I calculated my VO2max on Zwift yesterday to see if I had symptomless Covid and didn't know it. With 300W power for 6 minutes and weighing 69kg I got 54ml/(kg.min). That's the best I've done in three years so I don't have Covid yet. Remco Evenpoel can do 80+.
It'll almost certainly be the final time my VO2Max is equal to (or greater than) my age.
Rage, rage against dying of the light.
That’s what PB is largely for.
It was a full gas 10/10 effort to sustain that power. Fucking spewed everywhere at the end. Mrs DA not amused.
On topic. I don’t believe the spin this was a bad one for Reformuk (the muks) they at least had a good one by laying down foundation to now build on? There’s going to be disenchanted Conservatives if the Boris craziness carries on like this, the muks actually made a professional pitch to them: sort the Tory Party and policies out by switching to us.
I think the history of UKIP success more likely to repeat now because it’s proven to work. Do you understand my point? I can try again at explaining it.
That's an interesting thread about allowing 1.5 storey extensions on houses to help larger families stay in the area. Worth noting that it was not just for the Jewish community - others have similar charas.
It's interesting that they specifically excluded HMOs from doing it, which looks controversial. Surprised that there was not a legal challenge on that.
It's a most curious difference between England and Scotland that virtually all Scottish houses and virtually no English ones have dormer windows and utilize attic space as living space. England probably misses out on literally millions of bedrooms.
Bit strong - many 'modern' houses don't have dormer windows, eg 1930s bungalows, 1950s-on dets and semis unless converted. But yes, traditionally many Scottish houses have dormers. My family house had three generous bedrooms, one walkin cupboard, and 2 attic storage spaces all in the roof when built in 1880-ish.
Having "staff" in Scotland I guess used to be somewhat more affordable than the Home Counties perhaps?
No; it was a shopkeeper's double flat above the shop with only the one servant/housekeeper that I am aware of, who had a bedroom on the first floor next to the kitchen.
Edit: in the 1920s-30s (partly due to illness in the family, I believe).
Sorry, wasn't referring to you per se, more the large number of huge Victorian mansions that were built in the major cities and conurbations on the profits of the British Empire that Scots folk made such an enthusiastic contribution to.
Well I got the Green and LD figures spot on at 4% and 3% respectively, and the fact the Greens would be ahead of the LDs.
But other than that, mine wasn't a very good prediction. Seriously overestimated the traction both Labour and Refuk would get and underestimated the Tory share.
Refuk are truly a dead duck joke of a party. Couldn't get a much more sympathetic seat, with their 'leader' running, in a by-election where the voters can give the government a risk free kicking and this is the paltry amount they get? They're not going to even feature remotely at a General Election.
Got to say that it's a good night for the Tories, Boris is currently keeping all the Leave voters onside.
Broadly agree. But SKS's strategy can be misleading. Obviously his approach - attack the Tories, try to avoid unforced errors, give no hostages by having policies - cannot win (326+ seats) an election; but much less is required to decapitate the Tories. Labour can't win an extra 125 seats, but Lab, LD, SNP and Green can fairly easily win the 55 or so required make a Tory government impossible.
Lots of people are missing the fact that this is the SKS strategy. He is absolutely on track to have a 40%+ chance of success.
ATM his biggest problem - "vote Labour, get SNP running the country" - is one he can ignore while consolidating his position. As long as he can pretend his objective is 326 seats he does not have to address it.
If the LDs do well in NS then without winning either seat the non-Tory alliance will have had a good month.
Agree this is his strategy, but he’ll have to address the SNP somehow. I suggested a month or so ago that he publicly target a “magnificent 7” set of seats of Scotland as to demonstrate that Scotland is central to his playbook and that he is not soft on the SNP.
I'm not sure that will help him in an election campaign - if a hung parliament looks at all possible, the "in Sturgeon's pocket" posters will come out again.
At the cost of damaging the Union even more. "Unionists [sic] refuse to let legitimately elected MPs for Scottish constituencies take part fully in Westminster."
I don't see how that follows.
Tory propaganda portraying it as illegitimate for SNP to be involved in a coalition government or c&s. Will not go down well in Scotland.
The centrist dads appear to believe that this will somehow persuade a chunk of SNP voters ‘back’ to Labour. Mind you they seem to pluck reasons from the air for this to happen on a weekly basis.
That's an interesting thread about allowing 1.5 storey extensions on houses to help larger families stay in the area. Worth noting that it was not just for the Jewish community - others have similar charas.
It's interesting that they specifically excluded HMOs from doing it, which looks controversial. Surprised that there was not a legal challenge on that.
It's a most curious difference between England and Scotland that virtually all Scottish houses and virtually no English ones have dormer windows and utilize attic space as living space. England probably misses out on literally millions of bedrooms.
Bit strong - many 'modern' houses don't have dormer windows, eg 1930s bungalows, 1950s-on dets and semis unless converted. But yes, traditionally many Scottish houses have dormers. My family house had three generous bedrooms, one walkin cupboard, and 2 attic storage spaces all in the roof when built in 1880-ish.
Having "staff" in Scotland I guess used to be somewhat more affordable than the Home Counties perhaps?
No; it was a shopkeeper's double flat above the shop with only the one servant/housekeeper that I am aware of, who had a bedroom on the first floor next to the kitchen.
Edit: in the 1920s-30s (partly due to illness in the family, I believe).
Sorry, wasn't referring to you per se, more the large number of huge Victorian mansions that were built in the major cities and conurbations on the profits of the British Empire that Scots folk made such an enthusiastic contribution to.
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 4h Replying to @paulmasonnews 4/ I don't doubt Labour mounted a good campaign in OB&S... and the Libdems seem to have demobilised - but that makes the result more telling: Labour under Starmer is nowhere near creating the buzz and momentum needed to form a transformational majority
He's partially right. Nowhere near a hung Parliament imho. Though clambering out of the coffin.
In unrelated matters, I see that the former Head of Social Services in Solihull in charge when that poor 6-year old boy was tortured to death moved from Stoke where she had been head. A report into the social services department there published just after her departure found it to have "widespread and serious failings". No doubt the same will end up being said of Solihull. Still she is enjoying her retirement while that poor child's body still lies in a morgue, unburied.
It was 12 strangers - the jury - who had the kindness to ask the judge to hold a minute's silence for Arthur at the end of the trial. It is wholly inadequate to the evil we have learnt about but may he rest in peace. And I hope the jurors and others who had to sit through the evidence can find some peace too.
I don't think I have ever seen that before. I am not entirely comfortable with it. A jury operates in a quasi judicial capacity and should be impartially and disinterestedly considering the evidence. But if there was ever a case for an exception this was surely it. It must have been harrowing for them.
The story on the Head is, sadly, all too typical and an absolute disgrace.
It was after conviction. I will excuse them.
We ask jurors to do a vital job. Sometimes it is an appallingly difficult one. The judge asked the prosecution to consider how much of the footage needed to be seen as the jurors were getting so distressed. I can well believe it. The press reports are bad enough and even journalists had to leave as it was too much.
Whatever other faults there were, lockdown removed what few chances there were for outside authorities to see what was happening.
Sadly, that head will face no consequences for her inadequacies. A disgrace, as you say.
When I am prosecuting now we have a "wonderwall" made up of the faces of 15 jurors all of whom are sitting socially distanced and remotely in a cinema somewhere. Each juror has a camera directly on them so you can actually see a lot more of them than you would in the courtroom. Its a bit weird tbh. I had a rape case recently when I was making the speech and you could read their reactions to what you were saying far more closely than you could if you were speaking to them in a court room.
Deciding what should be shown to the jury is problematic. You need to make sure they have seen enough but anything gratuitous is unnecessary and, frankly, an insult to the victim. These are very difficult decisions which thankfully I haven't had to make too often.
England is densely populated, but our cities and towns are low-rise.
It’s bonkers.
London could easily fit several more million by
1. gently densifying Zone 2/3, 2. better configuring poorly designed council housing, 3. building a “garden city” between Stratford and Grays on the north bank.
Requires imagination, strong design rules, and lots of infrastructure.
I’d like to see a new metropolitan park that connects all the way from Victoria Park to Epping.
Then I could cycle up to examine HYUFD’s tanks.
Further concentration of the nation's prosperity in London and the South East might not be a good idea. We need new towns or refurbished old towns on a new town model, spread around the country. We could call it levelling up.
England is densely populated, but our cities and towns are low-rise.
It’s bonkers.
London could easily fit several more million by
1. gently densifying Zone 2/3, 2. better configuring poorly designed council housing, 3. building a “garden city” between Stratford and Grays on the north bank.
Requires imagination, strong design rules, and lots of infrastructure.
I’d like to see a new metropolitan park that connects all the way from Victoria Park to Epping.
Then I could cycle up to examine HYUFD’s tanks.
The issue with making London more densely populated is that we already have too few services and too many people. Adding another 3-4m in zones 3-6 would make London overcrowded.
I think it was Bill Bryson who pointed out that, if London had the same population density as Paris, London's population would be 35 million.
The Lancet paper looks great for AZ primed people! Especially under 70s who got the Moderna booster, massive uplift in t-cell response and antibodies.
Going to check the NHS website a lot this evening as I suspect they'll make the backend changes before the weekend and announce it in a press conference Monday evening. I'm informed that 30+ will become eligible before Xmas but not by a lot. 18+ will be waiting until early January.
That's fantastic news and reinforces that we should get our jabs but nothing else, life must go on.
Though I would be in favour of a Covid Tax on anyone unvaccinated, just as there's tobacco duty on smokers. 2% extra on income tax, that is zero-rated if you've had your vaccine.
What about a tax on three day eventers, mountaineers, jockeys, Sunday League footballers, parkour-ers, rock climbers, scaffolders, window cleaners, roofers, farmers, etc.
How much of an impact are they putting on the NHS?
Is Covid closer to smokers or footballers when it comes to impact?
Do you find tobacco duty unconscionable?
They are all lifestyle choices. You make a pretty bad libertarian.
Not really. We have taxes to fund the NHS.
My libertarianism is that people should be free to do what they want. If they want to be unvaccinated, that's their choice. If they want to smoke, that's their choice. If they want to take drugs, that's their choice. There still have to be taxes though and some choices, face taxes. Don't want to pay the tax, don't make that choice. Its your freedom to decide.
So are you saying tobacco duty should be abolished?
As a libertarian which choices do you think should be taxed and which not taxed. Is there a percentage of NHS or national resources threshold?
The principle is shot to pieces regardless.
A basic principle of libertarianism is that absolute freedom ends where your actions impact on others - "Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins".
Yes, but Philip's idea of libertarianism stops at things he personally doesn't agree with lol. A genuine libertarian supports a liberal attitude toward things that they do not participate in or might even think are repugnant. Eg. A genuine libertarian might not like game shooting for example, but think that it is not something that government should interfer with. If I remember correctly Philip hates people in the countryside (as he does lots of people he doesn't identify with), so his claims to be "libertarian" (which he often confuses with being "liberal") are a little suspect!
I think this is spot on. Defending things you personally find disagreeable but which cause no harm to other people seems reasonable to me. I think animal cruelty (as opposed to simply enjoying hunting or shooting animals for sport and food) is something one would reasonably expect the Government to legislate against and one could make a reasonable libertarian argument for it. But even though I am personally opposed to fox hunting (for example) and happily sabbed on occasion in my younger days I have great concerns about the Government banning it as part of a wider assault on country life.
Philip undoubtedly has a very severe blind spot when it comes to rural life and it does undermine a lot of his otherwise sensible views.
I particularly liked the Labour guy. I just loved it to bits when he said at the end of the video, "We all know this is two horse race between Labour and the Tories in North Shropshire." 😀😀😀
Ah, wonderful, such chutzpah. That is the way to deal with our mendacious "Winning Here" friends.
i don't quite see why Plaid Cymru are not standing in a historic Welsh area, so in the absence of PC I'd vote for Ben Wood. He came across as genuinely likeable. I now suspect he may do enough to keep the Labour vote that the LibDems need to squeeze.
As to the other candidates: The Tory and LibDem candidates look like cartoonish caricatures of the Tory and LibDem party -- they are not for me.
And the Loony is insufficiently bonkers.
He'd stolen a Focus leaflet, or the Lib Dem Campaigning Guide. Copies sometimes become available.
England is densely populated, but our cities and towns are low-rise.
It’s bonkers.
London could easily fit several more million by
1. gently densifying Zone 2/3, 2. better configuring poorly designed council housing, 3. building a “garden city” between Stratford and Grays on the north bank.
Requires imagination, strong design rules, and lots of infrastructure.
I’d like to see a new metropolitan park that connects all the way from Victoria Park to Epping.
Then I could cycle up to examine HYUFD’s tanks.
The issue with making London more densely populated is that we already have too few services and too many people. Adding another 3-4m in zones 3-6 would make London overcrowded.
I think it was Bill Bryson who pointed out that, if London had the same population density as Paris, London's population would be 35 million.
Yes but Paris isn't exactly a good example of urban planning. It's a dump. Of all the European capitals I've been to it's my least favourite. Even Bern is ok, just a bit dull.
I calculated my VO2max on Zwift yesterday to see if I had symptomless Covid and didn't know it. With 300W power for 6 minutes and weighing 69kg I got 54ml/(kg.min). That's the best I've done in three years so I don't have Covid yet. Remco Evenpoel can do 80+.
It'll almost certainly be the final time my VO2Max is equal to (or greater than) my age.
Rage, rage against dying of the light.
That’s what PB is largely for.
It was a full gas 10/10 effort to sustain that power. Fucking spewed everywhere at the end. Mrs DA not amused.
I suppose you saying that it was better than you doing same after a night on the ale would cut no ice?
The Lancet paper looks great for AZ primed people! Especially under 70s who got the Moderna booster, massive uplift in t-cell response and antibodies.
Going to check the NHS website a lot this evening as I suspect they'll make the backend changes before the weekend and announce it in a press conference Monday evening. I'm informed that 30+ will become eligible before Xmas but not by a lot. 18+ will be waiting until early January.
That's fantastic news and reinforces that we should get our jabs but nothing else, life must go on.
Though I would be in favour of a Covid Tax on anyone unvaccinated, just as there's tobacco duty on smokers. 2% extra on income tax, that is zero-rated if you've had your vaccine.
What about a tax on three day eventers, mountaineers, jockeys, Sunday League footballers, parkour-ers, rock climbers, scaffolders, window cleaners, roofers, farmers, etc.
How much of an impact are they putting on the NHS?
Is Covid closer to smokers or footballers when it comes to impact?
Do you find tobacco duty unconscionable?
They are all lifestyle choices. You make a pretty bad libertarian.
Not really. We have taxes to fund the NHS.
My libertarianism is that people should be free to do what they want. If they want to be unvaccinated, that's their choice. If they want to smoke, that's their choice. If they want to take drugs, that's their choice. There still have to be taxes though and some choices, face taxes. Don't want to pay the tax, don't make that choice. Its your freedom to decide.
So are you saying tobacco duty should be abolished?
As a libertarian which choices do you think should be taxed and which not taxed. Is there a percentage of NHS or national resources threshold?
The principle is shot to pieces regardless.
A basic principle of libertarianism is that absolute freedom ends where your actions impact on others - "Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins".
Yes, but Philip's idea of libertarianism stops at things he personally doesn't agree with lol. A genuine libertarian supports a liberal attitude toward things that they do not participate in or might even think are repugnant. Eg. A genuine libertarian might not like game shooting for example, but think that it is not something that government should interfer with. If I remember correctly Philip hates people in the countryside (as he does lots of people he doesn't identify with), so his claims to be "libertarian" (which he often confuses with being "liberal") are a little suspect!
I have never said anything against game shooting. I don't like it, but I don't object to it. I have no problem with people doing things I don't like.
I don't hate the countryside either. I just don't think we should pander to it.
Some people in the countryside think they deserve major subsidies and tariffs and restrictions on planning in order to protect their way of life. I don't think they deserve any more subsidies or protection than the NUM coal miners did. Let them sink or swim in a free market with free trade and free planning etc
That's not hatred, that's freedom to choose.
Yep, you choose to dress it up that way.
Hunting: I seem to remember you getting very vexxed/gammon on that subject (as an anti)? As a claimed libertarian, do you think those that want to prance around in red coats on expensive horses should be restricted? Or do as a libertarian think that they should have been left alone, particularly in the light of the Burns Report ?
That's an interesting thread about allowing 1.5 storey extensions on houses to help larger families stay in the area. Worth noting that it was not just for the Jewish community - others have similar charas.
It's interesting that they specifically excluded HMOs from doing it, which looks controversial. Surprised that there was not a legal challenge on that.
It's a most curious difference between England and Scotland that virtually all Scottish houses and virtually no English ones have dormer windows and utilize attic space as living space. England probably misses out on literally millions of bedrooms.
Bit strong - many 'modern' houses don't have dormer windows, eg 1930s bungalows, 1950s-on dets and semis unless converted. But yes, traditionally many Scottish houses have dormers. My family house had three generous bedrooms, one walkin cupboard, and 2 attic storage spaces all in the roof when built in 1880-ish.
Having "staff" in Scotland I guess used to be somewhat more affordable than the Home Counties perhaps?
Dormer windows are a freakin' nightmare to insulate or renovate. Use roof windows, or pre-made dormers.
The Lancet paper looks great for AZ primed people! Especially under 70s who got the Moderna booster, massive uplift in t-cell response and antibodies.
Going to check the NHS website a lot this evening as I suspect they'll make the backend changes before the weekend and announce it in a press conference Monday evening. I'm informed that 30+ will become eligible before Xmas but not by a lot. 18+ will be waiting until early January.
That's fantastic news and reinforces that we should get our jabs but nothing else, life must go on.
Though I would be in favour of a Covid Tax on anyone unvaccinated, just as there's tobacco duty on smokers. 2% extra on income tax, that is zero-rated if you've had your vaccine.
What about a tax on three day eventers, mountaineers, jockeys, Sunday League footballers, parkour-ers, rock climbers, scaffolders, window cleaners, roofers, farmers, etc.
How much of an impact are they putting on the NHS?
Is Covid closer to smokers or footballers when it comes to impact?
Do you find tobacco duty unconscionable?
They are all lifestyle choices. You make a pretty bad libertarian.
Not really. We have taxes to fund the NHS.
My libertarianism is that people should be free to do what they want. If they want to be unvaccinated, that's their choice. If they want to smoke, that's their choice. If they want to take drugs, that's their choice. There still have to be taxes though and some choices, face taxes. Don't want to pay the tax, don't make that choice. Its your freedom to decide.
So are you saying tobacco duty should be abolished?
As a libertarian which choices do you think should be taxed and which not taxed. Is there a percentage of NHS or national resources threshold?
The principle is shot to pieces regardless.
A basic principle of libertarianism is that absolute freedom ends where your actions impact on others - "Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins".
Yes, but Philip's idea of libertarianism stops at things he personally doesn't agree with lol. A genuine libertarian supports a liberal attitude toward things that they do not participate in or might even think are repugnant. Eg. A genuine libertarian might not like game shooting for example, but think that it is not something that government should interfer with. If I remember correctly Philip hates people in the countryside (as he does lots of people he doesn't identify with), so his claims to be "libertarian" (which he often confuses with being "liberal") are a little suspect!
I have never said anything against game shooting. I don't like it, but I don't object to it. I have no problem with people doing things I don't like.
I don't hate the countryside either. I just don't think we should pander to it.
Some people in the countryside think they deserve major subsidies and tariffs and restrictions on planning in order to protect their way of life. I don't think they deserve any more subsidies or protection than the NUM coal miners did. Let them sink or swim in a free market with free trade and free planning etc
That's not hatred, that's freedom to choose.
Yep, you choose to dress it up that way.
Hunting: I seem to remember you getting very vexxed/gammon on that subject (as an anti)? As a claimed libertarian, do you think those that want to prance around in red coats on expensive horses should be restricted? Or do as a libertarian think that they should have been left alone, particularly in the light of the Burns Report ?
You recall wrong, I don't especially care either way.
I can see a reason it should be allowed on liberty grounds. I can also see a reason it should be banned on animal cruelty grounds.
I didn't think at the time it was something that should be a priority to be banned. I don't think now it is something that should be a priority to be legalised.
To me its little different to cockfighting and should be treated the same. If you want to legalise cockfighting, fox hunting etc then make that argument. I'm not especially vexed either way.
People who want to prance around on red coats on expensive coats isn't my thing but I couldn't care less about that, let people prance around doing whatever they please. Its the killing of foxes AFAIK that's debated not the horses and coats - and anyone who is anti-fox hunting people its a 'toff' pursuit or because they don't like it as opposed to animal welfare grounds, I am entirely against that line of thinking.
Ian Hislop recently suggested they could not now bring down Maxwell because he could hide behind these new secrecy laws.
Yes its a concern. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and as repugnant as our free press could be sometimes, I don't like the way they're so restricted nowadays.
I would much prefer we had a US First Amendment style protection for the press.
Interesting watching the creeping demonisation of Kingspan and F1 Mercedes wrt Grenfell insulation, when Kingspan say they were not even consulted about its use. If true it is a bad call by Gove and Nandy.
The Lancet paper looks great for AZ primed people! Especially under 70s who got the Moderna booster, massive uplift in t-cell response and antibodies.
Going to check the NHS website a lot this evening as I suspect they'll make the backend changes before the weekend and announce it in a press conference Monday evening. I'm informed that 30+ will become eligible before Xmas but not by a lot. 18+ will be waiting until early January.
That's fantastic news and reinforces that we should get our jabs but nothing else, life must go on.
Though I would be in favour of a Covid Tax on anyone unvaccinated, just as there's tobacco duty on smokers. 2% extra on income tax, that is zero-rated if you've had your vaccine.
What about a tax on three day eventers, mountaineers, jockeys, Sunday League footballers, parkour-ers, rock climbers, scaffolders, window cleaners, roofers, farmers, etc.
How much of an impact are they putting on the NHS?
Is Covid closer to smokers or footballers when it comes to impact?
Do you find tobacco duty unconscionable?
They are all lifestyle choices. You make a pretty bad libertarian.
Not really. We have taxes to fund the NHS.
My libertarianism is that people should be free to do what they want. If they want to be unvaccinated, that's their choice. If they want to smoke, that's their choice. If they want to take drugs, that's their choice. There still have to be taxes though and some choices, face taxes. Don't want to pay the tax, don't make that choice. Its your freedom to decide.
So are you saying tobacco duty should be abolished?
As a libertarian which choices do you think should be taxed and which not taxed. Is there a percentage of NHS or national resources threshold?
The principle is shot to pieces regardless.
A basic principle of libertarianism is that absolute freedom ends where your actions impact on others - "Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins".
Yes, but Philip's idea of libertarianism stops at things he personally doesn't agree with lol. A genuine libertarian supports a liberal attitude toward things that they do not participate in or might even think are repugnant. Eg. A genuine libertarian might not like game shooting for example, but think that it is not something that government should interfer with. If I remember correctly Philip hates people in the countryside (as he does lots of people he doesn't identify with), so his claims to be "libertarian" (which he often confuses with being "liberal") are a little suspect!
I have never said anything against game shooting. I don't like it, but I don't object to it. I have no problem with people doing things I don't like.
I don't hate the countryside either. I just don't think we should pander to it.
Some people in the countryside think they deserve major subsidies and tariffs and restrictions on planning in order to protect their way of life. I don't think they deserve any more subsidies or protection than the NUM coal miners did. Let them sink or swim in a free market with free trade and free planning etc
That's not hatred, that's freedom to choose.
Yep, you choose to dress it up that way.
Hunting: I seem to remember you getting very vexxed/gammon on that subject (as an anti)? As a claimed libertarian, do you think those that want to prance around in red coats on expensive horses should be restricted? Or do as a libertarian think that they should have been left alone, particularly in the light of the Burns Report ?
You recall wrong, I don't especially care either way.
I can see a reason it should be allowed on liberty grounds. I can also see a reason it should be banned on animal cruelty grounds.
I didn't think at the time it was something that should be a priority to be banned. I don't think now it is something that should be a priority to be legalised.
To me its little different to cockfighting and should be treated the same. If you want to legalise cockfighting, fox hunting etc then make that argument. I'm not especially vexed either way.
People who want to prance around on red coats on expensive coats isn't my thing but I couldn't care less about that, let people prance around doing whatever they please. Its the killing of foxes AFAIK that's debated not the horses and coats - and anyone who is anti-fox hunting people its a 'toff' pursuit or because they don't like it as opposed to animal welfare grounds, I am entirely against that line of thinking.
Your position that you are claiming today is more supportable from a libertarian perspective than that other bloke called Philip Thompson who used to post on here, you know the one; he that spouts views based on pure gut instinct and no knowledge. I am suspicious that you might be the same person in your attempt to equate fox hunting to cock fighting though. Read the Burns Report.
Well I got the Green and LD figures spot on at 4% and 3% respectively, and the fact the Greens would be ahead of the LDs.
But other than that, mine wasn't a very good prediction. Seriously overestimated the traction both Labour and Refuk would get and underestimated the Tory share.
Refuk are truly a dead duck joke of a party. Couldn't get a much more sympathetic seat, with their 'leader' running, in a by-election where the voters can give the government a risk free kicking and this is the paltry amount they get? They're not going to even feature remotely at a General Election.
Got to say that it's a good night for the Tories, Boris is currently keeping all the Leave voters onside.
Broadly agree. But SKS's strategy can be misleading. Obviously his approach - attack the Tories, try to avoid unforced errors, give no hostages by having policies - cannot win (326+ seats) an election; but much less is required to decapitate the Tories. Labour can't win an extra 125 seats, but Lab, LD, SNP and Green can fairly easily win the 55 or so required make a Tory government impossible.
Lots of people are missing the fact that this is the SKS strategy. He is absolutely on track to have a 40%+ chance of success.
ATM his biggest problem - "vote Labour, get SNP running the country" - is one he can ignore while consolidating his position. As long as he can pretend his objective is 326 seats he does not have to address it.
If the LDs do well in NS then without winning either seat the non-Tory alliance will have had a good month.
Agree this is his strategy, but he’ll have to address the SNP somehow. I suggested a month or so ago that he publicly target a “magnificent 7” set of seats of Scotland as to demonstrate that Scotland is central to his playbook and that he is not soft on the SNP.
Looks like I got Old Bexley and Sidcup spot on so let me try for North Shropshire.
Con 48% Libs 42% Lab 2% Green 3% Others 5%
Turnout 43%
- “ publicly target a “magnificent 7” set of seats of Scotland”
Huh? Which seven?
Edinburgh South HOLD is the obvious list candidate, but thereafter?
East Lothian Coast Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath
… but then it gets harder…
Coatbridge and Bellshill? Glasgow Central? Midlothian?
… then it gets super hard…
Airdrie and Shotts?? Rutherglen??
Yes, all of those. In a way, it doesn’t matter if they win them or not. The message is:
1. SNP voters can defeat Boris via tactical voting 2. Unionists should vote Labour in some seats 3. Labour knows Scotland is decisive 4. Labour is not soft on the SNP.
To win a progressive majority that can form a government; Keir needs several strategies, as a general swing won’t do it.
This is part of a Scottish strategy.
So, you think that Labour strategy ought to include the message that “SNP voters can defeat Boris via tactical voting”? Pray tell, in which seats are the SLab candidates in 2nd place behind the sitting SCon MPs?
Yes. Points 2-4 are fine, but that first one is pure nonsense.
Realistically I think Labour can win back a few seats in Scotland at the next GE like East lothian and Mid Lothian more by squeezing the Tory vote. Airdrie and Shotts is unlikely but not impossible as Labour increased their vote share in the May by election.
Labour does have major problems in Scotland with younger voters who Sturgeon is still extremely popular with.
That said I think some middle of the road voters still see Sarwar/Scottish Labour as a bland/dull/safe option they can vote tactically for even if the contrived media narrative that Sarwar is a major success is nonsense.
Voting Labour tactically makes sense in quite a few places if you're talking about anti-SNP tactics. Voting Labour tactically to keep Boris out makes sense basically nowhere in Scotland. Take my seat, Banff and Buchan. I voted "straight" last time, that is I chose the party I felt best able to represent my views at that moment, so it was Lib Dem. Now I've become hardened against this government and I want to vote anti-Boris. Who do I vote for? Obviously, SNP. That's one seat. What of the other 58? I haven't checked them, but my guess is there's a max of two where voting Labour to keep the Tories out makes sense. Perhaps none at all.
Labour does have a bit of a dearth of talent in Scotland, but honestly, I feel that way about all parties everywhere. Which party, Scotland or not, has only brilliant people in their top team? I can't think of one. In that light, Labour's northern travails seem much less bleak.
That's an interesting thread about allowing 1.5 storey extensions on houses to help larger families stay in the area. Worth noting that it was not just for the Jewish community - others have similar charas.
It's interesting that they specifically excluded HMOs from doing it, which looks controversial. Surprised that there was not a legal challenge on that.
It's a most curious difference between England and Scotland that virtually all Scottish houses and virtually no English ones have dormer windows and utilize attic space as living space. England probably misses out on literally millions of bedrooms.
Bit strong - many 'modern' houses don't have dormer windows, eg 1930s bungalows, 1950s-on dets and semis unless converted. But yes, traditionally many Scottish houses have dormers. My family house had three generous bedrooms, one walkin cupboard, and 2 attic storage spaces all in the roof when built in 1880-ish.
Having "staff" in Scotland I guess used to be somewhat more affordable than the Home Counties perhaps?
Dormer windows are a freakin' nightmare to insulate or renovate. Use roof windows, or pre-made dormers.
Indeed, particularly if some madcap architect thinks it is a good idea to have one suspended from a crane.
Ian Hislop recently suggested they could not now bring down Maxwell because he could hide behind these new secrecy laws.
I listened to quite a lot of the John Preston bio of Maxwell on R4 a few months ago. Monster is probably too weak a term for him, though he was an extraordinary human being in other ways too. There’s no doubt he would thrive in the bin fire that is public life currently.
If I still read books I might even have been inspired to buy a hard copy of said bio.
Well I got the Green and LD figures spot on at 4% and 3% respectively, and the fact the Greens would be ahead of the LDs.
But other than that, mine wasn't a very good prediction. Seriously overestimated the traction both Labour and Refuk would get and underestimated the Tory share.
Refuk are truly a dead duck joke of a party. Couldn't get a much more sympathetic seat, with their 'leader' running, in a by-election where the voters can give the government a risk free kicking and this is the paltry amount they get? They're not going to even feature remotely at a General Election.
Got to say that it's a good night for the Tories, Boris is currently keeping all the Leave voters onside.
Broadly agree. But SKS's strategy can be misleading. Obviously his approach - attack the Tories, try to avoid unforced errors, give no hostages by having policies - cannot win (326+ seats) an election; but much less is required to decapitate the Tories. Labour can't win an extra 125 seats, but Lab, LD, SNP and Green can fairly easily win the 55 or so required make a Tory government impossible.
Lots of people are missing the fact that this is the SKS strategy. He is absolutely on track to have a 40%+ chance of success.
ATM his biggest problem - "vote Labour, get SNP running the country" - is one he can ignore while consolidating his position. As long as he can pretend his objective is 326 seats he does not have to address it.
If the LDs do well in NS then without winning either seat the non-Tory alliance will have had a good month.
Agree this is his strategy, but he’ll have to address the SNP somehow. I suggested a month or so ago that he publicly target a “magnificent 7” set of seats of Scotland as to demonstrate that Scotland is central to his playbook and that he is not soft on the SNP.
I'm not sure that will help him in an election campaign - if a hung parliament looks at all possible, the "in Sturgeon's pocket" posters will come out again.
At the cost of damaging the Union even more. "Unionists [sic] refuse to let legitimately elected MPs for Scottish constituencies take part fully in Westminster."
I don't see how that follows.
Tory propaganda portraying it as illegitimate for SNP to be involved in a coalition government or c&s. Will not go down well in Scotland.
If England had its own parliament like Scotland then the SNP giving Labour confidence and supply in a hung parliament would be less of an issue in England.
As it is, Starmer would demand the SNP make him PM and vote on English domestic legislation to give him a working majority in return for him giving the SNP devomax and indyref2
IF England had its own parliament then the Tories would still revel in Jock—bashing.
SNPs abstain on England-only legislation. That ain’t going to change. If Starmer wants to change English legislation then he needs to win in England. No shortcuts.
The SNP voted on England-only Sunday Trading law changes.
Ian Hislop recently suggested they could not now bring down Maxwell because he could hide behind these new secrecy laws.
I listened to quite a lot of the John Preston bio of Maxwell on R4 a few months ago. Monster is probably too weak a term for him, though he was an extraordinary human being in other ways too. There’s no doubt he would thrive in the bin fire that is public life currently.
If I still read books I might even have been inspired to buy a hard copy of said bio.
"If I still read books.."? Have the SNP burned them all? Or was it Alba?
Ian Hislop recently suggested they could not now bring down Maxwell because he could hide behind these new secrecy laws.
I listened to quite a lot of the John Preston bio of Maxwell on R4 a few months ago. Monster is probably too weak a term for him, though he was an extraordinary human being in other ways too. There’s no doubt he would thrive in the bin fire that is public life currently.
If I still read books I might even have been inspired to buy a hard copy of said bio.
"If I still read books.."? Have the SNP burned them all? Or was it Alba?
A little unfair, given the FM's longstanding advocacy for reading. I can't think of a politician who's more pro-book off the top of my head.
England is densely populated, but our cities and towns are low-rise.
It’s bonkers.
London could easily fit several more million by
1. gently densifying Zone 2/3, 2. better configuring poorly designed council housing, 3. building a “garden city” between Stratford and Grays on the north bank.
Requires imagination, strong design rules, and lots of infrastructure.
I’d like to see a new metropolitan park that connects all the way from Victoria Park to Epping.
Then I could cycle up to examine HYUFD’s tanks.
The issue with making London more densely populated is that we already have too few services and too many people. Adding another 3-4m in zones 3-6 would make London overcrowded.
I think it was Bill Bryson who pointed out that, if London had the same population density as Paris, London's population would be 35 million.
Yes but Paris isn't exactly a good example of urban planning. It's a dump. Of all the European capitals I've been to it's my least favourite. Even Bern is ok, just a bit dull.
Have you been to Brussels? That really is horrible. Paris is charming (the bit in the middle anyway) but needs a deep clean. Edinburgh is the most beautiful European capital, imho. Athens and Rome are spectacular too, obviously. Berlin has a wonderful sense of space. Lisbon is very pretty. Sarajevo is haunting.
Well I got the Green and LD figures spot on at 4% and 3% respectively, and the fact the Greens would be ahead of the LDs.
But other than that, mine wasn't a very good prediction. Seriously overestimated the traction both Labour and Refuk would get and underestimated the Tory share.
Refuk are truly a dead duck joke of a party. Couldn't get a much more sympathetic seat, with their 'leader' running, in a by-election where the voters can give the government a risk free kicking and this is the paltry amount they get? They're not going to even feature remotely at a General Election.
Got to say that it's a good night for the Tories, Boris is currently keeping all the Leave voters onside.
Broadly agree. But SKS's strategy can be misleading. Obviously his approach - attack the Tories, try to avoid unforced errors, give no hostages by having policies - cannot win (326+ seats) an election; but much less is required to decapitate the Tories. Labour can't win an extra 125 seats, but Lab, LD, SNP and Green can fairly easily win the 55 or so required make a Tory government impossible.
Lots of people are missing the fact that this is the SKS strategy. He is absolutely on track to have a 40%+ chance of success.
ATM his biggest problem - "vote Labour, get SNP running the country" - is one he can ignore while consolidating his position. As long as he can pretend his objective is 326 seats he does not have to address it.
If the LDs do well in NS then without winning either seat the non-Tory alliance will have had a good month.
Agree this is his strategy, but he’ll have to address the SNP somehow. I suggested a month or so ago that he publicly target a “magnificent 7” set of seats of Scotland as to demonstrate that Scotland is central to his playbook and that he is not soft on the SNP.
I'm not sure that will help him in an election campaign - if a hung parliament looks at all possible, the "in Sturgeon's pocket" posters will come out again.
No complaints here. If the Tories think that portraying Sturgeon as the power broker is a good idea, then feel free.
"power broker" implies she might take either side, rather than being a tartan socialist.
Interesting watching the creeping demonisation of Kingspan and F1 Mercedes wrt Grenfell insulation, when Kingspan say they were not even consulted about its use. If true it is a bad call by Gove and Nandy.
Don't ever be the person someone borrows a walking stick from, and then attacks someone with it.
One for the enquiry to sort out, I think, before declaring them either guilty or in the clear ? Nandy's comment about Gove appearing happy for the Tories to accept donations from developers was on point.
That's an interesting thread about allowing 1.5 storey extensions on houses to help larger families stay in the area. Worth noting that it was not just for the Jewish community - others have similar charas.
It's interesting that they specifically excluded HMOs from doing it, which looks controversial. Surprised that there was not a legal challenge on that.
It's a most curious difference between England and Scotland that virtually all Scottish houses and virtually no English ones have dormer windows and utilize attic space as living space. England probably misses out on literally millions of bedrooms.
Bit strong - many 'modern' houses don't have dormer windows, eg 1930s bungalows, 1950s-on dets and semis unless converted. But yes, traditionally many Scottish houses have dormers. My family house had three generous bedrooms, one walkin cupboard, and 2 attic storage spaces all in the roof when built in 1880-ish.
Having "staff" in Scotland I guess used to be somewhat more affordable than the Home Counties perhaps?
No; it was a shopkeeper's double flat above the shop with only the one servant/housekeeper that I am aware of, who had a bedroom on the first floor next to the kitchen.
Edit: in the 1920s-30s (partly due to illness in the family, I believe).
Sorry, wasn't referring to you per se, more the large number of huge Victorian mansions that were built in the major cities and conurbations on the profits of the British Empire that Scots folk made such an enthusiastic contribution to.
Dormers also common in farmworkers' cottages.
Iknow, I was just being facetious. I think it is more of an architectural cultural thing. I am very fond of Scottish architecture, particularly in the highlands where it has a definite continental influence.
Kai Kupferschmidt @kakape · 50m I’m so tired of this but I’ll say it once more: If #omicron turns out to be as dangerous as it well might and we once again do little to prepare for it with the time we have, then we are compounding the biggest collective political failure I have witnessed in my lifetime. Kai Kupferschmidt
@kakape · 43m In Germany right now we have low vaccine uptake and high case numbers, we have full ICUs, overwhelmed labs and overworked health departments. This is not where we want to be if #Omicron boosts this pandemic…
England is densely populated, but our cities and towns are low-rise.
It’s bonkers.
London could easily fit several more million by
1. gently densifying Zone 2/3, 2. better configuring poorly designed council housing, 3. building a “garden city” between Stratford and Grays on the north bank.
Requires imagination, strong design rules, and lots of infrastructure.
I’d like to see a new metropolitan park that connects all the way from Victoria Park to Epping.
Then I could cycle up to examine HYUFD’s tanks.
The issue with making London more densely populated is that we already have too few services and too many people. Adding another 3-4m in zones 3-6 would make London overcrowded.
I think it was Bill Bryson who pointed out that, if London had the same population density as Paris, London's population would be 35 million.
Yes but Paris isn't exactly a good example of urban planning. It's a dump. Of all the European capitals I've been to it's my least favourite. Even Bern is ok, just a bit dull.
Have you been to Brussels? That really is horrible. Paris is charming (the bit in the middle anyway) but needs a deep clean. Edinburgh is the most beautiful European capital, imho. Athens and Rome are spectacular too, obviously. Berlin has a wonderful sense of space. Lisbon is very pretty. Sarajevo is haunting.
What an excellent post. Agree with all of that (tho not been to Sarajevo). Edinburgh also my favourite.
Well I got the Green and LD figures spot on at 4% and 3% respectively, and the fact the Greens would be ahead of the LDs.
But other than that, mine wasn't a very good prediction. Seriously overestimated the traction both Labour and Refuk would get and underestimated the Tory share.
Refuk are truly a dead duck joke of a party. Couldn't get a much more sympathetic seat, with their 'leader' running, in a by-election where the voters can give the government a risk free kicking and this is the paltry amount they get? They're not going to even feature remotely at a General Election.
Got to say that it's a good night for the Tories, Boris is currently keeping all the Leave voters onside.
Broadly agree. But SKS's strategy can be misleading. Obviously his approach - attack the Tories, try to avoid unforced errors, give no hostages by having policies - cannot win (326+ seats) an election; but much less is required to decapitate the Tories. Labour can't win an extra 125 seats, but Lab, LD, SNP and Green can fairly easily win the 55 or so required make a Tory government impossible.
Lots of people are missing the fact that this is the SKS strategy. He is absolutely on track to have a 40%+ chance of success.
ATM his biggest problem - "vote Labour, get SNP running the country" - is one he can ignore while consolidating his position. As long as he can pretend his objective is 326 seats he does not have to address it.
If the LDs do well in NS then without winning either seat the non-Tory alliance will have had a good month.
Agree this is his strategy, but he’ll have to address the SNP somehow. I suggested a month or so ago that he publicly target a “magnificent 7” set of seats of Scotland as to demonstrate that Scotland is central to his playbook and that he is not soft on the SNP.
I'm not sure that will help him in an election campaign - if a hung parliament looks at all possible, the "in Sturgeon's pocket" posters will come out again.
At the cost of damaging the Union even more. "Unionists [sic] refuse to let legitimately elected MPs for Scottish constituencies take part fully in Westminster."
I don't see how that follows.
Tory propaganda portraying it as illegitimate for SNP to be involved in a coalition government or c&s. Will not go down well in Scotland.
If England had its own parliament like Scotland then the SNP giving Labour confidence and supply in a hung parliament would be less of an issue in England.
As it is, Starmer would demand the SNP make him PM and vote on English domestic legislation to give him a working majority in return for him giving the SNP devomax and indyref2
IF England had its own parliament then the Tories would still revel in Jock—bashing.
SNPs abstain on England-only legislation. That ain’t going to change. If Starmer wants to change English legislation then he needs to win in England. No shortcuts.
The SNP voted on England-only Sunday Trading law changes.
To protect the pay of retail workers in Scotland. Scottish shop staff currently got a premium for working on a Sunday but the SNP - and unions like Usdaw - believed that an extension to Sunday shopping hours in England and Wales would increase the likelihood that retailers would pay just single time for staff across the whole of the UK.
We only vote on English affairs where there is a clear Scottish interest. I suppose Starmer could add Scottish sweeteners to all English legislation?
But the law didn't apply to Scottish staff.
A change in Irish or Welsh or English or French laws could affect Scottish workers but that doesn't mean that applies to Scotland. American law changes, Chinese law changes can affect us here in the UK too.
If Scotland is independent then that means no say in any English laws, whether they have consequences in Scotland or not.
I’m all in favour of Scottish legislators having zero say over English affairs. Independence will also be independence for England.
On that we're agreed, but lets not pretend we're already there or that the SNP act as if they are.
The SNP are prepared to vote on English-only matters as they've already demonstrated. They're partisan shills in Westminster just as all the other parties are.
Well I got the Green and LD figures spot on at 4% and 3% respectively, and the fact the Greens would be ahead of the LDs.
But other than that, mine wasn't a very good prediction. Seriously overestimated the traction both Labour and Refuk would get and underestimated the Tory share.
Refuk are truly a dead duck joke of a party. Couldn't get a much more sympathetic seat, with their 'leader' running, in a by-election where the voters can give the government a risk free kicking and this is the paltry amount they get? They're not going to even feature remotely at a General Election.
Got to say that it's a good night for the Tories, Boris is currently keeping all the Leave voters onside.
Broadly agree. But SKS's strategy can be misleading. Obviously his approach - attack the Tories, try to avoid unforced errors, give no hostages by having policies - cannot win (326+ seats) an election; but much less is required to decapitate the Tories. Labour can't win an extra 125 seats, but Lab, LD, SNP and Green can fairly easily win the 55 or so required make a Tory government impossible.
Lots of people are missing the fact that this is the SKS strategy. He is absolutely on track to have a 40%+ chance of success.
ATM his biggest problem - "vote Labour, get SNP running the country" - is one he can ignore while consolidating his position. As long as he can pretend his objective is 326 seats he does not have to address it.
If the LDs do well in NS then without winning either seat the non-Tory alliance will have had a good month.
Agree this is his strategy, but he’ll have to address the SNP somehow. I suggested a month or so ago that he publicly target a “magnificent 7” set of seats of Scotland as to demonstrate that Scotland is central to his playbook and that he is not soft on the SNP.
I'm not sure that will help him in an election campaign - if a hung parliament looks at all possible, the "in Sturgeon's pocket" posters will come out again.
No complaints here. If the Tories think that portraying Sturgeon as the power broker is a good idea, then feel free.
"power broker" implies she might take either side, rather than being a tartan socialist.
I don’t think even Tories are stupid enough to imply that Sturgeon would take their side.
England is densely populated, but our cities and towns are low-rise.
It’s bonkers.
London could easily fit several more million by
1. gently densifying Zone 2/3, 2. better configuring poorly designed council housing, 3. building a “garden city” between Stratford and Grays on the north bank.
Requires imagination, strong design rules, and lots of infrastructure.
I’d like to see a new metropolitan park that connects all the way from Victoria Park to Epping.
Then I could cycle up to examine HYUFD’s tanks.
The issue with making London more densely populated is that we already have too few services and too many people. Adding another 3-4m in zones 3-6 would make London overcrowded.
I think it was Bill Bryson who pointed out that, if London had the same population density as Paris, London's population would be 35 million.
Yes but Paris isn't exactly a good example of urban planning. It's a dump. Of all the European capitals I've been to it's my least favourite. Even Bern is ok, just a bit dull.
Have you been to Brussels? That really is horrible. Paris is charming (the bit in the middle anyway) but needs a deep clean. Edinburgh is the most beautiful European capital, imho. Athens and Rome are spectacular too, obviously. Berlin has a wonderful sense of space. Lisbon is very pretty. Sarajevo is haunting.
It really depends on where you go to within those cities. There are some beautiful parts of Brussels, including a few really impressive parks, ancient cobbled streets, and palatial squares. And, of course, there are shit parts too. It's far too car-heavy for my tastes but you can find plenty of lovely spots. It's better than Reykjavik, Stockholm and Dublin, in my view.
Ian Hislop recently suggested they could not now bring down Maxwell because he could hide behind these new secrecy laws.
I listened to quite a lot of the John Preston bio of Maxwell on R4 a few months ago. Monster is probably too weak a term for him, though he was an extraordinary human being in other ways too. There’s no doubt he would thrive in the bin fire that is public life currently.
If I still read books I might even have been inspired to buy a hard copy of said bio.
"If I still read books.."? Have the SNP burned them all? Or was it Alba?
A little unfair, given the FM's longstanding advocacy for reading. I can't think of a politician who's more pro-book off the top of my head.
I am sure she is, provided it is the "correct" type of book. Any that put the UK in a positive light should be removed from any curriculum.
Ian Hislop recently suggested they could not now bring down Maxwell because he could hide behind these new secrecy laws.
I listened to quite a lot of the John Preston bio of Maxwell on R4 a few months ago. Monster is probably too weak a term for him, though he was an extraordinary human being in other ways too. There’s no doubt he would thrive in the bin fire that is public life currently.
If I still read books I might even have been inspired to buy a hard copy of said bio.
England is densely populated, but our cities and towns are low-rise.
It’s bonkers.
London could easily fit several more million by
1. gently densifying Zone 2/3, 2. better configuring poorly designed council housing, 3. building a “garden city” between Stratford and Grays on the north bank.
Requires imagination, strong design rules, and lots of infrastructure.
I’d like to see a new metropolitan park that connects all the way from Victoria Park to Epping.
Then I could cycle up to examine HYUFD’s tanks.
The issue with making London more densely populated is that we already have too few services and too many people. Adding another 3-4m in zones 3-6 would make London overcrowded.
I think it was Bill Bryson who pointed out that, if London had the same population density as Paris, London's population would be 35 million.
Yes but Paris isn't exactly a good example of urban planning. It's a dump. Of all the European capitals I've been to it's my least favourite. Even Bern is ok, just a bit dull.
Have you been to Brussels? That really is horrible. Paris is charming (the bit in the middle anyway) but needs a deep clean. Edinburgh is the most beautiful European capital, imho. Athens and Rome are spectacular too, obviously. Berlin has a wonderful sense of space. Lisbon is very pretty. Sarajevo is haunting.
It really depends on where you go to within those cities. There are some beautiful parts of Brussels, including a few really impressive parks, ancient cobbled streets, and palatial squares. And, of course, there are shit parts too. It's far too car-heavy for my tastes but you can find plenty of lovely spots. It's better than Reykjavik, Stockholm and Dublin, in my view.
Reykjavik is a really good city to see.
Incredible different from almost any other city, but beautiful buildings and the best seafood I've ever had.
When I went we didn't get to see the Northern Lights, I'd love to go back again.
I see this morning that Barnier's run for President is at an end for this cycle. I think that is a shame. I have a lot of time for him and think he would have been a good President for France.
Valerie Pecresse. Just checking her out. Looks like establishment centre right with some 'patriot' stuff tagged on to burnish populist credentials. Hard to see her beating Macron in a run-off since she doesn't appear that different to him. 10/1 shot for POTROF on betfair.
Well I got the Green and LD figures spot on at 4% and 3% respectively, and the fact the Greens would be ahead of the LDs.
But other than that, mine wasn't a very good prediction. Seriously overestimated the traction both Labour and Refuk would get and underestimated the Tory share.
Refuk are truly a dead duck joke of a party. Couldn't get a much more sympathetic seat, with their 'leader' running, in a by-election where the voters can give the government a risk free kicking and this is the paltry amount they get? They're not going to even feature remotely at a General Election.
Got to say that it's a good night for the Tories, Boris is currently keeping all the Leave voters onside.
Broadly agree. But SKS's strategy can be misleading. Obviously his approach - attack the Tories, try to avoid unforced errors, give no hostages by having policies - cannot win (326+ seats) an election; but much less is required to decapitate the Tories. Labour can't win an extra 125 seats, but Lab, LD, SNP and Green can fairly easily win the 55 or so required make a Tory government impossible.
Lots of people are missing the fact that this is the SKS strategy. He is absolutely on track to have a 40%+ chance of success.
ATM his biggest problem - "vote Labour, get SNP running the country" - is one he can ignore while consolidating his position. As long as he can pretend his objective is 326 seats he does not have to address it.
If the LDs do well in NS then without winning either seat the non-Tory alliance will have had a good month.
Agree this is his strategy, but he’ll have to address the SNP somehow. I suggested a month or so ago that he publicly target a “magnificent 7” set of seats of Scotland as to demonstrate that Scotland is central to his playbook and that he is not soft on the SNP.
I'm not sure that will help him in an election campaign - if a hung parliament looks at all possible, the "in Sturgeon's pocket" posters will come out again.
No complaints here. If the Tories think that portraying Sturgeon as the power broker is a good idea, then feel free.
"power broker" implies she might take either side, rather than being a tartan socialist.
I don’t think even Tories are stupid enough to imply that Sturgeon would take their side.
No-one thinks that ffs. And that could be a problem for SNP in the event of hung parliament - very little leverage over Starmer, who will be advised by Ian Murray who, I think it's fair to say, won't be in favour of any accommodation that involves IndyRef2. Nicola can hardly threaten to put Boris back into Downing St.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 44m So until we have some better handle on those two things: a) How much does omicron escape 3-dose or 2+dose immunity? b) How intrinsically infectious is omicron relative to delta? we've no idea whether we have any kind of potential problem here at all.
Ian Hislop recently suggested they could not now bring down Maxwell because he could hide behind these new secrecy laws.
I listened to quite a lot of the John Preston bio of Maxwell on R4 a few months ago. Monster is probably too weak a term for him, though he was an extraordinary human being in other ways too. There’s no doubt he would thrive in the bin fire that is public life currently.
If I still read books I might even have been inspired to buy a hard copy of said bio.
I calculated my VO2max on Zwift yesterday to see if I had symptomless Covid and didn't know it. With 300W power for 6 minutes and weighing 69kg I got 54ml/(kg.min). That's the best I've done in three years so I don't have Covid yet. Remco Evenpoel can do 80+.
It'll almost certainly be the final time my VO2Max is equal to (or greater than) my age.
Rage, rage against dying of the light.
That’s what PB is largely for.
It was a full gas 10/10 effort to sustain that power. Fucking spewed everywhere at the end. Mrs DA not amused.
Got mine up to 60 during the first lockdown. That's more than double my age though, so no where near as good as you.
England is densely populated, but our cities and towns are low-rise.
It’s bonkers.
London could easily fit several more million by
1. gently densifying Zone 2/3, 2. better configuring poorly designed council housing, 3. building a “garden city” between Stratford and Grays on the north bank.
Requires imagination, strong design rules, and lots of infrastructure.
I’d like to see a new metropolitan park that connects all the way from Victoria Park to Epping.
Then I could cycle up to examine HYUFD’s tanks.
The issue with making London more densely populated is that we already have too few services and too many people. Adding another 3-4m in zones 3-6 would make London overcrowded.
I think it was Bill Bryson who pointed out that, if London had the same population density as Paris, London's population would be 35 million.
Yes but Paris isn't exactly a good example of urban planning. It's a dump. Of all the European capitals I've been to it's my least favourite. Even Bern is ok, just a bit dull.
Have you been to Brussels? That really is horrible. Paris is charming (the bit in the middle anyway) but needs a deep clean. Edinburgh is the most beautiful European capital, imho. Athens and Rome are spectacular too, obviously. Berlin has a wonderful sense of space. Lisbon is very pretty. Sarajevo is haunting.
It really depends on where you go to within those cities. There are some beautiful parts of Brussels, including a few really impressive parks, ancient cobbled streets, and palatial squares. And, of course, there are shit parts too. It's far too car-heavy for my tastes but you can find plenty of lovely spots. It's better than Reykjavik, Stockholm and Dublin, in my view.
Reykjavik is a really good city to see.
Incredible different from almost any other city, but beautiful buildings and the best seafood I've ever had.
When I went we didn't get to see the Northern Lights, I'd love to go back again.
Istanbul is remarkable. A fantastic city, imbued with history. We went at Xmas some years ago and it was refreshing to get away from all the festive overkill.
Quite liked Helsinki, though it's really quite modern for a European capital.
England is densely populated, but our cities and towns are low-rise.
It’s bonkers.
London could easily fit several more million by
1. gently densifying Zone 2/3, 2. better configuring poorly designed council housing, 3. building a “garden city” between Stratford and Grays on the north bank.
Requires imagination, strong design rules, and lots of infrastructure.
I’d like to see a new metropolitan park that connects all the way from Victoria Park to Epping.
Then I could cycle up to examine HYUFD’s tanks.
The issue with making London more densely populated is that we already have too few services and too many people. Adding another 3-4m in zones 3-6 would make London overcrowded.
I think it was Bill Bryson who pointed out that, if London had the same population density as Paris, London's population would be 35 million.
Yes but Paris isn't exactly a good example of urban planning. It's a dump. Of all the European capitals I've been to it's my least favourite. Even Bern is ok, just a bit dull.
Have you been to Brussels? That really is horrible. Paris is charming (the bit in the middle anyway) but needs a deep clean. Edinburgh is the most beautiful European capital, imho. Athens and Rome are spectacular too, obviously. Berlin has a wonderful sense of space. Lisbon is very pretty. Sarajevo is haunting.
It really depends on where you go to within those cities. There are some beautiful parts of Brussels, including a few really impressive parks, ancient cobbled streets, and palatial squares. And, of course, there are shit parts too. It's far too car-heavy for my tastes but you can find plenty of lovely spots. It's better than Reykjavik, Stockholm and Dublin, in my view.
Reykjavik is a really good city to see.
Incredible different from almost any other city, but beautiful buildings and the best seafood I've ever had.
When I went we didn't get to see the Northern Lights, I'd love to go back again.
I would go back to Reykjavik in a heartbeat, so please don't think I'm being down on it. It's different, which is a virtue. But it's not pretty in the sense that I like. If you have me two weeks in Iceland, I would spend a day in Reykjavik and (re)visit all the natural wonders Iceland offers. If you offered me 2 days in a capital city, I would put Brussels above Reykjavik, having seen both. But neither would be my top choice.
England is densely populated, but our cities and towns are low-rise.
It’s bonkers.
London could easily fit several more million by
1. gently densifying Zone 2/3, 2. better configuring poorly designed council housing, 3. building a “garden city” between Stratford and Grays on the north bank.
Requires imagination, strong design rules, and lots of infrastructure.
I’d like to see a new metropolitan park that connects all the way from Victoria Park to Epping.
Then I could cycle up to examine HYUFD’s tanks.
The issue with making London more densely populated is that we already have too few services and too many people. Adding another 3-4m in zones 3-6 would make London overcrowded.
I think it was Bill Bryson who pointed out that, if London had the same population density as Paris, London's population would be 35 million.
Yes but Paris isn't exactly a good example of urban planning. It's a dump. Of all the European capitals I've been to it's my least favourite. Even Bern is ok, just a bit dull.
Have you been to Brussels? That really is horrible. Paris is charming (the bit in the middle anyway) but needs a deep clean. Edinburgh is the most beautiful European capital, imho. Athens and Rome are spectacular too, obviously. Berlin has a wonderful sense of space. Lisbon is very pretty. Sarajevo is haunting.
It really depends on where you go to within those cities. There are some beautiful parts of Brussels, including a few really impressive parks, ancient cobbled streets, and palatial squares. And, of course, there are shit parts too. It's far too car-heavy for my tastes but you can find plenty of lovely spots. It's better than Reykjavik, Stockholm and Dublin, in my view.
Reykjavik is a really good city to see.
Incredible different from almost any other city, but beautiful buildings and the best seafood I've ever had.
When I went we didn't get to see the Northern Lights, I'd love to go back again.
I've got a photo which I took in Reykjavik about 11.30pm one summer night. The light is really strange. And no, I didn't mess about with the settings.
In one of the most Northerly towns in Iceland we found an Indian take-away!
Well I got the Green and LD figures spot on at 4% and 3% respectively, and the fact the Greens would be ahead of the LDs.
But other than that, mine wasn't a very good prediction. Seriously overestimated the traction both Labour and Refuk would get and underestimated the Tory share.
Refuk are truly a dead duck joke of a party. Couldn't get a much more sympathetic seat, with their 'leader' running, in a by-election where the voters can give the government a risk free kicking and this is the paltry amount they get? They're not going to even feature remotely at a General Election.
Got to say that it's a good night for the Tories, Boris is currently keeping all the Leave voters onside.
Broadly agree. But SKS's strategy can be misleading. Obviously his approach - attack the Tories, try to avoid unforced errors, give no hostages by having policies - cannot win (326+ seats) an election; but much less is required to decapitate the Tories. Labour can't win an extra 125 seats, but Lab, LD, SNP and Green can fairly easily win the 55 or so required make a Tory government impossible.
Lots of people are missing the fact that this is the SKS strategy. He is absolutely on track to have a 40%+ chance of success.
ATM his biggest problem - "vote Labour, get SNP running the country" - is one he can ignore while consolidating his position. As long as he can pretend his objective is 326 seats he does not have to address it.
If the LDs do well in NS then without winning either seat the non-Tory alliance will have had a good month.
Agree this is his strategy, but he’ll have to address the SNP somehow. I suggested a month or so ago that he publicly target a “magnificent 7” set of seats of Scotland as to demonstrate that Scotland is central to his playbook and that he is not soft on the SNP.
I'm not sure that will help him in an election campaign - if a hung parliament looks at all possible, the "in Sturgeon's pocket" posters will come out again.
No complaints here. If the Tories think that portraying Sturgeon as the power broker is a good idea, then feel free.
"power broker" implies she might take either side, rather than being a tartan socialist.
I don’t think even Tories are stupid enough to imply that Sturgeon would take their side.
No-one thinks that ffs. And that could be a problem for SNP in the event of hung parliament - very little leverage over Starmer, who will be advised by Ian Murray who, I think it's fair to say, won't be in favour of any accommodation that involves IndyRef2. Nicola can hardly threaten to put Boris back into Downing St.
But Mr Murray is not i/c [sic] in Scotland. Mr Starmer is.
England is densely populated, but our cities and towns are low-rise.
It’s bonkers.
London could easily fit several more million by
1. gently densifying Zone 2/3, 2. better configuring poorly designed council housing, 3. building a “garden city” between Stratford and Grays on the north bank.
Requires imagination, strong design rules, and lots of infrastructure.
I’d like to see a new metropolitan park that connects all the way from Victoria Park to Epping.
Then I could cycle up to examine HYUFD’s tanks.
The issue with making London more densely populated is that we already have too few services and too many people. Adding another 3-4m in zones 3-6 would make London overcrowded.
I think it was Bill Bryson who pointed out that, if London had the same population density as Paris, London's population would be 35 million.
Yes but Paris isn't exactly a good example of urban planning. It's a dump. Of all the European capitals I've been to it's my least favourite. Even Bern is ok, just a bit dull.
Have you been to Brussels? That really is horrible. Paris is charming (the bit in the middle anyway) but needs a deep clean. Edinburgh is the most beautiful European capital, imho. Athens and Rome are spectacular too, obviously. Berlin has a wonderful sense of space. Lisbon is very pretty. Sarajevo is haunting.
It really depends on where you go to within those cities. There are some beautiful parts of Brussels, including a few really impressive parks, ancient cobbled streets, and palatial squares. And, of course, there are shit parts too. It's far too car-heavy for my tastes but you can find plenty of lovely spots. It's better than Reykjavik, Stockholm and Dublin, in my view.
Reykjavik is a really good city to see.
Incredible different from almost any other city, but beautiful buildings and the best seafood I've ever had.
When I went we didn't get to see the Northern Lights, I'd love to go back again.
Istanbul is remarkable. A fantastic city, imbued with history. We went at Xmas some years ago and it was refreshing to get away from all the festive overkill.
Quite liked Helsinki, though it's really quite modern for a European capital.
Those two are very high on my "haven't seen yet but must" list. Madrid is another. Ah, but this is making me wistful and travel is not something I want to risk right now. Maybe in a few months.
I don't get the lockdown/social services thing. Even if people are not allowed to leave their homes, Social services simply must carry on in lockdown.
Social Services did a home visit in April 2020, right at the height of the first wave. So lockdown didn't stop them.
It's just that they made a mistake and didn't think there was a problem. And then failed to revisit the decision when they had further referrals later.
Where lockdown did make a difference was that Arthur wasn't in school, and when schools reopened he didn't go back because he was in such a bad state at that point. That should have triggered someone to worry, but I think social services told the teacher it was no problem. Another visit at that point would surely have prompted action.
Ian Hislop recently suggested they could not now bring down Maxwell because he could hide behind these new secrecy laws.
That would be a better point if the press had indeed brought down Maxwell. But it didn't. His shenanigans only came to light after his death and as a result of legal / financial investigations.
The Tories remain the default govt in England. Still a long hard road for Starmer
The really impressive breakthrough into nowhere is by Rejoin EU, with 0.69% of the vote. That’s a movement on the march. By the General Election of 2068 I can see them threatening in some more Remainery constituencies in the southwest especially as by then we will all be cyber-organic flesh-bots living in tungsten podules orbiting Saturn
“ cyber-organic flesh-bots living in tungsten podules orbiting Saturn “
I see this morning that Barnier's run for President is at an end for this cycle. I think that is a shame. I have a lot of time for him and think he would have been a good President for France.
Valerie Pecresse. Just checking her out. Looks like establishment centre right with some 'patriot' stuff tagged on to burnish populist credentials. Hard to see her beating Macron in a run-off since she doesn't appear that different to him. 10/1 shot for POTROF on betfair.
The Lancet paper looks great for AZ primed people! Especially under 70s who got the Moderna booster, massive uplift in t-cell response and antibodies.
Going to check the NHS website a lot this evening as I suspect they'll make the backend changes before the weekend and announce it in a press conference Monday evening. I'm informed that 30+ will become eligible before Xmas but not by a lot. 18+ will be waiting until early January.
That's fantastic news and reinforces that we should get our jabs but nothing else, life must go on.
Though I would be in favour of a Covid Tax on anyone unvaccinated, just as there's tobacco duty on smokers. 2% extra on income tax, that is zero-rated if you've had your vaccine.
What about a tax on three day eventers, mountaineers, jockeys, Sunday League footballers, parkour-ers, rock climbers, scaffolders, window cleaners, roofers, farmers, etc.
How much of an impact are they putting on the NHS?
Is Covid closer to smokers or footballers when it comes to impact?
Do you find tobacco duty unconscionable?
They are all lifestyle choices. You make a pretty bad libertarian.
Not really. We have taxes to fund the NHS.
My libertarianism is that people should be free to do what they want. If they want to be unvaccinated, that's their choice. If they want to smoke, that's their choice. If they want to take drugs, that's their choice. There still have to be taxes though and some choices, face taxes. Don't want to pay the tax, don't make that choice. Its your freedom to decide.
So are you saying tobacco duty should be abolished?
There's a significant philosophical difference between taxing someone for doing something (buying tobacco) and taxing someone for not doing something (undergoing a specified medical treatment).
England is densely populated, but our cities and towns are low-rise.
It’s bonkers.
London could easily fit several more million by
1. gently densifying Zone 2/3, 2. better configuring poorly designed council housing, 3. building a “garden city” between Stratford and Grays on the north bank.
Requires imagination, strong design rules, and lots of infrastructure.
I’d like to see a new metropolitan park that connects all the way from Victoria Park to Epping.
Then I could cycle up to examine HYUFD’s tanks.
The issue with making London more densely populated is that we already have too few services and too many people. Adding another 3-4m in zones 3-6 would make London overcrowded.
I think it was Bill Bryson who pointed out that, if London had the same population density as Paris, London's population would be 35 million.
Yes but Paris isn't exactly a good example of urban planning. It's a dump. Of all the European capitals I've been to it's my least favourite. Even Bern is ok, just a bit dull.
Have you been to Brussels? That really is horrible. Paris is charming (the bit in the middle anyway) but needs a deep clean. Edinburgh is the most beautiful European capital, imho. Athens and Rome are spectacular too, obviously. Berlin has a wonderful sense of space. Lisbon is very pretty. Sarajevo is haunting.
It really depends on where you go to within those cities. There are some beautiful parts of Brussels, including a few really impressive parks, ancient cobbled streets, and palatial squares. And, of course, there are shit parts too. It's far too car-heavy for my tastes but you can find plenty of lovely spots. It's better than Reykjavik, Stockholm and Dublin, in my view.
Reykjavik is a really good city to see.
Incredible different from almost any other city, but beautiful buildings and the best seafood I've ever had.
When I went we didn't get to see the Northern Lights, I'd love to go back again.
Istanbul is remarkable. A fantastic city, imbued with history. We went at Xmas some years ago and it was refreshing to get away from all the festive overkill.
Quite liked Helsinki, though it's really quite modern for a European capital.
Those two are very high on my "haven't seen yet but must" list. Madrid is another. Ah, but this is making me wistful and travel is not something I want to risk right now. Maybe in a few months.
Helsinki worth a day or three. Istanbul could keep you going for weeks.
Well I got the Green and LD figures spot on at 4% and 3% respectively, and the fact the Greens would be ahead of the LDs.
But other than that, mine wasn't a very good prediction. Seriously overestimated the traction both Labour and Refuk would get and underestimated the Tory share.
Refuk are truly a dead duck joke of a party. Couldn't get a much more sympathetic seat, with their 'leader' running, in a by-election where the voters can give the government a risk free kicking and this is the paltry amount they get? They're not going to even feature remotely at a General Election.
Got to say that it's a good night for the Tories, Boris is currently keeping all the Leave voters onside.
Broadly agree. But SKS's strategy can be misleading. Obviously his approach - attack the Tories, try to avoid unforced errors, give no hostages by having policies - cannot win (326+ seats) an election; but much less is required to decapitate the Tories. Labour can't win an extra 125 seats, but Lab, LD, SNP and Green can fairly easily win the 55 or so required make a Tory government impossible.
Lots of people are missing the fact that this is the SKS strategy. He is absolutely on track to have a 40%+ chance of success.
ATM his biggest problem - "vote Labour, get SNP running the country" - is one he can ignore while consolidating his position. As long as he can pretend his objective is 326 seats he does not have to address it.
If the LDs do well in NS then without winning either seat the non-Tory alliance will have had a good month.
Agree this is his strategy, but he’ll have to address the SNP somehow. I suggested a month or so ago that he publicly target a “magnificent 7” set of seats of Scotland as to demonstrate that Scotland is central to his playbook and that he is not soft on the SNP.
Looks like I got Old Bexley and Sidcup spot on so let me try for North Shropshire.
Con 48% Libs 42% Lab 2% Green 3% Others 5%
Turnout 43%
- “ publicly target a “magnificent 7” set of seats of Scotland”
Huh? Which seven?
Edinburgh South HOLD is the obvious list candidate, but thereafter?
East Lothian Coast Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath
… but then it gets harder…
Coatbridge and Bellshill? Glasgow Central? Midlothian?
… then it gets super hard…
Airdrie and Shotts?? Rutherglen??
Yes, all of those. In a way, it doesn’t matter if they win them or not. The message is:
1. SNP voters can defeat Boris via tactical voting 2. Unionists should vote Labour in some seats 3. Labour knows Scotland is decisive 4. Labour is not soft on the SNP.
To win a progressive majority that can form a government; Keir needs several strategies, as a general swing won’t do it.
This is part of a Scottish strategy.
So, you think that Labour strategy ought to include the message that “SNP voters can defeat Boris via tactical voting”? Pray tell, in which seats are the SLab candidates in 2nd place behind the sitting SCon MPs?
Yes. Points 2-4 are fine, but that first one is pure nonsense.
Realistically I think Labour can win back a few seats in Scotland at the next GE like East lothian and Mid Lothian more by squeezing the Tory vote. Airdrie and Shotts is unlikely but not impossible as Labour increased their vote share in the May by election.
Labour does have major problems in Scotland with younger voters who Sturgeon is still extremely popular with.
That said I think some middle of the road voters still see Sarwar/Scottish Labour as a bland/dull/safe option they can vote tactically for even if the contrived media narrative that Sarwar is a major success is nonsense.
Voting Labour tactically makes sense in quite a few places if you're talking about anti-SNP tactics. Voting Labour tactically to keep Boris out makes sense basically nowhere in Scotland. Take my seat, Banff and Buchan. I voted "straight" last time, that is I chose the party I felt best able to represent my views at that moment, so it was Lib Dem. Now I've become hardened against this government and I want to vote anti-Boris. Who do I vote for? Obviously, SNP. That's one seat. What of the other 58? I haven't checked them, but my guess is there's a max of two where voting Labour to keep the Tories out makes sense. Perhaps none at all.
Labour does have a bit of a dearth of talent in Scotland, but honestly, I feel that way about all parties everywhere. Which party, Scotland or not, has only brilliant people in their top team? I can't think of one. In that light, Labour's northern travails seem much less bleak.
I doubt this is true anywhere
Edinburgh south has Lab + SNP shares of 72.9%; 77.4%;73.1% in the previous 3 GEs. The Tory share is 16.4%; 19.7%; 17.5%.
However you split the Lab & SNP vote it is > Tory share. So voting either Labour or SNP works there to keep the Tories out.
There are however, seats where you definitely need to vote SNP to keep the Tories out - Aberdeen South & Kincardine for instance &
2019 general election: Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale[7][8] Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative David Mundell 22,611 46.0 −3.4 SNP Amanda Burgauer 18,830 38.3 +8.2 Labour Nick Chisholm 4,172 8.5 −8.0
SNP -> Labour movement would help the Tories here.
There are 0 seats where if you are currently voting SNP, switching to Labour hurts the Tories.
The genius of the Tory strategy in Scotland recently is to use "the union" as a means to gain Labour tactical votes - it's been very smart.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 44m So until we have some better handle on those two things: a) How much does omicron escape 3-dose or 2+dose immunity? b) How intrinsically infectious is omicron relative to delta? we've no idea whether we have any kind of potential problem here at all.
We know enough at this stage that Omicron is busting through immunity-acquired infection. So at a minimum that has us repeating our Delta exit wave over the winter.
That's a problem many were congratulating ourselves on avoiding just over a week ago.
Well I got the Green and LD figures spot on at 4% and 3% respectively, and the fact the Greens would be ahead of the LDs.
But other than that, mine wasn't a very good prediction. Seriously overestimated the traction both Labour and Refuk would get and underestimated the Tory share.
Refuk are truly a dead duck joke of a party. Couldn't get a much more sympathetic seat, with their 'leader' running, in a by-election where the voters can give the government a risk free kicking and this is the paltry amount they get? They're not going to even feature remotely at a General Election.
Got to say that it's a good night for the Tories, Boris is currently keeping all the Leave voters onside.
Broadly agree. But SKS's strategy can be misleading. Obviously his approach - attack the Tories, try to avoid unforced errors, give no hostages by having policies - cannot win (326+ seats) an election; but much less is required to decapitate the Tories. Labour can't win an extra 125 seats, but Lab, LD, SNP and Green can fairly easily win the 55 or so required make a Tory government impossible.
Lots of people are missing the fact that this is the SKS strategy. He is absolutely on track to have a 40%+ chance of success.
ATM his biggest problem - "vote Labour, get SNP running the country" - is one he can ignore while consolidating his position. As long as he can pretend his objective is 326 seats he does not have to address it.
If the LDs do well in NS then without winning either seat the non-Tory alliance will have had a good month.
Agree this is his strategy, but he’ll have to address the SNP somehow. I suggested a month or so ago that he publicly target a “magnificent 7” set of seats of Scotland as to demonstrate that Scotland is central to his playbook and that he is not soft on the SNP.
I'm not sure that will help him in an election campaign - if a hung parliament looks at all possible, the "in Sturgeon's pocket" posters will come out again.
No complaints here. If the Tories think that portraying Sturgeon as the power broker is a good idea, then feel free.
"power broker" implies she might take either side, rather than being a tartan socialist.
I don’t think even Tories are stupid enough to imply that Sturgeon would take their side.
No-one thinks that ffs. And that could be a problem for SNP in the event of hung parliament - very little leverage over Starmer, who will be advised by Ian Murray who, I think it's fair to say, won't be in favour of any accommodation that involves IndyRef2. Nicola can hardly threaten to put Boris back into Downing St.
But Mr Murray is not i/c [sic] in Scotland. Mr Starmer is.
That's Sir Keir to you, thankyou very much. My impression is that Starmer is relatively firm on the union. And he'll no doubt also take advice from the Broon. So imagine he'll offer more devo-type stuff - take it or leave it. There'll be no IndyRef though.
I calculated my VO2max on Zwift yesterday to see if I had symptomless Covid and didn't know it. With 300W power for 6 minutes and weighing 69kg I got 54ml/(kg.min). That's the best I've done in three years so I don't have Covid yet. Remco Evenpoel can do 80+.
It'll almost certainly be the final time my VO2Max is equal to (or greater than) my age.
Rage, rage against dying of the light.
That’s what PB is largely for.
It was a full gas 10/10 effort to sustain that power. Fucking spewed everywhere at the end. Mrs DA not amused.
Got mine up to 60 during the first lockdown. That's more than double my age though, so no where near as good as you.
Now 5kg heavier and eyeing up those mince pies...
Used to do the Concept 2 competitively until my 50th. Got down to 7:52 for 2km when I was about 52, so figured my VO2Max was greater than my age at that point. Certainly is not now.
England is densely populated, but our cities and towns are low-rise.
It’s bonkers.
London could easily fit several more million by
1. gently densifying Zone 2/3, 2. better configuring poorly designed council housing, 3. building a “garden city” between Stratford and Grays on the north bank.
Requires imagination, strong design rules, and lots of infrastructure.
I’d like to see a new metropolitan park that connects all the way from Victoria Park to Epping.
Then I could cycle up to examine HYUFD’s tanks.
The issue with making London more densely populated is that we already have too few services and too many people. Adding another 3-4m in zones 3-6 would make London overcrowded.
I think it was Bill Bryson who pointed out that, if London had the same population density as Paris, London's population would be 35 million.
Yes but Paris isn't exactly a good example of urban planning. It's a dump. Of all the European capitals I've been to it's my least favourite. Even Bern is ok, just a bit dull.
Have you been to Brussels? That really is horrible. Paris is charming (the bit in the middle anyway) but needs a deep clean. Edinburgh is the most beautiful European capital, imho. Athens and Rome are spectacular too, obviously. Berlin has a wonderful sense of space. Lisbon is very pretty. Sarajevo is haunting.
It really depends on where you go to within those cities. There are some beautiful parts of Brussels, including a few really impressive parks, ancient cobbled streets, and palatial squares. And, of course, there are shit parts too. It's far too car-heavy for my tastes but you can find plenty of lovely spots. It's better than Reykjavik, Stockholm and Dublin, in my view.
Reykjavik is a really good city to see.
Incredible different from almost any other city, but beautiful buildings and the best seafood I've ever had.
When I went we didn't get to see the Northern Lights, I'd love to go back again.
Istanbul is remarkable. A fantastic city, imbued with history. We went at Xmas some years ago and it was refreshing to get away from all the festive overkill.
Quite liked Helsinki, though it's really quite modern for a European capital.
If we're moving away from the planning aspect of cities, just into favorite cities, Istanbul gets my vote, although (outside of war), Beirut and Marrakech are high up there. Of the mega cities, it's London, New York, Hong Kong and Shanghai in that order.
The Tories remain the default govt in England. Still a long hard road for Starmer
The really impressive breakthrough into nowhere is by Rejoin EU, with 0.69% of the vote. That’s a movement on the march. By the General Election of 2068 I can see them threatening in some more Remainery constituencies in the southwest especially as by then we will all be cyber-organic flesh-bots living in tungsten podules orbiting Saturn
“ cyber-organic flesh-bots living in tungsten podules orbiting Saturn “
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 4h Replying to @paulmasonnews 4/ I don't doubt Labour mounted a good campaign in OB&S... and the Libdems seem to have demobilised - but that makes the result more telling: Labour under Starmer is nowhere near creating the buzz and momentum needed to form a transformational majority
Did anyone seriously expect Labour to create a buzz, momentum, let alone win in OB&S?
The Tories remain the default govt in England. Still a long hard road for Starmer
The really impressive breakthrough into nowhere is by Rejoin EU, with 0.69% of the vote. That’s a movement on the march. By the General Election of 2068 I can see them threatening in some more Remainery constituencies in the southwest especially as by then we will all be cyber-organic flesh-bots living in tungsten podules orbiting Saturn
“ cyber-organic flesh-bots living in tungsten podules orbiting Saturn “
The average swing to Labour in by-elections this Parliament is now 0.4%. This is not currently an election-winning performance.
But a 10% swing replicated nationally wouldn't be too shabby!
LOL Sunil!
You've been round the block long enough to know that a 10% swing from Con to Lab in a mid-term by election is pretty mediocre.
If the vote had taken place a month ago there would have been nothing like a Con to Lab 10% swing. Nonetheless OB and S was still a spectacularly poor result for Labour.
If I were a Conservative ramper I would be a little concerned at price inflation going forward and energy price inflation from April.
Well I got the Green and LD figures spot on at 4% and 3% respectively, and the fact the Greens would be ahead of the LDs.
But other than that, mine wasn't a very good prediction. Seriously overestimated the traction both Labour and Refuk would get and underestimated the Tory share.
Refuk are truly a dead duck joke of a party. Couldn't get a much more sympathetic seat, with their 'leader' running, in a by-election where the voters can give the government a risk free kicking and this is the paltry amount they get? They're not going to even feature remotely at a General Election.
Got to say that it's a good night for the Tories, Boris is currently keeping all the Leave voters onside.
Broadly agree. But SKS's strategy can be misleading. Obviously his approach - attack the Tories, try to avoid unforced errors, give no hostages by having policies - cannot win (326+ seats) an election; but much less is required to decapitate the Tories. Labour can't win an extra 125 seats, but Lab, LD, SNP and Green can fairly easily win the 55 or so required make a Tory government impossible.
Lots of people are missing the fact that this is the SKS strategy. He is absolutely on track to have a 40%+ chance of success.
ATM his biggest problem - "vote Labour, get SNP running the country" - is one he can ignore while consolidating his position. As long as he can pretend his objective is 326 seats he does not have to address it.
If the LDs do well in NS then without winning either seat the non-Tory alliance will have had a good month.
Agree this is his strategy, but he’ll have to address the SNP somehow. I suggested a month or so ago that he publicly target a “magnificent 7” set of seats of Scotland as to demonstrate that Scotland is central to his playbook and that he is not soft on the SNP.
Looks like I got Old Bexley and Sidcup spot on so let me try for North Shropshire.
Con 48% Libs 42% Lab 2% Green 3% Others 5%
Turnout 43%
- “ publicly target a “magnificent 7” set of seats of Scotland”
Huh? Which seven?
Edinburgh South HOLD is the obvious list candidate, but thereafter?
East Lothian Coast Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath
… but then it gets harder…
Coatbridge and Bellshill? Glasgow Central? Midlothian?
… then it gets super hard…
Airdrie and Shotts?? Rutherglen??
Yes, all of those. In a way, it doesn’t matter if they win them or not. The message is:
1. SNP voters can defeat Boris via tactical voting 2. Unionists should vote Labour in some seats 3. Labour knows Scotland is decisive 4. Labour is not soft on the SNP.
To win a progressive majority that can form a government; Keir needs several strategies, as a general swing won’t do it.
This is part of a Scottish strategy.
So, you think that Labour strategy ought to include the message that “SNP voters can defeat Boris via tactical voting”? Pray tell, in which seats are the SLab candidates in 2nd place behind the sitting SCon MPs?
Yes. Points 2-4 are fine, but that first one is pure nonsense.
Realistically I think Labour can win back a few seats in Scotland at the next GE like East lothian and Mid Lothian more by squeezing the Tory vote. Airdrie and Shotts is unlikely but not impossible as Labour increased their vote share in the May by election.
Labour does have major problems in Scotland with younger voters who Sturgeon is still extremely popular with.
That said I think some middle of the road voters still see Sarwar/Scottish Labour as a bland/dull/safe option they can vote tactically for even if the contrived media narrative that Sarwar is a major success is nonsense.
Voting Labour tactically makes sense in quite a few places if you're talking about anti-SNP tactics. Voting Labour tactically to keep Boris out makes sense basically nowhere in Scotland. Take my seat, Banff and Buchan. I voted "straight" last time, that is I chose the party I felt best able to represent my views at that moment, so it was Lib Dem. Now I've become hardened against this government and I want to vote anti-Boris. Who do I vote for? Obviously, SNP. That's one seat. What of the other 58? I haven't checked them, but my guess is there's a max of two where voting Labour to keep the Tories out makes sense. Perhaps none at all.
Labour does have a bit of a dearth of talent in Scotland, but honestly, I feel that way about all parties everywhere. Which party, Scotland or not, has only brilliant people in their top team? I can't think of one. In that light, Labour's northern travails seem much less bleak.
I doubt this is true anywhere
Edinburgh south has Lab + SNP shares of 72.9%; 77.4%;73.1% in the previous 3 GEs. The Tory share is 16.4%; 19.7%; 17.5%.
However you split the Lab & SNP vote it is > Tory share. So voting either Labour or SNP works there to keep the Tories out.
There are however, seats where you definitely need to vote SNP to keep the Tories out - Aberdeen South & Kincardine for instance &
2019 general election: Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale[7][8] Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative David Mundell 22,611 46.0 −3.4 SNP Amanda Burgauer 18,830 38.3 +8.2 Labour Nick Chisholm 4,172 8.5 −8.0
SNP -> Labour movement would help the Tories here.
There are 0 seats where if you are currently voting SNP, switching to Labour hurts the Tories.
The genius of the Tory strategy in Scotland recently is to use "the union" as a means to gain Labour tactical votes - it's been very smart.
Well I got the Green and LD figures spot on at 4% and 3% respectively, and the fact the Greens would be ahead of the LDs.
But other than that, mine wasn't a very good prediction. Seriously overestimated the traction both Labour and Refuk would get and underestimated the Tory share.
Refuk are truly a dead duck joke of a party. Couldn't get a much more sympathetic seat, with their 'leader' running, in a by-election where the voters can give the government a risk free kicking and this is the paltry amount they get? They're not going to even feature remotely at a General Election.
Got to say that it's a good night for the Tories, Boris is currently keeping all the Leave voters onside.
Broadly agree. But SKS's strategy can be misleading. Obviously his approach - attack the Tories, try to avoid unforced errors, give no hostages by having policies - cannot win (326+ seats) an election; but much less is required to decapitate the Tories. Labour can't win an extra 125 seats, but Lab, LD, SNP and Green can fairly easily win the 55 or so required make a Tory government impossible.
Lots of people are missing the fact that this is the SKS strategy. He is absolutely on track to have a 40%+ chance of success.
ATM his biggest problem - "vote Labour, get SNP running the country" - is one he can ignore while consolidating his position. As long as he can pretend his objective is 326 seats he does not have to address it.
If the LDs do well in NS then without winning either seat the non-Tory alliance will have had a good month.
Agree this is his strategy, but he’ll have to address the SNP somehow. I suggested a month or so ago that he publicly target a “magnificent 7” set of seats of Scotland as to demonstrate that Scotland is central to his playbook and that he is not soft on the SNP.
I'm not sure that will help him in an election campaign - if a hung parliament looks at all possible, the "in Sturgeon's pocket" posters will come out again.
No complaints here. If the Tories think that portraying Sturgeon as the power broker is a good idea, then feel free.
"power broker" implies she might take either side, rather than being a tartan socialist.
I don’t think even Tories are stupid enough to imply that Sturgeon would take their side.
Indeed. The point of the "in Sturgeon's pocket" posters is to point out to English swing voters that Labour isn't Labour, it's Labour plus the Scottish separatists.
Comments
And yet Labour down
Marine (Worthing) by-election result:
LAB: 50.2% (+17.6)
CON: 39.4% (-1.6)
GRN: 5.9% (-3.7)
LDEM: 4.5% (-3.8)
Labour GAIN from Conservative.
No UKIP (-8.4) as prev.
Votes cast: 2,468
I think the history of UKIP success more likely to repeat now because it’s proven to work. Do you understand my point? I can try again at explaining it.
Though clambering out of the coffin.
Deciding what should be shown to the jury is problematic. You need to make sure they have seen enough but anything gratuitous is unnecessary and, frankly, an insult to the victim. These are very difficult decisions which thankfully I haven't had to make too often.
Worth a bob or two for the GE I reckon.
Philip undoubtedly has a very severe blind spot when it comes to rural life and it does undermine a lot of his otherwise sensible views.
Hunting: I seem to remember you getting very vexxed/gammon on that subject (as an anti)? As a claimed libertarian, do you think those that want to prance around in red coats on expensive horses should be restricted? Or do as a libertarian think that they should have been left alone, particularly in the light of the Burns Report ?
I can see a reason it should be allowed on liberty grounds. I can also see a reason it should be banned on animal cruelty grounds.
I didn't think at the time it was something that should be a priority to be banned. I don't think now it is something that should be a priority to be legalised.
To me its little different to cockfighting and should be treated the same. If you want to legalise cockfighting, fox hunting etc then make that argument. I'm not especially vexed either way.
People who want to prance around on red coats on expensive coats isn't my thing but I couldn't care less about that, let people prance around doing whatever they please. Its the killing of foxes AFAIK that's debated not the horses and coats - and anyone who is anti-fox hunting people its a 'toff' pursuit or because they don't like it as opposed to animal welfare grounds, I am entirely against that line of thinking.
I would much prefer we had a US First Amendment style protection for the press.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59514976
The poisonous underbelly of politics?
Perhaps it's time to rein in the lynch mobs.
Don't ever be the person someone borrows a walking stick from, and then attacks someone with it.
Take my seat, Banff and Buchan. I voted "straight" last time, that is I chose the party I felt best able to represent my views at that moment, so it was Lib Dem. Now I've become hardened against this government and I want to vote anti-Boris. Who do I vote for? Obviously, SNP. That's one seat. What of the other 58? I haven't checked them, but my guess is there's a max of two where voting Labour to keep the Tories out makes sense. Perhaps none at all.
Labour does have a bit of a dearth of talent in Scotland, but honestly, I feel that way about all parties everywhere. Which party, Scotland or not, has only brilliant people in their top team? I can't think of one. In that light, Labour's northern travails seem much less bleak.
If I still read books I might even have been inspired to buy a hard copy of said bio.
Nandy's comment about Gove appearing happy for the Tories to accept donations from developers was on point.
"Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election latest: Tories fear time is running out to shore up next test in North Shropshire"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/12/03/boris-johnson-news-bexley-by-election-starmer-labour-brexit/
btw if your surname was French would you give your child a French sounding name like Louie?
Kai Kupferschmidt
@kakape
·
50m
I’m so tired of this but I’ll say it once more:
If #omicron turns out to be as dangerous as it well might and we once again do little to prepare for it with the time we have, then we are compounding the biggest collective political failure I have witnessed in my lifetime.
Kai Kupferschmidt
@kakape
·
43m
In Germany right now we have low vaccine uptake and high case numbers, we have full ICUs, overwhelmed labs and overworked health departments.
This is not where we want to be if #Omicron boosts this pandemic…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1K3XjuEbs
Incredible different from almost any other city, but beautiful buildings and the best seafood I've ever had.
When I went we didn't get to see the Northern Lights, I'd love to go back again.
Is she a "cake and eat it" candidate?
@andrew_lilico
·
44m
So until we have some better handle on those two things:
a) How much does omicron escape 3-dose or 2+dose immunity?
b) How intrinsically infectious is omicron relative to delta?
we've no idea whether we have any kind of potential problem here at all.
Now 5kg heavier and eyeing up those mince pies...
Quite liked Helsinki, though it's really quite modern for a European capital.
If you offered me 2 days in a capital city, I would put Brussels above Reykjavik, having seen both. But neither would be my top choice.
And no, I didn't mess about with the settings.
In one of the most Northerly towns in Iceland we found an Indian take-away!
Ah, but this is making me wistful and travel is not something I want to risk right now. Maybe in a few months.
It's just that they made a mistake and didn't think there was a problem. And then failed to revisit the decision when they had further referrals later.
Where lockdown did make a difference was that Arthur wasn't in school, and when schools reopened he didn't go back because he was in such a bad state at that point. That should have triggered someone to worry, but I think social services told the teacher it was no problem. Another visit at that point would surely have prompted action.
Keep on truckin Leon!
https://pbfcomics.com/comics/keep-on-truckin/
Edinburgh south has Lab + SNP shares of 72.9%; 77.4%;73.1% in the previous 3 GEs.
The Tory share is 16.4%; 19.7%; 17.5%.
However you split the Lab & SNP vote it is > Tory share. So voting either Labour or SNP works there to keep the Tories out.
There are however, seats where you definitely need to vote SNP to keep the Tories out - Aberdeen South & Kincardine for instance &
2019 general election: Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale[7][8]
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Conservative David Mundell 22,611 46.0 −3.4
SNP Amanda Burgauer 18,830 38.3 +8.2
Labour Nick Chisholm 4,172 8.5 −8.0
SNP -> Labour movement would help the Tories here.
There are 0 seats where if you are currently voting SNP, switching to Labour hurts the Tories.
The genius of the Tory strategy in Scotland recently is to use "the union" as a means to gain Labour tactical votes - it's been very smart.
That's a problem many were congratulating ourselves on avoiding just over a week ago.
https://pbfcomics.com/comics/deeply-held-beliefs/
If I were a Conservative ramper I would be a little concerned at price inflation going forward and energy price inflation from April.