Best Of

I've spent around five hours canvassing in Makerfield. There is a little Restore support (2%?), but it's basically a Lab/Ref battle. I didn't meet a single voter planning to vote Tory, Green or LibDem, and I'm sure they will all lose their deposits.

As for the result, I think it's a toss-up. There is a huge Labour volunteer turnout - nearly all roads have now been canvassed three times - but the betting showing Labour clearly ahead is IMO a bit optimistic. A notable touch is that Andy is campaigning on his record in Greater Manchester, and some leaflets don't even mention Labour. Conversely Reform's leaflets largely ignore their candidate, even though he's local. Voters don't seem very exercised by local issues, even though flooding has adversely affected parts - it comes down to liking Andy+disliking Reform vs "time for a change".

Can I use this comment for the morning thread ?

I've spent around five hours canvassing in Makerfield. There is a little Restore support (2%?), but it's basically a Lab/Ref battle. I didn't meet a single voter planning to vote Tory, Green or LibDem, and I'm sure they will all lose their deposits.

As for the result, I think it's a toss-up. There is a huge Labour volunteer turnout - nearly all roads have now been canvassed three times - but the betting showing Labour clearly ahead is IMO a bit optimistic. A notable touch is that Andy is campaigning on his record in Greater Manchester, and some leaflets don't even mention Labour. Conversely Reform's leaflets largely ignore their candidate, even though he's local. Voters don't seem very exercised by local issues, even though flooding has adversely affected parts - it comes down to liking Andy+disliking Reform vs "time for a change".

I suspect it will be close, too close to risk a bet. Do you have any evidence of differential turnout?

I'm tempted to bet on Reform so that I have some kind of consolation prize if they win but be basically hoping I lose my fiver.

That’s the bit Casino always misses when optimising his otherwise wisely pitched betting strategy here.

You need to put a cash value on the happiness you will get from certain outcomes, or the opposite, and then factor that into your NEV. Hence I tend to bet against the LibDems because if they do badly my bet comes off and I have money to spend, and if they do well then the value to me of the resulting happiness cancels out the adverse financial consequences.

Tom Nichols
@RadioFreeTom
·
2h
Emotionally unstable man goes on paranoid, babbling rant.

Somewhere in that suit, he has a small card with the codes to 1500 strategic nuclear weapons.

https://x.com/RadioFreeTom/status/2063654813821268011

If his staff are sensible they will have rigged up a fake nuclear button in their bunker that makes lots of impressive noises when it’s pressed but otherwise connects to absolutely nothing at all.

And, if we can then say to Mr President that he can never, ever, leave that bunker because it's too radioactive outside... an elegant solution to our problems presents itself.

Persuading JDV of the same thing as well would be even better.

Re: AMOC collapse. It's worth making a few points.

Firstly, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans both have mid-latitude storm tracks, even though the Pacific doesn't have an equivalent to the AMOC. The storm tracks exist because the tropics are warmer than the poles, and the coriolis force limits the poleward extent of the Hadley circulation. Therefore you have a strong temperature gradient which creates a strong westerly thermal wind, a large amount of baroclinic instability and consequently a storm track, which has two effects which are relevant to us here: it mixes a lot of heat towards the poles, and it creates an ocean gyre circulation (which is why the west coast of North America is warmer than the east coast of Asia).

If the AMOC collapses the Atlantic will still have a storm track and it will still have an ocean gyre circulation that makes the west coast of Europe warmer than the east coast of North America.

What might change is the latitude of the storm track. The Atlantic storm track has a more pronounced SW to NE tilt than the Pacific storm track and it's not obvious how much of that is due to differences in the shape of the ocean basins, or due to changes in SSTs due to the AMOC. So the storm track could shift south and Britain might see both a reduction in warming from the AMOC directly, and end up on the poleward side of the storm track and miss out on the heating from that too.

There are lots of other effects at play too. I did see one paper arguing for a link between reduced solar activity and more frequent winter easterlies over Britain, for example.

The other thing to point out is that these effects would be much more influential in winter. So a reduction in winter mean temperatures of 15C, but little difference the rest of the year, would equate to an annual mean temperature change of 3.75C. Similarly, an annual mean temperature change of 1.5C could equate to a winter mean temperature change of 4C.

For context, the warmest winter in the Central England temperature record had a mean temperature of 6.83C (2016) and the coldest winter had a mean temperature of -1.17C (1684), a difference of only 8C. The coldest winter this century was 2.53C (2010). [Meteorological winters, DJF, are by convention dated by the year of January, so winter 2016 was December 2015 - February 2016.]

The most important thing to do is to improve the insulation of British homes. We'd better survive the direct impact of an AMOC collapse, it would reduce home heating costs, improve living temperatures and reduce damp in homes, improving winter health, reduce fossil fuel use, and make British homes more suitable to be heated by heat pumps rather than fossil fuels, helping to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that may tip the AMOC over the edge.

This has, of course, been obvious for decades, and progress has been relatively poor.

Instead, many pensioners are provided with a winter fuel allowance to spend on fossil fuels. Go figure.

...She's also a Muslim.

Isn't she a Muslim? Her name suggests so, as does her Wikipedia bio

Aaaand the prize for "most stupid post in June" goes to viewcode. Thank you folks. Yes you are right, Shabana Mahmood is Muslim not Hindu.

Not be any stretch the stupidest post in June, or probably even today.

In a very odd piece of not really trivia, for some reason I watched a couple of George Galloway videos the other week (I know), and he claims that Shabana wears a wig. Presumably (if true) to remain religiously observant whilst avoiding wearing a hijab. A lot of Jewish women do the same. If true it is extremely realistic.