards, with your reference to “a player” (assuming a typo) meaning the cards were held by another player. This leaves 45 unidentified cards, and two unidentified aces.

    The odds of the next card being an ace are 2 / 45 and the card thereafter 1 / 44 and hence your chance is 2 / 45 x 1 / 44.

    Of course in the game the other player cannot see your cards, therefore from her perspective the odds are 2 / 47 x 1 / 46
    Thanks

    What actually happened was that I was watching a hand being played. This player had a pair of bullets (two aces) The flop is three cards. Cards one and two were aces (card three is irrelevant), which amazed me, I guess if two out of the three cards are aces on the flop the odds are slightly better than if cards 3 and 4 specifically are aces
    The odds seemed to be stratospherically high. I do know you draw aces in your hand at every 220 hands or so on average.....
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,592

    Scott_xP said:
    Maybe the journalists need to ask why the only opposition to this policy is coming from some conservatives. All the other parties and devolved governments support it as does 65% of the public in yesterdays poll
    The criticism by opposition parties and the majority of the public is not of quarantine and lockdown where appropriate but of ineffective, vague and incompetently-organised quarantine.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/02/keir-starmer-warns-pm-get-a-grip-or-risk-second-wave-of-coronavirus
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 6,137
    I've removed my red on Trump. At 2.3 he might not be value yet but he is getting there.
    I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like the current unrest might help his chances. At the least it gets coronavirus off the news for a bit.

    Has anyone seen anything on how US pollsters have updated their models after their miss in 2016?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 20,721

    You think Obama was a good President? Or are you just putting that because he wasn't white?

    He was pretty crap, frankly.

    So Obama was worse than Trump?
    Probably not leftwing enough for noted lefty Mysticrose who is very leftwing.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,087
    DougSeal said:



    "Had a dim memory of the slavery issue" - you're certainly older than I thought OKC.

    It was only abolished in 1962 in the UK's long standing friend and ally Saudi Arabia.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,609

    DougSeal said:

    So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:

    Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

    The rest? Meh.

    And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.

    I was born while Watergate was unfolding, nine months before Nixon resigned, so he’s just about in my lifetime. The tragedy of Nixon is that although he was personally a sh*t, he nevertheless founded the Environmental Protection Agency, ended the draft, Native Americans the right to a measure of tribal self-determination, went to China, got the US out of Vietnam...Republican presidents used to do things like that. He could have been remembered as one of the greats but let his paranoia destroy him.
    If Nixon had been assassinated just after the 72 election he'd have been (even with Watergate as it was then known about) regarded as one of the all time greats. Like JFK or Lincoln.
    The US has had three great presidents, in my opinion: Washington, Lincoln and FDR. Of whom Lincoln was easily the greatest. I don't think I'd put JFK in even the second tier.
    I said like JFK and Lincoln not because they're greatest but because of the way how they're remembered is affected by the manner of their deaths.

    Lincoln would be an all time great either way so perhaps was unnecessary to mention him but JFK is remembered far more fondly specifically because of the way he was killed. If similar had happened to Nixon after he'd won his landslide of 72 but before he got embroiled in trying to cover up Watergate investigations then he'd be similarly fondly remembered.

    Interesting of course is how JFK might be remembered if he hadn't been shot. Red Dwarf did a brilliant alternative history on this.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,747

    IanB2 said:

    Any stattos out their please. I saw a hand of poler last night where abplayer had two aces in her hand. What are the odds of the next two cards on the flop being aces svp

    You don’t provide all the information so I will make some assumptions and leave you to adjust if I am wrong, and actually do the sum you want.

    There are 52 cards total. I am assuming that your “next two cards on the flop” implies there are three already on the table. I also assume you were playing and hence were looking at your two cards, with your reference to “a player” (assuming a typo) meaning the cards were held by another player. This leaves 45 unidentified cards, and two unidentified aces.

    The odds of the next card being an ace are 2 / 45 and the card thereafter 1 / 44 and hence your chance is 2 / 45 x 1 / 44.

    Of course in the game the other player cannot see your cards, therefore from her perspective the odds are 2 / 47 x 1 / 46
    Thanks

    What actually happened was that I was watching a hand being played. This player had a pair of bullets (two aces) The flop is three cards. Cards one and two were aces (card three is irrelevant), which amazed me, I guess if two out of the three cards are aces on the flop the odds are slightly better than if cards 3 and 4 specifically are aces
    The odds seemed to be stratospherically high. I do know you draw aces in your hand at every 220 hands or so on average.....
    Remember the chance of holding AcAd and the first cards on the flop are AsAh are identical to

    holding 2d7c and flopping 8dKc or
    holding Khd4c and flopping 7d7c or

    any other combination. It has to be one of them!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 40,951
    Scott_xP said:
    It was excruciating - and this whole “air bridges” thing is a nonsense - who is going to agree to letting us in?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 14,759
    Pulpstar said:

    Barnesian said:

    My latest calculation of R based on reported cases as of 25th May (more recent days data will change so ignored):

    England 0.64 (-0.02)
    London 0.57 (-0.01)
    No reported cases in Richmond in the last seven days.
    No sign of any uptick in R.




    Technical question. Are you assuming a serial interval for your calculations ?
    Is hat a polite way of ascertaining if he is talking out of his R's?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,775

    HYUFD said:
    I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.

    Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
    It is obviously not impossible but traditonally people queue differently (and closer together) for a pint. Changing that culture is harder when people have been drinking.
    A takeout pint can be passed through a window or from a screen - assuming the pub can afford the cost of the screens with an 80% drop in revenue. But people do not go to the pub to stand 2 metres apart from the people they meet there if that happens revenue is so low the venue is unviable and/or people don’t go because the rules destroy the whole point of the venue.

    These rules do not aid opening. They destroy the essence of the activity. The government may as well close such places down permanently.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 35,943
    30 BAME deaths in political custody per year in the UK is appalling. One death is too many.

    Do we know the overall figures, including for whites in custody, and whether they are disproportionate?

    Also, how many of these are suicides or drug overdoses? (Still very bad due to neglect but not quite the same as enforced trauma or brutality, which might otherwise be the assumption)
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,280
    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Obviously this is all crazy, but with big outfits like universities rethinking their entire academic and social model for into the next academic year, people are having to think about change long term.

    It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
    MPs now have a duty to re-think the entire workings of the house, and for them to even re-think the role of the MP.

    I would be very hesitant to make voting remote. It reduces the house to almost nothing. If say scottish MP (and this could be anywhere), could vote without being present, to listen to debates, and to have pre-set voting, well, whats the point of the house, or of debates? Would MPs ever need to go to Westminster?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,747
    Pulpstar said:

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Obviously this is all crazy, but with big outfits like universities rethinking their entire academic and social model for into the next academic year, people are having to think about change long term.

    It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
    The virtual parliament was working well. I think it's desperately sad we've abandoned that for an extreme form of inefficient presenteeism
    What would happen on a tight swing vote if someone had a cough? Theyd be whipped to attend.

    Of course there are no tight votes coming up which makes it all the more pathetic that this has been done.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,411

    30 BAME deaths in political custody per year in the UK is appalling. One death is too many.

    Do we know the overall figures, including for whites in custody, and whether they are disproportionate?

    Also, how many of these are suicides or drug overdoses? (Still very bad due to neglect but not quite the same as enforced trauma or brutality, which might otherwise be the assumption)

    "political custody" - worrying.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,609

    Scott_xP said:
    Maybe the journalists need to ask why the only opposition to this policy is coming from some conservatives. All the other parties and devolved governments support it as does 65% of the public in yesterdays poll
    I'd say the most opposition to the plan seems to be coming from the media who are entirely acting like "but what about our holidays?"
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 18,906
    DougSeal said:

    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Specifically based on OPOV Florida would have roughly 12.5x the number of voters than West Virginia has.

    The House element of the Electoral College vote is 3 for West Virginia to 27 for Florida. But both States get the same fixed 2 for the Senate. That extra 2 boosts Florida from 27 to 29, but boosts West Virginia from 3 to 5. Pretty significant for them!

    As a result via the Electoral College Florida outweighs West Virginia by 5.8 to 1 instead of 12.5 to 1.

    Small states like West Virginia definitely gain from the system.

    The gain by smaller states has pretty much zero bias towards either side.
    Good morning g everybody.
    Wasn't a bias towards smaller states the Founding Fathers aim; to prevent a couple of big states overwhelming several smaller ones.
    The Senate provides the equal representation for small states. Every state getting two Senators.

    The electoral college was the mechanism they came up with to deal with slavery/slave states (by counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person when apportioning EC votes by state.

    No slavery, no electoral college.
    Of course. Thanks.


    $Edit: And I note Mr T's post. Must look it up.
    OK, according to Wikipedia, I was originally partially right.
    Had a dim memory of the slavery issue, which confused me.

    Trouble is, at my school doing Science meant no History after the Third Form. As a result my historical knowledge tends to be a ragbag of 'stuff' I've picked en route through life.
    "Had a dim memory of the slavery issue" - you're certainly older than I thought OKC.
    LOL: throw out some bait; someone will rise to it!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,609

    DougSeal said:

    So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:

    Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

    The rest? Meh.

    And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.

    I was born while Watergate was unfolding, nine months before Nixon resigned, so he’s just about in my lifetime. The tragedy of Nixon is that although he was personally a sh*t, he nevertheless founded the Environmental Protection Agency, ended the draft, Native Americans the right to a measure of tribal self-determination, went to China, got the US out of Vietnam...Republican presidents used to do things like that. He could have been remembered as one of the greats but let his paranoia destroy him.
    If Nixon had been assassinated just after the 72 election he'd have been (even with Watergate as it was then known about) regarded as one of the all time greats. Like JFK or Lincoln.
    There is a Red Dwarf episode (of all things) that looks at what would have happened if Kennedy had not been assassinated.
    Lots of things would not have gone well is the general conclusion.
    LOL indeed I was thinking about that and hadn't read your reply yet when I mentioned it just a moment ago!

    It was one of the cleverest episodes they ever did in my opinion.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,725

    Pulpstar said:

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Obviously this is all crazy, but with big outfits like universities rethinking their entire academic and social model for into the next academic year, people are having to think about change long term.

    It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
    The virtual parliament was working well. I think it's desperately sad we've abandoned that for an extreme form of inefficient presenteeism
    I think it's weird and surely unsustainable. However, algarkirk's suggestion would appear to mean 300 or so by-elections, which would give PB plenty to discuss, and might lead to one or two other changes too. :)
    The proportion of MPs apparently unavailable for Westminster working is remarkable. I am not sure it is entirely credible.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,264
    I was unusually busy yesterday and missed the previous thread. On catching up this morning I found @Stocky's plea deeply moving and human. I very much hope such pleas get a positive response.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,319

    Scott_xP said:
    It was excruciating - and this whole “air bridges” thing is a nonsense - who is going to agree to letting us in?
    It is good practice for post-Brexit
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,747
    IanB2 said:

    Interesting that Rightmove has reported its busiest day ever last week, and estate agents say there are tons of people now looking to move out of cities.

    I'm still calling peak London, as I did back in March.

    Any view on the extent of the fall on zone 1 flats? Id need about 20-25% to get involved, and 30-35% to consider it clear value vs renting.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 33,948
    For those piling into HMG re the 14 day flight quarantine and that it is too late these minutes are from the first Sage meeting of the 22nd January

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 18,906

    Scott_xP said:
    It was excruciating - and this whole “air bridges” thing is a nonsense - who is going to agree to letting us in?
    Portugal, I believe. Two weeks on the Algarve followed by two weeks in UK in lockdown.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,050
    Cyclefree said:


    HYUFD said:
    I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.

    Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
    It is obviously not impossible but traditonally people queue differently (and closer together) for a pint. Changing that culture is harder when people have been drinking.
    A takeout pint can be passed through a window or from a screen - assuming the pub can afford the cost of the screens with an 80% drop in revenue. But people do not go to the pub to stand 2 metres apart from the people they meet there if that happens revenue is so low the venue is unviable and/or people don’t go because the rules destroy the whole point of the venue.

    These rules do not aid opening. They destroy the essence of the activity. The government may as well close such places down permanently.
    I think the Black Lion in Hammersmith is taking in more than it does in normal times. I reckon it's turnover now is about £10,000 a day on sunny days. About 2,000 pints of lager or Pimms looking at the permanent queues and rate of serving. Only problem. No loos.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,725

    Scott_xP said:
    Maybe the journalists need to ask why the only opposition to this policy is coming from some conservatives. All the other parties and devolved governments support it as does 65% of the public in yesterdays poll
    I'd say the most opposition to the plan seems to be coming from the media who are entirely acting like "but what about our holidays?"
    It may depend how you ask the question. 'Do you want people entering this country to be quarantined' may get a different result from 'Do you want all your family and all your friends to spend 14 days at home not allowed to see anyone after returning from any foreign holiday.'

    It may be like all those Brexit voters (allegedly) who had no idea that the abolition of FOM would mean they don't have FOM themselves.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,324
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Questions for tonight:
    1. In a week or two's Time, when the number of CV19 positive tests in London increase, will it be because of the Lockdown easing or because many, many people stood n the middle of London shouting for all they could about the injustice of George Floyd's death?
    2. How on earth, out of 340 million people, did the USA get a choice between Hillary and Donald last time and then have to make a choice between Joe and Donald this time.
    3. There have been many comments on PB about the absolutely dismal communications from the government. Can you imagine the likes of Alistair Campbell allowing the media to dictate the narrative of the day. Who on earth is running the media brief? Every Cabinet Minister or adviser (yes Mr Cummings, I'm looking at you) should be running their messages and activities past a media savvy advisor who should have the power of veto. (No Mr Cummings, I know it's your wife's birthday but do not visit Specsavers)

    Insofar as your middle one is a serious question rather than a pointed comment,
    I think it's a question many serious political analysts frequently ask themselves. How does a nation that is apparently so successful continually offer up complete schmucks as candidates?

    In my lifetime there have been two good Presidents: Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. And probably one who was passable: George Bush Snr. And that's it.

    Reagan was the surprise because in many ways a fifth-rate actor should have been a deadbeat. He turned out to be pretty darned good.
    I remember well that he was seen as an idiot when he was elected. He had the sense to stick to his primary progression and simply read the lines that were written for him by more talented people behind him.

    It’s a saving grace of the US system that the checks and balances limit the damage that even a moron can do. The flip side being that someone genuinely able like Obama cannot get much done.
    Reagan was quite a good Union organiser and State Governor, before running for President, but he was also fortunate to be elected in benign economic times.

    Obama took over in bad economic times.

    In 1989 inflation was rising rapidly and growth was slowing, which was partly why Reagan beat Carter
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,500

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Obviously this is all crazy, but with big outfits like universities rethinking their entire academic and social model for into the next academic year, people are having to think about change long term.

    It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
    MPs now have a duty to re-think the entire workings of the house, and for them to even re-think the role of the MP.

    I would be very hesitant to make voting remote. It reduces the house to almost nothing. If say scottish MP (and this could be anywhere), could vote without being present, to listen to debates, and to have pre-set voting, well, whats the point of the house, or of debates? Would MPs ever need to go to Westminster?
    Most of the time, most MPs do not bother attending the debates they vote on. The division bell is their cue to rush out of bars and restaurants, and vote whichever way the whips tell them.
  • eekeek Posts: 8,231
    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Maybe the journalists need to ask why the only opposition to this policy is coming from some conservatives. All the other parties and devolved governments support it as does 65% of the public in yesterdays poll
    I'd say the most opposition to the plan seems to be coming from the media who are entirely acting like "but what about our holidays?"
    It may depend how you ask the question. 'Do you want people entering this country to be quarantined' may get a different result from 'Do you want all your family and all your friends to spend 14 days at home not allowed to see anyone after returning from any foreign holiday.'

    It may be like all those Brexit voters (allegedly) who had no idea that the abolition of FOM would mean they don't have FOM themselves.
    It will be exactly that - as with some posters here, people see the first statement but don't think through the consequences of what they have just agreed to.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,264

    For those piling into HMG re the 14 day flight quarantine and that it is too late these minutes are from the first Sage meeting of the 22nd January

    Bewildering.
    Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 60,033

    Pulpstar said:

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Obviously this is all crazy, but with big outfits like universities rethinking their entire academic and social model for into the next academic year, people are having to think about change long term.

    It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
    The virtual parliament was working well. I think it's desperately sad we've abandoned that for an extreme form of inefficient presenteeism
    I think it's weird and surely unsustainable. However, algarkirk's suggestion would appear to mean 300 or so by-elections, which would give PB plenty to discuss, and might lead to one or two other changes too. :)
    Steve Baker didn't think much of it but still voted for it.
    As he's in no danger of being deselected and isn't afraid to go against the party line I did feel it a bit odd that he didn't rebel. I'm struggling to work that one out frankly.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 4,597

    Scott_xP said:
    I cannot accept that this is a good idea but looking across social media and facebook it does surprise me how many actual support it and ask why mps should not experience queing when the public are
    Presumably MPs have to queue to do the same things the public does, like buy groceries (although in my experience you can avoid queueing if you get there early). Asking them to queue just to do a core part of their job, which can easily be done without queueing thus freeing up their time to do the other parts of their job and allowing shielding MPs to participate, just seems plain daft. Rees Mogg is doing serious reputational damage to Eton College and Oxford University. What are they teaching these people?
    I agree but you may be surprised how much support he has
    With the current majority, Rees Mogg could demand Parliamentarians dance naked through the lobbies and he would doubtless achieve a majority.

    I listened to Robert Halfon yesterday explaining it was disallowing him from representing his constituents, and concluded what a bizarre act of ludicrous tribal gamesmanship Rees Mogg has engaged in.

    It is only a step or two behind, in its foolishness, clearing a path through angry protestors, by means of teargas and rubber bullets, for a sociopath to wave a book on the steps of a church. A book by the way, the sociopath has never read.

    In their own way both are extremely dangerous, despite being so different in their nature.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 716

    For those piling into HMG re the 14 day flight quarantine and that it is too late these minutes are from the first Sage meeting of the 22nd January

    I think any enquiry will show that throughout January to April the Government followed the advice of its scientific experts at all times.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,609

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Obviously this is all crazy, but with big outfits like universities rethinking their entire academic and social model for into the next academic year, people are having to think about change long term.

    It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
    MPs now have a duty to re-think the entire workings of the house, and for them to even re-think the role of the MP.

    I would be very hesitant to make voting remote. It reduces the house to almost nothing. If say scottish MP (and this could be anywhere), could vote without being present, to listen to debates, and to have pre-set voting, well, whats the point of the house, or of debates? Would MPs ever need to go to Westminster?
    Agreed. May as well just delegate MPs votes to the whips and be done with MPs.

    Plus frankly I think it's a very good thing if social distancing etc is a massive inconvenience to MPs, not a bad thing. It's a massive inconvenience to the rest of us too but we just have to get on with it. They should practice what they preach.

    Many like Cyclefree have made excellent points about how real world businesses are being affected by these measures and are too often met with a blase ignorance of how the real world operates. The ignorant idea that everyone can be cocooned and work from home doesn't work and I see no reason politicians should be mollycoddled that way when the real world is not.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,776

    Scott_xP said:
    Maybe the journalists need to ask why the only opposition to this policy is coming from some conservatives. All the other parties and devolved governments support it as does 65% of the public in yesterdays poll
    Because the media organisations rely very heavily on advertising from the holiday industry?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 12,021
    rkrkrk said:

    I've removed my red on Trump. At 2.3 he might not be value yet but he is getting there.
    I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like the current unrest might help his chances. At the least it gets coronavirus off the news for a bit.

    Has anyone seen anything on how US pollsters have updated their models after their miss in 2016?

    I think the instinctive view that social unrest helps wannabe "Strongman" Trump is wrong. It's just another crisis for him to mishandle. Another high viz opportunity to demonstrate his almost comical incompetence. My advice to punters thinking of backing him for re-election is to hold off until the week before the election when you will be able to get at least 4/1. And then save your money and pass.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 18,906
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Obviously this is all crazy, but with big outfits like universities rethinking their entire academic and social model for into the next academic year, people are having to think about change long term.

    It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
    The virtual parliament was working well. I think it's desperately sad we've abandoned that for an extreme form of inefficient presenteeism
    I think it's weird and surely unsustainable. However, algarkirk's suggestion would appear to mean 300 or so by-elections, which would give PB plenty to discuss, and might lead to one or two other changes too. :)
    Steve Baker didn't think much of it but still voted for it.
    As he's in no danger of being deselected and isn't afraid to go against the party line I did feel it a bit odd that he didn't rebel. I'm struggling to work that one out frankly.
    Hoping to get back into Govt? Or couldn't break the habit of a lifetime?
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 883

    30 BAME deaths in political custody per year in the UK is appalling. One death is too many.

    Do we know the overall figures, including for whites in custody, and whether they are disproportionate?

    Also, how many of these are suicides or drug overdoses? (Still very bad due to neglect but not quite the same as enforced trauma or brutality, which might otherwise be the assumption)

    There are reports available

    2017/18 is here: https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/statistics/deaths_during_following_police_contact_201718.pdf

    The 4 deaths by shooting is a high, includes the 3 London Bridge terrorists.

    Page 42 has a summary.

    278 total deaths, of which 34 were BAME and a further 8 were other/not known.

    12 % is a bit lower than what you might expect based on population.

    I don't think there is any compelling evidence that we have any disproportionalities in this data in the UK.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,747

    Questions for tonight:
    1. In a week or two's Time, when the number of CV19 positive tests in London increase, will it be because of the Lockdown easing or because many, many people stood n the middle of London shouting for all they could about the injustice of George Floyd's death?

    It will be because of this country's brazen disregard for wearing face masks and total disregard for hand sanitizers.

    Go anywhere else in the first world and both are widely used.

    The British are blighted by a fatal combination of piss-poor leadership, ignorance and arrogance.
    Scandinavia has the lowest mask usage. (Then the UK).
    Lower than Sudan? Or Mali?
    The wiki page doesnt mention those two, which I was using as my source. However, lots of African countries have mandatory face coverings in public. Even though its completely anecdotal looking at the photos here, Id expect Sudan has higher usage than the UK:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-52735520
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,280

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Obviously this is all crazy, but with big outfits like universities rethinking their entire academic and social model for into the next academic year, people are having to think about change long term.

    It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
    MPs now have a duty to re-think the entire workings of the house, and for them to even re-think the role of the MP.

    I would be very hesitant to make voting remote. It reduces the house to almost nothing. If say scottish MP (and this could be anywhere), could vote without being present, to listen to debates, and to have pre-set voting, well, whats the point of the house, or of debates? Would MPs ever need to go to Westminster?
    Most of the time, most MPs do not bother attending the debates they vote on. The division bell is their cue to rush out of bars and restaurants, and vote whichever way the whips tell them.
    I agree the reality might be a little less rose-tinted, but the issue still remains. I do 'approve' of remote voting as a concept, as its just logical in this day and age, but then, why bother with a HoP at all. Just do it all virtually.

    (Yes, I know there's more to the HoP than that, but on a day to day basis for MPs, why be in Westminster?)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 33,076
    kinabalu said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I've removed my red on Trump. At 2.3 he might not be value yet but he is getting there.
    I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like the current unrest might help his chances. At the least it gets coronavirus off the news for a bit.

    Has anyone seen anything on how US pollsters have updated their models after their miss in 2016?

    I think the instinctive view that social unrest helps wannabe "Strongman" Trump is wrong. It's just another crisis for him to mishandle. Another high viz opportunity to demonstrate his almost comical incompetence. My advice to punters thinking of backing him for re-election is to hold off until the week before the election when you will be able to get at least 4/1. And then save your money and pass.
    He’s a very competent demagogue.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 53,654
    Pound has strengthened against the dollar by about 3c since the weekend.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 33,948
    DavidL said:

    For those piling into HMG re the 14 day flight quarantine and that it is too late these minutes are from the first Sage meeting of the 22nd January

    Bewildering.
    Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
    It does raise huge issues about Sage and how HMG could even have considered ignoring the advice
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 2,683

    For those piling into HMG re the 14 day flight quarantine and that it is too late these minutes are from the first Sage meeting of the 22nd January

    I think any enquiry will show that throughout January to April the Government followed the advice of its scientific experts at all times.
    A pedant speaks: "inquiry".
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 19,685
    DavidL said:

    For those piling into HMG re the 14 day flight quarantine and that it is too late these minutes are from the first Sage meeting of the 22nd January

    Bewildering.
    Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
    It really is terrible advice.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,775

    Scott_xP said:
    I cannot accept that this is a good idea but looking across social media and facebook it does surprise me how many actual support it and ask why mps should not experience queing when the public are
    I looked at the photos of the MPs queuing outside and thought that someone wanting to attack an MP would find it very easy to do. Has the terrorist/security risk been properly assessed, I wonder?

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 60,033
    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Obviously this is all crazy, but with big outfits like universities rethinking their entire academic and social model for into the next academic year, people are having to think about change long term.

    It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
    The virtual parliament was working well. I think it's desperately sad we've abandoned that for an extreme form of inefficient presenteeism
    I think it's weird and surely unsustainable. However, algarkirk's suggestion would appear to mean 300 or so by-elections, which would give PB plenty to discuss, and might lead to one or two other changes too. :)
    The proportion of MPs apparently unavailable for Westminster working is remarkable. I am not sure it is entirely credible.

    It was (Still is) following Gov't advice to work from home so MPs were following that. There's still a rule of 54 allowed into the chamber too for health and safety reasons (And quite right too).
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,747
    DavidL said:

    For those piling into HMG re the 14 day flight quarantine and that it is too late these minutes are from the first Sage meeting of the 22nd January

    Bewildering.
    Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
    Please explain the scientific basis to have done this on Jan22 for Covid but not SERs, MERS, Zeka, Ebola?

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,725

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Obviously this is all crazy, but with big outfits like universities rethinking their entire academic and social model for into the next academic year, people are having to think about change long term.

    It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
    MPs now have a duty to re-think the entire workings of the house, and for them to even re-think the role of the MP.

    I would be very hesitant to make voting remote. It reduces the house to almost nothing. If say scottish MP (and this could be anywhere), could vote without being present, to listen to debates, and to have pre-set voting, well, whats the point of the house, or of debates? Would MPs ever need to go to Westminster?
    Most of the time, most MPs do not bother attending the debates they vote on. The division bell is their cue to rush out of bars and restaurants, and vote whichever way the whips tell them.
    The USP of our House of Commons is that is produces occasional high quality theatre actually worth watching. If this is true of other parliaments I am sorry to say I have missed it. Like I missed the tense, Sophoclean drama of the European Parliament.

    I don't think Zoom provides a good enough option, nor do I think my constituency, hundreds of miles away from Westminster in a little known corner of England, can be represented from my MPs study.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,775
    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:


    HYUFD said:
    I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.

    Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
    It is obviously not impossible but traditonally people queue differently (and closer together) for a pint. Changing that culture is harder when people have been drinking.
    A takeout pint can be passed through a window or from a screen - assuming the pub can afford the cost of the screens with an 80% drop in revenue. But people do not go to the pub to stand 2 metres apart from the people they meet there if that happens revenue is so low the venue is unviable and/or people don’t go because the rules destroy the whole point of the venue.

    These rules do not aid opening. They destroy the essence of the activity. The government may as well close such places down permanently.
    I think the Black Lion in Hammersmith is taking in more than it does in normal times. I reckon it's turnover now is about £10,000 a day on sunny days. About 2,000 pints of lager or Pimms looking at the permanent queues and rate of serving. Only problem. No loos.
    No doubt. In London.

    Here the police are preventing pubs from selling takeaway beers at all or insisting that food must be supplied. Why? No reason. It’s as if the authorities are determined to make it as difficult as possible for those trying to keep their businesses open.

    And how many people are going to queue outside when it is cold and rainy?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 60,033

    DavidL said:

    For those piling into HMG re the 14 day flight quarantine and that it is too late these minutes are from the first Sage meeting of the 22nd January

    Bewildering.
    Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
    It does raise huge issues about Sage and how HMG could even have considered ignoring the advice
    Looks like NERVTAG/SAGE wasn't even asked to consider a travel ban or mandatory quarantine.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 33,948
    edited June 3
    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    For those piling into HMG re the 14 day flight quarantine and that it is too late these minutes are from the first Sage meeting of the 22nd January

    Bewildering.
    Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
    It really is terrible advice.
    A very big mistake and hard to lay at the door of Boris or the First Ministers

    Time the media turned their attention to those making this advice

    Good on John Rentoul for tweeting it
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,775
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Obviously this is all crazy, but with big outfits like universities rethinking their entire academic and social model for into the next academic year, people are having to think about change long term.

    It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
    MPs now have a duty to re-think the entire workings of the house, and for them to even re-think the role of the MP.

    I would be very hesitant to make voting remote. It reduces the house to almost nothing. If say scottish MP (and this could be anywhere), could vote without being present, to listen to debates, and to have pre-set voting, well, whats the point of the house, or of debates? Would MPs ever need to go to Westminster?
    Most of the time, most MPs do not bother attending the debates they vote on. The division bell is their cue to rush out of bars and restaurants, and vote whichever way the whips tell them.
    The USP of our House of Commons is that is produces occasional high quality theatre actually worth watching. If this is true of other parliaments I am sorry to say I have missed it. Like I missed the tense, Sophoclean drama of the European Parliament.

    I don't think Zoom provides a good enough option, nor do I think my constituency, hundreds of miles away from Westminster in a little known corner of England, can be represented from my MPs study.

    Well, those voters will not be represented at all if JRM continues to have his way. Digital representation and voting worked fine, given the pandemic, and no good argument has been brought forward for why it should be ended, other than JRM’s insistence that there can only be one proper way of doing things. Remote working is apparently suitable for the courts and GPs and many other activities but not Parliament, even if that means depriving constituents of their representation.

    Parliament is behaving ridiculously.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,776
    edited June 3
    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:


    HYUFD said:
    I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.

    Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
    It is obviously not impossible but traditonally people queue differently (and closer together) for a pint. Changing that culture is harder when people have been drinking.
    A takeout pint can be passed through a window or from a screen - assuming the pub can afford the cost of the screens with an 80% drop in revenue. But people do not go to the pub to stand 2 metres apart from the people they meet there if that happens revenue is so low the venue is unviable and/or people don’t go because the rules destroy the whole point of the venue.

    These rules do not aid opening. They destroy the essence of the activity. The government may as well close such places down permanently.
    I think the Black Lion in Hammersmith is taking in more than it does in normal times. I reckon it's turnover now is about £10,000 a day on sunny days. About 2,000 pints of lager or Pimms looking at the permanent queues and rate of serving. Only problem. No loos.
    No doubt. In London.

    Here the police are preventing pubs from selling takeaway beers at all or insisting that food must be supplied. Why? No reason. It’s as if the authorities are determined to make it as difficult as possible for those trying to keep their businesses open.

    And how many people are going to queue outside when it is cold and rainy?
    Has your daughter thought to write to the local paper, outlining the differences in attitude by local authorities to off-sales? She should try and get a local campaign started.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 26,752
    edited June 3

    IanB2 said:

    Any stattos out their please. I saw a hand of poler last night where abplayer had two aces in her hand. What are the odds of the next two cards on the flop being aces svp

    You don’t provide all the information so I will make some assumptions and leave you to adjust if I am wrong, and actually do the sum you want.

    There are 52 cards total. I am assuming that your “next two cards on the flop” implies there are three already on the table. I also assume you were playing and hence were looking at your two cards, with your reference to “a player” (assuming a typo) meaning the cards were held by another player. This leaves 45 unidentified cards, and two unidentified aces.

    The odds of the next card being an ace are 2 / 45 and the card thereafter 1 / 44 and hence your chance is 2 / 45 x 1 / 44.

    Of course in the game the other player cannot see your cards, therefore from her perspective the odds are 2 / 47 x 1 / 46
    Thanks

    What actually happened was that I was watching a hand being played. This player had a pair of bullets (two aces) The flop is three cards. Cards one and two were aces (card three is irrelevant), which amazed me, I guess if two out of the three cards are aces on the flop the odds are slightly better than if cards 3 and 4 specifically are aces
    The odds seemed to be stratospherically high. I do know you draw aces in your hand at every 220 hands or so on average.....
    That's a different and more complicated question.

    Of course, that was no more or less likely than any other specified combination of cards falling on the flop, and only seems remarkable because we remember the striking patterns.

    The chance beforehand of getting no Aces on the flop in that scenario is 48/50 x 47/49 x 46/48 = 88.2%

    The chance of getting one Ace is 2/50 x 48/49 x 47/48 x 6 = 11.5% (the six being two aces times three possible positions)

    The chance of getting both Aces is 2/50 x 1/49 x 3 = 0.24% or about one time in four hundred. So rare - but nowhere near the stratosphere.

    Of course, the chance that you start holding a pair of Aces is itself about one in 220, so the entire scenario will replay itself on average one in every 90,000 hands or so.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 22,495
    DougSeal said:

    Scott_xP said:
    I cannot accept that this is a good idea but looking across social media and facebook it does surprise me how many actual support it and ask why mps should not experience queing when the public are
    Presumably MPs have to queue to do the same things the public does, like buy groceries (although in my experience you can avoid queueing if you get there early). Asking them to queue just to do a core part of their job, which can easily be done without queueing thus freeing up their time to do the other parts of their job and allowing shielding MPs to participate, just seems plain daft. Rees Mogg is doing serious reputational damage to Eton College and Oxford University. What are they teaching these people?
    He did the same course at the same college as me at Oxford four years earlier. Am changing my Linkedin profile ASAP.
    You seem laudably to have surmounted such a terrible early handicap in life, which appears to have destroyed lesser individuals like Mogg.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,747
    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:


    HYUFD said:
    I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.

    Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
    It is obviously not impossible but traditonally people queue differently (and closer together) for a pint. Changing that culture is harder when people have been drinking.
    A takeout pint can be passed through a window or from a screen - assuming the pub can afford the cost of the screens with an 80% drop in revenue. But people do not go to the pub to stand 2 metres apart from the people they meet there if that happens revenue is so low the venue is unviable and/or people don’t go because the rules destroy the whole point of the venue.

    These rules do not aid opening. They destroy the essence of the activity. The government may as well close such places down permanently.
    I think the Black Lion in Hammersmith is taking in more than it does in normal times. I reckon it's turnover now is about £10,000 a day on sunny days. About 2,000 pints of lager or Pimms looking at the permanent queues and rate of serving. Only problem. No loos.
    There are a couple of bars doing this near me. Charging £6 a pint!! There are supermarkets within 2 minutes walk of them where you get a takeaway can for the equivalent of £1 a pint but the vast majority prefer to pay the £6. People are weird.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 33,948
    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:
    I cannot accept that this is a good idea but looking across social media and facebook it does surprise me how many actual support it and ask why mps should not experience queing when the public are
    I looked at the photos of the MPs queuing outside and thought that someone wanting to attack an MP would find it very easy to do. Has the terrorist/security risk been properly assessed, I wonder?

    It is a good point
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 2,683

    Pound has strengthened against the dollar by about 3c since the weekend.

    I think it's driven more by USD weakness and risk sentiment than anything GBP specific. Emerging market currencies have rallied even more in recent weeks (GBP aka the British Peso has traded more like an EM currency in recent years).
  • MimusMimus Posts: 53

    Those saying Clinton would have won had she campaigned in the Midwest states in 2016 are making a rather big assumption that she'd have won rather than lost votes.

    Too true :) Her campaign thought those states were best ignored as she had nothing to offer them and would just repel swing voters.

    So they came up with a new plan, 'sleep your way to the presidency'.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,092

    If FN rebranded (new name) and had a new leader (not Le Pen) leading it then I could see Macron being defeated in the second round of a presidential election.

    Things I think are really weird (such as anti-americanism, anti-NATO and pro-Russian sentiment) seem to have a big constituency there. And the French can be fairly nationalist.

    FN already have rebranded, they are now the Rassemblement National
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,280
    Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Obviously this is all crazy, but with big outfits like universities rethinking their entire academic and social model for into the next academic year, people are having to think about change long term.

    It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
    MPs now have a duty to re-think the entire workings of the house, and for them to even re-think the role of the MP.

    I would be very hesitant to make voting remote. It reduces the house to almost nothing. If say scottish MP (and this could be anywhere), could vote without being present, to listen to debates, and to have pre-set voting, well, whats the point of the house, or of debates? Would MPs ever need to go to Westminster?
    Most of the time, most MPs do not bother attending the debates they vote on. The division bell is their cue to rush out of bars and restaurants, and vote whichever way the whips tell them.
    The USP of our House of Commons is that is produces occasional high quality theatre actually worth watching. If this is true of other parliaments I am sorry to say I have missed it. Like I missed the tense, Sophoclean drama of the European Parliament.

    I don't think Zoom provides a good enough option, nor do I think my constituency, hundreds of miles away from Westminster in a little known corner of England, can be represented from my MPs study.

    Well, those voters will not be represented at all if JRM continues to have his way. Digital representation and voting worked fine, given the pandemic, and no good argument has been brought forward for why it should be ended, other than JRM’s insistence that there can only be one proper way of doing things. Remote working is apparently suitable for the courts and GPs and many other activities but not Parliament, even if that means depriving constituents of their representation.

    Parliament is behaving ridiculously.
    I agree JRM is being idiotic on the way he's doing this. The worst form of Consveratism that 'this is the only way it's been done, and so must be that way'.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 33,948
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    For those piling into HMG re the 14 day flight quarantine and that it is too late these minutes are from the first Sage meeting of the 22nd January

    Bewildering.
    Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
    It does raise huge issues about Sage and how HMG could even have considered ignoring the advice
    Looks like NERVTAG/SAGE wasn't even asked to consider a travel ban or mandatory quarantine.
    Not sure I understand your point

    The minutes are quite clear that they advised against it
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,747
    DavidL said:

    For those piling into HMG re the 14 day flight quarantine and that it is too late these minutes are from the first Sage meeting of the 22nd January

    Bewildering.
    Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
    Can we live in reality when discussing this please. How on earth were scientists on the 22nd January supposed to have taken the precautionary principle against Madrid, when the very first case of Covid19 in Spain was confirmed on the 31 January? The first case of community transmission in Spain was 26 February, five weeks after that report was written.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 22,495
    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    DougSeal said:

    So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:

    Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

    The rest? Meh.

    And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.

    I was born while Watergate was unfolding, nine months before Nixon resigned, so he’s just about in my lifetime. The tragedy of Nixon is that although he was personally a sh*t, he nevertheless founded the Environmental Protection Agency, ended the draft, Native Americans the right to a measure of tribal self-determination, went to China, got the US out of Vietnam...Republican presidents used to do things like that. He could have been remembered as one of the greats but let his paranoia destroy him.
    If Nixon had been assassinated just after the 72 election he'd have been (even with Watergate as it was then known about) regarded as one of the all time greats. Like JFK or Lincoln.
    There is a Red Dwarf episode (of all things) that looks at what would have happened if Kennedy had not been assassinated.
    Lots of things would not have gone well is the general conclusion.
    It's hard to say.
    All the indications are, for instance, that he'd have avoided the LBJ escalation in Vietnam.

    The interesting thing about both JFK, and his brother Robert, is that they both appeared to learn from experience while in office. A much underrated quality in politicians.

    And Johnson would still have been there to manage Congress for him.
    But LBJ went hard on Civil Rights in a way I think Kennedy wouldn't.

    LBJ saw delivering the full package as his moral obligation to JFK's memory despite not personally agreeing with it. Kennedy would probably have moderated somewhat to get the legislation through.

    The contrast with LBJ and Andrew Johnson could not be starker.
    That's possible - but it's also possible that Vietnam would not, as it did, have set back the progressive movement back a generation if Kennedy had disengaged, and a more gradualist approach proved more lasting.

    LBJ was a complicated character, and I think you're wrong simply to say that he didn't believe in civil rights.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,776

    Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Obviously this is all crazy, but with big outfits like universities rethinking their entire academic and social model for into the next academic year, people are having to think about change long term.

    It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
    MPs now have a duty to re-think the entire workings of the house, and for them to even re-think the role of the MP.

    I would be very hesitant to make voting remote. It reduces the house to almost nothing. If say scottish MP (and this could be anywhere), could vote without being present, to listen to debates, and to have pre-set voting, well, whats the point of the house, or of debates? Would MPs ever need to go to Westminster?
    Most of the time, most MPs do not bother attending the debates they vote on. The division bell is their cue to rush out of bars and restaurants, and vote whichever way the whips tell them.
    The USP of our House of Commons is that is produces occasional high quality theatre actually worth watching. If this is true of other parliaments I am sorry to say I have missed it. Like I missed the tense, Sophoclean drama of the European Parliament.

    I don't think Zoom provides a good enough option, nor do I think my constituency, hundreds of miles away from Westminster in a little known corner of England, can be represented from my MPs study.

    Well, those voters will not be represented at all if JRM continues to have his way. Digital representation and voting worked fine, given the pandemic, and no good argument has been brought forward for why it should be ended, other than JRM’s insistence that there can only be one proper way of doing things. Remote working is apparently suitable for the courts and GPs and many other activities but not Parliament, even if that means depriving constituents of their representation.

    Parliament is behaving ridiculously.
    I agree JRM is being idiotic on the way he's doing this. The worst form of Consveratism that 'this is the only way it's been done, and so must be that way'.
    Maybe the idiocy of the way the MPs are being asked to vote, should allow them some time to reflect on the severe restrictions they are asking the rest of the country to abide by at this time. Maybe their own frustrations will lead them to avoid being overly-cautious on relaxing the emergency legislation.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,609
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Obviously this is all crazy, but with big outfits like universities rethinking their entire academic and social model for into the next academic year, people are having to think about change long term.

    It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
    MPs now have a duty to re-think the entire workings of the house, and for them to even re-think the role of the MP.

    I would be very hesitant to make voting remote. It reduces the house to almost nothing. If say scottish MP (and this could be anywhere), could vote without being present, to listen to debates, and to have pre-set voting, well, whats the point of the house, or of debates? Would MPs ever need to go to Westminster?
    Most of the time, most MPs do not bother attending the debates they vote on. The division bell is their cue to rush out of bars and restaurants, and vote whichever way the whips tell them.
    The USP of our House of Commons is that is produces occasional high quality theatre actually worth watching. If this is true of other parliaments I am sorry to say I have missed it. Like I missed the tense, Sophoclean drama of the European Parliament.

    I don't think Zoom provides a good enough option, nor do I think my constituency, hundreds of miles away from Westminster in a little known corner of England, can be represented from my MPs study.

    Hindsight is 2020
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 14,230
    Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Obviously this is all crazy, but with big outfits like universities rethinking their entire academic and social model for into the next academic year, people are having to think about change long term.

    It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
    MPs now have a duty to re-think the entire workings of the house, and for them to even re-think the role of the MP.

    I would be very hesitant to make voting remote. It reduces the house to almost nothing. If say scottish MP (and this could be anywhere), could vote without being present, to listen to debates, and to have pre-set voting, well, whats the point of the house, or of debates? Would MPs ever need to go to Westminster?
    Most of the time, most MPs do not bother attending the debates they vote on. The division bell is their cue to rush out of bars and restaurants, and vote whichever way the whips tell them.
    The USP of our House of Commons is that is produces occasional high quality theatre actually worth watching. If this is true of other parliaments I am sorry to say I have missed it. Like I missed the tense, Sophoclean drama of the European Parliament.

    I don't think Zoom provides a good enough option, nor do I think my constituency, hundreds of miles away from Westminster in a little known corner of England, can be represented from my MPs study.

    Well, those voters will not be represented at all if JRM continues to have his way. Digital representation and voting worked fine, given the pandemic, and no good argument has been brought forward for why it should be ended, other than JRM’s insistence that there can only be one proper way of doing things. Remote working is apparently suitable for the courts and GPs and many other activities but not Parliament, even if that means depriving constituents of their representation.

    Parliament is behaving ridiculously.
    Agreed - though I never understood why any of them had to come back at all.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,747
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Any stattos out their please. I saw a hand of poler last night where abplayer had two aces in her hand. What are the odds of the next two cards on the flop being aces svp

    You don’t provide all the information so I will make some assumptions and leave you to adjust if I am wrong, and actually do the sum you want.

    There are 52 cards total. I am assuming that your “next two cards on the flop” implies there are three already on the table. I also assume you were playing and hence were looking at your two cards, with your reference to “a player” (assuming a typo) meaning the cards were held by another player. This leaves 45 unidentified cards, and two unidentified aces.

    The odds of the next card being an ace are 2 / 45 and the card thereafter 1 / 44 and hence your chance is 2 / 45 x 1 / 44.

    Of course in the game the other player cannot see your cards, therefore from her perspective the odds are 2 / 47 x 1 / 46
    Thanks

    What actually happened was that I was watching a hand being played. This player had a pair of bullets (two aces) The flop is three cards. Cards one and two were aces (card three is irrelevant), which amazed me, I guess if two out of the three cards are aces on the flop the odds are slightly better than if cards 3 and 4 specifically are aces
    The odds seemed to be stratospherically high. I do know you draw aces in your hand at every 220 hands or so on average.....
    That's a different and more complicated question.

    Of course, that was no more or less likely than any other specified combination of cards falling on the flop, and only seems remarkable because we remember the striking patterns.

    The chance beforehand of getting no Aces on the flop in that scenario is 48/50 x 47/49 x 46/48 = 88.2%

    The chance of getting one Ace is 2/50 x 48/49 x 47/48 x 6 = 11.5% (the six being two aces times three possible positions)

    The chance of getting both Aces is 2/50 x 1/49 x 3 = 0.24% or about one time in four hundred. So rare - but nowhere near the stratosphere.

    Of course, the chance that you start holding a pair of Aces is itself about one in 220, so the entire scenario will replay itself on average one in every 90,000 hands or so.

    Pedants clarification, given it was observed - it will occur number of players x 1/90000 or so if not for the particular player only.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 26,752

    DavidL said:

    For those piling into HMG re the 14 day flight quarantine and that it is too late these minutes are from the first Sage meeting of the 22nd January

    Bewildering.
    Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
    Can we live in reality when discussing this please. How on earth were scientists on the 22nd January supposed to have taken the precautionary principle against Madrid, when the very first case of Covid19 in Spain was confirmed on the 31 January? The first case of community transmission in Spain was 26 February, five weeks after that report was written.
    True. Only Eadric's brand of foresight could have achieved those timescales.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 3,682
    rcs1000 said:

    On topic.

    I don't know who will win the 2020 US Presidential election.

    President Trump is a great campaigner and he likes nothing more than stumping from arena to arena and giving long self aggrandising speeches. The recent riots in the US play into his hands, and probably help get his core vote out.

    Against that, I think CV-19 pain in the US is likely to worsen. In Arizona, Saturday and Sunday were the worst two days for new cases. In Georgia, the new case count continues to climb. North Carolina is also seeing CV-19 cases running at all time highs.

    Almost a third of the world's CV-19 cases are now in the US.

    We could well see another New York situation somewhere else in America between now and polling day.

    Rioting in cities - and bear in mind that 99.9% of Americans will see nothing more than is on Fox or CNN - actually affects very few people. Granny dying of CV-19 while you mother-in-law is hospitalised could affect 100x as many people.

    You said the riots pretty much guarantee Trumpton’s re-election the other day. A shift in view?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,775
    edited June 3
    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:


    HYUFD said:
    I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.

    Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
    It is obviously not impossible but traditonally people queue differently (and closer together) for a pint. Changing that culture is harder when people have been drinking.
    A takeout pint can be passed through a window or from a screen - assuming the pub can afford the cost of the screens with an 80% drop in revenue. But people do not go to the pub to stand 2 metres apart from the people they meet there if that happens revenue is so low the venue is unviable and/or people don’t go because the rules destroy the whole point of the venue.

    These rules do not aid opening. They destroy the essence of the activity. The government may as well close such places down permanently.
    I think the Black Lion in Hammersmith is taking in more than it does in normal times. I reckon it's turnover now is about £10,000 a day on sunny days. About 2,000 pints of lager or Pimms looking at the permanent queues and rate of serving. Only problem. No loos.
    No doubt. In London.

    Here the police are preventing pubs from selling takeaway beers at all or insisting that food must be supplied. Why? No reason. It’s as if the authorities are determined to make it as difficult as possible for those trying to keep their businesses open.

    And how many people are going to queue outside when it is cold and rainy?
    Has your daughter thought to write to the local paper, outlining the differences in attitude by local authorities to off-sales?
    Yes. She has thought about it. But frankly she is single-handedly trying to save her business so letter-writing is not at the top of her To Do list right now. I am making up for it - even at the risk of boring you all senseless!

    Nor does she want to annoy the authorities in the middle of her application for an off-licence.

    Her local MP, TrudinHarrison, is worse than useless, having remained utterly silent on the issue, unlike Tim Farron, in the next constituency along.

    The sense of “one law for them, one law for us” doesn’t just apply to stuff like Cummings. Her fear and that of many around here is that the government will bring in rules which work for the likes of big chains like Wetherspoons and which will be death to everyone else, partly because they don’t care, partly because they simply don’t know the realities of such places and partly because they have a stupid “one size fits all” approach. And when local MPs do nothing, that is exacerbated.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 12,021
    Nigelb said:
    A constant challenge in the life of every person of sound mind and good character is how to express the requisite intense dislike and utter contempt for this repulsive man (and his apologists) in a way that is compact but covers the essentials.

    This shows the way. Thanks so much for posting.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,265
    What's the over/under on mentions of the new Parliamentary voting system at Prime Minister's Questions?

    In other words, how self-absorbed are MPs at this moment?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,324
    Scott_xP said:
    Sunderland voted Labour at the last general election but the UK voted Tory on a Tory manifesto commitment to leave the EU, single market and customs union.

    If the EU will not do a FTA that respects that there will be no extension of the transition period
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 2,683
    Cyclefree said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:


    HYUFD said:
    I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.

    Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
    It is obviously not impossible but traditonally people queue differently (and closer together) for a pint. Changing that culture is harder when people have been drinking.
    A takeout pint can be passed through a window or from a screen - assuming the pub can afford the cost of the screens with an 80% drop in revenue. But people do not go to the pub to stand 2 metres apart from the people they meet there if that happens revenue is so low the venue is unviable and/or people don’t go because the rules destroy the whole point of the venue.

    These rules do not aid opening. They destroy the essence of the activity. The government may as well close such places down permanently.
    I think the Black Lion in Hammersmith is taking in more than it does in normal times. I reckon it's turnover now is about £10,000 a day on sunny days. About 2,000 pints of lager or Pimms looking at the permanent queues and rate of serving. Only problem. No loos.
    No doubt. In London.

    Here the police are preventing pubs from selling takeaway beers at all or insisting that food must be supplied. Why? No reason. It’s as if the authorities are determined to make it as difficult as possible for those trying to keep their businesses open.

    And how many people are going to queue outside when it is cold and rainy?
    I have some sympathy with the pubs but also sympathy for people who worry about the impact on public health. We returned from a family walk the other weekend, and a local pub (a great pub which I was known to frequent in days past) was doing off sales out of a window. It was a hot day and they were doing a great trade. There was a disorderly queue, more like a crowd, spread across both pavements and the middle of the road. Zero social distancing. People getting quite rowdy and noisy in a residential street. It was impossible to walk past the crowd at a 2m distance. Personally I didn't think it was appropriate at all.
    The only positive was that they didn't seem to be serving Pimm's, but I think you might get decked for drinking that in South London, and rightly so.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,333

    DougSeal said:

    So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:

    Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

    The rest? Meh.

    And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.

    I was born while Watergate was unfolding, nine months before Nixon resigned, so he’s just about in my lifetime. The tragedy of Nixon is that although he was personally a sh*t, he nevertheless founded the Environmental Protection Agency, ended the draft, Native Americans the right to a measure of tribal self-determination, went to China, got the US out of Vietnam...Republican presidents used to do things like that. He could have been remembered as one of the greats but let his paranoia destroy him.
    If Nixon had been assassinated just after the 72 election he'd have been (even with Watergate as it was then known about) regarded as one of the all time greats. Like JFK or Lincoln.
    The US has had three great presidents, in my opinion: Washington, Lincoln and FDR. Of whom Lincoln was easily the greatest. I don't think I'd put JFK in even the second tier.
    I said like JFK and Lincoln not because they're greatest but because of the way how they're remembered is affected by the manner of their deaths.

    Lincoln would be an all time great either way so perhaps was unnecessary to mention him but JFK is remembered far more fondly specifically because of the way he was killed. If similar had happened to Nixon after he'd won his landslide of 72 but before he got embroiled in trying to cover up Watergate investigations then he'd be similarly fondly remembered.

    Interesting of course is how JFK might be remembered if he hadn't been shot. Red Dwarf did a brilliant alternative history on this.
    Do you not read my posts?
    I should be used to it: I am a teacher after all...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,609
    edited June 3

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Any stattos out their please. I saw a hand of poler last night where abplayer had two aces in her hand. What are the odds of the next two cards on the flop being aces svp

    You don’t provide all the information so I will make some assumptions and leave you to adjust if I am wrong, and actually do the sum you want.

    There are 52 cards total. I am assuming that your “next two cards on the flop” implies there are three already on the table. I also assume you were playing and hence were looking at your two cards, with your reference to “a player” (assuming a typo) meaning the cards were held by another player. This leaves 45 unidentified cards, and two unidentified aces.

    The odds of the next card being an ace are 2 / 45 and the card thereafter 1 / 44 and hence your chance is 2 / 45 x 1 / 44.

    Of course in the game the other player cannot see your cards, therefore from her perspective the odds are 2 / 47 x 1 / 46
    Thanks

    What actually happened was that I was watching a hand being played. This player had a pair of bullets (two aces) The flop is three cards. Cards one and two were aces (card three is irrelevant), which amazed me, I guess if two out of the three cards are aces on the flop the odds are slightly better than if cards 3 and 4 specifically are aces
    The odds seemed to be stratospherically high. I do know you draw aces in your hand at every 220 hands or so on average.....
    That's a different and more complicated question.

    Of course, that was no more or less likely than any other specified combination of cards falling on the flop, and only seems remarkable because we remember the striking patterns.

    The chance beforehand of getting no Aces on the flop in that scenario is 48/50 x 47/49 x 46/48 = 88.2%

    The chance of getting one Ace is 2/50 x 48/49 x 47/48 x 6 = 11.5% (the six being two aces times three possible positions)

    The chance of getting both Aces is 2/50 x 1/49 x 3 = 0.24% or about one time in four hundred. So rare - but nowhere near the stratosphere.

    Of course, the chance that you start holding a pair of Aces is itself about one in 220, so the entire scenario will replay itself on average one in every 90,000 hands or so.

    Pedants clarification, given it was observed - it will occur number of players x 1/90000 or so if not for the particular player only.
    I had it happen once where I was holding pocket Aces in the Big Blind position and the flop came Ace, Ace, King. It was the hardest hand ever to keep a straight face knowing what I'd hit two cards into the flop!

    I managed to suck someone in who had a King and a Queen it turned out. Smallish raise on Flop to keep him interested, turn came King. Another raise and the river came Queen and I did a bigger raise and he pushed all in. I snap called and he gleefully showed his Full House before I revealed my Quad Aces.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 14,999
    rkrkrk said:

    I've removed my red on Trump. At 2.3 he might not be value yet but he is getting there.
    I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like the current unrest might help his chances. At the least it gets coronavirus off the news for a bit.

    Has anyone seen anything on how US pollsters have updated their models after their miss in 2016?

    Nothing. American polling is comically opaque.

    That said American polling wasn't that bad in 2016. It had a devastating miss in the rust belt but was otherwise pretty good in aggregate.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,264

    DavidL said:

    For those piling into HMG re the 14 day flight quarantine and that it is too late these minutes are from the first Sage meeting of the 22nd January

    Bewildering.
    Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
    Can we live in reality when discussing this please. How on earth were scientists on the 22nd January supposed to have taken the precautionary principle against Madrid, when the very first case of Covid19 in Spain was confirmed on the 31 January? The first case of community transmission in Spain was 26 February, five weeks after that report was written.
    Fair enough on the dates but the principle is the same. They were discussing people coming from Wuhan. Had they agreed that they should be quarantined the same would have applied to the other hot spots as they developed. Pretty much everyone else in the world thought this was a good idea with differing levels of severity. In June we are still talking about it. It remains bewildering.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 26,752

    IanB2 said:

    Any stattos out their please. I saw a hand of poler last night where abplayer had two aces in her hand. What are the odds of the next two cards on the flop being aces svp

    You don’t provide all the information so I will make some assumptions and leave you to adjust if I am wrong, and actually do the sum you want.

    There are 52 cards total. I am assuming that your “next two cards on the flop” implies there are three already on the table. I also assume you were playing and hence were looking at your two cards, with your reference to “a player” (assuming a typo) meaning the cards were held by another player. This leaves 45 unidentified cards, and two unidentified aces.

    The odds of the next card being an ace are 2 / 45 and the card thereafter 1 / 44 and hence your chance is 2 / 45 x 1 / 44.

    Of course in the game the other player cannot see your cards, therefore from her perspective the odds are 2 / 47 x 1 / 46
    Thanks

    What actually happened was that I was watching a hand being played. This player had a pair of bullets (two aces) The flop is three cards. Cards one and two were aces (card three is irrelevant), which amazed me, I guess if two out of the three cards are aces on the flop the odds are slightly better than if cards 3 and 4 specifically are aces
    The odds seemed to be stratospherically high. I do know you draw aces in your hand at every 220 hands or so on average.....
    Has the lockdown brought enough fish back to online poker to make it worthwhile playing?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 2,726
    Nigelb said:

    DougSeal said:

    Scott_xP said:
    I cannot accept that this is a good idea but looking across social media and facebook it does surprise me how many actual support it and ask why mps should not experience queing when the public are
    Presumably MPs have to queue to do the same things the public does, like buy groceries (although in my experience you can avoid queueing if you get there early). Asking them to queue just to do a core part of their job, which can easily be done without queueing thus freeing up their time to do the other parts of their job and allowing shielding MPs to participate, just seems plain daft. Rees Mogg is doing serious reputational damage to Eton College and Oxford University. What are they teaching these people?
    He did the same course at the same college as me at Oxford four years earlier. Am changing my Linkedin profile ASAP.
    You seem laudably to have surmounted such a terrible early handicap in life, which appears to have destroyed lesser individuals like Mogg.
    The struggle is real
  • kamskikamski Posts: 1,000

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    For those piling into HMG re the 14 day flight quarantine and that it is too late these minutes are from the first Sage meeting of the 22nd January

    Bewildering.
    Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
    It really is terrible advice.
    A very big mistake and hard to lay at the door of Boris or the First Ministers

    Time the media turned their attention to those making this advice

    Good on John Rentoul for tweeting it
    It seems like not that bewildering for the 22nd of January (although Taiwan introduced checks from the end of December). A month later I think it would be terrible advice.

    In general there is a big problem with keeping things secret and then selectively releasing bits much later, nobody can examine the advice until it's much too late to point out possible mistakes.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,609

    DougSeal said:

    So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:

    Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

    The rest? Meh.

    And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.

    I was born while Watergate was unfolding, nine months before Nixon resigned, so he’s just about in my lifetime. The tragedy of Nixon is that although he was personally a sh*t, he nevertheless founded the Environmental Protection Agency, ended the draft, Native Americans the right to a measure of tribal self-determination, went to China, got the US out of Vietnam...Republican presidents used to do things like that. He could have been remembered as one of the greats but let his paranoia destroy him.
    If Nixon had been assassinated just after the 72 election he'd have been (even with Watergate as it was then known about) regarded as one of the all time greats. Like JFK or Lincoln.
    The US has had three great presidents, in my opinion: Washington, Lincoln and FDR. Of whom Lincoln was easily the greatest. I don't think I'd put JFK in even the second tier.
    I said like JFK and Lincoln not because they're greatest but because of the way how they're remembered is affected by the manner of their deaths.

    Lincoln would be an all time great either way so perhaps was unnecessary to mention him but JFK is remembered far more fondly specifically because of the way he was killed. If similar had happened to Nixon after he'd won his landslide of 72 but before he got embroiled in trying to cover up Watergate investigations then he'd be similarly fondly remembered.

    Interesting of course is how JFK might be remembered if he hadn't been shot. Red Dwarf did a brilliant alternative history on this.
    Do you not read my posts?
    I should be used to it: I am a teacher after all...
    *Cough*

    DougSeal said:

    So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:

    Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

    The rest? Meh.

    And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.

    I was born while Watergate was unfolding, nine months before Nixon resigned, so he’s just about in my lifetime. The tragedy of Nixon is that although he was personally a sh*t, he nevertheless founded the Environmental Protection Agency, ended the draft, Native Americans the right to a measure of tribal self-determination, went to China, got the US out of Vietnam...Republican presidents used to do things like that. He could have been remembered as one of the greats but let his paranoia destroy him.
    If Nixon had been assassinated just after the 72 election he'd have been (even with Watergate as it was then known about) regarded as one of the all time greats. Like JFK or Lincoln.
    There is a Red Dwarf episode (of all things) that looks at what would have happened if Kennedy had not been assassinated.
    Lots of things would not have gone well is the general conclusion.
    LOL indeed I was thinking about that and hadn't read your reply yet when I mentioned it just a moment ago!

    It was one of the cleverest episodes they ever did in my opinion.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 33,948
    edited June 3
    Scott_xP said:
    So about 7% said Cummings had an effect on their behaviour

    That is much lower than many on here forecast, much lower

    Demonstration of the common sense of the UK citizens
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,747
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    For those piling into HMG re the 14 day flight quarantine and that it is too late these minutes are from the first Sage meeting of the 22nd January

    Bewildering.
    Might it have been that the absence of a meaningful instant test made it pretty useless? I do not understand why the precautionary principle was applied to those coming off cruise ships but not to those coming from hot spots in the Italian alps or Madrid.
    Can we live in reality when discussing this please. How on earth were scientists on the 22nd January supposed to have taken the precautionary principle against Madrid, when the very first case of Covid19 in Spain was confirmed on the 31 January? The first case of community transmission in Spain was 26 February, five weeks after that report was written.
    Fair enough on the dates but the principle is the same. They were discussing people coming from Wuhan. Had they agreed that they should be quarantined the same would have applied to the other hot spots as they developed. Pretty much everyone else in the world thought this was a good idea with differing levels of severity. In June we are still talking about it. It remains bewildering.
    You (and many others) are rewriting history. There was no demand for stopping flights or quarantine in January at all. There was some demand in February. It only became a mainstream call about a week before it effectively happened in March with a 99% fall in passenger numbers.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,264

    For those piling into HMG re the 14 day flight quarantine and that it is too late these minutes are from the first Sage meeting of the 22nd January

    I think any enquiry will show that throughout January to April the Government followed the advice of its scientific experts at all times.
    That may well be true but it is not an excuse, it is an abrogation of responsibility and leadership. Who, if anyone, was asking the hard questions of the scientists? Who was asking them to justify where their conclusions were different from most of the rest of the planet? Why was the consequences of the steps not thought through with a much earlier emphasis on testing capacity, PPE and the ability to trace?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 2,683

    Scott_xP said:
    So about 7% said Cummings had an effect on their behaviour

    That is much lower than many on here forecast, much lower
    7% is still more than zero. It should be possible to estimate the number of additional deaths this causes by modeling the effect on R_t.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,776

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Any stattos out their please. I saw a hand of poler last night where abplayer had two aces in her hand. What are the odds of the next two cards on the flop being aces svp

    You don’t provide all the information so I will make some assumptions and leave you to adjust if I am wrong, and actually do the sum you want.

    There are 52 cards total. I am assuming that your “next two cards on the flop” implies there are three already on the table. I also assume you were playing and hence were looking at your two cards, with your reference to “a player” (assuming a typo) meaning the cards were held by another player. This leaves 45 unidentified cards, and two unidentified aces.

    The odds of the next card being an ace are 2 / 45 and the card thereafter 1 / 44 and hence your chance is 2 / 45 x 1 / 44.

    Of course in the game the other player cannot see your cards, therefore from her perspective the odds are 2 / 47 x 1 / 46
    Thanks

    What actually happened was that I was watching a hand being played. This player had a pair of bullets (two aces) The flop is three cards. Cards one and two were aces (card three is irrelevant), which amazed me, I guess if two out of the three cards are aces on the flop the odds are slightly better than if cards 3 and 4 specifically are aces
    The odds seemed to be stratospherically high. I do know you draw aces in your hand at every 220 hands or so on average.....
    That's a different and more complicated question.

    Of course, that was no more or less likely than any other specified combination of cards falling on the flop, and only seems remarkable because we remember the striking patterns.

    The chance beforehand of getting no Aces on the flop in that scenario is 48/50 x 47/49 x 46/48 = 88.2%

    The chance of getting one Ace is 2/50 x 48/49 x 47/48 x 6 = 11.5% (the six being two aces times three possible positions)

    The chance of getting both Aces is 2/50 x 1/49 x 3 = 0.24% or about one time in four hundred. So rare - but nowhere near the stratosphere.

    Of course, the chance that you start holding a pair of Aces is itself about one in 220, so the entire scenario will replay itself on average one in every 90,000 hands or so.

    Pedants clarification, given it was observed - it will occur number of players x 1/90000 or so if not for the particular player only.
    I had it happen once where I was holding pocket Aces in the Big Blind position and the flop came Ace, Ace, King. It was the hardest hand ever to keep a straight face knowing what I'd hit two cards into the flop!

    I managed to suck someone in who had a King and a Queen it turned out. Smallish raise on Flop to keep him interested, turn came King. Another raise and the river came Queen and I did a bigger raise and he pushed all in. I snap called and he gleefully showed his Full House before I revealed my Quad Aces.
    I've had a similar hand before too, with the quad aces (which given the odds, must mean that we play an awful lot of poker!).

    At the end, when the other guy turned over his full house having gone all in, I said I had two pair, aces and..... aces!
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,333
    edited June 3

    30 BAME deaths in political custody per year in the UK is appalling. One death is too many.

    Do we know the overall figures, including for whites in custody, and whether they are disproportionate?

    Also, how many of these are suicides or drug overdoses? (Still very bad due to neglect but not quite the same as enforced trauma or brutality, which might otherwise be the assumption)

    In the 18/19 year (for some reason the report on this runs to the financial year) there were about 275 deaths in custody or following police contact. They are only recorded if there is an investigation but they do include (and this is not an exhaustive list):
    People killed in traffic incidents involving police cars (a surprisingly high number);
    People who were taken ill while in custody or being arrested;
    People who committed suicide within two days of release from arrest;
    People shot (three, one of whom was black);
    People who died while being restrained (eight, four of which were BAME).
    I linked to the report on this at the end of the last thread if you want to see the full breakdown.

    Edit: I should have said that about 30 of the dead were BAME.
This discussion has been closed.